Robert Cardinal Sarah’s recent book The Power of Silence: Against the Dictatorship of Noise explores a number of themes both theological and spiritual, all centering around the unhappy role that noise has come to play in our culture and more specifically in the Church. His observations are most trenchant in regard to the liturgy, which should come as no great surprise, given his role as head of the Vatican Congregation devoted to liturgy and sacraments. As I read the sections of his book dealing with the importance of silence during Mass, I often found myself nodding vigorously.
I came of age in the period immediately following the Second Vatican Council, when an enormous stress was placed, quite legitimately, on the conciliar call for “full, conscious, and active participation” in the Mass. That famous phrase, derived from the ground-breaking work of the theologians of the liturgical movement of the early and mid twentieth century, was a clarion call to the laity to assume their rightful role as real actors in the liturgy and not mere spectators. But in its practical application this came too often to imply that the laity must be continually stimulated into action during the Mass: processing, standing, singing, responding, clapping, etc. It was as though the directors and leaders of the liturgy felt they must be constantly grabbing the congregation by the shoulders and shaking them into conscious participation.
Silence, accordingly, tended to be construed as the enemy, for it would lull the people into inattention and boredom. Hardly anyone in the post-conciliar liturgical establishment appreciated that silence could be a sign of heightened, even enraptured, attention on the part of the congregation, a deeply contemplative entry into the mystery of the Mass. And what several decades of this in turn has produced, especially among the young today, is the impression that the Mass is a sort of religiously-themed jamboree, during which our fellowship is celebrated and at which lots and lots of sound is indispensable. I will confess that during many years as a priest, and now as a bishop, I have often wondered whether our hyper-stimulated congregations know exactly what they are participating in. They know that they are active, but active precisely in what?
The Mass is the act by which the Son of God, in union with his mystical body, turns toward the Father in worship. Through our full, conscious, and active participation in this right praise, we become more rightly ordered, more completely configured to Christ and more thoroughly directed toward the Father. We do indeed experience heightened fellowship with one another during the Mass, but this is because we are realizing, not so much our mutual affection, but our common love of a transcendent third, to use Aristotle’s language.
In this regard, one of the most illuminating rubrics under which to read the Mass is that of call and response: Christ the head, through the priest who is acting in Christ’s person, calls out to the members of his mystical body, and they respond, somewhat in the manner of the lovers in the Song of Songs. At the very commencement of the liturgy, the priest (again, operating not in his own name but in persona Christi) says, “The Lord be with you,” and the people respond, “and with your spirit.” The spirit in question here is the power of Christ dwelling in the priest through the sacrament of Holy Orders. This exchange continues throughout the Mass, Head and members conversing with one another and solidifying their communion. Jesus speaks his Word in the Old Testament readings and in the Pauline epistles, and the members of his body sing back to him in the responsorial psalm; Jesus announces himself in the Gospel, and the people chant back, “Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ;” Jesus breaks open the Word through the preaching of the priest, and the people respond with the Creed, a signal of their faith.
Having prepared the gifts (presented by the people), the priest says, “Pray, brothers and sisters, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the Father almighty.” This line is of great significance, for it signals the moment when Christ and the members of his body are turning toward the Father in order to perform an act of sacrifice and thanksgiving. How beautifully the Preface to the Eucharistic Prayer expresses this dynamic: “Lift up your hearts!” says Christ to his people; they respond, “We lift them up to the Lord,” and then Jesus, through his priest, says, “Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.” What follows is the magnificent Eucharistic Prayer, directed toward the Father and prayed by Head and members together, the latter’s many sacrifices—small and large—subsumed into the former’s definitive sacrifice on the cross. At the conclusion of the liturgy, Christ sends his mystical body, now more perfectly ordered to the Father, back into the world to effect its transformation.
Cardinal Sarah imitates his master Joseph Ratzinger in insisting that silence rightly asserts itself throughout this entire process. The silence of gathering, recollecting, listening, praying, offering, etc. There is plenty of sound in the Mass, but unless silence is cultivated therein as well, we can easily lose sight of what we are doing in this most sublime of prayers.
Story from Orange County Catholic.
Apparently, the new GIRM encourages the priest to sing much of the Mass. Can we please
occasionally have a spoken Mass? There were moments of silence in the spoken Mass, especially prior to the rite of dismissal.
The problem is the “New ‘Mass'”, the Nervous Ordo, the Ordinary Form for the Roman Chattering rite.
