Come back to some of the old forms. Entirely? The new way? It has been very helpful to do so, but... Yeah, you can begin. I have here the notes about mass, office and minor hours. Perhaps you can go through, not in the chronological order. We begin with the Mass. Here are notes of Fr. Ansgar and here is Fr. Gehry. Suggestions for celebration of Mass on Memorias and Filias. Filias. Opening chant. And then the first point. Sign of the cross by all in silence. Greeting, introduction, opening prayer. Collect. And here, Brother Ansgar makes just a few additions of the top of my hat, as they say. First, omit sign of cross, which we don't do here anyway.

[01:07]

What do you think? I was very much surprised that you don't use the sign of the cross. I can tell about that. When we were preparing the new Mass, we were strongly against this in the name of the Father and the Son of the Holy Ghost, because never the Roman Church, no church, was beginning the Mass with this Catholic greeting. In post-Tridentine greetings in the nomine Patris and Filii, as ever the Catholic president is doing. But the liturgy, never. The liturgy, the Roman liturgy, officially did not know this, in nomine Patris et Filii Spiritus Sancti. Only the private prayer of the priest in the medieval Roman mass had it. When the priest privately said this prayer on the steps of the altar. Therefore we are fighting against it.

[02:13]

But the Roman mass always, at least in the last century, knew officially in the beginning of the mass of the priest, at least in the intro, the nomen patris, no, dixi dominus, ex arvini dominata dominus, the intro, the priest was signing themselves. And the liturgy very often used the sign of the cross in silence. and it would be very nice to take it in the beginning. You are right. Again, in convention we did not use it. Only the priest, when he privately said to include it. Therefore, you could omit it. So was our opinion. And the bishops were divided. Some of the bishops came from this modern tradition where there is no Catholic prayer after the Council of Trent. the atmosphere of the Jesuits, where you did not begin with the nominal part of the treaty. We, in the monastery, never. We never used the nominal part of the treaty.

[03:18]

We never, never, never had it in the monasteries. You remember. And the bishops and the Pope himself knew it. Especially the Pope, when he was a young Monsignor in the beginning of the liturgical movement, he always began every Mass in nomine Patris et Filii, Spiritus Sancti. Therefore they wished to have it again. It's a sign of our Catholicity. We are fighting against this. It's not true. It's not a sign of Catholicity. Okay, so what is the situation in the beginning? must follow the last decision, the Pope or the bishops, I don't know where. Finally, the decision was, we are beginning the Mass with the nominal Patres et Filii, Spiritus Sancti, Amen. My question is now, can we renounce that totally? In Almeida, I think, in every Paris church, they are beginning so, and you don't do so. He's right. In the beginning of the Tokshio, you speak something about the, I haven't got a quotation.

[04:29]

Difference of, oh yes. How much moon did they have? Oh yes, your hand. But you are right, this is really true, but after the beginning sign, here, these certain bishops and the Pope were imposing themselves to the last decision, we must begin per se, you can discuss it, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and then you are free. You can continue to do what you like to do. But per se, the idea was to begin with this common sign. I don't like it very much. It's not bad. But it's too subtle. It's too modern. And for the moment, in a certain way, sometimes at least, but nevertheless, we realize we don't do it. Therefore, you can do it too. But the sign of the cross... I don't understand, Paulo, where you stand on this.

[05:41]

I don't understand your opinion, whether or not... Therefore, my opinion, per se, is against. But after that, the Universal Church solemnly introduced it as, let me see, as a scheme, general scheme for the entire celebration, in which you then can change some elements. But this scheme must be preserved. For the moment, I would believe it would be nicer to follow this indication of the Church, and I was a little bit happy to see it here, and if not, how can I do it? I would not have spoken about it if I would not have found it. It's very nice. Why not? And he says, sign of the cross by all in silence. It's very nice to do so. The Lord be with you. You can change, it's not necessary. But sometimes, why not? It's not prescribed. But important.

[06:42]

I think it's very important to be silent. We have so many introductions. Yes. Yeah, you are right. Okay. No, no, no, no. Afterglory is not the Lord be with you. Please, what, what? Marvin gave an injunction, which was not a false thing to come out of the room at all. Why should we have called there if there is no invitation? But that was a false bet on our end. I think you should really have a pause and be very self-paced with this sensation which you announced.

[07:44]

You're telling the people what to think about. Then you collect their thoughts. It was in the being of the prayer. Yeah. See, I think there was one or many, when you made the introduction, you didn't like, well, like to try to stay in the direction I did. Are you really? No, I don't. But nevertheless, Father, he invited, let us pray. That intention. And then you did not wait. You must give a little time of silence. Yes, that's true. You were continuing too quickly. But he was invited, let us pray that our God, the Father, and then peace or silence, and then you are collected. But that is already the prayer after the beginning. For the first introduction, we thought in this introduction you can speak about the Mass, you can speak about the readings, you can speak about the mystery of the day, and also about the sins.

[08:54]

But you must change. You cannot say every day, as in Rome we are doing sometimes, before we are celebrating the sacred mysteries, let us think to our sins. Period. You must change it. Here you have any liberty to do it. And the missal is insisting on this liberty. It is not the idea of the Roman missal to say every day, before we are celebrating the sacred mysteries, let us think to our sins, as the priests are doing it outside. But doesn't the penitential rite itself make you do that? To think about your sins? Yes. Then why? Then what should you do? Oh, yeah, you must say, you must say, you can say, Maria Brabant. Not so far ago, Maria Brabant, like that, I mean, we always say. No, for example, you can say, today we are celebrating, we are here together to celebrate the feast of St. Gregory the Great. Some words, and now let us prepare ourselves.

[09:55]

Let us implore the mercy of God. Let us realize that we are sinners. In some way, by the short, you must not do it because people knows it. But he says, sign of the cross by all in silence, greeting. You know, some form, so this come over all of us, in grace of our Lord, the fellowship of our Lord, the Holy Spirit, and love of Christ, be with you all. You are quite free. There's nothing. Introduction, yes, some words, sometimes also this formula. You are tired, you have no time, you wish to change, therefore you say only let us prepare ourselves. But then, you did not do it and you don't speak about it. Per se, it is provided after this silence in which we are thinking to our sins and imploding the Lord in grace, after having said a curio, or a Lord have mercy, per se, a mitariato vestri omnipotens Deus.

