The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionCan the pope legislate 'reverence'?
by Eugene Cullen Kennedy on Feb. 10, 2011
COLUMN
Folklore grinds out the grains of truth that are found in such notions like: “If an Irishman is given a choice of water or whisky, the water will go untouched.”
With Pope Benedict XVI’s latest plans for time traveling the church back to another era, we recall another claim: “If a German is offered a choice between justice and good order, he’ll take the good order any day.”
That may not apply to all Germans, but it certainly does to the present pope who is currently devoting a lot of time to battling what he terms “relativism” and to bolstering his “Reform of the Reform,” a.k.a., turning Vatican II back into Vatican I.
Catholic Culture reports that in promoting “reverence and a sense of sacred in the liturgy,” Benedict is issuing a motu proprio, the Vatican version of a presidential executive order, “that will turn responsibility for canonical questions about the administration of the sacraments over to the Roman Rota.”
It is said that this will allow the Congregation for Divine Worship “to devote its entire work to the promotion of liturgical reform.” Its prefect, Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, says that the Pope wants to encourage “a new, clear, and vigorous liturgical movement throughout the Church.”
In short, if Benedict has a choice between worshiping humanly -- as when prayer responses overlap like orchestra violinists not finishing in the same split second -- and praying in exactly matched cadences and with perfect timing, the pope will apparently take the latter any day.
Handing the administrative questions about the sacraments to the Roman Rota, the quasi-Supreme Court for all canonical cases such as those seeking to make a marriage null, only immures these symbols of mystery in the stale courtroom air of legalism that withers flowers and puts the judges themselves to sleep.
The pope feels that relativism is at the root of all our moral problems and, perhaps after listening to too much Wagner, has claimed that this appreciation of the ambiguity of human motivation and choice is responsible for the sex abuse crisis in the church.
It is one thing for a pope to offer an inapplicable theological theory in an attempt, howsoever incorrectly, to explain the complex psychological and sociological origins of sexual conflicts in the clergy. It is quite another to sponsor a “Reform of a Reform” that, to develop “a new, clear, and vigorous liturgical movement” is willing to turn worship into a well planned war game by deploying believers as if they were charged to march, salute, and, of course, pray and obey.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
The pope’s heritage makes him feel more comfortable if you remove all of the doubt, mistakes, and spontaneity from life as if that would remove sin. He apparently wants to do the same with worship that, as a human activity, is bound to express the incompleteness, the ever unfinished edges, the heartbreak and the unfulfilled hopes, that, along with their simple joy and gratitude, human beings express in their prayer lives.
The sacramental order is meant to grasp and reflect not the stilted perfection, but the glorious imperfection of human beings. If they were not imperfect, there would be no need for faith, hope, or love, because these virtues are not required in that non-existent universe in which people are always so well ordered and perfect that they don’t need anybody to have faith in them, they have no need for hope, and they can survive very well, thank you, without somebody’s loving them.
How interesting that the pope insists on complete clarity in addressing Mystery when the word’s root, mu, refers to being mute or silent, the only response we can have to the ineffable and inexplicable nature of religious mystery.
It is striking that mystery is therefore related to “mutter,” a word that describes the way the prophet spoke when he could not find the right words, or the ecstatic prayer of the gift of tongues or our own struggles to pray. It does not match phrases minted like coins of Bismarck’s empire, each one perfect, each one the same, and not one of them worth anything today.
The pope seems to want to revive awe but that is defined as “an emotion of mingled reverence, dread, and wonder inspired by something majestic or sublime.” That sounds perilously close to the relativism of everyday human existence in which we seldom get things right the first time and in which, with no lawyers or imperious liturgists present, we can suddenly be in awe of a great event, a beautiful day, or of the person with whom we fall in love.
Perhaps the pope should observe an average Catholic family getting ready for church on the weekend, the parents having gathered the children together in the charming disarray of family life.
The children will be trying to squirm free or, in church, to inspect the pew in front of them. The mother will be tucking one son’s shirt tail in while another son pulls his out. A daughter may be searching for crayons to draw on the Parish Bulletin.
They do not bring well ordered prayers to church, but bear their preoccupations and distractions to the altar as the Wise Men brought frankincense and myrrh to the cave of Bethlehem.
This, Holy Father, is a revelation that would guide you better than your plans to impose order on life that is, in fact, random, relative, and spectacularly transcendent all at the same time.
|
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Kennedy's column, Bulletins from the Human Side," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add Kennedy to your list. |
I actually liked the part
I actually liked the part about observing a family trying to get ready for Mass, with all the "charming disarray of family life." But maybe, just maybe, the liturgy that they attend should be, as close as possible, a sea of order and harmony, precision and beauty, that can counterpose that messiness of everyday life. Mass that feels like a meeting at work -- eh, who wants that?. Beauty and order is what makes things special. Disney World is special to kids, precisely because it is so different from the rest of things in life -- neat, ordered, colorful, whimsical.
Yeah - but it's not real -
Yeah - but it's not real - and you have to pay through the nose to go there.
If you want your worship. neat, orchestrated, and perfect- maybe its better to have it on video loop produced by a film studio.
BrBrian, Our Bavarian Pater
BrBrian, Our Bavarian Pater Familias never looked better in his operatic liturgies than through the lens of Youtube. Far, far away from the madding crowd. God, I'd be bored to death having to sit through that romantic falderall in St. Peter's.
If I want Mozart and Haydn, I'll go to a concert hall.
With one exception, good
With one exception, good liturgy doesn't cost any more than poorly done liturgy. It does require a priest who has some organizational and leadership abilities so that he can direct people as to what to do and not to do. And it requires a commitment to some standards, like asking people who are performing some liturgical role to *gasp* actually dress up for it.
The one exception is music. Sometimes you have to pay for talented cantors, choir, organist, etc. But that is money well spent. Unless a parish is very lucky to have talented singers/musicians willing to play for free, sometimes a parish has to spend a little to get a little.
Few other things have a tendency to bring people in (or conversely, to drive people out) as poor music. Generally, traditional hymns and chants are better than modern stuff, but either way it has to be top quality.
I have a friend who is non-practicing Protestant. He has a hunger for religion and spirituality, but is very skeptical of "organized religion" because he associates it with racism, misogyny, etc. I was visiting him and his family once and convinced them to attend Mass with me (just a local parish near them, I was visiting from out of town). The Mass was so-so, but the music of GAWD awful. Tone deaf Tonya up there bleating out some post-Vatican 2 ditty, her voice warbling to hit some high notes that she probably couldn't have gotten close to 20 years ago. All in her best sweat pants and poly-cotton blend top. I was embarassed for my Church, but more importantly, my friend was mortified. It turned him off. He doesn't understand how people can say that faith is the center of their life, but then treat the expression of it so amateurishly. It diminishes the witness of all Christians.
I don't know that I agree
I don't know that I agree with everything you write, but I must agree to a large extent about music. A few thoughts:
A lot of post-V2 music is dreadful, but then so is a lot of pre-V2 music. Perhaps the newer stuff hasn't had the Seive of Time strain out the mediocre. I look back at the LPs of my youth and most of it is embarassing (?Donovan? The Monkees? well, at least the Stones wore well...)
It's better to have silence than bad music.
Inexpensive choir robes are a good idea. It not only helps with the sweat-pants issue, but it can also build a sense of community and togetherness. It may not be rational, but what-the-heck.
It might be nice to integrate a little choice practice into the liturgy. Imaging taking the first 10 minues of church time for everyone to practice singing together. Sure, it'll suck at first, but it's a community-building effort. Some will love it, others will learn to mouth the words. In this regard, Gregorian chant can be just fine although something contemporary might be nice too. John Lennon's "In My Life" would be wonderful (except perhaps the references to "lovers" might turn off some people.)
I say this being totally opposed to the German Shepherd's reversion to totalitarian rule. Music can be really really helpful for spirituality, that's all I'm saying.
Really? "In my Life?" Enjoy
Really? "In my Life?"
Enjoy it all you want on your spare time, if you feel it's spiritual, great - - do you really think it goes with Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?
What "goes with the Holy
What "goes with the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass" is spelled out in Psalm 100: "A psalm of thanksgiving. Shout joyfully to the LORD, all you lands;
worship the LORD with cries of gladness; come before him with joyful song."
If it ain't joyful and a bit noisy from time to time then it ain't authentic
Christian worship. Boring, pretentious performance art we don't need"
Pre-V2 music in most cases
Pre-V2 music in most cases was hazardous to the health of diabetics. It was saccharine, treacly and mariolotrous in the extreme!
What? How is post-V2 music
What? How is post-V2 music not any of those things? Do you want me to start listing off hymns? You can say many things about post-V2 music, but serious, subtle and intellectually deep aren't three of them.
There is absolutely no
There is absolutely no shortage of wonderful liturgical music available to anyone who wants it. Any parish who doesn't have a music director that provides top-notch, holy music at its liturgies should be forced to do so or be fired. Combining the old (Gregorian Chant) with the new (or recent new) is tranformative. It has nothing to do with pre- or post-Vatican II - it has everything to do with a music direcor and pastor being committed to the best of the best in liturgy.
Amen.
Amen.
Disney World is fascistic,
Disney World is fascistic, you are right, but no joy, and not whimsical, and not healthy for children's integral development, as they must run free, and get messy, not stand for hours in line.
like a true celebration of the Mass.
Order does not make things "special."
Sincerity of expression and contemplation does.
To know a real Mass, read the Gospel in Solentiname.
Solentiname?
Solentiname?
I've never been to Disney
I've never been to Disney World, but the one you describe "neat, ordered, colorful, whimsical" is not the come-on portrayed in video commercials. It's colorful and whimsical - yes. But neat and ordered - no. Anything but. The enticement appears to be just the opposite...
If we all would read the
If we all would read the current words of the liturgy, not just the Word, but also the entire Eucharistic prayers, one would find some of the most beautiful words written there. If you do not know that, I believe that is the fault of presiders who preside over the liturgy with no passion, as if it were just words, and do not make them come alive with wonder and transcendence.
When I do hear this passion and wonder expressed, the entire Eucharist comes alive for me. If Jesus really is present in that rite, than why do the presiders not show that? That is the problem, not the WORDS!
You are right on Sue! I
You are right on Sue!
I totally agree. I for one, wonder why it is that the Pope and the rest of those who want to change those words can't see exactly your point. I know the joy of passionate liturgy and it never fails to inspire and to lead us to what I believe is Christ purpose in giving it to us.
A liturgy where the words are
A liturgy where the words are sung and said with immense power and effect--if you don't mind spending a couple of hours at it--is the Coptic liturgy of St. Basil or St. James in English. Where the entire liturgy is comparable to hearing a sung, dramatized sermon, but with everyone having a role in that drama.
The drudgery to which Roman-rite Catholics are subjected in both the extraordinary and the ordinary (Novus Ordo)- style liturgies, with few exceptions, is almost too much to bear. The west has lost the meaning of truly beautiful, instructive, and awe-inspiring worship. Whether it is a small country church or a basilica, we are treated to badly designed stage shows, a boring performance by the bored where we sit with minds wandering, fondling the beads, or a prayer book, and where a few swings of an incense thurible awakening them from a stupor gives that look of "mystery". Everyone hoping he can get through this spiritually deflating ennui in under 25 minutes, so as to get on the golf course, or be someplace else.
B16 is going to have his work cut out for him with ANY "reform" he has in mind.
I have not seen rosaries or
I have not seen rosaries or private prayer books in use during mass during the past 40 years. Even Pius XII tried to get rid of that distortion of worship.
It seems to me quite
It seems to me quite judgmental and sadly arrogant to condemn someone for praying a Rosary during Mass.
In any event, whether a Rosary is appropriate for Mass or not...it's beyond laughable-- and beyond hypocritical-- that people would call rosaries and private prayer books "distortions of worship" ... particularly in an age when we possess most bizarre distortions of worship imaginable... from clowns to balloons, to halloween costumes, to people falling backwards (being "slain in the [unholy?] spirit").
