As an aside, our Benedictine retreat master is marvelous. Fr. Eugene Hensell of St. Meinrad Archabbey has a wonderful dry sense of humor and is an excellent teacher and preacher. He has been focusing on the parables and has certainly given us a new perspective on them.
Today's simple daily Mass had as the main celebrant Fr. Dan Melaba, a Nigerian priest who is the neighboring pastor of St. Peter Claver Church in Macon.
I want to make clear that as much as I am grateful for the restoration of the EF Mass and its gravitational pull on the OF Mass, that I love the OF Mass when celebrated as it should be, which unfortunately is not the case in so many places.
What struck me about the OF Mass today and Fr. Dan's marvelous liturgical style, if you will, is how elegant it can be even in its noble simplicity. I want to discuss the rite itself, not the music as I see that is another conundrum that is more difficult to rationally discuss with so many in the Church today.
Fr. Dan began the Introductory rite by using the Introductory Rite as it is meant to be. It is noble in its simplicity. He began with the Sign of the Cross, the simple greeting "The Lord be with you" and the opening statement, "Brothers, let us acknowledge our sins so as to prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries." There were no banal introductory statements or explanations! Then there was a moment of silence, a variation on the Penitential Act, which includes the Kyrie and then the Collect. It was noble and elegant.
The downside, I believe to this reform of the Introductory rite that I never really like from the first time I heard it in the 1960's is, "let us call to mind our sins..." in its various expressions. Never in the Tridentine Rite is anyone asked to call to mind specific sins. Why start the Mass on a negative note and dwell on the list of sins that I'm calling to mind?
Would it not be better after the Greeting, for the priest to say, "Let us go to the altar of God, with the response, The God of our youthfulness, and then have silence and then the Penitential Act in its various options?
The Liturgy of the Word has always been my favorite part of the reform. When done properly it is marvelous. I have no suggestions for improvement, except for Solemn High Liturgies to have lectors who could chant the lessons. I personally like the Responsorial Psalm better than the Gradual, although I don't begrudge the latter.
The Liturgy of the Eucharist is fine the way it is even with the modern preparation prayers, although I would not have a hissy-fit if the older offertory prayers were recovered.
The only reform or recovery of the Tridentine Mass I would strongly, strongly, recommend for the Liturgy of the Eucharist is that it be celebrated Ad Orientem. Facing the people makes it look like the words of the prayers as well as the words of institution are being directed to the congregation. These simply aren't. Ad Orientem would make that clear and obvious and add the hermeneutic of liturgical continuity to this part of the Mass.
Of course, I recommend Holy Communion by intinction and kneeling. It is a no brainer. I have to thank the comment by WSquared who wrote that he agreed with me that liturgists who say that standing to receive is a better sign of the be raised up in Christ is "bull." He wrote that kneeling to receive Holy Communion and then standing to return to one's pew is a better sign of being raised up and I thought that was profound!
In terms of our retreat Mass today, I hope and pray that we will recover the propers in Gregorian Chant, either in Latin or English for the Introit, Offertory and Communion--we miss the boat on that and big time!
Finally, I have no problem with the Introductory Rite and Concluding Rite taking place at the chair. I find that elegant too.
The following video which I copy from The New Liturgical Movement shows the re-dedication and reconsecration of a monastic chapel that had been destroyed by fire.
It is the Ordinary Form of this Rite but borrows elements from the EF Rite for this, which I find interesting. Note the sand on the floor and the tracing of letters in it by with the crozier of the bishop--this I believe is EF not OF. I've never seen this in the OF consecration rite and also the bishop goes and anoints the walls by going on a ladder to do so, this again is EF in origin, not OF as in the OF, priests do this, not the bishop. The Anointing of the altar though is, OF, but the manner of installing the relics is EF. I'm not sure about how the incense is burned and why the bishop and all are kneeling, this could be EF influence too? Anyone know?
The OF Mass is celebrated Ad Orientem, and the people receive kneeling, although the nuns receive standing and from the chalice. I think that there is room now for either standing or kneeling and is not divisive to the liturgical assembly at all.
I would say this Mass is what to expect in "the reform of the reform within the hermeneutic of continuity with the EF Mass" in the near future, for the future is here now! Please note the mix of vernacular and Latin!
