Devoutly and Reverently

Devoutly
and
Reverently

HINTS FOR PRIESTS
ON CELEBRATING MASS

BY
FR DERYCK HANSHELL S.J.

One of the unfortunate features of our present Rite of Holy Mass is that there are so few official rubrics. The result has been that there has grown up a wide variety of "ways" of celebrating Mass, indeed there are as many "ways" as there are celebrants!
Some priests ignore the few rubrics there are and make up their own, other priests "ad lib" quite widely. All this sows confusion among the laity who search around local parishes to find a "Way of Celebrating" that suits them. I remember how personally I was accused by a trendy nun of "not smiling" at the congregation during Mass. Distress is also caused by those celebrants whose actions are slovenly or at least seem so. For instance holding the arms apart at odd angles (constantly varying) and worse still using only one hand to elevate the Sacred Host and/or Chalice at the words of Consecration. This is often coupled with the habit of not slowing down the recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer for the very words of Consecration.
Father Hanshell in this pamphlet is suggesting to us priests a way of celebrating fully in according with the rubrics of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal but incorporating the best elements from the Old Rite of Mass. We would all db well to study closely what he has to say and put these rubrics into practice as far as is possible. We desperately need a proper set of rubrics for the celebration of Mass to end the present confusion and what is presented here is an exceedingly worthwhile exercise.

Where the Mass is concerned it is a mistake to think in terms of "old" and "new". There was never meant to be a "new" Mass: only a revised version of the "old" which itself was a late medieval version of something still older.
    When the new or revised Mass is celebrated solemnly and in Latin, as it can and may and often should be, the continuity with the previous rite is plain to see; and only prejudice would claim not to see it.
    Nor should there be a conflict between Latin and the vernacular, especially a more worthy vernacular than is at present the case. There is ample room for both; and many a vernacular Mass would be the better for including the old Latin chants. (cf. Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 36; Musicam Sacram, 47, 48)
    But whether Latin or English is used—and all within reason have a right to their preferences—the Mass should be celebrated with that reverence and care which may be termed traditional.
    There should not be the gap in ambience or ethos between the revised version of our Mass and the previous one such as too often has been allowed to develop; and it is to be hoped that instead of their being set one against the other, one flexible rite will emerge which will combine the merits of each. The reformed rite already is virtually this when truly interpreted.
    May we live to see the day when Tridentinists—and others—will no longer feel alienated when they attend Mass in the post-Tridentine rite; and when also, for the good of their souls, those who are neither Tridentinists nor Latinists will experience the beauty of holiness in the same rite.
    It is for the priest of to-day, however, when he stands at the altar, to show that he is in lineal descent from the priest of yesterday. This first of all.
    Because the rubrics of the Mass have been simplified the notion has gained currency that the very idea of rubrics is out or on the way out.
    The do-it-yourself liturgy of course affects not only rubrics but the text of the Mass itself. The bloom however has worn off the dream of beautiful priests with their beautiful people being spontaneous.
    Such an approach to the liturgy has repeatedly been condemned, and it stands to reason that the liturgy being for public use must be set and formal.
    Nor may it be changed by private whim but only by the competent authority, which should of course allow for genuine creativity, something very different from "spontaneity".
    The commentary here offered aims neither to minimize nor to go beyond what the rubrics indicate but to adapt them where this seems called for or to interpret where the directives are indeterminate.
    For instance, at the Collect the priest is told to join his hands for the Oremus and to extend them for the prayer itself. Nothing is said about what is to he done during the conclusion when it seems fitting that the hands should be joined again, not only because of the long tradition behind this but because otherwise a certain unfinishedness not to say gawkiness results.
    Likewise it seems best to interpret the extending of the hands more or less as was previously the practice, i.e. making the width of the shoulders the measure. When the arms are extended much farther apart than this they too often give the impression of a bedraggled vulture.
    Again, we should do well to observe the old rule about keeping one hand on the altar while the other is occupied, for example, in turning the leaves of the missal or in moving the chalice from the side of the altar to the centre.
    Particularly at the Offertory this can obviate a certain unsightliness or clumsiness which it is to be presumed the revisers never intended.
    While we are on the subject of hands: when they are not otherwise occupied these should be held in the "praying" position, i.e. joined together palm to palm at chest height. This applies to servers and all ministers at the altar.
    It is desirable that the altar be so placed in the sanctuary as to leave adequate space for manoeuvre in front of it.
    The chair or chairs for priests and ministers should be on the hither side of the altar and preferably away from the centre. (cf. Inter Oecumenici, N.92.) It is important that the priest should go up to the altar or at least not come down from it for the Offertory and the beginning of the liturgy of the sacramental sacrifice.
    If there isn't a pulpit or if it is not to be used, a proper ambo should be provided if at all possible: a structure of some dignity and permanence which should be properly designed for preaching as well as for reading the lections. (cf. General Instruclion on the Roman Missal, N.272.)
    The reader or preacher should not have to bend low to read the book or to consult his notes. A lectern in addition to the ambo or lectern used for the readings may often be found serviceable.
    Second thoughts, however, might well be entertained on the banning of the pulpit where there is a well placed one and the construction of a proper ambo is for one reason or another impracticable.
    Better surely to preach from a rostrum designed for the purpose than to be restricted to a lectern without due prominence in the sanctuary. Nor is it satisfactory that the ambo should be to the side of the altar and at the same depth in the sanctuary. It should on the contrary be well forward.
    Since the reform came in, preaching has been hamstrung by the misunderstanding about the scope of the "homily", a misunderstanding symbolized and encouraged by the failure to separate adequately the place of preaching from the area dominated by the altar.
    The significance of movement, of change from position to position must once again be emphasized. The priest standing (and bowing) before the altar for the penitential rite, his proceeding to the ambo, his going up to the altar: all this is eloquent of what is being done; and not least would it be so were he to go in procession to the pulpit. (cf. General Instruction on the Roman Missal, VII.272.)