For a photo gallery of some bizarre novus ordo "Messes", please see here:
http://www.traditio.com/nos.htm
And this doesn't even include sacrileges that occurred even at papal "masses." At a "Papal Mass" of JPII's in Denver, many sacrileges of hosts occurred. Prior to Vatican II, any priest who was involved in such terrible things would have been excommunicated, with absolution reserved to the pope alone. For a summary please see here:
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-woodstock.htm
According to one attendee of the 1993 Denver "Papal Mass":
"We had camped out the night before on the ground to be sure that we would have a place for the papal Mass. We all had grimy faces and ‘sleeping-bag’ hair. The assisting priests who were to distribute Holy Communion, implementing enculturation, accommodated themselves to the heat and humidity by wearing tee shirts, shorts, flip-flops and baseball caps along with their stoles. Priests similarly attired were listening to confessions beforehand.
The crowd had been roped off into quadrants, about a hundred of us in each one. When the time came for reception of Holy Communion I knelt at the front of my little quadrant in an attempt to receive the Sacred Host my knees. Hosts were being distributed from big, shallow bowls that could have been used for punch or potato chips. People were reaching over each other’s shoulders to grab the consecrated Hosts from the priests. I saw Hosts falling INTO THE MUD, where they were being TRAMPLED on. I reached forward and rescued as many as I could and consumed them.
I had been going to the Tridentine Mass since the Fall of 1992 and the Novus Ordo on weekdays. At that moment I realized that if this kind of sacrilege could occur at a papal Mass because of the Novus Ordo rubrics, I could no longer be a party to the new liturgy. It was the last Novus Ordo Mass I ever attended."
It has also been testified that bags of hosts were thrown to communicants in Denver, apparently with the full blessing of those who organized the event.
According to another attendee of a different "Papal Mass": “At the outdoor papal Mass in Des Moines during the papal visit of 1980, consecrated Hosts were being distributed from cardboard boxes. A group of Hell’s Angels was given Holy Communion in the hand. I saw them washing down the Body of Christ with cans of beer. I was only a child then, but I will never forgot that awful sight as long as I live.”
Let's hope the Novus Ordo, even the "Papal" Novus Ordo, isn't a valid Mass... because if it is a valid Mass, these sacrileges against the Blessed Sacrament are nauseating.
But, no, these kinds of things aren't very upsetting to the Modernists... to them, the upsetting thing is praying a Rosary during the Mass !
You are correct. I attend
You are correct. I attend Orthodox and Byzantine Rite services and the chanting is magnificent. In addition, the hymns contain Christian theology and are a beautiful teaching tool.
And have you paid attention
And have you paid attention to how the people wander in and out, with little to no attention being paid to the entire Divine Liturgy?
Isn't it beneath the dignity
Isn't it beneath the dignity of a priest and a scholar to depict the Holy Father only in national stereotypes that really should be a thing of the past
Not necessarily. Even
Not necessarily. Even stereotypes occasionally are so perfectly fitting to a case or person, that they really can help us understand more clearly.
B16 continues to validate
B16 continues to validate those stereotypes. While the 143 theologians calling for reform are the very antithesis of that stereotype.
Benedict has become an embarrassment, a throwback to another era, a hopeless romantic now being repudiated by his own German-speaking countrymen. Just as the neo-fascist dross of equally romantic European Catholics cling to his every word, and give him the unquestioning obedience he and his gauleiters in scarlet demand.
read Deutschland schafft sich
read Deutschland schafft sich ab ("Germany Does Away With Itself" or "Germany Abolishes Itself") by Thilo Sarrazin.
" . . .a thing of the past?"
really should be . . .
Meanwhile, as a child of Ireland, make mine water . . .
Is he, our illustrious pope,
Is he, our illustrious pope, not living in the past?
You betcha, he is...but I
You betcha, he is...but I have faith that the Holy Spirit will guide us away from these "power and control" men.
You're talking about a German
You're talking about a German senior citizen who occupied the CDF for TWENTY THREE YEARS during the peak of the child rape REALITY and not much was said by Darth Vader. Could it really get any worse for the ROMAN catholic church? Ratzinger insists on claiming the powers reserved for the heads of monarchies, well then it's time for the 83 year old medieval philosopher to head to the international court in the Hague! Let him argue his case!
The 'world' has been deeply informed by the 'scandal'. Not much good will left. I'm betting we'll see a putsch soon enough. Oh for the days of the nascent reich. The PERFECT marching and glockenspiel units. All those brown shirts. Unfortunately it was difficult to conceal the smoking stench of millions of men, women and children as they perished. Jews, gypsies, catholics, homosexuals of course. Brown shirts, glockenspiels, smoking ruins. The end of the medieval monarchy a.k.a. the not so holy ROMAN catholic church is at hand.Dramatic? You bet. The new order approaches.
Beautifully put. Thank you.
Beautifully put. Thank you.
God bless the Holy Father,
God bless the Holy Father, may his reign be prolonged despite his advancing years so that the glorious plans he has for the Church can be fully realised. Plans which can only be inspired by the Holy Ghost to cut away the dross and banality that Vatican II inspired. Reform of the Reform is the phrase on everyone's lips here in England, most of us eagerly await the new translation of the Missal, the reform of liturgical abuses/novelties and a return to discipline, order and beauty in the Church. If a child is being loud or fidgeting during Holy Mass in my parish church the priest will tell the parents to remove it, communion is not given in the hand, the priest does not face the people while saying Mass (neither is actually required canonically under the rubrics of the Mass of Paul VI) we do not allow girl altar servers and the Extraordinary Form is said once a week as is rosary, Adoration and Benediction and everyone kneels before the Blessed Sacrament every single time we cross the high altar. This is the kind of church we are returning to, fully in conformity to what Vatican II ACTUALLY said, not what some hippy half-wit priests in the 1970's/80's wanted it to have said and introduced the litutgical abuses seen so often today.
WOW! I am truly joyous that I
WOW! I am truly joyous that I do NOT experience this kind of church.