I absolutely love the architecture of this chapel, its art and the manner of the sanctuary even with the seating in front of it and to the sides in the transcept. I LOVE THIS!
32 comments:
"Fr. Dan began the Introductory rite by using the Introductory Rite as it is meant to be. ..."
Is it not a sad commentary on today's liturgy that simply doing it as it obviously ought to be occasions comment? Every OF daily Mass I have attended recently began in precisely this way--adding only that the congregation began by chanting the entrance antiphon, lead by the priest as he processed into the sanctuary from the sacristry. I assume it is the same at OF Sunday Masses here--except with processional hymn rather than entrance antiphon (though it has been some years since I attended an OF Mass on Sunday to see for myself)>
Though it's never previously occurred to me to think of it as a liturgical "sign", surely every one feels it each time he literally rises up from the communion rail.
"Fr. Dan's marvelous liturgical style..."
There's your problem right there. Each priest has his own "liturgical style." Sure, this particular priest happened to follow the "style" set forth in the GIRM, but what about your other brother priests in this Diocese? Whose liturgical "style" will be exhibited at your Daily Mass tomorrow? Will it be close to Fr. Dan's "style"?
This turns the priest into an entertainer at best and a cult-figure at worst. Sure, in the Traditional communities, certain priests are known for their homiletic abilities... but, the homily is an exterior activity and this has always been the case (as pointed out in the lives of many preacher saints). I cannot recall any Traditional priest exhibiting a "style" in saying the Mass - they all look downward even when turning toward the people at the various prescribed points.
I'm interested in the idea that it is bad to begin the Mass by reflecting on our sinfulness. I cannot think of a better way to begin the Mass, each day, and every activity. That is the root of humility, which is the basis of all virtue... curious, but perhaps I missed your meaning in that part of the post.
Seeking God's mercy kid implicit in the Mass especially the penitential act or tpatfota but Fr. Dan'sstyle is in fact what is required but there are various styles of priest celebrants in the EF too!
Weird. I haven't noticed any priest's style being different than any other priest's style in the Traditional Mass (present company excluded) - and I've been to Mass with several different priests...
I wonder, Father, whether you've been to a Tridentine Mass lately or whether you are recalling your days as a youth? I believe the situation to be quite different now as a result of the fact that the vocation to the Traditional Mass is somewhat "exclusive" at this point, drawing a particular sort of man, more than likely the sort who is at least partly reacting against the performance arts present in the Novus Ordo celebration...
Do you have a particular example in mind? Perhaps I have simply missed what you are thinking of...?
Father, I saw a picture of our diocesan priests before the Blessed Sacrament on the Diocesan Facebook page today that raised concerns in my mind. This issue was first raised for me at the Clergy Conference at St. Joseph. Namely, our priests do not wear clerics while on retreat and otherwise seem to have no decorum in their attire (wearing T-shirts and shorts, for example) when attending Mass or praying before our Lord. Can you address my concerns, please? This is a grave concern of mine... Is there an explanation?
Setting the whole EF vs. OF and Vatican II or Post-Vatican II thing aside (ecumenism, if you will). Is this not a problem? I know you fellows deserve some time off, but the Mass is the Mass and our Lord is truly Present... I personally know your commitment to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and I would never doubt that for a minute no matter how you were dressed, but really, what's the deal?!?
I hate the new architecture and trim (especially the lectern with that looks like a pie with a slice cut out!).
However, I agree that this is what the OF should look like in terms of ad orientem, use of Latin, and manner of Communion. I can easily see why Fr. McDonald "LOVES" this--I would be a lot happier if this was the way the OF was offered in general. So get on with it--just do it! Ad orientem is the most important first step . . .
(1) I am not aware of any exceptions to the requirement in Redemptionis Sacramentum 123-124 for all celebrants--including concelebrants, as well (I assume) as solitary celebrants of a private Mass--to wear a chasuble for Mass. It goes so far as to say that, if necessary, the concelebrants can use their (diocesan issue, presumably) white chasubles on days when the principal celebrant is vested in the color of the day.
(2) There are no individual "styles" acceptable for celebration of the older Mass. To the extent that the priest fails to submerge his own personality and style--subjecting himself to his in persona Christi role--he fails to satisfy the rubrics. I recall in the old days the remark that if you could remember which of the parish priests said the Mass you attended last Sunday, then there was something wrong with either you or him, or both.