[11:04]

You deliver. But in a certain way you are right, the curiae in a certain way is the same. Therefore also here you can change. But sometimes I would say, not always, the curiae in a certain way can be regarded as a penitential right. Also, originally it was not. And then the opening prayer. Here, where Ansgar says, Introduction and greeting seems the same to me. If there is no feast to explain, nor a penitential rite, why an introduction? I don't know. Therefore, he seems to suppose sometimes there is no penitential rite, there is no feast to explain. After the greeting, immediately they display. No, that would not be the intention of the new missile.

[12:08]

All these things are innocent, because so long as you don't sit down for a cup of coffee, and for, as Dombod said, for a dichotomy eucharistic, for a eucharistic breakfast, you can do these little things. but you cannot change the essence of the rite. Therefore, here there is a great elasticity, but nevertheless, the sign of the cross, and silence, and greeting, some kind in which you are mixing, [...] introduction and penitential rite must be, even before you say, let us pray. And then you could give the intention, and then silence, and then the collect prayer, but in another hand it is not necessary always to give the intention, because you know it, only the preachers are not able to do it.

[13:12]

They must receive this invitation, let us pray that the Lord, our God, help us, and so on. Now, there are, I don't use the rule, but there are, there's let us pray and then in the missal itself it says for, something for the love of God. In your missal it said so? Well, at least the one that we're using has that paper back. In the Roman missal there is nothing. Orimus. silence. But to use, to realize, to make it fruitful this silence, a short indication is not bad. It's very good. A breeze is provided, but it's not necessary. Also here, sometimes I would do it, also to change. Not always the same, according to the situation. Then Ansgar is continuing, opening chant not needed, especially as it means thrashing out the same few old antiphons every day.

[14:19]

I am not of this opinion. If you use the antiphon or singing according to the mission, you have every day another antiphon. For example, in Rome, We are doing so, and it is provided in the rubrics. You can choose, if you take the missile, for every day, the antiphon of one of the 33 Sundays during the year. Therefore, you have the most wonderful variety in Latin. If you are singing in English, the situation is a little bit more difficult. But so far as I know, you have so many canticles in English. Or not? Not so many? They are not good? Nevertheless, you have at least, let me see, seven good, or fourteen, or twenty good canticles.

[15:27]

You can change very often. You must not say every day the same. So for a joyful candle in the beginning is always good. And you could use this Latin antiphon or this English antiphon from the Homer missile for the introduction. To give this, for example, it should be mysterious to me that we have received your mercy in the temple of God today. Or a tutorial most of you know many, many. Or all these wonderful intuits to give this idea as a motif for this celebration. But I would not agree with him. Then he makes other indication. The priest should not kiss the altar, but go to their seats. Why? He's not here, but... And we are doing the same in my monastery.

[16:30]

We never kiss the altar. The first kiss to the altar is given as he is insisting for the offertory. But I am not agreeing with that. Per se, the Roman Missal is providing that we are in the beginning of our celebration around the altar, our kissing the altar. And if it is possible, and here it is very easy to do it, I don't see any reason to do that. It's not bad. It's not too sullen. You can do it very easily. You come in. What do you think? Why would he be against it now? Why? Why would he be against it? I don't know. I don't know. Only for the... I think for the main settlement, yes. Somebody says it. and then uh... there it is. I would do a lot more kissing again.

[17:33]

No, no, no, no more kissing again. I shouldn't, but I shouldn't. I just do kisses. Formerly we did so many kisses, but the intention was to drop them. Therefore, one in the beginning is enough, and perhaps one in the end. One in the beginning, yes, to greet the other, and then taking I'm going away. Then there is still, we can go on here with him, with Father Gregory. Readings and responsorial songs, et cetera. Short homily, ad libitum of the first celebrant, but ad libitum, therefore it's not necessary, but it should be encouraged. And he commented, no daily homily. It is too much and often used as outlet for something or other. Here is a name, can I read it?

[18:34]

Number four or five. Who was he? Emanuel? Yeah, I remember him, yes. By this reason, we dropped every introduction and every homily in Maria Laage. Because we are fearing these people who are speaking indiscreetly. Too long. Nevertheless, I think this feeling in my monastery is exaggerated. I would be, again, of the opinion of here, if the priest is speaking, able to speak very shortly, you could encourage him without making it obligatory. Shortly, sometimes only a minute, two, three minutes, but during the week no more.

[19:39]

I'm not against that. But nevertheless, in a monastery, sometimes it is heavy. if you are if you're disabuse peacefully to moralize to insist against uh... things in the community in this awful some possible insisting that the idea of celebration we are doing it today it's helpful it's helpful yeah if the community is discreet enough is able to do it why not do it The intention of the reform was to introduce homily in every Eucharistic celebration. And so was also the custom in the beginning of the liturgical movement.

[20:43]

We never had a dialogue mass without homily. What we did in the small chapel of our crypt in Maria Laage and so on, you are a small community in a very intimate group, why not a short walk? And I did the same in my parish church during the war. In every occasion, in the last weeks when we were in danger, we could not... We could use only the crepusculum. What's that? In the morning and the evening for mass. When the British Air Force and the American Air Force were changing. Yeah, and we could celebrate. Only this time when the Air Forces were changing. During the day, during the night, it was too dangerous. Very quickly. But in the celebration of Habanero, one minute of harmony, it was marvellous. Brave you can die, nevertheless. I shall never forget that. Also the people.

[21:43]

And so also here, a short harmony. For example, gratitude in this. Our glory, our help and so on. Geo, you must have the liberty of God and I think American people has this liberty. You are doing what you like to do also if you are quite alone. In our community you would not be able, but you can do that. I wish, I don't wish to speak today, then I don't speak. I wish to speak and I speak. At least I have the impression that you are doing so. Therefore, use your American liberty. You are right, you are repeating. For example, when I, in this situation, certain situation, had only one minute to my disposition, I repeated one word of the Gospel with great insistence.

[22:47]

I can tell the truth. In certain days, Hitler forbid to celebrate the feast day. We could not do it. Corpus Domini during the week. We must work. Therefore it was not allowed to celebrate High Mass at ten o'clock. We must say High Mass at night at eight o'clock. The Pope was allowing that. It was too late. We had no time to make a great sermon. But it was a solemn Mass. Corpus Domini, Ascension, Immaculate Conception and so on. we were singing, the entire people were singing, two hundred, three hundred people in the church, children, adults and all, men and women. And then I take the gospel, I read it, first in Latin, then in German, or to gain time, only in German, and at the end, my dear brothers and sisters, one word, we take it with us.

