But as the 20th century began, there was a great deal of liturgical foment going on in different countries trying to make the Mass more accessible to the laity, more comprehensible and more actively participative in the external forum. There was also a move to make the spiritual, contemplative aspects of the Mass more participative. The laity were encouraged to follow the Mass and the priest; missals were developed for this. No longer were the laity ignored in their homemade spiritualities during Mass, such as praying the Holy Rosary or other devotions while the priest and the altar boys did what was inaccessible to the congregation.
There was a call for active participation in the Mass, not in private devotions. There was also a call for the Mass to be celebrated facing the people so they could see where the priest was at any given time rather than having bells to remind those who were focused on the Mass rather than they prayer beads.
There were other things going on too. The Church in Europe was examining its history and Christians, both Catholic and Protestant were wondering how in the world Christians could participate in the Holocaust and support dictators like Mussolini and Hitler, just to name a few. How can so-called Catholic countries in Europe and Central and South America support right-wing dictatorships that suppress human dignity? How can Catholics in the USA support Roe V. Wade and pro-choice politicians without a blink of the eye?
The Second Vatican Council set forth a marvelous vision for the Church but gave few practicalities and no admonitions about the right or wrong way to implement that vision. I would suspect that very few bishops at the Second Vatican Council would foresee a collapse in the authoritative way in which teachings of the Church were received by clergy and laity and that clergy and laity would make it up as they go.
There are many symbols of the collapse of Catholic identity. The first was the manner in which the reform of the Mass occurred. What started as a reform in continuity, even with the 1970 Roman Missal, simply became the "yeast" that caused the Mass to become something altogether different than the 1962 missal, especially in its implementation on the local level. This came about not by following the rubrics of the 1970 missal but by local priests and congregations, not to mention bishops, dismissing the rubrics and creating liturgies of their own with only a broad outline of the 1970 Roman Missal. We are in a the process of recovering what the Mass should be; but much work yet needs to be done.
Two other important events crumpled the vision of the Second Vatican Council and turned it into something that was not intended by the Council Fathers. The loss of priestly identity occurred rather quickly once the Mass was changed and priests no longer found their cultic ministry to be important. More important was being a social worker and identifying with the laity. Priestly spirituality rooted in the monastic tradition of cult and prayer as well as a regimented daily prayer routine were thrown out the window, not reformed for modern practicalities but discarded.
Religious life also was discarded for something altogether different, so different in fact that it never caught the imagination of the laity but only of those in religious life at the time who had grown tired of the true and tested and began to prefer the novel and radical. This has led to the diminution of Religious Orders, the collapse of many and what some fear as an extinction of religious life in the Church. This has led to the decline in Catholic education and hospitals and social ministries.
For both religious life and the priesthood, the promises or vows of obedience, celibacy/chastity as well as poverty or Gospel simplicity were redefined in a way that made these promises the antithesis of what they once were, almost polar opposites and many who promoted this "break" did so with a straight face.
Finally the loss of Catholic identity amongst the laity has been staggering. In many places only 20 to 25% of Catholics attend Mass on Sunday and fewer celebrate the other sacraments of the Church including Penance and Holy Matrimony.
Amidst all the confusion there are those pushing for a Catholic Church that is far more Protestant than most mainline Protestant Churches are. They are pushing for a Catholic Church that looks, smells and feels like the modern day Anglican Communion (Episcopal Church in America). These progressive Catholics think that Lutherans and Episcopalians have done a better job at implementing the spirit of Vatican II than the Pope and bishops in union with him have done.
There are two important articles showing the tension that exists now between those who want a Catholic Church that isn't and those who want a Catholic Church that is. I think the "continuity" people will win the day.
READ THESE TWO ARTICLES BY PRESSING EACH SENTENCE BELOW:
IS DOCTRINAL BREAK TIME OVER FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?
POPE BENEDICT THE XVI IS BIGOTED AND BIZARRE!
To be sure, there are many clergy, religious and laity that agree with the sentiments of both articles and therein lies the spiritual battle that is ensuing in the Catholic Church. Which army will win the battle?
35 comments:
1) Please show me where the Second Vatican Council called for Mass facing the people?
