But do expect Pope Francis to model the poverty of Saint Francis of Assisi as it regards the private revelation St. Francis had from Jesus Christ Himself and in the most "gnostic, direct way" "rebuild my Church!" Of course our Lord meant spiritually, not with material products.
His Holiness, the Bishop of Rome, the Holy Father, Pope Francis has hardly mentioned Vatican II in his nearly month long papacy of being the Bishop of Rome! What does it mean?
It means that the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis is going to focus on Jesus Christ crucified and risen! Thank God for that!
When I was a post-Vatican II teenager and well into my priesthood, all I ever heard, it seemed, was Vatican II preached. The glories of Vatican II and the wonderful bishops and two popes who presided over that glorious Council and all the wonderful things that glorious and wonderful Council produced the effects of which are yet to be experienced, they would say, in its fullness.
As I've written before, as a teenager and young adult, I had my fill of hearing mediocre homilies focused on Vatican II and the changes we were experiencing in the Church and why we were experiencing them, in order to get back to the glories of the early Church unencumbered by the excesses of pre-Vatican II triumphalism. That Church was bad, nasty and we were well to say good-bye and good-riddance.
This type of preaching and teaching is the horizontal gone bizerk and the deification of an Ecumenical Council that was admittedly more pastoral and not dogmatic except where it reiterated dogmas and doctrines of the Church.
Pope Francis homilies are Christocentric. He begins with Christ and shows how by God's grace we can respond to the beckoning grace of God in Jesus Christ. He doesn't preach Vatican II, thank God. He preaches the verticality of Jesus Christ crucified and risen which is made known the the "horizontal" messiness of life apart from our brief moments in the temple we call the church building.
His liturgies despite their stark simplicity are very vertical and as I've stated before these are "ad orientem" in style, if not in physical demeanor. Keep in mind that the major basilicas of Rome which the Holy Father is celebrating the Mass, the Vatican Basilica, St. Peters, the Roman Basilica Cathedral, St. John Lateran and next week the Basilica outside the Walls, St. Paul's have altars that face directly the geographical east. The manner in which the Mass on these altars are celebrated have always been on the side of the altar the celebrant stands either in the pre-Vatican II or post-Vatican II Churches.
Where Pope Francis is differing from all his predecessors, is in his 1970's theology of vestments. In fact these are the style that I prefer for myself as these are the types of vestments modeled for us in my Sulpician seminary of St. Mary's in the Roland Park area of Baltimore. The theology we were taught in terms of vestments is that the vestment is the "sign and symbol" itself, not any adornment on it. So the decorations need to be minimal if non-existent. We were taught you shouldn't add symbols to a symbol. I should add that my tastes in vestments concerns my idiosyncrasies which I don't extend to the papacy's vesture, which I prefer to be papal and sumptuous point to the institution rather than the man who might be pope at any given time.
On top of that, the fullness of the sign that is the chasuble and stole, should be in their cut, which definitely should not be Roman or "fiddleback" "minimalist" but full Gothic. The stole should be worn on the outside too. (I don't think, but don't know, if Pope Francis will go that far, but who knows?)
Fabrics should be simple, not elaborate. This is the 1970's view of things, that I had hoped we had overcome. As much as some people didn't like the modern vesture of Pope Paul or Pope John Paul II, their vestments had symbols on them and they wore different vestments regularly.
I think with Pope Francis, we'll see him wearing the same set of vestments in their various liturgical colors over and over again. That will become quite boring as it already has. Perhaps Pope Bergoglio will grow tired of them too as he gets acclimated to being the Bishop of Rome which has an impact immediately outside of Rome to the whole world whether he likes it or not. He's not in Argentina anymore and he's not a parochial bishop anymore. He is in Rome and should be humble enough to do as the Romans do, in moderation of course, but especially as it regards what the Bishop of Rome does. We don't want the faux poverty of Argentinian or South American liberation dictators also modeled in a faux way by communist leaders there and in Europe and Asia. The rich have to feign poverty. The truly poor wear adornments in the religious sense as a sign of spiritual richness! I think now of the poorest African American Protestant Churches in the south and how well they dress for Sunday! Be careful Pope Francis! You ain't poor. Pope John XXIII was poor but he didn't deify it in his papacy one bit for he didn't need to feign poverty as religious orders, like the Jesuits do!
My first Mass vestments made by my mother is off-white "fancy polyester" with no adornment on it whatsoever other than a simple boarder contrast on the fringe all around the chasuble and a stole that goes outside of the chasuble that has a very simple cross at the neck, no other adornment. It is full cut. It will be what I wear in the casket of my funeral. It is completely 1970's theology concerning its style.
This vestment makes what Pope Francis wear look hyper-Baroque!
