Understated elegance! Don't complain about it!
What did Pope Benedict mandate and what did he model for others to confirm and carry forward or critque and discard?
He mandated Summorum Pontificum but never modeled celebrating the 1962 missal. He modeled no real breach in the modern missal but only did that which is allowed, namely:
1. Chanting the propers
2. use of traditional vesture including lace
3. the Benedictine or traditional altar arrangement
4. ad orientem, but modeled this very rarely
5. allowed for the Gradual in place of the Responsorial Psalm
What has Pope Francis modeled differently?
1. use of simpler but still elegant vestments
2. Nothing else and he hasn't taken back Summorum Pontificum and I doubt that he will!
We don't know about anything else yet, it has only been a month into his short papacy.
How should we adjust our liturgies. I would suggest if we are sloppy, do not plan and are casual about liturgy and too horizontal, one should follow Pope Francis to a tee! By that I mean, follow his elegant, noble simplicity which is not sloppy, ill planned or horizontal in the least!
If you have been implementing some of the things Pope Benedict modeled but did not mandate, stick with it. Why change? No one, including Pope Francis has mandated that we change to match his liturgies, which if most parishes in the world did try to imitate, it would be a giant step forward, not backward!
I read on other more progressive blogs, that progressive priests and parishes tuned out much of what Pope Benedict modeled. They never implemented anything he suggested or modeled.
Why do those who have chosen the "Benedictine" way need to feel threatened by anything Pope Francis is modeling. He hasn't mandated a thing yet, liturgically, for any parish or diocese in the world.
Carry on with the reform of the reform. Do not be afraid. But keep the liturgy participative in both aspects of spiritual actual participation, internal and external, not one or the other, but both.
What deacons, priests and bishops should model and immediately in term of Pope Francis is his preaching ability. It is excellent, simple, understandable and practical. You can't go wrong there!
19 comments:
Protestants have produced the best preachers in the world...is that what it is all about?
The Liturgy Can Not Be Poor
On the back-cover of the eleventh volume of Joseph Ratzinger’s Opera Omnia, on the “Theology of the Liturgy”, there is this not even thinly-veiled declaration: “The fate of the Faith and the Church hangs upon the relationship with the liturgy.”
These first days of Pope Francis’ pontificate render the above tremendously current and oblige us to reflect on the relationship between poverty (not pauperism) and the liturgy. A reflection, that, not to be taken too lightly, is between a human dimension, poverty, and a divine one, liturgy.
Yes, in these years of post-conciliar convulsions, the exquisitely divine nature of the liturgy has slipped away: i.e. the appearance of Heaven on earth - the earthly prefiguration of Jerusalem and which, accordingly, must evoke majesty and glory. In the liturgy - the bloodless presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross - it is God Who encounters man: it is not done by man – otherwise it would be idolatry. It is Divine work as even Vatican II recalls.
In this perspective, also the issue regarding vestments is evidently raised to a notable importance. Annalena Benini has already masterfully highlighted this in her “Benedictine Nostalgia” in Il Foglio [March 23]: “Benedict XVI was adorned in symbols and traditions showing everyone that he no longer belonged to himself, nor even to the world.” He was of Christ, he was “alter Christus” who is the Priest in the liturgy. With the vestments he is no longer a private man, but “prepares” (adorns) the place for someone else; and that someone else is the King of the Universe. Impoverishing the majesty of vestments signifies, impoverishing Christ. And it is actually Christ Himself that separated personal poverty from that of the Church’s institution.
You can read the rest of this insightful post here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-liturgy-cannot-be-poor.html
The Pope isn't the model for liturgics the world over. Unless, of course, you're offering Papal Masses...
Protestants have produced the best preachers in the world?
Are you serious?
Entertainers, maybe, but preachers?
Billy Graham:
Turn of the sound and watch him. The choreography is stunning.
Oral Roberts:
Feel-good religion with incessant appeals for do-re-mi.
Rex Humbard:
B-OOOO-Ring
Jimmy Swaggart:
Jerry Lee Lewis with a Bible (and a black book full of motel addresses)
Robert Schuller:
Norman Vincent Peale redux
Benny Hinn:
Fraud
Peter Popoff:
Fraud
Kenneth Copeland:
Scandal-ridden good old boy whose act is very, very old
Joel OSteen:
All style, no substance
Ernest Angely:
A comedian who doesn't know that he's funny
Protestants have not produced the best preachers in the world. Utter nonsense.
Uh, Art, ol' boy, I was thinking more in terms of Luther, Zwingli, Melancthon, Calvin, Wesley, Edwards, Williams, Fosdick, Bonhoeffer, and Barth. The people you cite are all charlatans with the exception of Graham, whose style I do not like.
I left out Helmut Thielicke and Martin Niemoller.
Can't speak for the names you mentioned, since there's no footage available on most of them.
However, I'd be willing to pit St. John Chrysostom, St. Anthony of Padua, St. Dominic and Bishop Sheen against anyone one your list. Fr. Bill Casey's no slouch either.
There is no footage on Chrysostom, Anthony, or Dominic, either. But, all the sermons of the pastor/theologians I mentioned are available. I studied them in homiletics courses in seminary and grad school. You should read them before you take running leaps at conclusions. You will find that all of them emerge from the traditions of St. Paul, St. Augustine, Aquinas, St. Francis, and others. It isn't about "footage." It is about embodying doctrine in the preaching of the Word so that it comes alive in both an exegetical and a pastoral way. It is a trait that both great Catholic and great protestant preachers share. The preaching of the Word being de facto the primary sacrament for protestants, they have a rich history of homiletics.
There are still some things about which the Catholic Church might take instruction from protestantism, not the least of these being the secularization of the faith and the de-construction of theology which the Catholic Church is doing her best to mimic.
