I received this email recently:
This is just a brief email to thank you again for everything that you are doing to bring reverence and dignity to the OF Mass. We made the drive down from Atlanta (we try to come about once a month or so) and arrived just in time for the noon Mass this past Sunday. The entire Mass from beginning to end was celebrated so beautifully, words fail to express how it really feels to be able to participate in the liturgy as it can and should be. Having the Liturgy of the Eucharist ad orientem just draws us so much more into the sacred action! And being able to kneel to receive Holy Communion is such a privilege! As a church musician myself I would like to commend the organist and cantor on the excellent music. It was just a perfect example of an OF Mass in the vernacular that surely had the "ethos" of the traditional rite. As your blog has stated "The Ordinary Form of the Mass celebrated Extraordinarily" - how very true!
I want to thank the writer for these very, very kind words as I blush!
As many of you might know from reading my blog, I am somewhat eclectic in my liturgical tastes. I appreciate the Eastern Rite Liturgies, but prefer our Latin Rite. I love the Extraordinary Form, but love the Ordinary Form and the vernacular. I think ad orientem is the best orientation for the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the Ordinary Form but I understand why facing the congregation can be acceptable too, if prayed in an ad orientem disposition by the priest. I like lace and baroque vestments, but not for me. I love Latin but love English too. I like some contemporary liturgical music, like the Mass of Creation (which for reasons unknown to me is disliked by so many). But I love Latin chant settings too and the English chants in our new Roman Missal. I think we should chant the Propers, but I really like singing hymns too (in addition to the propers, not replacing them), especially if these are of good quality, of our liturgical spiritualities as Catholics and contain orthodox, God-centered lyrics, Biblically based. I think it is quite fine for the choir or schola to sing/chant as the congregation engages in the liturgy by listening and contemplating rather than joining in the singing. This means I like more complex Latin chant and polyphony but also concert Masses on occasion but I would not care for this on a regular basis as congregation engagement on all the levels possible should be the norm, but not for everything. For me it isn't either/or but both/and.
We offer the EF Mass every Tuesday as a Low Mass at 5 PM. About 15 to 30 people attend regularly. We have the EF Mass during the academic year monthly as a High Mass at 2:00 PM with 60 to 100 attending.
For the past year we have tried to make our Ordinary Form 12:10 PM Sunday Mass more in the "spirit" of the EF Mass since the EF Mass isn't celebrated every Sunday. But the only difference in it and the other OF Masses we have which face the congregation entirely is that the Liturgy of the Eucharist is ad orientem. But everything else is as one would experience in any OF Mass in the world. The Introductory and Concluding Rites are prayed at the celebrant's chair and the Liturgy of the Word at the Ambo, with lector and we also make use of male and female altar servers and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. We have the chalice for the congregation at all our OF Mass, daily and Sunday. The music for the Ad Orientem 12:10 PM Sunday OF Mass is the same music as for the other OF Masses.
Finally at all our Masses we as a parish, clergy and laity try to show forth hospitality to one another and our visitors. As a part of our hospitality, we acknowledge that standing to receive Holy Communion is the norm in the USA and that the option of kneeling is an option that can be chosen by the communicant him or herself. No one is to be forced to either stand or kneel, this belongs to the communicant to decide based upon knowing what the norm is and what option is allowed.
So we provide kneelers at all our host stations as a sign of hospitality and flexibility in allowing people to kneel to receive if they so desire and to do so comfortably and without going directly and awkwardly to the floor in front of those distributing Holy Communion. Being hospitable and inclusive should not be viewed as progressive or retrograde but as a fine Godly human quality!
38 comments:
I generally agree with your dispositions, except I HATE MASS OF CREATION.
If you ever want to see some very well celebrated liturgies in this country, look for videos on YouTube of major Masses celebrated at the Basilica Shrine in Washington.
