No matter how much one is attached to the EF Mass, the OF Mass is the norm, the EF is, well, extraordinary. How do parishes and their pastors guarantee that the OF Mass unites the parish and is loved in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the Liturgical directive?
I'm a practical person and I despise people inserting their "feelings" into what should be allowed, or their personal likes and dislikes. The Roman Missal both of 1962 and 2010 do not lend themselves to feelings but give practical norms, instructions and rubrics for the celebration of the Mass.
Some dislike Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, yet these are allowed and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal clearly allows Communion under both kinds in the 2010 missal, although this is not the case with the 1962 missal. So one would have to take their personal preference concerning this off the table in both forms of the Mass and appreciate both forms for the criteria that is present.
The Holy Father and the bishops in union with him are the pastors of the Catholic Church and they model the way the liturgy should or may be celebrated including all the legitimate options. I can count on on hand, maybe one finger a bishop that celebrates the OF Mass ad orientem and allows his priests this option as a matter of fact. The vast majority of bishops, including the Holy Father, celebrate Mass facing the people and only rarely ad orientem.
One might like ad orientem more, but there is no basis to mandate this when the practice today is to face the people and this is legitimately approved by the Holy Father and the bishops in union with him.
In terms of the new translation of the English Mass, I know of no bishop, not even the pope, who will celebrate the previous translation. To request the old when the new is now the norm would be foolish. But maybe another pope one day will allow the older English for a stable group attached to it and say that it was "never in principle abrogated." Who knows?
But all of this is to say that we follow legitimate authority in celebrating the Mass and should be very careful not to denigrate either form of the Mass although we might have personal tastes and prefrences.
51 comments:
The members of your Parish which prefer the OF Mass have no issues because they have the OF Mass available to them 7 days a week. The members of your Parish which prefer the EF have an issue because they are denied the EF Mass except on Tuesdays and 1 Sunday a month, if it's not canceled.
Cut and pasted from Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum:
Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.
§ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held.
The pastor of a parish has no responsibility toward those who live outside his parish to provide sacramental care--it belongs to the pastor of their geographical area. So, with that in mind and given the fact that no more than 12 people attend Tuesday's 5:00 PM Mass and no more about 20 of our parishioners attend the First Sunday of the Month Mass and no one except for maybe two people have asked for it to be more than once a month who are parishioners, I would say that what we are providing more than adequately addresses the needs of those who request this Mass and fully adhere to the guidelines that you write.
Fr. McDonald:
"The pastor of a parish has no responsibility toward those who live outside his parish to provide sacramental care...."
Universae Ecclesiae, paragraph 15:
A coetus fidelium (“group of the faithful”) can be said to be stabiliter existens (“existing in a stable manner”), according to the sense of art. 5 § 1 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum,... such a coetus (“group”) can also be composed of persons coming from different parishes or dioceses, who gather together in a specific parish church or in an oratory or chapel for this purpose.
Fr. McDonald:
"... given the fact that no more than 12 people attend Tuesday's 5:00 PM Mass and no more about 20 of our parishioners attend the First Sunday of the Month Mass..."
Universae Ecclesiae, paragraph 17, section 2:
In cases of groups which are quite small, they may approach the Ordinary of the place to identify a church in which these faithful may be able to come together for such celebrations, in order to ensure easier participation and a more worthy celebration of the Holy Mass.
I am growing weary of having to fight for the Tradtional Mass, but with God's grace, I will never stop advocating for it regardless of the position of the clergy.
Marc
Once again, the people need to be catechized regarding the EF and instructed that it is the Mass of the ages and that it is, and has ever been, an integral part of their Catholic identity. The Priest is feeding sheep, not liturgical scholars or even well-instructed parishioners. It is alright to tell...and show...them what they need. It is my strong belief that a return to the EF (not to the exclusion of the OF)and its unique provenance and to the devotional life fostered by it will strengthen Catholic identity and combat the secularizing/protestantizing tendencies of the last fifty years. The EF is a spiritual weapon of great power and beauty with which to combat the "principalities and powers, the spiritual wickedness in high places." Christ have mercy if we ignore it.
(Without sarcasm, in all sincerity, heartfelt) Wow, Father. I am disappointed. You just alienated any one that isn't in your "geographical area" that attends St. Joseph regularly.(and supports it financially, like the faithful should). Define geographical? Isn't Macon in Middle GA? I have never known this diocese to mandate that parishioners may only register in a parish within a certain distance or that they have to register at all.
I suppose you could choose to turn those faithful away, but how does that save souls?
I do not live in Macon, but attend Mass regularly.
You haven't ever been unwelcoming, but now I must wonder and unfortunately may never walk in the doors with the same feeling of community.
"A stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition" ....
