Excellent news. Let us pray that the next step will be removal of the EPs for Reconciliation - which seem to be used with undue regularity on Sundays in my home Parish. The Roman Canon, plus the 3 new EPs, provide more than sufficient choice for those who seem to need such choices.
I would say the 4 EPs for Various Needs should be the next to go.
The two EPs for Reconciliation -- why two? why must there ALWAYS be variety? -- would be (would have been) better condensed into one and restricted to very particular use. They get used at my parish often on weekdays of Lent.
This is awesome news. To remove this nunsense (I mean nonsense....although
liberal American nuns had alot to do with creating this kind of silly stuff that became standard practice).
I remember in college the rad nuns and Augustinian friars creating literaly dozens of Eucharistic prayers for every occasion. Real garbage.
It's wonderful to See Benedict XVI and the Vatican slowly pruning away ane throwing in the trash bin the accumulated abuses of Vatican II.
Up until a few years ago, the EPs for children were being widely used at principal Sunday Masses in many parishes in a prominent east-coast city.
Kenjiro's comments give a bad name to garbage and trash!
Excellent!
These prayers ave always grated on me, and one of the reasons I spent four years away from the Catholic church was their paltry, simplistic theology. You can bet that nine times out of ten, these ere said in a cutesy condescending tone for the kiddies that even I hated being talked to in as a young boy. I kno one priest who used them all the time.
Personally, I would be happy if they would delete all the Eucharistic prayers except Nos.1 and 3, with a rubric that EP III can only be used on ferial days.
This is a huge step. I would never have guessed that Eucharistic prayers would be removed.
Regular readers will recall that I made this prophecy several months back!
They didn't have such things when I was a child in the 1950s, but I nevertheless learned to follow the Mass. I don't think I grew up with a warped or deficient theology of the Mass.
I would second Josiah's suggestion, retaining only Eucharistic Prayers I and III.
Eucharistic Prayer II (the existence of which made me always wonder why we ever needed EP's for Children in the first place, since I can't imagine one could reduce the mystery beyond EP II and its preface and still be valid) was never meant for Sundays. And Eucharistic Prayer IV, while certainly beautiful in its economy of words, is liturgically restricted by its obligatory preface, and in a certain sense is a caricature of an eastern-style anaphora, rather than being the real thing, so to speak.
I suppose, however, I myself would not necessarily restrict Eucharistic Prayer III to ferial days. Perhaps there could be a rubric which indicated that the "principal Mass" of the day employ the Roman Canon, with the alternative Eucharistic Prayer being an option for the other Masses and for weekdays.
Of course, such would apply only to the Missal of Paul VI. I would not agree with importing EP III into the so-called Extraordinary Form.
And, of course, who am I? I'm just mentioning what I would be pleased to see, that's all.
Peace, and all good, on this feast of the Seraphic Father!
I have an aquaintance, a religious priest, who regularly uses the EP's for children when he celebrates Mass for his religious community at their conventual Mass. Frankly, I have never understood why he would do that, since there are never any children present. Doesn't the use of these particular eucharistic prayers presuppose the presence of a majority of children? (I know, I know...) According to him, this is the common practice of his community. I suppose they'll have to find some new EP's to use now.
In fact, he gleefully mocked one of his confreres, a moderately well-known Catholic media personality, who protested the use of the EP's for children at the conventual Mass and who asked to be told in advance when the EP's for children would be used so he could excuse himself from that Mass. Well, it seems that this priest's years of suffering have finally borne fruit.
I wouls not be surprised if this is only a first step, and that all the accumulated Eucharistic prayers are discarded by the Vatican, except for the traditional ancient Roman Canon according to the way it appears in the Tridentine Latin Mass.
I wish the Vatican would get rid of the "General Intercessions" (Bidding Prayers in Episcopalian tradition). It's copied from the Episcopalians, and is a tedious and usually irritating sequence filled with politically correct INtercessions.
Supress that as well.
I would be very sympathetic to the idea of reducing the number of Eucharistic Prayers to two, i.e. EP I and EP III. I wouldn't like to see EP III restricted to ferial days, however. The latter is quite a beautiful prayer and expresses very well the sacrificial nature of the Mass. I also like the idea of EP I being very Roman and EP III being kind of (neo-) Gallican (and I mean that in a good way). My own suggestion, if I were asked, might be to make a rubric that EP I be used on weeks I and III of the breviary and EP III and weeks II and IV.
