I have a few of my own heterodox comments at the end of this lenghty article which is rather fascinating:
BISHOP SCHNEIDER AND THE LITURGY: MILESTONES FOR THE THIRD MILLENNIUM
Bishop Schneider, who is auxiliary bishop of the archidiocese of Saint Mary of Astana and Secretary of the Kazakhstan Conference of Catholic Bishops, is the author of Dominus Est - It is the Lord!, Reflections of a Bishop of Central Asia on Holy Communion, published by Newman House Press.
I –Turning our gaze towards Christ
In order to speak of new evangelization correctly, it is necessary first to turn our gaze towards Him Who is the true evangelizer, namely Our Lord and Saviour Jesus-Christ, the Word of God made Man. The Son of God came upon this earth to expiate and redeem the greatest sin, sin par excellence. And this sin, humanity's sin par excellence, consists in refusing to adore God, in refusing to keep the first place, the place of honor, for Him. This sin on the part of man consists in not paying attention to God, in no longer having a sense of the fittingness of things, or even a sense of the details pertaining to God and to the Adoration that is His due, in not wanting to see God, in not wanting to kneel before God.
For such an attitude, the incarnation of God is an embarrassment; as a result the real presence of God in the Eucharistic mystery is likewise an embarrassment; the centrality of the Eucharistic presence of God in our churches is an embarrassment. Indeed sinful man wants the center stage for himself, whether within the Church or during the Eucharistic celebration; he wants to be seen, to be noticed.
For this reason Jesus the Eucharist, God incarnate, present in the tabernacle under the Eucharistic form, is set aside. Even the representation of the Crucified One on the cross in the middle of the altar during the celebration facing the people is an embarrassment, for it might eclipse the priest's face. Therefore the image of the Crucified One in the center of the altar as well as Jesus the Eucharist in the tabernacle, also in the center of the altar, are an embarrassment. Consequently, the cross and the tabernacle are moved to the side. During mass, the congregation must be able to see the priest’s face at all times, and he delights in placing himself literally at the center of the house of God. And if perchance Jesus the Eucharist is still left in His tabernacle in the middle of the altar because the Ministry of Historical Monuments—even in an atheist regime—has forbidden moving it for the conservation of artistic heritage, the priest, often throughout the entire Eucharistic celebration, does not scruple to turn his back to Him.
How often have good and faithful adorers of Christ cried out in their simplicity and humility : “God bless you, Ministry of Historical Monuments ! At least you have left us Jesus in the center of our church.”
II – The Mass is intended to give glory to God, not to men
Only on the basis of adoring and glorifying God can the Church adequately proclaim the word of the truth, i.e., evangelize. Before the world ever heard Jesus, the eternal Word made flesh, preach and proclaim the Kingdom, He quietly adored for thirty years. This remains forever the law for the Church’s life and action as well as for all evangelizers. “The way the liturgy is treated decides the fate of the Faith and of the Church,” said Cardinal Ratzinger, our current Holy Father Benedict XVI. The Second Vatican Council intended to remind the Church what reality and what action were to take the first place in her life. This is the reason for which the first of the Council’s documents was dedicated to the liturgy. The Council gives us the following principles: in the Church, and therefore in the liturgy, the human must be oriented towards the divine and be subordinate to it; likewise the visible in relation to the invisible, action in relation to contemplation, the present in relation to the future city to which we aspire (see Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2). According to the teaching of Vatican II our earthly liturgy participates in a foretaste of the heavenly liturgy of the holy city of Jerusalem (ibid., 2).
Everything about the liturgy of the Holy Mass must therefore serve to express clearly the reality of Christ’s sacrifice, namely the prayers of adoration, of thanks, of expiation, and of impetration that the eternal High Priest presented to His Father.
The rite and every detail of the Holy Sacrifice of the mass must center on glorifying and adoring God by insisting on the centrality of Christ’s presence, whether in the sign and representation of the Crucified or in His Eucharistic presence in the tabernacle, and especially at the moment of the Consecration and of Holy Communion. The more this is respected, the less man takes center stage in the celebration, the less the celebration looks like a circle closed in on itself. Rather, it is opened out on to Christ as in a procession advancing towards Him with the priest at its head; such a liturgical procession will more truly reflect the sacrifice of adoration of Christ crucified;the fruits deriving from God’s glorification received into the souls of those in attendance will be richer; God will honor them more.
The more the priest and the faithful truthfully seek the glory of God rather than that of men in Eucharistic celebrations and do not seek to receive glory from each other, the more God will honor them by granting that their soul may participate more intensely and fruitfully in the Glory and Honor of His divine life.
At present and in various places on earth there are many celebrations of the Holy Mass regarding which one might say, as an inversion of Psalm113:9: “To us, O Lord, and to our name give glory.” To such celebrations apply Jesus’ words: “How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek?” (Jn 5:44).
III –The Six Principles of the Liturgical Reform (MY COMMENT: These are very important principles that have been lost in the post-Vatican II implementation of the revisions called by Vatican II!)