Fr, as you know, I am a huge supporter of your's and appreciate the way you conduct the NO with dignity and care. But, what you are saying and doing is still based upon the preference and personality of the Priest...namely, you. What if, when you leave, we get some progressive moron who hates ad orientum, loves Marty Haugen, and pretty much likes to conduct the Mass as a Baptist preacher might? As things stand now, there are few checks and balances to prevent this. I like your brand of eclecticism but, ultimately, eclecticism leads to chaos and randomness. And, what was it that Amos and Hosea were condemning...eclecticism, syncretism in worship...which they understood led to false belief.
Even if we continue with the NO, things have got to be stabilized and standardized, and other things have got to be forbidden or nothing is ever going to change.
I would also argue strongly that a casual and relativistic view of liturgy leads right to a casual and relativistic view toward abortion, homosexuality, birth control, gay marriage, and women priests. That is why I always insist that changes have to come from the top down...otherwise, the inmates are running the asylum.
What you write is a clear and present danger. I think the ad orientem Mass will go and the hospitality of kneeled. I doubt the music will change in ethos but might. The problem with what Pope Benedict modeled is that he did not mandate it. So the laity suffer from the cult of the personality when people change and so does everything else. I have acted cautiously and prudently with what I have done, but the ad orientem and kneeler and EF mass I fear will go by the wayside quickly after I go. But that is life and God's grace assists.
Fr, Are you not being indifferent with, "that's life and God's grace assists?" You know, gay priests...that's life, womyn priests...that's life, abortion...that's life...gay marriage..that's life...Precious Blood in Dixie Cups...that's life...and God's Grace assists.
Will the Bishop not try to appoint someone with similar sensitivities to what St. Jo's is accustomed, or does he not give a hoot either.
Comments contrary to these two norms, regardless of point of view, will NOT BE POSTED, ESPECIALLY THE USE OF DEROGATORY LANGUAGE TOWARDS ANYONE.
"What if, when you leave, we get some progressive moron who hates ad orientum, loves Marty Haugen, and pretty much likes to conduct the Mass as a Baptist preacher might?"
What a farce.
Gene the comment above is correct and I came close not to printing your comment because of your name calling and that in part is because I have come to expect it from you. Please refrain from what that in making your point, You could have done so without the name calling. Please remember I am a priest, this is a blog that others read and whether you mean this as humor or not, many find it unnecessary and rightly complain to me that I print this sort of thing.
The term was a generalization aimed at no one. My, aren't we sensitive today.
And, we have another progressivist Anonymous whining and crying in an effort to silence those with whom he does not agree. Really, what a farce...
I now read on a Catholic News service that Pope Francis thinks the charismatic movement and the "pentecostal" element in the Church is just fine and dandy...
As this is my blog, I have no desire to run Progressives off or anyone else. What I want is the use of our Catholic Faith and reason to engage each other without name calling or sophomoric comments. Can't we debate in a civil and more to the point Catholic way without resorting to sinful language?
"What if, when you leave, we get some progressive moron who hates ad orientum, loves Marty Haugen, and pretty much likes to conduct the Mass as a Baptist preacher might?"
For the life of me, I cannot see who's called a name here. Except for Marty Haugen, and he's merely called his own name, which surely doesn't offend him. Why should it offend anyone else? He is who he is.
In any event, Gene succinctly identifies why liturgy by one priest's personal preference has no greater permanent value than by any other's personal preference. Liturgy by personal, parish, episcopal, or even papal preference is what's wrong with the normative liturgy today.
The purpose of the ethos of the traditional Roman Mass--including but not limited to its explicit rubrics--was to shield it from the preferences of any individual priest, bishop, or pope.
And, on the previous question, this is why the Mass of the post-conciliar interim period had ceased to be the traditional liturgy, once priests began to say things not written in the text, and do things not directed by the rubrics. Even if the text and rubrics are traditional, merely to say all the text and do all the rubrics specify does not guarantee the traditional liturgy. The traditional priest does not do or say anything else, no word or gesture or behavior, no omission or addition that identifies his or anyone else's particular personality or preference. He knows the liturgy does not belong to him, and is not his to tinker with, not his to improve.