2) Catholics did not support Hitler. If you look at the geographic break downs of the elections that brought Hitler to power, the Catholic parts of Germany (the SW part of the country) voted overwhelmingly against him. Hitler was brought to power on the backs of his Lutheran population. Look also at the attempts to bring Hitler down once he was in power and you will find Catholics at the head of, or heavily involved in them. Catholic support for Mussolini and Franco should not be held against those populations. Neither state was the genocidal regime that Germany was. Italy had no program for the elimination of it's Jewish population prior to it's occupation by Germany in 1943.
3) I really like the closing line in the first linked article: "If "the spirit of the Council" dies out, could it be that the "the Catholic spirit" returns?" Let us hope and pray that this be so.
4) I may have a long time forgiving you for tricking me into clicking on a link to Huffington Post. I feel as dirty as if I had just walked into a Strip Club.
There were many things that the council did not teach or say thus the point that there were no specifics given for how things would be reformed and certainly no admonitions. However, Mass facing the people had be discussed for centuries and the model for this are the ancient Roman Basilicas that have the altar facing the nave of the Church albeit to the geographical East. And as I have pointed out, as far back as the early 1950's some bishops gave permission for the missal used in the 1950's to celebrate the Mass toward the people although with the traditional altar arrangement found in the great Basilcas that face the nave--meaning what is now called the Benedictine arrangement. And keep in mind the very first change that was universally approved by the Holy Father was Mass facing the people even with the 1962 missal prior to the 1970 missal's promulgation and the Holy Father himself celebrated Mass in the 1965 at Yankee Stadium.
Temp, I agree the wording is painful, and not accurate. However, I think the question is valid. How is it, if the person is fundamentally changed, does a person come to follow and support someone like Hitler? The question can be repeated for Stalin and the myriad Communist and Socialists many Church reformers adore. The answer, IMO, lies in the culpability. This blog contemplated that during the Purgatory discussion. The problem for the Catholic is that now that you are educated and know the Truth, you are liable for your actions henceforth. Yikes. The second link, seems to me, is an example of what we will all hear from others when this Ship makes its turn. People we tolerate will persecute us. It is not rational at all and makes me wonder at the person and his circle of friends and even the editors of the HuffPo who let this person embarrass himself in that way. We will lose friends, Christmas and Easter will have fewer at the table. We will have trouble getting and keeping jobs. Clergy may leave. It's going to be hard times.
rcg
1) Just because the liturgical movement (led by Modernists) suggested ad orientem beginning in the late 19th Century and Paul VI happened to agree with that (or was diped into signing off on it) does not mean it should still be the manner in which Mass is offered when it is a break with the past and does not foster the True Faith for the people.
2) Celebration of the Mass facing the people in the Roman basillicas was incidental because the Mass was celebrated facing East (hence "ad orientem": "to east"). This was NOT so the people could "follow the priest's actions." There is no basis for that in the liturgical tradition of the Church. To argue there is such a tradition is disingenuous, but that is the same thing that has been happening since the Council in other areas like Communion in the hand. A history is invented to match the current practice, but we know that actual history doesn't support it - it is an anomaly and an invention.
Marc
Re: My last comment
The phenomenon of inventing archaeological evidence and history to back up these innovations in the liturgy is called "liturgical archaeologism." A Modernist idea condemned by Ven. Pius XII in Mediator Dei in response to the very liturgical movement that later "came to power" in the wake of Vatican II.
Marc
Csrd. Ratzinger's conclusion, that the disintegration of the faith is rooted in the disintegration of the liturgy, agrees with my observation in the 1960s and 1970s. Prior to Vatican II, faith and liturgy were so closely intertwined that, once the liturgy was changeable, then so was the faith.
Pope Benedict has begun the slow restoration of both. Pope John Paul II wanted to restore the faith, but seemingly was blind to the fact that this required restoration of liturgy also.
Throughout my adult lifetime, I have been engaged with both this problem and parish life. Unfortunately, I doubt we will see full restoration of faith and liturgy until the generation that deserted them have passed on.
The second article was an anti-Catholic rant, full of emotional gibberish and twisted incomplete 'facts'. How does a supposedly educated society give equal weight to both articles?
We all know the ending of this story. God has already won. All that is left to be determined is- who is on the Lord's side?
I pray that the Year of Faith will open the eyes of many so that we may stand united with the Pope on the Lord's side.