"and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish" ...
"avoiding discord and favoring the unity of the whole Church."
This doesn't say parishioners or faithful within a certain distance. I think it is commonly understood that this is extraordinary; and we are living in the diocese.
Your response has created discord, for me, one of your faithful.
Unfortunately, Atlanta is not a reasonable distance for my gas budget to find an EF Mass.
Marc - The Traditional Mass is offered every day in Catholic parishes.
I would be surprised if someday a stable group of parishioners would be allowed to support a Mass in the old translation. that would seem to rupture the continuity that the New Translation established with the 1962 translation. That would mean that any dynamic equivalence would be allowable.
rcg
I do think that a major reason why those who desire the EF feel aggrieved (not by Fr. McD but by the whole OF/EF dynamic) is because during the couple of decades following Vatican II, the hierarchy caved and even pandered to the will of the modernist, heterodox mob and forced both heterodoxy and atrocious aesthetics upon the Faithful in liturgical and other ways, changing at the drop of a hat many things that nobody had presumed to change for hundreds or even thousands of years.
Today, a generation of orthodox Faithful who would never dissent from the truths of Holy Mother Church attempt to do what the previous generation did, viz., agitate for a change that they desire. Unlike the previous generation, the agitation has a basis in authority (in this case Summorum Pontificum). But now the general response from the clergy/hierarchy (and again, this isn't aimed at Fr. McD but at a culture) is "Good Catholics shut up and do what they're told."
Why is it that the dissenting Catholics of the groovy era weren't told that, and orthodox Catholics who are stuck with what that generation wrought _are_ told that? It smacks of punishing (or at least dealing unfairly with) those who are most faithful to the deposit of the faith.
The hierarchy can always take the true orthodox Catholics for granted, since unlike modernists and heterodox dissenters, _they_ will always say to the Church "To whom else would we go? You have the words of truth." In consequence of their loyalty, they are the ones most likely to get kicked around.
To repeat: This is not intended as an attack on Fr. McD, but an observation on a large-scale trend.
I know a priest who was requested to celebrate the EF Mass every weekend at his parish. The priest, who does love the EF, showed the parishioner his Mass schedule:
Five Masses every Sunday at two locations which usually end up being six Masses per weekend with weddings and funerals.
The priest asked, "at what time do you consider I'd be able to celebrate the EF Mass every weekend?" The parishioner respectfully pulled back his request.
This is an extremely important element to consider when placing more demands on priests. In the last few decades the number of priests in the world has remained the same while the number of Catholics has doubled, therefore every priest have double the pastoral work to accomplish.
I think therein lie the problem, the proliferation of Masses. In the Eastern Rite of the Church as well as in the Orthodox Church only one Eucharist or Divine Liturgy is celebrated on Sunday; it is not allowed to have more than one. Of course the Divine Office is also prayer (Matins). Catholics however have made Sunday into a Mass factory or assembly line striving to please everyone's taste in language, music and style of liturgy, even when everyone knows English, Spanish Masses are celebrated to comfort those whose first language is Spanish.
But what concerns me the most and this was never intended by the Holy Father is a denigration of the Holy Mass according to the Ordinary Form when celebrated by the books and the official norms of the Church and what is allowed. It is here that we have to say, the Mass is the Mass no matter what form it takes, but to also make clear what is the Ordinary Form and what is Extraordinary. Extraordinary does not mean Ordinary.
The other comment that I would like to make is that I am happy to have the Extraordinary Form of the Mass weekly on Tuesday and monthly on Sunday--which is what makes it extraordinary. And I am happy that this Mass, although no more than 50 or so people attend on Sunday and about 12 on Tuesday includes many who come from locations outside the Macon deanery. On the first Sunday there are six weekend Masses at St. Joseph. If I made our 12:10 Mass the Extraordinary Form every Sunday, you can bet that before long it would dwindle to about 75 people and considering that the 12:10 Mass is usually our largest number of people, to whom would that be unfair? And considering that our other Masses except for the 7:45 are almost full, what would happen to the 9:30 Mass? And what about those who would cease to come?
What we strive to do at St. Joseph is to make the Ordinary Form of the Mass as solemn as possible but we follow the General Instructions and the adaptations allowed by the HOly Father and explicitly stated in those instructions. It is here that I have grave concern that those who desire the EF Mass do not respect the norms of the OF Mass that are official and promulgated by the Holy Father--that is of grave concern to me and is making me rethink the EF Mass if providing it is causing those who should know better to become 1960's type Catholics but on the far right of denigrating the hierarchy of the Church rather than on the far left. Let's be clear that both types of dissent are cut from the same disobedient cloth and shrill attitudes about the legitmate authority of the Holy Father and local bishops, not to mention pastors. It is also a form of Protestant Congregationalism and "Voice of the People" type tactics but which the conservative right think appropriate when it tickles their whimsies, but makes them irate when it tickles the whimsies of progressives who are trying to bring the Church make into continuity with the rupture of the 1960's.
