Crucifix at the Canon

Today I went to an absolutely beautiful Novus Ordo Mass. I have gone to this parish before for their celebration of the TLM Mass but this was my first time going for the NO. At the end of the Sanctus, just before the priest began the Eucharistic Prayer the altar servers came out with the incense and candles and an additional one with the processional crucifix. He knelt in the center of the sanctuary towards the altar (Mass was celebrated ad orientum) with the corpus facing the altar and stayed there until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer.

I have been to a couple TLM Masses before and I don't think I have ever seen this done but perhaps I just missed it somehow. I have certainly never seen this done at a NO Mass. Does anyone know the reason for this practice and where it comes from?

I don't know the answer, but you are very lucky to attend such a reverent N.O. mass. I think most people have problems with the irreverence you see at a lot of them, not the mass itself, obviously.:)

Yes, I love the NO Mass. I think that when it is done reverently it is beautiful. Like so many people say, its not the NO Mass or Vatican II that is the source of problems but rather the incorrect execution and interpretation of them. People are always shocked when I talk about Mass being celebrated ad orientum, or communion rails, or servers with cassocks and surplices. They seem to think that those things don't even exist anymore when in fact they are all still used in the Church everyday, just not as much in America where we are more "modern" and "communal" which is code for "lazy" and "poorly catechized."

[quote="mwscott, post:3, topic:181787"]
Yes, I love the NO Mass. I think that when it is done reverently it is beautiful. Like so many people say, its not the NO Mass or Vatican II that is the source of problems but rather the incorrect execution and interpretation of them. People are always shocked when I talk about Mass being celebrated ad orientum, or communion rails, or servers with cassocks and surplices. They seem to think that those things don't even exist anymore when in fact they are all still used in the Church everyday, just not as much in America where we are more "modern" and "communal" which is code for "lazy" and "poorly catechized."

[/quote]

That is so true :)
And I wouldn't have expected this from Ohio... my expreriences there are churches without kneelers <> :(

[quote="mwscott, post:1, topic:181787"]
Today I went to an absolutely beautiful Novus Ordo Mass. I have gone to this parish before for their celebration of the TLM Mass but this was my first time going for the NO. At the end of the Sanctus, just before the priest began the Eucharistic Prayer the altar servers came out with the incense and candles and an additional one with the processional crucifix. He knelt in the center of the sanctuary towards the altar (Mass was celebrated ad orientum) with the corpus facing the altar and stayed there until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer.

I have been to a couple TLM Masses before and I don't think I have ever seen this done but perhaps I just missed it somehow. I have certainly never seen this done at a NO Mass. Does anyone know the reason for this practice and where it comes from?

[/quote]

I'm curious, was there another crucifix besides the one on the processional cross?

There is a time in the liturgy set aside for incensing the altar and adding candles, and if I am not mistaken, immediately after the Sanctus is NOT it. Likewise with times when the crucifix is to be in procession. The described changes are well-meant and even inspiring to some, I don't doubt, but a little bit odd.

Once you give priests permission to re-write the liturgy to suit themselves, we're buying ourselves a ticket back to the 1970s. Do we really want that? Which of us wants to tell Fr. X that while Fr. Y's innovations are reverent and beautiful, Fr. Xs are a well-meant distraction?

Call me a stick in the mud, but I think the Church has rubrics for a reason. Let the rubrics for each diocese be followed reverently, but without individualized additions or subtractions...even the ones I really happen to like, myself. Unless a liturgist can correct me, I think the described changes are a bad idea.

PS The OF has its rubrics, the EF has its rubrics. Again, as far as I know, there are no rubrics that allow an EF/OF hybrid. Choose one, and do that one according to Hoyle.

[quote="EasterJoy, post:6, topic:181787"]
There is a time in the liturgy set aside for incensing the altar and adding candles, and if I am not mistaken, immediately after the Sanctus is NOT it. Likewise with times when the crucifix is to be in procession. The described changes are well-meant and even inspiring to some, I don't doubt, but a little bit odd.

Once you give priests permission to re-write the liturgy to suit themselves, we're buying ourselves a ticket back to the 1970s. Do we really want that? Which of us wants to tell Fr. X that while Fr. Y's innovations are reverent and beautiful, Fr. Xs are a well-meant distraction?

Call me a stick in the mud, but I think the Church has rubrics for a reason. Let the rubrics for each diocese be followed reverently, but without individualized additions or subtractions...even the ones I really happen to like, myself. Unless a liturgist can correct me, I think the described changes are a bad idea.

PS The OF has its rubrics, the EF has its rubrics. Again, as far as I know, there are no rubrics that allow an EF/OF hybrid. Choose one, and do that one according to Hoyle.

[/quote]

The incense is permitted (in order to incense at the elevations). Torches are a legitimate custom (I believe that there was a descision of the CDW on this point, though I dont have Notitiae in front of me). At the Papal Masses, for example, they have been doing them for decades, so it does have some legitimacy, at least as custom. however,

I've never heard of a processional crucifix. In fact, it would kind-of be incorrect bring another crucifix since the focus is supposed to be the Sacred Species. My guess is that the parish wanted to introduce the candles and the incense but because usually when the candle-bearers and thurifer move in procession, there is a crucifer at the head, the processional crucifix got dragged in as well.

[quote="EasterJoy, post:6, topic:181787"]
There is a time in the liturgy set aside for incensing the altar and adding candles, and if I am not mistaken, immediately after the Sanctus is NOT it. Likewise with times when the crucifix is to be in procession. The described changes are well-meant and even inspiring to some, I don't doubt, but a little bit odd.

