The Ordinary Form of the Mass celebrated Ad Orientem:
The Ordinary Form of the Mass celebrated toward the congregation:
What every Mass, no matter which kind and style should impel every priestly person of Christ to do, whether the priesthood of the baptized and ordained or the general priesthood of the baptized to serve the needs of the poor at home and in the world:
Many Catholics, but certainly not all, have a passion for the Liturgy. I know that I do. But that passion cannot turn the form of the Liturgy into a false God.
I find it fascinating that the Catholic blogs that have the most readership all revolve around the liturgy and the ones that are more traditional leaning are the most interesting. In fact the only really progressive blog that I like to read is "Praytell" but its comment section would be really, really, really boring if not for the traditionalists who comment there goading the more progressive comments of others in la la land.
But I wonder how well a blog on serving the poor inspired by one's Catholic faith and celebration of the Mass would do? Is there anything "sexy" about serving the poor and getting down on your hands and knees to "wash their feet?"
What Pope Francis is trying to cajole us Catholics into is a more "evangelical Catholicism" that reaches outside of the confines of the Church building to the world. In other words, Catholics and their parishes and movements aren't meant to be cloistered, circled wagon sorts of communities. We must be open to bringing God's transforming love and grace to the world.
I happen to believe that the Liturgy celebrated well and by the book is the way to do that. I also happen to believe that some of our lost traditional practices need to be recovered, precisely to make our Catholic identity strong to withstand the challenges of living our Catholic Faith in the world.
In terms of helping the poor, we need to be identified as Catholics when we do such, especially on the institutional level. For example Sister Elizabeth Grim who is a Daughter of Charity wears the simple dress of her order which is a flexible blue and white kind of uniform or habit, but not really a habit in the strict sense. She has a heart for the poor and is quite capable of pulling all kinds of people, Catholic and other wise into her ministries of helping the poor. Some years into her ministry here in Macon she started wearing the simple veil of her order which is optional. She said that doing so opened so many more doors for her here in Protestant Macon, but also with the Jewish and Islamic communities. Non Catholics in the south have always admired the work of women religious and enjoyed their visible habits. Like many Catholics, they too were distressed when nuns shed their habits for regular clothes and thus became invisible to the broader community. Many Catholics and non Catholic here in Macon thought there were no nuns in Macon. The habit has changed all of that and has brought so many more on board with helping the poor.
Tradition is not the enemy of the liturgy, or religious life or of helping the poor. Novelty is.
My desire for the liturgy is what Pope Benedict modeled and my desire for the Church in the world is what Pope Francis is modeling.
I am not rigid about the Liturgy but accept legitimate diversity, in music, in style and in form of liturgy.
I love the liturgy because through it Our Lord is made manifest in a sacramental way and in may different ways and in differing degrees. He is made manifest in the "sign" that is the "people of God" the "Mystical Body of Christ" and clergy and laity together especially in the assembly of the Mass.
He is present in the Word of God proclaimed both in the Scriptures and in the homily
He is present in the person of the priest who in a sacramental way shows forth Christ the Bridegroom and Head of the Church, who Himself presides over the Holy Sacrifice.
He is present in the most transubstantial way possible in the bread and wine that become His glorified Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
Christ's real presence is awesome and is made present in all forms of the Mass in the Roman Rite and Eastern Rites of the Church. In the Latin Rite which as two forms, the older so-called "unreformed" rite and the newer, so-called "reformed" rite. Unreformed or reformed are bad choices and completely ill-advised for describing what God does in the Holy Sacrifice. I much prefer Ordinary or Normal Form and Extraordinary or Optional Form of the Mass.
We cannot make the Mass or its various forms of celebrations into God. That would be idolatry. But the Mass must make manifest the transcendence and immanence of God.
So I would hope that the on-going renewal of the Mass leading to the on-going reform and renewal of Catholics would entail the following:
1. The ongoing revival of Chant for the Mass, both Gregorian and vernacular versions of Gregorian chant and the singing of the Propers but not to exclude the additional singing of quality hymns, new or old, traditional or contemporary.
