Every Tuesday, (last evening) I celebrate the Latin Low Mass in the Extraordinary Form. As you know, the priest faces ad orientem, that is he joins the congregation in facing the same side of the altar. Because of this, much of the extra gestures that the priest does in this Mass (which have been removed in the Ordinary Form of the Mass with the priest facing the congregation) the congregation cannot see, although if they know this Mass, they know what the priest is doing.
As I celebrate the EF Mass, I wonder why the reform of the Mass did away with so many of these gestures when the priest was allowed to face the congregation and they could actually see what he was doing.
Most of these gestures are really for the priest himself. There are additional quiet, devotional prayers for the priest that the congregation cannot hear. The extra genuflections, signs of the cross, covering and uncovering the chalice with the pall, the priest joining his thumb and index finger after consecrating the host, holding the Host in a particular way, breaking it in a precise manner, praying at each stage of the breaking of the Host, etc, all contribute to the personal piety and faith of the priest and the reverence he should have for our Lord in the Holy Mass.
Many modern liturgists would hang me by my index finger and thumb for suggesting that all of these gestures and prayers be recovered in the reform of the reform of the Mass. But anything we can do to increase the piety and reverence of priest-celebrants for the Mass and at Mass would be most welcomed indeed. What do you think?
25 comments:
"I wonder why the reform of the Mass did away with so many of these gestures..." "Most of these gestures [the ones removed] are really for the priest himself."
Good Father, you have answered your own question - admirably!
Nothing - NOTHING - in the mass is "for the priest himself." The eucharistic liturgy is for the Church, not the priest himself. Any priest who thinks he is doing something "for himself" has a seriously flawed understanding of the fundamental purpose of the mass. Any priest who extols an ad orientam alignment by noting, with much relief, that "he" is not distracted because he can no longer see the humanity of the congregants should be banished from the altar unless and until he gives up his priest-centered liturgical theology and comes to understand that the mass is not for him, but for all those gathered, physically and mystically, with him at the altar of sacrifice, the table of the Lord.
"But anything we can do to increase the piety and reverence of priest-celebrants of the mass would be most welcomed indeed." Singling out the "priest-celebrant" for increased piety is, dare I say it, an example of liturgical clericalism. It flows from the aforementioned flawed understanding of the fundamental purpose of the mass.
The mass is an action of the Body of Christ. It's not about the "priest himself" and those parts of the EF that were removed were removed precisely to help us understand this.
In my opinion, all these actions, prayers, vestments, etc. have meaning. Everything is done in the presence of God to give "Him the Glory" All eyes, thoughts, actions or *senses* for that matter are directed to God. We, the priest and laity humble ourselves, ask forgiveness and give thanks in a way that puts all attention on Christ, so when we are dismissed or "sent" we can bring Christ to the world. The priest "stands in" for Christ for us. All of the priests actions, in the slightest are done in reverence of God. Why take any of that away? We need all we can get or do.
In fact, Pater Ignotus, the reform of the reform which now allows equal billing to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, thus the one Roman Rite with two forms, does include many things that is for the priest himself and prayed in the "first person singular." Enhancing the piety, faith and reverence of the priest is not just for the priest, though, but for his leadership in the faith community and thus a witness for the faith community and therefore in no way a form of pietistic clericalism. There are some minor remnants of this personal piety in the OF Mass, the prayers before reading the Gospel, kissing the book after the Gospel, the washing of hands and the priest's personal preparation for Holy Communion which are lifted directly from the EF Mass but both prayers are required there whereas in the OF the priest has a choice of one or the other. Also the formula for the priest receiving Holy Communion prayed silently is "May the Body of our Lord keep ME safe unto life everlasting" and the same for the chalice except substituting "Blood" for Body. What is clerical in the OF Mass at this point is that the formula for the "peasant" laity has been truncated to Body of Christ or Blood of Christ. Not so in the EF Mass which is quite less into clericalism at this point.
Pater Ignotus...Oh, My God!!! Give it up, will you!
So when you said the gestures are "really for the priest himself" you either 1) meant it and now find yourself caught in the error, or 2) you were not clear in your own mind what the prayers were all about and now need to explain your original post...?
Or, having seen the impropriety of making such a clericalist assertion that is not supported by the Church's liturgical theology, are you now saying that the private prayers are really for "enhancing the piety, faith and reverence of the priest is not just for the priest BUT FOR HIS LEADERSHIP IN THE FAITH COMMUNITY.."
