I think people have always had their personal preferences about the Mass. I am old enough to remember the ethos of the pre-Vatican II Church, my father brought us normally to the early Low Mass on Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation. He like getting his obligation over with and so did I. Going to Mass was about fulfilling an obligation.
Often the homily was boring or over our heads or not practical.
Many people, though liked a sung Mass. I think few people that I knew ever went to a Solemn Sung Mass with deacon and subdeacon. More than likely they liked the brevity of a low Mass or High Mass.
Today, what people like (in terms of the OF Mass) is as varied but a bit different.
There are few places which offer a quiet Sunday Mass in the Ordinary Form where all is spoken with maybe a few hymns. They tell me they have to endure their parts being sung along with hymns. Some like the singing others don't.
And everyone has their likes and dislikes as it concerns music and style of instrumentation. For funerals everyone still wants these old standbys for the Ordinary Form: Eagle's Wings, Be Not Afraid, Here I am Lord, Amazing Grace and How Great Thou Art.
People like the vernacular but hate hybrid Masses of various vernaculars. In this neck of the woods, a mix of English and Spanish gets annoying, especially with the readings and music.
I think, for the most part, we have lost the crowd, and a sizable crowd it was, that came to Mass to honor the Sunday obligation. They may now account for the nones or those who come once or twice a year.
Funerals Masses are becoming obsolete as are Nuptial Masses and Baptisms for this crowd too.
Thus we have the post-Vatican II Church in the Post Modern World.
What to do? What to do? Oh, what are we to do?
24 comments:
I think your banner speaks volumes. Reorient and re-enchant. Had you not, Fr AJM, reoriented your chapel, I likely wouldn't care about much if anything taking place there. It would just be another traditional looking space with a low, unadorned table in its sanctuary. Our Lord must find that type of blandness to be "meh". When churches are really, really ugly, I honestly feel bad for Our Lord - I get to leave, he doesn't! But, when I look at photos of your chapel, ordered as it is, I think, everything's going to be ok. It's just comforting to look at. A welcoming dose of stability in an otherwise unstable world. And, wasn't that Benedict XVI's focus? I've not seen that much excitement about liturgy before or since his papacy.
Most of those who have left, like you said, will either become C/E Catholics, or nones.
Keep homilies to 5-7 minutes absent being one of those rare persons who can capture an assembly's attention and hold it. If a given priest isn't, don't try. BTW, that's ok. Not everyone is a natural speaker. Some priests who are very basic in terms of their homiletics have a highly developed ars celebrandi and exude joy providing elevated liturgy. On the flip side, some who are excellent, highly developed homilists are tedious, almost annoying to watch leading the liturgy. Know what you are good at, capitalize on it and use people's time wisely. It seems that many, my self included, are stretched so thin anymore.
The Church wasn't founded in 1969, however, you would think it was given the near exclusive usage of music from that era. With so many being paraliturgical, it would seem that their appropriateness for inclusion during the celebration of mass is questionable. What happened to propers???
Ignore “liturgists” the authors of the destruction of the Roman Rite
In 1950s England the principal Sunday Mass would usually have been a Missa Cantata with lights and incense (the latter allowed under indult and extended to the whole Church in 1960). Solemn Mass could be found in cathedrals, monasteries and larger parish churches, but your average parish had only a priest and a curate, and a Solemn Mass requires three clergy. The Missa Cantata is not noticeably shorter than the Missa Solemnis and is harder on the celebrant in that he has to sing the Epistle and Gospel himself. Of course, he would have learnt to sing both in seminary as a transitional subdeacon and deacon.
Maybe it's my slightly-before-the-debacle Catholic training that informs me, but in my mind, the Mass isn't about what I like or anyone else. When I've been able to attend daily Mass, my focus wasn't much about how good the music was (fortunately, there almost never was any music) or how much I liked this or that priest. The focus was (and remains) on the action on the altar and the satisfaction I take away knowing I have received indescribable graces from God. It isn't about me or my preferences or how much I enjoy it. However, it CAN be argued that a preference for a more reverent (including the EF) liturgy is more about disposing oneself for the sacraments rather than mere "preferences". The Church has only conformed Herself to the world by adopting this "customer service" mentality. The Church's "customers" need to be darned grateful they get any service at all. God owes us nothing. The obligation (Oh, how burdensome!) exists because the justice of God demands that we worship Him in the Mass.
