The Church is prophetic when she calls her children to the things of God, which always begins with the love of God with one's complete mind, body and heart and the love of neighbor, the two greatest commandments that sums up the 10 Commandments. Keep in mind the first three commandments revolve around the love of God, the next seven, the bulk of the Commandments, revolve around the love of neighbor, but the love of God is foundational.
The question is about engaging people in these great Commandments and keeping them attached to the things that are sacred. How do we do this as Catholic clergy and laity?
First we must acknowledge why God gives us the ability to worship Him and directs us how to do it. The Old Testament provides a good template for ceremony and the purpose of worship, especially during the priestly period. Sacrifice is worship. The burnt offerings sacrificed by the priests in the temple makes clear that God accepts sacrifices and then return what is offered to His people as a sign of His divine love and favor. The people waited for the completion of the sacrifice by their priests and gladly partook of what was offered in the banquet that followed the sacrifice as the priests came from the holy of holies and shared with the people what they had offered as a sign of God's acceptance of the sacrifice and His return of it to the people.
Sound familiar?
What is interesting about Jewish sacrifice and the priests who do it is that it is hidden. There is no carping about how the priest does the sacrifice, for it is too sacred to dissect and critique. It simply is what it is.
And that was the way it was with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass prior to the Second Vatican Council. No one dared to critique the sacred or try to rearrange it to make it better, for it was perfect in form and doctrine, dogma. The priest, joining the people in facing the same direction also hid his demeanor and many of his actions as these were not necessary for the people to watch, critique or be distracted by facial features or a lack of precision or being too factious in following rules. The laity simply participated in the most perfect manner, being present for what was being offered, our Lord Jesus Christ and God's acceptance of Him and His sacrifice in the most eternal way, for us and for our salvation. Pure gift that only our sins assisted in happening.
But turn the priest around, let the people see everything, rearrange the ritual, furniture, music and allow for the people to dictate the creativity of any given Mass, what occurs. We've had 50 years of such nonsense. And for the most part, Catholicism has been in crisis the entire time and in Western Europe the Church continued to empty at any even faster pace, as this type of tinkering undermined the ritual and the faith of so many that they could not stand up to the gross secularization occurring outside the confines of the Church building especially when this secularization was dragged into the Church.
So what do a goodly number of Catholics do today? They critique the Mass the entire time they are at Mass and think how it could be improved or changed. This is not a recipe for good worship or active engagement in what is essential, nor does it bode well for Catholics understanding the Great Commission that begins the moment they exit the Church.
30 comments:
Any attempt to be "creative" in the Mass is presumptive.
God is the one who is "creative" in the Holy Mass...He creates in the Eucharist a true and real Presence among us and Christ's Sacrifice is "re-created" on the Altar and in us. God as Creator continues to renew us throughout salvation history through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and, in the Mass, by the Real Presence of Him through whom all things were made.
Humanism...human creativity...should be minimal in the Mass. Now, before someone hollers, "Ew, but humans created the Mass." No, the rituals and details of worship were given by God to the Israelites whose worship is recapitulated in Catholic worship, and Jesus instructed us how to pray and commanded us to re-enact His Sacrifice. The form of the Mass may have evolved over time, but it was given by God and developed by a unified Church...not by individual will and creativity. Once the Priest turned toward the people and spoke in the vernacular the door was opened for any and every abuse.
Human creativity...the first thing Cain did after murdering his brother was build a city. Think about it...
People were engaged for 1,950 years. Maybe instead of assuming modern man is "special" and that its your job to cater to him, you could rely on all your forebears and offer the Mass as they did.
I don't understand the hubris of both the priests and people who refuse to accept this very basic answer. It reminds me of the silly studies the government wastes our money on to find out stuff we already know like "wear a jacket when its cold out to avoid getting cold!"
As someone who has to travel a long distance to attend the EF of the Mass, I wonder is it not obvious that I do not “enjoy” the OF of the Mass vis-à-vis the EF of the Mass. And I know if it were possible, I would attend the EF every Sunday. My fear (after great reflection) is that I enjoy it for all the wrong reasons?
My parish is small – and when one misses Mass, people notice; they ask. When I tell them that I drove to such-and-such to attend the EF of the Mass they all look at me (and some have said in general ways) as if I said something against the OF or the parish in-general.
By doing this am I not criticizing the OF Mass (and my parish priest) in general by my actions? I hope not.
If you were an Eastern Catholic who had to drive a long way to get to the Divine Liturgy, would you feel guilty about that if asked why you didn't just go to the local Novus Ordo?
