What Benedict means by 'new liturgical movement'

I disagree with this comment. The present Mass as it has been implemented lacks an attitude of worship directed to God lead by a priest celebrant. It is rather like a magic show. Tricks are performed to a usually banal program of musical offerings. In many places the music is so awful that it has no liturgical purpose. It is simply a musical gig for the person banging on a piano. The priest is lucky to get a word in edgewise.

The assertion is also often made that the community is woshiping itself. It is hard to argue with that conclusion. This is the case even without the usual locally devised liturgical abuses. A corrective as implied in John's article or a total return to the EF of the Mass must come soon. Because lex orandi is lex credendi, the state of the Church here and abroad demands a reform of the reform---subito!

John

Here in the UK Ministers of Holy Communion - grandly referred to as Eucharistic Ministers - 'jam' the host into your hand or on to your tongue with the same irreverence. We even 'purify' the sacred vessels even though we have no permission to do so!

Perhaps the Pope has a point.

Dear Mary Stone,

I believe what the Pope is saying is that focus of the Liturgy needs to be God- not the people.

With liturgy the way it is today in the United States- from architecture, sanctuary design, celebrants who are like M.C.'s, banal and corny music, congregation singing about themselves, etc., there is a great urgent need for the reorientation of the faithful to focus on the Word of God and most importantly the Blessed Sacrament, not the Priest, or themselves. This is, what I think, all that the Holy Father is working towards. The Holy Father seems to laud "active participation", as well as use of the vernacular.

I may suggest thinking about the theology behind the Celebrant worshiping Ad Orientem. I believe it is a faulty understanding to think of it as his back turned towards the people. The Pope is just asking for more reverenced God-focused worship back to Mass.

I believe if we our heartfelt open to ourselves, we can look at to what he is saying, and can do nothing but support this laudable effort.

If you wish to understand the Pope's liturgical thought, I would suggest seeking out a book he wrote as Cardinal: "The Spirit of the Liturgy". If you wish to understand what he means by "a new Liturgical Movement" Then seek out an older book of the same title by Fr. Romano Guardini, a foundational work of the peri-V-II Liturgical Movement.

St Ambrose wrote in 389 AD, "Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia" ie, "Where Peter is, there is the Church". With this in mind, I ask has if ever occured to you Mary, that you and your liturgy instructor of 1964 may have mis-interpreted the texts of the Council. Perhaps you have got it wrong and Benedict is right. Do you seriously believe that any of the Council Fathers imagined in their wildest dreams that priests would celebrate the mass dressed as clowns, or that aging leotard clad nuns would be leaping about the sanctury to the strains of "Yusuf Islam" (formerly Cat Stevens) singing Morning has Broken?

I recommend you read... start with Sacrosanctum Concillium, and then try "the Spirit of the Liturgy" by Joseph Ratzinger. It might just clear up some of your misconceptions and confusion.

Mary,

One sometimes has to read the Pope very carefully to get a sense of his meaning. In this case, the key to understanding his thought is his reference to the way the reformed Liturgy was "presented." It is also helpful to have read other comments of his in understanding his point, some of which elaborate on it to varying degrees.

It is precisely *because* he believes that the reformed liturgy is an authentic development that he seeks to bring about this "new liturgical movement." You see, Benedict believes that much of what came about with the liturgical reform was good, but he believes that it was *presented* in a way which gave the indication it was something altogether new and detached from what had come before.

For example, when the reformed liturgy was introduced, it was often spoken of as "the new Mass." When he speaks of abandoning certain aspects of the pre-Vatican II liturgy, he is trying to point out that development does not simply scrap the old and replace it with the new, but rather, it transforms, as a whole, the old into the new. So for example, that every Mass should be entirely in Latin is not his objection per se. Rather, it is that with the institution of the reformed Liturgy, almost no Latin was ever heard. It seemed to have been thrown out and *replaced.*

One of the key points to keep in mind is that none of the things Benedict is concerned with were ever actually done away with in any official way. The reformed liturgy does not *say* there should be no Latin. It does not call for removing the crucifix from the altar. It does not say we should only be incensing the altar at the Easter Vigil Mass and keeping the coals in the sacristy the rest of the year. Benedict wishes to regain those things which the reformed liturgy never dictated be excluded, but which common practice has relegated to some dusty corner. In this way, not only will the reformed Liturgy in fact *be* an authentic development (as it already is), but people will *realize* that it is - as is *not* currently the case in most quarters.