I always suspected that these kiddie Eucharistic Prayers were more for the celebrant's and his minions benefit than the childrens. Remember kids are pretty smart and can even learn --- Latin Chants at a young age. I'm sure Bishop Trautman and his fellow travelers are grieving. A priest friend of mine who is an educator NEVER uses kiddie prayers because he says they are of questionable educational value. Tom
There is nothing wrong with making suggestions for further steps in the reform of the reform, but let us also pause for a moment and take in the import of this measure: the Roman Missal of the OF is now actually being reformed, and elements of the liturgical reform, which at their time were considered an important progress, are being removed. Gently, without making a big fuss, as is our Holy Father's way.
As for EP III, I wonder why everyone seems to think it almost on a par with the Roman Canon. Knowing that it was written "in three months' work (summer of 1965) in the abbey library at Mont-César (Louvain) by one of the Consilium's most capable consultors" (A. Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy, p. 201, note 3), I cannot seem to find the same enthusiasm for it.
No more kiddie kannon...
this is a good thing
In an ideal world I would prefer that EP III become a strictly ferial anaphora as Josiah mentioned. Still I think that would be detrimental to many parishes that say a quick daily low Mass for workers. Maybe it'd be better to allow EP III to be said on any weekday or Saturday Mass including saint's days of all classes, and require the Canon on Sundays, holy days, and solemnities.
Of course, priests would be allowed to say the Canon at any Mass.
The only reason I say this is because growing up I remember that one priest insisted on saying the Canon at daily Mass, and many people complained since they couldn't make their Communion and get to work on time.
Well one more thing that's OT -- I hope that the reduction of the eucharistic prayers to the Canon and EP III would result in the inclusion of the Latin text "Canon Missae" in vernacular missals, along with the tradition of illuminated Canon pages. Maybe then more priests would be attracted to the thought of saying the Canon in Latin, even at Mass in the vernacular. Just a way to place more emphasis on the Canon as the centerpiece text.
It sounds like those kiddie canons are being removed from the Roman Missal, just to find their way into a Kiddie Missal.
Dear Mr. Shoda,
The General Intercessions are not taken from the Anglicans; they took them from us! Indeed, the Prayer of the Faithful in the contemporary rite is but an importation to daily liturgy from the Liturgy of Good Friday and from the Byzantine Liturgy. One may rightly object to the all-too-free-flowing nature of the compositions, but one cannot say with historical accuracy that their incorporation came from Anglicanism!
Dear Gregor,
Of all the modern compositions, EP III is the finest, both theologically and from a literary point of view. Its author was the eminent liturgical scholar, Cipriano Vaggagini, whose works on the Mass were rather masterful -- no liturgnik or modernist, he (in spite of Bugnini's endorsement)! The structure of that prayer is classical, with a highly developed and clearly articulated appreciation of the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist.
My own praxis for the Eucharistic Prayers generally goes along these lines: Every other Sunday, EP I, which I also use when the memorial/feast of one of the saints commemorated therein is celebrated or that of pope (or other celebration with a "Roman" connection); EP III, on alternate Sundays and when a saint is commemorated, so that his/her name may be inserted into the anaphora; EP II on other weekdays; EP IV (which is quite lovely in its own way, giving a wonderful sweep of salvation history, and a somewhat free adaptation of the canon of St. Basil) once or twice a month and a bit more frequently during Advent and Lent; EP for Reconciliation I on Fridays of Lent (the second I don't care for and don't use). On principle, I never use the others because they were all created in disobedience, used illictly for years in Europe, and then ratified ex post facto.
"Dear Mr. Shoda,
The General Intercessions are not taken from the Anglicans; they took them from us!"
Sorry. I've had the unconfortable experience of having to attend Episcopal services over the last few years for the sake of a friend or two, and assumed (perhaps wrongly) that we copied from them.
The Episcopal service (really banal and boring..just like the NO), is so much like the NO that I just assumed we copied .
But I do know for a fact that there are Protestant elements in the NO that were lifted and transplanted by Bugnini & company. Never should have happened.
Could someone please describe to me what the Roman Canon is apart from the Eucharistic prayers? Is it just the EP from the Roman Missal prior to the NO?
