Ed Condon who use to work for the Catholic News Agency owned by EWTN, now has his own religious news source called “The Pillar.” It is excellent and I love Condon’s way of writing and reporting.
This is what he has to say about the Holy Father’s pick for the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship:
The nomination was met with a chorus of takes suggesting, variously, that Roche, 71, is about to usher in a new era of progressive liturgical reform, or that he is clearly a place-holder, destined to serve a single term before the newly named secretary of the congregation, Bishop Viola, takes over and, well, ushers in a new era of progressive liturgical reform.
As you can imagine, I think both of those takes are likely just wishcasting by the people making them. I also think that suggesting an 84-year-old pope is choosing department heads with an eye to what he’ll do when he’s 89 is just plain cracked.
My comments:
I have always appreciated the liturgy, in whatever form, as the means to worship God, thank Him for the gift of salvation and the means by which He brings that about and to receive our Lord in Holy Communion and in that order.
I am a child of the cusp having been formed liturgically by the pre-Vatican II Mass, mostly its Sunday Low Form and then by the transitional liturgies between 1966 to 1969 which greatly excited me and then the craziness of the post-conciliar period and the wide diversity of how the ordinary form was celebrated. I’ve lived through and implement Summorum Pontificum and prayed that its celebration would bring more reverence to the Ordinary Form, reverence lost in the transition and implementation of the 1970 missal, especially the lost of awe and wonder, casualness replacing respect and reverence.
But something shifted in me that I did not really reflect upon until rather recently. Prior the the shift, which caught my attention and I liked initially, is that my interest shifted from praising God and adoring Him in the Eucharist and receiving Him, to the manner in which the Mass was changing. And what intrigued me was that the Church wanted to simplify and shorten the Mass. I was fascinated when I heard and saw the first lector proclaim the readings at Mass and I believe the EF lectionary used for that.
What I did not like when lay participation became the catchword was the sloppiness that accompanied those selected to read. They could not read well publicly. And I wondered about their commitment to the Church and what their lives were like apart from the Mass—were they holier than me or was I holier than thou?
As lay ministries expanded to extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers and hoards of them, not well formed or trained and all wearing lay clothes subject to their tastes and changing style, I became concerned. Modesty in dress became an issue and just bad taste scandalously in poor taste.
But there you have, all shifted from God to people and what was done well or poorly. Don’t get me started on the first “folk group” I heard in my parish seated next to the altar and on bar stools with guitar and tambourine. That was just plain horrible and they tried to teach us why this was what Vatican II wanted. If I heard that term one more time, what Vatican II wanted, I thought I would scream.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again, I love the vernacular but appreciate the Latin. I love both forms of the Mass and the type of spirituality that accompanies either. But what I want to see in our Liturgies, no matter the form, is reverent celebrations of it without casualness or banality.
I don’t mind lay lector’s. Train them well, dress them properly and make sure they are Catholics in good standing. The same with Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. I don’t hate Communion under both kinds but the Common Chalice is not the way to go except for exceptional circumstance.
I don’t mind more modern idioms of liturgical music and different forms of accompaniment, just make sure it is quality (and this is where I think the bishops have let us down in not demanding that new liturgical music and settings have an imprimatur of some kind, especially concerning the theology and doctrine of words, but also style of music). There should be a National Hymnal for the vernaculars to keep things on track.
But our worship of God is meant to make us disciples in the world by the manner in which we live our lives not how good we talk about it or complain about this, that or the other.
25 comments:
"They could not read well publicly. And I wondered about their commitment to the Church and what their lives were like apart from the Mass..."
A person reads poorly and you question the holiness of his or her life? Mispronunciation means what, adulterer? Failing to read a question as a question indicates a tax cheat?
Don't get me wrong - a lector should be trained to read well. But is it fair to conclude from poor public reading that a person's life "apart from the Mass" is somehow questionable?
"Modesty in dress became an issue and just bad taste scandalously in poor taste." This semi-sentence, if it is that, seems to make you the taste-maker. Do you get final approval of the height of the heels a woman can wear to read, or do you ban paisley patterns on men's socks and ties. Is cashmere acceptable, or is worsted fabric required?
What strikes me as scandalous is the notion that the priest - have you LOOKED at how some priests present themselves, looking like they rolled out of bed and put on whatever was on the top of the hamper load? - should be the taste-maker.
We aren't conformed to Christ by being made to follow rules on what we wear.
Anonymous at 7.56pm,
I will not label you a troll; not yet anyway.
