A Note on the Silent Canon in the Missal of Paul VI and Cardinal Ratzinger Matthew S. C. Olver (bio) The use of the vernacular is usually considered the most obvious and noticeable of the liturgical reforms to appear after the Second Vatican Council in the implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium. But just as significant and noticeable was the permission to say the Eucharistic prayer in a clear and audible voice, a permission that was soon followed by the explicit expectation that the canon be said in a voice that is audible to the faithful.1 Strangely, in spite of this clarity, the sacramentaries and missals approved for use in the United States of America contained a rubric for over forty years that appears to give official sanction to the recitation of the canon in the so-called [End Page 40] “mystic voice” that is inaudible to the faithful.2 This brief note traces this story and attempts to provide a bit of context to this extraordinary anomaly. The history of post-conciliar liturgical reforms is well known and easily accessible.3 And debate continues to rage on the propriety of the nature of the reform in the Latin rite.4 No less than the Benedict XVI, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote regarding the Missal of Paul VI: “I regret certain deficiencies and do not consider each of the decisions made the best possible” ones. Nonetheless, he holds to the liturgical norms “with an inner conviction.”5 The debate over the content and forms of the current Missal issued under Pope Paul VI was further complexified [End Page 41] when Pope Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum, the Motu Proprio that lifted any restrictions that had been in place regarding the use of the 1962 Missal.6 Before he was elevated to the papacy, Cardinal Ratzinger published his only book-length treatment on the liturgy, The Spirit of the Liturgy.7 The title consciously recalls the work of a nearly identical title in 1918 by Roman Guardini,8 a fact that Ratzinger highlights in the introduction to his volume.9 The eminent French liturgist Pierre-Marie Gy, however, argues that Ratzinger’s approach may actually be in tension with Guardini, (rather ironically) St. Pius X, and even Vatican II itself.10 Both Guardini and Pope Pius X advocated (in Gy’s words) a “spirituality integrated with liturgical life.”11 Gy goes on to suggest that one of the differences between them and Ratzinger is that the latter’s work demonstrates “an attempt to separate anew spirituality and celebration,” a serious charge indeed. Specifically, [End Page 42] Gy argues that Ratzinger’s approach to spirituality and piety is that “of his Christian childhood and of his priestly ordination” (which includes “an attachment to the priestly prayers said in a low voice” and a Mass with a silent canon). This, Gy maintains, is in tension with both “the liturgical rules currently in place” and also “the liturgical values affirmed by the Council.”12 Sacrosanctum Concilium says nothing specifically about how the canon is to be said. But in the revised rites that followed its promulgation there are at least three points that make it clear that intention is for the canon to be said in an audible voice. Most obviously, the rubrics that directly precede the Te igitur at the beginning of the canon in the missals that stem from the reforms of Trent all state clearly that the priest “dicit secreto” the text of the prayer.13 The adverb “secreto” disappears in the revised missals. Then, there are two paragraphs in both the 1970 and 2002 editions of the General Instructions that speak directly to how the canon is to be said. And when they are considered together, they appear to preclude the possibility of both the canon said inaudibly and the playing of any music during the canon. First: “Among the parts assigned to the priest, the eucharistic prayer has precedence; it is the high point of the celebration.” And second: “The presidential prayers should be spoken in a loud and clear voice so that everyone present can hear and pay attention. While the...