Sandro Magister writes in his blog "Chiesa" the following:
MY COMMENTS FIRST:Last night our combined choirs sang Faure's Requiem in a Solemn Sung Requiem for the Commemoration of All Souls. It was absolutely splendid. We had two male soloists and our men's schola to sing the Gradual, Tract and Dies Irae in Gregorian Chant.
I'll have pictures shortly and a video soon and yes, I highlight the deacon's mistakes and my own and yes there were a few. Of course it begs the issue that we'd do it correctly if we were doing this Mass more often. But this Mass needs strong faith to love and appreciate and a faith that understands its underlining theology of spirituality and actual participation which is quite different from the Ordinary Form's more simplistic, feel good theology.
From what I heard, our deacon and subdeacon seem to do a wonderful job with their choreography.
The music was stunning, stirring and inspirational. It brought us all to contemplation.
A visitor came to me after the Mass as she is departing Macon today for her home near Sacramento. She said that the Mass was stunningly beautiful. Then she said, "What in the name of God and all that is holy would move the fathers of the Second Vatican Council and the Holy Father of that period to abrogate this form of the Mass?
She went on to say that she had made a pilgrimage to Medjugorje and would attend Mass celebrated in Croatian where there was splendid music with pipe organ. Then she would attend Masses in English led by guitar!
I still contend that Masses may have been celebrated poorly in pre-Vatican II times but that the laity had strong faith and believed that if the Mass was valid that Christ was present in His Sacrifice and in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity and that salvation was the grace of the Mass. How many approach Mass with this attitude today. Isn't is more about the priest and the congregation and how well they welcome and exude nice personalities? Is this faith or bad faith?
Now for some excerpts from Magister's blog:
Pope Benedict believes there is a crisis of faith in the Church. Pope Benedict XVI has repeatedly indicated the "priority" of his pontificate is leading men back to God, and "not to any sort of God," but to that God who has revealed his face in Jesus crucified and risen.
Benedict XVI calls the new gods by their names.
The new gods are the "anonymous capital that enslaves man."
They are terrorist violence "apparently made in the name of God" but really in the name of "false divinities that must be unmasked."
They are drugs, "this power that, like a voracious beast, extends its claws to all parts of the world and destroys it."
They are "the way of living proclaimed by public opinion: today we must do things like this, marriage no longer counts, chastity is no longer a virtue, and so on."
In the judgment of Benedict XVI – a judgment that he has reiterated recently as well, in the preface to the two volumes of his "opera omnia" with conciliar writings – it is precisely here that lie the strength and weakness of Vatican II, at the fiftieth anniversary of which he has proclaimed the year of faith.
The council was intended to revive the proclamation of the Christian faith in today's world, in "updated" forms. And in part it succeeded. But it was unable to go to the substance of "that which is essential and constitutive of the modern era."
It is true, for example, that for the Church it took the lash of the Enlightenment to make it rediscover that which was the idea of ancient Christianity in the matter of freedom of religion. On this pope Ratzinger agrees with Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini: here the Church was truly "two hundred years behind."
But the pope agrees even more with Cardinal Camillo Ruini, when he objects that in any case "there must be a distance between the Church and any time, including our own but also that in which Jesus lived," a distance "that calls us to convert not only persons, but also culture and history."
37 comments:
How did you cope with the epistle and gospel when on your own admission your deacons can't or won't sing?
The subdeacon who is a permanent deacon read the Epistle and the deacon who is our Polish priest chanted the Gospel and impeccably.
Fr: the Mass last night was stunning. My friends who were in attendance were lamenting that there are so few parishes where that kind of experience is available. You've got a tremendous amount of talent in your parish, too. The choir was outstanding!
I will say that whatever mistakes were made were surely subtle enough to not be noticed, at least by untrained eyes...
"I still contend that Masses may have been celebrated poorly in pre-Vatican II"
Evidently this has become an obligatory verbal genuflection before saying what you really mean.
But, really, I don't recall any sloppily celebrated Masses before Vatican II, where as now they're seen all the time.
In any event, the goal of the liturgical movement before Vatican II, and of its activists who wrote Sacrosanctum Concilium was not to correct real or imagined abuses in the celebration of the Mass, but to change the participation of people in the liturgy.
Certainly, no significant number of bishops felt that Holy Mass itself required change, but rather they felt that--then, as now and always--the engagement of the people needed to be more vital.
Of course, 40 years of experience has made it clear that the proposed remedy was no cure, but rather made the problem worse.
Bravi! I'm looking forward to seeing the video. Keep up the good work with the OF too; sooner or later your confreres will follow your example. Tomorrow I am singing at an EF Requiem up the road in Nottingham. Sunday 11 November is Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday in the UK. Traditionally the principal Sunday Mass is a Requiem for the fallen, and I shall be at the London Oratory for their OF Solemn Latin Requiem (Lassus). Sadly there will be no absolutions at the catafalque - these were dropped in 1965.
