I just read this:
Bishop Robert Barron recently reassured Catholics that, while he grew up with “balloon masses and clown masses and a priest coming up the aisle on a motorcycle,” the Church is not going back to the 1970s. When is the last time you were traveling and walked into a clown mass? Surely not recently. Strange things do happen at Catholic Masses, but they are not part of a rising national trend. The bishop called the “Catholic liberalism” behind such atrocities “an exhausted project.”
My comments:
The good bishop assures us that we aren’t going back to the 1970’s. I lived in the 1970’s seminary and we didn’t have the things he experienced but I did experience liturgical abuse depending on the celebrant of the Mass. It ranged from so-called “bread” that may well have invalidated every Mass I attended in the seminary to ad libs, casualness and a lack of following the simplified rubrics of the Modern Missal. Most of the priests would not genuflect at the consecrations or elevate the Host or Chalice. One priest on “Fat Tuesday” entered the Mass with a Marti Gras mask on his face.
Today, we experience the priests’ personality, for better or worse, throughout the Mass. What annoys me to no end are the secular remarks following the Entrance Chant. The trajectory of prayer begins with the Entrance Chant, continues with the Sign of the Cross and the liturgical greeting. Then the celebrant puts the breaks on this trajectory of prayer by slamming on the brakes and then using a banal casual greeting, welcoming everyone present, saying a few preachy words about the nature of the Mass and then starting again the trajectory of prayer by introducing the Penitential Act in a folksy way.
The liturgical abuse is that the mysticism and transcendence of Catholic Prayer and spirituality are missing. It isn't a grotesque liturgical abuse but an abuse nonetheless.
What liturgical abuses have you experienced recently?
This occurred in August of 2022:
Monika Schmid, a long-serving parish administrator, appeared to concelebrate the Eucharist at a Mass to mark her retirement.
Thanks be to God the Swiss bishops reiterated the “rules” for the celebration of the Mass when this photo circulated far and wide. Was the pastor investigated and removed? I doubt it.
16 comments:
But the TLM is the problem.
The Novus Ordo Missae promotes disunity and experimentation. Mass can be very different from parish to parish and diocese to diocesee. So where is the unity? The TLM is the sacrament of unity and has noble simplicity, unlike the hydra-headed Novus Ordo.
I've experienced no liturgical abuses. We do not have that problem in the Byzantine Ruthenian Church. It is a shame, however, that it continues to be a regular occurrence in the Roman Church.
ByzRus said..."I've experienced no liturgical abuses. We do not have that problem in the Byzantine Ruthenian Church. It is a shame, however, that it continues to be a regular occurrence in the Roman Church."
As I have noted on Father McDonald's blog:
During the early 1960s, Father Joseph Ratzinger insisted that in regard to liturgy, the Latin Church was in horrific condition. But he claimed that that was not a recent problem.
Father Ratzinger insisted such had been the case for centuries. He blamed the Council of Trent for having "fossilized" the Roman Liturgy.
Father Ratzinger insisted that the Latin Church required radical liturgical reform to correct the problem in question. In turn, he supported the radical liturgical reform that Pope Venerable Pius XII had tapped Monsignor Bugnini to develop.
Father Ratzinger was not alone in that regard.
During the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, there was widespread agreement among Latin Church moderates, right-wingers, as well as left-wingers, that the time had arrived to enact major liturgical reforms.
However, from Vatican II to date, except throughout Africa, as well as much of Asia, it has been a struggle to achieve the liturgical goals of the Council/Liturgical Movement.
My overall point is that should we accept his testimony in question, Father Joseph Ratzinger insisted that in regard to liturgy, the Latin Church for centuries had been in mired in dire straits.
The Latin Church will require considerable time to overcome liturgical problems that have plagued Her for centuries. But as Pope Benedict XVI declared at the end of his Pontificate:
The false, but dominate Vatican II "created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy..."
But the authentic Vatican II has "slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church."
"It seems to me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken, is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force."
The day will arrive when the Latin Church's authentic, expected liturgical renewal will appear in widespread, glorious fashion.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
What MT fails to acknowledge is that Pope Benedict matured and over time changed his views considerably. So much so that he liberated and promoted the TLM. He celebrated it publicly many times as a Cardinal and he eventually wrote harsh criticisms of the Novus Ordo as being a banal, made up on the spot Liturgy. Pope Benedict also said what was once sacred remains sacred. The Novus Ordo has done such a great job that only a small minority of Catholics attend it on Sunday in stark contrast to the TLM. But don’t let facts get in the way of a narrative. He is beyond tiresome
Mark Thomas,
I understand your point. The glorious day that you mentioned is really +50 years too late. Significant damage has been done during the intervening years between then and now not likely to be undone. That which I am reasonably certain of, however, is that the glorious day won't occur within our respective lifetimes. I do hope you're right.