The Second Vatican Council put forward the following principles regarding a liturgical reform:
1. During the liturgical celebration, the human, the temporal, and action must be directed towards the divine, the eternal, and contemplation; the role of the former must be subordinated to the latter (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2).
2. During the liturgical celebration, the realization that the earthly liturgy participates in the heavenly liturgy will have to be encouraged (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 8).
3. There must be absolutely no innovation, therefore no new creation of liturgical rites, especially in the rite of Mass, unless it is for a true and certain gain for the Church, and provided that all is done prudently and, if it is warranted, that new forms replace the existing ones organically (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23).
4. The rites of Mass must be such that the sacred is more explicitly addressed (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 21).
5. Latin must be preserved in the liturgy, especially in Holy Mass (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36 and 54).
6. Gregorian chant has pride of place in the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 116).
The Council Fathers saw their reform proposals as the continuation of the reform of Saint Pius X (Sacrosanctum Concilium 112 and 117) and of the servant of God Pius XII; indeed, in the liturgical constitution, Pius XII’s Encyclical Mediator Dei is what is most often cited.
Among other things, Pope Pius XII left the Church an important principle of doctrine regarding the Holy Liturgy, namely the condemnation of what is called liturgical archeologism. Its proposals largely overlapped with those of the Jansenistic and Protestant-leaning synod of Pistoia (see “Mediator Dei,” 63-64). As a matter of fact they bring to mind Martin Luther’s theological thinking.
For this reason, already the Council of Trent condemned Protestant liturgical ideas, in particular the exaggerated emphasis on the notion of banquet in the eucharistic celebration to the detriment of its sacrificial character and the suppression of univocal signs of sacrality as an expression of the mystery of the liturgy (see Council of Trent, session 22).
The magisterium’s doctrinal declarations on the liturgy, as in this case those of the Council of Trent and of the encyclical Mediator Dei and which are reflected in a centuries-old, or even millenia-old, liturgical praxis, these declarations I say, form part of that element of Holy Tradition that one cannot abandon without incurring grave spiritual damage. Vatican II took up these doctrinal declarations on the liturgy, as one can see by reading the general principals of divine worship in the liturgical constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium.
As an example of a concrete error in the thought and action of liturgical action, Pope Pius XII cites the proposal to give to the altar the shape of table (Mediator Dei 62). If already Pope Pius XII refused the table-shaped altar, one imagines how much more he would have refused the proposal for a celebration around a table “versus populum”!
When Sacrosanctum Concilium 2 teaches that, in the liturgy, contemplation has the priority and that the entire celebration must be oriented to the heavenly mysteries (ibid. 2 and 8), it is faithfully echoing the following declaration of the Council of Trent: “And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolic discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice” (Session 24, chap. 5).
The Church’s magisterial teachings quoted above, especially Mediator Dei, were certainly recognized as fully valid by the Fathers of the Council. Therefore they must continue to be fully valid for all of the Church’s children even today.
IV –The five wounds of the liturgical mystical body of Christ
In the letter to all the bishops of the Catholic Church that Benedict XVI sent with the 7 July 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the Pope made the following important declaration: “In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too.” In saying this the Pope expressed the fundamental principle of the liturgy that the Council of Trent, Pope Pius XII, and the Second Vatican Council had taught.
Taking an unprejudiced and objective look at the liturgical practice of the overwhelming majority of churches throughout the Catholic world where the Ordinary Form of the Roman rite is used, no one can honestly deny that the six aforementioned liturgical principles of Vatican II are never, or hardly ever, respected, despite the erroneous claim that such is the liturgical practice that Vatican II desired. There is a certain number of concrete aspects of the currently prevailing liturgical practice in the ordinary rite that represent a veritable rupture with a constant and millennium-old liturgical practice. By this I mean the five liturgical practices I shall mention shortly; they may be termed the five wounds of the liturgical mystical body of Christ. These are wounds, for they amount to a violent break with the past since they deemphasize the sacrificial character (which is actually the central and essential character of the Mass) and put forward the notion of banquet. All of this diminishes the exterior signs of divine adoration, for it brings out the heavenly and eternal dimension of the mystery to a far lesser degree.
Now the five wounds (except for the new Offertory prayers) are those that are not envisaged in the ordinary form of the rite of Mass but were brought into it through the practice of a deplorable fashion.
A) The first and most obvious wound is the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass in which the priest celebrates with his face turned towards the faithful, especially during the Eucharistic prayer and the consecration, the highest and most sacred moment of the worship that is God’s due. This exterior form corresponds, by its very nature, more to the way in which one teaches a class or shares a meal. We are in a closed circle. And this form absolutely does not conform to the moment of the prayer, less yet to that of adoration. And yet Vatican II did not want this form by any means; nor has it ever been recommended by the Magisterium of the Popes since the Council. Pope Benedict wrote in the preface to the first volume of his collected works: “[t]he idea that the priest and the people in prayer must look at one another reciprocally was born only in the modern age and is completely foreign to ancient Christianity. In fact, the priest and the people do not address their prayer to one another, but together they address it to the one Lord. For this reason they look in the same direction in prayer: either towards the East as the cosmic symbol of the Lord’s return, or where this in not possible, towards an image of Christ in the apse, towards a cross, or simply upwards.”