Gene,
Didn’t you also leave out George Whitfield? On the more general point, certainly preaching is not what it is_all_about. However, for many of us, it is what it is_partly_about. And on the even more general point, and assuming that the requirement of theological correctness is met, one of the reasons I appreciate the Church allowing a pluralism of liturgical forms – ranging from the TLM to folk masses – is that restriction to one particular form seems unnecessarily to confine the power and grace of God.
Our God seems to be a God of surprises (Pope Francis certainly seems to have been a surprise). Thus, I have found myself surprised (and profoundly inspired) on several occasions by what happens during the Mass, including things that were said during the homily. Who can say how God may surprise and touch any particular soul? He may surprise and touch me quite differently from the way He surprises and touches you, which may again be different from the way He surprises and touches Templar or Marc or Art. Therefore, within the limits of what is theologically correct and otherwise permissible, shouldn’t we remain open to such diverse workings of the Holy Spirit, whether those workings concern the effects of liturgical forms or the selection and deeds of a Pope?
I certainly agree about Whitfield.
We cannot confine the grace of God, just as we can not compel it. So, our form of worship, however sublime or absurd, places no conditions upon the freedom of the Holy Spirit. God spoke to Baalam through the mouth of an ass, after all.
Worship is an act of obedience, and there are Biblically and historically certain prescribed forms it has taken. God himself prescribed some of these forms in the OT, and Christ initiated others in the NT. I would argue that right worship and the forms thereof follow from right belief. So, in my opinion, it is possible to drift too far afield from a liturgy that properly expresses theological truths and proper humility. When we begin to concoct all kinds of kinky Masses and take all kinds of liturgical liberties, we are leading the faithful astray, presuming upon God's Presence, and sowing dissension and unrest.
God may choose to express His Spirit and Grace through these channels...or not...but should we not experience His Presence_because of_our Liturgy instead of _in spite_ of it?
Hanging out with some Episcopalians recently (although admittedly one was more Baptist than liturgical) I was--I suppose the best word is amused--by the emphasis they put on the preaching. It would seem the rest of the liturgy was only window-dressing.
I myself have never accorded much importance to preaching. All I ask of it is that it contain an adequate exegesis of/instruction in Catholic doctrine in relation to the readings and Gospel of the day, and perhaps an exhortation to live a Catholic life. Unfortunately even these minimum standards are very rarely met; there's practically no exegesis/instruction in Catholic homilies, and the exhortation tends to be limited to fairly vague injunctions to "be a good person" without defining "good" (an approach rampant in Protestant homiletics too). Since most people tend to think themselves good enough as long as they aren't ax murderers, such exhortations are useless and worse, since they encourage the congregants to think they've already nailed the "being good" part.
During one homily when Fr. McD spoke very bluntly about abortion being a mortal sin, I saw a group of people get up and storm out, obviously in protest/dissent. They were obviously visitors, since they inadvertently stormed into the confessional rather than out the exit door (a delicious irony). We need more such bluntness in the Church.
Back to the topic of the Original Post: I still do not sense any threat from Pope Francis to our TLM parish. I am not aware that he is implying or secretly advising the bishops on how to get rid of the troublesome persists. Of course he will need to keep an eye on bishops who will try to actively interpret his actions as counter-counter-rupture.
Since nothing he has done seems to be directly contrary to Pope Benedict, I am forming the idea that he might be showing the ultra Vatican II priests and bishops how to live and act in the Benedictine Era.
Art,
There is a talk by Fr. Bill Casey available on the EWTN website. It is a sneek preview to a new show coming out this fall.
On the EWTN.com website, go to the bottom right corner where the blogs are listed. Click on INSIDE EWTN. It is on the most recent posting.
Enjoy!
Father McDonald,
Many thanks for this fine post. I have heard it said many times in recent weeks that there is no need for concern, since Pope Francis has mandated no changes in opposition to the liturgical proposals of his ailing predecessor. However, what I think such comments neglect is the reality that very many bishops actively oppose the liturgical reforms of Pope Benedict, so that it was only his liturgical strength that gave liturgically impoverished laymen and embattled priests hope in this regard. When the bishop says 'no' to Latin, an altar cross, communion rails, etc., but the pope is on record actively promoting some or all of these sorts of things, then there is still good reason to proceed with these things. But, when the bishop denies and the pope is silent, the priest must obey the bishop.
Of course, we priests must do what our bishop asks to do liturgically and otherwise in faith, morals and policy. There is a great deal of flexibility from the norm that each country's bishops have.
Anon 5, Do you know why Episcopalians cannot play chess? Because they can't tell a bishop from a queen...
Gene, is that right? I thought it was because they prefer to do their own thing and ignore the King.
Hey Art Fleming:
Answer-
"John Hagee and Gene Scott"
Question:
"Who is the Teletubbie Dispensationalist EV favorite and who is the most irrascible, unpredictable greatest face monger in TV religion ever!"
Now, you guys, these jack leg TV evangelists at whom you are properly poking fun do not represent the true Protestant tradition of homiletics, pastoral theology, and evangelism. Although Catholic and fully aware of the errors of protestantism and the ultimate disaster of the Reformation, I must defend what one might call (in fear and trembling) Protestantism at its best. The names mentioned above by me and Anon 2 are the true heritage of Protestant preaching and pastoral theology. The best Catholic homilies I have heard (several from Fr. MacDonald, Fr. David, and a humdinger from Fr. Filmer a while back) are in this tradition. The names you guys are tossing up are not even true "main stream" protestants. They are a theological anomaly and are severally Pelagians, Manichees, and Enthusiasts.
Post a Comment