I believe Jesus himself said
I believe Jesus himself said woe would come to those who prevented little children from coming to him...
Your parish sounds more like a cult than a community gathered in reverence & worship...military precision!
Not to mention a child is not
Not to mention a child is not an "it".
Amen, English Conservative.
Amen, English Conservative. I long for the days when "innovations" like the "clown Mass", felt banners, girl servers (who cannot even be bothered to pay attention at Mass), extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, Communion on the hand, guitars and tambourines are all things of the past, consigned to the dustbin of history where they belong.
I look forward with great hopes and high spirit to the First Sunday of Advent and the introduction of a translation that has not been corrupted by ecumenists and hippies, and that actually says what the Church believes.
God bless Pope Benedict XVI! May he reign long and gloriously!
dude's like, what, in his
dude's like, what, in his eighties?
Long it's been, but inglorious . . .
anyway, you realize that authorities world wide, including from Saint John's in Collegeville, and the entire episcopal conference of Ireland (God Bless'em) are rejecting this frankenstein monster of an inauthentic interpretation being forced upon you English Mass goers, come Advent, discarded in dustbins worldwide, where it belongs, never to be opened?
Come instead to the Spanish Mass, with our felt banners and guitars and tambourines and altar girls and hippies and extraordinary extraordinary ministresses of the Eucharist!
Celebrate God's disorderly Love Incarnate!
I'm thirty-six, actually Mr.
I'm thirty-six, actually Mr. Scanlon.
Secondly, the Holy See will not tolerate the disregard of the new translation of the Mass. If there are priests or bishops who refuse to celebrate the Mass according to the new norms and translations, then they will find themselves in a very problematic situation. They have promised respect and obedience, they demonstrate neither if they reject the revised translations. All that they demonstrate is their own arrogance and disobedience.
Finally, do you not know that the translation used in the Spanish Mass is nearly identical to the translation that will be used in the English? Indeed, are you not aware that the only language group that has its own paraphrase is the English version (okay, and the Vietnamese, but there are linguistic reasons for that)?
I thank you for your kind invitation, I would ask you come to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, with our pipe organ, choir, beautiful vestments, altar boys, incense, kneeling to receive Holy Communion from an ordained minister, and a proper respect for the role of laity, priest and God!
Obedience is one thing. Being
Obedience is one thing.
Being a Vatican doormat is another thing altogether.
As for "respect", read John Wilkins' "Lost in Translation" available free at "findarticles.com".
There you will see the "arrogance" exercised by JPII and his non-English-speaking prelates who turned ICEL upside down and dictated from above.
Your understanding of liturgy (and the Vatican's role in this upcoming farce) reveals anything but (your words) "a proper respect for the role of laity, priest and God!"
I encourage my fellow Catholics to tell their pastors and bishops that if the upcoming Roman translation is implemented in their parishes, the laity will turn off the money spigot and refuse this crap from Rome.
Tithing = Enabling.
Recent years have shown us the "fruits" of this sick, dysfunctional clerical culture that elevates the ordained and subordinates the laity. Among the ecclesial "fruits" have been the rampant clerical sexual abuse of our children, episcopal coverups and threats toward victims and their advocates, and (more recently) the reprehensible behavior of the bishop of Phoenix, a modern-day "traditionalist" pharisee, indeed.
"Lex orandi, lex credendi."
Don't fall for this triumphalist crap coming from Rome!
CWG on Feb. 15, 2011. You
CWG on Feb. 15, 2011.
You stated:
"I'm thirty-six, actually Mr. Scanlon.
Secondly, the Holy See will not tolerate the disregard of the new translation of the Mass. If there are priests or bishops who refuse to celebrate the Mass according to the new norms and translations, then they will find themselves in a very problematic situation. They have promised respect and obedience, they demonstrate neither if they reject the revised translations. All that they demonstrate is their own arrogance and disobedience.
Finally, do you not know that the translation used in the Spanish Mass is nearly identical to the translation that will be used in the English? Indeed, are you not aware that the only language group that has its own paraphrase is the English version (okay, and the Vietnamese, but there are linguistic reasons for that)?
I thank you for your kind invitation, I would ask you come to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, with our pipe organ, choir, beautiful vestments, altar boys, incense, kneeling to receive Holy Communion from an ordained minister, and a proper respect for the role of laity, priest and God!"
-------------------------------------------------
And if you were a young man living back in the days of pre-World War II Germany---you'd be marching in high step---and cracking your polished boot heels to every direction given by the Fuhrer, who epitomized a horrific totalitaianism regime. You would have acted this way because you would have absorbed all the brain-washing slop that you were given to drink at that time.
Today, in 2011----we have a Pope who "having seen fascism in action, today believes that the best antidote to political totalitarianism is ecclesial totalitarianism". And you, as a young man, are marching right in tune to this absolutist hegemonism---because you have absorbed all the brain-washing slop that you were given to drink in our time.
Pope John Paul II---believed that only the clergy had any right to have any say in the Church---because in Polish, his native tongue, the word 'clergy' came from the same root word as church---and only those of the 'church' should have any say as to directing it. And in Polish, the word for 'laity' came from the same root word for 'dirt---earthy'---and the laity should not have any say in the direction of the Church---let the laity concern themselves with the 'culture'.
Benedict, going along with that idea----believes that there should be a 'critical distance separating the church (and clerics) from the culture laity(earthy). It is rooted in his Augustianian/Bonaventurian theological outlook. In 1968, in an article on "The Early Fathers of the Church," Father Josef Ratzinger described the core of Catholicism as "episcopal, sacramental, and liturgical" (p. 98)
Primary source of quote: John Allen's book "Pope Benedict XVI"
Your comments about the close similarity between the Latin and the Spanish translations is true. Because Spanish, Italian, and French are all Romance languages. Latin was the mother tongue for all of them.
But English is a combination of Latin, Anglo-Saxon, and Norman-French languages. And it cannot be pigeon-holed that easily.
And do you imagine Jesus at the Last Supper wearing expensive vestments, with incense, altar boys, and having the disciples kneeling to receive Communion on their tongues? "As often as you do this, you do it in memory of me."
