Msgr. Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington has a very good article on his blog concerning celebrating the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the Ordinary Form ad orientem. The title of the blog post is: Are We Walking to Heaven Backward? A Pastoral Consideration of Liturgical “orientation.”
There are good comments, well over 100, at the end of his blog post. One that caught my attention is the following:
Matthew says:
August 12, 2013 at 5:03 pm
Msgr:
I totally agree with this post. However have you ever considered that the post itself is an excellent example of the lack of leadership which you decry? I cannot begin to list the number of blog posts, articles and essays I have read over the years criticizing ‘versus populum” celebration of the liturgy. But as you caution, this is not an actual proposal to DO anything. This is leadership? Secondarily, how exactly would you propose this as an “incremental change”? Would you perhaps suggest the priest turning 10degrees a year so that in 18yrs he has turned around? Why must we simply think about this rather than actually DO it?
Matthew
There are only a handful of parishes nationwide where the Ordinary Form's Liturgy of the Eucharist is celebrated ad orientem. I think a few of them, maybe three are in South Carolina and Georgia.
At St. Joseph Church in Macon, Georgia, we began celebrating one of our five weekend Masses ad orientem almost a year ago. It is our 12:10 PM Sunday Mass. It is celebrated as all our other OF Masses, in the vernacular and with the same chants/music. The Introductory Rite is celebrated at the celebrant's chair as is the Concluding Rite. The Liturgy of the Word is at the ambo. We make use of male and female lectors, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion and altar servers. Holy Communion is under both the Sacred Host and Precious Blood. But at the 12:10 PM Mass, the Liturgy of the Eucharist is ad orientem.
This past January the Church Music Association of America had their Chant Intensive in Macon. This is the closing Mass with this Ordinary Form Mass celebrated as we celebrate our 12:10 Mass each Sunday, but this Mass is Gregorian Chant throughout and with a goodly amount of Latin:
48 comments:
I would be interested in knowing more about what is going on in South Carolina--specifically, the Greenville, S.C. area where, according to one article and one online church bulletin, there are at least two parishes with regular ad orientem OF Masses (as well as regular EF's).
What's in the water up there that we don't have down here?
Fr, Every time you post something like this I scratch my head...your ambivalence is showing. Obviously, a part of you desires a return to a truer Catholic identity in worship and Liturgy. Yet you will not do some small things that would promote it. Why not make all the NO Masses ad orientum? Why not gradually reduce or eliminate the unnecessary EMHC's? Why not gradually reduce or eliminate female altar servers? Why not just stop announcing that standing to receive is the "norm in America," which would gradually encourage more people to kneel following other's example? Why not, in a homily or at RCIA discourage all the oracular gestures and all the stadium behavior during the ridiculous sign of peace? Why not encourage attendance at the EF during a homily? Why not allow us to push it during RCIA?
I suppose the answers to some of this are 1) you do not want to deal with the whining and complaining of a minority of parishioners, 2) the Bishop might be unhappy. You could ignore (pastorally) the whiners and talk to the Bishop ahead of time or, better, afterwards.
Don't get me wrong...you have done far more than most Priests would have done to return to a true Catholic identity and worship at St. Jo's, and just your (and the Vicars' we have been so lucky to have) demeanor and example have done much to bring more reverence to Catholic life at St. Jo's. Plus, when I attend other Churches (except FSSP), the contrast between them and St. Jo's usually puts them to shame. However, I can't help but feel there is more you could do and that your own ambivalence causes you to hesitate. Anyway, great post. Thanks.
Watching this video again and hearing Benedict's name in the Canon reminded me of how much has changed since January! some observations:
1. Ad orientem does much to restore the necessary objectivity, particularly during the Eucharistic Prayer. This is also helped by the new translation.
2. Singing the Liturgy of the Word is a great improvement. One is not distracted by the mannerisms of the reader (BTW, they are not Lectors unless formally instituted, and Canon Law does not allow females to exercise this ministry; they are lay readers).
3. Syllabic chant in English works perfectly well, and the new missal chants (eg the Preface) should be used if there is to be any singing at Mass. This can be mandated, and we really do need to replace Musicam Sacram, now 46 years old. Singing also gives objectivity to the texts being sung.
