Henry wrote in two separate comments:
Father,
It seems to me you address mainly why the present situation is so bad, in particular, whether it was caused by the newer form of liturgy.
But it could be argued that the liturgy is an effect rather than the cause of the decline of faith and discipline. Or that, whether or not keeping the 1962 or 1965 liturgy would have been better, the 1969 liturgy could still have sustained the faith if it had been implemented properly.
In any event, an independent question is why most of our bishops are in denial about the indisputable collapse of devotion, faith, morality, and worship in the Church -- independent of what the cause may be.
June 16, 2010 4:40 PM
and then again:
Of course, people should be good Catholics both before and after Mass. But the primary purpose of the Mass is not to make better Catholics after Mass, but to offer proper worship to God. So isn't it the more important question, which form of Mass offers greater glory to God?
June 16, 2010 4:00 PM
My comments:
It is no secret that something went radically wrong with the implementation of the 1970 missal. The bishops lost control or more accurately, gave control to professional liturgists who were suggesting all kinds of novel things in order to bring about the "liturgical renewal" that Vatican II intended. The post Vatican II documents were simply half hearted and feeble attempts by an enfeebled and aging hierarchy that missed the mark in terms of the "spirit of Vatican II."
By the early 70's, outright disregard for the post Vatican II documents on the Liturgy as well as the General Instruction of the Roman Missal of 1970 with its corresponding rubrics was in full swing. Kneeling for Holy Communion was forbidden, Communion in the hand mandated, girls serving the altar occurring, kneelers and altar railings in the church removed, tabernacles being shunted to one side, old altar reredos being removed and churches whitewashed of anything that could distract someone from the preparation of the meal at the altar and its consumption by a Kumbaya singing community gathered around the altar all like concelebrants. Lectors were chosen at random with little or no preparation or skill for their ministry as well as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Women would soon be priests so women were in predominance in these ministries.
In addition, music for the Mass was in total chaos and disarray. That's another story.
None of this was foreseen by the document on the Liturgy from Vatican II which in fact was very much in continuity with the liturgical movement and legislation of the 1950's, including the Dialogue Mass for the 1962 missal, nor was any of this in the actual post Vatican II documents approved by Pope Paul VI. All of what I described was pushed by professional liturgists and local priests who implemented these professional liturgist's vision for the liturgy including architectural changes to churches and designs for new ones. It was an outright rebellion and the democratization of the liturgy by popular demand, except it was forced upon us by authoritarian, "spirit of Vatican" liturgists who as we well know are worse than terrorists because you can negotiate with terrorists but not with liturgists! While this is stereotyping terrorists, I think it is true of liturgists.
Unfortunately, all that I describe above which was the pushing of the boundaries of what was allowed, became official after the fact, almost as though the bishops and eventually the Vatican threw in the towel rather than offend those who rebelliously pushed their "spirit of Vatican II agenda." In other words, disobedience was rewarded by making the disobedience the norm, thus setting a precedence in the Church that if you wanted your agenda approved, do it any way and then eventually the Church authorities would see it your way and give you official approval if you really need that, but of course post Vatican II, "spirit of Vatican II" people really don't need authority to validate their ideas and agenda. I think in the secular world this is called "lawlessness," and you can go to prison for it.
If Vatican II had been implemented as the post Vatican II documents on the liturgy had mandated in terms of the liturgy and if the "sense" of the sacred had been preserved with the normal kneeling at Mass including the reception of the Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling and without the proliferation of the extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion (but maybe a trained and installed permanent ministry of acolyte),and if altars had not be turned and churches whitewashed and renovated, I think the "reformed Mass" could have been almost on par in terms of mystery and sacredness as the "unreformed Mass." I really think what the vast majority of Catholics loved with the first wave of reforms was the vernacular. I think it is here that we have to say that the vernacular was and is a blessing. How to maintain the Latin is another question. I don't think the Latin is the issue in terms of sacredness, but all of the other things I've mentioned above.
The reform of the reform that Pope Benedict models is on target. He needs to mandate it so that those who implement kneeling for Holy Communion and ad orientem worship aren't seen as divisive and counter-revolutionaries!
50 comments:
So, are you going to write a letter to the Pope requesting that he mandate these?
