Paragraph 187 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:
"The acolyte may have functions of various
kinds and several may occur at the same time. It is therefore desirable that
these functions be suitably
distributed among several acolytes. But if there is only one
acolyte present, that acolyte should perform the more important functions and
the rest are distributed among several
ministers."
Comment and Analysis: Words. What is an acolyte? Well, in
the Novus Ordo, you see, an acolyte can be an altar server (who can be
either a boy or a girl, a man or a woman) or a seminarian who has been
"instituted" formally as an acolyte. In the new order of things, men aspiring
for the priesthood go through several "offices" prior to their ordination to the
transitional diaconate. The first is "candidate," which takes place usually at
the end of the seminarian’s first year. The second office is that of "reader,"
which takes place sometime during the second year. It is during a seminarian’s
third year that he is usually instituted as an "acolyte," which means that he
can distribute Holy Communion during Mass. Zads of such acolytes serve at the
Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.
However, the word acolyte can also refer to the garden variety altar server. The
fluidity of the Novus Ordo is such even the words used to describe
"offices" in the Church may mean different things at different times.
Additionally, just as the word "aco lyte"
has different connotations, so are there a variety of functions assigned to an
acolyte, whoever happens to be filling that role at any particular point in
time. In essence, therefore, acolytes do whatever the priest (or "presider")
tells them to do. Nothing is fixed. Their roles vary from parish to parish, from
priest to priest, from liturgy committee to liturgy committee, from Mass to
Mass, from time to time. This is why there is so much confusion among many young
altar servers these days; they simply do not have clearly defined roles (and
part of that is because of the fact that the new Mass admits of so many
legitimate options and adaptations that it is impossible for there to fixed
roles for those who serve as "acolytes."
This is all in contradistinction to the
stability produced by the permanent, immutable nature of the Traditional Latin
Mass. Young boys can be trained at a very early age to serve the Traditional
Latin Mass. Why? Precisely because the Mass of our fathers is stable. It does
not depend upon the celebrant or the time or the parish. Low Mass is the same
everywhere. High Mass is the same everywhere. And as there are no options for a
priest to use in the Traditional Latin Mass, the responses made by altar boys
and the roles they perform are the same in every Mass. That is why a number of
quite elderly men have been able in the past twenty years or so to with ease as
they had memorized the Mass, which is the same now as it was in the youth, years
ago.
Indeed, the late Ignatius Cardinal
Kung, who had been imprisoned by the Red Chinese for over thirty years
because he would not renounce his fidelity to the true Church, wrote the
entirety of the ordinary of the Traditional Latin Mass from memory in a
contraband diary he kept while in prison. His Communist captors kept taking the
diary from him and tearing it up. Undaunted, Cardinal Kung just started over
again. This happened for years and years. Finally, as his nephew Joseph
Kung, the head of the Cardinal Kung Foundation, told us a few months
ago, "They [the Communists) just gave up." Cardinal Kung was able to write the
Mass from memory because he learned it as a child. This is the very same thing
that young boys are doing now when they are being trained, sometimes as young as
six or seven, to serve the Traditional Latin Mass.
Although Paragraph 187 seems innocuous, its
fluidity and lack of precision are so very symbolic of all that is wrong with
the new Mass. Fluidity and imprecision in the Mass lead to laxity and infidelity
in the practice of the Holy Faith in the lives of ordinary Catholics.
Paragraph 188 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:
"In the procession to the altar the acolyte
may carry the cross, walking between two ministers with lighted candles. Upon
reaching the altar, the acolyte places the cross near the
altar so that it may be used as the altar cross during Mass; otherwise, he
places it in a dignified place."