But I’d like to say: while I disagree with the point I think you are trying to make - it is refreshing to read comments, that are critical of Fr M (who I greatly respect) that are at least intelligent and interesting comments...
No, I don't think Father is questioning the holiness of a lector who reads poorly. I think he is questioning the prudence of letting people with limited reading skills (dare I say, LITERACY) read at the most important event of our week.
The whole "do you get to be the arbiter of taste" (or "who are you to judge") canard is just a leftover flavor of 60's rebellion. Most semi-educated citizens of western civilization know the difference between modesty and immodesty.
Quite right though, you are not conformed to Christ by being made to follow rules on(sic) what to wear. Those rules, however, reflect a Church that seeks to guide its flock to considering more deeply just what they are in the presence of at Mass. And for that, I commend the good Father.
Out - "And I wondered about their commitment to the Church and what their lives were like apart from the Mass—were they holier than me or was I holier than thou?"
What, if not the holiness of the lector, is meant by their "commitment to the church" and "holier than thou"?
Modesty? Try again. The Blog Owner's words: "Modesty in dress became an issue and just bad taste scandalously in poor taste" POOR TASTE is now supposed to be "immodest"? Who decides what is poor taste?
You commend good father for wanting to impose his taste?
Oh, it's YOU again--you revealed yourself with your "Blog Owner" jargon. That explains your combative tone and utter lack of interest in reaching any kind of understanding with anyone here. I smell troll.
So I'll get to the point.
Immodesty IS in poor taste--always. So what of it? Obviously you don't think so or else you simply want to take some sort of puerile contrarian stance here. Nice try.
You're not changing any minds here, so why don't you go troll some other venue? We and "The Blog Owner" aren't interested in arguing for the sake of arguing.
What's "immodest?" Open toed shoes? The slightest hint of cleavage? A dress showing an ankle,the top of a kneecap, an inch above that, a skirt that shows the shape of a woman's derriere?
What do you suggest to avoid immodest? Wrapping the woman in a sheet?
Note the these apply only to women. Are we to make rules for how much hair may be visible on a man's chest, or do we require a tie for "modesty?" Can there be any evidence of a man's endowment? Maybe a liturgical cup could be introduced to provide "modesty."
I don't think I modesty is ever appropriate. What gives me pause 8s what YOU, the Blog Owner, and others of your ilk wand to brand as "immodest" as a way to manipulate and control how others choose to live their lives.
Oh, and I would suggest you are the one with puerile interests since the problem with what YOU find overly revealing seems to be the issue.
An alb covers a multitude of sins and is fully within our liturgical tradition as a lay baptismal garment.
There was an issue some years ago at Nottingham cathedral as to whether a non-Catholic and possibly non-Christian choral scholar should cantor the Responsorial Psalm. An instituted Lector would have to fulfil certain requirements as to his (or her) personal life, but most lay readers are not Lectors.
There are two lay readers who stick in my memory. One was a middle-aged woman who paused for five seconds after each sentence. It was excruciating. The other was a middle-aged man, a stalwart of the parish, who declaimed everything in an exaggerated ham acting style - think Larry Olivier on speed. It was embarrassing to all concerned.
What's the point of lay readers anyway? It hardly involves the congregation that one person gets up and reads and everyone else listens.
Reading well is not a sign of holiness but trying to read well is. There was a lay reader in a Dayton parish who must have been a theater coach or something similar. She would exaggerate her presentation as if it was play and demanded that all of the other readers did so, as well. Meanwhile other readers obviously didn’t practice beforehand and would stumble and lose their place, etc. There is a sort of privacy with the EMHC debacle, but the lay readers are highlighted and amplified.
https://returntotradition.org/youtube/
Nice video on topics of Vulgarity and Catholic Morality from G.K. Chesterton, a highly overlooked and underrated writer who was also a Catholic. Applies here a bit.
John Nolan,
You make an excellent observation as to what is the point of a lay reader anyway? A majority of the lay readers in parishes to which I belonged would have done a greater service by remaining in the pews!
For those who don't have a clue as far as modesty,if you Google (or use DuckDuckGo "modesty in clothing" quite a number of retail establishments come up with examples
of what they sell. So what constitutes modesty in clothing is out there for all to see. It's not hard. And these are not religious denomination affiliated establishments either.
Hey Father, I guess you better not make the old "holier than thou" joke any more. Some readers have no sense of humor. What a lousy age we live in!
Why is there a priest in purple vestments in the ?mirror of a sideboard or kitchen hatch?