Now we have a generation that has no concept of what pre-Vatican 2 liturgy was even like. They, we, have no memory of it and it is rarely talked about.
It seems that first we need to be educated, then we can truly appreciate the parts of it that are brought back!
As the Laity look to the Clergy for leadership so do the Clergy look to Peter. But recall that one man with the truth and the conviction to act upon it is a majority.
There is much that I agree with in your post Father, 99% actually. But there is also much that requires no further mandate to be implemented. So much of what is desirable already is considered normative and the actual practice is the exception. A Priest who desires to, does not need further permission to say Mass ad orientem. A Priest does not need further permission to facilitate communion kneeling or to preach on the superiority of doing so. A Priest does not need further permission to alter the type of music sung for the mass, or to place a Tabernacle where it belongs, or restrict altar girls or extraordinary ministers of Communion.
"IF" the Priest believes that doing something, or conversely prohibiting something, benefits the salvation of souls he is under no small obligation to pursue it. He is also under a vow of Obedience and must not do what has been prohibited of course, but if the authority is vested in the Priest, is it not right and proper that he should exercise it?
Amen to your last point Fr. McDonald. Latin v. vernacular is important but not the main point. It's all the other "stuff" if I may be colloquial, that has been so diluted that is the real issue here. Until there is a mandate from the Holy Father and until our Bishops and Priests implement the needed changes in full union, this problem will persist. We, the faithful, desperately need our church leaders here and in Rome to "buck up", take a stand and call us all to greater holiness and challenge us when we are falling short. Stop riding the fence...not you of course.
RE: The picture of Jesus distrubuting communion to the kneeling Apostles: Anachronism is the enemy of true history.
I understand that the painting "Jesus Gives Communion of the Apostles" was personally selected for the Compendium of the CCC by Pope Benedict XVI, who directed that it be printed as the frontspiece for Part Two (The Celebration of the Christian Mystery) in all versions and translations of the Compendium.
We may assume that our Holy Father presents it to us not as a plausible historical vignette, but rather as an spiritual portrayal of the Church's Eucharistic devotion as developed over the centuries under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
How is this picture an anachronism? Christ is presented as both priest and victim, offers himself to us unconditionally, giving us the opportunity to participate in his life. The apostles receive the body and blood of or Lord with reverence and respect. While they more than likely reclined on pillows and shared the meal around a table. The theology is correct, and represents what happens at every Mass, that is total truth! If you look at all sacred art as literal then you could be considered a fundamentalist, art does not have to be 100% historically accurate to send the correct message. Yes this is Middle Ages to early renaissance period piece, it uses the elements the people of the time recognize to transmit the truth of Christ in the Eucharist, and how we should approach Him.
Anachronism: The representation of something as existing or happening at other than its proper or historical time.
Kneeling for communion distributed by a priest (THE priest in this case) did not exist at the time of the Last Supper.
The artist who produced this picture imposed the format of distributing communion that was in use in his time on the time of the Last Supper.
The Holy father chose a picture that is anacronistic.
I take it, P.I. that you view "anachronism" as a positive thing even in art as this "device" was quite common for the New Testament writers of the Gospels, to read back into the life of Jesus and awareness of Jesus' true identity that was not fully revealed or understood until after the resurrection. John's Gospel is a stunning example of this. This does not invalidate the insights or the nature of the the Gospels which are not meant to be historical accounts of the Jesus of history, but faith documents about who He is and who we are in relationship to Him. This is made clear I believe in the artistic drawing you so aptly describe as anachronistic, which again I am sure you meant in the Biblical and thus most positive of ways.
"This is made clear I believe in the artistic drawing you so aptly describe as anachronistic, which again I am sure you meant in the Biblical and thus most positive of ways."
You mean that P.I. was trying to say it shows that a good anachronism is a pearl of great price?
Pater,anachronisms can be used deliberately to show a spiritual continuity. After all, God's time and our time are quite different.
So, as far as Pater Ignotus is concerned, there exists no possibility that upon being offered the very Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, by Christ himself, the Apostles didn't kneel to receive?
Isn't it quite likely that the Apostles would have been brought to their knees in awe? (For that matter, shouldn't we have a similar response?)