Templar, Not much difference between a strip club and the Huffpo. Arianna is a media whore...at least a strip club has no pretense.
For the first time today I received from an EMHC, rather than make a disruptive display in switching lines. My mistake. It was deeply disturbing, and left me feeling I need to shake the dust from my sandals, and move on.
Not exactly on point, but is has deeply affected me, and overshadows my day.
I am assuming our new Bishop is moving us backward. All of a sudden after he took office, BANG! EMHCs all over the place, chalice returns to laity,and it seems there is less Latin in the NO. Maybe the Latin part is just because Fr. was out of town. Anyway, I was hoping for more movement in the direction we have been going.I was hoping that a Franciscan might be more of a reformer of the reform. I only receive on the tongue in one kind and I refuse to receive from anyone but a Priest (and, occasionally, a Deacon). I did not leave the Presbyterian Church for more of the same...
It was in the 1970's that EMHC's came about and I can remember prefering to receive from a priest when I was a layman. However even as a teenager I realized that I was receiving our Lord no matter who was the person giving me Holy Communion. I did not want to make an idol out of the one distributing so I have always understood that Jesus is the One I receive and that my focus is on Him.
Thank you, Fr. I am not trying to make an idol of anyone. But I am certainly unreconstructed and ossified, and while I do fully appreciate that the Eucharist is the point of focus, at best it makes me feel I have been lax in taking steps to leave what is a very liberal and largely dissident parish. The fault is my own, of course.
Fr. McDonald, I believe it is a legitimate argument that regular use of EMHCs contributes to disrespect for Our Lord in the Eucharist. And therefore that it is legitimate for one to choose not to participate personally in that disrespect by receiving from unconsecrated hands.
Regardless of the historical pedigree of Mass facing the people, the obvious catechetical advantage of ad orientem celebration is that it is very outwardly clear when the priest is leading prayers directed to God and when he is addressing the people (because he faces toward the Cross and altar when praying and turns to face the people when addressing them).
While God may not care which way the priest faces while praying the Mass, ad orientem certainly should remove any doubt or confusion (for the people in the pews) as to Whom the Canon is directed (even if it is prayed aloud for the benefit of those who want to follow every word).
Sorry, I know I have sounded like a broken phonograph record on this one--the Mass just all came together and made so much more sense to me when I first experienced ad orientem worship for the first time as an adult!
Fr., I am aware, of course, that it is Christ I receive regardless of who properly administers it. However, with me it is a point of reverence and respect for Our Saviour and the Blessed Sacrament. I feel it is more reverent and respectful for Our Saviour's Body and Blood to be handled and administered by one ordained and sealed in the Priesthood, one who is, indeed, In Persona Christi.
Indeed, it is false to claim that Mass facing the people has historical precedent when any such examples that can be presented are the exception not the rule. As early as the 4th century Catholic Churches were built for Ad Orientum worship, and it was standard by the 7th century and codified by the 12th century. Against these 16 centuries of historical standard in the Latin Rite stands 50 years of versus populum.
Versus populum and communion in the hand, both are radical departures from the Faith as handed down to us, and are traditions that originate with the Protestants.
Templar, it is one thing not to like something and to have some basis in the dislike, but it is another thing altogether to misrepresent history. There is a strain of a very early tradition of Mass being celebrated in homes very early on and in catacombs a bit later where people gathered around the altar. Yes, facing the liturgical east has a very long tradition and I don't dispute that, but the earliest tradition was not in grand basilicas but small, very small settings. As for Holy Communion in the hand, it is the earliest tradition of the church and there is a description of how one was to receive in the palm. You may not like that tradition, but a tradition it was and is. It was also quite common in the early Church when Masses were celebrated in homes and in the catacombs for the laity to bring Holy Communion to those who could not attend, especially the sick and dying. So there were Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion in the very early Church. One should not dismiss what the Pope does in celebrating Mass--to do so would be disrepectful. The popes have been celebrating Mass facing the nave of the Church since the 4th century. Yes it is the geographical east and I should remind you that at St. Joseph when I face the congregation to celebrate Mass I am facing more toward the geographical east than when I face away which at St. Joseph is more toward the geographical west.