...or is that ?mirror actually a TV screen and they are live-streaming mass so it looks like the priest is behind a sideboard altar?
First note: Googling images for "modesty in clothing," the first that comes up is of three women in hijabs with ankle length abayas (kaftan). Seems to be the kind of control/manipulation desired by some males here...
Second note: On the images screen for "modesty in clothing," I have to scroll to the 49th image before a male appears. It is a little boy in a one piece suit in a post card of a beach in 1905.
Modesty, it seems, is of concern only as far as the female body is concerned.
No, "what constitutes modesty" is NOT out there for all to see. You have your ideas, I have mine, others have theirs.
It's pretty obvious that Misery Troll doesn't like being told what to do.
If there's anything we need to understand in the 21st century, it's that the female body IS the main trigger of immoral ideas in men. Note that I said, "trigger", not "cause". It is our minds that choose to pull that trigger, but when we see that trigger and the degree of attractiveness that the trigger holds varies for us all. Men get sexually stimulated VISUALLY. I wish it were not so, but that's the way it is. It is quite common for foolish teenage girls to resent that fact and rebel with "It's THEIR problem...I can wear whatever I want!" And they frequently do. And I'll get back to that in a moment.
It's also quite hip and trendy to equate calls for modest dress with some sort of "Muslim extremist" aesthetic. Again, certainly worthy of low-information Catholics and hormonally-driven teens. But modesty has a much deeper pedigree than Islam and the media's manipulation of such images.
In 1917, the Blessed Mother told Lucia dos Santos that styles would be introduced that would be offensive to her. Today's young ladies scoff at such a notion, but there it is. The Blessed Lady also said that MORE SOULS END UP IN HELL FOR UNREPENTANT SINS OF THE FLESH than for any other reason. That should give us all pause.
I really doubt that Fr. McDonald or anyone else here wants to "control" anybody. I certainly don't. What we would like to see is more people controlling themselves. I wish that it was as simple as saying, "If someone's way of dressing offends you don't look!" But that's completely unrealistic. If someone's way of dress tempts me (and "tempt" is more relevant than "offend"--whether it tempts me to look at pornography or go to a prostitute or simply sin with impure thoughts) I cannot "unsee" what I have already glanced at. A responsible woman knows that and controls herself.
Sadly, we live in a world where many (too many) women need to be reminded of that. It's not about control--it's the good faith effort to get the faithful to control themselves.
I'm sorry nature doesn't conform to a more easygoing way, but that's just what it is.
"Cause" or "trigger," you place the blame and responsibility for how men act on the woman. That is tragic.
Yes, a woman can wear whatever she wants. How a man reacts is 0% her responsibility and 100% the man's.
A man's response to what he sees is 100% his responsibility. That's just what it is.
"If only that woman had not been dressed suggestively..."
"If only that black man had not looked at my white wife that way..."
"If only the homeowner had not left the front door unlocked..."
The oldest excuse for behaving badly is the attempt to shift blame where it does not belong. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent.
No, said God, YOU bear the responsibility and the consequences of your actions.
People like Anonymous K, as a Democrat, wants to control everyone other than a 12 year old girl demanding an abortion
Misery Troll:
Predictably, you've missed a good deal about what I posted yesterday. I never placed all the blame and responsibility for a man's impure thoughts upon women--that is simply. your misguided interpretation. When it comes to sins of a sexual nature, very often the culpability is shared. The Church teaches that there are nine ways in which we can cause others to sin:
1. By counsel (“You should steal from him.”)
2. By command (“You have to steal from him.”)
3. By consent (“You're going to steal something? Great idea!”)
4. By provocation (“I bet you can't steal that!”)
5. By praise or flattery (“That was so cool the way you stole that!”)
6. By concealment (“Don't worry…I won't tell anyone you stole it.”)
7. By partaking (“I'll give you a hand stealing it.”)
8. By silence (“I know you stole it, but I won't tell anyone.”)
9. By defense of the sinful action (“He deserved to have it stolen.”)
If you can explain how a man can "unsee" a provocatively dressed woman after she has walks past him in his line of vision, your theory of "total male culpability" might hold up. But the sad truth is, we are a fallen race, tainted by Original Sin.
It's not your fault that you don't understand this, as most of today's Catholics haven't been taught the basics of the faith. Since so few believe in the Real Presence or understand the need to be in a state of grace to receive Communion, it's hardly surprising that there are so many out there taking other defiant positions against common-sense guidelines to prevent us from falling. May God bless you and open your eyes.
