Ordinary Form Mass celebrated by Pope Francis in an extraordinary way!
Jumping between here and PrayTell gives me no end of eye-rolling pleasure - you can practically see the schadenfreude dripping off the page at the prospect of ++Piero Marini being named to the CDW at PTB. I thought Fr. Ruff's dig at Fr. McDonald was especially indicative of the scholarly restraint you can usually find in those quarters: "Surely you'll remake Marini in your own image." Yeah, because PTB would _never_ read the words or intentions of this or that ecclesial leader through their own loopy-doopy lenses. Remember, folks: Pope Francis will save us all from the teeth-gnashing furnace that was the suffering years under Joseph Ratzinger!
I don't see why one would assume that the rumor mill has gotten the name confused. As much as I would like to see Guido Marini in the CDW, this post strikes me as wishful thinking.
this post is tongue in cheek but you have to read praytell to appreciate it. :)
It is clearly Marini I that is being talked about. I think the prospect of having both Marinis involved in the liturgy really is the sort of thing that Francis would do. He sees himself as a centrist and this sets him up as the adult between the two extremes. Plus, having the two Marinis working for him likely amuses Francis. It is clear that Francis isn't afraid to assert his will. He'd likely rearrange things himself if something annoyed him. Benedict was too willing to be manipulated by his advisors. He was in charge; if he told Marini I no, then Marini I would have to acquiese. Francis had no problem changing things he doesn't like.
P. Marini... who outed himself as a member or the gay mafia by voicing support of same sex unions. The protege of Bugnini, the man who attempted to turn the Catholic Mass into a Catholic-Protestant hybred service. He gets the CDW gig. I will NOT be donating any money to the Peter's Pence collection this weekend. Sadly, we are getting a view of who Francis REALLY is. No more "reading Francis through Benedict" spin. Bergoglio's role model is Paul VI, the worst pope of the 20th century. Stormy seas are ahead. Batten down the hatches!
We've lost the secular fight in terms of redefining marriage. The use of the term "civil union" for those same sex couples the state calls marriage is a way to avoid calling these unions marriage. I would not disparage Church people who use this term for same sex marriage and in fact for any marriage the Church doesn't recognize, including heterosexual ones where there is an impediment or previous lawful marriage.
The protege of Bugnini, the man who succeeded in turning the Catholic Mass into a Protestant service.There, I fixed that for you.
Peter's Pence (we don't have "pence" in the USA; should be cents or dollars) goes to social services and relief, right, not Vatican bureaucrats?
Peter's Pence (we don't have "pence" in the USA; should be cents or dollars) goes to social services and relief, right, not Vatican bureaucrats? Considering the way things are going, I bet the money will go to support birth control and gay lifestyles (just like the Catholic Campaign for Human Development and Catholic Relief Services, two groups I will never donate money to again).
If the right continually reacts to every little whisper of something Francis might do, or has done and they fear the worst, they at least show little faith in the Church. We should thank God daily that He gave us Paul VI, Blessed John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis instead of Popes like Alexander VI. It seems that those who tremble at how these recent Popes are going to destroy the Church, then they would have utterly left the Church with guys like Alexander VI. Be careful how one judges somebody the Holy Spirit has selected.
I do think there needs to be more respectful dialogue and to allow Pope Francis breathing room. He's a different kind of pope and brings different gifts and perspectives. In every pope there are things to be appreciated and things to be cautious about. I think that's healthy and we should elevate the pope to a divinized status, no one in the Church should hold that status. Charity, though should be expected toward everyone.
My comment above should read, "should not divinize" of course.
Anonymous, You haven't been paying attention. The Holy Spirit does not elect the Pope.
I worry about the future of accurate translations and Liturgiam Authenticam with P. Marini in charge. Most languages are still in the process of the LA treatment, and we still have the Liturgy of the Hours and the Ritual to go.
Emboldened by a sudden burst of exuberant Lord's Day optimism and a personal communication by someone on the ground in Rome, let me be the first to predict--at the risk of being proven dead wrong even before sundown today--that Marini II will indeed be appointed CDW prefect before Marini I is.
Marc,You hit it on the head. Just sayin'.
Fr Allan said, "We've lost the secular fight in terms of redefining marriage. The use of the term "civil union" for those same sex couples the state calls marriage is a way to avoid calling these unions marriage. I would not disparage Church people who use this term for same sex marriage"But Father.... but Father.... a rose by any other name is still a rose. That we have Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, and P. Marini, the possible new head of the CDW, vocally supporting gay "civil unions", but not calling it "marriage"... its semantics. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck... it's a duck. Will these "unions" be recognized by everyone (except officially by the Church, though I bet many a diocesan parish pastor will recognize it)? Will these "unions" get all benefits allowed to "marriages"? These "civil unions" are "marriages"! It's like with girl Altar Boys. Years ago, they were not allowed. A progressive priest said, "fine, I will abolish Altar Boys at my parish. I will replace them with Father's Helpers, who may be boys and girls." Before long many other parishes follow suit, and soon the Vatican caves in and approves "Altar Servers". "Civil Unions" will be the same thing.You say we "lost". But why should be do the PC and populist thing, like Lombardi, P Marini, even Pope Francis? Would Jesus do the PC thing? Or would He speak the hard, honest truth, even if it meant He might get stoned, or thrown off a cliff? Shouldn't our leaders be saying,"those who enter into a homosexual lifestyle, be it promiscuity, co-habitation, civil unions, or marriage, risk thier souls to eternal damnation. Turn away from this sin and repent now. God will forgive you."But that's not "populist", now, is it?