Answer with great care, Good Father, you are on the verge of a very important breakthrough in understanding here..."
Well said Father, We need a leader we can point to. Where the "head" goes the "body" will follow. We need strong leadership like you.
All eyes on Christ. Just look at the crucifix then receive the resurrected Lord.
"Almighty Father strong to save"
Having celebrated now for over two years both forms of our one Roman Rite, a great blessing and privilege our Holy Father has extended to us, I can honestly say that the EF Mass has increased my piety and reverence and the manner in which I celebrate the OF. Strengthening the personal faith of priests helps us to strengthen others personal faith.
The two greatest tragedies of the reform have been the introduction of Protestant Tables for Altars, which drove the elimination of PROPER orientation.
The other was Communion in the Hand standing which flies in the face of proper reverence for the Exposed Blessed Sacrament.
The little "extra gestures" of the EF Mass reinforced the Priests Reverence, which would be communicated to the congregation in manner and deed, words being almost unnecessary. Reintroducing the gestures to the OF Mass would simply add to the level of distraction that currently permeates the OF Mass. I have to close my eyes now to avoid being distracted by all the folks in the congregation craning their necks to see the "next act".
By all means, anything that increases the "sense" of mystery, awe and wonder, should be added back, but not so those in the pews can see a few new "tricks", just so that the general sense of something "special" going on is conveyed. As it is right now, even the most reverent OF Mass lacks the sense of majesty that even a Low Form EF Mass conveys.
I agree, none of the gestures are "useless" all of the gestures in the EF Mass are meant to enforce the belief in the Real Presence.
I for one agree that the old rubrics should be brought back.
Especially the genuflections in the Canon and anytime the pall is removed.
Several of my priest friends hold their fingers together for the OF as well, as well as do the Sign of the Cross when receiving Communion.
THis is one of the reasons Pope Benedict XVI released Summorum Pontificum, to bring back dignity to the Holy Mass which in so many places is abused like no tomorrow.
This is of course not to say that these things can't be done in the OF, when I'm serving Mass from the altar in the OF, I do all the genuflections as I would in the EF
Pater Ignotus:
The means of Mass are
1. Adoration of God
2. Contrition or reparation for our sins.
3. Thanksgiving for all we have.
4. Supplication for our needs
The gestures are for BOTH the sanctification of priests and Faithful. If you've been to the EF, ask how many of them believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the majority will answer yes..
I am glad your piety and reverence have been increased, Good Father, by the celebration of the EF. As you have told us a number of times here, your seminary provided you with little formation in this regard. Better late than never, I always say.
But what if another OF priest celebrates the OF with even greater piety and reverence that you? Is he in need of the EF? Some do not need the EF to ground them in good liturgical piety, which they did receive in their seminary formation.
Prescribing a cure when there is no malady is not the best course of action for doctors . . . or priests.
This is like saying, Pater Ignotus, that God wants to give you both sanctifying and actual grace, and you say I can do just as well with just sanctifying grace, no thank you to the actual grace. The Holy Father has given every priest of the Latin Rite the privilege of celebrating both forms of the one Roman Rite. Both are unique and both demand skills and faith to celebrate properly and both need to be learned by both priests and laity. So it would be a form of obstinate clericalism to disallow your laity the option of having this form of grace because the cleric refuses to celebrate it, although he celebrates the OF extremely well. How clerical is that to deny those who would like both forms the opportunity to have both, especially in a beautiful Church that is ideal for both forms and better suited than most for the EF? Clericalism, tisk, tisk.
PI:
Heresy #1. The Mass is an action of the Body of Christ.
False. The Mass is not "an action of the Body of Christ". It is the offering of Jesus Christ to the Father by the priest who acts in persona Christi.
Period.
It is precisely this muddled thinking which has led to a blurring of the distinction between priest and people, which in turn has led to confusion over the role of the priest and which has further led to liturgical chaos exemplified by the ripping out of the altar rails and merging the sanctuary with the body of the Church.
The Body of Christ benefits from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass but the Sacrifice is not an action of the Body of Christ. The Sacrifice in no way depends on the presence or participation of the laity and its efficacy is neither enhanced nor diminished by same.