Father Pablo, you and I both know a Priest who published in writing, in his Church Bulletin that the EF would never be said in his Church, and I quote "You can't teach an old dog new tricks".
Not every Priest is open and honest when addressing the EF.
This is an excellent example of failed leadership from Rome for decades. Devout Catholics who desire the EF should not have to become irritated with devout and faithful Priests like Fr., nor should he need to become frustrated with them. That is what is happening. I wonder where else in the country this is occuring. For God's sake, Your Holiness, tell people what to do...direct them!
I repeat, if people were educated about the EF, more would come. If Catholic schools spent as much time educating kids about worship and Catholic traditions as they do teaching stupid social justice nonsense we would have truer worship and truer social justice.
PIANE525, what the people don't want is Latin. If the EF Mass were in English, I'd have no problem substituting one of the OF Masses. You have no idea how much push back there was from those who disliked even the little Latin we were doing prior to the change in translation--people since 1964 when the EF Mass was allowed in English have loved the English--I don't think they would give a flip if all the Masses were in the EF Form but in English--this is what all of us have to keep in mind--English has been the greatest success of the reform of the Mass. To take that away would be viewed as a step backward. People in the EF Community should focus their attention on a vernacular EF Mass and then you'd see an explosion of them.
I should also remind you that I have been advocating two forms of the 2010 missal with its lectionary, the 1962 Order applied to it and the 2010 Order. This is the way to go, not a restablishment as the norm of the 1962 missal. I stand by my premise that the 2010 missal and lectionary are far superior to the 1962 missal in content. What I think we can legitmately debate is the order and spirituality of the 1962 missal as being superior to the 2010 missal, by this I mean the more traditional spirituality and piety of the EF Mass, which would include ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion, but even if facing the people remains the norm, kneeling for Holy Communion may well become an option that is clearly allowed by local pastors without their bishop looking askance at them for promoting it. I have to tell you, if you think I'm going to be a radical rebel for the right or the left, you don't know me--I am a conservative priest who takes seriously his two promises of obedience to his bishop and the promise of celibacy--if you want me to be disobedient in either of those areas, tell me plainly!
What concerns me is Clergy who interpret Extraordinary one way when applied to the Extraordinary form of the Mass, and another way when applied to Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Both are "extraordinary" but one is clearly more common than the other. When it's mentioned the person who mentions it is accused of inserting their personal tastes into the equation when all they are trying to do is get a simple answer to a simple question on how a word can mean one think when applied to the 50 adherents of the EF and another when applied to the 50 volunteers of the EMHC Ministry.
What also concerns me is Clergy who admonish laity for not respecting the Hierarchy of Church Authority, while themselves rationalizing why the clear directions of SP need not be followed. You claim to know the hearts and minds of those who prefer the EF and accuse us of denigrating the OF, but have any of us stopped showing up for the OF Mass for any reason, let alone claiming it's somehow invalid? Shall we respond in kind and claim to know your heart and mind on the "real" reasons why you are denying any expansion of the EF? Or shall we continue to take you at your word?
People of good will and good intentions can debate and discuss without assuming the worst in people, but this post clearly establishes that you do seem to think poorly of us, if not "the worst", and I can only assume that is because we have the audacity to come on the Blog you have created and voice our opinions on the subjects you post. It is not denigrating something to discuss it. It is not undermining if we put forth the reasons why this or that may or may not be theologically weaker or stronger. Or has the Catholic Church become afraid of discussion? I was told by my Mother that "the Church fears no debate because the Truth will always win".
Despite any differences of opinion Father I continue to love you and respect you, and will always pray for you daily.
I don't want you to break any of your vows Father, and I don't think anyone is advocating that, nor are we advocating you to be a radical.
Templar, EM's are a straw man! If we had enough priests and deacons to distribute under both kinds, which in this parish is non-negotiable according to the authority that I have (and I think authority is the problem here as well as wanting to keep the laity from having the chalice by a few who are not forced themselves to receive from the chalice) we would not have EM's. EM'S are necessary for the manner in which Holy Communion is distributed at St. Joseph. When we have additional priests or deacons, an EM is eliminated and the priest or deacon takes their place.
Fr., No, I don't think anyone wants you to be disobedient. Part of your strength (and I am sure your personal frustration) is your awareness of Priestly integrity and the vows of obedience. You gave us a taste of true Catholic identity in the Mass...it is like sugar to a child for those who are knowledgeable and desirous of those things. I hope your frustrations with those of us who advocate for more of the same will not cause you to pull back.