There's a bit of a difference in being an eastern rite Catholic and finding and being a Latin Rite Catholic which has two forms of the one Roman Rite. I think people are still to attend their local parish within the boundaries in which they live. African Americans had the privilege of having non-boundary parishes, like St. Peter Claver in Macon, canonically established as such. Today, withe the post Vatican II liberalization in its so-called spirit, but not defacto, something so many here lament, Catholic shop for parishes like Protestants trying to find the one that suits them best, whether that be liturgy, friendliness, the priest, architecture or the like. And in fact, technically a pastor could refuse to allow a Catholic to register in his parish if they don't live in the parish boundaries. However, a pastor cannot stop a Catholic from attending Mass elsewhere, but technically that person even if he is not registered in his geographical parish is still a parishioner by virtue of residence alone. But I don't think a Catholic has any obligation to explain why he fulfills his Sunday obligation elsewhere other than his geographical parish. He might want to let his pastor know the reasons why out of courtesy, not law.
"And that was the way it was with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass prior to the Second Vatican Council. No one dared to critique the sacred or try to rearrange it to make it better, for it was perfect in form and doctrine, dogma."
"Perfect in form and doctrine, dogma"... Hmmmmm
Was the Good Friday prayer perfect before or after it was changed, in 1960, by John XXIII, removing the reference to the "perfidious Jews"?
Was the liturgy perfect before or after Pius XII reformed the Holy Week liturgies in 1955?
Was the liturgy perfect before or after Pius XII reformed the Easter Vigil in 1951?
Was it perfect before or after the Leonine prayers were mandated for the universal Church in 1884?
Was the liturgy perfect before or after the Kiss of Peace was moved, apparently under Innocent I in the 5th century, from the beginning of the mass to after the consecration?
And on and on and on....
You see, Good Father, why talk of a Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that was "perfect in form and doctrine, dogma" is rather hard to believe, since that which is perfect does not admit of change.
And the mass has been changed throughout the history of the Church.
Good PI, all good strawmen to say the least, the Holy Sacrifice is perfect and the changes you describe are tweaking not refashioning. The Leonine Prayers were not to be said at a Sung Mass which should have been the norm but wasn't.
But creativity from pastors and liturgy committees imposed upon the faithful in the most clerical way possible is not at all what was done with the liturgy prior to Vatican II in the ways you describe. And keep in mind, that the Good Friday prayers prior to the change is no worse than some of the readings from the Gospel of Saint John. Did Pope John XXIII expunge these from the liturgy in order to be consistent with his sensitivities to the Jews?
Changes to the "perfect" liturgy are not straw men, but facts.
A tweak is a change. Adding prayers, changing prayers, eliminating the epiclesis, adding tabernacles on altars for reservation, adding Gregorian chant - these are all changes that have taken place in the history of the liturgy.
The perfect liturgy exists only in heaven, not on this earth in the time prior to the Second Vatican Council.
Fr. McD,
The NO was not a refashioning. As PI will tell you, it is the traditional Mass.
"Perfect in form and doctrine" does not necessarily mean in every detail. Two different ballerinas, two different pianists, or two different swordsmen may each execute a performance that is considered to be "perfect in form" and following classical rules (doctrine) yet still have differing details in each performance. I think you know, Ignotus, what we and Fr. mean regarding the EF.
Now, you are correct as to the only "perfect " worship is in Heaven. However, should we not attempt to mirror that as much as possible following both Biblical and ancient Magisterial guidelines?
"Ancient Magisterial guidelines" don't, however, tell the whole story. So they, alone, should not be the only guidelines we follow.
And I am not the one who says the NO is the traditional mass. That is also the constant teaching of Holy Mother Church, with whom I stand steadfastly.
I don't know about the US, but in England in order to get married or have your children baptized in a particular church it is only required that you be a "regular worshipper" there.
I will only attend Mass where it is celebrated without abuses and without bad music. Fortunately I have a car and a choice. I have never heard it suggested that there is any obligation to attend the nearest Catholic church.
John, while I was in London last week I saw a late model Aston Martin with the license, "123 EMCH" just off Brompton Square. Seriously! I almost ran over to it thinking it was you, but it sped away as I approached.
FrAJM, I hesitated to change parishes for many years because I accused myself of carping and being overly critical. I can say with a clear conscience that instead I was disturbed by the ever increasing change in focus of the Mass from God to the congregation and the priest as a personality. It became persistent, from the moment I entered the building until we are sent forth that I was being distracted and redirected to everything but God. It was like a family reunion with only the kids showing up.
rcg
I could no more afford an Aston Martin than I could afford to live in South Kensington. However, if I won the lottery ...