As for the EPs for children, I don't seem to remember ever hearing them... In fact I just looked them up and can say I never have heard them and didn't even know they existed. Thank God for small blessings.
It's about time-- excellent news!
Xpihs (BTW, I have problems with such nicks - I hope you don't think you're Our Lord),
I thought about that at first, but if you look at it, it is quite clear that the "seperate text" refers to the official pronouncement of the CDW which has not yet arrived - they have apparently only pre-informed the Bishops' Conference so that they don't work in vain on the translation of these EPs. In fact, if it were to mean what you suggest, there would be no reason for the USCCB to stop their translation work regarding the children's EPs.
Dear Fr Stravinskas,
my misgivings are not about the person of the author of EP III (I hope you don't think I'm as shallow as to think badly of him merely because he is mentioned favourably by Bugnini) nor about the prayers form or content. But the fact that it was composed by one single man in one single summer in 1965, at some library desk in Belgium, to my mind embodies the artificiality of the liturgical reforms, and is diametrically opposed to the organic development of the Roman Canon of Apostolic descent - they are simply seperated by worlds.
Kenjiro,
what you do know for a fact is simply wrong. There is obviously enough to criticise about the liturgical reform, but we do a disservice to the cause of the reform of the reform if we continue to spread slanders which have long since been disproven. There were Protestant observers, who - but for one exception regarding the preces in the Divine Office, regarding which Max Thurian of Taizé was specifically asked by the study group dealing with this - never took part in the discussions.
It is not a wise idea to make generalisations. A poster commented that the liturgy used in the Episcopal Church is banal and as bad as the OF. This is not quite the case, just as in the Roman Church, there are a wide and varied number of celebrations in the Episcopal Church.
The parish I attended on a regular basis used only Rite I (Elizabethan language) had an ad orientem celebration with deacon, sub-deacon, incense, gospel procession, kneeling communion, and ended with the Angelus being recited after the final hymn...hardly what one could call banal or dreadful.
Everyone should remember, one parish does not the entire church make!
kenjiro
the episcopalians revised their own prayer book in 1979 i believe replacing the one used since 1928. its only then do we see the general intercessions. in the 28 prayerbook we have instead a rather long continuation of the eucharistic prayer.
it would seem wise therefore to deduce that they got the idea from us, not the other way around.
Thomas asks in his comment "What is the Roman canon ?" I believe I used the term in my earlier comment. It behoves me to explain.
It is quite simply the Canon in the "old" Mass, known as EP I, or the Roman canon, in the novus ordo.
"the fact that it [EP III] was composed by one single man in one single summer in 1965, at some library desk in Belgium, to my mind embodies the artificiality of the liturgical reforms"
But surely one could say something similar about Thomas Aquinas sitting down at his desk (in Paris?) at some point in time to compose ('ex nihilo') the Office of Corpus Christi (not to mention myriads of other less famous instances of liturgical composition). Why is this not condemned as artificial?
Dear Hiberniensis,
the difference, of course (and I am astonished that you don't see this yourself), is that individual offices (i.e. the proper texts) for particular feasts (which occur once a year) have always been composed and inserted into Missal and Breviary, as must needs be the case, whereas the venerable Roman Canon is the main part of Holy Mass itself, has been practically in the form it had in 1962 since St. Gelasius (492-496)and is in its main parts of Apostolic descent.
However, I just brought this up as a side remark. I did not mean to turn this into a discussion of the merits of EP III. The topic of this thread is the suppression of the EPs for children and the beginning of a further stage of the reform of the reform, that of actual changes to the missal.
Gregor,
I can see the difference and was rather expecting that that might be the objection made to my own point.
But if one accepts the legitimacy of having an alternative to the Roman Canon (as opposed to an out-right replacement, which, unfortunately, is what has de facto occurred in many places), then it is clear that that alternative text has to come from somewhere. But it is not a question of putting the alternative text on a par with the Roman Canon in terms of venerability, which is precisely why it should be an alternative, not a replacement, and should yield to the Roman Canon on solemnities, etc. It is simply a question of having an alternative. This, then, seems to me to be the fundamental issue - not where EP III came from, but whether or not it is legitimate at all to have an alternative to the Roman Canon. I would say that it is, as long as it remains solely an alternative and not a replacement.