4. Latin is necessary for the sung Propers which are melismatic, and the plainchant settings of the Ordinary as found in the Kyriale should be the default position. If you must do them in English (surely by now everyone knows what the Latin words of the Gloria, Credo etc mean) use modern chant-based settings with minimal or no accompaniment.
5. Ad orientem is more than an option, in fact the GIRM appears to presuppose it; why else should the celebrant need to be told to face the people at some points and face the altar at others?
I think my earlier comment didn't register:
I was interested in what may be driving the fact that there are two parishes in the Greenville, S.C. area with regularly scheduled ad orientem OF Masses as well as regularly scheduled EF Masses.
What's in the water up there that we seem to lack down here?
Gene, I am ambivalent because if I did what you ask (if I were so inclined but as you can tell, I have not opposed to females doing what does not require the ordained) it would all be overturned with the next pastor, whenever that might be as I have no inside knowledge. However, with only one Mass "leading the future to some nebulous reform in the future) it is possible that the next pastor will have pastoral sensitivity and not upset the apple cart. But don't count on it.
Gene, most of the questions you raise can only be answered authoritatively by strong episcopal actions. Someone--was it Voris?--recently commented on the Church's dire need for bishops who have what it takes to act in the masculine role of Fathers and Shepherds to their flocks. The feminization of the Church in recent decades has been led by feminization of its episcopacy and clergy, starting with bishops who act primarily in feminine roles of conciliation and dialogue in lieu of decisive action and decisions (incidentally encouraging progressives who argue against the existence of feminine and masculine roles in the Church).
Only when the masculine young priests we're now seeing out of the seminaries move up and replace the feminized pastors and bishops (think of some of our anonymous posters) who now control things) will the current problems of the Church finally begin to be resolved.
"Why not more leadership from on high about the Liturgy of the Eucharist celebrated ad orientem?"
Because the belief that ad orientem worship is necessary or helpful or needed for "Catholic Identity" is not shared by the leadership.
Because the notion of versus populum worship as a "closed circle" (what circle isn't closed, by the way?) is a red herring. God can be the center of this "circular" worship.
Because the notion of "everyone facing God" as in ad oreintem is an example of the reification of the spatial/directional metaphor. God is not here or there, so facing this way or that way does not aim us toward God.
And, I suspect, a few other good reasons...
In Greenville, there is Prince of Peace and one other, I forgot.
In Aiken there is Our Lady of the Rosary, which parish is building a magnificent new building which will have a gorgeous sort of Romanesque/Gothic ciborium unlike any I have seen before. An altar rail will also be present.
And also there is a new church called St. Paul currently being build by that guy, I can't think of his name, from Notre Dame, who did the Shrine for Cardinal Burke.
So, yes, the D. of Charleston is really doing quite well. Our vocations program is really becoming something of a legend for its effectiveness.
Joseph Johnson, what's in the water are several very excellent priests whose bishop knows the good that they do. In fact, you should Google the diocesan cathedral and look at the "worship aids" for Sunday Masses!
I think Gene has a point. The only thing that jarred in an otherwise exemplary OF Mass was when two women in trousers marched onto the sanctuary just before the Communion. It just looks completely out of place. Chant course Masses tend to be more traditional, and I noticed that the servers were male (although they should have been told to wear black shoes; after all they had a world-wide audience).
The fact that the liturgy is entirely at the whim of the parish priest is utterly scandalous, was unthinkable until the second half of the 20th century, and is the single most poisonous fruit of the Second Vatican Council.
Ignotus, If, as you say, God is not here or there, how can He be the "center" of this circular worship? More pseudo-liturgical "theology" and careless language from one among the Leftist priesthood.
But, Fr, you do not know that a successor would overturn everything or anything. Does the departing priest not fill in the new one as to the accustomed practices in a parish? Is there no effort at all at continuity...just pastoral anarchy? Even we Presbyterians used to try to maintain long-standing practices in a parish. Do we feed the sheep or just mindlessly herd them willy-nilly?
But Gene, my idiosyncrasies are what you describe as the problem in the Church today and what John Nolan also indicates. I'm swimming against the current in term of liturgy, especially with ad orientem for the Liturgy of the Eucharist at one Sunday Mass and also with the EF. I will also say in terms of how we carry out Catholic Stewardship.