John, If you do win, get an Aston Martin like James Bond had...with an ejection seat (wow, what a handy option, especially for the married man), oil slicks, and a smoke screen.
PI, can you tell us when the epiclesis was eliminated? It occurs in the Roman Canon at the Quam oblationem, and later one was added to the Offertory (the Veni Sanctificator).
Also, Gregorian Chant was not "added", it developed along with the liturgy itself, which is why it must be given first place, as I'm sure it is in your church, since you hold so steadfastly to the teachings of Holy Mother Church.
How can an an order of Mass which was described in 1969 as 'Novus' and whose novelty was admitted by its creators and the Pope who signed it off, be passed off as traditional by reference to "constant" teaching? Constant for 44 years? Do me a favour.
My fear is that I will drift to being hypercritical – which is wrong (and a grave sin). Because within that is a spirit of rebellion. And I understand very clearly how some drift to certain groups. It is not the EF of the Mass that does this – but the personality of the person in question. Namely: me.
At the last EF I attended, the usual celebrant was on his vacation – there was a Franciscan Friar to fill-in. It was impossible to hear him – I don’t think he wore a microphone (and he spoke very softly). I had my missal so it wasn’t hard to follow along – but it was still very difficult to hear him. On my long drive home, I had the chance to ponder – and that I did most of the 2 hrs and 30 min home. I thought was it worth it: the time and money to fulfill an obligation that could have been done with minimum effort and a 15 minute drive? Yes. It was not about “me.” It was about God.
I am not clever enough to delve into the weighty theological issues that surround the debate of which forms of the Latin Rite suit the Church better – I am just another poor, ignorant Pilgrim trying to live a Catholic life in a country that seems ever-so distant from Christ. It is sad that something so beautiful and comforting can be so divisive. But I also know there is some vanity in this – the music is more to my taste. I know I am never going to hear “Virgin, Great and Glorious” and will be stuck with “Hail Mary, Gentle Woman.” Isn’t that a bit disappointing? To Our Lady: no. To me: yes.
Silence equals consent – so I guess my ground is covered? :)
"I think people are still to attend their local parish within the boundaries within which they live."
Fr. McDonald,
I once had a previous pastor tell me that if I wanted to attend the EF that I just needed to go to the Cathedral in Savannah (I live two hours away near Waycross). This was his response to the request of myself and others (a stable group) for the EF in Waycross.
Nathaniel, the priest isn't supposed to be mic'd up for the Tridentine Mass.
do you have written documentation for this assertion about not being mic'd up?
Why would the priest be mic'd up? The majority of the Mass is said secretly. The Readings are chanted so they can be heard.
Once again, I've been to many Masses in many states and you're the only one mic-Ingleside yourself for this Mass. Even in huge buildings, like the ICRSS Oratory in St. Louis, there is no mic (except for the homily, of course).
That indicates to me that you are the aberration. I don't need a document, I have experiential knowledge from priests specifically trained for this Mass.
Stupid ipad typos in my last post:
It should say, "You're the only one mic-ing yourself."
Darn you autocorrect!
There really doesn't seem much point in being mic'd for the EF.
Pater; my rapidly aging memory can't recall 1) whether I've asked this before or 20 if I did, whether you answered, so pardon me if I'm repeating myself. But as an analytical aide to everyone's attempt to understand each other, could you give one or more examples of a _non_ traditional Mass?
To put this another way, is the word "traditional" a redundancy or not? (In other words, is a nontraditional Mass one that by definition lacks validity and so isn't a Mass at all?) If not, whet exactly does the word "traditional" add? To illustrate, could you remove these elements for us as an exercise?
Mic-Ingleside-ing himself. Well, I guess he could go and set up to preach outside Ingleside Pizza like the wild-eyed evangelists used to do down on Third and Cherry when I was a kid in the fifties. One of them used to carry a pulpit-sized Bible while he paced up and down the sidewalk or down in the median park on Third. Boy, I'd give a month's pay to see that! LOL!
John - "By about the fifth century we begin to see more clearly. Two documents of this time give us fairly large fragments of the Roman Mass. Innocent I (401-17), in his letter to Decentius of Eugubium (about 416; P.L., XX, 553), alludes to many features of the Mass. We notice that these important changes have already been made: the kiss of peace has been moved from the beginning of the Mass of the Faithful to after the Consecration, the Commemoration of the Living and Dead is made in the Canon, and there are no longer prayers of the faithful before the Offertory (see CANON OF THE MASS). Rietschel (Lehrbuch der Liturgik, I, 340-1) thinks that the Invocation of the Holy Ghost has already disappeared from the Mass."