Henry I do believe that Masses today are far more sloppy and certainly more casual and disorganized than in pre-Vatican II times. But I do think that there were liturgical abnormalities that no one really realized except maybe the altar boys. I do for a fact that my father's parish in Cape Breton had a priest that often forgot to pray the consecration! But I think the priest may have been a bit of a lush. That's from altar boy relatives when i visited up there at that time!
Fr. McDonald, no doubt there were "abnormalities" occasionally--if only the "exceptions that prove the rule". However, I know what I experienced in a number of different parishes in different states, attending both daily and Sunday Mass, always following the Mass carefully in my hand missal, and never witnessing personally any of these abnormalities.
Of course, the consecration and elevation were the highpoint that many looked for, and their omission would have been such a major scandal, impossible to miss, that I wonder about any such altar boy reports. Having myself occasionally heard sacristy (and locker room) chatter than I knew to be utterly false. (Incidentally, the only consecration foul-ups I've ever witnessed myself--e.g. omission of the consecration of the Sacred Blood--have occurred in recent times at OF Masses. But I'd never refer to this otherwise, knowing it proves nothing and so is utterly irrelevant to any rational discussion.)
In any event, in an era when liturgical abuse is endemic and ubiquitous, it seems passing strange to hear constant references--seemingly thought obligatory--to alleged abuses in a time when they surely were exceedingly rare.
There is a "crisis of faith" among Christians. It has been going on since the Resurrection..."the Light shone in the Darkness and the Darkness knew it not..." The problem is unbelief, which is the root of every other aspect of this crisis.
But, Gene, has it often in the past been the case that widespread unbelief was directly caused by official actions of the Church herself?
Pin is correct. The "crisis" of faith is not new, nor should we find it surprising that there are some people struggling to be faithful, some who are disinterested, and some who are hostile. It has always been thus.
One dangerous reaction to the reality is that some people - those who consider themselves to be the "Faithful Remnant" - seek to carve out a safe, protected enclave in which they can blissfully live without much interaction (including evangelization) with the rest of us poor slobs. I suspect there is a little bit of this thinking in what some see as the future of the Catholic Church - a "smaller, purer Church."
There is also the danger of placing the "blame" for this "crisis." Adam and Eve blamed it on the serpent. European Catholics in the Middle Ages blamed the Jews. Puritans in Boston blamed it on - and hanged - Quakers. Not a few here blame Vatican II with its "abberations," "confusing teaching," "inorganic development of doctrine," "hermeneutic of rupture," etc.
The blame for the failure of the Church to evangelize the world is ours. It is our own sinfulness and our failure to live by grace that leaves the world in such a state.
There are urban myths about the "twelve minute Mass" which would have been utterly impossible, especially when the Leonine prayers were obligatory. I remember as a boy being reprimanded by priests because I said the responses too quickly.
In the 1950s parishes had MCs who took their responsibilities seriously and even if the music was not up to the standard we now expect in the EF, what went on in the sanctuary was liturgically correct. Vatican II ushered in an era of individualism and 'anything goes'. It has blighted my life as a Catholic, caused untold damage to the Church of Christ, but it is not in my power to undo it. But I certainly won't be celebrating it.
@John
Our very own Fr. McDonald says the daily OF Mass in about 20 minutes with a short homily. But, he still does so very reverently.
Even if there were 12 minute Low Masses, which I seriously doubt, speed is not necessarily an abuse or an indication of irreverence of the priest. And if speed were something the Council was aiming to fix, I can think of errrr ways to accomplish that goal than simplifying the Mass and putting it in the priest's own language.
PI, You comparisons are an inversion and factually wrong when compared to the modern TLM adherents. In fact the TLM parishes are annoyingly evangelical, much to the irritation of OF parishes. It is not a retreat as much as returning to the baseline of what worked when the experiment has gone wrong. Hermeneutic of continuity. The post Vat II is not so much characterised by evangelisation as imitation of those they would convert. This is affirmed in the hymns.
Also one has to remember that when the Mass was in Latin, in the low form the priest would read the Epistle and Gospel briskly and with understanding. On Sunday Masses they would also have been read in the vernacular (from the pulpit before the sermon) and those who attended Mass on weekdays would have a weekday missal.
I don't go to Mass to be lectured to, exposed to banal music because someone has decided that I have a two-minute attention span, put up with liturgical abuses, and go out (usually before the end) in a rage. I was prepared to accept the obligation to attend Mass when it was more or less the same everywhere but I have argued that obligation works both ways. What do Fr Shelton and Fr McDonald think of this? The Church's liturgy is a glorious thing, so don't tell me I must go to Mass in order to mortify the flesh.