Heresy #2. Certain parts of the Mass were removed to help us "understand" it.
The Mass cannot be understood and we are not there for that purpose. It is a supernatural mystery beyond the ken of mortal man. The Catholic author Flannery O’Connor once pointed out that a God we could understand would be less than ourselves. We must remember that the Church has spoken clearly and repeatedly about the liturgy as an encounter with holy mystery, not our agitated emotions. Your model of liturgi-tainment makes worship a personal achievement.
You're also badly confused about the ad orientam posture of the priest but are correct in saying that the Mass is not about him. Until 40 years ago, orientation in Christian worship was always a consideration. Just as it is for the Jews.
Posture helps everyone remember that the Mass isn’t all about us. True, the Mass is a gathering of God’s people, who’s present in their midst. It is a sacred meal. And it is preeminently the public act by which the Church recalls her faith and proclaims it to the world. But beyond any of these things, the Mass is a sacrifice, the unique sacrifice of Calvary made present on the altar, offered for the forgiveness of sin and the healing of the world. “Sacrifice” requires the presence of an offering, of one who receives the offering, and one who does the offering. At Mass, the offering is Jesus Himself, fully and really present in the Blessed Sacrament. The One Who receives the offering is God the Father. And the one who does the offering? That’s the priest of course, but acting “in persona Christi capitis” – in the person of Christ, the head of the Church.
The ordained priest exercises his priesthood in the name of Jesus the true High Priest, so his identity and personality are relatively unimportant. His talents and accomplishments are unimportant. Thanks to the grace of his ordination, even his sinful human nature is unimportant. With his back to the people, his identity is submerged in that of Jesus. The message of what the Mass is all about is reinforced by directing attention to the sacrifice itself and the true High Priest, and away from the personality of the ordained priest.
The decision to turn the altars around so that priests would face the people was never ordered or even contemplated by Vatican II. This change obscured the Mass’s focus on the sacramental dimension — the divine Victim’s atoning sacrifice and of the Mass. Replacing it was a liturgy with a more evangelical spin, with far more emphasis given to proclaimed scripture and preaching and even ad libs improvised by the celebrant. While all of the critical elements of the Mass are still there, they are sometimes overshadowed by the over-emphasis of alien elements.
All of the world’s great monotheist religions stress orientation in worship. It’s well-known that Muslims face Mecca when they pray; their Mosques are designed with this in mind. Jews at prayer traditionally face Jerusalem because it held the Temple that contained the Ark of the Covenant. Jews living in Jerusalem today face the Temple Mount, for the same reason.
The flawed understanding of the Mass, is yours, I'm afraid.
I really believe that all of Pater Ignotus' belly-aching and whining about the EF Mass, his personal attacks on Fr. MacDonald,and his perseverating about the Reform are simply due to his being too lazy to learn the Extraordinary Form. I hope that is all it is. Otherwise, I would want to ask him his personal beliefs regarding the Real Presence, Papal Authority, the Magisterium, and perhaps even some more hotly debated social issues about which the Church has been unyielding. I would hate to think that the good Pater hangs out at the Dogma Cafeteria....
The reform didn't, Bugnini and company did..It could have gone either way depending on who was given charge to interpret the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. These things some could wonder, could have helped Priests in difficult years following the Council to maintain their focus and Priestly identity. If one Priest would be saved from this it would have been worth it to keep the gestures. Mass is now way to laxed for Priests. Many focus on everything but gestures. God Bless you Father for seeing this and your blog. For sure you inform your fellow Priests of your experiences which no doubt at least lead them to question what they do and do not do.
We can see by the tone of "Pater's" posts that he lacks the tone of respect for Priests. Probably coming from indirectly the "Council" that allowed the laity to question anything and everything in either form of Mass. Get a grip man, if a Priest keeps sliding down the slippery slope of impious attitudes you may wind up with an invalid Mass at worst, depending on his intention. If the Holy Father issued the MP, SP I think it is safe to assume that the clericalism can be safely avoided for the most part. Anything that would increase a Priests' feeling of personal piety, including Mass gestures prescribed for them, in most people's minds would be OK with them. You're the one who should be careful because you sound out of tune. Why is it your posts are always the edgy, kinda rude ones. It isn't helpful or appreciated. It takes away from the whole dialogue. Now you will either attack me for it, or humbly submit to the fact that the mirror is not showing its' best today.