There is no memory of Jesus in the scene that you so glowingly described----the Extraordinary Form of the Mass---that you attend.
Little Bear, you asked our
Little Bear, you asked our young Catholic, "And do you imagine Jesus at the Last Supper wearing expensive vestments, with incense, altar boys, and having the disciples kneeling to receive Communion on their tongues?"
I suspect s/he would reply, "Yes, of course!"
But perhaps you were already aware such a reply was already a real possibility?
Those young'uns who will not heed the lessons of church history.....
(And thank you for continuing to offer us bloggers the insights from your knowledge of ecclesial history!)
Little Bear, you state,
Little Bear, you state, "there is no memory of Jesus in the scene that you so glowingly described -- the Extraordinary Form of the Mass -- that you attend".
You could not be more incorrect. The entire Mass is all about Jesus, 100%. For example, in the Extraordinary Form, everyone, priest, ministers at the Altar, and people, all face the same direction, toward the Altar, the Cross, and the Eucharist, Christ's Real Presence, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. The priest is not a talk show host, looking at everybody, everybody looking at him, there are no cantors at a microphone performing for everybody, making sure everyone is looking at them when it's time to sing.
The attention of all present is on Our Lord, not on each other, not on the priest, etc. Some are carefully following along in the Missal as the priest prays the Mass; some are quietly reflecting or contemplating the great mystery that is happening around them; some are praying the Rosary, or Breviary, or other prayers, joining their personal prayer with the prayer of the Universal Church, the saints and angels, all offering prayer before the Throne of Grace.
At Holy Communion, people kneel in humble appreciation of the fact that we are but miniscule parts of the Lord's grand design, yet He loves each of us enough to sacrifice His only Son for our salvation, and that Son comes to us in Holy Communion. We kneel in profound respect, reverence and gratitude for God. Jesus Christ is at the heart and center of all that is done, all that is said, and all that occurs at an Extraordinary Form celebration...would that the same could be said for the Novus Ordo, but it cannot.
Moreover, the Scriptures tell of a Pharisee and a tax collector who go to pray in the Temple. The Pharisee stands upright, looking directly into the Temple, and prays without an ounce of humility. The tax collector falls to his knees, beats his breast, refuses to look up, and prays over and over for mercy, in profound humility. Which does Jesus praise? The tax collector, because he alone of the two understands the real relationship between God and man: God the Father and Author of all creation, man the creature, in constant need of God's mercy and pardon. The Novus Ordo has replaced humility with noise, with felt banners and trite phrases, with armies of "ministers" storming the Altar as if it were a right and not a privilege. At times, I have attended Novus Ordo liturgies that bordered on the blasphemous.
Finally, I find your comments accusing me of being a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer to be offensive and beneath contempt. This is the standard operating procedure of the "progressive": call all those who oppose you fascists or Nazis. It is disgraceful and insulting, but not unexpected. It is a convenient rhetorical device to use when one cannot engage in civil discourse.
"The entire Mass is all about
"The entire Mass is all about Jesus, 100%."
No, it is not. Liturgical history does not support your understanding (see my comments elsewhere on this thread).
The "entire Mass" is the community coming together to give thanks to God the Father through Jesus the High Priest. It is not for nothing that we refer to "the Mass" as the "eucharistic liturgy". The liturgy is the work/duty/act/service of the people, and our worship is "eucharistic" because it is an act of thanksgiving. The whole ministry of Jesus was about the Father and the "good news" of our salvation, not about Jesus.
You write that "some [folks at Mass] are praying the Rosary, or Brievary, or other prayers..."
And therein is the problem! The sacred liturgy is a communal function, not a personal one. Even Paul VI observed that the rosary "does not, however, become part of the liturgy...[I]t is a mistake to recite the Rosary during the celebration of the liturgy, though unfortunately this practice still persists here and there" (Apostolic Exhortation "Marialis Cultus", para. 48, Feb. 2, 1974).
You write that God "loves each of us enough to sacrifice His only Son for our salvation..."
We need to jettison this warped view of God. Indeed, your understanding reflects what theologians sometimes label "divine child abuse". No God who is Love is going to "sacrifice His only Son"; even Abraham did not have to sacrifice his son. On the other hand, the Love Incarnate (Jesus) did sacrifice himself --- in his ministry, in his passion and crucifixion. The Lord's entire public ministry was an act of sacrifice to proclaim the gospel.
It's been said that the best predictor of future performance is past performance. If 20th-century history is any indication, the Tridentine liturgy failed big time. Even the bishops at Vatican II, all of them products of the "old school", saw the need for liturgical renewal. Let's not forget, too, that recent revelations of clerical sexual abuse, not to mention papal and episcopal coverups and indifference, reflect an ingrained arrogance among the hierarchs, the very kind of arrogance that promoted and sustained over the centuries a culture that elevated the ordained and subordinated the laity.
We can only hope the days of "pray, pay, obey" are drawing to a close. Any "traditionalist" liturgy cannot be good for the health and vitality of the Church of Rome.
Those who choose to ignore or dismiss the lessons of church history.....
Interesting that you deny
Interesting that you deny that the focus of the Mass is on our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I suppose that you would deny as well as the Church's traditional understanding that the Mass is the re-presentation of the Lord's Last Supper, His Crucifixion and death, and His glorious Resurrection as well?
Indeed, the Sacred Liturgy is a communal function, we agree on that point. However, who are you, or I, or anyone for that matter, to determine for others how we are to pray during the Mass? The Church establishes the framework, including the words that are said at the Mass, the Scriptures to be read, the translation of the prayers to be used (if one attends the Novus Ordo), but who is to say that, because I am reciting the Rosary, for example, during the Mass, that I am not fully participating in it? Who is to say that because I am not singing the current hymn with everyone else, but am rather sitting quietly in contemplation or meditation, that I am not fully engaged in the Mass? Indeed, one might make the case that the guy in front of me or the lady in the neighboring pew, who is reciting the responses loudly or in a monotone, might be less engaged and simply superficially "going through the motions". After all, it is possible to say a thing so often, over and over, that it becomes habit, and one says that thing without any real thought or consideration involved in it. It is hubris to presume that the person praying quietly in his or her pew is not engaged in the communal celebration.