I'm no history scholar, but we're not exactly talking about a common occurrence here, are we Pater?
I saw a picture of Jefferson Davis talking with Cleopatra in a magazine the other day. Gee, now I will have to re-write the chapter on the origins of slavery in the South in my soon-to-be-published history of the Confederacy.
Anachronism is not a good thing when it is misused or misunderstood. Using an anachronistic picture of Jesus and the apostles at the Last Supper to argue in favor of receiving communion kneeling is a misuse.
Once again, you see what you want to see, then launch attacks based upon your fabrications. Where does it indicate that the picture in question (disciples kneeling to receive)was done to argue that Communion should be received kneeling? However, I am in sympathy with Mac's observation. No way to prove it, but it does seem to be a reasonable assumption. There are several accounts of people falling on their knees before Christ.
PI said: "Using an anachronistic picture of Jesus and the apostles at the Last Supper to argue in favor of receiving communion kneeling is a misuse."
It's also a misuse to construct a strawman that implies there is an argument to be made about the better way of receiving communion when the fact of the matter is that there is really on one way:
"...God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend..."
It is arrogant in the extreme that we stand in the presence of the Lord when at the mere mention of his name we should be on our knees. Or is humility and submission before the King of Kings an anachronism too?
Marc, there is no possibility that the apostles knelt in awe to "recieve communion" at the last Supper. None. Knowing what we know (not imagining what we want to know), the disciples reclined at table.
Anachropnistic images lead to anachronistic thinking. Therein lies the danger.
Temp, you stand, sit, kneel, walk, turn your back on the very presence of Jesus in church all the time. And yes, Fr. McDonald was using the image to promote the posture of kneeling to receive communion.
P.I. "Using an anachronistic picture of Jesus and the apostles at the Last Supper to argue in favor of receiving communion kneeling is a misuse."
To the contrary, I would suggest that our Holy Father very appropriately uses this anachronistic picture to portray not a moment in time, but an eternal truth.
Moreover, if the apostles had fully understood the reality of the Body and Blood then -- as we do now -- might they not well have knelt for that first holy communion?
P.I. I would be most interested in how you will repudiate St. Peter's anachronistic answer to Jesus when He poses the question,"Who do you say that I am?" His answer is "The Christ of God!" Now did St. Peter really use that term historically or was is read back into the historical context by the oral tradition that an evangelist eventually set to writing? Was, "you are the Christ" what the early Church had come to believe about Jesus in light of the resurrection and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost that enable this marvelous "anachronistic" device to be used thus placing words on the lips of Peter who more than likily was actually clueless about Jesus' true identity at the time Jesus actually asked, and if Jesus actually asked the question at that particular historical juncture, the whole scene in fact is anachronistic to portray the actual truth of the identity of Jesus Christ. And kneeling for Holy Communion dear P.I. is an option that the Holy Father has promoted and so I have in good company, thank you very much.
Fr.,LOL!
It occurs to me, P.I., that you may be unaware that your disagreement about the appropriate use of van Wassenhove's "Jesus Gives Communion to the Apostles" is not with Fr. McDonald but with Pope Benedict XVI, who directed its placement in the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church published in accordance with his motu proprio of June 28, 2005.
In case you are not familiar with the Compendium, the U.S. edition published by the USCCB can be purchased online at www.usccbpublishing.org.
Good Father, you know as well as I that the Scriptures do not offer us the ipsissimi verbi of Jesus or the Apostles. You know that Isaiah did not write the entire book of Isaiah, which covers nearly 600 years of history. You know that Moses did not write the "Five Books of Moses." Don't raise silly arguments that you, yourself, don't believe.
Peter's answer, "You are the Christ" is a theological expression, not a transcriptionist's effort. The purpose of the Scriptures is not to provide us with history, but to teach us that which God wanted to be revealed through the Scriptures.
Anon, I am familiar with the use of the image on the Compendium. I am not arguing with anyone's use of anachronistic images, only the misuse.
Oh, P.I. you use smoke and mirrors, or maybe incense and reflectors to shift the conversation away from your erroneous evaluation of the lovely work of art I posted on this post. Tisk, tisk.