Andy and Marc, what exactly is protestant about the OF?
Protestant hymns in most cases/reduction of Marian hymns, priest faces the people, no Offertory, no preparatory sacrificial prayers (eliminated Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, for example), people stand for blessings, Communion in the hand, lay readers, women in the sanctuary, fewer altar rails, elimination of invocations to the saints...I'm sure Andy can come up with more examples. The general idea behind the Protestantization of the Mass was to downplay the Real Presence and the propitiatory sacrifice being offered. I'd say they succeeded in those goals. To be fair to some Protestants, though, their services are much more reverent than the majority of Novus Ordo Masses. Perhaps if the Protestants who gave "advice" in the creation of the Novus Ordo had had more influence, we might have a more reverent liturgy, actually. And some of my examples aren't intrinsic to the Rite, but they are still examples for practical purposes.
Theology, Anonymous, the theology behind the NO tends to lean protestant. Read about it.
Anonymous at 9:27:The venacular, which a) sounds Protestant and b) also doesn't sound Romish. Non-vested people (i.e. lay readers) in the sanctuary (first time I saw it the reader looked to me like a Baptist televangelist). Protestant theology in the hymns, and Protestant hymns outright. Disappearance of uniquely Catholic sacraments and sacramentals from the Mass setting, i.e. immediately before and after Mass: confession, communal recitation of the Rosary, and prayers to the BVM, St. Michael, and for the Holy Father. Emphasis on more ecumenical and less uniquely Catholic aspects, e.g. Scripture with the procession of the Book of the Gospels, more readings from Scripture, and shorter Eucharistic prayers. Eucharistic prayers that de-emphasize the divinity of Christ compared to the Tridentine (no mention of His sacred and venerable hands or angels taking the sacrifice to God.) De-emphasis on transubstantiation: ambiguous talk of a "spiritual drink" instead of a sacrifice. De-emphasis on posture: no genuflection during the Creed (again downplaying Christ's divinity, presumably in favor of the "great moral teacher" concept), but instead a bow, which is easy in practice to dispense with completely. De-emphasis of the celebrant's Holy Orders ("And also with you," only recently corrected after 40 years." Optional omission of a lengthy confiteor with its mention of Catholic elements such as the BVM and the saints. Re-naming of parts of the Mass to more ecumenically acceptable terms, from Mass of the Catechumens and Mass of the Faithful to Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist. Priest spends a lot more time away from the altar. Injection of the personality of the priest to a far greater degree.Since Protestantism, by and large, is based in the stripping away of elements that Protestants believed that Catholics added to the Gospel, the very tenor of the "lowest common denominator" approach of the ecumenical elements I've mentioned above is very highly Protestant.
I believe Anon 5 summed it up pretty well...hey, its humanism...
Using the vernacular isn't a Protestant invention or a uniquely Protestant practice.There is no good reason to require readers to vest when in the sanctuary. I know of only one diocese - Harrisburg - where EM's are expected to vest in albs.Not all Protestant theology is bad theology, nor are Protestant hymns automatically inappropriate in Catholic worship. As we read in Unitatis Redentigratio, “Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can be a help to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian . . . can always bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church.”More readings from Scripture... Are you saying this is a good thing or a bad thing?Spiritual Drink . . . Bread of Life. Jesus hisself calls himself the "Bread of Life" with no reference to a sacrifice. How long must a confetior be to meet your "catholic" standards I wonder...?Etc etc etc.
Now, Ignotus, there you go trying to proof text again...your ignorance (or denial) of Biblical theology is truly astounding. Jn,47-51: "Truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and the BREAD WHICH I SHALL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD IS MY FLESH." These are unmistakable references to the Last Supper and Christ's Sacrifice. When Jesus tells the Jews that their fathers ate manna in the wilderness and died, he is establishing himself as superior to the Law or, as Pope Benedict says, "Jesus is telling them that he is the new Torah."The theology of Sacrifice permeates the NT. John the Baptist twice says to the people, "Behold, the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World," in Revelation alone there are twenty-eight references to the sacrificial lamb in relation to Christ. Finally, from B.D. Napier and Oscar Cullman, two well-known Biblical scholars, "The sacrificial lamb and its function in redeeming and restoring man's relationship with God IS AN ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDING OF JESUS CHRIST IN THE EARLY CHURCH COMMUNITY."So, when Jesus "hisself" refers to himself as the Bread of Life, it is precisely Sacrifice he is talking about. And, tell me, where in the NT do you find anyone talking about a "spiritual drink?" That is a completely nonsensical term, developed by de-constructionist liturgists in order to de-emphasize the Sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.
"Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can be a help to our own edification...Whatever is truly Christian can bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church."Precisely, Ignotus, Which is exactly why I left a strong and powerful Calvinist theological tradition and joined the Holy Catholic Church. I was a "separated brethren" who, through study, prayer, and struggle (not to mention the proper ecumenical teaching of Fr. MacDonald) came to realize that the Catholic Church and the Magisterium possess the true Gospel and a complete theology and doctrine. It was not because the Church met me half-way or because Fr. schmoozed me by watering down the Church's teaching...indeed, he insisted I be sure I could accept everything in the Catechism and the understanding of the Magisterium before I made the move. Now, that is ecumenicism. I pray that more of our separated brethren will follow the same path.
Pater,You put words in my mouth at several points.Did I say that the vernacular is "uniquely" Protestant? No, but until the NO, the bulk of the Mass, certainly the Ordinary, was in Latin, while Latin was almost entoirely absent from Protestant liturgies. (The only exception I can immediately think of is the Christmas hymn "Gloria in Excelcis Deo."Did I say that _all_ Protestant hymns are automatically bad? No, but I have heard heretical ideas expressed in Protestant hymns in Mass. That could have been avoided easily by just staying with Gregorian chant. But instead someone wanted Protestant hymnody in the Mass. Ask gene to explain the theology of Amazing Grace to you some time.Did I say that more scriptural readings is bad? No, but it is more in line with Protestant practice. The Eucharistic Prayer was shortened (i.e., shorter alternatives to Prayer I were (re)introduced) and in my experience are used far more heavily than Prayer I. Longer readings (and a very long homily on them), shorter Eucharistic prayer. The change in emphasis brings the structure of Mass more into line with the liturgy of Protestant churches, which is heavily about the word as preached and not at all about re-enactment of the sacrifice. It's just a fact. Go to the nearest Protestant church with a stopwatch if you don't believe me.Did I say that "spiritual drink" or ""bread of life" are wrong? No (although I don't recall Christ calling himself a "spiritual drink"), but they are sufficiently ambiguous regarding the Real Presence as to be acceptable to Protestants, whereas "sacrifice" isn't.Did I say that a Catholic Confiteor must be of a particular length? No, but the briefer and less detailed, the more it is in line with Protestant theology. Again, go to the nearest Protestant Church with a stopwatch. You'll find that what passes for a confiteor there tends to be very brief (since we've already been forgiven of everything) and making no mention of saints or the BVM. Then listen to the Tridentine Confiteor and the NO "Be merciful for we have sinned" Confiteor. Which one does the latter sound like? The Tridentine Confiteor or the Protestant one?Did I say that laity have or need a reason to vest? I'm not here discussing _reasons_ to vest. I'm discussing the fact that Baptist preachers don't vest, and when the NO first allowed unvested laity to start showing up in the sanctuary, it had strong Protestant overtones.To be continued . . .
Continued . . .The fact is, Pater, that over and above the point-by-point attack you made on my statement, your whole approach has several issues. Issue number one is that you seem never to take notice of "lex orandi, lex credendi." But even if you ignore that, Protestant services still look different from Catholic Masses, do they not? At least they did before the NO, didn't they? I challenge anyone to go into a church ca. 1950, or 1850, or 1750, or 1650, or 1550, and not be able to tell immediately whether it was Catholic or Protestant. Today that's a closer call. I'd be willing to be that for some people who don't know much about liturgy, it can actually happen on occasion. And it's specifically because of the advent of the NO. Still can't be done with Tridentine.Issue number 2: As opposed to your piecemeal attack, its about context as well as text. Take all the things on my list as a whole, not individually. The overall result is a Mass that includes fewer references to things that are uniquely Catholic (or at least non-Protestant) and a greater emphasis on things that Protestant liturgies emphasize. Quibble all you want about that, but it doesn't change the fact of it. You may say that everything in the NO is Catholic because it's a Catholic Mass. I don't deny the validity of the NO and I never have. But its Catholic identity has been watered down with Protestant concepts so as to give it, at best, a more ecumenical, flavor. Using an evangelical liturgy as a yardstick, nearly all of the black, and most of the red, taken on paper, are more Protestant than the 1828 Book of Common Prayer and certainly more Protestant than the Tridentine.The final issue is more general. You almost never concede anything. The other guy is always not only wrong, but has to be totally, completely wrong in every detail. That makes it very hard for people to take you seriously. Please be willing to engage in some give and take. Take just one issue and concede it. Will you not concede, for instance, that "it will be our sacrifice" is uniquely non-Protestant, emphasizing the re-enactment of the sacrifice in an unbloody way, making it (Really) present, while "it will become our spiritual drink" theoretically might possibly be taken by a visiting Baptist as non-sacrificial and only symbolic? Can you at least do that?
Post a Comment