They foresaw even in the 1940's and earlier, the Mass facing the people:
But the norm for the 21st Century reform of the reform may well look like this again!
St. Joseph Church, Macon, will celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the High Mass on Sunday for the 14th Sunday after Pentecost. You can find the Latin/English Liturgy for this Mass by pressing this sentence!
In terms of the foment to revise the Mass that was part of the Liturgical Movement of the 20th century, I found this article from Adoremus which you can read by pressing this sentence which gives a wonderful history. Agree with it or not, the changes that resulted in the Liturgy after Vatican II come from this foment. It seems the greatest change advocated was Mass facing the people.
St. John Abbey in Collegeville, MN also built their new abbey church in the 1950's anticipating much of what would become the norm after Vatican II. One interesting historic detail was the desire by some that Holy Communion be received standing and that altar railing be eliminated. St. John's Abbey Church did not have altar railings installed and there is a wonderful opinion piece by the monk who promoted it in the Adoremus article. They decided to have table like structures that people would process to and receive Holy Communion standing. What we are now doing at St. Joseph Church resemble this, though wholly unintentional, with people now approaching a kneeler where they themselves can choose to stand to receive Holy Communion, which currently is the norm in our country, or kneel as the legitimate exception to the norm but which is clearly their choice.
Yesterday I posted an article by Father John Mannion written on the eve of the Second Vatican Council. As I reread it this morning, I am struck by how accurately he foretells what will be the revised liturgy designed after Vatican II by the Consilium.
The point I wish to make is that this did not occur overnight but had been discussed in academic circles for decades. Of course there was no internet and the laity for the most part did not know of this discussion. It was purely academic and clerical and keep in mind that academics are the most clerical of the clergy, exhibit the worst clericalism at times and think their opinions are better than anyone else's and should never be questioned by the laity. But of course, prior to Vatican II and its reforms, the laity were not to question anything that clerics did, especially academic clerics. My, how times have changed and the internet has leaped-frogged you laity into outer-space in this regard!
Let me reprint what Fr. John Mannion's clairvoyance saw for the future of the Liturgy. He seems to have been as clairvoyant as I, but only time of course will show that:
"Taking the Mass in its sequence, it seems imperative that the readings from Scripture should be presented in a manner which clearly demonstrates that this is the formal proclamation, by the Church, of God’s revealed Word to His people duly assembled. This might be accomplished by providing that the lessons be read facing the people, from lecterns or ambos (which would also serve the purpose of distinguishing between the “service of the Word” and the service of the altar).
The cycle of selections from the Bible might be expanded, say to three years, so that more of the Word could be offered the people than is now possible in a one-year cycle. Should not more Old Testament readings be included, perhaps by more frequent us e of three lessons in the Mass instead of two? And, needless to say, all such readings should be in the language of the people (more on this later), and delivered reverently, not hurriedly for the sake of satisfying an obligation. The ancient “prayer of the faithful” or litany of special intentions might be re – stored to use to conclude the first important segment of our worship service.
The offertory can easily be revised to make it clearer that the gifts come from the people. At the same time, care should be taken that the offertory rite does not seem to be anything more than a simple presentation of the materials of the sacrifice; the celebrant’s prayers at this time seem to make more of it by confusing the offering of the bread and wine with the sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood.
Why invoke Roman saints unknown to us?
Some consideration should be given to the prayers and actions of the Canon: why the Preface of the Holy Trinity as the standard Sunday preface? Why invoke Roman saints unknown to us? Why not give more prominence to the concluding elevation and doxology, not delaying the people’s response by the celebrant’s genuflection or coupling it with the Our Father before Communion? And since the Canon is the central action of the Mass, why should it not be celebrated aloud as the focus of our attention?
It would also help if more force were given to the urging of recent Popes that the people receive Hosts consecrated at the same Mass.
The relationship between Communion and the sacrificial act might be more evident if the two were not separated by so much time. Couldn’t the private prayers of the celebrant be eliminated? And shouldn’t it be stressed again that sharing the Eucharistic Food is the proper and normal conclusion of the Mass for all who are present? It would also help if more force were given to the urging of recent Popes that the people receive Hosts consecrated at the same Mass.
The “last Gospel”—like the prayers at the foot of the altar—began as a private devotion of the celebrant, not as prayer proper to public worship. There is considerable opinion that both practices might best be dropped for the sake of clarity.
Among all these changes, however, the central problem remains that of language. If it is a valid principle that changes are intended to make the forms of the liturgy conform more appropriately to their inner nature and purpose and to make them more meaningful to the people, then we cannot lightly dismiss the increasing desire for more vernacular in the rites of our public worship. Since the liturgy is a sacred sign—an external, intelligible signification of an interior, invisible reality—and since words are essential in the sacramental rites, the use of an unknown language obstructs the purpose of liturgy considered as a sign, a means of communication."
I ASK YOU, WAS FR. JOHN MANNION CLAIRVOYANT OR NOT? AND AM I LIKE HIM OR NOT?
3 comments:
You may be clairvoyant, but Fr. Manion was not. The blueprint for the Novus Ordo was already written well before Vatican II and his article, and he himself was in the thick of the scheming. I read about this stuff in library journals several years before the council, but none of the Catholics I knew had ever heard of it.
OK, OK, OK....you're both 'clairvoyant'. haha
Actually, it seems to me, that it is the ability/skill to listen to the chatter and see the movements going around and to sense the flow of the times, or the growth pattern of the organism...a skill not everyone has, but all can cultivate to some degree in their own arenas.
Outstanding business leaders and CEO's can do this.
If only we could do this with our own selves, how helpful that might be...
~SL
"Predicting is hard, especially about the future"
Post a Comment