I should also say that the configuration of the "Presidential chair" at St. Joseph has the priest praying directly toward the geographical east for the prayers prayed at the chair--so take heart all of you who like ad orientem we have it at St. Joseph every day of the week except when we celebrate the EF Mass which is away from the east, ad western!
Fr. McDonald, you old disingenuous Modernist you......
"but it is another thing altogether to misrepresent history. . . . . As for Holy Communion in the hand, it is the earliest tradition of the church and there is a description of how one was to receive in the palm."
And perhaps some need reminding of that description, so as to realize that communion by snatching from the hand today has no connection with communion on the enthroned hand in ancient times.
In his recent book, Bishop Athanasius Schneider emphasizes that, in fact, communion in the hands as we know it today bears no resemblance to communion in apostolic times. The Host then was placed on the open palm of the right hand of the communicant, and touching it the left hand would have been unthinkable, as would have been touching the Host with one's fingers. So no lay person ever picked it up off the palm and "placed it in his mouth himself".
Instead, the communicant bowed profoundly toward his extended hand and took the Host directly into his mouth. This way might better be described as "communion in the mouth" (if not on the tongue) rather than "communion in the hand". And the communicant's hand was purified both before and after communion.
So Bishop Schneider's research indicates that communion in this manner from the very beginning of apostolic times exhibited the deepest reverence for the Blessed Sacrament that one can describe. If communion in the hand were carried out in this manner today, possibly we'd see it differently. But communion in the hands has come to be associated with sacrilege in our time, whereas it evidently was not in ancient times.
Henry, we need a reform in the manner in which Holy Communion is received in the hand or to ban it as Pope Benedict has for his Masses. I remain puzzled why Pope Benedict models certain liturgical actions without canonizing them. It does create expectations and some of these may be false expectations for many people in the Church.
"I remain puzzled why Pope Benedict models certain liturgical actions without canonizing them."
I suspect it's because in his wisdom he realizes that mandating abrupt correction of the Church's pastoral errors of the past forty years would lead to chaos, possibly with more disobedience than obedience. But I do not think it a false expectation to believe that a restoration of sanctity in worship and fidelity in faith will return to the Church. For me, this expectation--which I believe is already underway after a biblical forty years in the wilderness--reflects my faith in the ultimate indefectibility of the Church. The current travesties associated with the practices of communion in the hand, ubiquitous EMHCs and the like, have no historical precedents in the Church of either East or West, and therefore surely no permanent future.
Henry, I so hope and pray that you are correct. I often wonder if my doubt and disappointment regarding the future of this reform border on disobedience and are matters for the Confessional.
We may well be forced back into the catacombs some day, but what we did as an outlawed religion operating in secrecy should not be the model for our religion today. We did these small meetings in homes and catacombs because we were in hiding. It has no bearing on a religion that is now Triumphant and should celebrate it's worship of Christ the King in full glory and majesty.
During WW2 chaplains celebrated Mass on K-ration boxes and the hoods of jeeps. Should we go back to that or recognize that at all times we should do the best we can.
To rationalize anything by the fact that we once hid in tombs to have Mass is to start down the slope that leads to sloppy liturgy, and abuses.
I do not misrepresent history, I see a 2000 year history that for the first 1950 had a Church that always strives to do it's utmost to Glorify God, and then 50 years trying to rationalize why God will understand why we don't want to make anything to hard on anyone.
It's too bad that there weren't blogs or mass media during the hedonistic and corrupt period prior to Trent not only for the liturgy but also for the clergy and much of the laity. The liturgical abuses addressed by the Trindentine goal at uniformity and strict rubrics bespeak of a powerful corruption of the liturgy prior to this reform and it was this corruption that in part led to the Protestant Reformation of the liturgy too. Vatican II gave very few specifics about the reform of the Mass and no admonitions that I am aware to avoid in this reform. It did ask for some vernacular and noble simplicity, but the Low Mass in the EF form is noble simplicity as is the High Mass, the Pontifical Solemn High Mass is another story to say the least.
But less anyone be confused, the Holy Father, meaning the successor of St. Peter can act alone in making authoritative and even infallible decisions for the Church and the Holy Father acting alone mandated the 1970 missal--case closed! Unless one breaks with the See of Peter, one cannot deny the Holy Father's prerogative and authority in this.