I would be shocked if my successor continues things as is. But who knows but God and God's grace surprises us sometimes. Catholic Churches are not congregational where the laity have a great deal of power. So a pastor in that setting would be wise to do what is done rather than upset the apple cart. But not so in the Catholic Church, a pastor can and often comes in and turns everything upside down to do things his way and exert his power and authority. I think this might be called clericalism.
Priest changes, parish changes.
Pope changes, church changes.
Tradition and custom are meaningless.
Chaos and confusion for the laity.
Clericalism is an understatement.
(By the way, if Catholicism isn't congregational, then why is every parish different? It's congregational all right, but the only member of the congregation that matters is the priest.)
Marc, keep in mind that when a pastor who is on the same page as Holy Mother Church comes into a progressive parish, especially in terms of liturgy, he turns things upside down to meet the expectations of the Church for the OF Mass and also listening to see if there is a reasonable number who would like the EF Mass. Can you imagine what this does to a progressive parish?
I understand it "all" started in upstate SC about a decade ago with the appointment of a new pastor (Fr. Jay Scott Newman)--by Bishop Baker, now of Birmingham, AL--at St. Mary's Church in downtown Greenville. In 2006 I spent a weekend there to see what indeed was in the water. Here is a short report of my visit which gives some of the history:
http://www.knoxlatinmass.net/StMarys06.pdf
The current pastors at Prince of Peace and Our Lady of the Rosary (also now turned ad orientem) both started as assistants at St. Mary's.
Pin/Gene - No, there is no pseudo-liturgical thinking or carelessness in my comment.
We, congregation and priest, need not be oriented in the same direction in order to be "facing" God. God is faced whether we are arranged in a linear manner or a circular one.
God is not "here" OR "there. God is omnipresent.
Marc - Your premise - that every parish must be "the same" in order for the Church to be One - is flawed. The Church is One because God is One. Our one-ness does not come from the language we use in worship, the songs we sing in worship, or the arrangement of the pews in our churches.
Fr, I much prefer your idiosyncrasies, but you are correct that these things are a problem. However, most of your idiosyncracies are not that at all, rather an effort at orthodoxy and tradition. The very term "progressive parish" is, or should be, an oxymoron.
Now that I look at my posted 2006 document linked above, I notice that the pre-history of the extraordinary OF liturgy described therein is actually in an account of a previous 2004 visit, which indicates that Fr. Newman arrived in what had evidently been a very ordinary parish, and made some big changes within his first 24 hours there:
http://www.knoxlatinmass.net/StMarys04.pdf
Hmm . . . I wonder if this illustrates what's meant by a manly (i.e. fatherly) pastor. Or what could be done most places by such a pastor.
The Church is one because of unity of the faith. This might, and has historically, include various liturgical expressions and various spiritual expressions, as well.
When a progressive parish is turned around so that its liturgical and spiritual expressions accurately accord with the One Faith, this is proper. When the reverse happens, this is improper as it rends the one faith and creates division.
With the particular expressions, there is unity. So, traditionally in the Latin Church, one could expect a unified liturgical expression that had developed over time and was seen as the culmination of the doctrinal development that accompanied it. It does not belong to a particular priest or bishop or pope. Their only job is to protect it and, if it is lacking, to restore it.
What we have, though, is the idea that it cannot be restored because the next priest may come in and un-restore it. This is chaos. Yet, this is exactly what we are seeing with priests and popes. None seem to understand that they are bound by what came before.
The only mark of unity is a meaningless submission to the Bishop of Rome. Beyond that, one can believe what one wants to express it in any number of ways. This is a false communion that is utterly meaningless.
Ignotus, so he is still in the "center of our circle," though...right? I like your theogeometry.
The nature of Catholic worship is completely lost on you, isn't it?
Marc - I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #813:
"The Church is one because of her source: "the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit." The Church is one because of her founder: for "the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body." The Church is one because of her "soul": "It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church's unity."
The Church is One because God is One.
Pin/Gene - God is omnipresent.
The Church is one because God is, indeed, One. However, due to the very chaos and division about which Marc is speaking, the one-ness of the Church is an eschatological vision and hope. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the church, but we have certainly raised Hell within Her and are suffering and travailing because of our own moist grievous fault.