I think you are correct about an EF in the vernacular. What are the possibilities? I prefer Latin for a number of reasons that will come up later, I am sure. But, it is not absolutely nevessary.
Father, I'm really NOT against EMHCs, I am against how the Church (and this goes way above St Joseph) applies the term Extraordinary to both situations. It's illogical or dishonest. In one situation the Church goes out of it's way to make the Extraordinary Commonplace and in the other it goes out of it's way to make sure Extraordinary is down right rare if not impossible. On the surface it is silly to get hung up on the word extraordinary, but we the laity didn't pick it. So if any frustration is aimed at you for what is a Church problem I apologize, I understand your situation, but when I see you use the "Extraordinary means not ordinary" justification for why the EF can not be expanded, I hope you can understand why that frustration splashes up on you.
To clarify an old point that you alluded to in a previous post, I do NOT ask or advocate that the EF Mass at St Jos replace an exiting OF Mass, precisely because that is unfair to others. I have asked, and continue to believe, that the present situation, albeit a temporary one, of having 3 Priests on staff, 2 trained in the EF, does allow an opportunity for an EF Mass to be added to the schedule on Sunday without the need for a Priest to say more than 2 Masses on a Sunday. I say this knowing full well that the 3 Priests on staff is temporary, as potentially is the fact that 2 are EF trained is temporary. All things are temporary, even life itself. All I advocate is that while we can do what can be done, we should do what can be done, and let us see where the next 2 or 3 years takes us. For all either of us know that EF Mass could grow to a steady 300 and bring new families into your Parish. One thing is certain though, we will never know if we never try, and that is a big frustration among adherents of the TLM; we keep getting told how things will turn out but the only evidence in support of the dire projections are based on 1960s anecdotes. The evidence from the 21st Century suggests the opposite is true, so why not try?
I fully appreciate the differences required and allowed by the two forms. I would much prefer to attend the EF, were it not so far from home. I remain in my NO parish because we have many friends there, and because I hope I may lend support to the gentle corrections our pastor is making to banish some of the "innovations" which have been enshrined in local tradition.
Father, with respect, while EMs may be at your parish a straw man, that is sadly not the case in my own parish, where we seem to have always 11 EMHCs, no matter how small the congregation. When there are only 120 people to serve, I find the presence of 11 EMHCs to be anything but extraordinary. And frankly, even with a full house (700), 11 seems a bit excessive, as the whole process is finished rather too quickly to allow for much prayer after receiving.
Templar, we have three priests right now. However, we are now filling in at St. Peter Claver because the pastor there is in Nigeria until late February. I had a call from a priest near Valdosta to help with Sunday coverage there and since I have an extra priest, can I say no? So it is quite realistic that on the first Sunday of the month despite having three priests, one of us might have to say all the Masses that day, meaning a total of five which is forbidden by canon law, so one of us will be breaking the law.
I see Father, thank you for the response. I hope and pray the demands on your schedule relent sufficiently to allow you to reconsider such an option in the Spring.
William Meyer: In defense of EMHCs at St Joseph, Father's set up uses 8 of them. The Priest and the Deacon usually distribute the host at the 2 center aisle sattions, they are flanked by 2 stations manned by EMHCs with the chalice. The volume of traffic in the center aisle is such that 1 chalice station on each side would be insufficient. The two side aisles are manned by 1 EMHC with Hosts and 1 EMHC with Chalice. It is the bare minimum required if one has been directed to offer the chalice, which appears is the case.
I have seen Masses at other Churches that routinely use 17 EMHCs because their church is built in the round and has 6 aisles, when in realty, and precisely because it is built in the round it could be done with 3 stations, of 1 Priest and 8 EMHCs just as effectively, so in my opinion 18 is excessive.
Things like this, whether real or perceived, are the driving force behind Parish Shopping these days, and as Pin mentioned earlier, if the Church would just give clear and concise directives intead of options - options - options, there would be just that much less to squabble about. If you're going to hold yourself up as THE Church (which I don't debate for a second) you should have standards that are universal so that the outside world which you are suppossed to be converting sees you Unified.
I've always thought of the "Ordinary" and "Extraordinary" labels as descriptors, not prescriptions. This seems much to do about nothing.
Templar: I have no cause to question the use of EMHCs at St. Joseph; I can speak only from my own experiences at my own parish. As often as not, we have so many EMHCs that there is a snarl of people all but tripping over one another, as there is clearly too little space for a reasonable traffic flow.
I wish to clarify my former comment in this thread regarding my weariness. I did not intend to imply that I am weary of arguing with Fr. McDonald as I do not see our discussions on this thread as arguments (except between myself and Pater Ignotus - I do argue with him).