Once you give priests permission to re-write the liturgy to suit themselves, we're buying ourselves a ticket back to the 1970s. Do we really want that? Which of us wants to tell Fr. X that while Fr. Y's innovations are reverent and beautiful, Fr. Xs are a well-meant distraction?

Call me a stick in the mud, but I think the Church has rubrics for a reason. Let the rubrics for each diocese be followed reverently, but without individualized additions or subtractions...even the ones I really happen to like, myself. Unless a liturgist can correct me, I think the described changes are a bad idea.

PS The OF has its rubrics, the EF has its rubrics. Again, as far as I know, there are no rubrics that allow an EF/OF hybrid. Choose one, and do that one according to Hoyle.

[/quote]

I definitely agree with you in principal but I don't think that this is the case in this parish. I have now been to both an OF and EF Mass at this parish and the distinction is very clear. I don't think that this priest intends on "re-writing" any of the liturgies of the Church. In fact, I think that this priest - more than most I've seen - is determined to celebrate the Mass exactly the way the Church says it should be celebrated. While I do not know what the deal with the crucifix was, I certainly don't think that this parish is going to the be the source of any liturgical problems for my diocese.

EasterJoy, I am curious though. :cool: Do you think that the "reform of the reform" or the "new liturgical movement" (or whatever name you give it) is a bad thing?

[quote="AJV, post:7, topic:181787"]
The incense is permitted (in order to incense at the elevations). Torches are a legitimate custom (I believe that there was a descision of the CDW on this point, though I dont have Notitiae in front of me). At the Papal Masses, for example, they have been doing them for decades, so it does have some legitimacy, at least as custom. however,

[/quote]

I would agree here.

There incense is an option at the elevation ( I presume this would include both the Major and Minor elevations).

So are the torches.

As far as the processional cross, there really should only be one visable cross in the sanctuary. If the altar boy is outside the sanctuary, then it would be within the rubrics.

FYI, at our parish, the altar boys at our OF Mass line the communion rail with torches during the Canon.

We have the large crucifix on the wall. We also have a standing crucifix on the altar so the priest can face the crucifix, too, This is something that Pope Benedict XVI does.

[quote="mwscott, post:8, topic:181787"]
EasterJoy, I am curious though. :cool: Do you think that the "reform of the reform" or the "new liturgical movement" (or whatever name you give it) is a bad thing?

[/quote]

I think that continuing catechesis about what is going on at Mass, and liturgical reforms that make this as clear and immediate as possible is a great thing. There are so many misconceptions and and so much ignorance about the Mass out there that a re-thinking of the status quo is overdue.

I just think that when priests re-write the rubrics, the results are as predictable as when couples start re-writing the marriage ceremony. For every good idea, there will be a legion of really awful ones. Even the good ideas cause some head-scratching where head-scratching is not wanted. That's why I believe in variations that stay within the rubrics and in making other changes within the channels, as slow as that process is.

This is a variation that would cause some serious head-scratching in our diocese. A pastor that wanted to implement something like it would do well to educate his parishioners about how and why the change is acceptable under the rubrics (assuming that no change should be made that is not within the rubrics) and what the change is and is not intended to do. A little bit of explanation can go a long way. Even if the pastor believed himself right about the permissibility and were wrong, it would speak well to his intention to be obedient if he were to explain his thinking in terms that fit the rubrics.

[quote="AJV, post:7, topic:181787"]
The incense is permitted (in order to incense at the elevations). Torches are a legitimate custom (I believe that there was a descision of the CDW on this point, though I dont have Notitiae in front of me). At the Papal Masses, for example, they have been doing them for decades, so it does have some legitimacy, at least as custom.

[/quote]

I never remember seeing anything like this, even at Papal Masses on TV...I mean bringing the incense and extra candles to the altar only after the Sanctus. As I remember, it was always earlier than that. Now, you see, I learn something new every day. Thank you. This forum has some people with a better formal background than I have, which is a great thing.

[quote="Brendan, post:9, topic:181787"]
I would agree here.

There incense is an option at the elevation ( I presume this would include both the Major and Minor elevations).

So are the torches.

[/quote]

The rubrics only speak about the elevations during the Institution.

As you may know, for the EF/TLM/Mass of John XXIII/(other name), the torches and incense were brought in only just before the elevation, and then taken out again, unless there was some reason they remain (like certain days, or if Communion was distributed from hosts consecrate din the same Mass, etc.)

Nowadays, it is customary for them to remain through the whole Eucharistic Prayer. This probably makes more sense, given the changed conditions, such as the Prayer prayed out loud.

However, since the elevations at the Concluding Doxology are somewhat similar to the elevations during the Institution, (and certainly more pronounced that in the EF/TLM/other), I think that in various localities the same gestures used during the Institution are repeated here - incense and/or bells. I suppose this would come under some sort of custom in each parish, except in those countries where they have been formally included by the episcopal conferences (as is the case in many parts of Asia).

I definitely agree. Sometimes I think that continuing catechesis is the solution to every problem in the Church.

[quote="ljubim, post:4, topic:181787"]
That is so true :)
And I wouldn't have expected this from Ohio... my expreriences there are churches without kneelers <> :(

[/quote]

I'm insulted. You need to get around more of Ohio. I have lived in various Ohio cities most my life and have seen only reverent OF Masses with holy priests, and yes, kneelers. In fact, in all my travels even, I have never seen a church without kneelers.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.