To your comment about "divine child abuse", I offer this from John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son..." The fact is that Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word of the Eternal Father, willingly sacrificed Himself in accord with the divine plan of God the Father. Even Our Lord Himself noted this throughout Scripture.
If the best predictor of future performance is past performance, than the Tridentine Rite is nothing but success: some of the greatest saints in the Church's history worshiped according to that rite over the last 500 years. At the same time, what has the Novus Ordo given us these last 40+ years?
* A steady decline in attendance of laity at Mass.
* A steady decline in the belief of the laity in the Real Presence of Jesus
in the Eucharist/
* A steady decline in the numbers of priests and religious women and men and
a corresponding increase in the numbers leaving the priesthood and orders.
* An increase in public and open dissent.
* An increase in questioning and doubting even the most fundamental tenets
of the Church's divine constitution, such as Christ's deliberate decision
to found His Church.
* A growing disregard for the Church's teachings among the faithful.
* A growing movement to legitimize immoral behavior
* Growing division in the Church among the faithful
* A deliberate and organized disdain and dismissal of communion with the
Holy Father.
* A general disregard for the Church's teaching on human sexuality, leading,
in part to the sexual abuse crisis (the majority of said abuse, according
to the John Jay Study, having taken place in the decades of the 60s, 70s
and early 80s).
Need I go on? This is the legacy of the Novus Ordo, and it is not pretty at all.
The Church's Tradition and her Divine Lord and Master is all that will save her and all of us from the doom of our time.
Interesting, you write, that
Interesting, you write, that I deny the focus of the Mass is Jesus?
I can only note that your view of the Mass is doctrinally based, not historically informed, and "facts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16; reprinted 2010). In other words, "CWG", historical fact trumps non-infallible doctrine. Always. Fact is, the earliest understanding of the "Mass" was that of a community celebration of thanksgiving to God the Father through Jesus the High Priest. It would be later that Christian belief would come to see the liturgy as some kind of "re-presentation of the Lord's Last Supper, His Crucifixion and death, and His glorious Resurrection as well". I mean: Talk about doctrinal novelty --- your belief, not mine.
You ask, "[W]ho is to say that, because I am reciting the Rosary, for example, during the Mass, that I am not fully participating in it?"
The pope, "CWG", that's who. The Tridentine liturgy required "attending"; the Novus Ordo requires "attending to". Big difference (and I speak from years of experience "back in the day"). Past performance/behavior is the best predictor of future performance/behavior.
And you're right on another point, i.e., about folks "going through the motions" during the Tridentine mass years ago. Been there. Seen that. Done that myself. Priest with back to people. Praying 'sotto voce'. Dead foreign language.
I base my information on at least 450 years or so of Tridentine liturgy.
Thank you, by the way, for
Thank you, by the way, for your reference to John 3:16 and, in fact, acknowledging Christian teaching that the Father loved the world so much that he gave us his only Son to bring us the gospel ("good news") message of our salvation. You also acknowledge that Jesus sacrificed his own life. I would hope that you agree that the Father did not send his Son in order for Jesus to be crucified. Such an understanding of the Incarnation reflects what is sometimes identified as "divine child abuse".
Your attempt to link the Novus Ordo with all of the changes mentioned rates a big fat "F" at trying to link cause and effect. These developments would have occurred with or without the new rite. Good Pope John, in announcing his intent to convene an ecumenical council, warned the church to acknowledge the "signs of the times". And what did JPII do? He reacted instead of responded. JPII exercised an autocratic papacy. And B16 has been to date merely another example of the benevolent despot: Do as I say, and I'll reward you or at least leave you alone, but cross me, and I'll make you rue the day!
I do feel sorry for folks (apparently like you?) who are fixated on "gloom and doom".
A most impressive cause and
A most impressive cause and effect construction. Unfortunately it's way off the mark. The ills and evils you list are in no way related to Novus Ordo. Each of them are/were actually caused by my uncle Willy getting lost in the woods of northern Maine and missing mass on two consecutive Sundays. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Oh, and I'd be ever so
Oh, and I'd be ever so grateful to you if you would provide sources for your claims that the Irish Episcopal Conference has rejected the revised translation. Also, any source that you provide on the St. John in Collegeville rejection as well? Just curious.
I do know that an association representing less than 10% of the Catholic priests in Ireland have called on the bishops to stop the implementation of the translation; I assume that is the source you are citing?
Wishful thinking. The
Wishful thinking. The disastrous missal rammed down the unwitting public's throat in time for Advent 2011 will be largely ignored by tens of thousands of priests who intend to use the 2008 or 1998 missal. The missal or, more appropriately, the "missile", is sinking Benedict's barque by being rejected worldwide.
There never were that many clown masses to begin with. Aberrations designed largely for children. This has always been an exaggeration of the SSPX and their kookie followers throughout Europe and the U.S.
Only those who weren't properly toilet trained, hate their mom, or harbor deep-seated resentment of women could possibly object to altar girls. Look again "CWG", because the pope himself uses them in St. Peter's.
When this happens you will
When this happens you will have many pews to choose from since most will be empty! The Jesus in my Scriptures is INCLUSIVE, NOT EXCLUSIVE.
When you have time to remove
When you have time to remove yourself from your fantasy world -
- keep in mind that in most parishes, the girl altar servers are the only ones they can count on to show up and know what to do. (Some folks are too busy rattling their rosry beads to notice).
- please let us all know just who it was who played the pipe organ for St Peter. Music is not confined to one or two instruments - nor only to dead composers. So long as it's done in praise of God - waking up the congregation is not entireloy a bad thing
- EMCs are necessary when father wants mass to end in time for him (and his major donors) to catch the pro-football game on TV.
- the "hippie" comment isn't worthy of response.
Enjoy your embalmed church.