2. The clear options of celebrating the Mass toward the congregation doing what Pope Benedict has modeled to make sure that the direction of Prayer is always to God the Father through Christ and never directed to the congregation or the legitimate traditional option of ad orientem.
3. The clear option of allowing for kneeling for Holy Communion while not negating standing, allowing personal choice and not seeing this as divisive in the least.
4. Ending the practice of Communion in the hand and expanding the legitimate use of Intinction as is done in Rome and many other places throughout the world.
I recently had a parishioner who is a paid singer in a Methodist Church choir tell me that at the Methodist Church people kneel to receive Communion and do so in a very, very reverent manner. Then she attends the Catholic Mass and people come up to Holy Communion in a very nonchalant way and take the Host in their hands and move on. She says it is striking how much more reverent looking the Methodist way is compared to ours which is crass looking and casual! That is sad, since the Methodist way was our way for over 1700 years! There is absolutely no reason to continue with a practice that has had a deleterious affect upon those who watch it, that is standing for Holy Communion and receiving our Lord in a very nonchalant and casual way. That does nothing to build traditional Catholic piety during Mass or Catholic action in the world!
I'm convinced that if we have a strong, traditional Catholic faith, we will have a strong laity doing what they are suppose to do when they depart the Mass. They will go in peace glorifying the Lord by their lives and will also go and announce the Gospel of the Lord! They will serve the needs of the poor by "washing their feet" beginning with their own family and reaching out to others.
That's what the traditional celebration of the Mass should encouraged, everyday life in the Lord!
10 comments:
You fall into the trap set for you by the father of the Second Vatican Council in this post by equating the "real presence" of Christ in the Scripture Readings with his Eucharistic Presence in the Most Holy Sacrament. That is a Protestant timebomb laid by the Council fathers that I hope you and every priest comes to reject for its heretical tendencies at some point.
At any rate, there need not be a tension between the liturgy and serving the poor. Those who are currently attempting to set up this false dichotomy are themselves the problem. For all those years when the Church had a beautiful liturgy, She likewise served the poor and spread the Gospel over the entire world.
To claim that somehow the poor are being better served because the liturgy is banal is a ridiculous idea.
Perhaps the real question, then, is whether people would still be obsessed with the liturgy if there weren't so much to fix... Perhaps, if the liturgy were restored to its former beauty, we would be able to focus on outreach instead of focusing on restoring our own house to its previous order.
I would disagree with you concerning the normative teaching of Vatican II about the presence of Christ. It is possible to express this while in no way denigrating the transubstantial presence of Christ in the Bread and Wine that become our Glorified and Risen Lord's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in other words becomes Him completely and not just in some spiritual ethereal way.
But I would agree that all the tinkering with the Mass since Vatican II and removing so much of what was present in it has created a culture of "liturgists" that simply did not exist prior to the Council and has become a major obsession for so many people.
I think if a minor revision of the Mass had taken place and less triumphalism concerning how we can make the Mass better by our own means and simplicity we could have focused on the real role of the laity, doing what they do apart from Mass and pious practices, being Christ-centered in their everyday lives. But I am not God and can't direct things better or worse than he has and is.
If it is wrong to make the Liturgy into a "false God", isn't it equally wrong to make the Poor into a "false God", or make being humble into a "false God"?
If we shoudn't be preoccupied with the Liturgy, then aren't we nothing more than protestants? For the center of the Catholic faith is the Eucharist. The essentials to being Catholic is to regularly go to confession and go to Mass to recieve the Eucharist. Everything else, including helping the poor, is just an add-on.
And if it is wrong to be preoccupied with the Liturgy, what does that say about all the people who are now enchanted by the new cult of personality that sits on the throne of Peter?
I agree with you, in turn, that it is possible to express the correct view of the presence of God in His inerrant Scripture while giving due honor to his Real and Substantial Presence in the Eucharist. However, oftentimes one experiences a triumphalism in the Gospel procession that is sorely lacking once the Consecration is completed.