Our expression of our obedience or disobedience to Him is significant for us and our unity. It does not affect God; He does not need us (a difficulty with Teilhard, if you remember...that we are a NECESSARY cog for the Omega Point to be reached...that God somehow "needs" us and, therefore, the Cosmic Christ cannot evolve without human will and participation. If that ain't Gnostic/Pelagian/humanist the Pope won't say Mass on Sunday). However, proper worship and orientation reminds us that we do need Him and that we face Him together as a people in praise and obedience. There is very little "humanism" in the EF. There is lots in the OF.
BTW, every time I read Teilhard I am reminded of "Rendezvous With RAMA," by Clarke. Teilhard reads more like sic-fi than theology.
Pin/Gene - I don't agree that the oneness of the Church is an eschatological vision and hope. It is a present reality. The Church IS one, as the Church IS holy, catholic, and apostolic.
Ok, Ignotus. The Church is One theologically and doctrinally, but it is not one hic et nunc. It is horribly divided and in great danger. Its oneness does indeed transcend the vagaries of history, but that is eschatology. I do not see how anyone with an ounce of perception could say that historically, right now, the Church is unified...or one.
I would point out only that their is a world of difference between your (perceived)"idiosynchracies" and real "novelties" being inflicted upon the faithful everyday. For example, celebrating ad orientem is hardly peculiar. Where as, a priest changing the prayers to make them "more inclusive" ie changing the orate fratres to "Pray my friends that our sacrifice..." just rings wrong.
I would much prefer to suffer your ad orientem peculiarities than changing the GIRM. Wouldn't you Father? I appeal to your courage and love of the liturgy to suffer if and when you are raked over the coals by some in your parish.
And, who cares if your successor changes what you do. All we can do is what God asks us to do in the time we have...
Pater, you can't have it both ways. If God is everywhere and direction thus doesn't matter, then there's no harm whatsoever in ad orientem and it should be promoted and practiced on an equal footing with versus populum. But That isn't what's happening. Instead, the liturgists of the past few decades have shown a slavish devotion to versus populum and carried out a de facto suppression of ad orientem. This in turn reveals that they believe that versus populum is somehow better than ad orientem, or that ad orientem is somehow wrong, or both. Once that is clear, then we have to ask what these liturgists know, or think they know, that hundreds of years or ad orientem liturgists didn't.
Given the long history of ad orientem and all of the centuries of thought behind it, together with the fact that versus populum is, in the NO, linked with other Protestantizing influences in the NO (whether you will admit it or not), it's versus populum, not ad orientem, that is deficient and highly suspect.
If you really believe that my analysis is wrong--if you really believe that direction doesn't matter--then I respectfully dare you to prove it by saying Mass ad orientem for exactly 50 percent of the time during the month of September.
What do you say?
Do you reckon Ignotus knows how to say Mass ad orientum?
Gene,
To clarify: My dare requires no liturgical change other than a 180 degree turn.
To be fair to Fr. Kavanaugh, his church wouldn't allow ad orientem. There is a step immediately in front of their table.
Versus populum was sold to us in the 1960s as a restoration of the practice of the early Church. At the time, some liturgists actually believed this, but more recent scholarship has largely debunked this view (see, for example UM Lang's 'Turning Towards the Lord').
The real reason, of course, for versus populum is that it reflects a new theology concerning the Mass. The priest presides over the assembly and conducts a dialogue with them. This is explicitly mentioned in Inter Oecumenici of 1964 and came to fruition with the Novus Ordo in 1970. The altar needed to be brought forward, and if that wasn't practicable the answer was not to celebrate ad apsidem as before, but to put up a table in front of the High Altar and celebrate on that, however inappropriate and demeaning it looked.
To celebrate the Novus Ordo ad orientem is to deny this changed theology, or at least to subvert it. Yet we are told that Vatican II merely upheld the Eucharistic doctrine of Trent. Which of course it did, while simultaneously undermining it. The amount of Orwellian double-speak which has pervaded the Church since V2 is quite astonishing. I suspect that Fr McDonald has an essentially Tridentine concept of the Mass (although it predates Trent by a thousand years) whereas Fr Kavanaugh has embraced the new theology. The fact that they can both cite Church authorities in defence of their respective positions serves to prove my point.