Comment and Analysis: Who is an "acolyte" and who is a
"minister?" G.I.R.M. does not tell us. Perhaps one is supposed to intuit
the difference. Traditionally, the sub-deacon or altar boy carried a
processional cross in a High Mass, which is placed in a holder near the altar
(there being a cross present on the altar before Mass). And in the Mass of
tradition, the altar boy "takes his place" at the side at the priest as he
blesses the congregation with holy water during the Asperges me (or
Vidi Aquam during Paschaltide the priest. He assists him as he vests for
Mass after that blessing, taking his place on his knees at his side as the Mass
of the Catechumens begins with the Prayers at the foot of the Altar. His "place
in the sanctuary" is with the priest. Indeed, the altar boy is the extension of
the hands of the priest, which is one of the reasons he must be a boy, not a
girl.
Paragraph 188 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:
"Throughout the celebration it belongs to
the acolyte to go to the priest or the deacon, whenever necessary, in order to
present the book to them and to assist them in any other way
required. Thus it is appropriate that, if possible, acolytes have a place from
which they can conveniently carry out their ministry both at
the chair and at the altar."
Comment and Analysis: Altar boys sit on either side of a
priest during the Traditional Latin Mass when he, the priest, sits down during
High Mass while the choir is singing the Gloria and the Credo
after he has recited them himself. They sit when the priest (or the transitional
deacon) is preaching. At all other times, however, they have fixed roles at the
altar. As the priest does not "preside" from a chair, he reads from the Missal,
which is placed either on the Epistle or the Gospel side of the altar. It is not
"held" by the altar server (or subdeacon or deacon) as is the case in the new
Mass. The rearrangement of the rubrics of the Mass, however, means a
rearrangement of the furniture in the sanctuary, a rearrangement that is
Protestant and egalitarian of its nature.
Paragraph 190 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:
"After the general intercessions, when no
deacon is present, the acolyte places the corporal, purificator, and
Sacramentary on the altar, while the priest remains at the
chair. Then, if necessary, the acolyte assists the priest in receiving the gifts
from the people and may bring the bread and wine to the altar
and hand them to the priest. If incense is used, the acolyte gives the censer to
the priest and assists him in incensing the gifts, the cross and the altar.
Then he incenses and priest and the
people."
Comment and Analysis: I have commented on the "general
intercessions" ad nauseum. In the Mass of tradition, the priest says the
Offertory prayer after the completion of the Credo (when its recitation
is mandated) or after the Gospel (in a Low Mass without a sermon) or after the
sermon. He then begins the Offertory in what is called the Mass of the Faithful
(what is now called "The Liturgy of the Eucharist"). The altar boy assists the
priest by bringing him the water and wine to be poured into the chalice, as well
as when bringing him the water and lavabo dish and cloth for the washing and
drying of his fingers at the Lavabo. The priest is not "in the chair" at this
time. Although the procedures outlined in this paragraph for the incensing of
the priest and the people are identical to what we find in High Mass in the Mass
of tradition, the fact that women may serve at the altar in the new Mass adds a
significant departure from tradition, one that carries with it a theology that
believes the distinctions between the sexes are not important in the context of
the Mass. They are.
Paragraph 191 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:
"A formally instituted acolyte may, if
necessary, assist the priest as an extraordinary minister in giving communion to
the people. If communion is given under
both kinds, in the absence of a deacon, the acolyte administers the chalice to
the communicants or holds the chalice when communion is given by
intinction."
Comment and Analysis: Ah, G.I.R.M. makes reference
here to a formally instituted acolyte.It is presumed, perhaps erroneously, that
a former instituted acolyte is a seminarian. In any event, a priest may deputize
anyone in the case of a genuine emergency to distribute Holy Communion, as was
the case during World Wars I and II, for example. However, a priest and a deacon
are the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Only the hands of the ordained are
meant to touch the Word made Flesh under the appearance of the elements of this
earth. Giving permission on a regular basis to the non-ordained to do so blurs
the distinction between the priesthood of the ordained priest and that of every
baptized Catholic. And by permitting Communion under both Kinds, which is
discussed much more fully about 100 paragraphs from now, the architects of the
new Mass are furthering the belief that there is something missing if the people
do not participate in this practice in the new Mass. There are solid theological
and pastoral reasons why the Roman Rite forbade Communion under both kinds, even
by intinction, for centuries until the advent of the liturgical revolution. The
restoration of this practice, abolished precisely because it led to abuses and
sacrileges, has resulted in all manner of sacrileges, no less a total rejection
of the fact that it is the priest alone who communicates from the chalice,
thereby completing the sacrifice.