At the same time, I agree with TJM's point. As pope, Benedict matured and as a result, revised his thinking. In simple terms, how can you know where you are going if you ignore where you've been? The Council era has often been described as "heady" filled with sights, wonders and dreams. This many years on, leveler heads started to prevail and consider what the council actually desired. Unfortunately, that consideration has completely stopped with "heady" being re-engaged it would seem.
"During the early 1960s, Father Joseph Ratzinger insisted that in regard to liturgy, the Latin Church was in horrific condition. But he claimed that that was not a recent problem."
This needs context. I don't believe the liturgy itself was as problematic as this quote would lead one to conclude. Rather, it was the extras that, arguably, had gotten out of hand. At the end of the day, it wasn't necessary for the pope to commune from the chalice with a straw, it wasn't necessary for bishops to wear capes that were 50 ft in length, it was equally unnecessary for fans with plumes to be waved and shoes don't need special buckles for the sacraments to be valid. Also, 20 minute mumbled masses weren't likely the ideal and people clattering rosary beads on the backs of pews while said mumbling occurred didn't result in people engaged with the prayers that were being offered. Probably this is much of what was meant there.
As for the liturgy itself, was there really something wrong with it? Perhaps the confiteors were repetitive to some, but they never bothered me. Likewise the signs of the cross over the elements. Again, something holy is happening at that moment, it never bothered me. Latin for the fixed parts? I don't see the harm. Note: Some knowledge of Church Slavonic is immensely helpful to create a common thread throughout the Byzantine East. Priest facing the altar/God/liturgical east? To me, what other direction would one face? Vernacular for the readings and changeable parts? Seems reasonable. Fiddlebacks and maniples? Weaponized as a symbol of what's to be eschewed. Choreography? I don't mind it as it controls the exercise of "options", real, or perceived. Where it would turn the mass into a militarized drill, perhaps that was an excess. Such excess, however, occurred away from the altar, so, again, I'm lead to ask was the mass itself the true problem? And then, don't even get me started on chant vs card-store hymnography. We retained our chant tradition, I will never understand why the West didn't do the same.
Mark Thomas,
I'm going to contradict myself here. While your vision is desirable, it might be too little too late. There's part of me that thinks as long as VII remains a reference point in the life of the Roman Church, it will continue to be whatever whomever wants it to be.
Increasingly, and to truly effect the needed course correction, my feeling is that another council will be needed.
I'm not in charge, however, and any future conclave will likely elect more of the same. I'm, therefore, not holding my breath for course corrections.
ByzRus said..."As pope, Benedict matured and as a result, revised his thinking."
Thank you for your response.
ByzRus, do you mean that he had revised his thinking in regard to the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI? If that is the notion, then that does correspond to the unrelenting support that Pope Benedict XVI had granted to the renewed Mass.
As Pope Benedict XVI:
-- He offered said Mass repeatedly.
-- He insisted that the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI would continue as the Latin Church's primary Mass.
-- He declared that the renewed liturgical books ensured that Latin Church's "liturgical edifice...reappears in new splendor in its dignity and harmony."
-- Pope Benedict XVI insisted that the Missal of Pope Saint Paul VI was in line with the TLM/Holy Tradition.
-- Pope Benedict XVI declared: "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."
-- He declared: "Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books."
"The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."
===============================================================
As Cardinal Ratzinger...
-- He identified the Missal of Pope Saint Paul VI as "nothing other than a renewed form of that same missal to which pius x, urban viii, pius v and their predecessors have contributed, right from the church’s earliest history."
-- "Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its content is concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new Eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular."
From Cardinal to Pope, Joseph Ratzinger was unrelenting in his support of the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
ByzRus,
You are correct but you are speaking to a bot whose “mind” is closed like a trap. Very sad
Mark Thomas,
You are obviously impervious to facts. Pope Benedict’s actions as Pope contradicts everything you have stated. Do you enjoy lying? Is your “mind” closed like a trap? Do you think, at all? The Novus Ordo has been a flop, like your arguments
Mark Thomas,
Not quite. Ratzinger ~~> Benedict XVI was unrelenting in the validity of Paul VI's missal. If you read his writings on the sacred liturgy, he notes enchantment as lacking. Indeed both forms are valid, to think otherwise is schismatic. Is one easier on the eyes than the other, to me, without question. Did Ratzinger/Benedict XVI feel improvement was necessary, recovery of patrimony was desirable, that's a big 10-4!