How disrespectful and rude. "jamming" on your tongue. Do you really think in your heart of hearts this is what your Priest's intention was? To like your parish and liturgy is one thing but to infer all is well in the liturgy for everyone is quite another. Read the other side. Take a look at what goes on in many, many parishes besides your own. Listen to the people who left the Church because of the liturgical changes and the way they were implemented. I have read that a woman was once "jammed" a manual and instructed to SING, when she absolutely felt disoriented and lost after the changes. There are millions, not a few hundred of hurt feelings because of this. You may be content in your 22 % who still go to Mass, but ask yourself what happened to the other 78% who don't or won't go. Open your heart to a little more about what is going on in the Catholic world since the Council, which ordered Latin retained by the way.

I never participated in pre-Vatican II masses, but at the church most people took communion on the tongue (though not kneeling) and I never experienced the "jamming" you spoke of. We just had a single long line for communion. The priests felt no need to rush and people didn't mind waiting. It gave time for reflection. You might have had a bad priest at your church.

As for the "priests facing away from the people", you misunderstand what was happening. The priests were not facing away from the people, they were worshiping Jesus *with* the people. The new mass makes it appear that the priest is performing for the people rather than leading the worship with the people. IMO, this simple post-Vatican change has driven more Catholics from the church than any other. Quite simply, if the priest is performing for people, there are far better and inspiring performances in Protestant churches and even in secular churches like "the church of Oprah".

As far as Latin is concerned, I agree with you but the justification for it is that in the early church, the liturgy and Bible were translated into the vernacular. It never stopped happening in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches. The Latin translation was a translation itself into the language of the common people of Rome, namely Latin. The key difference between those translations and post Vatican II translations was simply the lack of reference in the language. The new roman missal should hopefully bring some of that back.

As for the 'pretty "man-made"----around transcendent realities' statement, I think you need to look into how Icons (of Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox) are prepared since there's a strong relationship between how Icons are prepared and how liturgies are prepared. Icons aren't just paintings, they contain elements that are expressions of the transcendence, and as such, although there is a certain amount of "man made" freedom in it, they need to be put together in a certain way so that the story of the faith is faithfully told. Liturgies are in this same class. While it is true that post-Vatican II liturgies have moved towards the man made aspect, do not confuse "clown masses" with real true worship.

In reading your comments above and below, it is obvious, as you mention, that you don't understand what Benedict (Joseph R.) is talking about. More than that, you fail to see the praise he has for the changes brought about by Vatican II. Despite your claims, I doubt that you had a complete in-depth study of the dynamic historical development of the Eucharist. The so-called changes of the modern ordinary form of the Mass date back further than "Middle Ages" ... to the very Passover Meal and the liturgy of the 1st Century! In my reading of the comments quoted in the above article, it doesn't seem to me that Benedict is interested in changing the present ordinary form. He is interested in finding simple ways to draw attention and focus on the worship & experience of God in the liturgy.

I have so many conflicts about this "reform of the reform" and as many of you know on here I consider myself a conservative. I come out of the charismatic renewal where I have experienced some of the most beautiful and sacred liturgies where the entire congregation was engaged and I have attended very solemn Latin Masses. While I love the ritual, the ornate vestments and even the ancient chnating, I felt left out of this celebration. I was not engaged. We did not have readings from the Old Testament and the laity was completely absent from the altar. I love the Vatican II church or the Novus Ordo and because our English speaking parishes here in the Northeast seem to be so cold and indifferent, I attend a Spanish Mass where the people are fully active within the Liturgy. But they do so with great awe and reverence.