Anon 5, Indeed so. But, the progressives cannot allow the statement it would make vis a vis John Nolan's post after your's.
Marc, The step at Kavanaugh's Church should pose no problem...he is good at balancing acts...LOL!
The step is a minor problem. He's also going to need an altar and a priest, which might get expensive...
ZING!
(disclaimer for our more sensitive resets: this post is sarcasm)
Anon 5 - No, I will not alter the orientation of the liturgy here based on a dare, even a respectful one. There has to be a better reason than that.
No, I will not admit that the changes in the liturgy have "Protestantized" the mass, as you rightly acknowledge.
The argument made by the ad orientem crowd that that that direction, not versus populum, is oriented toward God. It is not, since God is omnipresent. Part of that argument is that versus populum makes for a "closed circle" which excludes God or which makes humans the center of the act of worship. If God is everywhere, God is also present inside a circle. (Again I ask anyone: is there a circle that is not "closed"?)
The altar here could easily be moved back from the steps three or so feet if an ad orientem mass were to be celebrated. But there is no compelling reason so to do.
I have a legitimate question for you, Father Kavanaugh:
Since ad oriented requires a compelling reason, is it not true that versus populum should also have a compelling reason? So, what is that reason? And why is that reason more compelling than ad orientem?
Pater: Your statement "There has to be a better reason than that" again shows that you are trying to have it both ways. The whole point of my previous post was to point out that if direction truly does not matter, there need be no reason at all.
Or, if you wish, there's now a difference: I dared you to say Mass ad orientem, and that has or would tarnish the ad orientem somewhow, thus making the NO somehow better, at least in this case. Therefore it's my fault that you can't say Mass ad orientem. Well played. I will be happy to write a letter of recommendation for you any time you wish to apply to law school.
As to your view that the NO displays no Protestantizing influence in comparison to the Tridentine, please feel free to keep saying that. In the eyes of anyone who knows anything at all about Protestant theology or liturgy, you reduce your credibility in every time you repeat the statement.
Marc: re problems with the altar arrangement, you make a point I expected to hear from PI. Note the "progression" of the past few decades: 1) There is no difference, so let's face the people. 2) Since we're facing the people, we can guild sanctuaries and altars accordingly. 3) Since there's a difference, dictated by the sanctuaries and altar arrangements, we therefore can't say Mass ad orientem.
No lawyer or revolutionary could do better.
"God is everywhere" is a theologically trite and simplistic statement. It reminds me of the teenage Baptist Sunday School group returning from a trip to Gatlinburg, when one of the precious little, dimple faced adolescent girls sighs and cries out, "Oh, we found God in the mountains!"
Yes, God is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and immaterial but, to just throw out sort of casually, "God is everywhere" somehow misses the mark. It also sounds a bit pantheistic.
Holy Scripture speaks often, in OT and NT, of God meeting His people in particular locations and of His entering the rituals of their worship. In some of those instances, He is present in those particular moments of time and history because the worship was "pleasing in His sight." At other times, you will remember, He chose not to be present or to bless their sacrifices, usually due to some ritual infraction or to disobedience.
We speak of God encountering us in the here and now, we speak of Him as moving toward us from the future, as well. Spatial location and historical time encounter are a part of the structure of Catholic worship. We believe that the Christian life is marked and enriched by various "encounters" with the Risen Christ...and I do not mean some self-apocalyptic, existential nonsense about self-realization or internal resurrection (se: "We found God in the mountains!")
God comes to us in specific ways, sometimes very different ways to various individuals and sometimes to us as a people, as in Mass.
To love Christ and follow Him is an act of will that must be carried out in real times and places, just as He meets us in these real times and places. Our worship is also an act of will based upon obedience to His real, historical acts and commands regarding that worship which manifested itself in very specific historical ways.
Now, about your circle...salvation history is linear and moves within and beneath the history we read about in books. Catholic worship is also linear, moving in a progression from a very specific beginning, to a climax, then to an end. All the misguided efforts to find parallels between Eastern religions and Christianity that we had so much fun with in our sophomore year of college (remember "Mysticism East and West," who was that...Eliade? Hell, I forget) are based on a fundamental flaw. Eastern religions are, indeed circular in their beliefs and are largely internalized in a self-circle, or upward/inward spiral. Even our old neo-prot buddy, Paul Tillich said, in his "Christianity and the Encounter with World Religions," re-iterates this and says, "There comes a point when the Christian must say to other religions, 'we know something you do not." Wow! And, this from Tillich!