Mark, may I suggest to you that you quote whomever with more context than you do? Most of your citations aren't doctrinal and given this, they are sound bytes/moments in time. Viewpoints mature, change as a result, and outside of doctrine and legal matters, can evolve over time without penalty. In other words, just because Ratzinger offered an opinion 50+ years ago doesn't mean that he absolutely positively must be held to that opinion in later years, or as pope, where the pastoral and legal dynamic is considerably different than that of a young and enthusiastic bishop at a missionary council that did not result in new dogma. Note: the Council, like the mass that became its center piece wasn't the problem, it was the way intentions became perverted that has resulted in wailing and gnashing of teeth since...and rightly so!
Some additional perspective, the Polish National Catholics, a group that split from the Roman Church..I forget exactly when.....1930s maybe and principally over married clergy. If you ever have occasion to watch their masses (I believe they are recognized by the RCC as being valid), they have two forms: Traditional and Contemporary. What stunned me is their "Traditional" form captured elements from the '62 missal in a "NO" sort of way (however Fr. AJM terms that). Their "Contemporary" mass is like your typical NO. Honestly, and validity aside, I think they have both forms properly labeled.
ByzRus said...?Mark Thomas, Not quite. Ratzinger ~~> Benedict XVI was unrelenting in the validity of Paul VI's missal."
Pope Benedict was also unrelenting in his recognition of the tremendous spiritual value and holiness of the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
-- He insisted that the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI would remain as the Latin Church's primary Mass. Unless he were a dreadful Pope, he would not have declared that the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI would serve as the primary Mass of 99.999 percent of Latin Catholics.
Only an horrific Pope would impose a supposed banal, if you will, second-rate (speaking spiritually) Mass upon the Latin Church.
-- He declared that there "is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."
Therefore, in line with the prior Missal, the Missal of Pope Saint Paul VI offers unfathomable spiritual value and grace.
-- Pope Benedict XVI declared that "to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books."
"The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."
Pope Benedict XVI held the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI's "value and holiness" in such high regard that TLM communities were not permitted to excluded the celebration of said Mass.
ByzRus, thank you for your reply.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Let us pretend that Pope Benedict XVI was, if you will, not "on board" completely with the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
Pope Saint Paul VI was on board completely with the Mass that he had promulgated. That applies as well to Popes Blessed John Paul I, and Saint John Paul II.
Pope Francis is on board completely with the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI. Pope Francis has been unrelenting in support of said Mass.
Pope Benedict XVI, in 2007 A.D, declared that the Holy Mass of Pope Paul VI would remain as the Latin Church's primary Mass. Pope Benedict XVI was correct about that.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Good point MT. All the previous popes to include John XXIII for 1,500 years accepted the Order of the Mass in Greek, Latin and Hebrew. Pope JPII to a certain extent restored the acceptance of the historical liturgical patrimony of the Church and Benedict widely expanded it in hopes of a second reformed Vatican II Missal that was more in continuity with the liturgical traditions used at Vatican II in 1962. Pope Francis has rejected JPII AND Benedict’s acceptance of John XXIII and all previous popes to him in their liturgical traditions.
Father McDonald said..."Good point MT."
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Pope Benedict XVI: "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."
The continuity of the Roman Liturgy is beautiful to contemplate.
As then-Cardinal Ratzinger noted:
The Missal of Pope Saint Paul VI is "nothing other than a renewed form of that same missal to which pius x, urban viii, pius v and their predecessors have contributed, right from the church’s earliest history."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The following contradicts the claim that Pope Benedict XVI had viewed as banal, and dreadful, Pope Saint Paul VI's renewed Missal:
Pope Benedict XVI declared:
"The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives.
"This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal."
===============================================================
The renewed Roman Missal possesses "spiritual richness and.. theological depth," according to Pope Benedict XVI. As he had made clear:
It is the simple matter of a parish following "the liturgical directives" to, in turn, reap the benefits of the "spiritual richness and.. theological depth" that is contained within the Missal of Pope Saint Paul VI.
It is easy to understand as to why Pope Benedict XVI was determined to move the Latin Church forward with the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI as Her primary Mass.
Far from the claim that he had viewed the reformed Roman Liturgy as banal, dreadful, Pope Benedict XVI declared his support for a Missal that he had insisted was blessed with "spiritual richness and.. theological depth."
Pope Benedict XVI insisted that the Missal of Pope Saint Paul VI would "unite parish communities and be loved by them."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment