Pray Tell continues its series on the liturgical history of Collegeville. The sub-series “From the Archives” reprints some of the Liturgy Committee meeting minutes from 1963 to 1969. This sub-series is a behind-the-scenes look at liturgy in Collegeville during and immediately after the Second Vatican Council.
The next record from the Liturgy Committee:
Minutes of the Liturgy Committee
January 27, 1966
Present were Fathers John, Michael, Daniel, Gerard, Emeric, Kieran, Austin, Brice, Bruce. Br. Gerard. Mr. Mullen.
Discussion of the Sunday Mass
All liked more people in the Offertory procession, i.e., the idea of having more “groups” represented. There was a somewhat lengthy discussion on the collection centering around what to do with the baskets after the collection was taken. It boiled down to this way of thinking: Either the collection is a part of the gifts, representing a sacrifice and self-giving, or it isn’t. If it is (and it was generally agreed that it is) then it should be given due respect and brought to the altar also. And so this was what was decided, that the collection is taken up and received at the altar. It was also suggested that the Chaplains itemize, in the “Chaplains’ Letter” the uses to which the money is put.
It was suggested that all genuflections at the predella be eliminated except those made when entering and leaving the sanctuary (e.g., there would then be no genuflection, say, at the time of the homily, but the celebrant would go straight from his chair to the lectern).
At Communion, it was decided that all should stand for the “Lord, I am not worthy” as is done during the week.
The paten. Rather than having novices process out and hold the paten at the Communion of the Faithful, it seemed better that those priests who distribute simply take the paten with them to the Communion Tables, leaving it more or less to the initiative of those receiving to pick it up and hold it. It was mentioned, too, that persons ought not be forced to hold it if they seem embarrassed or hesitant to do so. When six priests distribute, the two acolytes will hold the paten for those distributing in the side aisles.
The Feast of the Purification
The students will have Mass at 7:30 and 11:55 as is customary. These will be the closing Masses of the Retreat and the Papal Blessing will be given as usual. The Monastic Community will keep their regular schedule. At the Conventual Mass, the candles will be blessed, but not distributed, nor will there be a procession. The reason for these latter changes is that it was felt that a procession was not meaningful, since, as a matter of fact, we do not process to any new location, but simply walk around the church. It should be noted that this establishes no precedent, and that the matter will be discussed further at a later date. It should also, perhaps, be mentioned that there was general agreement that the Palm Sunday procession is made quite meaningful simply by the fact that those processing have a goal, i.e., to get to the church in order to celebrate the Eucharist.
The Daily Community Mass
The discussion here was rather brief, and nothing was decided. Among the suggestions were: that we have a small offertory “procession” during the week consisting in perhaps two people; that nothing be placed on the altar before Mass; that the cushion be used for the missal [it was mentioned that some prefer the stand]; that the Conventual Mass be celebrated without a deacon sometimes; that something be done about the direction of the person reading at the lectern.
In reference to the deacon, it was pointed out that his role is not merely honorary, but that there are times when he is of genuine assistance to the celebrant. It was mentioned, too, that it seems well to have a deacon function at least sometimes, since it gives him an opportunity to become “at home” at the altar. In reference to the direction of the reader, it was suggested that perhaps the community could sit in the nave, at which suggestion the discussion on the direction of the reader ceased.
Unresolved, too, was the question of the liberty of the individual celebrant who presides to organize the celebration as he sees fit. This question needs further discussion.
Here the meeting took (if I may interpret) a new direction, quite broad in its implications for our community worship.
It started with the suggestion that the gesture at the Consecration (in concelebrated Masses) be eliminated; since the rubrics specifically state that this gesture is optional. An added reason for the elimination of this gesture is that seems to focus attention on the particular moment as the high point of the Mass. Now Christ is present, whereas he was not present before this point. While there is something to said for this view, it was felt that by emphasizing the Consecration, the unity of the entire Anaphora (from “Preface” to Per Ipsum) is put in jeopardy and the narrative character of Jesus’ words is somewhat obscured.
Whereupon an objection arose. It is not sufficient simply to put a sign on the bulletin board saying that “henceforth we will omit the gesture at the Consecration.” While it may be true that the reasons advanced for this change are sound, our approach to changes has not been in the past an intelligent one. We have succeeded, in effect, in simply replacing one set of rubrical directives with another set, with the result that many perform rubrics “blindly” or at least without proper formation and information concerning the rationale behind the changes. In other words, quite simply, the community has not been and is not being formed in the spirit of the Liturgy.
It was further stated by the person speaking that things have gone well without instruction, providentially, and that he knows of no real hostility toward recent changes. This certainly attests to the mettle of our community, especially among the older members. Many have changed even though it has been difficult for them to do so, and it would seem an injustice to have them change even more without further consideration. The command, “Bend yet further, Father (or Brother)!” does not seem to be any type of solution.
One gets the impression, further, that Gnosticism has not yet died in some quarters, primarily because of a lack of communication among all levels of the community. [Even the Liturgy Committee itself could be envisioned as a kind of small gnostic sect].
What can be done about this situation? Time was running out, so nothing in particular was planned. It was suggested that we, the whole community, meet some night and discuss liturgy—either after the Monastic Discussions are finished for the year, or, perhaps in place of one or the other scheduled discussions. Perhaps the student community could meet wit members of the monastic community (e.g., the Liturgical Committee, and others interested) in a way similar to the recent open meeting of the Committee for Student-Faculty Affairs. It is necessary, whatever we do, to plan it well—by papers, etc., which could provide a springboard for honest discussion and exchange of views. Perhaps, too, apart from the idea of discussion, it might not be a bad idea to initiate a series of one page papers on current though in sacramental theology, liturgy, etc.
Respectfully submitted,
Austin Naughton, osb
Please leave a reply.