 |
| Doubling at readings. source: orbiscatholicus.blogspot.com |
"Yes, so to speak, but it was so annoying. He has his own Gloria and I hate it."
That morning Mr. Grump attended his first sung Mass in a considerable time and was maladjusted to the tremorous experience of not kneeling for 45 continuous minutes.
"No he doesn't," interjected Mr. Grump's little lady. "He just starts the Gloria and sits, and then we sing it with him. Don't we?"
"No," Grump grumpily disabused her. "No, he starts our Gloria and our Creed, but then we sung it while he recites his own and then he sits down while we sing. It's stupid and I hate it. It's one Mass; there should be one song of praise and one profession of faith."
Thus Mr. Grump grouchily discharged his mind concerning the great matter of liturgical "doubling," a squabbling point of many reformers and traditionalist Romans in the last hundred years. Doubling is not a uniquely Roman corruption of a pristine liturgy which unified past congregations in audible acts of latria. Doubling is done in the Byzantine rite, especially after the Creed: the priest in most of Byzantine Christianity will recite the Cherubikon while the choir sings it; he will recite the text after the preface dialogue until "singing, proclaiming, shouting the hymn of victory...." to begin the Holy, Holy, Holy, which he in turn also recites so he can say the anaphora until "Take, eat....", which is done aloud. In the old Mass—not 1962, except for the ICRSS and courageous diocesan types—there are many acts of doubling. At solemn Mass the priest and deacon follow the epistle from the Missal while the subdeacon sings it; the priest and subdeacon read the Gospel pericope during the Gradual, during which the deacon receives the Evangelium and makes his preparations; and of course the priest reads antiphons throughout the Mass.
The reading of antiphons by the priest, much like the recitation of the Cherubikon in the Greek rite, has never bothered me. The celebrant is engaged in other acts during the Introit, Offertory, and Communion verses, so he "catches up" on them. The Dominican and Norman rites also have a similar provision in the first half of Mass for the readings and gradual from the sedilia, as the priest and subdeacon are preparing the gifts throughout the Mass of the Catechumens. I have also never been bothered by the reading of lessons by the priest in the Roman rite. At first one is tempted to say it is an intrusion of the Low Mass ceremonies into the Solemn Mass, but this is not quite the whole story. The presumed setting of the Roman Mass is Papal or Pontifical Mass, during which the bishop officiates from his throne. At Masses celebrated without a bishop, the priest is not necessarily presumed to sit; indeed, prior to 1960 the rubrics for Mass assumed a low Mass, and high Mass was a matter of tradition. Without sitting, the priest is left at the altar with little to do other than follow the text printed in front of him.
The Gloria and Credo are another matter entirely. The act of the priest reciting the text on his own and sitting has nothing to do with the received liturgical praxis, nothing to do the tradition of the rite, and nothing to do with architecture. It has everything to do with polyphonic music. The priest traditionally sang these texts with the congregation and other ministers, but polyphonic Masses precluded singing, so the priest said his part and had a seat. The scarcity of sung Masses in the Counter-Reformation and abandonment of the Office inculcated the idea that polyphony was the normal when the abnormal Solemn Mass was celebrated. There is no real reason for this to continue in Masses where Mass is chanted. I knew one Polish priest, ordained by Archbishop Wojtyla in Krakow and no lover of the reformed Mass, who sometimes sat for these parts and sometimes remained at the altar to sing with the people.
The only hard line advocates of doubling in the Roman tradition are sedevacantists along the lines of Fr. Anthony Cekada and bishop Dolan, who view the removal of some doubling in the 1960 rubrics as a creeping tendency towards the Pauline liturgy.
At least the priest doesn't have his own Mass!
An argument for doubling, from a non-sedevacantist, was made here at NLM:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/02/is-it-fitting-for-priest-to-recite-all.html#.VhvGzuxVhBc
Harrumph!
ReplyDeleteWhat of Byzantine Rite "doubling" of certain prayers when there is a mixed-ethnicity congregation?
ReplyDeleteThat's more repetition. Doubling is when the priest quietly recites the exact same text some other minister is speaking or singing aloud rather than hearing it himself.
DeleteWhen in the history of the Roman Rite (i.e. what existed before 1939 as far as the Mass is concerned) has the priest (not a bishop) ever been prescribed to officiate anywhere but at the altar apart from official interruptions of the Mass (i.e. sermon, communion of the faithful)?
ReplyDeleteAnd if one, rightly, views the readings at Mass as being firstly latreutic in purpose, then it would seem that the connection between the priest who offers sacrifice be kept with the same who proclaims the readings, both at the altar, the exercise of the role of the lector and ministers in Major Orders all the while being kept and fostered.
i guess that the whole host of eastern rites and all of the western rites (i.e. cistercian or Roman Rite of 8th century) up untill high middle ages didn't have the right view of scriptures, as being latreutic because they have the priest seated and just listening to the readings.