[23:57]

There was a perfect silence, and the people realized this word of the gospel now, repeated in a free way, in a free kind, strongly. It was enough. We were happy. And so here too, a different situation. You cannot insist on a normal day too solemnly, but nevertheless, take this, from all these words, beati, I must say I have already forgotten the antithesis of St. Luke. If you say, Beate Popper is in spirit or Beate Popper is, I don't know. Popper's only, yes. Beate Popper, blessed two. And from all these four Beatitudes you are repeating one, insisting, some commentary. It's a repeating, but it's a repeating Karl Barth when he was in Maria Laage in 31. Father Damasus invited him, and we both, Damasus and I, we got together with Karl Barth and his students.

[25:04]

They made a seminary about the Roman Missal, the theology of the Roman Missal. They came to Maria Lark to see it, really. Then we were sitting down in the afternoon in the garden, discussing it, and Karl Barth said, you don't announce the Gospel. We said, well, we don't announce it. Suddenly, did you not see how we are incensing it and the candles and the singing? Yes, you did, you did. But you did not announce it in a living way. There was no homily. It's right. I shall never forget that. You must not only read and suddenly announce it, but you must also announce it in this newer way. Nearly every day, repeating some words in the situation of this day. Therefore, it is not easy, I might say, I feel. And it may also for a monastic community where the greater number are not priests, a little bit difficult that every day only the four priests are speaking.

[26:12]

But here is, in a certain way, the ministry of the priest. Here's some damage to it. Oh, yes. OK, therefore, if it is so, then I would say, again, these proverbs are invited by the superior, by the priest, to do it. OK, and then there is no, therefore, this point can be excluded, yes. But there is liberty. Yeah, well, a couple of, a year ago, actually, we had two priests here. But you could not hinder it? See, you must do it. It is typically for a priest. He must always speak too long. No, no, no, no, no. And indeed that is a result of the social bedwars.

[27:22]

Ah yes, ah yes, it's not right, it's not right. Therefore the priest who is speaking here must in a certain way speak within the mentality of this community. Not social work only, but the reality of Christ and his mystery and all social obligations are only the consequence. And you must give critique of it. Nevertheless, I know from my own community, we are preaching only on Sundays, and some of the younger said terrible things. We are sitting, you know. But then afterwards, the abbot or the prioress, they say, you cannot speak so. I hope at least that it is. or also corrects your paternal how could you fail so?

[28:22]

then again Ansgar is speaking very well silence is better than homily there could be silence and response after the first reading and silence and prayers of the faithful after the second this is a good suggestion but i think silence after if you have time after a reading is good Silence after the homily is also good, as we are doing it in Rome. Occasion. Occasion, not always, yes. In Rome, the cardinal, vicar, or vicar, suggested it for the entire diocese. We did it in St. Anselmo. It's marvelous. After the homily, sometimes 12 minutes, nevertheless, at least two, three minutes of silence. And everyone is enjoying it, in the five people in the church and the community, so far as I saw. I think he took it from Rome. Oh, you did it already here. And then he says again, priests should stay at the lecterns during Mass.

[29:35]

It is too much with them crowding around the altar. Our own priests should always concelebrate in stalls over the habit. Therefore, At Electos, during mass, it would be quite possible. Perhaps you know it, in Maria Lark, we never, three years ago, go to the altar. We are remaining in our white albs in the choir. If you know the situation there, the choir is very distant from the altar. Formerly we went after the offertory around the altar. It's too solid. It's a big procession around the altar. We remained in our stalls and only for communion we go to the altar. Why the Arabs? Ah, yes, because it is formally prescribed. You know the history. We were beginning, in Maria Laag, after a short period of this too clericalistic, too solemn kind, to use every vestment, all the vestments which were accessible, we were beginning to celebrate in cowl with stole.

[30:37]

It was marvelous. And after so many in our community were protesting against this clericalization, which was introduced by the concelebration. Also the faithful were not satisfied with the concelebration, it was not necessary, and they were again excluded from the solemn celebration. The provost remained in the choir, the entire priestly community was around the altar in Chazabel, changed it, in cults, and finally in cults in the choir. It was marvelous. The bishops came and saw it, admiring it. Some apostolic nuncius came from South America, admiring it. Our own nuncius, I don't believe that he came. He was not satisfied. He is a very, very close man. and uh... but he did and uh... so far we all were happy and then this good apostolic nuncio of south america wrote to rome to the congregation please give also to me this permission who have given to the monks of maria lark and then the cardinal came to abbot primat what are you doing in maria lark?

[31:51]

primat told it to me Then after a month, somebody, a noble cardinal, spoke to the procurator general of our congregation, Fr. Engelbert of St. Ottilien. The monk said, oh my God, I know terrible things, and he came to me. and I wrote it to Maria Lange. After half a year, our Father Albert received a formal letter from Archbishop Antonelli, the Franciscan, who was secretary of the congregation. We received from a very good source that you are doing so. With which right you are doing so? Can you tell us? then we handshot and I came to him, I knew him very well. Excellency, you must allow it. We need it for the unity of our community. And I brought him photographs and so on. He was very kind. We shall think about it. For an entire year, they were discussing. And in 1967, they published the second instruction.

[32:55]

In this, formally, they have established you must use, for the concelebration, all the vestments. Only in certain occasions it is allowed to use alms and stoles. Therefore, the situation is so. They have formalities so to help us. Alms and stoles are allowed. and they did not condemn the upper form but positively you must use the Westminster therefore to do it so would be formally disobedience against the Roman decision and if you don't celebrate the eucharistic breakfast then perhaps you can do it and many are doing it trio Still, but they are not so exposed as we in Maria Lake. And you are not... No, you are also exposed.

[34:05]

It's not good. It's not... And also, we did it with cowl. You immediately go farther and you are doing it without cowl. And underneath it said to me, we must forbid it because if we allow it to the Benedictines, we must allow it to the Franciscans, who are bearing the vestments of the Mendicants, how do you say? It's not a clerical vestment to the Dominicans. And finally to the cannons, with their terrible instruments they have in the European choirs. is impossible. And also, Kaul. We, Maria Laack, made these ideas as priestly vestments by certain privilege, communication of privilege with Monte Cassino. And the other people said, you always have said that Kaul is specifically a monastic habit of the Holy Spirit, and you give it now to the brothers. How can you tell it? And Abbot Marsili, who is really a very progressive man, said, you made it in a false way.