If we can't grasp that--then what's the point?
Tom Marcus,
A lot of wisdom in your remarks. Thanks for sharing. Customizing the Mass through "liturgy committees," a pernicious development, has brought us to where we are today: fairly empty churches. Liturgy committees: amateurs, teaching amateurs, how to be amateurs.
The notion of obligation was maintained by my parents' generation (after all, they had lived through the Second World War). Those of us whose formative years were the 1960s saw obligation downgraded and choice exalted. 'Do your own thing' was the mantra.
My late father disliked the new Mass and his parish was far from traditional, but he still attended week in, week out, until his death. I once asked him how he put up with it: his reply was 'it's an obligation'.
I would argue that obligation works both ways. If I am obliged to attend Mass then the Church is obliged to provide something worth attending (and I mean a liturgy worthy of its true purpose). I do not go to Mass in order to mortify the flesh. If this entails going out of my way to avoid poor ars celebrandi and even worse music, then so be it. Should this be impossible, then I am content to stay at home. Fortunately, it has not yet come to that, and the liturgical landscape is improving, albeit slowly.
Liturgical choices have been forced on us. The Novus Ordo is the embodiment of choice - Latin or the vernacular or both, formal and objective or informal and subjective. The priest can on the spur of the moment even decide which 'Eucharistic Prayer' to use; the venerable Roman Canon can be replaced by something banged out on a 1960s typewriter by Fr Cipriano Vaggagini (EP III), or devised by Frs Bouyer and Botte over a bottle of Chianti in a Roman trattoria (EP II).
My father could 'rise above it' but he was a better man than I am.
This is useful, although liturgists and clerics and their camp-followers of a certain persuasion will find it very irritating. There is a lot of "memory-holing" going on these days, claiming that the accounts of how bad things got are exaggerated; that, for example, it's simply not true that Eucharistic adoration was discouraged. So this helps keep the factual record clear, and also helps explain to people where some of the problems came from. Remember, lots of clergy and laity naturally reposed trust in various experts, and followed their lead, and however foolish that may have been in retrospect, it was not malicious on the part of those who were trusting.
Here's good news...
At least in the context of my diocese, and in relation to our diocesan seminary, many of us priests who have first-hand experience of abuses and their justifications, particularly in our experience of the seminary, have begun to realize in recent years that we don't really need to lay it on too thick with the new men. First, we don't have to inoculate them against theological viruses that no longer circulate in our seminary. Second, we don't have to bind up wounds from abuses that growing numbers of them have not experienced. Don't get me wrong: I am not claiming our seminarians haven't experienced abuses in liturgy. What I am saying is that so much of the terrible stuff that happened routinely not so many years ago have been cleaned up. However much some of us priests love to share our "war stories," there is a point at which a younger generation just rolls its collective eyes, and that's normal.
By the way, this might be a good time to point out the actual, ancient history of "liturgy commissions." Do you know when the very first one was instituted?
You can read all about it in Exodus, beginning in the first verse of the 32nd chapter:
When the people saw that Moses was delayed in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said to him, “Come, make us a god who will go before us; as for that man Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.”
“Come, make us a god who will go before us; as for that man Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.”
Cute, but that's not a liturgy committee, it's an apostasy committee.
Anonymous at 11:28,
Many of us have experienced apostasy emanating from liturgy committees
Anon 12:04 - Nah, you've not experienced apostasy. Maybe you don't like some of the music or the seasonal decor, but, apostasy, really? A nice display of fall vegetables in a basket in front of the pulpit or "On Eagle's Wing" sung at a funeral sin't apostasy, ya know...
I “served” on a Liturgy committee in the late 80s because my pastor appointed me. He was much-loved by the whole parish and not one to be refused. My only qualification was singing in the choir, but I was honored and thought maybe it was a chance to have input on some important things that were occurring. And, gee, wasn’t I being a true tither of time and talent to serve in this capacity?! It didn’t take long for me to realize that all the pastor really wanted was for us to devise the weekly “Prayers of the Faithful” segment in order to prove that he was involving laity in his ever-progressive liturgies, and to rubber-stamp the “Glory And Praise” weekly selections, the new hymnal of his choice. No other input was desired, and was actively “Tabled for further discussion”, but predictably did not occur. That pastor left to become Vicar General of our diocese. Four years into that appointment, he left the priesthood to marry his pregnant girlfriend. He took a position with a prestigious University and presumably is living happily ever after. The parish has not.