In my opinion, Fr. McDonald is providing a very valuable and noble venue for his parishioners and a lot of other people in the world by having this Blog and letting us comment on it in a very unrestrained fashion. Moreover, he has set forth what he believes he is bound to do by obedience and, while I sometimes disagree with the definition of obedience he employs, I absolutely respect the fact that he is obedient to the Bishop and the Holy Father in a time when many are not. Furthermore, I recognize that, as a layman, I am able to make points and hypothesize in a manner that Fr. McDonald cannot out of respect to those in authority over him.
I want to be clear that I also have the upmost respect for Fr. McDonald, both as a person and as a priest. As he baptized and confirmed me, after catechizing me, I owe the roots of my Catholic life to him and St. Joseph Church.
In sum, I am not weary of discussing the Rites of Mass with Fr. McDonald and I appreciate the fact that he is actually discussing where many priests seem to be ignoring it (that is the part that makes me weary).
Marc
It seems to me that the problem of ordinary use of extraordinary ministers stems for ordinary offering of the Chalice, which I understand is intended mainly for extraordinary occasions (like, Christmas, Holy Thursday, etc).
In a medium-sized parish like mine--which has only a single center-aisle and ordinarily offers communion in only one kind, only a single extraordinary minister is needed to stand beside the priest as they offer Hosts to the two lines of approaching communicants.
My personal opinion is that the desire to promote the "lay ministry" of EMHCs was the principal original motivation for pushing ordinary communion in both kinds, and that "fullness of sign" arguments were cobbled up to support this intent.
There is an English EF. It's The Anglican Use Liturgy.
There are rumors the "two form, one rite" era is only transitional.
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=4222
As we speak, a new, single form of the Roman Rite is being developed that will replace both EF and OF, and it will be, just as you desire, a hybrid form that uses the Order of the 1962 Missal, but the Liturgical calendar and readings of the OF,
This will be a long reply to Pater Ignotus’s post reading “Marc--The Traditional Mass is offered every day in Catholic parishes.” So long, in fact, that I have to break it into four parts.
We have seen this disagreement over terms before. I would like to provide my take on the nature of a disagreement in the hopes that in the future we can have more in the way of good-faith dialogue here and less sniping, in keeping with the wishes expressed by Fr. McD in this blog entry.
Traditio, of course, means “that which is handed on.” And what was handed on from the Latin Mass to the NO Mass? Quantitatively, most things were _not_ handed on: Latin, the silent participation of the laity, the sanctuary and functions related thereto as the exclusive province of the clergy, Gregorian chant, reception on the tongue, kneeling for reception, ad orientum, reception under one kind, the strong emphasis on vertical sacrifice, the very light (if any) emphasis on the horizontal meal, and a bunch of other stuff. (I will not discuss here the irreverence and the liberties taken by many clergy—I will accept arguendo that they are perversions of what was supposed to be, although I _would_ argue that the NO has propagated those things more than the EF does/did.)
So what _was_ handed on? What is it in the NO that is also in the EF that continues to make the NO a valid Mass? Note that even the words of consecration—the very liturgical core of the Mass--were changed—for you and for _all_--pro omnes, not pro multis. So on first—and even on second—inspection, it seems that precious little got “traditio’ed,” if you will. The celebration by a priest and the use of wine and unleavened bread sometimes seems to be just about all that made it unscathed.
With this as background, then, there are three possibilities:
to be continued
Part 2:
1) The NO mass is valid based on the dictates of reason—its adoption was inherently reasonable. But given all the aforementioned changes—more and faster change that has ever been seen in 2000 years of Catholic history, making this situation unique--reason by no means dictates this conclusion. Reason becomes even shakier when the parallels between the NO and Protestant liturgies are so obvious. Catholic history is full of examples of heretical ideas infecting the Church and even being accepted by large numbers of bishops before being stamped out. Is there a truly ironclad, unassailable reason why this _cannot_ be the case today? Especially since the Church has just issued corrections to the English NO? Anyone who says that there is such a reason, I submit, is guilty of hubris, of a sort of snobbish temporal provincialism that says “Our generation is smarter and knows better than any other generation that has ever lived.”
2) The NO Mass is valid because of its continuity with earlier forms of the Mass that were/are valid. Again, given all the aforementioned differences, very little continuity is apparent. The claim that the essentials were retained, to my ear, sounds disturbingly like the usual Protestant/Modernist least common denominator argument: “You may be Catholic and I may be Protestant, but at least we agree on the fundamentals.” No, Mr. Protestant, we don’t. You threw out fundamentals, and claimed what you threw out weren’t fundamentals. I repeat: In the NO even the words of consecration were changed. That’s pretty gosh-darned fundamental.