So, Pater, you gonna' be attending the next meeting of the Jesus Seminar? They probably share a conference center with the National Council of Churches and the Ecumenical crowd you like, what is it the NCWU...M-O-U-S-E?
We may know more of what Jesus actually said than so-called "Biblical scholars" (mostly neo-Prots) want us to know. They are too cozy with German Idealism and analytical philosophy to be able to see beyond those parameters... "None of that Bible stuff really could have happened, could it?" LOL! Read the Pope's book on Jesus and Johnson's "The Real Jesus." The Bible is also good...
Ignotus, you give new depth to the word, "obnoxious."
Father, I don't know whether it's smoke and mirrors, or incense and reflectors, but methinks P.I. doth protest overmuch. Maybe you know what he's so overwrought about. I myself don't really care, but regret that what might have been a quite interesting discussion got hijacked by an individual personal problem that might better be resolved privately.
Pin - I don't have to turn to the Jesus Seminar for support here. I prefer the Pontifical Biblical Commission's "On The Historicity of the Gospels."
"Of the namy elements at hand they (the evangelists) reported some, summarized others, and developed still others in accordance with the needs of the various churches . . . And they narrated events in the manner most suited to satisfy their purpose and their audience's condition."
No, we have no verbatim reporting of the words exchanged between characters in the Gospel, because the intent of (1) God and (2) the evangelists was not to give such.
Pater, so what is your point?
Well, after 25 comments and some apparent detours, how about a comment in answer to one of the originally posed questions:
"So isn't it the more important question, which form of Mass offers greater glory to God?"
Surely, each form can and should be celebrated in a way that gives great and wonderful glory to God.
But can we not all agree that ... As it is typically celebrated (and participated in) at the present time, the EF does so more faithfully than does the OF, as it is typically celebrated (and participated in).
I do not know personally anyone with comparable recent experience in both forms who would disagree with this statement. This includes a good number of laymen who attend the EF largely on Sundays, but also are devoted to the OF, many attending it weekdays an some Sundays in the parishes where they are active contributing members, plus a half dozen priests who celebrate both forms with great devotion and reverence.
In addition, I believe the contrast in apparent prayerful participation of people in the Mass is a critical distinction between the two forms.
Thanks Henry for getting it back on track. I know many people who have and are celebrating both and feel the same as you. It's only those who refuse to experience the fullness of our one Roman Rite who seem to have a truncated awareness.
I might add that they do all in their power to prevent others who have a legitimate right to the EF from experiencing it more frequently if at all. It's almost like an insecurity that everything that one was taught in the seminary that compared to the bad old with the new and improved would be called into question.
The anxiety you mention, Father, is surely understandable on the part of those whose priestly careers or spiritual lives have been based on a foundation that is now shifting unexpectedly, if not crumbling beneath them.
I think most of these people are sincere in their belief of what they have been taught.
However, having been around at the time, I lack similar confidence in the sincerity of many of those who erroneously taught then. I think a great many had motivations similar to the Protestant "reformers" of the sixteenth century.
The difference is that, instead of leaving the Church to fight it from without, our more recent "reformers" largely remained to fight the Church from within.
For some reason -- which perhaps you can comment on -- these inside "reformers" apparently landed disproportionately in such places as seminaries (if priests) or on chancery staffs or in Catholic education (if lay).
The good news is that the "best and brightest" young Catholics nowadays carry none of this baggage, and are able to experience and embrace Catholic tradition without emotional difficulties.
Henry, I hope you are right about the new generation of Priests.
Both forms offer glory to God - equally.
God does not prefer Latin over the vernacular. God does not prefer the wearing of maniples over the non-wearing of maniples. God does prefer facing "ad orientam," multiple genuflections, or any of the other elements in the EF that are not found in the OF.
These are accidents. As such they do not add to what we offer to God in the mass.
The hearts and lived faith of those who worship in the OF or the EF is what gives God glory, not the accidents which may or may not be used in the celebration of the liturgy.
Pin, my point is that my comments about not having the "very words" of Jesus or the Apostles in the Gospel is perfectly Catholic and has nothing to do with the Jesus Seminar.
Actually, Pater, I agree with you. I believe it is a question of what these expressions of faith do for us and for the Church, as well as a question of our stewardship of the gifts of worship we have been given.