Card. Sarah’s principles are based on Mystici Corporis (1943) and the “Old Rite”–silence, a sacred moment, Transubstantiation, et al.— and are utterly incompatible with the Missa Bugnini Bossa Nova.
Anonymous,
While I agree that silence is incompatible with the OF, it is possible to celebrate a silent Mass using this form. In fact, Pope Benedicct in his work “The Spirit of the Liturgy” suggests that the occasional use of a “silent Mass” would be good for a parish and recommends it.
If silence is incompatible with the OF, Steve, how is it possible to celebrate a silent Mass using that form? Contradict yourself? Silence is not incompatible with the OF. The rubrics call for the use of silence during the Mass.
Anonymous: there is no problem with the novus ordo Mass per se. Cardinal Sarah would be very surprised to hear you claim that his principles cannot be applied to the novus ordo Mass, and he would disagree sharply.
Covfefe,
You would be correct according to the strict definition of the word “incompatible.” But reality is not always so black and white. The general nature of the OF involves vocal responses from the faithful. As such, the OF is not well suited as a silent Mass and requires some instruction to the faithful for it to be effective. In this sense, “incompatible” should not be confused with “impossible.”
This discussion is leading the horse to water. We’re making excuses for the NO by saying silence is / is not incompatible or impossible? Say what? How about just admitting that NO noise indicates a huge problem in and of itself? Let’s start small, for example, with the ridiculous sign of peace, and then go from there. Too many people go on and on, defending the NO, criticism after criticism. At some point, the EF will, once again, become ordinary, and the NO will be no more. The light will go on. Praise to God.
Ralph is wrong. There will never be a stampede to the EF. Pope Benedict himself has indicated this: that the EF will never supplant the OF. Folks, there is NOTHING wrong with the OF. The manner with which it is celebrated in the many of our parishes may be less-than-reverent; but the OF, on its own right, is NOT DEFICIENT! Speaking as someone who goes to the EF and the OF regularly, I recognize the elegance in the OF. THERE ARE moments of silence prescribed by GIRM in the OF; and Pope Benedict as well as Cardinal Sarah have both indicated that a silent offering of the Eucharistic Prayer is ALLOWED in the OF. So folks, this FALSE assertion that the OF can never accommodate silence is bunk. BUNK!
Ralph,
I think your projecting. I’m not an apologist for the OF and I’m not a denigrator of the EF. But I will defend the OF against unjust attacks. If you think Pope Benedict is wrong about silence in the OF, you ought to just state this.
I don’t see the EF ever becoming the new OF because of it’s issues. But I can easily see the OF and the EF being merged into a synthesis in some future reform.
I totally agree, there will never be a ‘stampede’ to the TLM. What’s dispiriting is the so sorely limited mentality that can imagine only that scenario. Loss of faith, schism, disappearing differences between protestant sects and Catholic practice. People wandering aimlessly out the doors unable to discern any doctrine. Disintegrating Catholic identity at formerly Catholic institutions. Too many of you live in a bubble of a happy shiny parish. Modern ‘Catholicism’ now hardly even resembles only a few decades ago. Do some reading these aren’t my concoctions. Don’t be so smug about the status of things 100 years from now.
Sacred Silence in the Mass, yes the Ordinary Form was addressed in the Vatican document
https://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_silenzio_en.html
And the Missa Bugnini Bossa Nova is?
How completely opposite the Traditional Catholic Mass and the Vatican II NewNoisy Mass Rite are, can be seen by the spin-offs after the Council, based on the “experimental ‘Masses'” that Bugnini and others were celebrating secretly at the close of the Council period (1965):
There really was a “Missa Bossa Nova”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=323PL6pi1bI
There were/are other variants on the New Mass Revolution: The Missa Tango (from, of all places, Argentina: surprise!):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjgVX6jpgcA
The Catholic “Rock Mass” (1966):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElqUIbUvPY4
..ad nauseam. There can be no “quiet” in a revolutionary New Mass.
Anonymous,
You state that “There can be no ‘quiet’ in [the] . . . New Mass???
Pope Benedict disagrees with your assessment in his book, “The Spirit of the Liturgy,” where he recommends the use of a silent Mass using the Ordinary Form. The book is published by Ignatius Press.
None of these are Masses. They are albums and a performance.
Thank you for the clarification.