3) The NO Mass is valid because the Church says it is. But why does the Church say it is? Could the Church go still further and have a deacon(ess) celebrate Mass and still declare it to be valid? Could it change the elements to coke and potato chips and change (even more than it already did) the words of consecration—e.g., “This is my Frisbee that shall be thrown for you”--and still declare the Mass to be valid? Perhaps so. But in that case it would be a matter of naked authority—potestas, not auctoritas--unsupported by reason or history. _This_ is the reasoned fear of many pro-EF people today: that the adoption of the NO Mass, and the changes within it, were unprincipled, supported by neither reason or history but only by potestas. AKA, the Emperor’s clothes.
People who know their liturgy and their church history and their theology can make some very persuasive arguments on this point (i.e., it’s valid not because of continuity or reason but because of a declaration by the Church that it is valid—and this declaration seems in fact to _contravene_, at least to a degree, both history and reason). Since the Church herself has made, in recent decades, a big deal about giving reasoned arguments for why it does things (look at the long pastoral explications in the Vatican II documents, compared to the flat assertions common in earlier councils), the sudden reversion to “shut up and obey” is incongruous, and even gives the impression of duplicity, or at the very least that the hierarchy has something to hide—that the emperor has been caught naked.
In fact, the Church herself opened the can of worms called public opinion. She made changes—forced great changes—on the laity and gave reasons for the changes. Now, when people reply in the mode she herself chose—i.e., through reasoned argument—and when their reason is at least as sound as hers, she suddenly eschews reason for potestas.
to be continued
part 3:
The proponents of the EF are often vocal. Sometimes they are argumentative and intransigent (e.g., “The EF is the only true Mass.”) But I think it needs to be realized that folks who talk this way are often—indeed, usually—doing so because they are confused and even fearful at all the ill-explained, ill-advised changes of the last 40 years. As Edmund Burke noted, three ways to upset people are to mess with their system of government, their money, and their religion. By any imaginable standard, the post-Vatican II church in America messed big time with people’s religion—whether for good or for ill is irrelevant.
The NO Mass, with its defects—defects explicitly recognized by the Church in its promulgation of the corrected English translation—was forced onto the laity, who in very large measure neither desired nor were consulted about the changes. Yet, the general tone of most clergy in America today, when asked for more EF Masses, often give as a reason for their refusal that the laity, when implicitly “consulted,” don’t desire to swap NO attendance for EF attendance. The double standard is obvious.
I think that the vast majority of faithful Catholics who prefer the EF nevertheless accept the validity of the NO. (Those who don’t probably left their parishes long ago for FSSP or SSPX or some other such group.) But they do often feel slighted and condescended to, even—perhaps especially—when they can back up their position with very solid arguments in the form of reason, magisterial documents, and liturgical and Church history. In short: they speak out of fear. Being dismissed, or worse, sneered at, isn’t going to do anything to calm those fears. Again: the clergy should respect that these people, for the most part, are going to be the most faithful Catholics that they’ll ever see. Surely that is worth some degree of respect and honest attempt at dialogue, if nothing else. And dialogue, as a mutual search for the truth as opposed to scoring points off the other side, means a willingness of both sides to accept correction and even to change positions.
to be concluded . . .
Final part:
In short, Pater Ignotus, just waving a magic wand and uncritically calling the NO a “traditional” Mass ignores common sense, reason, history, and the emotional and pastoral needs of some Catholics who are very upset at changes that can appear to be—and perhaps are—simply unprincipled. And belittling them for their small numbers is bad too—Jesus never made this a numbers game (good shepherd, one lost sheep, etc.). and finally, remember that it cuts both ways: if the NO is just as good as the EF, then the EF is just as good as the NO, right? Why all the objection, then, to more EFs?
Respectfully submitted.
Father is correct...people don't want Latin.
If the EF were in the vernacular there would indeed be an explosion of EF Masses.
Most folks are not brain-heads who love to learn languages and contemplate the meanings of words in two languages. They have other gifts and charisms. Not everyone is drawn to history or ancient Tradition and how it affects the present, etc., etc.
Plus,to be real...most folks only give God the required ONE HOUR per week,...and maybe say Grace before meals when they remember. That's basically it. They fulfill the minimum requirements of the Church. Which is more than most of society.
The pendulum swung too far. Bit by bit it will come back to where it belongs.
And I'll do my part to help it get there!
~SqueekerLamb
Are there any of the new Anglican Ordinariate churches in the vacinity?
just wondering...
~SL
In the early 1970s, a Mass that was hundreds, if not thousands, of years old was exchanged for a Mass whose form was radically different. The laity wasn't consulted and the change was sudden and total.