Deleteand i just don't understand how can one consider the communion of the faithful an interruption of the Mass.
DeleteThe priest being seated and listening to the readings does not take away their latreutic nature; rather, my point (question) is that because they serve a latreutic purpose, it would follow for the priest to remain at the altar.
DeleteOnly the priest's Communion, as the consummation of the Sacrifice, is part of the Mass itself; the Mass ritual is interrupted in order to distribute Communion to the faithful. The Roman Missal does not even contain any rubric for the latter before 1962.
Communion of the faithful is so integral it probably isn't even worth putting in the rubrics.
DeleteIt is worth mentioning that the MR1570 presumes a Curial private Mass as the norm, probably without Communion. While Communion is not strictly necessary for a Mass to take place, like the sign of the Cross I would keep it!
DeleteThere is no real precedent for the priest celebrating any part of the Mass away from the altar, only the bishop does that. I wonder if the tradition of the clergy sitting on the floor or steps during Papal Mass is what was done by priests when celebrating in non-pontifical functions during ancient times, since only the bishop would sit in an actual chair (deacons and concelebrants had benches at pontifical liturgies). Or, perhaps they stood and listened. Regardless, they most certainly did not read along, as Missals came into being in the medieval period; in prior times, Mass was conducted out of several books (antiphonary for chants, Sacramentary for orations, lectionary for readings, and the clergy had the important parts memorized).
DeleteI can see the doubling of texts as being useful for celebrants of the old rite today. Very few of them can understand Latin when said or sung. Perhaps reading the text may help them?
I see doubling as a corruption.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in the old Cistercian Rite, described in the Usus antiquiores ordinis Cisterciensis, the priest and the ministers don't say the Introit or the Kyrie, just the Confession, which is said during the Kyrie, or when there is time. There are no Kyries printed in the missals up until Romanizations of 16th centuries, and one Missal from the 12th century doesn't treat the Confiteor as a part of Mass but says for Aufer a nobis: "Oratio ante Missam, post confiteor.".
The deacon would prepare the chalice between Confiteor and Dominus vobiscum, but here, Gloria would interrupt his business, and he could go back to preparation of the chalice only after the Gloria.
During the epistle the priest had the opportunity to read Apologias and other preparatory texts for Mass (like the Oratio sancti Ambrosii), but not the readings or the propers. He didn't have to do that though.
During the Gospel the priest listens to it being chanted.
Credo is started by the priest and then sung both by the priest and the choir.
The priest doesn't read the offertory verse.
Communion under both species for the ministers until 1437., and for the choir until 1261. was an integral part of the rite.
The priest doesn't recite the communion verse.
This makes sense. In the Byzantine Rite, the reason many of the litanies exist is so the faithful have something to pray while the priest says some prayers quietly. There is no doubling in the West Syrian Rite because the priest/cantor/faithful already sings their own parts aloud.
DeleteSo, where do the ministers go if the deacon is to prepare the chalice during the sung Credo?
ReplyDeleteIf they stand, they usually step back on the footpace. If they sit, well that's self-explanatory.
DeleteWell, hmm. I wonder if the deacon would simply do it following the genuflection at the “Et incarnatus...” and of course, I meant the burse and corporal since the subdeacon carries the chalice later.
DeleteI say keep the doubling...I am even convinced the celebrant needs to read at least the Epistle, maybe the Gospel as well.
I'm not sure how helpful or relevant this is, but in the Byzantine Rite a member of the faithful (an appointed "lector" if present) or subdeacon reads the Epistle and no one doubles ("Let us be attentive!"). The Gospel is proclaimed by a priest or deacon ("Let us be attentive!") also without any doubling.
DeleteIn my opinion, this is the typical matter in which local custom sould dictate the norm. Personally I tend to dislike doublings, since they move away from the practice attested in the old Sacramentaries, and obscures the natural division of roles and ministries in the Liturgy (indeed, a recovering of the old Sacramentary-like liturgical books would be an obstacle to Low Mass, a thing I'd like the most). That said, I don't think they are the main problem - or even a major one - in the current liturgical disaster.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know (which is pretty little) the natural place for the simple priest to be is the altar; the fact that during the lessons, &c. in som rites he used to be at the sedilia comes, perhaps, from the fact that even presbyteral High Mass is not the standard rite form - it is the Pontifical Mass -, so there never developed a codified pranctice for this "exception". Does anybody here know if this hypothesis is checkable in some way?
K. e.