Kenjiro--the General Intercessions are taken from some scholarly conjectures about the ancient mass from the Liturgical Movement era, and also from the Eastern Rites. There were a number of possible forms under discussion as to what form they might take--something like the Great Intercessions on Good Friday, or the Litany of Peace in the Eastern liturgy, for instance.(It is thought the 'Dominus vobiscum' before the Offertory is a vestige of an ancient intercessory liturgy, though perhaps this theory has been superseded.)
I'm divided about what I think about them but they do appear to have some precedent in the West. Chanted by the priest or deacon, facing the altar, it could be quite impressive in a well-celebrated Novus Ordo context.
Bidding Prayers (a slightly different animal, and more of a list of intentions read off by the priest in the vernacular than an intercession/response sort of setup) are actually medieval in origin, anyway.
Hiberniensis,
"I can see the difference and was rather expecting that that might be the objection made to my own point."
I wonder why you made it, then.
"This, then, seems to me to be the fundamental issue - not where EP III came from"
Since I made my original remark in the context of commenters calling for the suppression of EPs II and IV, and the retention of EP III, I think my point was quite relevant.
"whether or not it is legitimate at all to have an alternative to the Roman Canon. I would say that it is"
As I suppose you have noticed, I would say it is not, since the introduction of additional, alternative EPs is, in the words of Klaus Gamber "a complete break with tradition". But as I said, this is getting seriously off topic, so let us just leave it at that.
"It is quite simply the Canon in the 'old' Mass, known as EP I, or the Roman canon, in the novus ordo."
Ah, thank you, Dr. Wright. So EP I in the NO is a translation of the only Canon of the EF Mass. Got it.
Whoops, that was me again.
Fr. Stravinskas: Of all the modern compositions, EP III is the finest, both theologically and from a literary point of view. Its author was the eminent liturgical scholar, Cipriano Vaggagini, whose works on the Mass were rather masterful -- no liturgnik or modernist
He was an impressive scholar but he was also infected by a certain Cartesian mentality in his critique of the liturgy, criticizing the Roman Canon because of its lack of "clear and distinct" composition as I recall (my words, not his). Still, I have read parts of his work which I think in English was called "Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy" and it is pretty impressive, the Cartesian threads running through it notwithstanding.
Dear Gregor,
Yes, let's leave it at that as far as EP III is concerned.
But as for things getting off topic, I wonder if it wouldn't be good to apply a criterion of 'organic development' to the threads themselves? After all, it's usually not possible to discuss one point of liturgy or of the 'reform of the reform' without bringing up other points. A discussion of the legitimacy or otherwise of alternative Eucharistic Prayers in general is not a huge jump from a discussion of the legitimacy or otherwise of particular Eucharistic Prayers, in this case the ones for children.
Matthew,
Thanks for this info about the Intercessory prayers/Bidding prayers. Really enlightening!
Still, it's been common practice at least in my parish and surrounding Churches in the Philly area that these prayers are used to push a politicaly correct agenda, rather than just being intercessions to the Lord. Which is why I'd like to see them supressed. In some local parishes, we're up to 10-12 intercessory prayers (rather than what might be considered the appropriate 3-4). So many is ridiculous...and a waste of time.
kenjiro
im in complete agreement with you on this one. My priests all seem intent on adding 2 or 3 extemporanious petitions that really just promote an individual agenda.
however imn not sure its the form itself that is the problem, just various abuses of it.
i agree that the petitions can get a bit unwealdy but if limits were placed...that might be an idea.
Fr Stravinskas - re EP III, you say that "Its author was the eminent liturgical scholar, Cipriano Vaggagini, whose works on the Mass were rather masterful -- no liturgnik or modernist he".
With the greatest respect to your scholarship, my reading of his purview of his perceived "defects" of the ancient Roman Canon (see 'The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform' (pages 90 - 106) lead me to disagree with that assessment of Vagaggini.
To take just one example (to look at more here would unreasonably take this thread even more off-topic), he describes the words of Consecration as "the greatest defect" (page 101), simply because they do not conclude with the Pauline words 'quod pro vobis tradetur' (and variations).
None of this means he is not capable of writing a text which conforms to Catholic doctrine - but it does raise suspicions about the man's liturgical expertise and motive - whether or not he was supported by the lamentable Bugnini.
With the Eucharistic Prayers for Children very soon to become history (Thanks be to God!!), how possible does everyone feel that all the other multitude of Eucharistic prayers (how many to we still have now, 5-6?) could go the same way EXCEPT for the Roman Canon (as it always appeared in the Tridentine Latin Mass). I think it's possible, and the very best way to go...but perhaps unlikely.