The old form of the Mass was not merely abandoned--it was de facto suppressed.
Today, although papal permission has been given to celebrate it, the vast majority of clergy appear to be either indifferent or openly hostile to it.
The impression that one gets is that there must be/have been something horribly wrong with the old form for it to have been buried so quickly and deeply.
This in turn suggests that the Church can make terrible mistakes in the liturgy department--and raises the specter that the church can err doctrinally.
if that's the case, then perhaps there can be an error regarding the content or promulgation of the current liturgy?
When trads raise this possibility, the usual result is that most clergy urge them even more strongly that the NO is right (and that at least by implication the EF is wrong), thus strengthening the impression that the Church has made a terrible mistake--if not then with the Tridentine Mass, then now, with the NO.
If, as some here have said, the NO is just as good as the EF, then isn't the EF just as good as the NO? But that's not what the clergy suggest by their conduct and their hostility to the EF, thus again strengthening the sense that the Church was wrong to be so wedded to the Latin Mass for the millineum or so prior to the 1970s.
And yet the NO apologists are so insistent that the Church is right to promulgate the NO as the ordinary form.
If the Church was wrong then, it can be wrong in its militant defense of the NO.
Whether wrong or right, this is the impression one gets.
Though I prefer the EF, I do not question the validity of the NO. I do, however, rankle at ad libs, and when prior to Mass, the choir carries on as though in the parish hall. I've never had those problems at an EF.
Without doubt, the Latin language is a perceived barrier that prevents greater attendance at the EF Mass. But, paradoxically, the Latin itself probably is actually a minor factor in the worship of the great majority of EF attendees who likely have little knowledge of Latin per se. For instance, one of the most powerful emotions of a traditional Catholic may the feeling of adoration evoked by the haunting strains of Tantum Ergo as the Most Blessed Sacrament is incensed at Benediction, even if one understands not a single Latin word of this great Eucharistic hymn.
Worship at the EF is a deeply spiritual experience--typically one of praying along with the priest in one's own language--which I do in English, even though fairly proficient in liturgical Latin--supported by the sights and sounds (and smells) which play a far more intrinsic role in the EF than in the OF; both the ritual and the sacred music powerfully stimulate the sense of participation in worship.
My TLM community has first-time visitors to a Latin Mass almost every Sunday. Below are a few remarks by a recent one; note that the Latin language of the Mass is not even mentioned.
"My favorite part of the Mass was probably the chant, which was just heavenly. I think it is really a shame and it is mind boggling to me that chant is no longer included in Mass. I really don't understand. This is a beautiful Catholic tradition and art form that is being lost rather than shared.
"I loved the periods of silence in the Mass when all you could hear was the chant - when I could focus on the mysteries taking place, feel God's presence, and meditate and praise in similar ways to what I do during the Eucharistic adoration. There were more periods in this Mass that invited silent reflection and I loved that."
"I loved the incense and the bells, the postures, the extreme reverence. . . . To me it was all very conducive to worship and sacrifice, the crux of what Mass should be about."
People don't want a lot of things until they learn the benefit of them. I am going to sound a little elitist here, but not everyone can actually benefit from TLM. There needs to be a more simple and direct communication. However, for those who can tell the difference, for those can work with it, it should be provided, it MUST be provided.
I have encountered a significant amount of resentment concerning this. I understand it because there is a tendency to feel one is smarter, or worshiping better, than with the OF. This must be discouraged, but not at the alternative of encouraging resentment, we have that infection enough already.
These concerns over Latin, orientation, music, vernacular, all seem so similar. We make the average the enemy of the good; we make envy a virtue and call prejudice charity when we do that. Mediocrity may not be a sin, but it sure is hell.
rcg
Anonymous (Long Form), That was a very fine four part post that captures the issue better than anything I have read. You need to post it on every Catholic blog and send it to every Bishop in the country.
RCG, "Not everyone can actually benefit from the TLM...." What!? So, the validity of the Sacrament, the Graces conferred, and the redemptive/salvific efficacy of the Sacrifice are not beneficial to Joe down at the gas station, Sam working the assembly line, and Chuck down in the mine....?!!! I beg your pardon. So, I guess only college educated Latin majors benefit...engineers...physicians...lawyers...Priests who know Latin, maybe. What about the centuries of the poor, ignorant, outcast who have knelt before the altar and received the Body and Blood of Christ who did not understand what was being said? You need either to re-phrase what you wrote or review your theology...or both.