Blaming each other is also part of that sin, but there is often enough blame to be shared, nonetheless. Ultimately God is the judge. I, for one, do not wish to face Him on Judgment Day and have to explain why I provoked someone else into committing a serious sin. There will be no explaining at that point.
Anon 7:22 - A woman, because of what she wears, bears ZERO culpability for what a man thinks or does.
The very fact that you say "a provocatively dressed woman" indicates that you DO say she shares in the blame if the man chooses to act inappropriately, that SHE is the one to blame if she is assaulted to raped, that SHE is the one to blame if the man cheats on his wife. You must think that men are brutes, that we have no agency, no self-control. That is rot.
What is "provocatively dressed?" Open toed shoes? A skirt an inch, two inches, three inches above the knee? Sleeves that don't cover the elbow - lots of guys are turned on by elbows you know. What is "provocative?"
Yes, we are a fallen race, but I stand with the text of the Exsultet - "O truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ! O happy fault that earned so great, so glorious a Redeemer!" The man is question has the capacity, enabled by grace, to choose to turn away from whatever in HIS disordered desires attracts him to sin - a women, a bottle of booze, a pile of cash, etc.
And in ALL of this, note again the totally one-sided nature of the discussion - the WOMAN must dress modestly, the WOMAN must not lead a man to sin, the WOMAN must be the responsible one.
I will stand before my judge and be able to say, I hope, that I blame no one for my sin but myself, rather than trying to excuse or diminish my culpability by saying "Someone else share the blame."
Well, I am glad that you are better than the rest of us and can so confidently overcome all temptations--which of course only YOU are responsible for, since none of us share in any blame or culpability. I guess I can only say that I envy you.
Far be it for me to contradict the Exsultet, nor disagree that we are enabled by grace to turn from our disordered desires.
HOWEVER, your own words admit that we indeed DO have disordered desires and there is an ongoing struggle against those desires day after day.
Many years ago, I read The Little Flowers of St. Francis. I got a lot of different things from that beautiful book, but one thing that really struck me was how so many of Francis' earliest followers and companions, men who had completely forsaken the world, lived in constant apprehension of offending God and feared for the destiny of their souls.
The very idea that we need not fear falling into sin or that we are blameless for the sins of others whom we have influenced is a very Protestant way of looking at salvation, i.e., "I gawt saved! Jeeesus hay-az redeemed me and I need not fear!" If only it were that simple. You are right that God gives us the grace to resist our temptations. But you err in presuming that you will always do so. The greatest of our saints all warned us that, up until our last breath, even with the best intentions, we CAN indeed fall.
I guess I will have to disagree with you. I'm far more willing to trust the testimony and warnings of the saints than I am to trust contemporary moral standards (or lack thereof).
If what we've heard is true, when we stand for our Particular Judgment, we won't be saying anything. The truth of our lives will be in our face and there will be no denying or affirming it. A day we should all fear.
Your assumption that I overcome all temptations is wrong. When I giev into a temptation, I don't, then, try to make some others culpable by saying "Well, it's the way she dressed that tempted me, she should have been more modest!" or "Well, it's the way that bank keeps all that cash, they should not have tempted me!" or whatever.
Yes, we have disordered desires, but should I give in to them, I don't try to pass responsibility, in whole or in part, off onto someone else because of how they dressed, or how loud they played their music at 2 a.m., or whatever.
"The very idea that we need not fear falling into sin..." That's YOUR idea, not mine.
The very idea . . . that we are blameless for the sins of others whom we have influenced..." is also YOUR idea, not mine.
"You are right that God gives us the grace to resist our temptations. But you err in presuming that you will always do so." I presume no sucyh thing - I have, in fact, stated that we can and do give into temptations.
And, again, in terms of a woman being modest, how high above the knee is allowed before the Temptress is to be run out of thge Temple? Must sleeves reach to the elbows before the Brazen Hussey is called out and condemned in public? Can the Jezebel wear lipstick, eye shadow, high heels, or are these to be banned as immodest?
We don't know the specifics of the particular judgment, whether we can speak or not.
I suspect that in that instant, we recognize that, had we allowed grace to govern our lives, we could have lived a much holier, much more Christ-like existence.
If that recognition is not painful enough, we will be doing so in the presence of Perfection, the person of Jesus Christ. The pain or recognizing what might have been coupled with the pain of displeasing God is, as I think about it, Purgatory.
In that instant we suffer the cleansing power of Christ that is given through His cross and Resurrection.
Post a Comment