Liturgical Convergence, Way Old School
What I am about to describe from a Mass in the Outer Banks is probably liturgically questionable, but it is an interesting illustration of the liturgical convergence in the Christian Church pre-Trent (we're talking pre-Charlemagne, too). Yes, even before the publishing of Worship and talk of the Shape of the Liturgy.
In my Grandma's parish, after the Gospel reading is completed, the Alleluia is sung again, and the Book is enthroned or mounted on a pedestal with a burning candle next to it. I missed the activity with the Book when I saw this at Mass a few weeks ago because during the Alleluias I was leaning over to Randy asking him if they didn't get the memo that Easter was over (for you that don't know in the time between Easter and Pentecost in the Roman Rite Church extra Alleluias are sung all over the Mass). Even though I am one to say that you really can never have too many Alleluias, I have seen enough freestyling in the Masses in the Diocese of Raleigh (or more specifically the Outer Banks) to believe that this was someone's crackpot idea of adding more to the liturgy.
But the priest explained right before his homily what was going on. Some parishoners had recently been to Rome, and seen this very thing done at some church there, and brought it back to Holy Redeemer where it was adopted. I have no idea what kind of Mass in Rome would have done this (could have just been an Easter season thing), or whether this is a liturgical abuse of the worst kind, or even if this really falls into liturgical ambiguity (like holding hands during the Our Father, not specifically prohibited but not spelled out either--and we are always to err on the less ummm creative side). But what I wanted to illustrate was something that was common 1200 years ago or so.
At that time, Rome was like Vegas. It was where you went to see the spectacle. However, the travellers were pilgrims and the spectacle was Mass, and there was no marketing slogan about what happens in Rome stays in Rome. Upon returning to their homelands, these pilgrims would frequently note that Rome did it this way or that way, and wanting to recreate some of their Roman experience (which was considered exceptionally pious since it was Rome), they would begin to incorporate some of what they saw into their home liturgies. When the Roman Canon was first collected and proposed, a lot of it wasn't that big of a stretch for the regional churches to accept because they had already begun to incorporate a lot of the elements into their own liturgies.
So withMost Holy Redeemer now does with the Book of Gospels with their second Alleluia and the pedestal, copied from something someone saw done when they were in Rome---that is very similar to how pre-Trent a lot of the regional liturgies started to become similar.
Okay, only Corbin will care about this...
In my Grandma's parish, after the Gospel reading is completed, the Alleluia is sung again, and the Book is enthroned or mounted on a pedestal with a burning candle next to it. I missed the activity with the Book when I saw this at Mass a few weeks ago because during the Alleluias I was leaning over to Randy asking him if they didn't get the memo that Easter was over (for you that don't know in the time between Easter and Pentecost in the Roman Rite Church extra Alleluias are sung all over the Mass). Even though I am one to say that you really can never have too many Alleluias, I have seen enough freestyling in the Masses in the Diocese of Raleigh (or more specifically the Outer Banks) to believe that this was someone's crackpot idea of adding more to the liturgy.
But the priest explained right before his homily what was going on. Some parishoners had recently been to Rome, and seen this very thing done at some church there, and brought it back to Holy Redeemer where it was adopted. I have no idea what kind of Mass in Rome would have done this (could have just been an Easter season thing), or whether this is a liturgical abuse of the worst kind, or even if this really falls into liturgical ambiguity (like holding hands during the Our Father, not specifically prohibited but not spelled out either--and we are always to err on the less ummm creative side). But what I wanted to illustrate was something that was common 1200 years ago or so.
At that time, Rome was like Vegas. It was where you went to see the spectacle. However, the travellers were pilgrims and the spectacle was Mass, and there was no marketing slogan about what happens in Rome stays in Rome. Upon returning to their homelands, these pilgrims would frequently note that Rome did it this way or that way, and wanting to recreate some of their Roman experience (which was considered exceptionally pious since it was Rome), they would begin to incorporate some of what they saw into their home liturgies. When the Roman Canon was first collected and proposed, a lot of it wasn't that big of a stretch for the regional churches to accept because they had already begun to incorporate a lot of the elements into their own liturgies.
So withMost Holy Redeemer now does with the Book of Gospels with their second Alleluia and the pedestal, copied from something someone saw done when they were in Rome---that is very similar to how pre-Trent a lot of the regional liturgies started to become similar.
Okay, only Corbin will care about this...
Comments
Mr. Most Successful Tool
@ MS Tool's comment: I guess some things in Kane do change from time to time. (MS Tool... isn't that part of the Micro$oft Office Suite? heh)
pd
P.S. Ambrose I must remind you that you gave me permission to post comments like this. It was good to see you up in PA (you too, MS Tool).
Kneeling versus standing...Ono or Corbin must correct me if I am wrong. The Standing has been part of the USCCB update to the Ordo to emphasize the One Body
pd:
Not that far off. Or worse yet, incorporating what you saw in CATS in your HS production of Bye Bye Birdie :-)
I perhaps think we're confusing a couple of different things in the thread.
Mr. Successful's question was about the practice of standing instead of kneeling after receiving Communion. I'm not sure where that came from, exactly. Over the years some priests and some liturgists (by no means all or even most) are very anti-kneeling, and some of them have made rather free with imposing standing as the posture at times when the actual Mass rubrics give more options, like kneeling or sitting. Regarding postures, the new GIRM (2000) says:
43... They should sit during the readings before the gospel and during the responsorial psalm, for the homily and the preparation of the gifts, and, if this seems helpful, they may sit or kneel during the period of religious silence after communion.
However, since lots of places are asking people to stand after Communion -- and reportedly some places are quite vocal about not allowing people to kneel at all -- one of the American bishops wrote to Rome requesting clarification about the posture after receiving Communion. Here's the text of the question and the response:
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
5 June 2003
Prot. n. 855/03/L
Dubium: In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, to forbid this practice?
Responsum: Negative, et ad mentem. The mens is that that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of the Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.
Francis Cardinal Arinze
Prefect
Now, I think what Ambrose is referring to is the posture during the Communion Rite itself. That's where standing gets a more direct plug. This is the U.S. adaption of #160 of the GIRM that was apporved by Rome:
160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.
The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.
When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.
Recognized by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 17 April 2002, and, promulgated as particular law of the United States by Decree of the President of the USCCB, Bishop Wilton Gregory, 25 April 2002.
That doesn't rule out kneeling for Communion, as the RadTrads will be quick to point out should they venture here. :) Communicants are still free to kneel to receive (or to genuflect before receiving rather than bowing.) But there is a desire for uniformity of posture, as Ambrose says to emphasize the unity of the one Body of Christ, and the U.S. Bishops have opted for standing with a bow as the preferred sign of reverence before the reception of either the Body or the Blood of Christ.
I had no idea this issue had been specifically addressed like this. Is there a bulletin of such correspondence (kind of like private letter rulings of the IRS, or maybe even SEC staff opinions)
M.S. Tool
I think if you check out Adoremus, they will have some answers regarding the Ordo in this country. Now, my caveat here is that Adoremus does tend to be well biddy-ish, and to use a term I just read on Open Book, para-Magisterium. I read one entry on the Adoremus website that explained why something or other was recently changed by the US Bishops that Adoremus wrote that the Bishops had no right to do what they did. Adoremus isn't quite Traddyland (new board game) but it can tend to be a little Church Lady Superior. I may have a blog entry on that if I have time.
Anyone----feel free to add.