[35:08]

You are right with your difficulties. All the concelebration is too clericalistic. But you must fight against this kind of clericalistic concelebration. But if you are concelebrating, you must use priestly vestments. Therefore, you are preparing the horse from the back instead of the head. Therefore, I think it is impossible to... There are exceptions, yes, for the canto and so on, but for one or another, and also me, Maria Larsen, we have a burial, and all the entire community is running against cowards, because we think it's impossible to go out to a cemetery, or in Alps, if it's raining and so on. So there are exceptions, but normally you must take at least alch and stone. It's not difficult. The difficulty is not the vestment, the difficulty is the existence of priests. You don't need priests for the celebration.

[36:10]

One you want. Buy five. The difficulty of our monastic communities. but the church does not wish that we are receiving Holy Communion more like in the lay... therefore, you need for priestly celebration a priestly vestment and according to our actual tradition you need not only stole but something more or a special out a concelebration out, more or less a call But not the call of the monks, the call of the priests. Things are perhaps going on, but for the moment it would not be good. What do you think? In the Middle Age, they did not use concelebration.

[37:13]

They did not have concelebration. Concelebration dropped out, perhaps, with the growing of the number of the priests. Or they received only Holy Communion. It's difficult to say. If they're consolidated in the Middle Age, the far as we know, they'd use priestly vestments, it's quite evident. But in the beginning, when Saint Ignatius of Antiochia in the second century is insisting, bishop and priest and deacon, and then in the Daskalia Geriaca of the third century, they are speaking about the order in the church, bishop, priest, deacon, men, women. For this Eucharistic celebration, in every case, priests were distinguished from the faithful, but they didn't use vestments. Vestments, we don't know it, when for the first time they were using liturgical vestments, not used in the streets.

[38:23]

Fortunately not. 50 perhaps? There's a slow evolution when you were using for Eucharistic celebration as priest Solem. vestments, civil vestments, toga, I don't know. And this time, meanwhile, the mode, how do we say, the mode was changing in the streets. These solemn civil vestments of the 5th century were retained for the liturgical celebration. And this was with time institutionalized so that we, after a thousand years, have the custom to use specific vestments for the Eucharist celebration. You can fight against it, yes, I am agreeing. This is, our Lord did not do so, the apostles did not do so, St. Ignatius did not do so, but you cannot introduce it immediately without going against its universal cost. In Rome, they have no power for the moment because you do what you like to do. No bishop has the power to change it, but it's not right.

[39:27]

And with time, I think this power comes back. For the moment in Rome they are in silence, they don't insist, because it's not possible. Nevertheless, Bonghini told me, after all these things were in 1967 finished, he said to me, how could you do it, Maria Larda? Such a good monastery, such a famous monastery, you made us so many difficulties. I can tell you, if you do it again, you are forever salta fuori della sua sede abbatiale. Salta fuori. He springs up from his throne. He will be deposed. He salta fuori. It was a very humorous expression. But nevertheless, at least in 67 he said, if you do it again, your father Abbot will be deposed. Today they have no more the probability to do it. Nevertheless, nevertheless, they have still power.

[40:29]

But that's not a question of power, it's a question of, can you do it really? Normally not. Normally not. It's not the informality in the sense of casualness, but it really is in the sense of not having symbols which are not But here, is it not signifying, if you are acting as priest, why do you not kneel in the Westminster? And you are using at least a stone. But again, perhaps your answer is very good. Are you doing so officially with the bishops in the United States? If all the bishops are doing so, if the bishops are agreeing, I would not have any difficulty that you here in the States are doing so in Europe. It's not yet possible.

[41:32]

They don't appreciate our situation. I mean the same as with Locke. If you take the most out of the choir, you know, you're really tearing apart. You can remain in your choir. It's not necessary to go around the altar. No? I'm agreeing, quite. There is no prescription to do it. But staying in the choir, priests have their specific signs. In every case, you are using the stool. In a certain moment, there is a certain danger. I remember when we were discussing in 1966 these questions, our brother sometimes, After 1967 we are insisting no distinction between priests and brothers in the Eucharistic celebration. We must in the choir stay according to our profession. The tendency is to abolish the priesthood of the ministry. There is only one priest, our Lord, and we are all participating as ministers in different steps.

[42:44]

But there is no priestly people of God if there is no also this ministry of the ordained priest. And this danger is very high, very great. I think to get ahead, I think you can move ahead of one of those, that tendency, strangely enough, not by holding back on assisting investments, but you know, but by moving forward and thinking of the priest and picking the door without special sign. And theologically, it could be quite possible, but we cannot go so... I think, at least that is my personal opinion, we cannot go against universal custom. And in the moment, it is also dangerous because we need science to express realities which are really existing.

[43:47]

Our priestly function in the celebration is a reality. We are participating in this presence of the sacrifice of Christ in a special way, also as Presbyterium, as the entire group of priests, helping the people of God that it can celebrate also in a priestly way this Mass. But without this Presbyterium we cannot do it. Therefore, this reality must be expressed in a sign, without a sign that is not corresponding to our human nature, that is not corresponding to our tradition. Therefore, we need an expression, and you all are agreeing, at least to Stoll, there is a sign. The question is only if the sign is enough. You can say so, it is enough. But for the moment, it is not enough, because the Church does not allow it. You can wish that the Church allows it, as in so many cases. You should use sometimes only your monastic habit and stone.

[44:57]

We did for a while just a towel and stone and we kind of... Here again, we could say to the Roman congregation when we were discussing this question, we never are using our monastic habit only. We are using only and always our call. Therefore, a real... liturgical? a clerical vestment?" And we said, yes. But it's not true. The call is not clerical, not hierarchical. There's no way. In a certain way, you are right. There is your call. Then Moulini and all these people said, oh yes, we are agreeing. You don't use civil vestments because many priests are celebrating in civil. Oh yes. what the uh... there seems for us what's the whole solemn procession coming up the stairs having us every day at mass here again you don't need you don't need the procession also here somebody is discussing it i think father gregory we didn't have the procession it would seem to be a better thing to do than not to wear it out not to?

[46:14]

because the priest would stand and have just as much of more interspersed, and they were all dressed in white. I mean, if that's the point, it would seem to be the best thing to do, and that's what they did when they called me out. I did not understand what you said. Therefore, you would like not to have possession, and the priest staying in the choir? I would say the best thing to do would be to celebrate investments and the rest of Greece with the community. But if they're going to be with the community dressed in gowns, I think it's a little ridiculous. For the Eucharist celebration, you must make a distinction. That is, at least, you can say from the second century on, quite evident. And also, I must say, I cannot imagine that St. Paul's. That was, I think, one of the greater problems, too, was the problems concerning the consulaments.