The form of celebration in which all turn their gaze in the same direction (conversi ad orientem, ad Crucem, ad Dominum) is even mentioned in the rubrics of the new rite of the Mass (see Ordo Missae, 25, 133, 134). The so-called “versus populum” celebration certainly does not correspond to the idea of the Holy Liturgy as mentioned in the declaration of Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2 and 8.
B) The second wound is communion in the hand, which is now spread nearly throughout the entire world. Not only was this manner of receiving communion in no way mentioned by the Vatican II Council Fathers, but it was in fact introduced by a certain number of bishops in disobedience to the Holy See and in spite of the negative majority vote by bishops in 1968. Pope Paul VI legitimized it only later, reluctantly, and under specific conditions.
Pope Benedict XVI, since Corpus Christi 2008, distributes Communion to the faithful kneeling and on their tongue only, both in Rome and also in all the local churches he visits. He thus is showing the entire Church a clear example of practical Magisterium in a liturgical matter. Since the qualified majority of the bishops refused Communion in the hand as something harmful three years after the Council, how much more the Council Fathers would have done so!
C) The third wound is the new Offertory prayers. They are an entirely new creation and had never been used in the Church. They do less to express the mystery of the sacrifice of the Cross than that of a banquet; thus they recall the prayers of the Jewish Sabbath meal. In the more than thousand-year tradition of the Church in both East and West, the Offertory prayers have always been expressly oriented to the mystery of the sacrifice of the Cross (see e.g. Paul Tirot, Histoire des prières d’offertoire dans la liturgie romaine du VIIème au XVIème siècle [Rome, 1985]). There is no doubt that such an absolutely new creation contradicts the clear formulation of Vatican II that states: “Innovationes ne fiant . . . novae formae ex formis iam exstantibus organice crescant” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23).
D) The fourth wound is the total disappearance of Latin in the huge majority of Eucharistic celebrations in the Ordinary Form in all Catholic countries. This is a direct infraction against the decisions of Vatican II.
E) The fifth wound is the exercise of the liturgical services of lector and acolyte by women as well as the exercise of these same services in lay clothing while entering into the choir during Holy Mass directly from the space reserved to the faithful. This custom has never existed in the Church, or at least has never been welcome. It confers to the celebration of the Catholic Mass the exterior character of informality, the character and style of a rather profane assembly. The second council of Nicaea, already in 787, forbad such practices when it lay down the following canon: “If someone is not ordained, it is not permitted for him to do the reading from the ambo during the holy liturgy“ (can. 14). This norm has been constantly followed in the Church. Only subdeacons and lectors were allowed to give the reading during the liturgy of the Mass. If lectors and acolytes are missing, men or boys in liturgical vestments may do so, not women, since the male sex symbolically represents the last link to minor orders from the point of view of the non-sacramental ordination of lectors and acolytes.
The texts of Vatican II never mention the suppression of the minor orders and of the subdiaconate or the introduction of new ministries. In Sacrosanctum Concilium no. 28, the Council distinguishes “minister” from “fidelis” during the liturgical celebration, and it stipulates that each may do only what pertains to him by the nature of the liturgy. Number 29 mentions the “ministrantes”, that is the altar servers who have not been ordained. In contrast to them, there are, in keeping with the juridical terms in use at that time, the “ministri,” that is to say those who have received an order, be it major or minor.
V –The Motu Proprio: putting an end to rupture in the liturgy
In the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI stipulates that the two forms of the Roman rite are to be regarded and treated with the same respect, because the Church remains the same before and after the Council. In the letter accompanying the Motu Proprio, the pope wishes the two forms to enrich each other mutually. Furthermore he wishes that the new form “be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.”
Four of the liturgical wounds, or unfortunate practices (celebration versus populum, communion in the hand, total abandonment of Latin and of Gregorian chant, and intervention of women for the service of lectorship and of acolyte), have in and of themselves nothing to do with the Ordinary Form of the Mass and moreover are in contradiction with the liturgical principles of Vatican II. If an end were put to these practices, we would get back to the true teaching of Vatican II. And then, the two forms of the Roman rite would come considerable closer so that, at least outwardly, there would be no rupture to speak of between them and, therefore, no rupture between the Church before and after the Council either.
As concerns the new Offertory prayers, it would be desirable for the Holy See to replace them with the corresponding prayers of the extraordinary form, or at least to allow for the use of the latter ad libitum. In this way the rupture between the two forms would be avoided not only externally but also internally. Rupture in the liturgy is precisely what the Council Fathers did not what. The Council’s minutes attest to this, because throughout the two thousand years of the liturgy’s history, there has never been a liturgical rupture and, therefore, there never can be. On the other hand there must be continuity, just as it is fitting for the Magisterium to be in continuity.