The rubrics say little about the use of the voice save that the words of consecration are to be uttered distincte et aperte, distinctly and clearly, "as the nature of these words requires", an injunction which presumably applies in general to the Mass, nearly all of which is now audibly recited; but the words of consecration ought surely to be spoken with a special deliberateness, more slowly than the rest of the Canon but not more loudly and certainly not dramatically.
    There is an art of liturgical declamation which is neither droning nor theatrical.
    In the course of the Mass there is room for the lowering and raising of the voice as the case suggests. Those parts which in general do not change are best perhaps treated with a moderate voice, and the Canon with a moderate-to-lowered voice, while a more raised voice might be required for the Collects etc and the readings. (cf. G.I.R.M., 2.18.)
    Nor where the rubrics indicate this should the claims of silence be disregarded. The priest is well within his rights if he recites the Offertory prayers silently, while for the majority of the faithful it would provide a welcome relief.
    It has been overlooked that silence in Mass, especially at a "low" Mass, does not just denote a cessation of sound. It has a positive role akin to that of music in the creation of atmosphere conducive to prayer and adoration. As then there needs to be a variety of movement in the Mass so is there need for a variety of sound.
    The question of the microphone is here to the purpose, and it is this: Is your microphone really necessary?'; and if it is, hadn't you better learn how to use it, and this may mean to begin with adjusting the thing? I venture to suggest that in the majority of cases the microphone is not necessary and that we should speak better and the people would hear better if we were to warn to use our natural voices.
    It is generally speaking regrettable that the young or those under a certain level of education or who are unable to use their voices properly should be appointed lectors. Perhaps an order of lectors should be appointed in each diocese and membership of it restricted to the trained and competent.