I think Englishconservative
I think Englishconservative and CWG are actually mocking wingnut Catholics. Nobody's THAT crazy. (Of course, the first time I ever heard Limbaugh, I thought he was making fun of right wing nutbags, so what do I know?)
Sorry, but there is nothing
Sorry, but there is nothing crazy about preferring a Mass that is reverent, prayerful, majestic, awe-inspiring and that respects boundaries between priest, people and God.
I have endured this silly liturgy with guitars and folk singers; armies of "Eucharistic ministers", some of whom are dressed more for a rock concert than the worship of God; people receiving Communion on a dirty hand, while chewing gum, etc. for 36 years, since I was born! I am tired of it!
I thank God most profoundly that the new crop of priests and seminarians are men who prefer the formal, reverent form of the Mass. Some of my priest friends have ended entirely the use of "Eucharistic ministers" at Mass, and no longer permit Communion under both forms, save during specific solemnities. Some have even started to celebrate Mass facing liturgical east, away from the people. One of my priest friends, upon arriving at his new parish, his first as pastor, found that the Blessed Sacrament was in room entirely separate from the church. His first act was to remove the Blessed Sacrament, move the tabernacle and the table upon which it stood, to directly behind the Altar in the middle of the sanctuary, where it belongs. It is priests like this that give great hope to those of us who have endured so much!
The so-called "priest" in
The so-called "priest" in your comments is, in fact, a presbyter, not some kind of glorified priest following his presbyteral ordination. Your pastor, like the rest of you, became a priest by virtue of his baptism.
Please see my comments posted August 2 & 5 at http://commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3876.
As a future pope wrote more than 40 years ago, "facts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16; reprinted 2010).
Don't confuse doctrine with history. Not the same.
As Ratzinger acknowledged, historical fact trumps non-infallible doctrine.
Always.
In their "Mind the Gap: the
In their "Mind the Gap: the return of the lay-clerical divide" published in COMMONWEAL a few years ago, sociologists of religion James Davidson and Dean Hoge reported that, based on longitudinal studies, they were seeing a growing divide between so-called "JPII priests", on the one hand, and the laity --- both old *and* young --- on the other hand. "JPII" clergy were attracted to their vocation by the example of the late pontiff who believed that ordination confers an "ontological" superiority over the laity and that the clergy have the final say in matters of church. On the other hand, according to these sociologists, we can expect to witness the greatest "expectation gap" between such clergy and the rest of us in a decade or so.
Not a good prognosis for the Church of Rome.
As for your "priest friend" moving the tabernacle to behind the altar, you may want to suggest he revisit church history to discover that this practice was a development not at all part and parcel of the primitive Christian communities. (By my using the word 'revisit', I am assuming, of course, that he has some knowledge of sacramental and liturgical history. On the other hand, I am not about to presume he has any such knowledge.)
Your friend may give you "great hope", but it's guys like him who may very well be turning local Catholic parishes into neighborhood museums.
First, ordination does indeed
First, ordination does indeed change a priest at an ontological level. He is given an indelible mark, such as we all are at Baptism and Confirmation. This mark forever imparts to the priest the authority and power to confect the Sacraments and to act "In Persona Christi", in the person of Christ Himself.
As all who have studied sacramental theology already know, Baptism imparts a special vocation to be priest (to offer prayer and sacrifice daily for our sins and the sins of our world), prophet (to proclaim the Good News to all mankind) and king (to reign with Christ). This "priesthood of the laity", however, is profoundly different from the ordained priesthood and has been since the beginning. For example, a reading of the Book of Acts will demonstrate that certain members of the community lead worship and celebrate the sacraments, such as they were celebrated then; not every baptized person does so. The early Fathers and Doctors also provide evidence of this basic truth.
Incidentally, I always have found it amusing that there are some who will claim that, by virtue of their Baptism, they have as much right and authority to confect the Sacraments as do ordained priests. If that is the case, then I think I'll start wearing a crown and making everyone refer to me as "Your Majesty", because, of course, Baptism imparts the vocation of kingship. Both positions are, of course, ludicrous.
Finally, given the fact that such a large minority of Catholics these days doubt the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, act like the church is nothing more than a community center, a place to chat and carry on both before and after Mass, and even feel free to debate the Godhood of Jesus Himself, it is no wonder that my priest friend felt compelled to restore the Tabernacle to its proper place. It was first moved to the High Altar during the so-called Protestant Reformation (or as I phrase it, the Protestant Revolt) to reinforce and drive home ever more firmly the belief that Jesus is Truly Present. In this day and age, a time of doubt, dissent and outright lack of faith, His Presence is ever more important and central in our lives and our churches.
"First, ordination does
"First, ordination does indeed change a priest at an ontological level. He is given an indelible mark."
Joseph Komonchak, professor emeritus of theology at Catholic University of America, offered some thoughts at COMMONWEAL a few years ago about ontology:
"As for the ontology: nothing is dogmatically defined about the nature of the character of orders, and it is quite legitimate to understand it in other terms. Louis Billot, S.J., for example, interpreted it in a juridical sense. The problem with appeals to 'ontology,' in my opinion, is that people don’t explain what they mean by the term. I used to ask my students (I’ll update the example) if Barack Obama is ontologically the president of the USA. Many of them would answer No, because the day will come when he will no longer be president. So, I would ask, Is only the permanent ontological? But if you take 'ontological' to mean 'real,' then temporary relationships are as real, ontological, as are permanent ones. John Searle’s recent work on social ontology is useful. It can’t be said that the Catholic theological tradition has devoted much attention to the ontology of communities or societies. And that’s a pity.
"Of course, for some people 'ontological' is a term that should be accompanied by the beat of angels’ wings, and it means what you discover when you peer really deeply through your metaphysical microscope and discover the deep, deep reality underlying all those mere accidents: the 'rockness' of rocks, say. It reminds me of what Lonergan called 'the already out there now real.'
"Many have also forgotten that to speak of the character of baptism, confirmation, or ordination as 'an indelible mark imprinted on the soul,' is to speak metaphorically. The soul is not physical and so can’t be imprinted on. The question is: What does the metaphor mean?"