The five wounds of the Church’s liturgical body I have mentioned are crying out for healing. They represent a rupture that one may compare to the exile in Avignon. The situation of so sharp a break in an expression of the Church’s life is far from unimportant—back then the absence of the popes from Rome, today the visible break between the liturgy before and after the Council. This situation indeed cries out for healing.
For this reason we need new saints today, one or several Saint Catherines of Sienna. We need the “vox populi fidelis” demanding the suppression of this liturgical rupture. The tragedy in all of this is that, today as back in the time of the Avignon exile, a great majority of the clergy, especially in its higher ranks, is content with this rupture.
Before we can expect efficacious and lasting fruits from the new evangelization, a process of conversion must get under way within the Church. How can we call others to convert while, among those doing the calling, no convincing conversion towards God has yet occurred, internally or externally? The sacrifice of the Mass, the sacrifice of adoration of Christ, the greatest mystery of the Faith, the most sublime act of adoration is celebrated in a closed circle where people are looking at each other.
What is missing is “conversio ad Dominum.” It is necessary, even externally and physically. Since in the liturgy Christ is treated as though he were not God, and he is not given clear exterior signs of the adoration that is due to God alone because the faithful receive Holy Communion standing and, to boot, take it into their hands like any other food, grasping it with their fingers and placing it into their mouths themselves. There is here a sort of Eucharistic Arianism or Semi-Arianism.
One of the necessary conditions for a fruitful new evangelization would be the witness of the entire Church in the public liturgical worship. It would have to observe at least these two aspects of Divine Worship:
1) Let the Holy Mass be celebrated the world over, even in the ordinary form, in an internal and therefore necessarily also external “conversio ad Dominum”.
2) Let the faithful bend the knee before Christ at the time of Holy Communion, as Saint Paul demands when he mentions the name and person of Christ (see Phil 2:10), and let them receive Him with the greatest love and the greatest respect possible, as befits Him as true God.
Thank God, Benedict XVI has taken two concrete measures to begin the process of a return from the liturgical Avignon exile, to wit the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and the reintroduction of the traditional Communion rite.
There still is need for many prayers and perhaps for a new Saint Catherine of Sienna for the other steps to be taken to heal the five wounds on the Church’s liturgical and mystical body and for God to be venerated in the liturgy with that love, that respect, that sense of the sublime that have always been the hallmark of the Church and of her teaching, especially in the Council of Trent, Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mediator Dei, Vatican II in its Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and Pope Benedict XVI in his theology of the liturgy, in his liturgical magisterium, and in the Motu Proprio mentioned above.
No one can evangelize unless he has first adored, or better yet unless he adores constantly and gives God, Christ the Eucharist, true priority in his way of celebrating and in all of his life. Indeed, to quote Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: “It is in the treatment of the liturgy that the fate of the Faith and of the Church is decided.”
Bishop Athanasius Schneider,
Réunicatho, 15 January 2012
MY HETERODOX COMMENTS: As far as I can tell, I don't believe Bishop Schneider is calling for a complete return to the EF Mass, but a reform of the OF Mass according to the genius of Pope Benedict XVI thus reducing the appearance of a rupture between the two forms of the Mass. The main reform is to have the OF Mass at the "Liturgy of the Eucharist" ad orientem. This would keep the other parts of the Mass by the priest at his presiding chair (this is what in fact is done when a bishop celebrates the EF High Mass, after the prayers at the Foot of the altar, he incenses the altar as the Introit is sung and then goes to his throne for the Kyrie, Gloria and Collect. After the homily, the Credo is from the throne and I believe the Post Communion Prayer and Benediction is too. The OF Mass extended this to priests at the priest's presiding chair (distinct though from the bishop's cathedra).
The other recommendation is that there be at least an option if not a return to the EF's Offertory Prayers in the OF Mass. The bishop has a very cogent apologetic for the EF's offertory prayers compared to the OF's and I had not seen this reason put forth in such an understandable way.
His recommendation about kneeling for Holy Communion which Pope Benedict now models is inevitable and a no-brainer.
Where I would dissent from Bishop Schneider and vehemently so is concerning women and their role in the Mass. I think one can certainly make a historical, theological and doctrinal case that it is divinely revealed that women cannot be ordained deacons, priests and bishops based upon the "sacramental" sign of the male who in Holy Orders represents Jesus Christ, crucified and risen in the various degrees of Holy Orders and thus shows the complete Church in Liturgical celebrations, Christ the Head and Bridegroom and the Body of Christ, His Holy Bride. The importance of this image of Bridegroom and Bride is even more necessary today with proponents of same sex marriage even in the Church who would see females in Holy Orders as a confirmation of their perverted view of marriage.
However, to exclude women from important roles in the Church and in the liturgy apart from Holy Orders would certainly appear to be misogynistic to many orthodox Catholics and might well be based on the actual misogyny of those who would advocate such a thing. Thus this prohibition would be more of a psychological perversion than a theological argument.