Cardinal Sarah in his new book here has proposed that the Canon be offered in silence. In addition to the moments of silence prescribed in the GIRM (such as after the readings, homily, Holy Communion), silence during the Canon achieves what Ratzinger had written in his book, “Spirit of the Liturgy.” Anonymous therefore is wrong to assert that the “problem” is the OF. It is not! And Seitz joins him in the error that silence is incompatible with the OF. It is not! I second Covfefe. There is no problem with the OF. Offered reverently it points to the future of the Church.
Jon,
My comments about the OF did not refer to moments of silence but to large parts of the Mass being silent.
Your comment missed a crucial point in Sarah’s new book in which he proposes the possibility of a silent Eucharistic Prayer which is a “large part of the Mass.”
Jon,
Actually, I didn’t miss his comments at all. Rather, you missed my comments in this message area which mention the “silent Mass” as elaborated by Pope Benedict.
How about quiet in the Church BEFORE and AFTER Mass? Most of the Churches sound like people are in a hall !!!!!! Such a lack of reverence for Our Lord. And please bring back the Communion rail. We don’t need everyone going up on the altar (the Sacred Ground) and acting like they are at Disneyland or a playground!!!!!!
Really appreciate Cardinal Sarah.
The Novus Ordo mass is all about self-entertainment inciting sound, the supper, and anything goes. It can distract many a person’s good intentions and attentions as it is rolling along for many reasons like immodest dress, private side-conversations, altar girls, liturgical dancers, toe-tapping music, and a funny sermon story. One leaves there feeling good, like coming out of a Neil Diamond concert.
On the opposite end of the worship spectrum, the Tridentine Latin Mass is all about reverence, personal prayers, reading the prayers of the TLM the priest is praying, Calvary and the Crucifixian, and strict adherence to the rubrics to honor God, modesty by all, silence where a person can only hear the priest and his male altar servers pray,…
I’m not sure if your post constitutes heresy, Doug, but it surely comes close. And by the way, who is neil diamond?
Doug, please, you don’t attend Mass and you don’t know what goes on. Nothing you said in your post about the “Novus Ordo” is true.
Of course, Diane (who observes the incessant chatter surrounding the Noisy Ordo Mass, before [during] and after) and Doug (the feelgood New Mass “Neil Diamond Concert Rite”) are frank, obvious and correct: their observations are based on fact. Facts denied by the increasingly self-debunking defenders.
The Traditional Mass is [also] based on Mediator Dei, 1947, a set of completely opposite principles to the post-1965 revolution of the Novus Missa Bossa Nova Ordo.
The New Mass Chattering Rite, yes, is “the future of the Church”—the future of a shrinking, unfocused, and face it, dying church, as long as it persists in this banal, superficial, transitory exposition of self-affirmation.
Actually, the Novus Ordo works like this:
The Presbyterian church called a meeting to decide what to do about their squirrels. After much prayer and consideration, they concluded the squirrels were predestined to be there and it was God’s divine will.
The Methodist church decided that they were not in a position to harm any of God’s creatures. So, they humanely trapped their squirrels and set them free near the Presbyterian Church.
Now, the Catholic Church came up with a very creative strategy. They baptized all the squirrels as members of the church. Now they only see them on Christmas and Easter.
After all, that’s all the New Mass the squirrels could endure.
[The moral of the story: Even squirrels can only take so much chattering…]
Jon: Absolutely agree with your comments. The EF of the Mass will never supplant the entirely legitimate and Holy OF of the Mass. Pope Benedict XVI also recognized this fact and stated as much. Many of the negative posts about the OF of the Mass are actually anti-Catholic and mostly self-serving rants about wanting a Church in their image rather than in the manner intended by God.
Fred’s comment is particularly rich (smug, too)
both in a lack of knowledge of Mystici Corporis (1943), Mediator Dei (1947), and actually also of Sacro.Concilium (1963)—which, by the way, never called for a new rite, order, form—or whatever you want to call it—of the Mass (The proof of that is that the Council Fathers ordered the mass printing of thousands of editions of the 1965 Roman Missal, as the Mass of V2: that Missal was essentially unchanged from the Tridentine Missal).
But I am speaking Greek to Fred.
No matter. You were told the facts and the truth.
“the traditional liturgy will be universally restored as the primary liturgical form and norm of our faith; the misbegotten Roman Missal of 1970 will become a historical aberration, a curiosity available only in research libraries. Pontiffs will pass down what they have received, prudently govern the Church, and won’t dare disrupt our piety. Our prelates will be holy and modest but have iron in their spines.”
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3198-plan-b-the-fall-of-the-novus-ordo-seclorum
And:
Ralph is absolutely right about ‘the Benedict Option’..