I guess I am in a bad way because I didn't see anything derogatory in Gene's statement. I think he is saying is that parishes are dangerously close to running membership drives rather than conversion missions. The abuses of the NO have been based on making the Liturgy like the people, instead of the other way around. It does not seem denigrating at all to let someone know they are a bit short of the goal.
Fr. McDonald,
You know that I agree with you about the availability of kneelers for those who wish to use them to receive Communion. You also know about my recent experience with them being taken away (which I recounted here without mentioning names).
Maybe Bishop Hartmayer could be persuaded to consider making the availability of kneelers for Communion (as an option for those who wish to use them) a requirement in this Diocese? My understanding is that, as Bishop, he has the authority to enact such a requirement of hospitality.
Fr, I will remind you and others that many times on this blog I have posted in depth and serious theological and Biblical comments, observations, and analyses in response to several of our low-information members. I have often tried to contribute to the blog from my not inconsiderable background of theological, Biblical, and pastoral education. Rarely have I received a "civil"...that is to say, relevant or on point response from any of them. They either simply do not respond or they prevaricate (I believe that Anon 5, Templar, Marc, and Henry can all attest the same experience, as can a few others). So, in such cases of rude and dismissive behavior, yes, I resort to ridicule, humor, and scorn. I consider these to be auxilliary weapons against progressives and other enemies of the Church.
It is always amazing to me that other so-called "traditional or devout Catholics" begin to bleat when the atmosphere gets heated or a few really harmless names are called. Such is part of the reason we are where we are.
I will try to find indirect ways to accomplish the same thing...
Surely Gene's 'progressive morons' are reaching retiring age themselves. When the good Father retires or is moved, which one hopes will not be any time soon, his replacement will more likely resemble his parochial vicar (the one with the amice). And when the current bishop goes, his replacement will probably be in the same mould as Alexander Sample.
And the next pope ... but we won't speculate on that. I was proved spectacularly wrong last time round.
Henry, I believe your observation that "the ethos of the traditional Roman Mass is intended to shield it from the individual preferences" of EVEN THE POPE needs to be oft repeated and loud.
The nature of the Church today and since Vatican II, but really always, is that it is a big umbrella. What has changed fiercely is the variety in ways the Mass can be celebrated. What I have heard consistently, though, is that we should celebrated the Mass by the books, but what has not been so clear and more than likely won't be made clearer any time soon is the type or style of music that is sung and the exuberance of style of worship of the laity compared to the more sedate and pious form we had prior to the council. So there is room for the EF in the most traditional way and with women who cover their heads and Charismatic Masses. Even with all of the entertainment, canned sounding music of the papal Mass in Rio, the pope himself throughout the Mass was as austere and pious as he has been since being pope and I detect little or no difference in his personal demeanor at Mass from that of Pope Benedict. The major and unfortunate difference is that he doesn't attempt to chant at all.
John Nolan, Yes, I wish Fr. could guarantee us Fr. Kwiatkowski. Even now, people avoiding him at Confession is legendary. Last time I went to him I received a lecture about not confessing often enough, another for swearing, and had to kneel at one of the Stations and ponder what happened there while saying my Penance!
I don't know what habitual sinners at St. Jo's must think... Once, when Fr. Kwiatkoski was bran new, there was a woman behind me in line once who asked me, "who is in there?" I said, Fr. MacDonald, whereupon she said, "Oh, I can't confess to him," then turned and walked up front to Fr. David. LOL! Talk about out of the pan and into the fire! LOL!
I like to read the Progressives point of view because it reminds me of what they believe and why I disgree with much of what they advocate,subscribe to, and promote.
I think one can make a point or two,
be contrarian while also being witty and at the same time being civil.