[47:22]

There were suggestions there that Father addressed himself to. One was that the sullivans should stay in the wire, that wire was stolen. But I've said that that was not to be desired. Not to be desired? Not to be desired. Who did say it? You did. No. Is that the sullivans just... Without any help. Without any help. Ah, no, no, no. This, for me, is impossible. Yes, that's what I said. You say it's not to be desired. I thought you would have spoken about to remain in their places. not go around the altar. That is quite possible. I don't say it must be, but that is quite allowed. Why not? There is no prescription about the distance from the altar. You are free to do it as you like to do it. But for this other point, there is a clear... Again, here from Bognini and so on, there is no difficulty. You must use Alps and at least Alps and Stol.

[48:27]

But it just seemed to me that that question stemmed from the fact that there was some kind of uncomfortable feeling with the celibates, all different kinds of celibates, all gathering around the altar and going out together like that, kind of blocks out everything from the community. And I was just, like Burkhardt, as he just said now, felt that, There was no need for that. And that the concelebrants could remain in their places. for the entire nuclear system. So I would say so. There is no necessity to go around the altar. You are free. You must choose. I, for my person, I would say both are quite possible. Also to go around the altar, I have no difficulty to admit that.

[49:29]

But you could change. Someday go around the altar. And during the week not, because you desired a greater simplicity and a greater variety, therefore it would be possible. From the standpoint of the rubrics or Roman authority, there is no difficulty to do it, but you must choose. I think we should distinguish also where we dream you could stand in providing these options for ourselves. As for instance, we haven't done it for a long time, when we haven't, the Zugrist, the crypt chapel, they were in a different kind of setting, and I think we could do something like this more readily there. Not that there's any necessity either way, but I think it's, when we do Zugrist downstairs, it is more informal there. And though usually the priests gather together at the canyon, still they perhaps wouldn't have to in that case.

[50:35]

When you say mass in the crypt, you don't go around the altar? No. Everyone does that. The entire community is there. But the priests are in a special place in the first place. Circle. Yes, circle. But nevertheless, if you celebrate mass in the upper church, and remain in your places, I would not call that informal. It is quite formal to stay there. For the V in Maria Lark, we do it always so, also in the highest feasts. We remain in the choir, we don't change. But I would not say that it is absolutely the highest ideal. You can insist for priests during the canon, it's more convenient for them to stay around the altar. But you are not obliged to do it. Only if you, if the community really wishes a greater simplicity during the week, if you wish it.

[51:42]

Also here I would say it is not necessary to have the simplicity because it is already simple, very simple, but nicely simple. But if you wish a greater simplicity and variety, you could do so. Just a question on that then, Father. If it were decided that on the weekday Mass, that the concelebrants would stay in their places, how would you suggest, or there seemed to be something you said about receiving Holy Communion, how would you suggest that the celebrants receive Holy Communion if they're staying in their places? I would say not in the place, not let go around the pattern with the horse through these places, but then you could come to the altar. For example, so as you are doing it for the moment, there is no necessity to do that around the altar, that you stay all together.

[52:52]

Ex Angus Dei, look there, the Lamb of God, but you could go after that the priest has said it, Ex Angus Dei, although I'm not worthy, you go to the altar from both the sides, take the hosts, drink the chalice as we are doing in Maria Nagy II. But I would not like to... I would not like, but it would be possible to do it as we are doing it in St. Anselmo in Rome, here, Before, after breaking, the oldest, the primate and the pariah, go around from priest to priest and give the bread. So they go back, and then the priest says, Ex Anglos Dei, and look at the Lamb of God. There are so many possibilities, but I would insist, if you remain in your places, find one of the simpler ways, not as you are doing it today, all solemnly around the altar, You can come to the altar, or you bring the bread down.

[54:02]

I would prefer the first way. You come to the altar, you take it yourself. Here, in a certain way, the dignity of the priestly concelebrants is manifested. You go to the altar, you have the right to take it yourself, the bread and the chalice, one after another. And then the priest goes to the altar, and faithful and give them in the name of the Lord the bread and the blood. And also I would suggest in this case not to extend the hands during the Congress of Necessity. You can do it. We are doing it in Rome. So we also are remaining, you remember, we are remaining in our places in the circle very far from, no, we go near to the order, but nevertheless in the room the circle is very large. Also in a certain distance we are making so in large we don't do it. No, no, no.

[55:03]

Not during the... No, we don't do it. In Lafayette, we are too far. Here, you are not so far. You could do it. It's quite according to your free will. Also, according to the rubrics, because they said, if it seems convenient, you are extended the hands. Why, Father, do they cheat? At the beginning you said also I would not extend but the hands, which is not necessary. Would you elaborate a little bit on that? You would suggest that we did not. No, no, no. My feeling is, in a certain way, I like this extension. I don't understand the reasons not to do it in the first beginning, given by old people who were not accustomed to it. Somebody said it is ridiculous.

[56:04]

It is remembering Hitler. For my feeling, because we are celebrating, to express it in a symbolic way is very convenient. The only reason, because I am hesitating to recommend it, is if you are too distant, it seems to be strange. And in Maria Lark we say, We are insisting on this other point. This terrible big group of consultants is not necessary. One is enough. Therefore, let us restrict, let us limit all our expressions so far as possible that only one is acting, and all the other people are actively participating, but in a very discreet way. You can't say so. There are different points of view. It is difficult to say. For me, my feeling is so, you must do it.

[57:07]

Also, I am quite agreeing, oh, I am insisting, according to the rubrics, that you don't pronounce too loud the words, but you must speak for the moment. the theology in which you say it is enough to stay there as priest and you are offering the Mass, you are applying it, you are concelebrating according to Koran and to also the younger current in the actual Eucharistic theology this is not allowed for the moment because the Pope explicitly said if you wish to say Mass you must express, you must say this was but no, the Rubiks say so that words of the first celebrants are heard, as you are doing it here. Sometimes the good Father Placid is speaking too aloud, according to the old practice. I find when the consultants are all together, first of all they come together to the sanctuary.

[58:18]

That depletes the choir quite a bit. You are right. So they don't participate in the intro. And then, later on, they seem to withdraw from the singing by the fact that they're apart. Ah, you must not withdraw. Here, when a priest is celebrating, he feels that that's its function, and not for singing or something. That is false, it's false, it's false, it's false. But you are right, also in Rome there is a certain group of priests who, not abstaining the insistence of the prayer, of the cantos, every conservant must take his gradovale. They never are doing it. With this feeling, we are only Please, it's not true! And in Maria Laage, every consultant has his book.