I find the notion that the EFM is some how focused on the priest and the lay people are just spectators, not participating fully , is to have no understanding of EFM at all. On the contrary praying the Mass in union with the priest is a deeper participation, which brings us closer, and deeper into the mystery of Christ in the Eucharist. The EFM allows me to fulfill my priestly roll to it highest expression, something the OF cannot do at all. I guess one has to define participation, does it have to be outward only? No not at all, to contemplate, and interiorize the Mass has a greater effect on the soul than outward emotionalism or expression. The EFM is so Christo centric, it zeros in on the Eucharist like a laser beam.
The actions of the priest that show respect and reverence are quit necessary. Growing up in the 70’s, being poorly catechized and finding myself board to death at the Mass, pushed me away from the Church for 30 years. As I reflect back to my early pre teen and early teen years, one action has stood out. The priest would clean the patens, wash the chalice and dry it carefully, this showed me that something special took place, and showed me the priest was respectful of what had just taken place. Of all the things that were taking place in the Mass this stick out in my mind. Others are kneeling to receive communion, and Alter rails, for what I hope is obvious reasons. Acts of reverence at the Alter instill respect and reverence in the faithful.
One should be careful when using the word clericalism. Today this is a considered a negative term, but is this an accurate way to look at it. If it is only used to show superiority over others in an arrogant, egotistical way then it would be negative. Although the priest should have a level of superiority, as he is the professional in his field, most lay people are not, and their fore should not voice much of a strong voice on maters of faith and moral. The Church by it very nature is built on clericalism, the apostles had a charism given to them by Christ to teach, govern, and sanctify the faithful. Paul’s letters can be argued to be a proper example of clericalism, by his superior gifts, given to him from Jesus, Paul teaches, admonishes and governs the communities he oversees. Without this superior spiritual gifts he would be incapable of such leadership. The Pope himself exercises his authority in the same way, he leads the Church by the special and superior gifts he has received from our Lord. It is not a bad word and should be understood in it’s proper context as the application of formal leadership of ordained clergy on matters of faith and morals. The priest has to have a superior ability over the laity in order to teach, govern and sanctify his flock. I remember when we had a high respect for our priest, I remember when Father came into the class room and we all stood up and greeted him with joyful respect. It is the arrogant laity (liberals) and progressive bishops and priest have caused more confusion and disobedience in the Church than any time in history. It is the lack of holiness, proper orthodox formation, and disregard for obedience that has put the Church in the mess she is in today. EFM by design, shows reverence, holiness, obedience, love and caring. I have learned more about the Mass by going to the EFM, It has brought about clarity and a much higher respect and reverence for the Eucharist than I every could imagined.
When our priest return to orthodox Catholic faith, celebrate the Mass in a dignified and reverent way, then you will see true renewal in the Church.
How this became a discussion of grace, I don't know.
"Both need to be learned..." Here I would disagree, Good Father, and such disagreement is perfectly allowed. The EF is not "needed" for grace to be effective. It is wanted, but not needed. And in our culture people suffer tremendous confusion regarding need and want.
Kiwi - Unless and until you are ordained a bishop, you cannot decalre anything "heresy" or anyone a "heretic." Understand where you stand.
The Body of Christ, Kiwi, includes Jesus (the head of the Body) and the People of God (the Body in toto). The mas IS an action of the Body of Christ which includes 1) Jesus, 2) the priest, and 3) the People of God. Even when no congregation is present, the mass is an action of the Body, not only the people present.
Kiwi - if no change was needed in the mass, why did Vatican Two, an infallible oecumenical council, tell us, "For the liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted (the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus) and of elements subject to change (maniples). These latter (peeking under the hem of the chasuble at the elevations) not only may be changed but ought to be changed with the passage of time, if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become less suitable. (The hem lifting has nothing whatsoever to do with the "inner nature of the liturgy," but is a vestigal element formerly needed, apparently, to protect the thurible swinger from going up in flames.)
Elements of the mass can and should be understood - to claim otherwise is an implicit denial of the Incarnation. It is in our humanity - which includes understanding - that we encounter the Risen Lord.
Dear Anonymous....I do believe that Pater Ignotus is actually an ordained Priest, perhaps in the Diocese of Savannah too. Just a little on edge I think from watching the failed liberal revolution foisted upon Holy Mother Church for the past 35 odd years get beaten back into the 1970s where it should have died stillborn.