An atmosphere of silence should be preserved in the sacristy. All bow to the crucifix before leaving for Mass and afterwards on returning.
    If Roman vestments are worn it is best to cross the stole in order to cover any snowy expanse of alb.
    When the priest and ministers enter the sanctuary they stand before the altar. The priest bows deeply while the servers genuflect unless it is preferred that they too bow deeply. If the Blessed Sacrament is reserved on or behind the altar all genuflect instead of bowing.
    The priest having ascended to the altar and kissed it, turns round, descends from the altar or takes a few paces away from it, turns to the altar again, and making the sign of the cross says "In the name of the Father" etc.
    Bowing again slightly the priest then turns to the people and greets them with "The Lord be with you" or one of the alternatives, following this with the Fratres agnoscamus.
    He is not obliged to use the exact words of this exhortation, but he cannot be expected to be original or spontaneous every time he addresses the people, nor should he aim at being so. A useful brief formula might be: "Brethren, let us remember before God that we are sinners".
    There are occasions when the priest may fittingly say something on his own. though it might be better to do so before actually beginning Mass.
    It is inept to explain why the people are gathered together when this obvious.
    However, when there is no sermon a few words carefully prepared and explanatory of the Mass of the day are by no means to he censured, only it might not be everyone's gift.
    Turning again to the altar and bowing deeply the priest then begins the Confiteor (if he is following this form of the penitential rite).
    He straightens up for the absolution (so called). and then follows the Kyrie recited in the same position and the Gloria if it is to be said. It seems appropriate that for the acts of penitence and adoration in this part of the Mass the priest should adopt the position here outlined.
    He can then go to the chair for the recitation of the Collect. The server should hold the book which otherwise will have to be placed on a lectern: it is uncouth for the priest to hold it himself and this also prevents his extending his hands as he should do. Or else, though less suitably, the Collect can be read from the altar.
    According to the rubrics, If there is no singing for the entrance, the antiphon in the Missal is recited either by the faithful, by some of them, or by a reader; otherwise it is recited by the priest after the greeting" (G.I.R.M. 26).
    We suggest however that if there is no server to hold the missal, the antiphon might be a little further postponed, until in fact after the absolution, when the priest could proceed to where the missal is, either on the lectern or on the altar, and there he would remain for the Kyrie etc.
    Before going to the ambo or what does duty for it for the Gospel, the priest accompanied by the server(s) bows deeply before the altar saying the Munda cor meum.
    Priest and servers then proceed to the ambo. Having once more greeted the people, the priest follows with the words "A reading from the Gospel" etc., and while doing so signs the book with the sign of the cross (in the traditional manner using his thumb) and then himself on forehead, lips and breast.
    At the end of the Gospel he kisses the book saying silently Per evangelica dicta etc., or its vernacular equivalent.
    The sermon follows next if it is to be given.
    It adds somewhat to the solemnity if the priest goes to the centre in front of the altar and faces it (the same way as the people) for the Creed, if this is to be said. All should bow deeply at the Incarnatus est except on the feasts of the Annunciation and the Nativity when all genuflect.
    For the prayers of the faithful when these are included—and the briefer the better—the priest returns to the ambo while the lector reads from presumably a lectern elsewhere.
    According to local custom the priest goes to his chair w hile the Offertory procession assembles (supposing there to he one) or the collection is made (as on Sundays).
    The celebrant goes to meet the procession at the sanctuary steps, handing the offerings to the server(s) when he has received them. A quiet—thank you—to those who have brought him the offerings is in keeping. The sort of informality which cuts across gravity is not.
    The priest then proceeds to his place at the altar for the Offertory.