Does everyone else think that some other pieces of the Pauline Missle might be supressed/altered as well as extra liturgical deviations also being given the ax (Communion in the hand and standing, no altar rails, altar girls, innapropriate music, as well as a big one...LITURGICAL DANCE, which I think might be going extinct on it's own.
For some reason, I think there is momentum in a traditionalist/traditional direction coming from the Pope and Vatican at a more forceful speed now. I don't know why. I just think that in the next few months, we are going to have several rulings from the Vatican that will SHOCK everyone, but leave traditionalist cheering, and liturgical liberals weeping.
Kenjiro,
I really appreciate your enthusiasm for sacred and dignified liturgy, so please don't take this the wrong way, but we've had this discussion many times, and you just don't seem to get it:
"I just think that in the next few months, we are going to have several rulings from the Vatican that will SHOCK everyone, but leave traditionalist cheering, and liturgical liberals weeping."
This is the exact opposite of what the Pope wants: he is acting slowly and gently, precisely to avoid ruptures and upheaval. He has seen how the precipitous reforms after the Council have caused so much damage, and he certainly does not want that to repeat itself, even if in the right direction. Also, this is emphatically not about "traditionalist cheering, and liturgical liberals weeping". This is not about "we win, you loose". Not only does such an attitude harm our cause, it is also unjust and uncharitable. "Liturgical liberals" (and I abhor the application of such political labels to our brothers in Christ) are doing what they do because they think it is right, however mistaken that may be. So we should labour to help along the restoration of the sacred initiated by our Holy Father, but assuredly not in a vindictive spirit.
Still, it's been common practice at least in my parish and surrounding Churches in the Philly area that these prayers are used to push a politicaly correct agenda, rather than just being intercessions to the Lord.
Not only is prayer directed toward God, but it also is directed at ourselves, in a way, because fervent prayer is hinged with fervent action.
So, if the prayers seem to have an agenda- some of our intercessions this morning on Respect Life Sunday implored the Lord that we will truly respect and protect life "from conception to natural death" lest we think all the Church teaches is about abortion- they may rightly have said agenda, to form our corporate prayer to the Lord, and to form our thoughts.
Pax.
Although I appreciate that the General Intercession wasn't what the original post was about, there seems to be a good and useful line going on here about it - so forgive another comment thereon !
The original form of the General Intercession - which survived for hundreds of years - was the form which today only exists in the Solemn Prayers on Good Friday - a format which would have been entirely familiar to the very earliest Churches, and which I believe to have been was what was in the minds of those who inserted the General Intercession in the NO.
I entirely agree that there is much abuse of the General Intercession : but surely it would be easy enough to format some simple rules for it which would at least retain the essential elements, and exclude much of the nonsense ? I know I have a book published by the hierarchy in the UK years ago now - early '70s, I think - which gives concrete examples for all Sundays and Solemnities, and provides a clear format to follow :
Five petitions : (1) The Universal Church (2) the World (global/national secular matters) (3) the local Church (including the community) (4) the sick, needy, &c; and (5) the dead. Start with a BRIEF introductory prayer from the Celebrant, then the Petitions/intentions, then a brief period of silence, and the Hail Mary, before another BRIEF prayer from the Celebrant.
Simple, effective, and yet flexible enough to cope with about 99.999% of all possible eventualities.
Like many other problems with NO, I don't think the concept is inherently dreadful; I think it's a case of lack of direction, coupled with lack of understanding, that has made it the dire endurance test which it so often is.
I realize there is no single correct way to "do" the General Intercessions (apart from the recommended format in the Missal). But, in light of the above comments, I thought I'd share what "works" for me: I don't have General Intercessions at weekday Masses (not required). On Sundays, I never have more than five petitions, which I myself compose because most of the "canned" petitions are dreadful. The introduction is as simple as possible: "Let us pray." After the final petition, I say, "Let us entrust these prayers, and our whole lives, to the intercession of Our Lady [insert Marian title specific to the day/celebration, if there be one], as we pray: HAIL MARY..." My standard concluding prayer (mercifully brief and never a recap of the homily): "Father, hear the prayers of Your holy Church, and graciously supply what is lacking to our faith: through Christ our Lord."