A lot of people forget (usually because they weren't around at the time) that when the Novus Ordo Mass hit parishes in 1970 the liturgy in most places was already in the vernacular; versus populum was almost universal (on temporary altars pending subsequent wreckovation, which by the way is still going on) and folk Masses were dans le vent. I experienced my first one at a youth retreat in 1968, and served it along with a girl at a table altar with a young priest who didn't wear a chasuble and did quite a bit of ad-libbing. Despite the fact I fancied my co-server (alas, to no avail) I hated the whole thing and will still walk out of a church the moment someone picks up a guitar or the priest says "good morning, everybody".
Therefore the fact that the Novus Ordo is a Latin Mass is lost on most people, who think that a Latin Mass is necessarily an EF Mass. In London many churches, which had musical resources, chose to celebrate the NO in Latin for the principal Mass, and still do. In other parts of the country older priests did the same (the bishops actually encouraged it) but when they died or retired their replacements rarely carried it on. The 'spirit of Vatican II' was all-pervasive in the 1970s. I found it difficult to get the Latin texts of the new Missal; not until 1977 did the CTS bring out a Latin-English booklet which contained the Latin texts of the new Eucharistic Prayers.
Yet some of the best liturgies I have attended have been in the NO; sung Masses at the Benedictine foundations at Pluscarden and Farnborough; spectacular events at the London Oratory including the centenary Mass in 1984 and the more recent Pontifical Mass celebrated by Cardinal Burke; Masses in Prague, Munich, Budapest, Cracow, Vienna and Rome.
Say (and sing) the black, do the red, face the right way and don't fight shy of Latin, the only authentic and sacred language of the western Church, and all will be well.
This conversation in the combox is a testament to yet another major problem with the Novus Ordo. Isn't it interesting to note that these problems which we discuss (rightly, I might add) don't exist in the TLM.
The major issue that 99% of those who lived during the time of the TLM doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about today. The issue is that the Mass was one of three things:
1. It was too fast
2. It was detached
3. It was too repetitive
Those three things are what the TLM can be criticized for, by and large. No one questions the orthodoxy, no one questions the "style" (which there were many, btw), no one questions the legitimacy. Interestingly, though there are a bevy of things for which the Novus Ordo is criticized.
If the Mass was to be "renewed" in a more nobly simplistic sense, what happened? Why is it so complex? Why are the criticisms so many?
I know that some will say, Andy, Andy, Andy....Latin was an issue. I call BS. It wasn't. It wasn't an issue to 99% of the people in the pew. It was an issue to the 1% who were looking for reform. They knew what they were hearing. They knew what the ques were in the Mass. They were able to follow along for 1965 years without any issue whatsoever, but the 1% was louder and better placed.
Bottom line...the issues surrounding the TLM were few. The issues surrounding the Novus Ordo are many. The noble simplicity fix didn't work. It made things more complex. In my estimation, the Novus Ordo is so impossibly complex that in order for it to be properly reformed, it should be stripped to it's bare bones and completely rebuilt as the new EF, using the TLM as the model and as the new OF. There is no other solution which can work, in my honest opinion.
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment.
The last OF funeral Mass I attended was Latin (except for the readings), ad orientem at high altar, black Roman vestments, Ordinary (Kyrie, Sanctus, etc) sung in Latin, as was the Dies Irae and In Paradisum. Probably some in attendance though it was an EF requiem Mass. In any event, it was recognizably a Mass of the Roman rite, with little for most to sensibly complain about.
The last OF Mass of any sort I attended was ad orientem with Roman vestments, mostly vernacular except the Ordinary (Kyrie, Glora, etc.) of the Missa de Angelis chanted by a children's choir, the Gospel, Preface and propers chanted in English more nicely than Latin Gregorian chant is frequently heard. Again, recognizably a Mass of the Roman rite. Nothing for anyone except an EF stickler to complain about.
Might one conclude that the problem is not with the OF missal, but with the vast majority of OF folks (priests and lay)? And that--if the normative parish Mass were the EF rather than the OF--then it could and would trashed by this majority just as is the OF now is? And just as the 1965 vernacular Tridentine Mass was--and frequently worse than we usually see now--well before the Novus Ordo ever saw the light of day?