(From the catholic Encyclopedia)
To remedy this weakness: "The additional Eucharistic Prayers introduced into the Roman Rite in the 1969 revision have both a pre-consecration and a post-consecration epiclesis."
The weakness/absence of the epiclesis in some of the historic Eucharistic prayers has been widely noted.
What this shows, however, that that, despite Good Fr. McDonald's lively imagination, there was never a mass "perfect in form and doctrine, dogma." It has always been revised and reformed to reflect the evolution of liturgical spirituality and systematic theology over the centuries.
Gregorian chant was not always present in the mass. It was added over time, but it is yet another change that, if the mass were ever perfect as Good Fr. McDonald fantasizes, could not have happened.
PI, as usual you are correct up to a point. However, what we know as the traditional Roman Rite was more or less established by the end of the sixth century, and although elements were added over the centuries, many from the Gallican tradition, there were no significant subtractions or alterations of the existing prayers. The Propers were always subject to change; when Pius XII proclaimed the Dogma of the Assumption only the Alleluia and its verse from the previous Mass were retained; the Introit, Collect, Epistle, Gradual, Gospel, Offertory, Secret, Communion and Postcommunion were all new.
The changes of 1965 to 1970 were of a different order entirely, and were revolutionary, despite the 'restoration' of 'lost' elements, some of which were based on conjecture. We know the Mass changed much between the second and sixth centuries, although we don't know the details. We can, however, trace its subsequent development fairly reliably.
I'm not saying the Novus Ordo is protestant per se, although Bugnini said he wanted to remove everything from the Catholic liturgy that might constitute the slightest stumbling-block for our separated brethren, and since protestantism is defined by its rejection of Catholic Eucharistic theology, it is hardly surprising that many orthodox Catholics regard his Mass with suspicion.
My own take on the Novus Ordo would be that it is valid
(although open to abuses which in extreme cases might invalidate it), that it can be celebrated in such a way as to emphasize its connection with the Roman Rite (use of Latin and traditional music, a common orientation), but that it is not the Roman Rite as understood for almost a millennium and a half. This was clear enough to Joseph Gelineau in 1967 when he said "Make no mistake about it, the Roman Rite as we know it is no more - it has been destroyed". He knew what he was talking about, since he was one of the destroyers.
At every EF Mass (both Low and High) I have attended, the priest has always worn a microphone - until two weeks ago.
John - Your statement "...protestantism is defined by its rejection of Catholic Eucharistic theology..." is, I think, entirely too narrowly focused. There are any number of issues, Eucharistic theology among them, that led Protestants in various places and in various times to separate from Catholicism.
I would say the rejection of a Catholic understanding of authority, an ecclesiological question, is a more universal question raised by the separated Brothers and Sisters.
This is certainly the case with the Orthodox where the rejection of Catholic Eucharistic theology is not a dividing issue at all.
Further, "...it is hardly surprising that many orthodox Catholics regard his Mass with suspicion." is entirely self-serving. Many more orthodox Catholics do not regard the NO with suspicion, including popes, bishops, priests, laity, theologians, historians, etc. Regarding the NO with suspicion is not an automatic or necessary mark of orthodoxy.
Anon 5 - CCC 83: Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.
Using “traditional” often blurs the distinction between what can and what cannot be “retained, modified or even abandoned.” I prefer, in these cases, the word “historical.”
Styles of architecture, vesture, music can and have been modified. The use of Latin as the language of worship has been retained, modified, or abandoned in different places. Beeswax candles, once required by liturgical law, have been replaced by synthetic wax or oil. Although the pipe organ’s predecessors were around from the 3rd century BC, the installation of organs in churches was not commonplace until more than a millennium later.
Liturgically, the basic structure of the mass, and our dogmatic belief about the purpose and effects of the mass, is Traditional, while having acolytes dress as clerics, not so much. Reading Scripture is Traditional. Having a sign language interpreter is not. Specific vesture for clerics is probably Traditional, but the colors for the seasons, the type of fabric used, the number of vestments employed by a deacon, priest, bishop, or pope has varied through the centuries.
Historic elements of the mass have changed. These changes do not affect the validity of the mass. Traditional elements have remained the same. What constitutes invalidity? Certainly using or not using, changing or retaining any of the historic elements does not impinge on validity.
Post a Comment