The servers fetch the corporal, purificator, chalice (and paten) from the credence table and place them on the altar, and also the missal (with stand) which goes on the left side of the priest. While many do not scruple to place a microphone on the altar, some are horrified at a Missal-stand's appearing there though a cushion is correctly primitive.
    The priest then takes the paten with the large host on it and lifting it a little above the altar table says the first of the offertory prayers silently if it is so wished. There is no obligation to say these prayers aloud. The rubrics even seem to indicate that ordinarily they will he said secreto.
    The servers bring the cruets to the edge of the altar on the celebrant's right. and he pours wine into the chalice and a little water afterwards, saying (in any case secreto) the prayer accompanying the mingling. Raising the chalice a few inches above the altar table the priest says the praver that goes with this.
    He replaces the chalice on the corporal and covers it with the pall, if he wishes to use this as he may. After this with his fingers extended and joined and resting on the edge of the altar he bows or bends forward moderately (inclinatus) and says silently (always) the prayer. In spiritu humilitatis.
    He then proceeds again to the right of the altar for the Lavabo, and while the water is poured over his fingers he says silently Lava me, Domine etc.
    He returns to the middle of the altar and extending and joining his hands in the customary mode says Orate fratres.
    It may be noted that for the Orate fratres the priest is told to stand facing the people, which seems to indicate that Mass in the revised rite is not exclusively envisaged as versus populum; and there are several other such indications.
    After the people's response the priest extends his hands and recites the prayer over the offerings, presumably joining his hands again for the conclusion.
    With hands extended the priest says Dominus vobiscum; he then raises his arms as he says Sursum corda, "Lift up your hearts"; and with hands (apparently) still extended he next says "Let us give thanks" etc. He maintains this stance throughout the Preface.
    But the rubrics are again somewhat imprecise, omitting an injunction—which seems to be called for—to extend the hands in the first place lower than usual in order to raise them a few inches to the normal height at Sursum corda.
    It would be better in fact to hold the hands extended on the altar for the Dominus vobiscum and to raise them at Sursum corda. Perhaps one could go a little further and recommend that the hands be joined again and the head bowed (as formerly) at Gratias agamus Domino. The hands would then he extended again for the Preface.

After the Sanctus, for which the hands are once again joined, the priest follows the Eucharistic Prayer according to the rubrics contained in each of the Canons. Some points may here be averted to.
    First of all what has already been said about the voice may be recalled: a moderate-to-subdued delivery, clear and unhurried yet expeditious, might best be employed for this part of the Mass.
    Secondly, in all four Canons the priest at a certain point is required to hold his hands extended over the oblata. Here surely the old way of doing things is to be recommended, i.e. with thumbs crossed. This might be indicated by the rubric in Canons II, III and IV: Jungit manus, easque expansas super oblata tenens; whereas it previously ran: Jungit manus ... Tenens manus expansas super oblata; and thus it remains in Canon I. This is a more gainly gesture than to hold out the hands unjoined.
    Thirdly, a special solemnity is intended for the consecration. In all four Canons the rubrics direct that the dominical words he recited distinctly and clearly as the nature of the words requires.
    At the words Qui pridie quam pateretur or their equivalent the priest takes the host and holding it a little above the altar proceeds with accepit panem (He took the bread) etc, and bending forward a little says the words, Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes, "take this all of you and eat it". Note that these words in the official Vatican edition are in large type and that there is a slightly accentuated space between them and the words Hoc est enim Corpus meum etc. This seems to indicate that these words are to be said with a particular deliberateness, with a discernible pause before the words Accipite et manducate etc., and a lesser one between these words and Hoc est enim Corpus meum etc.
    The priest then shows the consecrated host to the people. The same word ostendit is used in the old rubrics, and it is evident that the host is to be elevated; and it would seem best to do this to the same height—just above the priest's head—as formerly, even though he is generally facing the people. The host may not be clearly seen if held lower, and it is not the priest whom one particularly wishes to have in view at this time.
    Traditionally the host has been elevated in order that the people might see and adore, and this is still why, it is done. Such a minimizing manoeuvre as holding the paten with the host on it a little above the altar is to be deplored. In no way is it indicated that this should be done by the rubric which follows, namely, that the priest is to replace the host on the paten.
    There is a school of thought in the Church now that is against adoration of the Blessed Sacrament inside as well as outside Mass. Faithful observance of the rubrics here, then, is both a safeguard and a challenge.
    The rubrics for the consecration have been modified but they insist no less than hitherto on the sacrality of the action and on recognition of the real presence.
    It is at the "little elevation" that the priest is instructed to elevate the paten with the host on it together with the chalice; and the host will already be lying conveniently on the paten.
    Perhaps we can get things into proportion by considering the reason for this slight change in rubrics. Previously it may be remembered the priest was to take the host between the thumb and index finger of his right hand and holding the chalice with his left hand to elevate them in a single gesture. Before this, however, he was to make signs of the cross with the host over the mouth of the chalice, and these signs have since been deleted. We may deduce nevertheless that the real reason for what is now laid down is that the deacon or a concelebrant—should either be officiating—now elevates the chalice at the little elevation while the (principal) celebrant elevates the host and paten; and were he to elevate the host alone this could seem to be merely a repetition of the "great" elevation. All the same in the case of a single priest's celebrating without deacon second thoughts might be permitted. The old way of doing things had perhaps a grace which the new hasn't.
    After the consecration of the host and again after that of the wine the priest is instructed to genuflect (et genuflexus adorat: "and bending the knee he adores"). The custom that has grown up in certain situations of nobody's genuflecting at all is not to be tolerated. The people should kneel for the consecration or at least make a deep bow. It will not be often that they are too crowded together to kneel or that for some other reason this is not practicable (cf. G.I.R.M. 2.21). Nor is their gathering round the altar an excuse: they should not have been invited to do this in the first place.
    On no account may the people be permitted to recite with the priest any part of the Eucharistic Prayer or Canon, not even the doxology at the end—which would destroy the whole impact of what does belong to the people, the "great amen", their affirmation of all that has gone before (cf. Liturgicae Instaurationes [1970], N.4). Granted that the full force of the amen is only realized when the doxology is sung, the priest can nevertheless elicit a more than perfunctory response by reciting the doxology in a slightly raised voice and at a slightly reduced pace.
    Care should be taken before giving out communion to genuflect before the ciborium, whether this has been brought from the tabernacle or whether the hosts in it have been consecrated in the same Mass. If any hosts are left after communion there should be another genuflection when the ciborium has been placed on the altar.
    Communion is always to be administered to the people; they should never be encouraged to help themselves from the chalice placed on the altar for that purpose (cf. Liturgicae Instaurationes 1970, N.6).
    The giving of communion is a ministerial function, and if layfolk are promoted to this office, they are "lieutenants" of the ordained clergy, and they should be clad as ministers of the altar.
    Notices should be brief and preferably perhaps precede the last prayer, which should follow the "let us pray" after a due pause for recollection. Thus Mass would conclude less perfunctorily.
    To give the blessing the priest holds his hands together before his chest, and then parts his hands and joins them again in a half circle. Then while the right hand describes the sign of the cross towards the people, the fingers held straight (as always) and "cutting" with the little finger, the left hand is placed, fingers together (as always), on the chest. The hands are then brought together for the Ite missa est.