In my humble opinion, if more priests simply followed the rubrics in the GIRM without adding or subtracting, so that people always knew what to expect, a lot of the so-called liturgists (myself included) would have little to gripe about. In so doing, you are right to say that the real role of the laity would be revealed, not as "ministers" during the Mass, but as ministers to the world (their co-workers, clients, families, and friends) during those six days when they aren't taking part in the Mass.
I am pleased the Pope has already focused on this aspect of Lumen Gentium because I think it is vastly more important than the intricacies of the Mass for the lives of most Catholics. But, on the other hand, Catholics need not be distracted by this modern day version of clericalism by thinking they must be "involved" in some way at the Altar during Mass... And why is that? Because it can inappropriately detract from their understanding of how they are actually called to exercise their priesthood in the world.
There is so much potential and hope in Lumen Gentium. I wish I could make every Catholic, especially lay people, read it.
Score one for Liturgical Catholic. Seems there are plenty of candidates for "false God" right this minute.
On the other hand, I'd like to submit that one can be very interested in/concerned about the Liturgy without making it into a false God. From the beginning of the Protestant revolt, liturgical changes have signified heretical changes in fundamental doctrinal belief. To take just one example, look at the controversy in Protestant circles in the 1500s over the elevation of the elements.
Those of us who 1) are conversant with Protestant worship, 2) know something of the history of the Protestant revolt, and 3) remember the radical liturgical changes of the 1970s cannot help but be alarmed at more liturgical change, at the highest level moreover, in a direction that abandons centuries of Catholic liturgical practice. Why? Because in the 1970s as in the 1500s, liturgical abandonment of Catholic practices, both mandated and on the initiative of modernist priests, went hand-in-hand with subversion of doctrine and rejection of doctrine. Thus our concern isn't making a false god out of Liturgy; it's defending the Catholic faith.
Further, perhaps Pope Francis, having come of age in the Spirit of VII era, and never having made a deep study of the liturgy in his career, genuinely doesn't realize some of these things. It's like a liturgical sin of scandal; deliberately confuse people enough, and with the best of intentions they will propagate the errors. Benedict was a liturgist, and thus less likely to fall for the trap; Francis isn't, and so he's more likely. If so, we here are not worshiping a false God, but pointing out a grave danger. I imagine Satan is patient and doesn't mind taking a century or two to corrupt the liturgy (and thus draw people away from the Catholic Faith) one thin slice of salami at a time.
Last point: those of us who were one immersed in Protestant liturgical traditions are usually very good at spotting Protestant influences in the Catholic liturgy--much better at it, I daresay, than cradle Catholics. And we're spotting a lot of it lately.
I suppose all of this is a long way of saying lex orandi lex credendi. But I hope I've shown by the explanation that the phrase isn't just a platitude. Many of us here, myself included, have seen this play out in history as well as having lived through it ourselves, and not in a good way.
I'm simply going to answer the question.
Yes, we should be.
The Eucharist is the source and summit of our Faith. The Mass is the vehicle by which that Sacrament is confected.
The importance of the Mass is paramount to Catholicism. It is the singular action from which all other Sacraments come forth. For without the sacrifice, there would be no Church and no Salvation. It is re-presented in an unbloody way.
Bottom line, the Mass should be celebrated as the Church determines, not man. There should be no innovation and it should be 100% licit and 100% valid. Any less and it is sacrilege.
I believe that the Novus Ordo has come so far off the rails that it should be retired and the TLM restored to the status of "ordinary form." Clearly the Novus Ordo we have is not what the Church intends.
We can wax poetic, but at the end of the day, the Mass is the single most important thing a Catholic does in his life. Why should he be subjected to innovation and wanton disregard of the wishes of the Church?
The restoration of the TLM to the "extraordinary form" was the first step. The scrapping of the Novus Ordo is the next.
Andy, making the TLM the EF was indeed the first step, but scrapping the NO should not be the 2nd step. It should be the 3rd step. Step 2 would be to suppress the Bugnini fabricated Order of the Mass, and replace it with the 1965 Order of the Mass, into the current OF Roman Missal. Keep it like that for about a generation, then scrap the Novus Ordo all together.