In having said all of this, I think that it is very important that progressives here understand that we are returning to a more traditional pre-Vatican II church because of the mistakes made in the past. I can also remember liturgies where Bozo the Clown led the processional or John the Baptist came into the church led by a donkey. I have been to clown masses and balloon masses where women dressed up in tight pants come out dancing and puffing smoke. I have seen very empty churches completely devoid of any resemblance of a Catholic church. I like the church's symbols, traditions, customs and liturgy. I like the bells, the incense, the candles and yes priests who vest as real priests not as some kind of quasi celebrant out of Godspell. But I also like to understand the readings and want to hear the scriptures being read from both the Old and New Testament. I welcome lay people serving as ministers of the Word and extraordinary ministers of the EuchArist, as long as it is appropriate. But I would not mind if we knelt to receive communion or if we had the sign of peace at the begining of the mass instead of before communion. I wouldn't mind if we return the large candels to the people's altar or had a crucifix on the altar. I wouldn't miss though the hand clapping or the applause or the hippies 1970's music. And yes, once in a while singing some of the responses in Latin would be wonderful.

Many Catholics have embraced this idea of a more traditonal liturgy because those who were in positions of leaderships (epseically the hippie nuns and priests) shove this stuff down our throats and never really explained to us why. Now, it seems like we have two Catholic churches and progressives only have themselves to blame.

Dear DHMurray,

I am confused with your comment "that the liturgy has become an act of love not sacrifice"

I am sorry but Mass is first and foremost a Sacrifice. It is Good Friday. Not a gathering of people to glorify ourselves. I believe all the Pope is asking is more reverence and a sense of the Sacred at Mass.

Love is Sacrificial as well. Unless I misunderstand your point, I believe the two are the same.

The Eucharist deserves our best.

Peace always :)

Well Said!

I so agree with this comment. My own spirituality has developed more from a sense of communion with all within the sacraments and community, than from outward signs of ritual.

So... This new internal awareness, deeper spirituality, broader awareness of God's presence in our world, and new approach... which one of these wonderful things has stopped mainstream Catholics from contracepting themselves into oblivion? countered the fact that 1 in 5 of all Americans are FORMER Catholics? stopped the incredible demise of church attendance (down nearly 60% since 1965)? or thwarted the catechetical catastrophe wherein less than 30% of Catholics believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ?

Liberals are out of their minds. Rome is burning and they keep strumming the same old tune.

...But it must incorporate our newer internal awareness, our deeper spirituality, our broader awareness of God's presence in our world

As if people 50, 100, 200, 500 years ago had a narrow awareness of God's presence in the world? And what exactly do you mean by "newer internal awareness"...as though Catholics before Vatican II were not internally aware? I just worry that what you mean is that "we know better now than people 500 years ago did how God acts in our lives". That's nonsense. And why is contemporary spirituality "deeper" than say, Medieval Monastic spirituality? I'm not sure I would want to make the claim that modern Catholics have a deeper spirituality than, say, those who built the great Cathedrals of Europe, or who founded the great religious orders...

That said, Benedict's intentions have nothing to do with "going backwards" or "nostalgia" or anything of the sort. Anyone who can read Sacrosanctum Concilium and tell me where Benedict is promoting anything contrary to it, please do so! What you will discover is that the divergence from the council's teachings is what he is trying to correct. But there is a difference between what Vatican II taught, and what we were taught that Vatican II taught. Time to update the textbooks folks...

A typical liberal Catholic response.

Dear Chris,

I believe Crucifixes on Altars and Kneeling for Communion are more than appropriate and proper signs of reverence for our Lord in the Eucharist, as well as so that the orientation of the faithful is on the Lord, not the celebrant. Only men can receive Holy Orders, so it goes with out saying that women should only be in the sanctuary in the circumstances where it is permissible. (Ie. Extraordinary Minster of Holy Communion, Female Lector/Cantor, Altar Server where allowed, etc.)

Accountability, transparency, collegiality, etc. are not at odds with being focused completely on God during our worship.

Peace Always :)

AMEN!

No we need all of it..Thanks for making a complete list.

This Apocalyptic and indeed Manichaean hyperbole was typical of John Paul II. As always it really comes out of a kind of cultural despair which is not shared by most Catholics.