Well, if I recall properly there is a certain mortification of the flesh during Mass especially before Vatican II with kneelers that didn't have pads (many European Churches continue this noble harshness with their kneelers). Pew backs were straight and uncomfortable, no padding and the more rigorous the homily especially has it recalled hell fire and damnation the better so that the sinner might feel the worm that he is.
My limited childhood experience of the pre-Vatican II Church was the more mean and nasty, the better and that life and Mass shouldn't be comfortable. Also we attended low Mass on Sunday and sang hymns but not the parts of the Mass, but occasionally went to the High Mass which for this child was a real penance as I didn't like Gregorian chant at the time.
So it shouldn't all be a matter of personal taste and preferences or for one's comfort.
Certain things were a penance - the Rosary, sermons, stations of the cross - but as a young child I couldn't get enough of the Mass, be it low or high, and it was a great joy when I was eight and was allowed to serve it, although the first time I had to carry the missal on its heavy oak stand from the epistle to the gospel side I nearly collapsed under the weight.
Had someone exposed me to a 'children's Mass' I would have told them where to get off. And I would rather go to the dentist than attend what passes for the Mass in most English parishes today.
John - You don't "have" to go to mass for mortification. You "have" to go to mass because God has commanded it. You can try to rationalize away this obligation - lectures, banal music, liturgical abuses - but the obligation remains. To ignore this obligation willfully is to commit mortal sin.
Yes, Pater, and priests "have" to offer the Mass in accordance with the laws of the Church or else they commit mortal sin. John's point is that many priests do not take their obligation to do so seriously and this make it difficult for the laity to meet their obligation without suffering and mortification. And the Liturgy, I think you'll agree, should not be a mortifying experience, but a joyous and celebratory one.
Marc - Every mass, by its nature, is joyous and celebratory. But not in the "happy, clappy" caricature Good Father McDonald likes to write about. He's making that claptrap up.
However, every person attending mass experiences the liturgy in a unique way. Some hear "Be Not Afraid" but in their hearts they are very afraid, and they may experience dissonance. Some hear "Lift up your hearts..." but are so burdened by illness and unemployment that they are numb to the words. Some arrive with a burden of legitimate guilt, hear "May Almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins..." and find great solace.
In the olden days, failure to adhere to the rubrics, including putting your right arm into the right alb sleeve before the left arm (sinister "left" don't you know), was considered mortal sin. That juridical stricture no longer obtains.
And... using YOUR [faulty]reasoning, a priest is free to overlook or ignore the rubrics since they are not (and cannot be) infallibly taught.
It is the happy clappy masses that improvise on the Liturgy with happy clappy tunes, rather than the official Mass even in the Ordinary Form that is the problem of our generation PI and unfortunately until those of our generation who haven't gotten with the reform of the reform of the Ordinary Form of the Mass have died off, many parishes will remain liturgically impoverish and stuck in the strumming feel-good faux prescription drug malaise that is so prevalent and even in our city. So sad.
See, Pater, the difference between you and me is that I try to be nice to you and work from areas that we can find agreement. You always resort to being a jerk.
Seriously, setting aside my thoughts about you as a priest, I just don't think you're a very nice person.
PI
I have seen priests who, when pronouncing the words of Our Lord "take this all of you and eat of it" gesture with the Host to the congregation, eyeballing them all the while; and while saying "take this all of you and drink of it" actually tilt the chalice and its contents towards the people. This is what I would call liturgical abuse, and liturgical abuse is sacrilege; to put up with it makes one complicit in it; therefore one is bound to avoid it. If it happens at your local church and you are unable to travel further you're stuffed. I'm fortunate in that there is an OF parish a short drive away which doesn't tolerate this kind of thing. I normally go further afield in order to find Latin and traditional music, especially chant. But this is my prerogative.
Typically, Ignotus, you misunderstand (deliberately) and misinterpret my post. You want to bring it all down to your facile and liberal notions of evangelization and "ecumenism," to which RCG spoke nicely when he said that post-Vat II evangelism is pretty much imitating those we would convert.
When I speak of "unbelief," do not confuse it with "non-belief." Non-believers, whom we seek to convert to believers in Christ and members of His Body, the Catholic Church, are not the issue here. The issue is unbelief, presumed believers, protestant and Catholic, who masquerade as the faithful but who espouse theologies of a humanistic nature (which means adoptionist/Gnostic/Pelagian) and who view the Church as primarily a social work organization. These people (you among them from your posts here) view traditional Catholic theology, doctrine, and liturgics as a hindrance to a unified "liberation" theology which would collapse both Catholic and protestant theology into some feel-good amalgam of so-called "ecumenism" wherein doctrine and belief are secondary to social action and humanistic/socialistic programs. THAT is unbelief.