The minor orders which do not entail ordination and were created by the Church, not by Christ directly, and governed by the laws of the Church and in this case, not divine law, should be opened to women, namely "porter, exorcist,tonsure, lector, acolyte and sub-deacon."
After Vatican II, Pope Paul VI took it upon himself to suppress the minor orders of porter, exorcist, tonsure and sub-deacon--thus proving these are not divinely revealed. A new ceremony replacing tonsure is called "candidacy" and is a merely pedantic shadow of tonsure.
There are absolutely no reasons why the ministries of "lector, acolyte and sub-deacon" could not be bestowed on lay women and men in a formal way. In terms of the EF Mass, boys, never instituted in the minor order of acolyte, could vest and act as acolytes, or altar servers. This privilege in the OF is extended to girls. The same is true of lectors, boys or girls can function as such in the Liturgy, for example at school or children's liturgies, as well as men and women who are not installed lectors or acolytes at normal parish Masses.
However, if the formal installation of these ministries through a diocesan program of formation became the norm (similar but shorter to the preparation of permanent deacons) and the appropriate liturgical garb was then used for these installed ministries, we could then see a return of these ministries as "sanctuary" ministries, fewer in number and confirmed by the bishop in a special ceremony. Having lay men and women as acolytes and sub-deacons would also confirm their role as "ordinary ministers of Holy Communion" and their training as such would include the pastoral dimensions of bringing Holy Communion to the sick and housebound.
Since Vatican II, one of the marvelous things that has emerged is lay men and women bringing Holy Communion to the sick and housebound weekly if not daily. In the past, those who were housebound were fortunate if a priest could visit them once a month! Allowing for the continuation of this ministry but by those well-formed doctrinally and pastorally and officially installed as acolytes or sub-deacons would be absolutely marvelous! Then only officially installed acolytes and sub-deacons would be allowed to function in these ministries to the sick, house bound and during the liturgy.
Installed acolytes (and sub-deacons) are "ordinary ministers of Holy Communion." If we went exclusively to intinction for Holy Communion parishes would not need an army of Extraordinary Ministers but only a few well trained acolytes (or sub-deacons) installed by the bishop, men or women properly vested in liturgical garb.
I have no problem with women becoming sub-deacons either. In fact early Church "deaconesses" were more than likely sub-deacons, not deacons as the Church today understands this ordained ministry.
25 comments:
Father,
You can check this but I have read before (and I mentioned it on this blog) that Pope Paul VI, when he saw the "trial run" of the New Order of Mass, made the comment that the Offertory Prayers in the new rite were "weak" as compared to the older ("Tridentine") form.
I have been following Bishop Schneider for several years now. We were both born the same year (1961) and I see him as representing the beginning of a new generation of bishops, who were small children (or not born yet) during the Council, who are more willing to be openly critical of liturgical practice since Vatican II(and its consequences). I see him as more orthodox--not heterodox!
Once again, we live in difficult times for the Church and for Judaeo-Christian culture generally. There was a time when a bit of innovation or mild "heterodoxy" could be merely smiled at and, perhaps, tolerated. But, heterodoxy and innovation have become apostasy and heresy and have been institutionalized within the Church as a "fifth column," as it were...a very powerful fifth column, I might add.
This means that we can no longer smile at what was once considered simply interesting and ephemeral. We must adopt a zero-tolerance policy regarding this sort of nonsense. Sure, altar girls are cute and sweet with their pony tails and girlish smiles, female EMHC's are amusing if nothing else, and demi-nuns in street clothes mean well, etc. But, the lib/mod crowd takes these things and runs with them; they see them as a crack in the door of tradition and orthodoxy and exploit them in every way...and loudly. So, no, we should be diligent in eliminating these hints of "heterodoxy," not making room for them.
I am very uncomfortable with the idea of women being exorcists. If you look at the writings of experienced exorcists, most will attest that women are more prone to demonic possession than men. It would take an extraordinarily rare breed of woman, especially in this hypersexualized age of feminine vanity, to properly fill the role of exorcist.
I completely agree with Bishop Schneider- he has explained my point of view on the subject in a way that I never could. The focus on worship of God and not of ourselves is especially important.
My personal history forces me to humbly disagree with you, Father, on the role of women in the Mass. I didn't grow up in a Catholic family, and visited a lot of protestant churches, (with friends as my parents were not church goers). What I saw was that when men were in the pulpit, men and their families were in the pews. When women were in the pulpit, the pews were mostly empty and those who were there were mostly women. Even as a young girl it was obvious to me that if you sissify church, men stop attending.
It is hoped that when boys serve as alterboys, that they open themselves to hear the call to the priesthood. If girls serve at the alter, it gives Satan the opportunity to tempt them into thinking that they too, could have a vocation to the priesthood. Why give him the opportunity?
Women and girls can sing in the choir, and they can be encouraged to form women's prayer groups for before or after Mass. This would encourage devotions, spiritual growth, a sense of community, and could foster vocations to religious life.