There are times that one can bring
out a scapel to expose the bad parts of the Progressive argument
but sometimes one can go a little too far and hit an exposed nerve.
It's good to keep in mind though that one reason modernists and progressives want to interpret certain passages of scripture differently from the general consensus is that
people such as St Paul can sound pretty harsh at times.
I pray for these people because at least some of them come by their convictions honestly. One can pray for those that don't also.
I like to see progressives standing in line because it looks like evolution...LOL!
There is a curious new "Babylonian Captivity" of the Church. Luther's treatise by that name was written early in his career and was essentially a polemic stating that the Sacraments instituted by Christ had been hijacked by the Church and subjugated to the actions of the Priest. Well, well...what have we here...
The Mass of the Ages has been deconstructed (hijacked) by the minions of Vatican II and denied the people, being replaced by a Novus Ordo that is, well, pretty much subjugated to the actions of the individual Priest. The Eucharist has been redefined (hijacked) as a "spiritual meal" (Luther would have liked this, however...he called it a Testament, or witness to Christ), and ultimately reduced to Dixie Cups in a rodeo atmosphere.
I will not repeat any of the things Luther said about this...most are unprintable, anyway. LOL!
Well, folks, as I'm sure you know, there are no guarantees this side of the grave. I have never put this in print, but I see the need, so here goes: When Fr. MacDonald left MHT, people had the same fears you express. We were at the "top of our game", so to speak, and greatly feared change. The Bishop assigned a wonderful priest, very different in many ways, but strong in personal holiness and pastoral gifts. He lasted 9 months, leaving to become Vice Rector of a major seminary; he was so talented and spirit-filled that noone was shocked that he was chosen for this assignment, but grieved for the second time in a year. Then the Bishop assigned a priest who was again very different, but seemed to want to be here. He ended up so troubled that he left not only the assignment, but is no longer in the active priesthood. THEN, the Bishop sent Pater Ignotus, who was very different indeed from all the others...
We survived all, not always happily, but hanging in there with God's grace. We may never be quite as strong in some ways as we once were, and the soul-price has been high for many, but everything happens for a reason. God is still God last time I looked, and He loves us more than we can imagine. It doesn't pay to live in fear trying to control all outcomes. Do your best to support whoever is sent and leave the rest to God's good providence.
Anon friend, I don't understand. I am a friendly neighbor from the D.o.Charleston. Is this a local thing?
We all go through desert experiences in parish life and in the Church. Israel did too and often it was of their own making and punishment due their to their sinfulness. But the desert experience isn't the end of the story, unless of course, one does not repent and return to the Lord. For Israel it was a collective reality and for the Church the same, but there is also the individual element. However, I would say that there is room in Catholic theology for one being saved by the coattails of the Church, simply being at Mass every Sunday, receiving Holy Communion at least once a year during the Easter season after having received sacramental absolution during that period. How's that for coattails!
But yes, parishes of yesteryear and of today had to and have to contend with priests who do things differently. To think that there were not sloppy priests celebrating the EF Mass and irreverently would be a mistake. But I would agree that there is too much flexibility allowed us priests in the current Ordinary Form, not only for music, but also for style. The fact that I have kneelers and offer the OF Mass at one of our five Sunday Masses ad orientem is a symptom of this current malady.
Father MacDonald,
I'm always impressed by the quality of commentators here. I think Anonymous may simply be unfamiliar with hardy dialogue on theological and pastoral matters of personal importance to your participants.
By the way, Dear Anonymous, perhaps you could say, "Dear Father MacDonald, it seems to me you may be permitting comments that violate your stated policy. I am especially concerned about the comment posted by____, which states... Could you kindly review the comment with reference to your policy. If I'm out of order, then my apologies to all concerned. Thank you."
