Roma locuta est brings up a subject that hasn’t been addressed here. To what extent will the new Missal be more overt than the past Missal in its application of rubrics? Someone needs to do a complete examination.
12 Replies to “What about rubrics in the new Missal”
Comments are closed.
With the new and old rubrics, maybe someone could do a side by side (like they do here: http://usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-people.shtml). It would be a lot of work, but very useful.
But for rubrics that concern an optional activity that occurs outside of the liturgy (veiling), I would not get hopes up the more prominent placement in the Missal would translate into much change. There's not much to do with that rubric when Father shows up in the sacristy at 7:25am to celebrate 7:30 Mass.
Liam
For those that don't care about rubrics and tradtion NOTHING will ever change their habits (except comversion of heart) but for those thirsting to tap into the riches of the patrimony, it will be a reversal of the undoing, and recatechesis of the ignorant and the stubborn.
The new rubrics are already to be seen in the Latin Missal of 2002, where there is more about veiling the images.
William, Yes, this is indeed the case. The point I was making originally is that many of them are not in the English Sacramentaries currently in use (I hesitate to say "all" but I also have not yet found one that does). It seems that the newly translated Missal's will ALL (again, I hesitate to use the word, but it seems there is more control over the printing of these) contain the rubrics. Of course, the rubrics themselves are found in the GIRM, and an individual priest should be familiar with them, but there will potentially be more attention given to them when they are printed directly in the Missal (English) itself. Yes?
I haven't given much attention to how the rubrics are presented in the new missal, but if they continue to include those ubiquitous words "should" and "may" in place of "will" and "must", there will be little improvement.
What would be going on if the passage concerning the materials used for consecration said "bread made of wheat, and wine may be used" or the priest "should" speak the words of consecration?
Chironomo,
I agree about the ubiquitous language, but is this a criticism of the rubric itself or of the translation of the rubric? I haven't spent much time with the rubrics that are in the Latin Missal and how they are translated in the GIRM and the new translation of the Missal. But surely even the presence in the Missal (whereas not in the current Sacramentary) is an improvement, yes?
The 2010 edition of the GIRM is a new translation of the same that we received in 2002. I have only compared the 2010 English to the 2002 English, not to the Latin, but the differences are minimal: mostly capitalizations and rephrasings, with a few changes in terminology.
Chironomo, I didn't have "should" and "may" in mind when I was doing this, so all I can tell you is that all four terms you listed are used at various times throughout the GIRM.
It has surprised me that so many were not expecting a new translation of the General Instruction. But, as I said above, the changes are surprisingly minimal; I'm not even sure a side-by-side comparison would be worth the time it'd take to compile it.
Is the 2010 GIRM available online anywhere? I'm curious to see if there is any change to paragraph 299, on the position of the altar.
To my knowledge, it is not, but my copy retains the current phrasing: "which is desirable wherever possible" is appended to the clause about Mass being celebrated facing the people, rather than to the clause about one being able to walk around it easily.
This one confused me especially because of the great emphasis on sacral language and whatnote in the new Missal… I really expected to see it clarified.
It is my understanding, that 'should' and 'may' and other such words are examples of Romanitas. For example, the Code of Canon law does not employ the imperative mood at all, but uses the subjunctive. Apparently, it is somewhat impolite to command things; one must 'suggest' them, and let the reader understand that Rome's 'suggestions' are to be interpreted as diplomatically-phrased commands.
Nisi, Si, Dummodo, are all common canonical words. You can't do this nisi you can.
My year at CUA for my JCL it was a joke among us that the most common word in the Code was Nisi (unless). I named my cat Nisi in reference to this joke. So I would not be adverse to more directives, at least in the English texts of the GIRM, being direct.