When we look to the Bible, we see that men and women had their distinctive, yet complimentary roles to play. Looking back at my own experiences, I see the wisdom in that. I share this with you because, as a women, I disagree with women taking men's roles in the Church and I know that I am not alone. I don't want my sons to stop attending Mass in the future because they think that it's a girlie thing to do.
Installed acolytes (and sub-deacons) are "ordinary ministers of Holy Communion."
Actually, installed acolytes, as well as non-ordained subdeacons and other lay persons deputed for emergency service, are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Only those ordained--priests and deacons--are ordinary ministers of the Eucharist (the correct term). For instance, in the 1973 CDW instruction implementing Immensae caritatis:
"Acolytes duly appointed, moreover, may, as extraordinary ministers, distribute Holy Communion when no priest or deacon is available."
The principle in this and all pertinent subsequent documents is that lay ministers of Holy Communion (including the acolytes mentioned here) are called "extraordinary" precisely because they are to be used only in extraordinary cases of urgent necessity, when no (ordained) sacred minister is readily available.
I might argue that Bp. Schneider's fifth wound to the Body of Christ really results from the proliferation of casual and habitual exercise of liturgical services by persons in "lay clothing while entering into the choir during Holy Mass directly from the space reserved to the faithful", irregardless of whether these persons are men or women.
Bishop Schneider gives one much to consider.
Regarding the role of women in the liturgies of the Church, he will have a difficult time reverting to a sacramental theology (which should underlie good liturgical praxis)that diminishes the dignity of the baptized, and the equal dignity shared by males and females. (And no, I am not suggesting, in any way, that there are no diffences between men and women, so get over that foolishness.)
One of the reasons we have seen more lay participation in a great variety of ministries, liturgical and otherwise, is that we have come to a deeper understanding of precisely that - the dignity of the baptized. Baptism, like all of the sacraments, includes a "call" to the person who experiences the grace of renewal. Marriage and Ordination call persons to service, Anointing and Reconciliation call us to accept healing and to be healers. Baptism also calls all the baptized, regardless of gender, to ... ? There is the question Bishop Schneider must address.
The roles that were culturally established for males and females -men are heads of families, men are heads of corporations, men are police officers, men are surgeons, etc - have rightly been set aside as the dignity (and ability) of women has been belatedly (and begrudgingly in too many cases) accepted.
If a young boy cannot see the equal dignity of a women who reads the Scriptures from the ambo, I wold be inclined to think he ought not be thinking about ordination to the priesthood.
Fr, you had me shouting and singing until the passage about women. Ironically, I don't think your argument supports the conclusion because it is not an appearance or facade we are looking for: it is a real presence and persona. Additionally, I think it is clear that traditional Jewish heritage has a profoundly respected role for women and that it is the unenlightened social status of women in most gentile cultures that imposes itself in our views of the proper role for women in the Church. This fallacy of interchangeability is actually the door that opens the door to contraception by denying the sacred and unique role of women as the mothers of our race and subordinating that role to their value as labour and sex objects. Consider that until the pollution of 'Reform Judaism' there were no female rabbis.
rcg
Baptism also calls all the baptized, regardless of gender, to ... live as children of God, their Father, and to become Saints in accordance with their state in life, while living virtuously in the world so as to draw others to the Church.
Offering the liturgy is not the calling of the laity: you have your vocation to the priesthood, which includes offering the August Sacrifice, and we have our vocation in the world. Please stop trying to make us lay people priests.
Marc - I did not suggest in ANY way that Baptism calls everyone to be priests.
Liturgical minsters, male and female, are, I would suggest, fulfilling roles that are entirely proper to the baptized.
This is why I pose the question to Bishop Schneider and for our consideration here.
Of course this is my heterodox opinion, but shared by our Holy Father who allows at his Masses in the Basilicas of Rome female lectors and outside of the Vatican female altar servers, these are not forbidden at his Masses on his travels and even to the parishes of Rome, therefore I don't see any pull back from women being used in these roles and I don't see any theological or doctrinal issue why women couldn't be formally installed in the lay ministries of lector, acolyte and sub-deacon. This are not ordained ministries unlike the Sacrament of Holy Orders (deacon, priest and bishop) which doctrinally would preclude the ordination of women.
Much of the antipathy toward women in the Church's liturgy in non-ordained roles is of a cultural bias.
I kind of agree with Marc about baptismal dignity in that at Mass it is not the "formal ministry" that one by be given, such as cantor, choir member, lector or Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and also including the ministry of altar server, but what the lay person does from his or her pew--actively participating in the sung and spoken responses assigned to them and internalizing this participation in the most spiritual way possible. With the proliferation of "formal liturgical ministries" we have clericalized the laity and make those who don't join the formal ministries feel as though they are second class laity compared to them.
I don't agree that we have "clericalized" liturgical ministers at all. Unless, of course, you count dressing a 9 year old boy in clerical garb and sitting him next to the cleric as "clericalization" of liturgical ministers...
If "equal dignity" in Baptism means everyone is entitled to whatever role they like, then I want to be a NASA scientist or a neuro-surgeon. Ignotus/Kavanaugh, your logic is Protestant logic (sizzle, sizzle).
I've read the post through several times today and can't find anything in the Bishop's words that I would call Heterodox. Rock solid Orthodox is what it says to me.
As for Father's self declared Heterodox statements, I do find them to be so. Not because they espouse roles for female laity, but becasue they espouse roles for laity period. I am not a misogynist, I am not against roles for female laity, I am against all roles for laity on the Altar, save the role of Altar Boys as a form of training for the Priesthood (hopefully anyway...preparing the ground for vocations).
I have my vocation and the Clergy have theirs. My vocation is the Married State, and I no more belong on that Altar during Mass than a Priest does sitting in my house doing homework with my kids. There are an endless list of Ministries that laity can participate in as part of Parish Life without having to blur the lines and drag them onto the Altar during Mass. If that makes me Heterodox like the Good Bishop above, I'm a happy Catholic.
The Roman Catechism:
It should be taught, therefore, that these orders are seven in number, and that this has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. These orders are those of porter, lector, exorcist, acolyte, subdeacon, deacon and priest.
That the number of ministers was wisely established thus may be proved by considering the various offices that are necessary for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the consecration and administration of the Blessed Eucharist, this being the principal scope of their institution.
Pascendi Dominici Gregis:
First of all they [Modernists] lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed.
It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church.
Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase.... They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches.... They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized.
Fr. McDonald, unlike you, I am not clairvoyant, and therefore am not privy to Pope Benedict's private thoughts on the particular issues you mention. Though I would note that they appear to be prudential rather than doctrinal or theological issues.
However, I would caution against use of the clearly fallacious argument that whatever happens in the presence of the pope is approved by him.
For instance, Pope John Paul II disapproved of female altar girls, and repeated promised that they would not be approved on his watch. However, their use had already grown throughout the world, and were approved in a famously unnumbered CDW protocol that was faxed world-wide to the bishops at a time when the Pope was too seriously ill in a Rome hospital to be consulted in advance.
After the fact, he made the prudential decision that reversal of the fait accompli would cause chaos that would do more harm than good.
On this particular issue, I understand that Pope Benedict felt sandbagged by the use of altar girls in England. Subsequently, for the German trip, where the German hierarchy adamantly insisted on altar girls despite Vatican advance party reluctance, their number and functions was carefully negotiated. (E.g., as torch bearers but not acolytes at the altar, as I recall.)
At yet at the direction of the Holy Father's Master of Ceremonies and in consultation with the Holy Father, the MC goes out of his way to choose lay lectors for Mass at St. Peter Basilica including female lectors and the same is true with those who announce the prayers of the faithful, a mix of nationalities and male and female when in fact the General Intercession typically belongs to the deacon! Also the laity bring forward the offerings for Mass to the Holy Father and numerous people do this. Are you accusing the Holy Father of heterodoxy?
A Pope very well could be heterodox in this instance as his "liturgical style" is not infallible or authoritative (if only we could return to the days where there was no "liturgical style").
If you believe his liturgical style is infallible or authoritative, you yourself are heterodox because that is not what the Church teaches.
At any rate, the term "heterodoxy" probably doesn't apply in this case as the Holy Father is above the canonical laws of the Church (and he alone is above those laws) as he alone is the legislator of those laws. This is another good reason, among many, why it is not a good or prudential idea to take liturgical cues from the Pope, who is above the laws while voluntarily subject to those who set up his liturgies for him.
"Are you accusing the Holy Father of heterodoxy?"
Who has (other than possibly Bishop Schneider)? I not aware of any current controversy over women as lectors or as presenters of the prayers of the faithful or of the offerings.
So far as I know, it is only of women as altar servers that he disapproves for his own papal Masses, as well as both male and female EMHC's. Of course, when he travels outside of papal basilicas, he leaves such decisions to his host, whether the bishop of another diocese or a pastor in his own. Some less clairvoyant than you, Fr. McDonald, may not realize that when a bishop travels about his own diocese for liturgies, he's likely to see things that don't represent his own preference, but rarely sees such matters as worth a confrontation.
"Other than possibly Bishop Schneider?"
Not serious about Bp. Schneider accusing the pope, of course. As indicated previously, the matters he's discussing are prudential questions rather than ones of orthodoxy.
But unfathomable prudential errors at all levels (including papal) in recent decades surely are largely responsible for the most devastating collapse in the Church's history of faith, devotion, and liturgy among both laity and clergy.
Unfortunately, these matters are seldom discussed without the nuances that are critical to sensible judgment. It contributes nothing to simply blanket everything in sight as either orthodox or heterodox, according to one's agenda or personal preferences.
For instance, the disappearance of any distinction between nave and sanctuary doubtlessly has contributed to a loss of sacrality in the liturgy. In the typical parish church, the casual and informal influx of lay men and women into the altar area certainly detracts from the dignity of the liturgy. On the other hand, I see no such deleterious effect from the careful and dignified lay participation we see in recent papal Masses.