Henry,
"Might one conclude that the problem is not with the OF missal, but with the vast majority of OF folks (priests and lay)?"
I have to disagree. The problem is with the OF Missal. There are theological ambiguities which do not exist in the EF Missal. The theology behind the whole of the Novus Ordo is shifted to the horizontal as opposed to the vertical and that raises questions on intention. Also the over emphasis of the Institution narrative v. the Sacrifice is a big issue.
"And that--if the normative parish Mass were the EF rather than the OF--then it could and would trashed by this majority just as is the OF now is?"
I don't believe the EF would be trashed, unless the mindset was to trash it to begin with.
" And just as the 1965 vernacular Tridentine Mass was--and frequently worse than we usually see now--well before the Novus Ordo ever saw the light of day?"
Doubtful.
As I've said before, I assisted at St. Agnes for years. The parish is the only true example of the properly reformed Mass. There is a harmony between the Novus Ordo and the TLM there, not because they are complimentary, but rather because the TLM was never suppressed there.
The faithful drew their spirituality from the enrichment of the TLM toward the Novus Ordo, however the Novus Ordo was and is always viewed not as a meal with an institution narrative, but rather as a sacrifice. In other words, the theological problems associated with the Novus Ordo were never allowed to take hold in the parish, even with the problematic books, because the pastor and curates taught that the Novus Ordo was directly from the TLM and not something completely different.
Andy, I think everything you just said supports precisely the point I was just making. There's nothing about the Novus Ordo missal that makes it a meal rather than a sacrifice. It's in the understanding of people and their priests celebrating it. One can read the OF missal just the same as they read the EF missal. The theology is in the mind, not on the paper.
I cited examples of OF Masses celebrated by priests who regard it as sacrifice, and you also an example (at St. Agnes) where the NO was celebrated as the Holy Sacrifice. Believe me, during the mid-1960s, celebration of the Tridentine Mass as a meal was already rampart, before the NO made its appearance. Neither old or new missal precludes either interpretation of what it means. Just as the OF can be celebrated vertically, the EF can be celebrated horizontally, and it certainly would be if the majority of today's priests suddenly began celebrating it, for the majority of the people. Indeed, the greatest danger the EF faces lies in it attracting the interest of too many priests who will take too many liberties with it. Even by the well-intentioned, who may simply think it needs to be "enriched" by th OF (a borderline case perhaps being close at hand here).
Of course, the rubrics of the EF--so long as they are adhered to rigidly--offer less latitude for interpretation. But we may be sure that the Church is full of priests who would have no such respect for the EF rubrics and ethos. We already hear of cases where priests want to entertain ideas of altar girls and communion in the hand or EMHCs at EF Masses. So if the Pope mandated the end tomorrow of the OF, and a universal return to the EF, it could well mean simply the end of the EF as we know and love it.
My real point is that there is simply no easy change-the-book solution to the present situation. It's a far more difficult problem of changing hearts and minds, which will take much longer.
Where is this St. Agnes parish???
~SL
What I am about to say has no theological basis, but when I read the 1962 Missal and the 2011 Missal, I see one for adults and one for children. The tolerance of the OF has been abused for where it was meant to allow wider entry, people took it for relief from Catholic Truth and identity.
No response to Marc's question about proper attire when before the Blessed Sacrament on a Priest's retreat?
http://www.stagnes.net/index.html
In St. Paul, MN, home parish of not only Andy Milam but also Father Z, several current bishops, and numerous priests (allegedly producing the most vocations of any parish in the U.S.).
@ Henry,
" There's nothing about the Novus Ordo missal that makes it a meal rather than a sacrifice. It's in the understanding of people and their priests celebrating it."
I have to disagree with you there. Take a look at the offertory prayers. Look at how the sacrificial nature of the prayers has been replaced with that of a communal meal. There is no doubting the book.
Also, look at Eucharistic Prayers II-VI and the "alternatives." They are rife with the use of "meal-as-primary" language, whereas the Roman Canon from the TLM is full of the use of "sacrifice."
I cite St. Agnes (in St. Paul, MN) as the ONLY parish in the world, in my estimation where there is no application of the modernist theology. This has been guarded against since the Council itself. The book they use for the Novus Ordo is still full of the incorrect theology.
It is an interesting paradox that St. Agnes suffers from, but one in which the priests who have served as pastors have done all they can to show that the TLM is the basis and that the Novus Ordo is an adaptation of, not something wholly different. I don't think that any other parish in the world does this to the extent that St. Agnes has.
Theologically speaking though, there is no mention of institution narratives and meals and communal gathering and communal celebration. And that is how it should be everywhere.
My point Henry, is that the books are theologically ambiguous. However, St. Agnes clarifies that in a way that is unique. She does it first through proper Catechesis. Then she does it through proper celebration of the Mass. Then she does it through proper attitudes of the faithful in application.
As I said, I don't think that this is something done in the Catholic world today. These three applications don't get applied. And the reasoning is that the priests, by and large don't teach. They simply facilitate. And that is a HUGE problem, because that is Protestant in mindset.
(cont.)
With regard to the TLM being rampantly celebrated as a meal, and there being horizontal theology applied, I'm sure that in places that was the case. I wasn't there, so I cannot comment from a first hand view, but I do know what I've read and discussed with priests of that time and the critique doesn't hold up.
Theologically, the liturgical movement did see a shift, but it was clandestine until the Consilium rolled it out after the Council. The changes they made in '51 and '58 and '62 (I attribute those changes to the Consilium influencing the Popes) were not theological breaks, they were odditites. The break came in 1965 and furthered in 1969 and following.
Most priests, from what I've been told and what I've read (let's assume that going forward so I don't have to constantly repeat myself) still viewed the Mass as a sacrifice. They still viewed the Mass as an offering to God the Father by them for the faithful. This changed after the Council. So, I do take issue with the idea that the TLM was horizontal. It just wasn't, for the most part.
I agree 100% with you that there are priests who have no respect for the TLM and it's rubrics. I witness that on a regular basis and I was "let go" as an MC because I held to tightly to the rubrics. It was kinda surreal. I think that we must continue to bang the drum about liturgical precision, both in the TLM and the Novus Ordo.
We also agree that there is no easy solution. It will take fortitude on the part of those of us willing to stand up. We must show that the liturgical precision of the TLM must be applied to both the TLM and the Novus Ordo.
Andy, we don't disagree about anything fundamental, and I certainly agree regarding the intentional ambiguity of virtually everything that's followed Vatican II, including the OF missal, even more in its rubrics, norms, and ritual (or lack thereof) than in its text. In the past, I myself have probably wasted more com box words than anyone on the gutted Novus Ordo offertory rite. At least I did until I read Card. Ratzinger's definitive explanation that the prayers (if any) accompanying the preparation of the offerings do not carry offertory import, because the actual offering to God and sacrifice is made in the Canon. Nevertheless, I still have the traditional offertory prayers of the priest printed on cards inserted in the prayer book that accompanies me whenever I attend OF Mass, and say them as a personal devotion at the offertory. (I am also probably unique in that I rarely hear any other canon than EP 1; one of my favorite priests says he has resolved to use EP II once each year, but missed last year, so is steeling himself to use it twice this year.)
But my point was that the meaning of the Mass is not inherent in the missal whether OF or EF, nor in the understanding or interpretation of either priests or people. Rather, the words of the Mass (in whatever rite) mean what the Church defines them to mean. No clearer statement of the Mass as "the perpetuation of the sacrifice of the Cross" can be made than that in Chapter 1 (The Mystery of Faith) of Ecclesia de Eucharistia (2003), where in ten articles mainly reaffirming Trent, the word "sacrifice" appears 31 times, and the word "meal" appears only once, like an afterthought in passing in the final article.
(continued) The doctrine of the Mass in magisterial declarations--from Trent to Mediator Dei to Ecclesia de Eucharistia--is not affected by the interpretations or practice (however errant) of either priests at the altar or people in the pews.
We have had different experiences. I was there as an adult Catholic in the 1960s, cognizant as most Catholics are not, then or now. The abandonment of both belief and practice did indeed precede any formal introduction of new liturgy, in certain avant garde places even before Vatican II. On the other hand, I know of many priests and parishes who to this day have not abandoned traditional belief even while practicing the vernacular Novus Ordo. In my own small and (unlike St. Agnes) unknown parish, the people have never ceased since Vatican II to hear their pastors refer explicitly to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Finally, Andy, in re-reading your comment above, I see one misunderstanding. I meant that the Tridentine Mass was widely "horizontalized" well before the appearance of a new missal, but in the transition years following the Council (rather than before it).
The point is that the Tridentine missal itself was not a sufficient safeguard against abuse. Where I was, abuse was more rampant in the decade before the Novus Ordo than in the decade afterward.
So "the problem, dear folks, lies not in our missal, but in ourselves."
That is, in our mindset, as you put it. Which would remain today even if Pope Benedict restored the missal of Trent for sole use throughout the Church. That's why one of the greatest dangers as the EP spreads is too many priests celebrating it too soon. If, for instance, not having the TLM on a priest's resume comes to be seen as an impediment to advancement.
Henry,
I agree that we're not disagreeing on anything, but that doesn't mean that we can't still have a decent conversation on this. I know, I know, that is almost unheard of in the comboxes!!! LOL!!! :)
" In the past, I myself have probably wasted more com box words than anyone on the gutted Novus Ordo offertory rite. At least I did until I read Card. Ratzinger's definitive explanation that the prayers (if any) accompanying the preparation of the offerings do not carry offertory import, because the actual offering to God and sacrifice is made in the Canon."
1. I don't think that words are often wasted in the comboxes. Even if I don't agree with them. But I get your point.
2. I disagree with the Holy Father's view. Not theologically, but practically (I think that you do too, based upon your using the prayers regardless); the Offertory prayers are important. They open the Canon up to be understood properly. The reformed Offertory does not do that. The reformed offertory opens the door to ambiguity and there is a loss of the prefiguring of the Canon.
The Offertory is important, because it makes clear the priest's intention. Not ours (the faithful). There is nothing clear in the reformed Offertroy. There is nothing there accept an invitation to partake in a meal.
So, while theologically, the Holy Father might be correct, there is nothing which supports it practically. And we are not just a theological Church but a practical one as well.
I have long argued (You have heard me do this in other comboxes) that until the leadership of Holy Mother Church stops living the hypothetical and starts to actually apply these ideas...NOTHING will happen. That view has not changed, even with SP and UE.
To the rest of your points, we're not so far off. I'm still not sure about the horizontal nature taking over prior to the Council's aftermath, but I'll concede (for now).
You'te about to convince me, Andy, that we're in full agreement.
In regard to the offertory, that if not of liturgical importance--as the Pope seems to say--it's of vital catechetical importance for the priest's private offertory prayers to be visible in the missal. Especially if we could get people (and priests) to actually follow missals again. Which may be a prime reason to return the Mass to Latin, OF as well as EF.
And as the horizontalism of the TLM, of course it only occurred widely in the aftermath of Vatican II and its liberating mindset. My point there is that the Tridentine missal and its rubrics are not sufficient to protect the Mass from malformed and even unbelieving priests.
@ Henry;
"...if we could get people (and priests) to actually follow missals again. Which may be a prime reason to return the Mass to Latin, OF as well as EF."
I don't know so much about that. I think that it could be of importance to begin with, but the use of a hand missal should not be the end goal. The end goal should be that the faithful return to a clear understanding that worship is not indicative of the words of the priest, but rather the interior disposition of the heart while at Holy Mass.
If the use of a hand missal can help to catechize, then it can be used, but that is a crutch. And the faithful should be weaned as soon as possible. The use of hand missals came into being in the late 19th century, by and large. It was the first thing the newly formed liturgical movement pushed for. And it is completely unnecessary. Unnecessary, not because there is a translation of Latin to the vernacular, but because the vernacular is irrelevant.
If we are to believe that the Mass is a sacrifice that the priest offers on behalf of the faithful, then what he says isn't so important as what he does. Essentially a translation is participatio activa. AND THAT IS A BIG KEY!!! To use a hand missal is to give in to the notion that participatio activa is somehow as necessary as participatio actuosa. It is not.
Think of it this way, if we could get the faithful to understand that their role is to take their prayers, lay them at the foot of the altar and allow the priest to do what he was ordained to do, while we gather and worship while he does this, then we have won the battle.
