[quote=marcus29]This sounds like Cranmer’s rantings against the Canon
Cranmer ordered his entire service to be said "playnly and distinctly"
Rubric in the 1549 Communion Service
"If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church prescribing that a part of the Canon and the words of consecration be recited in a low tone of voice, should be condemned… **let him be anathema." **
Council of Trent XXII session
Condemn -To pronounce to be wrong; to disapprove of; to censure.
You should remember that a silent Eucharistic Prayer is not something exclusive to the TLM. In the Eastern liturgies, not only is the Eucharistic Prayer said inaudibly (except for the words of [size=3]institution[/size]) — so is the Preface.
The silent Canon, “betokens the Consecration and Sacrificial Act to be an exclusively priestly function.**
*The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass *(St. Louis, Mo., 1908), p. 582.”
“The priest enters the sanctuary of the canon alone. Up till now the people have thronged round him, their songs at times accompanying him in the fore-Mass. But the songs have become less frequent, and after the steep ascent of the Great Prayer they have come to an end in the Triple *Sanctus. A *sacred stillness reigns; silence is a worthy preparation for God’s approach. Like the High-priest of the Old Testament, who once a year was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies with the blood of a sacrificial animal (Hebr. 9:7), the priest now separates from the people and makes his way before the all-holy God in order to offer up the sacrifice to Him”
*The Mass of the Roman Rite *Jungmann (London, 1959), pp. 384-5.
My favorite quote from Dr. Gihr
“In every Host there are miracles, as numerous as stars in the firmament,— yet not the slightest trace of the wonders appears externally. With all this the ecclesiastical rite harmonizes perfectly. The holy silence is quite suited to indicate and to recall the concealment and depth, the incomprehensibleness and ineffableness of the wonderful mysteries that are enacted on the altar. Silent prayer is related to religious silence, and, therefore, expresses the humility, reverence, admiration, and awe wherewith the Church administers and adores the Mystery of the 'Altar.** “The Lord is in His holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before Him” (Hab. 2:20)**. The sight of the priest at the altar, communing amid profound stillness with God alone, is, therefore, also an excellent means afforded to arouse and promote in those who are present the proper dispositions, with which they should admire, adore, and offer along with the priest So grand and sublime a Sacrifice. Quam terribilis est haec hora!—thus does the deacon cry out to the people in the Syrian liturgy—“How terrible is this hour!” While the tremendous Sacrifice is being accomplished on the altar, all present should be immersed in silent contemplation and in devout meditation of the divine Mysteries.”
*The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass *(St. Louis, Mo., 1908), pp. 583-4.
I very much doubt that I’m anathematized, because the Church may govern how a sacrament is celebrated and may order it done a certain way (as long as the essential form, matter and intent are not changed). According to GIRM, it’s to be audible. So the Church must have allowed that particular anathema to lapse or maybe they lifted it outright, like Paul VI did for the Ecumenical Patriarch? Besides I didn’t say it shouldn’t be said in a low tone of voice, I said it shouldn’t be said silently.
If Cranmer did order his service to be audible, the fact that it was him that ordered it doesn’t detract from it’s desireability or lack thereof, from it’s rightness or lack thereof. Cranmer’s position is besides the point and to make audibleness out to be wrong because of Cranmer’s support of it is to commit an error of genesis, ie, an idea is wrong by virtue of the person who came up with it (TNT, I owe you an apology in that other thread, as I committed the same error).
Dr. Gihr writes quite lovely prose. It isn’t the discipline of the Church, however, so it’s are merely opinion and one is free to disagree with it. I cannot argue with it, as I cannot argue experientially with what others find deeply moving, but I do not. I want the Mass to remain in the vernacular, celebrated according to the rubrics set forth in GIRM.
Another thing I’ve learned about the TLM: the Scripture readings are done both in Latin and in the local language, yes?