Pater, now we get to the heart of the matter, you are correct that God has no preference weather it is the OF or the EF, or Byzantine, Coptic, Chaldean rites. The rites are for our benefit. Their has been an obvious disconnect with the laity and the OF of the liturgy. The Of has failed to produce the proper understanding of the sacrifice of the Mass, and the truth of the Eucharist. It is precisely because how lacking the OF is in transmitting these truths, that has put the Church in the position she is in today. No the OF is not the only reason, but we can see a cause and effect from the bad theology, poor priestly formation, week and very poor catechesis. You can't but not accept that the ridiculous experimentation that has been perpetrated on the OF, has not had an adverse affect on the faithful. One would have to be blind not the see it. I believe this is the point that is being made. If the faithful observe careless, nonchalant sloppy liturgies that lack reverence and don’t transmit the right message, if the liturgy can’t teach the eternal truths of our faith, the result is a laity that is nonchalant lacks a sense of the sacred, and loose the understanding of what the faith is. It is interesting to read about what was going on at the time of Pope Gregory the Great, and what he saw as the solution. His solution brought about a more in depth, liturgy that expresses the sacred and great reverence to God. Look also to the Reformation, and we can see liturgical abuse, was one of the main issues, which was only rectified by Trent. So history repeats itself, we can see many of the same issues today as where in the 16th century. Today as then the liturgy is the starting point in which to bring the faithful and religious to proper understanding of our relationship with God. The liturgy is how to reform the Church, and reestablish a true Catholic identity.
Pin,
In regard to the “new generation” issue, in counting heads at the TLM I attended yesterday, I observed that over 80% of those present were under 50, and over half were under 30. Most of the children present were in families having 4 through 8 children (there being two of the latter).
My wife and I (firmly within the 20% minority in age) would surely not have a natural opportunity to associate socially with numerous young folks if we did not meet them at the older Mass, because we are not normally brought together with them at the newer form of Mass.
The Mass was celebrated by a priest in his first year after ordination. Of the half dozen diocesan priests in my area who celebrate the TLM, 5 have been ordained less than 10 years, and the other one (of Father M’s age) has learned it during the same time period.
The several seminarians I know well say that most of their fellows expect to celebrate both the OF and EF, and that almost all are much more orthodox than their seminary professors, even if they have to play the role of “submarine seminarians” and stay beneath the radar regarding their traditional faith and devotion.
Whereas, the troublesome post Vatican II generations are no replicating themselves in the Church, either religiously or biologically. So in a literal sense the virtue of hope is not so much required. The immediate future of the Church – truly a “new springtime” – is visible in the handwriting already written on the wall.
Mack - You say, "The OF has failed to produce the proper understanding of the sacrifice of the mass, and the truth of the eucharist."
I say, "Show me your evidence for this assertion." Not anecdotes, not feelings, not preferences.
I say, "The OF can more effectively communicate the proper understanding of the sacrifice of the mass and the truth of the eucharist precisely because it is celebrated in a language the people can understand."
I acknowledge that the OF is not always well-celebrated, but neither is (or was) the EF. One does not hear a poor performance of Handel's Messiah and rush out to re-write the oratorio. One trains the choir. We don't dump the OF, we help improve its celebration.
I do not agree with Fr. Z's "Save the Liturgy, Save the World" motto. I think it is woefully naive in that it sees the liturgy as something that happens apart from the other 98.67% of the lives Catholics leave. And I would not agree that celebrating the EF is a way of "Saving the Liturgy."
Grace Builds On Nature. Grace does not do an end-run around human nature, which brings us back to the previous discission of The Incarnation.
This is good. Because it is precisely the Incarnation as THE foundation mystery that we must come to terms with. Everything else, Latin vs English, Bleached candles vs unbleached, contemporary hymnody vs Gregorian chant pales in comparison.
The truth we have not yet fully understood is that of the Incarnation. Fundamentalists of Catholic and non-Catholic Christian strains simply get it wrong.
PI, it's a package deal, in the disintegration of the implemrntation of the OF Mass, we saw the disintegration of catehesis, of authority as well as a sense of the sacred, not only the reverence due God but also the human body and human life. Recover a consistently well celebrated vernacular OF Mass, sound Biblical, doctrinal and moral teaching and we will be on the way of saving the world. Just do the OF ad orientem, kneel for Holy Communion and sing the Mass and then sing some good hymns with a good music ministry, that's what it will take and allow the EF to keep all on track.