Though the priest is no longer directed to do these things, it might help with regard to the spirit and general appearance of reverence if at the Offertory as hitherto the priest were to make the sign of the cross over the corporal with the paten and the chalice before replacing them after the prayer of offering. This may be the more desirable when Mass is said facing the people. Likewise it might add to the solemnity without overloading things if as formerly the priest were to make the sign of the cross with the host and with the chalice as he says (silently) Corpus .... Sanguis Christi etc., before communicating himself.
    In general when Mass is said In the old position (cf. Lercaro, L'heureux développement, N.6), some sign of reverence, perhaps a slight inclination of the head, should be made before turning away from the altar or on turning back to it. When however the sanctissimum is on the altar and the priest turns to the people to say "the peace of the Lord," etc., he ought before doing so to make a stronger sign of reverence, perhaps a deep bow.
    Nothing has been said about solemn Mass, though the new missal allows for degrees of solemnity. But those who have a right view of "simple" Mass will have no difficulty when it comes to higher degrees of solemnity.
    The rite of Mass consists of ceremonies, and though these have been simplified to a greater or lesser degree, ceremonies they remain: and ceremony—public ceremony—requires attention to detail if it is to be fully expressive. (cf. Editorial, Notitiae, I968,4.8-9).
    One may even wonder whether some of the minor rulings have not been over-reductionist (cf. Notitiae passim), and whether the time has not come for a modest reflation in things sacral.
    All may not agree with all that has been said here, but if it contributes to a greater awareness of what celebrating Mass entails it will have served its purpose.