Pin, Fair enough, I meant the FORM not Mass qua. However, I stand by the point, because people have become so self centered and ignorant that they resist everything except pablum.
rcg
RCG, Well, dammit, why have they become self-centered and ignorant? It is because the Church and society stopped asking them to reach beyond themselves. The Church is supposed to appeal to the best that is in us by confessing the worst and redeeming it...not by catering to whim, laziness, and inertia. Demand something of these wimpy, back-slid (a protestant term), luke-warm (a Biblical term) modern Catholics! Hell, yes, make 'em learn Latin. I have said a number of times that the Church (parishes) should begin (again) educating people about the TLM and the true Catholic Faith and not as an option. I mentioned this to Fr. last night and, although he was sympathetic, he said that Latin and the TLM are just "no longer a part of our culture." Well, neither are pre-marital chastity, obedience to authority and the law, faithfulness in marriage, and respect for life from birth until natural death. Are we going to reform those things to fit the culture, too? It is everywhere...even in the Confessional. I went to Confession in another parish not long ago and confessed a mortal sin I felt pretty guilty about. The Priest said, "Well, tomorrow is another day. Go and say an Our Father." Wow...mea culpa. This spiritual laziness is so pervasive that I am not sure it can be remedied.
Pin - You compare apples and oranges. The Apples: Latin and the "T"LM. They were once part of our culture but, as Good Father McDonald reminds you, they are no longer so. Both, by their nature, can been and have been changed.
The Oranges: Pre-marital chastity, obedience to authority, faithfulness in marriage, respect for innocent life. These, by their nature, are not subject to modification and cannot be changed. While people may choose not to respect these enduring truths, they remain truths.
The same cannot be said for Latin and the "T"LM.
Ignotus, it is the principle man, the principle. The principle of conforming the Church to culture in whatever category. Since when is the Church supposed to yield to social imperatives? Those things you mention "by their nature" as unchangeable have already been changed by the culture. These things are not viewed as enduring truths by our culture or by a vocal minority in the Church. I'm sure there will soon be a social mandate for apples and oranges to interbreed so I will no longer be comparing the same...
Pin - No, you are simply wrong. Adultery, unchastity, abortion, disobedience to legitimate authority are now and always will be wrong. That has not changed.
The "T"LM and Latin are not eternal truths, are not part of Revelation, and are subject to change.
The principles are different. bri
Ignotus, Increasingly the culture does not see these things as wrong. The society is demanding that the Church conform to its norms. You advocate for a more secular Church, a Church that is more society friendly, a more humanistic theology and liturgy. You are playing into the hands of secularism.
I gotta say I am amazed at how you can twist yourself like a Pretzel Ignotus.
Latin and the TLM weren't eternal truths so they changed. What changed them? Well the spirit of V2 changed them, inspired as that council was to make the Church more open to the Modern world. Ergo, the culture affected change on the Church. They weren't changed because they weren't true, they were changed because the Church allowed itself to be driven by culture.
Now, Chasity, abortion, adultery you say can not or will not change because they are eternal truths. But culture assaults them daily. Last year Obamacare passed and will, in 2014, force Catholic Hospitals to provide abortions, and Catholics to pay for them. Today, the White House announced that Insurance companies can not charge a co-pay for birth control, and Doctors and Hospitals must prescribe them regardless of religious affiliation, takes effect in 1 year, so in 2013 Catholics will be forced by American political Culture to change your eternal truths. Practically all of America, including a majority of Catholics, seem to believe that birth control is essential precisely because premarital sex (adultery) is essentially accepted as "okay" (at least as long as you're serially monogamous). And they believe this because of the sexual revolution that started in the 60s and has never abated. Again, culture affecting change.
You're living in a river in Egypt brother.
Pin - Culture may not see these things as wrong, yet they remain wrong. What culture does cannot change this.
I do not advocate for a more secular church in any way. Nor do I look for a humanistic theology, unless it is in the great humanistic tradition of St. Thos. More.
Temp - "For the liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These latter 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 gharmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become less suitable."
And no, Catholics will not be forced to change. Any change anyone makes is by personal choice.
Thomas More, devout Catholic and Saint that he is, was theologically liberal and believed that human reason could create the perfect society on earth. This is not sound theology and it is not Biblically supported.
More's humanistic optimism is somewhat sullied by the fact that he directed the burning of a number of protestants, engaged Luther in a virulent dialogue where he used most unhumanistic language, and was accused on a number of occasions of using torture to extract confessions from various heretics. He denied this, of course. Ultimately, his dabbling in politics and playing footsie with Henry VIII got him beheaded. He opposed Henry becoming head of the Church of England and separating from the body of the Catholic Church. Henry did not think that was cool. His unfortunate beheading was memorialized in an anonymous, witty poem of the time:
"On this scaffold,
Thomas More lies deade;
Who would not separate
The body from the heade."
Anyway, More went to Glory and Henry went back to bed with Kataharine of Aragon.
Post a Comment