(Joseph Komonchak at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3876)
You also write that ordination to the presbyterate "imparts to the priest [sic] the authority and power to confect the Sacraments and to act 'In Persona Christi', in the person of Christ Himself."
The idea of a presbyter "confecting the eucharist" may be old, but it was not part and parcel of primitive Christian belief. Indeed, the use of the word 'confect' conjures up images of an ordained Catholic minister engaged in some kind of candymaking up on the altar (and a man mumbo-jumbling in a dead foreign language 'sotto voce' with his back to the congregation doesn't help matters any). On the other hand, all of us are called by our baptism to act in the Person of Christ. Indeed, I recall learning before Vatican II that each of us must be the hands, legs, and voice of Jesus in helping people in need.
You write, "This 'priesthood of the laity'...is profoundly different from the ordained priesthood and has been since the beginning."
You are sadly mistaken. Our primitive ancestors in the faith, i.e., those Christian men and women closest in time and place to Jesus' disciples, did not have any kind of ordained ministry. Please see my comments elsewhere on this thread about the history of ordained ministry in the Roman Catholic Church.
You write, "I have always found it amusing that there are some who will claim that, by virtue of their Baptism, they have as much right and authority to confect the Sacraments as do ordained priests [sic]."
If you're amused by historical fact, that is your prerogative. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any Vatican II Catholics suggesting, much less asserting, that our baptism confers on us the right and authority "to confect" the sacraments (including the eucharist). We are not engaged in candymaking when we join with our fellow priest (ordained to the presbyterate) to give thanks to God through Jesus the High Priest. Even Jesus, after all, is with us in the pews to give thanks to the Father. Your comments reflect an anemic understanding of liturgy, an understanding, I remind you, not at all consistent with earliest Christian practice and belief.
Those Catholics who doubt or deny the Real Presence need good catechesis, not some inadequate attempt to explain the "body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament." Human beings are simply incapable of comprehending, much less describing, the mystery of Christ in the eucharist.
For a good historical overview of the doctrine of the Real Presence, please see http://www.creativeadvance.blogspot.com, scroll down to the link on the right to theologian Gerald Floyd's "Dissertation - The Creativity of Church Teaching", scroll down to Part II, Chapter 2 "Other Examples of Creativity", and look for "Real Presence in the Eucharist".
The major theme of Vatican II was "renewal", i.e., to make the church "new again". I would suggest, "CWG", that you peruse history to help you jettison obsolete (yet historically novel) notions of church and related.
As a future pope wrote more than forty years ago, "[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16; reprinted 2010). Historical fact trumps non-infallible doctrine. Always.
Ecumenists and hippies?
Ecumenists and hippies? Aren't we all Church too? We ecumenists and hippies tolerate you in love. Can you do the same?
JR
Wow. As a former altar
Wow. As a former altar server, and as someone who happens to be female (oh, unfortunate me!), two things:
1) Really? All of us as a group can't be bothered to pay attention at Mass? I did my job as an altar server the best I could as a ten-year-old. I'm not saying my attention never wandered, but WOW. Way to be sexist and stereotype girls as not paying attention.
2) Have you not seen a boy altar server's attention wander during Mass? You must be the one not paying attention to anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions.
Oh, and while you're scandalized by the tambourines, they seemed to be good enough for the Israelites when Miriam (the sister of Moses) used one to lead her people in song as they escaped from slavery in Egypt.
I served the Tridentine mass
I served the Tridentine mass back in my youth (I soon turn 63), and I can assure everybody that these so-called "Traditional Latin Masses" were not always reverent. Choirs singing off-key, etc. Little old ladies fingering their rosary beads during mass. The men going out for smoke breaks during the sermon. And, yes, I suspect my own attention wandered more than once during my days on the altar (I was starting to have an interest in girls :-)
Then why not go back the the
Then why not go back the the middle ages!
I pray I never experience
I pray I never experience your "dream church". Most of the girl servers I've seen are more appropriately dressed and more attentive than the boys. Music comes in all different forms. How sad to say that church music must be one style. Variety is good. It helps us to see and to experience God in different ways.
In girl-free liturgies in
In girl-free liturgies in which the celebrant makes a point of wearing a biretta, always wears lace albs and damask fiddlebacks with pictures on them; insists on saying his prayers in a language nobody knows; fills his sermons with never-ending, fawning praise of a pope who also wears a ridiculous get-up of a jeweled headress, a golden dress, and carrying a golden staff, and they call the novus ordo liturgies, "clown masses"? LOL
Great point!!!
Great point!!!
In girl-free liturgies in
In girl-free liturgies in which the celebrant makes a point of wearing a biretta, always wears lace albs and damask fiddlebacks with pictures on them; insists on saying his prayers in a language nobody knows; fills his sermons with never-ending, fawning praise of a pope who also wears a ridiculous get-up of a jeweled headress, a golden dress, and carrying a golden staff, and they call the novus ordo liturgies, "clown masses"? LOL
So may I presume that you
So may I presume that you assume you are one of the "many" for whom Christ was crucified?
and one gets the feeling when
and one gets the feeling when such say it, that it wasn't for them really very many, in particular not the phantom hippy priests . . .
I am simply surprised in the English Conservative's comment that he finds EVERYONE lips saying this . . .
I didn't realize there are so MANY English Catholics now so passionate about that which they once eradicated. Perhaps this move is simply eradication in another form?
"This is the kind of church
"This is the kind of church we are returning to..."
God forbid, but time will tell.
Should we be surprised to see
Should we be surprised to see millions abandoning the See of Rome to escape the mind control techniques of so-called "conservatives" ; their attachment to the Inquisition, the trappings of religious and secular authority long gone, and the deliberate undermining of Vatican II? To harken back to the Ultramontanist nonsense of a fortress faith and church struggling today for it's life? A struggle just to be relevant to people today?
You forgot to change your
You forgot to change your calendar. It's not 1950.
You are correct. It is 1981,
You are correct. It is 1981, isn't it?
Yeah and it's not 1980
Yeah and it's not 1980 either.
Post new comment