[59:20]

We are singing. And we did not go to the altar precisely for this reason, because it's difficult to change the melody of Sanctus. If we go to the altar, we cannot take our books. It's very difficult to do it, therefore we are remaining in our place to sing. There is a reason to do it always, also on Sundays. But here I would say, at least during the week, to avoid this great solemnity of the Intuit, the entire community, black and white, comes to the choir, stays together. and are waiting for only one priest and acolyte, without cross. It would be very nice during the week. It's not necessary. Also, as you are doing it today, it is very well made, only you are right, you are too few. It's very strange. Four men or eight men stay in the choir, or ten are in the choir, and five or six come from Copta.

[60:24]

Talking with Father Gregory three days ago, he made a very good proposition. You remember we have said our first intention was to begin with the Word of God and not to wait so long. In the name of the Father, introduction, potentialite, courier, And finally, we did not do so because our tradition introduced this first part, which has a special right alone. Nevertheless, to avoid this strange impression, he said, come, the priest, or the procession, and remain in the entrance on another side. And staying in this place, you make the first part.

[61:29]

The Lord will give you an introduction, benediction of the light, Gideon. And then, I don't remember, during the glory or after the glory, you go to the places. And here you are beginning, after having made this first part in the entrance, you are beginning the liturgy of the Word itself. And you have really two different parts. It's a good idea. More or less, as they are doing it, but too powerfully, in St. Meinrad. Because they come in, the entire community, stay around the altar, which is in the middle of the long nave, for the first part, then they go upstairs to the choir, to the lady of the road, and they go downstairs for the Eucharistic prayer, and through thanksgiving events they go back. It's dangerous. You cannot, you have no, you don't do it.

[62:32]

But nevertheless, a little bit of change would be very nice. But that would be a great thing for the moment, for the simplicity. Perhaps it would be better not to do so, but to drop out the procession of the entrance and for all... I would suggest that if you can picture in your mind the sanctuary is now where the celebrant sits in the aquiline. Then there's usually maybe two or three con-celebrants on either side. Then there seems always to be empty spaces. Ah! You are right. You don't do it? No? You are right. For example, in Maria Lack, there is no difference after the...

[63:33]

After the last consolament, immediately the oldest lay monk. There is no reason. We must insist in the fact that in the Eucharistic celebration, the priest must stay on their own place. But immediately other people is following without any separation. I don't remember. If you are doing so that there is a space, no, no, take it away. Yeah, I think it's because people want, you know, just... What people? Independent. Who? The monks people? Yeah, you have one there, one on this bench. Oh, no, no, here you must stay against this individualism. One there, two there, one there, three here. So, yes, you don't join? No. But the office will do. That's what I would like, because I feel the singing is weak because of that. You know, people are all there. No, I did not remember that. Therefore, I would insist you come together.

[64:37]

If you can do it during the office, you can do it also. I think it would help the city. Well, that's my main point. You must be united. It was our feeling among ourselves also. The brothers, the lay monks, wished to be united with the priests. And we were ready to do it. Nevertheless, we were against this first proposition of some brothers to mixed, as we did it yesterday. That is not right. It may be strange proudness of priests, clericalism, clerophasism and so on, but it's not, no, no, no. We are acting as priests or called to serve to the people of God, that it may be a hierarchical organized people, the unity of the body of Christ, where are different charism and different gifts, and it is our gift to serve, to minister.

[65:42]

Therefore, in the first place, but then no separation altogether. Yeah, I didn't see that as a separation, it's just independence. Yeah, I don't think we do it deliberately. No, no. When the priest leaves, I can say that Brother James leaves his place, there's a hall, there's a bathroom. When does he leave? When does he leave? If he celebrates, you see. Oh, he celebrates if he stole only. Yeah, no, I mean, well, don't take in that. When the priest leaves the choir, say, five minutes... After Lourdes. And you remain in your places. You don't change. But you go out for air. No, no, no. Here, you must take a new place, evidently. Like Anderson, yes. Okay. For example, the situation is different on Sundays, where you are coming not after an office, but you come for the mass.

[66:46]

And you must do the same also during the week. Stay together, yes. But perhaps, it may be that there is a big distance to the faithful, but the faithful come in second place. The community must stay first together. And if the faithful, your guests, are disappointed, invite them to come near, not in the choir, I would not do so, but at least very near with their own chairs. Sometimes we have, for instance, on Sunday, there may be so many people that we can't have people. Okay, yes, you are right. Oh, fine, good so. Also we, in large, we have no more any difficulty to admit at least guests who are very, very often in the monastery in the choir.

[67:51]

It's quite possible. There is no reason to make a too big separation. On this I must embarrass myself in a very convenient way, but you don't feel so as we are feeling. We are scandalized if somebody is sitting where all are staying, but you're not. Like, for simplicity, myself I like the idea of just having, let's say, the priest coming just from the Upper Sarcosty with the Acolyte. Also, yes, you are right. Without Acolyte? Yeah, with the Acolyte. Okay, yes, you are right. Perhaps you are right. Yes, yes, yes, I forgot it. Therefore, not coming from the Crypta, from your Upper Sarcosty. Yes. And the priests, couldn't they be without the stall for the beginning of the mass? Without the stall? Could they be just with you all? Why? At the beginning of the mass? Why? And then? And then for this? You know what? Here. No, it's not allowed. Here I must insist, you cannot do that.

[68:51]

From the operatory on? Oh, no, no, no, no. Why, why, why? And we were explicitly against any investing during the office. You remember this very famous moment when in the beginning of the Vatican Council this famous Father Massili was speaking to the journalists and he said we changed now some rights and we wished to avoid forever, in the pontifical masses, the night, from the nightclubs, what is it? Striptease. Striptease, yes, liturgical striptease. And then these journalists, these awful, hypocritical people were protesting against the world. How can you speak so?

[69:52]

In the liturgy, there is no striptease. Because striptease is another thing, you know. And he was then, he's quite right, he was quite right, but these people make such a terrible noise that he had a big difficulty with the Pope. The Pope finally was, somebody, not the Pope, the courier, somebody wished that he must be removed from his office and only the abbot could, sometimes very good, said, no, he remains. because he understood. And I remember in Maria Laak there was this scenery. How do you say? After the mess. And our garden wife, with his little son was there, and for five years, mother, mother, they take all, they make him nude, they take all away. Oh, these are used before in the mass.

