Sacra Liturgia 2013, beginning on Tuesday the 25TH of June through the 28th. The question many will have is about Pope Francis and his acknowledgement of this conference at his door step where some of those giving talks may well be staying at Pope Francis place of residence at the Vatican Motel 6.
An international conference organized by the Bishop of Fréjus-Toulon, France, to study, promote and renew the appreciation of liturgical formation and celebration and its foundation for the mission of the Church, particularly in the light of the teaching and example of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, falling within the Year of Faith to commemorate 50 years since the start of the Second Vatican Council, in accordance with the pastoral recommendations for the Year of Faith issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Liturgical Celebrations
The conference will open with solemn vespers and conclude with solemn first Vespers of Saints Peter and Paul, Exposition of the Most Blessed Sacrament, Te Deum and Benediction.
On the first and second full days of the conference two solemn celebrations of the Mass will be organized, one according to the Missale Romanum 2002 another according to the Missale Romanum 1962.
Celebrant and Preacher at Holy Mass according to the Missale Romanum 2002 – 18h30 Wednesday 26th June: Solemnity of St Josemaria Escrivà – Antonio Cardinal Cañizares Llovera.
Celebrant and Preacher at Holy Mass according to the Missale Romanum 1962 – 18h30 Thursday 27th June: Votive Mass De Ssmo Eucharistiæ Sacramento – Walter Cardinal Brandmüller.
Participants have the option of celebrating the feast of Saints Peter and Paul with the Holy Father in St Peter’s Basilica on the morning of Saturday, 29th June. The conference secretariat will request tickets for those who wish to attend.
Priest delegates will need to make their own arrangements to celebrate Mass, though concelebration will be possible at the Mass according to the Missale Romanum 2002.
This will lead to much speculation about the Pope and his action or inaction in regard to SP and the EF and the reform of the liturgy in continuity. Of course the Holy Father has mandated already that the three Eucharistic Prayers be reformed to include Blessed Joseph, her spouse, much like Pope Benedict who mandated "and for many". It is all very exciting.
It will be interesting to see how the blogs spin things and progressives and traditionalists do damage control.
I'll stay above the fray!
24 comments:
I got a feeling he'll no-show, like the concert. I don't think I will donate any monies to this year's Peter's Pence.
I know that a certain female anonymous here recently referred to the "Rorate Caeli" blog as "despicable" (reminds me of Daffy Duck) but the site often has very good articles and news.
Today there is a very good article on the "devirilization" of the liturgy by a Father Cipolla. It's not a quick read but the footnotes are also interesting. Check it out!
And just when have you stayed above the fray?
Oh - The "devirilization" article. Latin is a "manly" language - Heaven help us.....
Actually, Pater, I was thinking of how much you would "just love" that article when I referred to it!
By your reference to it as "the" devirilization article it sounds as if you had read it before.
But seriously, whether you think Latin is a "manly" language or not, the part about ad orientem is no joke (though you may think it is).
I've known of Protestants who converted who, prior to conversion, did not have any idea about what the Mass was about- OF or EF. Some of these people are now more into the Traditions and devotions than even some of your cradle Catholic weekday Mass attendees.
I know of one couple in particular who would travel 90 miles to attend an EF Latin Mass every Sunday.
That's not what brought them into the Church but it is interesting that they became attracted to such.
I don't think PI should be so dismissive about Fr Cipolla's comment regarding Latin, although I suspect he has other reasons for disliking the language. I am not an expert on comparative linguistics, but Roman culture was decidedly virile (Romans regarded the Greeks as effeminate) and it would be surprising if this were not reflected in their language.
I have read articles about US and British army chaplains celebrating the TLM in Afghanistan. The young soldiers are two generations removed from those to whom this type of celebration was normative, and I doubt that their knowledge of Latin extends any further than understanding the motto on their cap-badge; but they instinctively recognize it as being straight-forward and soldierly, in contrast to the fussy, chatty, touchy-feely and feminized liturgy they would get at home.
While we're on the subject, it's about time the top brass stopped kowtowing to PC politicians and called a halt to the increasing feminization of the military. It's thoroughly corrosive.
Jon O, BXVI didn't attend either. He just sent kinds notes.
jar, it makes sense in a certain way, depending on the particular Protestant. After all, the Novus Ordo is less reverent than many Protesant services and is about the same in structure and content. So, why would a Protestant convert to lessen their worship experience in such a way. (Of course, I'm talking about outward appearances here since the Protestants don't offer the True Worship in the Sacrifice ordained by God for worship.)
On the other hand, the Tridentine Mass is timeless in its beauty and majesty, leading as it does to contemplation of the sublime Mystery of the Holy Trinity.
The EF Mass's ethos is definitely more masculine than the OF's is. It doesn't have to do with language, but the way the Mass is celebrated, no nonsense, the priest's movements are tightly controlled, no emotion, stoic and straight to the point. Ad Orientem also is a mark of this masculine character. It is more "military" in style. This appeals to boys and men. The OF Mass could easily capture this again, but with Ad Orientem, sticking to the rubrics and less flamboyant gestures by the priest while facing the people. It's not the language, but the ethos.
Latin is certainly a virile language...it is direct, logically consistent, and allows communication on many levels. Unfortunately, in our feminist dominated, homo infested society, true virility and masculinity(as well as true femininity) scares the hell out of the degraded trash that inhabits Washington, D.C., the media, and Hollywood, and our educational system.
I don't see discipline and respect as exclusively, nor even primarily, a male trait. A woman who runs a disciplined and well ordered home usually has rules and the kids have chores and a schedule. This our Mother, right? I think she expects things done right.