Paragraph 192 of G.I.RM. reads as follows:
"Likewise, a formally instituted acolyte
helps the priest or deacon to cleanse and arrange the vessels after communion.
In the absence of a deacon, the acolyte carries the sacred
vessels to the side table and purifies, wipes and arranges them in the customary
manner."
Comment and Analysis: Only a priest (or a deacon in a
Solemn High Mass in the Traditional Roman Rite) is to purify the vessels after
communion. The delegation of this to others, especially the non-ordained,
denigrates the meaning of his priestly consecration, consigning to the hands of
the others the privilege of touching the sacred species. The removal of the
sacred vessels to a side table for purification and cleansing furthers the
notion that the priest is not to be concerned with the care of the Eucharistic
elements. Indeed, it is his job to sit down while others handle the One to Whom
he has been espoused by means of his priestly ordination. As we know, much
sacrilege occurs in the new Mass at this juncture. For if there is such a rush
to remove Our Lord to the side, why should there be care in the handling of what
remains of Holy Communion?
A priest who has reviewed this manuscript
asks some very pertinent questions: "An ‘instituted’ acolyte, a ‘regular’
acolyte or an altar server, may purify the sacred vessels after Holy Communion?
Which is it?
Paragraph 193 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:
"After the celebration of Mass, the acolyte
and other ministers return in procession to the sacristy with the deacon and the
priest in the same way and in the same order in which they
entered."
Comment and Analysis: What happens to the processional
cross in the recessional? Well, like so much else in G.I.R.M., much of
the details are left to the imagination. The details aren’t really that
important. Alas, as has been proved that there is no regard for traditional
reverence and solemnity in the celebration of the Mass, a lack of specificity
about the details of a recessional means that the innovators and revolutionaries
are perfectly free to do as they pleasure. After all, if Aztec tribal rituals
can be included in the Mass of canonization of Saint Juan
Diego, then why can’t local liturgy committees and "presiders" do as
they please in their own parishes during the processional and recessional?
Paragraph 194 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:
"In the procession to the altar, when no
deacon is present, the reader, wearing the appropriate vesture, may carry the
Book of the Gospels elevated slightly.
In that case, he walks in front of the priest, otherwise with the other
ministers."
Comment and Analysis: This is a complete novelty of the
Novus Ordo. While the 1962 Missal promulgated by Pope John XXIII
permitted the option of a "commentator" to read the epistle and the Gospel
lesson in the vernacular while the priest recited them in Latin at the altar,
the "commentator" was not considered a "minister." In the Traditional Latin
Mass, the priest, the alter Christus, reads the epistle and the Gospel in
Latin at the altar and then in the vernacular (outside of Mass, as I have
pointed out in an earlier installment of this series) from the pulpit during
Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. It is usually the case that the
readings are not done in the vernacular during ordinary weekday Masses (the
assumption being that those who attend daily Mass have their own hand missals).
Nevertheless, the concept of a "reader" who processes with the "presider" and
"other ministers" results in yet another diminishing of the role of the
sacerdos, the priest. This diminishing of the role of the priest is
accomplished not only by the presence of a reader but by the fact that he (or
she) may wear clerical attire, signifying a sort of equality with the ordained
priest.