[70:57]

Oh, awful, awful. And I remember in Rome still, we never did it in Maria Lark. During the tells, somebody came to put his shoes on his foot. Oh, Seppo, that is finished. And Seppo, you cannot do that. I didn't want to ask that. No, no, no, no. You must begin with each other. No, I mean, not that, no, the chasm, no, I mean for the consulatant, you know, that normally they wear the... Ah, so, excuse me, therefore, yes, yes, you are right, we in Maria Lack, we doing, we come with stole on our arms and we put the stoles over the albs at the offertory, yes, excuse me, and then all of us are said was... Yeah, that's, this, because it seems, I don't know if it's our mentality, when you see a priest with a stole, oh, There's something special, you know.

[71:59]

Ah, yes, there is something special. But nevertheless, you are right here. There is something like that, you know. Per se, I must say again, in the rubrics, if you are insisting in the letter of the rubrics, it's not right. Because they said formally, you must use for the con celebration, the entire con celebration, at least Alps and Stol. So for this little paper of Bongini, it's not right. Here. He forgot it. In number 161 explicitly he said you can do that in the new institution of the missile. Sometimes the good Homer is sleeping. The good Homer, this famous word. For a good reason, as when there are more concelebrants than vestments, but there are other reasons too, this is only an example, the concelebrants may omit the chasuble, but reveal the stole of the alb.

[73:00]

Explicitly. Therefore he did not speak about that. Insisting the chasuble. Nevertheless, here are some exceptions. When we are doing it, it is, per se, not a reason to follow one, but I believe you can do that. To insist here is the first we are all hearing only. Only one is praying, the first servant. And then, with the beginning of the Eucharistic prayer, all the priestly group is beginning to act as priests. Therefore, you need the stones, it's very good. You can do so, also on Sundays. Therefore, if you wish to retain the solemnity of the procession, you can come, all the priests, but we don't do so in Maria Laage. In Maria Laage, in every day, also in the highest feasts, the entire community, white and black, enters, the priest with the stone on the arm and the books.

[74:09]

Going in? Yes, we are. And then in the moment when the acolytes, two acolytes, and the priest and his assistant celebrant enter the church, we are beginning to enter it. And in Big Feast, when Father Albert comes, he comes from the beginning of the church in the solemn procession with cross and so on. We use the cross only on pontifical feasts. That you are using the cross is an innovation. It's not custom to do it. Formerly it was not custom to do it in every high mass. But here you are. There is no prescription. You can do what you like to do. At this point. And you did it, I think so, because it's very nice to begin with the cross. I remember that Father Damasus, in Maria Lark, he could not sing, therefore he never could be deacon and so on in the Pontifical Mass, but he liked it very much to be subdeacon and to bear the cross.

[75:19]

Also as father, always. He and the old Father Ignatz, who could not hear, they were subjugated only for the cross in Tunisia. And then they went back to the sacristy and put away the Tunisians and came in black again to the choir. But to build the cross, to conduct, to guide the people of God, there was Exodus on the wall to the altar. I think therefore he was introducing it here too, to have it always. I think that would be one way of, you know, making some of the feast days more solemn than, say, the burial days, if, you know, we had used the cross. Only on feast day, not every Sunday. You could say so, yes. For them, you could say so. but you must know it. You are introducing this very simple form from the Upper Sacristy during the week.

[76:28]

On the Sunday the priests come from the crypt without cross and on high days and high feasts you come with cross. You have a simple credition. Yeah, even just on a practical level, this would be... Because the cellophane, if we have many cellophane, they have to come from downstairs. Oh, yes, OK. For this reason, yes. We can put one set of... Also here, I must say, to use the chargeable on Sundays is very reasonable. We don't do it in Maria Lav, but you must not follow everything we are doing. In Rome, we are doing as you are doing it. For many years, we used every day the chargeable. It was too much. one year or two years ago, we put them away and all were satisfied and happy only Alps and stone and only in some days there also be 40, 50 with treasurable. I think that the idea that you don't have to weigh your soul until the offer is in, that the idea of

[77:43]

of just coming in would be outlawed, taking your place with your soul and taking your place in quiet of this night. No, why? It's not, it's bad? It's not too bad. Not too bad. No, not too bad. Okay. If everybody was going to be sitting around there, then you would just come in and take your place. There wouldn't be any quietness. In a certain way, the alb is only the fundamental clerical vestment. And so it is said also explicitly, you must need it for everything. Per se, also the acolyte, as you are doing it, bears the alb. Everyone who is working on the altar bears the alb. Therefore, you come with vestments, stay in the choir, peacefully. And then, if the real priestly function is beginning with you as a prayer, before the prayer of the oblation, of blood, of all the gifts, you take the stone. And you take it away, we are taking it away after the last blessing.

[78:45]

You can take it in Rome, we take it also after the last blessing. And then we go again out. And also here you could, the priest leaves the altar on the end at first and all are following as you are going away over every day. Practically I would say, For the four, five, six consular ones, you cut your outs during the week in the upper sectors and you let them there. Only on Sundays you bring them back downstairs. In the North Bay. In the North Bay, if you prefer. Downstairs, in the car room. In the car room, yeah. I was going to say, it's a little bit helpful that we always try to make entrance Yes, then you have always a great community to sing this entrance psalm.

[79:46]

For us it's impossible. We don't have the text. And also to go, at least for me, old men who go up the steps... It's so difficult. And how would the priest then lead, say, on a normal day? I would say he gives the blessing, he kisses the altar, makes his bowl, and then he goes away to the sacristy. He will go to the upper sanctuary. Where he comes from. And the other... without... I would say, because you are there then, after that means only as monks go away as you are going away always. Informally. Informally, yes. Well, there's also a council that want to sit a few moments.

[80:49]

Oh yes, it would be possible too. Oh yes, oh yes. This takes us kind of up to the format. what we've been discussing here, all of some of the, the auditory continues to be a problem. I think at one time it was, what was it? It's an important thing that the people put their hosts in the place. But I would think, especially here, ordinarily, taking a week, perhaps the act by itself to do that from the creek is taking a week. Some days it could be probably as well as we do it now because you never know when it's coming. But during the week... There is a certain value in putting his hosts on the pattern, as we are doing it in Maria Lake.

[81:57]

It's very strange. We don't like to break the bread. We say it's better, it's more practical to have already the hosts, because we say it is a little bit strange to break. Nevertheless, the new right is insisting in this breaking the bread in its symbolism. Therefore, as you are doing it, you have a big host and you are really breaking it. Therefore, it's functional. It's not a lie. You can do it very easily. It does not ask for time. The symbolism is to breathe the breath, the unity of the body of Christ that you are sharing in it. You don't need to put your house on the pattern. We are doing it in Maria Lager. In a certain way it is nice because before the mass doing it, you can say explicitly, no, I am ready to go in, to enter.

