ELEVEN YEARS AFTER THE NEW MASS WAS PROMULGATED, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION OF IT ON A NATIONAL PBS TELEVISION SHOW
Back to the future:
I was ordained in 1980!
8 comments:
Victor
said...
Mr Buckley made an important comment in a response to Malachi Martin that puts into question the entire liturgical so called "reform". He pointed out that whereas the new Mass is communitarian, the old Mass with its Latin gives one a sense of privacy in the Mystery of the Mass. It seems to me that a "community" is really a fake idea for worship when that community is a local community as has been understood since the Council. A community is always composed of individuals each one of which has different needs, value spheres, and personal likes and dislikes. There is never a homogeneous local community where that pleases everyone, as we have seen again and again with the disputes over music. We see this fake idea in action today, where every Catholic church is liturgically different, where people end up shopping for a "good liturgy", what satisfies them if they are persistent (or just drop out if they are not satisfied). The old Mass by its nature is communitarian in a universal sense, gathering people together from everywhere for the Sacrifice offered to God, something that, as pointed out, the new Mass avoids complete mention of to please the Protestants (eg replaced offertory prayers). The old Mass caters to everyone on earth, because internally it leaves room for each individual to reach a closeness to God in his own way for a true participation in God, a divinisation, (rather than a participation in the Mass as fabricated by the liturgical "experts" who were treated as omniscient in these matters,) and externally speaks to all humanity in general with its non-verbal language of symbols, and use of sacred languages. The new Mass is noisy because it caters to the local community, allowing little for individual active participation, and thereby becoming an idol for worship rather than an occasion for individual sanctification through individual private participation in the Mysteries. It is the individual that is saved, not the local community. (I should add that, like the communes of the hippies, the idea of "community" is very 60's and 70's- what an outdated Mass the Novus Ordo is....)
In one important respect this is very dated. You don't get serious television like this any more.
The arguments, however, are just as relevant now as they were in 1980. Fr Champlin, who had a long career as a progressive liturgist and whose influence is still felt in US parishes nine years after his death, was no match for Michael Davies.
If you read an article entitled "Msgr. Joseph M. Champlin as Liturgist" by James Likoudis (it can be found online), it can be seen that many of the "progressive" changes brought into the liturgy after the introduction of the Novus Ordo were championed by Msgr. Champlin in his writings such as "Breaking Bread." He was a big advocate for Communion in the Hand, "Eucharistic Ministers" and did not favor intinction. Maybe many bishops are still influenced by his thinking?
Fr Kavanaugh is certainly influenced by his thinking. Listening to Champlin trying (and signally failing) to rebut Davies's arguments reminded me of the good father trying (and signally failing) to rebut mine. And I have nothing like Davies's erudition.
Absolutely fascinating, particularly when viewed in the context of now versus then. Malchi Martin and Michael Davies absolutely destroy Monsignor Champlin. The Monsignor reminds me of how liberals argue their points today: Condescending emotionally based arguments that attempt to plow through fact.
Mons. Champlin comes across as either uninformed or deliberately evasive at times. I also felt very suspicious as he spoke, perhaps subconsciously detecting deception. His entire manner suggested, not Catholic thinking but a sort of new age hodgepodge.
8 comments:
Mr Buckley made an important comment in a response to Malachi Martin that puts into question the entire liturgical so called "reform". He pointed out that whereas the new Mass is communitarian, the old Mass with its Latin gives one a sense of privacy in the Mystery of the Mass.
It seems to me that a "community" is really a fake idea for worship when that community is a local community as has been understood since the Council. A community is always composed of individuals each one of which has different needs, value spheres, and personal likes and dislikes. There is never a homogeneous local community where that pleases everyone, as we have seen again and again with the disputes over music. We see this fake idea in action today, where every Catholic church is liturgically different, where people end up shopping for a "good liturgy", what satisfies them if they are persistent (or just drop out if they are not satisfied).
The old Mass by its nature is communitarian in a universal sense, gathering people together from everywhere for the Sacrifice offered to God, something that, as pointed out, the new Mass avoids complete mention of to please the Protestants (eg replaced offertory prayers). The old Mass caters to everyone on earth, because internally it leaves room for each individual to reach a closeness to God in his own way for a true participation in God, a divinisation, (rather than a participation in the Mass as fabricated by the liturgical "experts" who were treated as omniscient in these matters,) and externally speaks to all humanity in general with its non-verbal language of symbols, and use of sacred languages. The new Mass is noisy because it caters to the local community, allowing little for individual active participation, and thereby becoming an idol for worship rather than an occasion for individual sanctification through individual private participation in the Mysteries. It is the individual that is saved, not the local community.
(I should add that, like the communes of the hippies, the idea of "community" is very 60's and 70's- what an outdated Mass the Novus Ordo is....)
In one important respect this is very dated. You don't get serious television like this any more.
The arguments, however, are just as relevant now as they were in 1980. Fr Champlin, who had a long career as a progressive liturgist and whose influence is still felt in US parishes nine years after his death, was no match for Michael Davies.
I especially loved Bill Buckley's comment that attending the New Mass is a bit of an "aesthetic ordeal"!
If you read an article entitled "Msgr. Joseph M. Champlin as Liturgist" by James Likoudis (it can be found online), it can be seen that many of the "progressive" changes brought into the liturgy after the introduction of the Novus Ordo were championed by Msgr. Champlin in his writings such as "Breaking Bread." He was a big advocate for Communion in the Hand, "Eucharistic Ministers" and did not favor intinction. Maybe many bishops are still influenced by his thinking?
Joseph Johnson
Fr Kavanaugh is certainly influenced by his thinking. Listening to Champlin trying (and signally failing) to rebut Davies's arguments reminded me of the good father trying (and signally failing) to rebut mine. And I have nothing like Davies's erudition.
Absolutely fascinating, particularly when viewed in the context of now versus then. Malchi Martin and Michael Davies absolutely destroy Monsignor Champlin. The Monsignor reminds me of how liberals argue their points today: Condescending emotionally based arguments that attempt to plow through fact.
Victor, that is a very fine post. Thank you.
Mons. Champlin comes across as either uninformed or deliberately evasive at times. I also felt very suspicious as he spoke, perhaps subconsciously detecting deception. His entire manner suggested, not Catholic thinking but a sort of new age hodgepodge.
Post a Comment