The theological crux to the liturgical and Catholic crisis of our day is one thing. A lack of understanding what true worship is. That is what Bugnini and the Consilium destroyed. The rest is fluff and stuff. The rest is important, but it all leads back to the idea that Catholics have lost the idea of how to worship. Worshipping is not following a missal or singing or even physically ministering (unless one is ordained to do so), worshipping is placing our trust in the Lord and thanking Him Who Is for everything.
The Catholic patrimony is the ability to authentically worship. That is what we must fight for every day. The Mass is how we worship. The Eucharist is the outward sign which brings grace. While that is being called down from Heaven, we should be on our knees thanking God the Father with all our hearts. Christ died so there would be a vehicle for this. God gives us everything....and we have forgotten how to thank him.
Pope Benedict is close. He sees what must be done, but he is unwilling to move out of the hypothetical. Sure, the talk is rich and the thought is right, but there is very little action behind it. Personally, he does it right, but he does not enforce it.
How often does a Catholic walk into Holy Mass, place his prayers, oblations and gifts to God at the foot of the altar and allow the priest to offer them? When we answer that question, we make strides.
I don't want to belabor too much this one final point of disagreement, but good use of a missal is one of several possible ways to unite oneself prayerfully with the action at the altar--the real meaning of participatio actuosa, whose best translation is (incidentally) is "actual participation" in the sense of interior prayerful participation, rather that the liturgists deliberate mistranslation "active participation" in the sense of actually doing things actively (either vocally or physically).
But perhaps we can agree that a central problem in the liturgy now is that most people are not participating in any meaningful way whatsoever--they are not united with the action at the altar in any meaningful way whatsoever, aren't paying serious attention, don't know what's going on, and don't care.
Thanks for the link to St. Agnes Church in St. Paul, MN.
http://www.stagnes.net/index.html
this website is a great example of noble simplcity in and of itself.
I really liked the 'tour of the windows with explanations'. Very nice touch.
I find the website itself cetechetical on many levels. You are very fortunate Andy to be there!
One question: I noticed there is a Sung Latin High Mass during the school year on Thursdays...do the school children attend that Mass??
~SqueekerLamb
@ Squeeker Lamb;
To answer your question, yes...the children assist at that Holy Mass. That is the all school Mass wherein the grade and high school come together.
There is a grade school Mass on Tuesday mornings as well.
As for the website, you can see me in several of the photos. The one you can see me best in is where Bishop Walsh is blessing the steeple cross. I am standing behind Deacon Hughesdon (of happy memory) who is holding the ceremoniale.
As an aside...there is no freestanding altar.
Every priest was in alb and stole to concelebrate every Mass. However, the attire for the retreat is summer casual and one must keep in mind that the retreat center was originally a summer camp site, with pool and walking trails still in tact. So yes, we were wearing shorts apart from the Mass and even the most conservative and traditionalists amongst us and that does not necessarily mean me, although yes, I was wearing shorts too. Nothing inappropriate about it given the context.
Every priest was in alb and stole to concelebrate every Mass. However, the attire for the retreat is summer casual and one must keep in mind that the retreat center was originally a summer camp site, with pool and walking trails still in tact. So yes, we were wearing shorts apart from the Mass and even the most conservative and traditionalists amongst us and that does not necessarily mean me, although yes, I was wearing shorts too. Nothing inappropriate about it given the context.
So many times I have stated out loud that I'd never want to move up north.
Too cold for too much of the year, all the snow, etc., etc.
However...a parish like St. Agnes could give me reason to reconsider ;-)
Nonetheless, I am indeed quite fortunate to be at our beautiful oasis in the South Georgia desert!
Deo Gracias!
~SL
Father, several points of note.
I agree that the ad orientem Eucharistic prayer is the most important element to recover in the liturgy. I also think that it will be, along with the music, one of the harder things to recover. However, I think that minor rubrical changes will come slowly. Prayers at the foot of the altar, for instance, would remind the people what it is like to pray with the priest- facing the same direction as him. Over time, this might make an ad orientem EP less shocking.
I think these sort of minor tweaks will happen first. Then more substantive changes will come. I hate being patient.
The video was beautiful.
Post a Comment