[83:03]

Yes, it's good, but you cannot have all the things. You must choose between breaking, then you don't do that, and also for the faithful it's not necessary, because the idea is, so far as I have seen this morning, the bread is enough normally for the entire community, monks and guests. We did not use the smaller hosts. How did they? Sometimes yes, but there are also then the guests that are receiving the real bread, and you must sometimes be satisfied with the host you did not give. Nevertheless, you must know how many are coming. Here is the difficulty. Do you know it? No, it varies quite a bit, but I think it's safe. There's some questions. Who could do that best to actually act on it? To count, yes. In this small chapel, there's no difference. The main host. It's a question of time.

[84:04]

You know it. Yeah, I have it. Please. Somebody ask one. At the time we're setting the altar for law, it's legal. Well, it's often Saturday. People come up from town. Myself, I have no problem with this, you know, the people putting their vote. One ritual I would suggest is that I would put back the assistant celebrant to help. One thing I would tend to do is that the acolyte, when it's ready for the oratory, the acolyte takes the book and the celebrant goes to the credence and brings the things from the credence to the altar, and the acolyte brings a book, and after he takes the book, he goes and gets the tray. The host of the guests. Yeah, the tray, and the wine is there, and everything. You can do so, yes. And he's right at the altar, and there's no transfer of trays anymore.

[85:05]

On another side, it is also possible, as we did it this morning, that when the celebrant is waiting, the acolytes in peace are arranging all the things and also taking this tablet. The tree. The tree, yes. But also for simplicity, it would be quite possible to put all on the credentia, how do you say? Credence. Credence, the credence. All, all, nothing in the guest room. And the acolyte is counting, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. And he prepares the book, he takes these things, and so on. It's simple, simple, simple, very simple. For the faithful, they don't insist to buy their house. But on a Sunday, I would do it. Also, because it's more difficult. And for the faithful on a Sunday, once a week, to make this explicit act, I am offering this bread, and in the bread myself, it's very good.

[86:13]

And we, of course, we in my monastery, we are doing it for the community, for everyone. And if we forget it, sometimes the last house must be broken, and we must accuse ourselves therefore. In the chapter of Florence, I forgot to pack my house. But the guests never, because we have too many. But here they had a special tradition of this clockwise and counterclockwise. Yeah, you bring the tray counterclockwise around the altar. You are right. It is a very dear, I think, to Fr. Heiferl. We are doing the same in Maria Laake. We in Maria Laake, the abbots and the elders of the monks, lay monks, come after the beginning of the offertory to a place in the choir where I put all the hosts we have given before the Mass in the cloister and the wine and say, bring these things so.

[87:20]

Going back then. And the communion becomes so. To close this clock. around the Tabernacle of Maltissimi, of the highest, the heavenly Jerusalem and so on. and around a circle and all these mystical considerations are there involved. Yes. But I would say again, you can do that, it's very nice, but if you wish simplicity, you must enhance certain things. Simplicity and variety. And you can retain this wonderful procession around so and so on Sundays, feast days, solemnities. He always is celebrating, yes. And if he... Yes, the abbot. But it's not necessary.

[88:25]

In some monasteries, for example, in Eibingen, this big, great convent of sisters, of a hundred sisters, always the abbess brings it. In Herstelle, never the abbess, but the master or mistress of ceremonies brings it. Or the cellarer. How do you say? To not too much insist in the solemnity. Only in high feasts the others, the assistants, come to bring it solemnly. This offering has a certain value, but we must not emphasize it too much, because the real offering, the real sacrifice is not in the offertory, it is only a presentation, preparation, but in the Eucharistic prayer, in the sacrifice of our Lord. Here, in the modern theology, there is a difference. Father Jungmann and somebody else is very much insisting on these elements of the Ophiuchus, which is quite Latin, medieval, and also very early after Saint Irenaeus.

[89:29]

But apostolic times did not know it. Only you present your gifts, that's all. Those that were medieval custom, you know, to bring the fruits at the same time. Yes. The whole altar would be just... No, but very early, in the 4th, 5th century already. Ah, yes. But in the medieval, they did it sometimes in this wonderful way. They brought their horse, the priest said, to Scipio Domino Sacrificium too. And the faithful asked perhaps, I bring it for my father. And from this, A short dialogue between the offering people and the priests were evolved. Our prayers. And our actual prayers. Blessed be the Lord. There was an infinite variety of these small prayers in the Middle Ages.

[90:30]

Only Pius V established the order we had until now. And because it was too much, we changed again, trying to find these modern prayers. Blessed be the Lord who gave us this wine and so on. that would be for the simplicity of the entrance and the offertory. To change, to have variety, also with Father Gregory we have spoken about it, a little silence after the readings. For example, you could do so to change, to have simplicity. The first celebrant says some words of introduction, perhaps also a little bit longer, for two, three minutes, and does not speak after the gospel. It's also possible.

[91:32]

But then with silence after reading and after gospel. Could be possible. Instead of responsorial sound? No, no, no, no. After the silence, the responsorial sound. Yes, yes. No, that is also prescribed. Reading, silence, and responsorial. Yeah, reading, silence, and responsorial. To finish the silence. I would prefer this order and not reading, responsorial and silence as you are doing it in the office. I don't mind that. I have no meditation myself after that. I meditate on the response. You forgot already. Better is to make the silence immediately after the reading and then the responsorial as a collect of your idea. What happened to the old idea of green response and prayer?

[92:36]

You can do it, but... Is it really so? Yes, in the Quintembo it was so. Today we were, on Saturday, we are saying the It's true, the reading, the Graduale, and then the oration which were concerning these things, but in a certain way also the oration is preceding the reading. Therefore, you could justify also this order you have in the individual. We would say all, as we said in the philosophy of Fr. Josef Grett in Latin, signa sunt ad placitum. All these signs are freely selected. You can do it so, you can do it in another way. There is no obligation. You are free. But nevertheless, in a certain way, it is more easy to have the silence immediately after the reading, to retain the words, and then, especially if you are saying this morning with Alleluia, already in the transition to the Gospel,

[93:40]

It's more or less a preparation already to the gospel. But I never would omit the prayer for the faithful in the community mass, as we did it yesterday. Perhaps you forgot it. I thought it was optional. Yes, you are right. Nevertheless, the intention is to insist on it. Optional in the sense, if you are...

[94:24]

@Transcribed_v004
@Text_v004
@Score_JJ