Anon at 2:54,
Actually they pushed things that were manifestly wrong and undermined the theology of the Mass. Fortunately the pastor vetoed their crazier and non Catholic suggestions. It had nothing to do with music. One suggestion was for lay people to recite the consecration formula with the priest. That was a bridge to far for the pastor. They said it would be “meaningful?” Remember that trite overused word?
Anon 4:05 - And inviting the people to recite the consecration formula is "apostasy?" How so?
Anonymous at 7:24
Because only the ordained priest serves in persona Christi, not the unordained laity. Thanks for outing yourself
Anon 7:24 - We're still nowhere near "apostasy."
People can recite the eucharistic prayers quietly, praying along as the priest prays out loud. Are they apostates? Is the priest who allows them to do so an apostate?
It is certainly silly and inappropriate for the priest to encourage the congregation to do so, but it hardly approaches the level of denial of the faith.
For what it's worth, I intended to post my two comments to the Adoremus thread. Sorry about that!
Anonymous at 6:41 AM,
It undermines the sanctity and belief in the priesthood and smacks of the "priesthood of all believers." It is apostasy and far different than quietly following the text in the missal. But keep beating your 1960s tambourine if that gets you through the night.
"The priesthood of all believers" is a completely Catholic doctrine.
CCC 1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father." 20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."
This act does not meet the criteria for apostasy which is, "The complete abandonment of the Christian religion and not merely a denial of some article of the creed."
Anonymous K,
No layman has the authority to stand on the altar and recite the words of consecration with the priest. If you do not believe that is apostasy, then arrange it for the Mass you celebrate next Sunday and we will notify your bishop so he can be there to witness your apostasy. Then enjoy your new role as a barista at Starbucks
Anon 7:41 - It's not a matter of "believing" that the action was apostasy any more than it is a matter of "believing" that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen.
The act, while silly, does not constitute "The complete abandonment of the Christian religion and not merely a denial of some article of the creed."
It's just that simple. But, because like the blog Owner, you like to turn molehills into mountains or, appropriately in these parts, firecrackers into BOMBSHELLS, you will continue in your oblivion.
Oh, and do a little study into the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. You'll be surprised at how wrong you are.
Cheers!
There is a tendency on this blog to resort to hyperbole and use terms which have a specific meaning in an indiscriminate fashion. We have been told that mortal sin renders the perpetrator schismatic, which is nonsense on stilts; that liturgical abuse is evidence of apostasy, which it clearly is not; or that criticism or rejection of Vatican II is a 'sin against the Council' (if so I plead guilty, m'lud).
Then we have Mark Thomas who believes all popes are 'great and holy' and oracles of God. Some of them possibly believed they were, but that doesn't prove anything. The same commentator is fond of telling us that the Catholic Church is booming 'throughout Asia' which is ludicrous.
Blog comments are essentially opinion pieces which can be challenged on points of fact or rebutted by alternative interpretations. Anonymous @ 10:35 is quite correct in his definition of apostasy, but to state that the priesthood of all believers is 'a completely Catholic doctrine' is misleading since it was used by Martin Luther to deny the sacramental priesthood. It is indeed part of Catholic doctrine but requires qualification, and the use of the adverb 'completely' is indicative of the dangers of over-using hyperbole.
There is nothing misleading in saying that the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is Catholic doctrine.
Whether you call it the priesthood of all believers, the common priesthood, the universal priesthood - all the baptized share in it equally.
The Baptism ritual: "He now anoints you with the Chrism of salvation, so that you may remain as a member of Christ, Priest, Prophet, and King, unto eternal life."
The doctrine is completely, 100% Catholic belief. Saying so does not negate or diminish the equal importance of the ministerial priesthood.
Anonymous K,
John Nolan eviscerated your intellectually dishonest take but what we have come to expect from an Abortion Party member
Post a Comment