So, the danger of a God who is "everywhere" is that he ultimately is nowhere.
Anon 5 - Oh no, there are reason why we do (or don't do) everything. There are reasons we wear vestments of a certain color, reasons why we make certain the tabernacle is securely fastened in place, reasons why altars are stripped after the Mass of the Lord's Supper on Holy Thursday. Indeed, we are very "reasonable" when it comes to liturgy.
The ecclesiology of the EF and the ecclesiology of the NO are significantly different. I would recommend some books on the differences, but since they were written by authors of whom you in all likelihood would not approve (they might be Jesuits!) or are published by publishing houses which you do not trust, why would I bother?
Joseph Ratzinger was not saying that versus populum celebration necessarily created a "closed circle" but that there was a danger of it appearing to do so. There are other dangers, the chief being that it encourages priests to play to the audience, eyeballing them all the time and adlibbing when they feel like it.
By the way, supporters of ad orientem who talk of "facing God in the tabernacle" are doing themselves no favours and giving ammunition to their enemies. Placing tabernacles on the High Altar is a relatively recent development, does not obtain in cathedral churches, and when a bishop celebrates Mass at an altar with a tabernacle, the Bl. Sacrament is always removed.
I do think that PI falls into the trap of playing to the audience by proclaiming the Eucharist prayer in a proclaiming voice. I guess if you are proclaiming it for the congregation to hear it is one thing but for God to hear, I think He would think arrogant.
FrAJM, back to the topic of the thread: Is this a question you directed to yourself? I agree very strongly with Gene's first post. It seems that you are devoting an awful lot of energy and resources to remaining on this cusp between being an EF parish and being an OF parish. This must be exhausting.
Here are my unasked for observations:
1) You can have an OF Mass in an EF sanctuary with less trouble than the other way around.
2) The EF Mass is an adult Mass. It is not more difficult in any way than the OF except that you need to pay attention the whole time based on your own will, not because someone is constantly trying to get your attention.
3) The OF is valid, as far as I know, mainly because the Church tells me it is. I accept that. But it is not especially reverent without special effort. It allows for distractions and secular music with religious sounding lyrics and really light theology. It is a children's Mass. You can, and *you* have, brought it up to a more meaningful service than is required. But I think you are even now hitting a wall that is forcing you to either stop with your project or to make the leap to the EF as primary form of Liturgy. I say make the leap.
4) You truly ought to consider making the EF the primary worship mode for your Parish and have OF for children or people who need more active guidance.
I think your instincts are guided by the Holy Spirit. Don't stop following them now. Do NOT talk yourself out of doing something because the bishop *might* not like it. Either ask him about it or just do it in good faith anyway and let him be bishop.
Good Father, regarding the priest's voice, the missal instruction says, "In the formulas below, the words of the lord should be pronounced clearly and distinctly, as the nature of these words requires."
Since God does not need clear and distinct enunciation, for whom might clear and distinct enunciation be beneficial?
Now, the rubrics of the EF instruct the priest to speak the words of institution "distinctly, reverently, and secretly..."
But, of course, you would never (no, never) mix the two rites, since this is clearly forbidden....
"God does not need clear and distinct enunciation..."
God does not need the Mass. It His gift to us...a gift for which He demands obedience. We say Mass in obedience to Him. I would think that our stewardship of this wondrous gift is something for which we might possibly be held accountable. Puppets? Dixie cups? Clowns? Readings from apostate theologians and socialist philosophers? Christ have mercy, indeed!
PI: Ah, so there now _is_ a reason. A reason that escaped thousands of years of bishops, theologians, and liturgists (except for Protestant ones whose ideas have had absolutely no influence on the NO that just happens to face the celebrant in the same direction as those same Protestants have had him face for nearly all of their history). Glad we cleared that up. I'm also glad that the present generation has achieved so much more enlightenment than all of those earlier generations of fuddy-duddies. If the '60s generation, influenced by television, utter disdain for authority, and the Pill, hadn't rushed in to save the Church, she (excuse me, it, didn't mean to be sexist there) surely would have gone belly up, with catastropic declines in mass attendance, liturgical abuse, vocation problems, so-called catholics publicly committing the sin of scandal with no public correction . . . oh, wait.