Further, unbelief is intentional, self-aware, and aggressive. It is also clever and subtle...unbelief knows how to lie sweetly, theologically, and with a straight face. In a word, unbelief is a deceiver, a manipulator, a liar...now, Ignotus, who are we talking about here..."now the Serpent was more subtle than any other creature that the Lord God had made..."
Unbelief leads theologically innocent or naive believers to sin because it plies them with heresy from ambos and pulpits around the country every Sunday, feeds them exegetically questionable and theologically wrong books from such authors as Hans Kung and Margaret Nutcase Ralph, and resists the efforts of devout Catholics to recover a true Catholic identity through a return to the True Mass and true worship.
"Choose this day whom you will serve..."
John - I hardly think that the actions your describe as liturgical abuse constitute sacrilege. Maybe they are not good practice, but I can't agree the priest's actions are sacriligious. And they certainly do not constitute a basis for skipping mass or walking out in protest.
Marc - I am sorry that you define those who disagree with you, correct your erroneous understanding of Church documents, and/or inform you on those matters in which you are ignorant as "jerks."
Your contention that "If I don't agree with this non-infallible teaching/rubric/guideline, therefore I don't have to obey it" is simply wrong. You can't hold others to a standard you yourself do not adhere to.
Pin - Those who, such as yourself, skip mass when they find things in a church not to their personal prefernces are the ones "masquerading" as Catholics.
And if you can cite where in Dr. Ralph's book, which I used for the recent and well attended Summer Scripture Series, there are theological errors, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.
Pin - Oh, and I'm using Fr. Robert Barron's "Catholicism" DVD series for adult ed on Sunday mornings now. Maybe you'd like to take a few ignorant and misinformed potshots at his presentation on radical non-violence, social justice, or ecumenism...
Marc - You and others have repeatedly argued that non-infallible statements can be "judged" by individual Catholics and, if those individuals find those teaching not to be "Traditional" then they can be ignored.
I am sorry you find correction from someone who knows more about the Church's teaching "condescending." When I am corrected by someone who knows more than I, I am grateful.
Many people find others "scandalous" because they WANT to be scandalized, they enjoy being scandalized, believing that that gives them some superiority over the object of their scorn and derision. That's your issue, not mine.
I am not a "bad, uncaring" person, your conclusions notwithstanding. What I am is a person who disagrees with you and corrects your errors which you find annoying.
As to anonymity - I haven't seen your name and place of business posted here. My name and parish have been posted, so who is really hiding?
Pater, if deliberately distorting the most sacred moment of the Mass is not a liturgical abuse, I wonder how you would define one. I have little patience with clerics who have so little regard for the Holy Sacrifice that they can't be bothered to celebrate it reverently (or even competently) yet expect people to grin and bear it out of obligation. I'm sure you don't fall into this category, but you do seem to imply that those who object to bad liturgy are simply looking for an excuse to 'skip' Mass (your word).
Wow! Listen to ol' Ignotus go off...a hit dog sho' hollers don't he? LOL!
John - I said, "I hardly think that the actions your describe as liturgical abuse constitute sacrilege."
I do think some who "object to bad liturgy" use that as an excuse to skip mass. Ask Pin/Gene...
Marc - Refusing to go to mass because the liturgy doesn't meet your personal preference standards is not a "past mistake." [A mistake is unintentional.]
Then, proclaiming your choice to skip mass in a public blog doubles, if not triples, the offense.
What I learn under the seal of confession is, by God's grace, forgotten. What is proclaimed in a stentorian manner on a blog is is open for comment.
Fr Kavanuagh, I can't comment on the way you celebrate, since I have not, nor am likely to, attend your parish; neither shall I indulge in ad hominem attacks as some on this blog have done. However, I would respectfully suggest that for the laity who have little choice in the matter what you call "personal preference standards" are what have been foisted on us for over forty years, to the detriment of liturgy as properly understood.
Ignotus, you are probably one of the very worst examples of a Priest I have ever met, and I have met some lulus.
Now, for clarification, I did indeed skip Mass one Sunday a while back because it was in a parish where I knew the Mass would be a "folk mass" poorly celebrated and with sloppy handling of the elements and sloppy distribution. I shared this on the blog (mentioning also that I went to Confession regarding it),and Ignotus has returned to it ever since because it is the only way he has to respond to my numerous theological and doctrinal posts for which he has not the intellectual or theological background to respond intelligently. He is a pitiful being, used by God in persona Christi in spite of himself. We cannot fathom the mysteries of God' good and perfect will...
Pin/Gene - I do not mention your mass-skipping as a response to your "numerous theological and doctrinal posts." I mention it as a reminder/warning to those who read this blog that your past behaviour, including your racist and anti-Semitic comments, should be the filter through which your comments are understood and weighted.
Post a Comment