It is neither the OF nor the EF that teaches people the real meaning of the Sacrifice...it is proper catechesis. The "de-constructing" of the TLM contributed to experimental worship methodologies and a less reverent orientation toward the sacred generally. Catechesis suffered tremendously. This went hand in glove with the 60's/70's secular mindset. Protestants celebrated Vat II like it was the best thing since loaf bread. Pater, I do not really believe this can be reasonably denied. Now, Fr. is right, celebrate the OF ad orientum, do it well, get rid of extraordinary ministers, kneel for communion, etc. The EF should be celebrated at least monthly or more often for those that want it. I really can't see what your problem is with any of this. You do make the EF available to your parishioners who desire it through another Priest who celebrates it...don't you?
Pater, when over 52% of Catholics do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist we have a problem. Poor catechesis, Mass with clowns and puppets, down right bad music, and a lack of reverence have created this problem. If you think the language is the problem I will disagree totally, the missal is translated into the vernacular, which eliminates that excuse. There is a plethora of other statistics we could go over, but that one is the most important. History is a great teacher; the liturgy has always been key in any process of reformation in the Church. If the faithful see reverence, and a respect for the sacred, they will know how to act themselves. Give the faithful a Mass that teaches proper theology, respect, reverence, give us a clear sense of the sacred, you will see a change in the way the faithful believe.
There is a question on the table posed by pin for P.I.!
Do you allow the EF to be celebrated at your parish by a priest who is willing for the many who have requested it?
A simple answer will suffice. [I'll bet my paycheck that there will be no answer or P.I will say that he doesn't answer anonymous posters.]
The suspense is killing me...
"I'll bet my paycheck that there will be no answer or P.I will say that he doesn't answer anonymous posters."
Why? What would someone using an internet moniker have against anonymous posters?
Whether the EF is celebrated in a given church is not the issue, really. The assertion has been made that the OF and how it is celebrated has been the cause of the decline in the belief in the real presence, the drop in vocations to the priesthood, the falling away of tens of thousands of Catholics, etc. I am asking for evidence that shows this causal relationship.
As much, Good Father, as you want to say there is a causal connection ("it is a package deal") I think the ball is in your court to show that connection.
I share the desire to see mass celebrated well. But I do not share the belief that there are not other, more substantial cultural issues that have contributed more significantly to the situation in which we find ourselves today.
Catholic Utopia will not spring forth if only we celebrate the EF or if we celebrate the OF ad orientam.
And, Pater, you did not answer the question. Anonymous gets an "A."
Pater, whether the EF is celebrated in YOUR church is, indeed, the issue. You are, presumably, a pastor. Others here, who seem to have guessed where you are, say that there are many in your parish who are requesting the EF. It would seem that, since this is encouraged by our Pope and is available, you would make an effort to have it provided to your parishioners...n'est ce pas?
Ah, but good Pater certainly gets an A+ as straw man demolisher without par:
”Catholic Utopia will not spring forth if only we celebrate the EF or if we celebrate the OF ad orientam.”
I know of no one who has suggested anything like this recently, certainly not at this blog, nor even of any serious person who thinks it. (Although perhaps most serious people now realize that more of both would be good.)
Nor that all the problems of the Church, including those he seems to be in denial about, are the results of the undoubted disintegration in the liturgy that has occurred since Vatican II. I myself have argued – eloquently and persuasively, I hope – in various posts that the present liturgical crisis is at least as much result as cause. (And, before our good Pater goes off charging at another straw man to obligingly demolish right before our eyes, I personally believe it not to be a result of Vatican II itself, but rather of a crisis of faith that pre-dated Vatican II -- yes, even in the halcyon “Tridentine” era -- and was reinforced by the secular chaos of the decade following Vatican II.)
Certainly, there is no evidence that Pope Benedict has in mind a general restoration of the EF, so our good Pater can calm down. Plainly, his goal is rather that its EF ars celebranda provide a model for the “reform” of the OF to reconnect its ars celebranda with tradition.