But Pope Francis "art of celebrating the Mass" and his homilies are the proper blend of the vertical and the horizontal. I'm glad he focuses on Jesus Christ, crucified and risen and His grace,rather than the glories of Vatican II.
28 comments:
If Pope Francis never so much as mentions Vatican II, that's fine with me. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that we are all suffering from Vatican II Fatigue.
I honestly wonder what excuses some priests and laity would use for their unbridled contempt of tradition if they were forbidden to mention Vatican II.
I can still remember the day that Pope Benedict was elected. It was in the late morning, so I decided to attend a noon Mass in thanksgiving of his election. The priest (in this very diocese) looked like he had been hit by a train. He gave a brief, impromptu homily that went something like this:
"Now I know a lot of you are concerned about the new pope, but let's give him a chance. We think we know him, but, you know, he says he's going to continue with Vatican II, which means modernizing the Church. There's a lot of, uh, opinions out there and some people may be worried, but I think we need to give him a chance."
Imagine! A priest almost apologizing for the election of a pope. He spoke those words in a nervous tone and looked troubled all the way through Mass. Little did he know that Pope Benedict WOULD use Vatican II, in a way he never suspected.
We've lied so much about Vatican II that when the truth is told about it, we hardly know how to respond.
I think Pope John Paul II was selected for a specific reason, namely the Curia needed someone who would take the threat of Communism and it's infiltration of the the Vatican seriously, and in that respect they got the right man for the job. The damage his pontificate did to Church was something they hadn't bargined for, but his election was too recent after V2 to recognize time bombs hidden in the documents. For better or worse, his Pontificate was too long by about a decade, and the V2 "spirit" is entrenched and permanent. The elections of both Benedict and Francis, while cheering the right or left respectively, signal abosultely nothing to rank and file Catholics precisely becasue they mean nothing. Benedict was elected, and France in his turn elected, because it was "their turn". Benedict could model change but not effect change, because the Cardinals weild the power, not the Pope. Francis will now model his changes, but nothing will change (and let us be at least a little thankful for that, only Heaven knows what changes he would make). The Curia has become a self licking ice cream cone. Their will be no reform of the Curia, any more than American politicans can reform Congress. Why? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I like Pope Francis. I think his style is fine and it appears people are responding to it. I will not presume to preach to him about anything. I can't tell, but I expect he is mindful that a strong foundation is the reason gentleness works. He seems to show that understanding.
Father Allan, could you explain why the stole should be on the outside?
Father Edward McNamara, who answers liturgical questions on the ZENIT news agency website states the following: "...Indeed, the stole is placed under the chasuble in all historical vestment styles. The external stole is a recent and transitory fad which is now contrary to the universal liturgical law..."
Source: http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/wearing-stoles-over-the-chasuble
I agree that it is a fad, but prior to its prohibition I saw JPII and even Benedict wear stoles made for the outside of the chasuble. But the austere vestments are from a particular interpretation of "noble simplicity."
"But Pope Francis "art of celebrating the Mass" and his homilies are the proper blend of the vertical and the horizontal."
I couldn't disagree more. The only vertical coming in the papal liturgies of Pope Francis are done so begrudgingly. Looking at how he celebrated Holy Mass at the Sistine Chapel, on Holy Thursday and most recently in your photos you just posted, there is very little vertical theology going on.
I would argue that this simplicity isn't Noble, nor is it promoting a "balance" between the vertical theology of the Mass and the horizontal (a Consilium fabrication, incidentally). There is a clear sense of the horizontal taking over, again.
We soon will be seeing the participatio activa of Piero Marini's day replace the participatio actuosa of Guido Marini. This is a complete reversion to the liturgical nightmares of the 1980s. The only good thing is that Pope Francis isn't the norm, he is the exception.
Those of us who are "traddy" and wear it proudly know that with this pontiff we are simply going into a holding pattern. Oh, he won't abrogate SP or UE, but he won't support it either. Case in point...where has the publicity of Cardinal Burke's Masses been recently?
It doesn't really matter though, the traddys will stay traddy and the liberals will get one more slight repast. Their days are numbered though...that horse is really out of the barn, no matter how much the "humble pope" doesn't like it....but then again, it shouldn't be about him, now should it? Sadly, though....to this point, it is.
Simplicity is a legitimate Christian aesthetic. There is nothing wrong with it, and indeed, in many circumstances, it can be preferable, like in a Cistercian monastery or for use by Franciscan priests. It is also perfectly fine for any diocesan priest to prefer simple vestments.
When this becomes a problem is if this aesthetic is used as a political tool, a sort of iconoclasm, similar to the vagaries of modernist and postmodernist art. Modernist artists and their posterity don't make hideous art because it is beautiful, they make it because it is ugly, because it is jarring, because they hate the past.