Additionally, the Novus Ordo’s demand
for inculturation of the liturgy results in the relativizing of what is an
"appropriate vesture." Might the feathers worn by the Aztec dancers at the
canonization of St. Juan Diego at the modern Basilica of Our Lady
of Guadalupe in Mexico City be considered "appropriate vesture." Might
half-naked natives from Africa or Australia or New Zealand be considered dressed
appropriately in their birthday suits as they proclaim the Word of God in Holy
Mass? Well, whether dress in street clothes or some sort of clerical vestments
or native attire, no lay man served in this capacity, no less carried the
Book of the Gospels. All of this was introduced in the name of "active
participation." What it is in actuality, however, is Protestantism.
A priest who has served as a review of this
manuscript notes, "The modern Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City,
which was designed by an atheist, looks like a Klingon starship."
Paragraph 195 of G.I.R.M. reads as follows:
"Upon reaching the altar, he makes a
profound bow with the others. If he is carrying the Book of the Gospels,
he goes to the altar and places the Book of the Gospels on
it. Then, he takes up his position in the sanctuary with the other
ministers."
Comment and Analysis: Once again, GIRM assumes that
the normative place for the tabernacle is not in the center of the sanctuary.
Thus, all the "ministers" who approach the sanctuary bow rather than genuflect.
Lost in all of this is the simple fact that there is no need for reader. This is
not part of Catholic tradition whatsoever. This is all a fabricated effort to
replicate the Protestant worship service. The sanctuary is a sanctuary for a
reason. It has now become an avenue of traffic which detracts from the dignity
of the priesthood and the solemnity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
A diocesan priest who has been known to
celebrate Mass facing the altar says: "I’ve discovered that if I say the Mass
facing the altar no one dares to approach the altar; but when facing the people,
there’s a traffic jam around the altar."
Paragraph 196 of G.I.R.M. reads as
follows:
"At the ambo the reader proclaims the
readings that precede the gospel reading. It there is no psalmist, the reader
may also sing or recite the
responsorial psalm after the first reading."
Comment and Analysis: This is repetitive of Paragraphs
58-59 of G.I.R.M. There is no such thing as an "ambo" in the liturgical
tradition of the Roman Rite. The priest recited the Gradual and Lesser Alleluia
(the Gradual and Greater Alleluia in Paschaltide; the Tract in Lent) during Low
Mass, reciting them during High Mass while the schola sang them. The schola was
out of sight. We did not have Mitch Miller or Debbie
Boone leading us in song. There is a reason for this: the primacy of
the priest and the mysterium tremendum that is meant to be produced by
the Mass. The schola’s being out of sight reminds us of heavenly glories that we
are aspiring to but have not yet attained. The "down to earth" nature of the new
liturgy is very much reflective of its enshrinement of everything that is
earthbound and topical, not heavenly and eternal.
Paragraphs 197 and 198 of G.I.R.M. read as
follows:
197:
"After the priest gives the introduction to
the general intercessions, the reader may announce the intentions from the ambo
when no deacon is
present."
198: "If there is no opening
liturgical song or communion song and the antiphons in the Missal are not said
by the faithful, the reader may recite them at
the appropriate time."
Comment and Analysis: Again, this is repetitive of earlier
paragraphs in G.I.R.M. Suffice it to say at this juncture, however, that
the "reader" serves the role of an Alistair Cooke or Ed
McMahon, providing running commentaries or making his presence known at
times that should be reserved either for the preparation for the reception of
Holy Communion or the making of a good Thanksgiving after wards. And it is
interesting to note also that the spirit of egalitarianism engendered by the
mania for the vocal participation of the faithful in Mass has resulted in some
members of a congregation competing with each other, especially during Daily
Mass, to see who will be the first among them to shout out the responsorial
psalm or what is now called the Communion Antiphon. Some people actually get
angry when they are beaten to the punch by another congregant. As my dear wife
says, "It kind of makes you feel as though you are watching
Jeopardy!"
Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.
For past installments of G.I.R.M. Warfare in The DAILY CATHOLIC by Dr. Droleskey, see Archives