And it isn't so much I who disapproves of the products of some publishing houses as the doctrines of the Church. A great many dissenters have vigorously asserted their Catholicism; I suspect you place me in that category since you've implied, and sometimes stated, as much. I've read stuff from these publishers that would have had them executed 50 years ago, so forgive me if I can't see my way clear to thinking these things are safe and problem-free today.
Anon 5 - The ecclesiology underlying the celebration of the mass - and underlying much of the Church's theology - developed over the past 100 to 150 years.
Many of the liturgical changes of the last 50 years represent this shift in ecclesiology.
There are many good books available for those who want to understand this.
You don't see "clear thinking" in certain authors and publishers because you have, ab initio, decided it cannot be found in them. This is not because clarity is not present, but because they disagree with your conclusions, and you are unwilling to consider that your conclusions might be erroneous.
Pater:
150 years conveniently dates back to a sharp rise in modernism in the French seminaries. Just because a theology embraces liturgical ideas and/or is 150 years old doesn't make it an orthodox theology. (The theology/liturgical idea of communion in the hand dates back to the early Church, but the source cited by liturgists for doing it that way would also have us anointing our eyes with the Precious Blood or some such, if I remember correctly, a fact conveniently ignored by modernist liturgists.) And in the scheme of Catholicism, 150 years is still a pretty short time.
Regarding liturgy, I asked a question on another thread that I'm really hoping you'll answer since it would genuinely move us forward on the road to mutual understanding: viz, your view of what makes a Mass "traditional," or to put it another way, what the word "traditional" adds to the word "Mass."
My conclusions on these presses are experiential, not based on ab initio assumptions as you claim. I've read enough books from these publishers to know that the publishers are heterodox. The possibility that these publishers might turn out some orthodox works, in light of the heterodox ones I've found, isn't sufficient to make me invest further time on them when I can more easily find orthodoxy elsewhere. Someone who reads books from these publishers are likely to be exposed to heretical ideas.
I do think it no coincidence that the presses in question exhibit one of the Protestantizing tendencies that is obvious in the NO as well, viz., emphasis on aspects of Christianity that Protestants find acceptable, at the expense of clearly Catholic ideas (e.g., Twenty-Third Publications as opposed to Ave Maria Press).
The idea that versus populum is 'protestant' needs qualification. Lutherans celebrate ad apsidem, in fact you can always tell if you are in a Lutheran church in Germany, because the sanctuary has not been reordered and there is always a large and 'realistic' crucifix in the centre of the altar. In the pre-Oxford Movement Anglican Church the minister was instructed to stand at the north end of the communion table, and Newman did this throughout his Anglican ministry. When, in the second half of the 19th century altars were restored, they usually had a cross (without corpus) and two candles. This was simply a restoration of pre-Reformation Sarum practice. The Eucharist was celebrated ad apsidem and the chasuble began to reappear.
When versus populum became the norm in the Catholic Church (from 1964 onwards) some High Anglican churches adopted it, as they tended to follow Rome in matters liturgical, but it is by no means the norm. Fr Kavanaugh is quite correct when he says the "ecclesiology" of the OF is significantly different from that of the EF (although the poor bemused faithful were assured that nothing had changed). This is why it is a legal fiction to say they are simply different forms of the same Roman Rite, and why those who buy into the OF ecclesiology (or theology, if you prefer) will insist on versus populum, and get quite angry if they see the Novus Ordo celebrated ad apsidem. It also explains their antipathy towards Latin and 'traditional' music.
However, the new ecclesiological model did not displace the old, despite attempts on the part of the reformers to convince us that it had done so. It is also of fairly recent provenance, and may not even endure in the long term. There is no obligation on anyone to accept the late-twentieth century model. I was only a teenager when I felt I was being pressurized into worshipping in a different way, and although I gave it a try, I realized that it was not for me. Fortunately the alternative was always there, even if it was not necessarily on my doorstep.
Post a Comment