On the other hand, sumptuous, regal vestments are fine as well. I wouldn't recommend wearing a beautifully brocaded chasuble on a ferial weekday, but rich vestments are fine.
I an retyping this as I lost the first attempt:
If the stole was worn under the chasuble in all historical vestment styles and the principle for the preference for the full Gothic chasuble is based on that style being the original style from the late Roman garment (and the early Church) then how is the overlay stole ever justifiable as it is a true innovation (rupture) in vestment styles?
Further, there was also a long historical practice of priests crossing their stoles and of bishops wearing them straight hanging and, in both cases, binding them in place with loops in the cincture (Benedict XVI was often shown wearing his stole this way under a cope). Why has this historical practice largely been abandoned in the years since the Council (except in Traditionalist orders like the FSSP or when vested for the EF)? Why not wear a crossed (and cincture bound)stole under the chasuble for the OF as well? What do you think, Father?
English Oratorians cross their stoles when celebrating in either form. Given the symbolism of the vestments, a priest remarked to me that wearing the stole over the chasuble is "putting authority above charity".
Authority is above charity. There would be no charity without authority, no grace without sovereignty, and no redemption without judgement. I get so sick of hearing all the feel goods quote First Corinthians 13 like parrots. They completely miss the entire Pauline context that this is the love of God poured out in Christ and into the Church through the Holy Spirit. Once again, without that mean old sovereignty there is no love, no Incarnation, no Church.
The priest at the Mass I suffered thru last Sunday had his sole outside his chasible. That was the most minor abuse. I've never seen anything like this in person before.
First Communion kids (all female) stood around the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer. During the offertory, every child in the building went up to the altar to give the priest a hug. He was kind enough to narrate the entire Liturgy for us.
It started with him being introduced by a young girl from the pulpit. He came down the aisle shaking hands. Then he told us how the upcoming Mass wasn't entertainment. Everything after that proved his assertion wrong.
He changed the words of Consecration by the way. So it probably want even valid.
On the upside, his homily was only like 5 minutes. He didn't need much time because he had inserted some commentary into his reading of the gospel already and had given a long expiration of it before the Kyrie and then again just before the reading from Acts.
There was guitar and piano but the Gloria was simply recited. He explained why it was good not to have a crucifix at the altar too.
I am sure I missed something, but you get the idea. It doesn't matter how the Pope says his Masses, priests like this guy aren't going to pay attention one way or the other.
He included every abuse I've read about in horror stories all in one Mass... It's pretty impressive really.
Marc, how did Pope Benedict influence this priest? Not at all and will anyone say to him that this is unexceptable? No, I presume the majority there thought it cool! That is the culture that Pope Benedict and the bishops in union with him could not overcome. Why, I don't know.
Father, I don't think anyone influences this priest except his own ego. I think you're right that the majority loved the show he put on for them.
I don't think the Pope has a role in this sort of thing, really. The bishop of Biloxi certainly has a role here, but not the Pope.
I do think that bishops due whatever reason have abdicated their authority in these and many matters. But that's a different subject. Thankfully, Bikoxi isn't my diocese. So I will not write to the bishop. I will continue to pray for this priest and his flock.
I have no idea how the Pope and the bishops can fix this. It's such a monumental task that God will have to handle it with them and us as his weak instruments.
I will never go to a Mass with an Irish priest again. I've never seen a Mass said properly by an Irish priest. For that matter, I've never seen a Mass said properly in the Diocese of Biloxi either!
Marc, I have seen Mass said properly by an Irish priest. I think it was in 1961, and it was a rare occurrence even then. I have yet to encounter an Irish priest who could sing (not in church at any rate, but they can croon sentimental ballads in the pub).
By suffering the "Mass" you described you have probably acquired more graces than you would get at a dozen TLMs. You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.
I'm glad to know Vatican II had little effect on Irish liturgical sensibilities...! Maybe someone should call Ireland and see if they want their priests back.
I confess that it took monumental actual grace to keep me there through the Ite Missa Est. I did immediately bolt for the door as the priest began his post-show rundown of events, announcements, and shout-outs.
Here's the problem, though, in real terms. My parents when they retire shortly are moving to this area about a mile from this parish. They aren't Catholic, but they are interested because they have experienced a couple times the beautiful Masses at Fr. McDonald's parish. So, while this priest's audience might enjoy the show, there are others who may be kept away by his antics.
Moreover, what happens when this priest, who is clearly beloved, leaves after having been there for so long. The next priest can't simply restore the parish to even the semblance of proper liturgy. It's such a mess... I'm glad I'm not in charge of sorting these things out -- the Holy Ghost surely has something in store to get it sorted, though.
Was the Irish Priest who said Mass properly sober? LOL!
Come on, now, everyone. What’s with all this bashing of Irish priests? You’re not serious, are you?