Fr Thomas;
thank you - you restore my faith !
I think that the ideal is having the Celebrant compose the petitions; if only because then the liturgy can be an integrity. I can never work out whether it's laziness, or a misguided belief in allowing 'the people' to control 'their' bits of the liturgy that is behind the usual arrangement, but I am sure that you have chosen the better way.
Actually, on reflection, I think it is probably true that 'popular' input into the liturgy underlies most of the problems with NO : which goes back to the whole question of 'options'. If there are options, someone has to decide, and all sorts of people feel they should have a say - if there is no choice, then people just get on with it : and contrary to what seems to be the belief, most people do NOT want choices; they want certainties.
I don't understand how it is possible to maintain that the General Intercessions are optional at a weekday Mass. In all of the places that I could find it in the GIRM (# 69ff, # 138), it did not use the language of "optional" so far as I could tell. I wouldn't mind leaving out the intercessions at daily Masses if I could establish that they are indeed optional. Please help!
Shawn: if you are reading: the automatic smiley faces seem to cause more problems than they are worth. In this thread and in many others I and other commenters have tried to type in references with numbers or whatever and end up getting smiley faces partially in their place. If memory serves, Haloscan has an option to turn off graphic smiley faces. Would you consider turning off that option, if it exists? Thanks.
A good concluding prayer for the general intercessions would be the 'Deus refugium nostrum'/'O God, our refuge' from the old prayers after Low Mass. That, as far as I recall from my reading of liturgical documents, was the prayer that was recommended to be used when the general intercessions were first inserted into the Mass (before the 'novus ordo' was promulgated).
I have never heard anyone suggest that the General Intercessions are mandatory.
In Spain, there is a book of intercessions produced by the episcopal conference, with intercessions for every day -- and these are the ones to be used, and no others. They are quite good.
Fr. BJ,
GIRM #69 says, "It is fitting that [the Prayer of the Faithful] be included, as a rule, in Masses celebrated with a congregation...". I take "fitting" to imply optional, even if strongly encouraged. Sacrosanctum Concilium #53 calls for the restoration of the General Intercessions "especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation," which likewise leads me to believe these prayers are optional for weekdays. Preferred, maybe, but not mandatory. (Rather like those who choose cremation in spite of the Church's clear and strong preference for burial.)
Quentin: Thank you. I concur.
JM: In terms of actual minutes and seconds, how much longer does it take to say EP I than EP III? Do you really think a noontime Mass cannot be said in a reasonable time for working folks using EP I?
I must need new glasses. When I first read the comments above, I thought there was a reference to EPs "for various nerds":
* EP for a gathering of science-fiction fans
* EP for computer staff stuck at work due to another unexpected breakdown
* EP for Catholic nerds on their pilgrimage to the Shrine Gift Shop
Low Masses for working folk have been offered for hundreds of years using only the Roman Canon, I don't see why the same can't be done today.
I think that the trick lies in putting a time-limit on weekday "recited Masses". In the older days there were many parishes, monasteries and chapels that mandated a 30-minute limit on Low Masses. (Of course there were a few saints who took hours to celebrate Mass, but they were the exceptions). And we are speaking here of the TLM! (At present, due -- I think -- to the unconscious influence of the pacing of the Novus Ordo on a lot of TLM celebrants -- it seems normal for a TLM Low Mass to take 35-45 minutes)
At present, due to the elasticity with which the Novus Ordo is celebrated, a simple weekday Novus Ordo can last as short as 15 minutes (if not less!) or as long as an hour. This unpredictability -- more than the choice of a Eucharistic Prayer -- is detrimental to the practice of daily mass by hard-pressed working people. In my opinion, a decent, "said" Novus Ordo can be offered with EP 1 in just 25 minutes, and certainly within 30 minutes, which I think is reasonable for a weekday Mass for busy people.
When I was still studying -- and then in the corporate world (I've taken an indefinite leave for now), one of the hardships I had in going to daily Mass was that there was simply no way of predicting how long a Mass might last, thus potentially wreaking my schedule. I think priests also owe it to working people to give them a good idea as to how long a particular weekday Mass might last.
Carlos: Today I celebrated a "low" Novus Ordo Mass (I put "low" in quotes because we sang the Sanctus and Agnus Dei), using the Roman Canon, and it took 25 minutes -- and that's with a brief homily!
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