I hope and pray Pope Francis will do step 2, but I fear we may have to wait for the next pope. Now, if Cardinal Ranjith is elected the next pope in, say, less than 5 years from now, then he may be one to skip step 2 and go right to step 3. However I think that may cause chaos, which is why I feel we need step 2.
Anon in AOD;
I lived in Detroit for about 6 years. I assisted at Ss. Cyril and Methodius with Fr. Kosnac. It was a wonderful time. I'm also close to Barbara Middleton and the Holy Trinity Apostolate. Small world.
Anyhow, I have long argued that the so-called '65 Missal (or Missa Normativa) isn't a viable option for one main reason, it was never formally promulgated. It, as much as the Novus Ordo, was never intended to be anything other than a place marker. That presents a real problem with regard to authenticity of action.
That being said, it is better than the claptrap we have in the Novus Ordo today, but it still is not viable. The Church, if she is seeking an authentic reform of the reform, should start from the beginning and work from there, not work from the middle. The Via Media doesn't apply in this case.
That is why I don't bother with the Missa Normativa, because for all intents and purposes, it never officially existed; it was a temporary revision which was never to be permanent, by it's very essence, it was innovation.
Andy, so you think it would be better to go from the dual OF-EF forms we have now, straight to TLM only, with no transitional phase?
While people like us would find that great, I fear the vast majority of rank and file Catholics and pastors, who are, bluntly, "center", "center-left", and "left", would rebel against it, causing a lot of chaos in the Church. That's why I think we need a decade of the 65 Order planted into the current OF Missal (replacing the Bugnini Order) to ease rank and file Catholics and pastors into the TLM.
I suppose something else that could work as well would be to scrap the Novus Ordo, but re-define OF and EF, so that EF=TLM, and OF=TLM in vernacular. But, wouldn't that be nearly identical to the 65 order, especially if the OF Lectionary/calendar is kept?
Yes, I know of Ss Cyrils. They have the EF every Saturday at 6pm (one of a very few parishes in the AOD to have the EF every week). I attended one early on, and only about 20 people showed up. I attended one several months ago, and the attendees have grown to about 75 to 100 people. They also have a Latin OF, I think its on Wednesdays.
Anon in AOD;
"...you think it would be better to go from the dual OF-EF forms we have now, straight to TLM only, with no transitional phase?"
Yes, I do. The break is so severe between the forms and the catechesis so bad (which is something that many don't take into account), that switching to the TLM wouldn't be as traumatic as you think. Here are two reasons why.
1. The aged already know what it is all about, and to be honest, they don't really care one way or the other. They will be Catholic regardless.
2. Young people (18-49)want this. What is the fastest growing segment of Catholicism? It is traditionalism. Since 1984, the fastest growing arm of the Catholic Church has been and continues to be the TLM crowd. Look at the numbers and look at the religious orders and confraternities compared to the mainline Novus Ordo. Who is growing and who is shrinking? The FSSP, the ICRSS and the like are full, while diocesan and NO religious orders are still struggling to figure it out.
The so-called wildcard are the middle aged 50-70 year olds. If they leave, we won't lock the doors, but they are starting to become irrelevant. Sure, they are sitting on councils, and boards, but they are phasing out into retirement. And they are not the growth dynamic any longer. Not to mention that their generation has been leaving since the 1960s. For them, this is nothing new nor would it be unexpected.
Benedict said that in order for the Church to continue to grow the Church would shrink. I'm ok with that. Anyone who is authentically Catholic would have no problem with the Mass returning to the TLM, because it is 100% inline with Sacred Tradition.
Another wrinkle you bring up is the vernacular. The vernacular is NOT supposed to be normative. It is to be an extraordinary function and as such, we should treat it so. The Catholics who you say are center left, they are not interested in what Vatican Council II really taught, if they were, they would have no issue with Latin. They certainly don't have a problem supporting Jews and Hebrew or Mohammedans with Arabic, but their own liturgical language is out-of-bounds, as if it were something which was a democratic decision. It simply isn't.
Post a Comment