Similarly, universal versus populum celebration in parish churches has obliterated the sacrificial character of the Mass, whereas in St. Peter's it has no such effect, because the elevation and distance of the altar from the faithful in the nave provides a natural sense of separation that orientation and an altar rail are needed to provide in a more typical church.
Nothing is contributed by discussions and comments that ignore such critical distinctions.
I believe the formal institution of women as lectors and acolytes is an interesting possibility. Women (and men) are already fulfilling the roles of those formally instituted lectors and acolytes. Also, when Paul VI suppressed the minor orders, he did not give a developed theological reason why only men should be instituted lectors and acolytes. He wrote, "In accordance with the ancient tradition of the Church, institution to the ministries of reader and acolyte is reserved to men(Ministeria Quaedam, 7)."
Also in Ministeria Quaedam he refers to them now as "ministries" not reserved to candidates to holy orders, therefore open to all the Christian faithful. Why then not formally appoint men and women for these ministries in the Church?
Ministeria Quaedam opens up a can of worms leaving us hanging with questions and unclear possibilities.
@Henry, you said "Only those ordained--priests and deacons--are ordinary ministers of the Eucharist (the correct term). "
Deacons are not ministers of the Eucharist; only those ordained who can consecrate the bread and wine are ministers of the Eucharist - priests and bishops.
Deacons are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Big difference. Instituted Acolytes are first among extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion and may purify the vessels. Other EMHC may not do so.
Unbeknownst to me, I heard recently but have no documentation to prove it that Rome once again relented on its strict "norm" several years ago that only Priests, deacons and installed acolytes could cleanse the chalices after Holy Communion or Mass, that others once again could be designated. Does anyone have documentation on that?
Ignotus/Kavanaugh's post on the "equal dignity of the Baptized" is a good example of the way in which Modernists interpret Scripture and theology to suit their Leftist egalitarian designs. The "equal dignity" of the Baptized has nothing to do with social class, domestic roles, equal employment, or any of the other dozens of social causes that Leftists love so much. But, Modernists take Enlightenment philosophical presuppositions and read them back into Biblical theology and New Testament understandings.
For example, the "dignity of Baptism" means that God's image is restored in us through Christ's Sacrifice and we are freed from our bondage to sin and the indignity of God's image being sullied by our ignorance of His Grace and redemption. We are brought into the Church where we worship Him as redeemed Christians equally sharing His love and grace.
There are no particular sociological imperatives implied here; the imperatives are all primarily theological...believe in Him who was sent, worship Him in spirit and in truth, and serve your fellow man. Certainly, there are sociological implications for the Christian life, but they are not categorical, they are not systematically prescribed, nor are they either liberal or conservative, right or left wing, politically. In fact, no "Christian ethic," in the philosophical sense, can be formulated based upon NT teachings or the sayings of Christ. That is because any such "ethic" is predicated upon obedience to the will of God and the freedom of the Holy Spirit. These things transcend social imperatives.
If the Apostle Paul, for instance, had been around in the 1850's and 60's, he may well have told the slaves to accept their lot, worship God, and view their sufferings as redemptive. Guess what...Jesus may well have told them the same thing. Isn't that horrible...eeewwww!!!! This sends libs completely up a wall...the very idea that Jesus and Paul were not current on modern social philosophy and Marxist sociology.
Now, show me a place in Scripture where Jesus or Paul speak specifically against slavery...show me. Show me where Jesus or Paul speak specifically about "human rights." I'm waiting.... I'm not talking about the sociological conclusions or implications we draw from Scripture...thos are different.
Slavery is just one example that I chose because it just makes libs crazy to even suggest that Jesus or Paul would have considered it not an issue. The issue is Salvation...Redemption...our Spiritual life whatever our social status or role. All other concerns are secondary and the sociological conclusions we draw can be many and varied and fall on either the right or left of the political spectrum and fit quite comfortably within the drama of Salvation history.
So, Ignotus/Kavanaugh, quit whining about women's rights and kissing up to feminists and calling it theology.
I haven't seen anything on the topic. I'd be surprised if it were so without Canada including that as an adaptation in the recently implemented GIRM.
@ Father McDonald:
No, that has not been relaxed. In a letter approved by the Pope himself in 2006 (and addressed by Fr. Z in July 2011):
"Paragraph 279 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal directs that the sacred vessels are to be purified by the priest, the deacon or an instituted acolyte. The status of this text as legislation has recently been clarified by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. It does not seem feasible, therefore, for the Congregation to grant the requested indult from this directive in the general law of the Latin Church."
This means that laity cannot purify the Sacred Vessels following Mass as they are not priests, deacons, or instituted acolytes.*
* What we tend to call "adult acolytes" are not "instituted acolytes" according to the GIRM. Instituted acolytes are those on the path to ordination to the priesthood. Adult acolytes are altar servers, unless there is a diocesan rule to the contrary allowing for permanent instituted acolytes (the Diocese of Savannah doesn't have these sorts of documents online as far as I can tell, so I can't look it up).
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/07/quaeritur-can-emchs-purify-sacred-vessels-after-holy-communion/
Post a Comment