Let me suggest a different interpretation of "The Devirilization of the Novus Ordo Mass" than most are reading into it. Even though one no doubt observes a "devirilized" Sunday Mass in many or most parishes nowadays.
My suggestion is that it's not so much that the Novus Ordo Mass in itself is inherently effeminate, but rather that a post-Vatican II generation of effeminate priests have had their way with it. After all, the traditional Roman Mass and the Novus Ordo both can be celebrated either ad orientem or versus populum, either in the Latin or the vernacular (c.f. 1965), and so forth, and for several years during the 1960s we observed the devirilization of the traditional Mass by the same kind of priests who now predominate.
Of course, the loose or non-existent OF rubrics with excessive options permit devirilization that is discouraged by the more rigid EF rubrics, most obviously by encouraging ad orientem celebration that virtually ensures the imposition of the priest's personality, putting on exhibit the kind of effeminate narcissism that is so common among the priests of a certain generation.
However, for the future of the OF Mass which will remain the only form that most Catholics will normally experience, it seems important the textual content of the OF Roman Missal in itself arguably is no more effeminate than the EF. Rather, it's more so a defective ars celebranda that so often makes it seem so.
In short, isn't the problem not so much with our Mass, as with its celebrants? Or, as Fr. McDonald says, not so much with the Mass itself as with the ethos imposed on it by priests.
Yes, Henrypoo, you are right. But the limitation to what you say is that, regardless of what is the ideal, regardless of what was intended by XYorZ, the fact is that the rubrics of the OF are about as ambiguous as milkglass and as chock-full of options as a gynecologist's contaception menu.
Yes, it is the celebrants, but one has to recognize that in the 1970's and 80's especially through liturgical theologians like Fr. Eugene Walsh, the thrust was to make the priest more evocative, use big, joyous gestures and to smile like a Baptist preacher with big teeth. It was to bring people into the actions of the liturgy through big, big signs and the celebrant was the biggest. But even at the time, many felt Walsh's approach and others like him were over the top and not really helping the implementation of the new order of Mass by making it so personality driven, and this extended too to the congregation being as big and joyous as the celebrant and yes, this is a devirilization of the priest and assembly.
Fr. McDonald, realizing that the Mass is the "re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Cross", the "perpetuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross down through the ages"--as constantly taught by the Church before and after Vatican II--I've never understood why we should be so happy and joyous at the foot of the Cross. Is that how His Mother and John and Mary Magdalene felt there? Was this made clear by your aberrant seminary profs?
I should make it clear that Fr. Walsh was not necessarily appreciated at St. Mary's Seminary in the 1970's. But he had an impact on priest out of the seminary since he was big on the conference circuit. But your point about the sobriety of the Mass given the Sacrificial renewal albeit in an unbloody way was obfuscated if not down right denied in those days as we, as you must know, are an Easter people living in the escathon and the Kingdom here and now.
Returning to the military analogy, I have never heard of a officer who leads his men from the front being criticized for having his back to them.
Nor is there anything effeminate about wearing brocade and lace - both were quite normal in the 18th century, and there is no reason why ceremonial liturgical garb should reflect modern fashion. Formal dress has not changed in a hundred years, and ceremonial military dress in the British army is very much as it was in the 1880s. Ritual and ceremonial are both masculine traits.
"Nor is there anything effeminate about wearing brocade and lace - both were quite normal in the 18th century, and there is no reason why ceremonial liturgical garb should reflect modern fashion."
1. This is not the 18th century.
2. The wearing of brocade and lace WAS the "modern fashion" of the 18th century.
"Ritual and ceremonial are both masculine traits."
1. Women, since day one, have engaged in ritual and ceremonial with the same gusto as men.
2. Women who engage in ritual and ceremonial are not copying male traits when they do so, but expressing what is true to their own nature.
PI, I don't know how you have achieved so great a knowledge of the female sex (and I hesitate to ask) but in general terms, and there are plenty of exceptions to prove the rule, women tend to be more practical and intuitive, and less objective, than men. Ceremonial and ritual, which characterizes the military and ecclesiastical traditions, is essentially masculine and objective.
In dress, women follow fashion (although the fashion gurus are usually homosexual men) whereas men tend to opt for tradition. The Prince of Wales actually dresses in a more conservative way than did his great-uncle when he was Prince of wales in the 1920s and 1930s.
There's nothing wrong with generalized observations, which can have the virtue of being truisms, but your bald statements are simply unsupported opinions, or statements of what Basil Fawlty would call "the bleeding obvious". I know it's not the 18th century. So what? Ecclesiastical dress is modelled on the court dress of the late Roman Empire, and to say that "this is not the sixth century" doesn't really get us very far.
How Ignotus acquired his knowledge of the female sex: Probably from reading "Fear of Flying" and "Eat, Pray, Love" and watching "The View." LOL!
John Nolan - I don't know how you acquired your knowledge of the "masculine" nature of ceremonial and ritual - oh wait. Yes I do. You made it up.
There's plenty of ceremony and ritual that has no relationship to military and ecclesiastical traditions.
You can't at once suggest that what was a fashion in the 18th century, and therefore appropriate for the liturgy in the 18th century, and then turn around and say that what is fashion in the 21st century is not appropriate for the liturgy in the 21st century.
Unless you believe that there is some intrinsic superiority to 18th century fashion, in which case that is all you wear.
.....or in deep theological discussion with Dr. Margaret Nutcase Ralph!
PI, you misunderstand me (I suspect wilfully). To identify certain characteristics as 'masculine' or 'feminine' is not to say that all men think or behave in one way and all women in another. I don't remember commenting on 21st century vestment styles, either; from what I can see there would seem to be a reaction against the brutal minimalism of the second half of the 20th century, in both architecture and vestments.
Post a Comment