Well put, wonderfully said, Rachel!

Yes, Jesus WENT OUT among the people. Jesus SENT the disciples OUT amongst the people. None of them had gold crucifixes, censers, sacred music. I find all this "sound and fury" over the liturgy very sad and confusing. I'm a recently converted Catholic. I became Catholic mainly for two reasons: 1) I love that I can celebrate Thanksgiving, the Eucharist, DAILY, with my FAMILY, if I so choose; and, 2) I love the new-found closeness to God that I find in the liturgy.

You know, in our church, the lay members bake the bread we share. I love it that MY FAMILY prepares this divine meal with love for all of us. When we leave Mass, I feel healed, transformed. Our church family is loving, we participate, we come from all over, some of us traveling quite a distance, to share and be active in our community.

Somehow, I don't think Jesus would care for the crucifixes and the hullabaloo that occurs INDOORS as much as He would about what we do when we get OUTDOORS... just a thought.

Rachel, With all reason you affirm that”

."Go" doesn't cover it...we need to know how to take the shared celebration of God's presence in all our lives to all those with whom we come in contact..."Go" doesn't mean go home & watch the NFL...it requires ACTION! So far, the only hierarchical accent has been on minutiae of liturgical language...the Mass is becoming a magical incantation/ceremony instead of a communal celebration that sends us forth to bring God to our entire world community. That kind of rote liturgy is doomed to fail. Jesus sent his disciples out with a sack & a staff & an eagerness to share what they have learned & lived in their relationship with God...with what does the Mass send us forth????”

You are so right Rachel when you say that ...”the Mass is becoming a magical incantation/ceremony instead of a communal celebration that sends us forth to bring God to our entire world community.”

But it was not always that way.

The only reason for the existence of the Christian Church is to strengthen our resolution to follow Jesus of Nazareth and put our faith in his help so make fruitful our efforts in day-to-day life to build his Kingdom of justice, love and sharing here on earth. Jesus left us the celebration of the community-shared-meal including the poor, those deprived of their human rights, those rejected and all “ the least of his brothers and sisters “and to do it in his memory in order to bring about our liberation here on earth, -- what he called the Kingdom of his Daddy, Abbá Father,

Historically this was “the way of life” of the first 10 to 15 generations of Christians, with women or men leaders of the communities fortifying the believers by the celebration of the common meal and community sharing and strengthening them by the sacraments of life.

Eventually around the fourth century the “community shared meal” became transformed into the “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” with all its ornate liturgy, where Jesus became the “Victim demanded by his Father”, and so it became necessary to ordain “priests” to preside over this continual representation of his sacrifice while the people began to “attend” and watch as spectators what was going on as they listened to “the divine liturgy” as the reproduction of the assassination of Jesus, however now presented as “the offering of the paschal lamb to appease his Father and wipe out the sins of the world”. All this was taking place in Greek and Latin which gradually few people understood. Today “the liturgy” seems aimed at sharing in the heavenly glory of Jesus” as “Son of God” but with much less interest, if any, of working to change our earthly world according to the plan for which Jesus lived and died.

Sharing food as the sign of participation in the “life unto death plan of Jesus” to bring about our liberation through that profound and radical solidarity with the poor, ill, abandoned elderly, suffering, those deprived of their human rights, rejected and excluded in any way -- all this is what Jesus laid on the table at the Last Supper. It is a pity that today the Mass tends to signify only the fidelity of Jesus to his life long project, and leaves “us in the benches” looking on as interested bystanders. The idea of SACRIFICE WITH THE NEED FOR A PRIESTLY CASTE TO PERFORM IT, has tremendously weakened our participation in the Mass as a COMMUNITY SUPPER where we mutually strengthen our faith in Jesus of Nazareth together with the will to commit ourselves profoundly through this faith to his life plan: the building of the Kingdom of his Abbá Father: that “other possible society,” that “other possible world” where we will no longer accept today’s world where one of our brothers or sisters dies of hunger every 4 seconds every day of the year and with our thoughtless avarice we keep on destroying our very own Mother Earth.

Justiniano de Managua