But clearly our Holy Father does believe that the reform of the OF – which plainly will be the Mass of the Catholic Masses for the foreseeable future – is vital for the restoration of the Church and of continuity with tradition.
I myself see all this happening – the veritable “new springtime” of which I am far from the first to speak – even now as we watch and wait. Under the gravitational pull (or “mutual reinforcement”) of the EF, with the new English translation which will be a model for other vernacular translations, and the restoration of the Church’s musical patrimony that is underway, a new liturgical praxis more worthy of God and man is in sight.
I can actually see that Catholic utopia of which PI speaks so hopefully – when, among other things, both forms of the Roman rite will be celebrated wonderfully, and more the point, there will be no dinosaurs left to worry and quibble about the differences between them. (In my own parish already, there is a happy ambience, with many folks drifting easily back and forth between OF and EF Masses and nobody, so far as I know, uptight about either.)
Of course, that will require that our good Pater’s graying generation pass on to its earned reward (which is no great regret for me). Of course, that requires the same for my own even grayer generation (a source of somewhat greater regret, admittedly).
I stepped out of this conversation to try and see it from the outside, and after 4 dozen or so posts I am struck by the title of the post: "the way you worship/pray is the way you believe"; and in contrast I am struck by PI's posts which continually state that "it doesn't matter what language you speak in, where you face, how you genuflect and when, what you wear, etc etc", and THAT my dear fellow readers is the argument in a nutshell.
Like anything else in life you get out what you put in, and sloppy approach to worship leads to sloppy values.
To answer the request for "proof" that the EF produced better rounded Catholics please see the post Father McDonald credited to me below this one. It had a link to ample statistics documenting same.
Templar: I am struck by the title of the post: "the way you worship/pray is the way you believe"; and in contrast I am struck by PI's posts which continually state that "it doesn't matter what language you speak in, where you face, how you genuflect and when, what you wear, etc etc", and THAT my dear fellow readers is the argument in a nutshell.
Let me try to cut through all the verbiage and boil it down to the nub of the matter:
If you offering sacrifice to God in propitiation for sin committed, then obviously it's important to do it just right.
Whereas if it's just a happy meal that's being shared, then what difference does it make if some people have better manners than others?
Pater, I can appreciate the fact that there have been many other factors that have brought us to where we are to day. Vatican II is not the cause of the problems, but rather what progressive groups with in the Church saw as an opportunity to break with the past. Problem is that as Catholics we cannot sever ourselves from the past, our faith is rooted in the apostolic tradition, and developed forward building on what was before. The liturgy is an example of this development. The Mass of Pope St. Gregory, developed over time became what we know as the Tridentine rite. When we look at the changes over the centuries, subtle and small changes occurred to address the needs of the time. What became the Novus Ordo, severed this continual development, (rupture) continuity was lost, because the wishes of the council where not carried out, Pope Benedict is working tirelessly to put the Church back on course with the intent of the council. By issuing the Moto proprio the TLM was made available as an instrument to assist in guiding the Church to be in continuity with her faith. I would hope you do not question the wisdom and faith of the Holy Father. You may not believe it but I prefer the OF when it is done well, but the EF grounds me better, and focuses me on Christ more intently, EF provides me with a rich spiritual experience, it internalizes the faith more deeply, and I need that from time to time. So I am not saying EF only, but am thankful to be able to experience the EF. Also I have learned so much more about the Mass from the EF than I ever knew before, I have found a beautiful learning experience. If anyone can glean a better understanding in order to draw closer to our Lord then there in no more reason necessary. The Wisdom of Pope Benedict is insightful to say the least.
Because of the poorly done Masses many faithful have turned to SSPX, and that is another problem that has been caused by what has happened over the last 40 years. The progressives failed, failed the Church and the faithful, orthodoxy must rule the day. Also our Orthodox brothers and sisters, have greeted the restoration of the Latin Mass with great joy, since we are the same Church, why do you think it has been so well received by them if it is irrelevant. Orthodox have found the Novus Ordo lacking also.
Yes, Henry, and aesthetically, it is the difference between this: "Tiger, tiger burning bright
In the forest of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful
symmetry."
And this: "Hey, Dude, look at that tiger."
Post a Comment