Fr. McDonald, you and others who were not there in the years before Vatican II may refer to priests who celebrated the Mass irreverently, but I never saw one myself. In parishes with several priests, I don't recall it making any difference in the liturgy as to which one celebrated a particular Mass; I suspect many or most were not in the habit of even noticing who the celebrant was. Certainly, I never saw noticeable differences in the parish style of liturgy as priests come and went, or (more often) as I came and went between different parishes in different dioceses and regions of the country. There was high Mass and low Mass. Otherwise, the Mass was the Mass.
So it seems wrong-headed to posit a "some things never change" view of liturgy then and now. Things HAVE changed.
As a practical matter, the big differences between priests were in the confessional. In a parish with two priests, it was common to see one always with a short line, the other with a long line on Saturday evenings.
Today our priest talked about ecology, refered to the lack of equilibrium in climatic events as the cause of natural disasters, and borrowed heavily from Hindu texts about selling everything and giving to the poor to improve world conditions.
He speaks with a heavy accent so his syncretism and ridiculousness hopefully was lost on most.
Marc,
That priest was exactly right. The biggest problem in the world today is vegetarianism. The violent hacking and uprooting of Mother Earth must stop. We must learn to restore equilibrium by only eating those foods not attached to our Mother Planet.
Ha!
I wish I had been in Townsend this week with the rest of my family, but I had to miss our annual vacation there this year. I'm certain I would have been treated to some actual Catholic teaching and a reverent Mass.
Something this priest said made me wonder... He was talking about how we should sell everything and give to the poor. Is it not true that every time our Lord said this sort of thing, he was saying it for the particular questioner's salvation? As in, "What should I do to inherit eternal life?" Of course, our Lord taught us to care for others, yes, but it seems like the primary reason for our doing so--salvation, both individually and collectively--has been set aside for temporal well-being, the culmination of which is this "earth love."
Marc,
I think Fr. MacDonald will agree with my description of Church teaching on the point you raise. Basically, Our Lord asks us to go as far as we can in serving him. If we can give up everything and become missionaries or contemplatives, then we should do so. But the requirement common to us all for salvation is simply that we obey the commandments given to the Rich Young Man: "Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother" (Mark 10:19).
FrJBS, The requirement common to us all for salvation is that we "believe on Him who was sent." Right belief is primary everywhere in the Gospels. Everything else follows from that...Right belief, Right Worship, Right Service. Most of our current pop theology, Catholic and otherwise, has it backwards
Of course, Gene. We can do none of the things FrJBS says unless we have faith and grace. After all, we aren't... Pelagians!
No Reservation
A Pelagian said with a grin
My works will erase all my sin.
But, when St. Peter saw him
He started guffawing
And said, "You cannot come in!"
A mortal sin is a sin committed against the commandments corresponding to those Our Lord gave the Rich Young Man. Commit a mortal sin, no matter what you believe, and die unrepentant, and you will not be saved.
Yes, Fr, that is true. But, theolopgically, belief is still primary. How it is or is not manifested in the Christian life is another issue.
Gene,
Marc's question, essentially, is "what must a BELIEVER do to attain salvation". Some Catholics worry that Our Lord selects each Christian's state of life or spouse or specific religious order, etc., and that failure to discern and act on these details affects one's salvation. However, the traditional (in the Fathers of the Church & Doctors of the Church) teaching on vocational discernment is that Christ REQUIRES us to obey the commandments, but INVITES us to go as far as we can in following Him, even giving up everything to do so.
Similarly, Our Lord does not require us to "celebrate the ordinary Roman form extraordinarily", as Fr. MacDonald does so well, but He may well invite priests to do so. At any rate, salvation for the believer does not depend upon the form of Mass, or even upon which legitimate options a priest or choirmaster selects in the ordinary form.
FrJBS, I don't disagree at all...in fact, we are on the same page. I was merely making the theological point that even the Law presupposes belief, which you have said. Thanks.
"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Session 6: can. 9).
Anonymous, What is your point? No one is denying this.
Post a Comment