Old Fr. O'Malley, 98 years old, was on his death bed and all the Priests were gathered around him wanting to ease his journey into Paradise. One of the Priests, in an effort to rouse him and make him feel better, went to the kitchen and poured some fresh warm milk from the dairy into a glass. He took down a bottle of whiskey and poured a stout shot into the milk, thinking it might comfort the old Priest.
When Fr. O'Malley had finished the milk and lay back relaxed, one of the Priests asked him, "Fr. would you leave us with one last word of wisdom?"
The old Priest smiled up and said, "Don't sell that cow!"
I am serious. I've encountered a few Irish priests and none of them seemed to care at all about saying Mass properly. Their concern was primarily about being showmen. I'm us there is at least one good Irish priest in this world, but from now on when I travel, if I see an O'Father is saying Mass, I'm going elsewhere.
To be fair, my great-uncle, Fr Hugh McGarry CSSp (d. 1965) was an Irish priest who said Mass impeccably - as a boy I sometimes served his private Mass. When he died one of his brother priests remarked "He's lucky really. He won't be killed in a nuclear war and he'll never have to say Mass in English". However, he was a regular priest who was trained at Fribourg in Switzerland. His Superior-General was none other than Marcel Lefebvre.
I don't think standards at the Irish national seminary (Maynooth) were paricularly high even in the 1950s, and Ireland never had a sung Mass tradition.
There was a movie made about the Irish struggle to keep the Traditional Mass. There's a nice clip of it on You Tube. Maybe that supports the idea that at some point things were good in Ireland. I don't remember the name of the film, but I'm sure someone here knows what I'm talking about.
I guess the Irish never had a sung Mass because they needed to save their singing voices for the pub after Mass.
America owes much to the priests who came here from Ireland. As a boy, I lived in a diocese where probably one third of the priests were Irish immigrants. Two different parishes I attended were both founded by Irish priests who were aging Monsignors in retirement.
However, something has gone terribly wrong. Probably more so than any other country, priests from Ireland have embraced every new thing and sought out the paths of least resistance. Most Irishmen are men of charm and tend to be personable (at least when sober), so it has followed that many Catholics have followed whatever whim their Irish pastors have imposed upon them as gospel, based not on any unchanging truths of the Church, but based on personal loyalty. By sheer force of their personalities and popularity, many Irish priests have greatly misled a number of well-intentioned Catholics who had more loyalty to one priest than they had to their own Church.
Marc, you must be thinking of 'Catholics' a 1973 film starring Trevor Howard based on the eponymous novel by Brian Moore. It is set in the future, after 'Vatican IV' when curial cardinals wear business suits and the RC Church has been subsumed into an ecumenical megachurch. It has come to the notice of the Vatican that a remote Irish monastery, alone in the world is still using the old Latin liturgy ... In the end, the forces of progress prevail. Believe me, in 1973 it did not appear at all far-fetched.
Perhaps this is partly a function of our personal experiences. Thus I can recall several Irish priests over the years here in Macon (and one in England) but do not recall anything particularly objectionable about any of them – of course, perhaps I am one of those who has been misled =). Indeed, one of them is truly outstanding (even if, as I suspect, he has never offered a sung Mass), and has been very influential in my own spiritual development. For example, he introduced me to the Monastery of the Holy Spirit in Conyers, Georgia, which at one point when I was still single became central in my life; and his emphasis upon interiority has greatly helped me to appreciate the importance of inward active participation during Mass. I will not mention any names because I do not wish to cause embarrassment. My point, of course, is that perhaps one should try to avoid sweeping generalizations. At the very least, it seems unfair to any exceptions that might prove the rule.
Every Irish priest I've seen perform Mass made me want to go hide away in a monastery as well, Anonymous 2.
To be fair, I'm only talking about actual Irish priests here and not Americans who have some Irish ancestry. Those American priests with Irish ancestry I've encountered have been excellent priests.
So I'm only making a sweeping generalization about actual Irish people. I hope one day I'm proven wrong even though I intend to do adequate advance research to avoid encountering an Irish priest saying Mass in the future.
Although the Irish themselves will admit to their ideoscyncracis in the area of liturgy and one only need to go to Ireland to experience it first hand, we owe a great deal of debt to the Irish who came here as missionaries, both priests and nuns and kept Catholics from becoming Protestants through attrition. For example in south Georgia there are many Protestants and Protestants now for generations who have Irish last names and whose ancestry was Catholic but here in Georgia there were no priests so the Baptists and Methodists took care of their religious needs and converted them.
Fr Alan, I don't find your argument that Francis is celebrating mass facing the people (but in the style of ad orientum) because of the layout of st peter's basilica very convincing. He's the only pope who has celebrated his daily mass facing the people and he could quite easily turn his back to them at st marthas if he was so inclined!
Post a Comment