COMMON SENSE LITURGICAL LIBERALITY…

True liberalism, be it political or religious, in one way or another has a “live and let live” ethos. Of course, there are limits, but in general, live and let live is a progressive stance and can be applied to both traditionalists and progressives in the Catholic Church. 

With that in mind, here are some common sense attitudes that it would do well for those liturgically rigid prelates in Rome and elsewhere to consider:

At the bottom of this post are comments from the Praytell blog about liturgical issues today, the liturgy wars that Pope Francis has “reinstigated” and local bishops are fighting on their front in union with Pope Francis narrow view of liturgical diversity.

Unbelievably, we are seeing some bishops so obsessed with one style of celebrating the Mass, that even in the Modern Roman Missal, they have a phobia of allowing what is allowed in the General Instructions and post-Vatican II practice in many places: Latin, ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion as an option. 

The GIRM of the USA Roman Missal allows as an option, Intinction as a means of allowing the laity to receive the Precious Blood, along with consuming from the pandemic enabling common Chalice. 

But through micromanagement, some bishops limit or forbid options allowed in the Modern Roman Missal and its General Instruction. Where will it stop? Will bishops tell priests what form of the Penitential Act they can or cannot use? Will they forbid the Roman Canon? Will it be outlawed to chant the prescribed propers in the Missal and Roman Gradual of 1974? Where will this micromanagement end??????

There is a sort of micromanagement that is clearly opposed to the principles of “subsidiarity” that Vatican II recommended. So much so, you have the Prefect for the Dicastery of Divine Worship micromanaging what pastors can and cannot advertise in their parish bulletins. That’s pre-Vatican II in terms of authoritarianism. 

But here is the common sense comments from Praytell:

This one from Fr. Anthony Forte: 

Live and let live, what a beautiful sentiment! How much division could have been prevented if this had occurred after the Council. But no, the more radical reformers could not, and still cannot, allow other to live in peace. They insisted that their liturgical theories and practices had to be imposed on all. But how peace could be restored if, even accepting the new Mass as is, a generous provision were made for those who would wish to celebrate it in a traditional manner.

And this one from Edward Hammer:

 I think it would be healthy, as you say, if we could divide liturgical styles from people’s opinions about Council documents. In the Anglican church you can attend beautiful Solemn High Masses, ad orientem, with lots of chant and communion at the rail, but the celebrant might be a woman and the parishioners would by no means all be ultra-conservative. We Catholics seem to be stuck in the idea that one particular manner of celebrating must be imposed uniformly, so the arguments become bitter because someone always stands to lose something.

My point about the sanctuary was that in the TLM and at a Brompton Oratory Novus Ordo nobody enters the sanctuary during the liturgy except priests and acolytes, and the sanctuary is marked out by a substantial rail. That gives a strong sense of the sanctuary being the “holy of holies”, a sacred enclosure in which the liturgy takes place, distinct from the “profane” nave. To my mind the current fad for having lay people in normal clothes walking in and out of the sanctuary has greatly weakened that sense, and that this loss is a bad thing. I wouldn’t enter the Brompton Oratory sanctuary if you paid me – I would be expect to be struck by lightning or something!