There is one very reverent EMHC that causes me to cringe inside when I'm stuck in her lane.
She insists that she was taught to look the communicant in the eye when saying 'The Body of Christ".
Sadly, in my opinion, she follows those instructions to the letter without fail.
The Host is held down so low by her that the moment becomes about she and I making person-to-person contact.
Last time I was stuck in her lane, I refused to make eye contact with her, rather I looked down to adore the Host instead. My eyes stayed glued on the Host until it rested on my tongue.
Next time that I am stuck in her lane I will do the same.
The day I see her hold the Host up and make the Host the center of the moment, I'll leap for JOY!
But, of course, that won't happen until this particular issue is readdressed by those charged with the training of the EMHCs.
Anon+
(sometimes the priests themselves do this, which is very disheartening)
"Unless one breaks with the See of Peter, one cannot deny the Holy Father's prerogative and authority in this."
Certainly, Paul VI had the power to do what he did. But the current occupant of the See of Peter, in one of his earlier writings (I'm trying to recall where) as Cardinal Ratzinger, raised the question as to whether he or any pope has the proper authority break unilaterally with tradition, but left no question that he thought Paul VI had acted unfortunately.
My reading of the current situation is that Pope Benedict doubts that he has either the practical power or the principled authority to unilaterally correct the abuses he sees throughout the Church. This may be the answer to your earlier question why he does not go further than merely attempting to lead by example.
In any event, we have before us today plenty of evidence that popes can make terrible errors of judgement in their exercise of power and/or authority, with terrible pastoral results for the spiritual life of the faithful.
... and the current Holy Father says the old Missal was never abrogated and has ordered that priests offer Mass according to the old Missal when requested to do so by a stable group of the laity that can be very small - case closed! Unless one breaks with the See of Peter, one cannot deny the Holy Father's prerogative and authority in this.
I wonder if Pater Ignotus will jump in now to argue that the promulgation of Missals is not infallible like he normally does since Fr. McDonald's argument cuts against him in this case.
I actually don't think the promulgation of the Missal of Paul VI was infallible. Can you show me why its promulgation was infallible so I can change that belief if I am wrong?
I do know that the Missal of Pius V was promulgated in a manner that seems to indicate it could not be done away with - invoking the infallibility of the Council of Trent. I don't recall there being a similar promulgation for Paul VI's Mass.
Marc
So, are you saying, Good Father, that those who stridently maintain that "only Saints" can change the liturgy are, shall we say, misinformed?
Note also that Trent fixed liturgical abuses common at the time while Vatican II promoted them to the level of infallibility, if we are to believe that Paul VI's Missal is infallible and caused a slew of new abuses. That is a pretty big difference.
I don't think "noble simplicity" means anything as it can pretty much mean anything any particular person wants it to mean at any given time, and that's exactly why they wrote thst into the documents - so they could later interpret it anyway they wished. Who is to say the pontifical liturgy doesn't manifest the idea of noble simplicity? How is one nobly simplistic when a successor of the apostles (and Christ's representative to the local Church) is celebrating the Glorious Liturgical re-presentation of Calvary? To my mind, the best way to manifest that reality is the Pontifical High Mass. Anything less is reductionism for the sake of reductionism.
Marc
Fr. McDonald: "The liturgical abuses addressed by the Trindentine goal at uniformity and strict rubrics bespeak of a powerful corruption of the liturgy prior to this reform and it was this corruption that in part led to the Protestant Reformation of the liturgy too."
The historical accuracy of this view may be questionable. I'd suggest the more apt analogy is between the revolution within the Church today and the revolution outside the Church in the Reformation. No one has documented that either was the result of prior abuses in the liturgy. Instead, both involved a confluence of rebellion against faith and chaotic social conditions in the world. And each resulted in the same abuses of the liturgy, as those within the Church today are closely repetitive of those outside the Church in the Reformation.
The Council of Trent was a response to the disintegration of faith and liturgy during the Reformation--many of whose adherents still regarded themselves as Catholic, just as many of today's dissidents still regard themselves as Catholic. An analogous response to the last forty years of disintegration has not yet occurred.
Pater Ignotus a.k.a. St. George Mivart and many other Sybilesque personalities,
I'm still waiting.