Hem lifting is fine to go, I can see the reasoning, but I would like to see Pater explain the elimination of ALL the other various elements and symbols of piety with the same reasoning...I doubt it can be done...They went too far and almost no one disagrees with that..
Interesting - and telling - that for quoting an Oecumenical Council and trying to engage in an adult discussion here, I am accused of being 1) a heretic, 2) clericalist, 3) obstinate, 4) belly-aching, 5) lazy, 6) edgy, 7) rude, among other choice epithets.
Folks, we CAN have a fair, respectful discussion. I'd encourage you to give it a try once in a while.
Pater Ignotus, you started this with your rude and disrespectful attitude toward Fr. MacDonald and your continued obtrusive presence on a blog where it is painfully clear that you have no audience. Now,you want to blame us for responding to you in kind. I suspect we are getting close to the target. My Daddy used to say, 'A hit dog hollers."
525, very well put... For all it is worth Father McDonald, more of us appreciate your "flawed" thinking that was inferred by another poster, that can get out and tell you so. You embody a Type of Priest that millions yearn for.
Pater Ignotus you do create controversy and every time I post your comments, I get the most comments. So keep it up, makes my blog interesting. I don't think it is what you say that so much goads people, but how you say it, sometimes it is so very condescending and "know it all" in tone!
Pin: Against my better judgment, here goes: "... on a blog where it is painfully clear that you have no audience." Um, well, er, you're reading and responding, aren't you? In my book that constitutes an audience! Thanks for disproving your assertion.
Good Father, I do not know it all and have never once claimed such circumstances. I have engaged you and others in what I hoped would be intelligent, adult debate. I have not resorted to abusive bathroom humor like your sychophantic chum pinanv, I have not accused anyone (falsely) of heresy, like your buddy Kiwi, I have not disputed your orthodoxy or the orthodoxy of any other person who posts on this blog.
The points I have raised are open to debate and discussion. Too many people, yourself included at times, think that discussion is an expression of heterodoxy - it is not. Liturgical rules are always -ALWAYS - debatable. That's why we have so much fun here, isn't it?
I do not accept blame for the bad behaviour of your Cheering Section.
In reference to Pater Ignotus statement that the changes to the Mass where made by the council. I would disagree, the council was vague on definitive rubrics, and the new order of the Mass. Many assumptions have been made about what the council actually said. As history clearly points out their were deep divisions in the church about the liturgy. What Sacrosanctum concilium says and what has been put forth could be argued to be two vary different things. We know the influence of the progressives lead by Bugnini, and how orthodoxy was sidelined. The key thing I believe you are missing is the sacramental nature of the Church and the Liturgy. As human beings we experience things with all our senses sight, hearing, tasting, smelling. Sight is the most powerful of the senses. When I went to Rome in 2007, my eyes where opened to how much of the faith we have lost because we don’t receive the faith in that powerful way. When the average person could not read, the faith was transmitted in a different way, in a more powerful way. I believe it was the thought of the progressive in the Church that we have the best educated laity in the history of the Church, and we no longer need these images, and visual teaching aids, the laity can read and reason, and that is all we need. This line of thinking goes against the sacramental system, and makes the liturgy void of a great beauty we used to have. The EFM uses the sacramentals and visual aspects of the actions to transmit the truth. With all the abuses going on in the OF, someone should have figured out it is lacking something, and some keep trying to enrich it with non sense, puppets, and clowns.
The visual has impact, sacred art, architecture, has a profound impact on our faith. This is why we are in awe of St. Peters Basilica, the Pieta, artist Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Titian, Raphael, Giotto, and many others. True beauty is timeless, and never dated, our old and most beautiful churches are held in high esteem for their timeless design, and the message they send. Most of the churches built since Vat II are already dated, and have no other value than being a space, no transcendent message is made. The EFM is part of this timeless beauty, it has upheld the test of time, while the OF only a little over 40 years old is dated, tired, and in need of renewal. Might suggest some reading from Pope Gregory the Great, he knew liturgy! We need continuity not rupture, true beauty, reverence, dignity has to be returned to the liturgy. How we worship, indicates how we believe, the fact that only about 52% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence is proof positive in how the OF has been lacking.
Post a Comment