Adlai
Pater: "So, are you saying, Good Father, that those who stridently maintain that "only Saints" can change the liturgy are, shall we say, misinformed?"
Since this is aimed at me, I'll respond. No one could maintain that only Saints can change the Mass as we know for certain that Paul VI did change the Mass and he is not a Saint (as proclaimed by the Church).
I maintain that, generally speaking, changing the liturgy is the perogative of saints. If you think I'm wrong, please consult the following: Gregory the Great, Pope St. Pius V, Pope St. Pius X, Ven. Pius XII, and Bl. John XIII. Please show me where in the history of the liturgy since the codifications of Gregory the Great someone who was not later declared a saint has changed the liturgy...
AND YET not one of these great saints was so emboldened as to create their own new liturgy out of thin air like the reformers did in the wake of the Second Vatican Council... isn't that odd...
You'll also note that the one person listed above who made the most "changes" is a Doctor of the Church and carries the title "the Great." Even his changes were essentially culling together various usages for a unified liturgy.
Change to the liturgy is the perogative of saints because we can be assured that saints have done God's will in their lives.
Marc - The law of the Church does not support your argument that only Saints can alter the liturgy.
Canon 838
1. The supervision (moderatio) of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, in accord with the law, the diocesan bishop.
2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the entire Church (universa ecclesia), to publish (edere) the liturgical books, to review their translations into the vernacular languages and to see that liturgical ordinances
are faithfully observed everywhere.
3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare translations of the liturgical books into the vernacular languages, with the appropriate adaptations within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves, and to publish (edere) them with the prior review by the Holy See.
4. It pertains to the diocesan bishop in the church entrusted to him, within the limits of his competence, to issue liturgical norms by which all are bound.
Plainly, the Holy See has the authority to alter the liturgy.
Further, you suggest that ALL changes to the liturgy have come at the direction of someone who was, in time, canonized. Can you support this assertion with a reference or two?
I don't assert that any liturgical laws are "infallible." I would assert just the opposite, because by their nature they are subject to change and, therefore, cannot be infallible.
As regards the question at hand, there is no question the Holy See has the authority to promulgate changes to the liturgy as it is clear the Holy See has done so several times throughout history. However, just because the Holy See has the authority to do so does not make it a prudential decision to exercise that authority.
My point is this: throughout the history of the Church, the Holy See has had the authority to change the liturgy; however, no one save saints has exercised the authority to do so and even then only in a very limited manner. I have cited the saints who made changes to the liturgy in my previous post. I await your naming of non-saints (prior to the Second Vatican Council) who dared to make such changes. Hence, the Church has always acted in accordance with the proposition that the changing of the liturgy is the prerogative of saints.
Why is this so? In addition to the reasons I supplied in my last post, it is because the Roman Rite has always been viewed (as one scholar put it) as the "most venerable Rite in all Christendom." It was taken for granted that the Roman Canon should not be changed. To change the liturgy (particularly for the worse) is a serious sin against piety as it is a slap in the face of the great saints who fashioned the great Liturgy of the Ages.
What made the revisers in the wake of the Second Vatican Council believe the Mass of the Ages was something to be modified? Why would anyone want to modify the "most venerable Rite in all Christendom," a Rite that pious tradition holds was written in part by St. Peter himself, a Rite that fostered saints for over 1,500 years... Something tells me you and I will never agree on the answer to that question.
In sum, I actually agree with you that the promulgation of a Missal in not infallible. Portions of the Missal or the Order of Mass may be infallible or necessary to the Mass. The minor revisions throughout history have always worked within the same Missal and are more akin to the addition of saints to the calendar than to the complete revision of the Mass (and these minor revisions were always done by saints). But, there is no basis for the complete revision of the Missal and the invention of a new Rite in the history of the Church because to do so is against piety for the reasons stated above. So... the Holy See can revise the liturgy, but that does not mean that overhauling the Liturgy is a prudential act, particularly when the Missal in question has the "authority" that comes from several hundred years of use.
Pater, I suggest you do some reading on the "monuments" of the Church and the idea that monuments, such as Missals, are always judged in light of the monument that preceded it. Perhaps also consider the idea that each generation owes the subsequent generation a duty to pass on the tradition undefiled else they sin against piety in their failure to do so.
Post a Comment