Wednesday, March 13, 2024
The Root of the “Liturgical War”: Guest Essay by Mr Kevin Tierney
In the article, somewhat long, that I link above, I found myself disagreeing although not entirely. I am not going to quote the article, so read it first and then you will understand my comments below.
What did not cause the Liturgies wars?
1. I was a teenager very enthralled by what was happening in my parish in Augusta around 1966 or so. We may have been late with some of the new things coming our way, but not that late. My sense of things was that the vast majority of the laity liked the 1964/65 revision of the 1962 Missal that allowed for a great deal of vernacular but maintained Latin for the Roman Canon and many other prayers, usually the quiet prayers of the priest. The Roman Canon remained in a low voice.
2. I think most people did not mind the Mass facing the congregation.
3. I think most people accepted the new Lectionary although the revision of the calendar threw out the baby with the bath water. Removing saints from the calendar made it appear that these people were not saints and never existed. I can remember seeing in a secular newspaper a priest carrying out St. Christopher from his church because he had been removed from the calendar! That annoyed people.
4. Even the 1970 Missal, basically what we have now, but it too experiencing reform in the 2011 Missal, was accepted by most practicing Catholics.
What caused the Liturgies wars?
1. It was the iconoclasm of important devotional elements of Catholics, the peek of which was the stripping and “wreckovation” of entire church buildings, the iconoclasm of beautiful altars and art work and the reorientation of parish churches all of which cannot be found in any official Roman document or in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal
2. I can remember around 1971 or 72 in my parish church walking into the church for Sunday Mass and seeing the old altar pulled away from the wall and stripped of its six majestically tall candlesticks, the tabernacle moved to a side altar underneath our Blessed Mother’s statue and the priest’s chair now moved to the position of the tabernacle behind the free standing altar and higher!
3. Then communion was received standing, kneeling not allowed and altar railings removed. That was not well accepted by the laity quite capable of kneeling.
4. Then Communion Ministers became the norm.
5. Then receiving Holy Communion in the hand which quickly evolved into irreverence in receiving and all of this came about all by 1975 or 1976.
6. Then things started to be sloppy. No altar clothes, beautiful statuary replaced by cheesy banners and clutter galore in the sanctuary to include the choir or folk group and instrumentation and everything else the music ministry needed.
7. Then priests started to improvise the words of prayer, some parts of the Mass to include the Gloria and Agnus Dei not to mention the Sanctus and Creed when sung used different wording from what was in the Roman Missal—similar, dissimilar and different than the official English translation of the Mass. These were improvised.
8. Catering to various language groups in the Church and in particular parishes disunited parishes and Balkanized parishes according to language groups and Latin no longer was the unifying factor of the Mass in terms of language. Everyone wanted/wants their own language and style of worship.
9. Inculturation was never well received except by those who like creating an inculturated Mass.
10. Casualness, banal and pedantic hymns and irreverence reigned and was disdained by most. This has led to the loss of awe, reverence, mysticism and experiencing the liturgy in a non pedantic way.
These last 10 things are more serious than the Roman Missal itself and its reforms.
56 comments:
I think this--"Even the 1970 Missal, basically what we have now, but it too experiencing reform in the 2011 Missal, was accepted by most practicing Catholics[]"--fits with the article, which says that most Catholics accepted, but did not embrace the 1970 missal. That jives with the Synod of Bishops vote in 1967 after seeing a Mass according to the new order, where a minority of the bishops agreed to the new missal/Mass; the rest either rejected them or wanted changes made. (Side note: Cardinal Heenan spoke at synod, warning his compatriots that implementing the new order of Mass would lead to churches of only women and children, with no men; perhaps he was too optimistic.)
It's also interesting to consider that the vast bulk of those directing those changes (i.e., in Rome), in contrast with those carrying out the directions (diocesan bishops, pastors), largely were academics with only the barest, confirmation-biased assumptions of what "the people" needed.
Nick
Because I was properly trained by the Sisters of the Holy Cross, I was not "enthralled" with any of the changes. I could chant 5 Latin Ordinaries by heart by the age of ten and was treated to Gregorian Chant and polyphony rendered beautifully. I was pulled out of the altar boys at age 12 to be a cantor and contributed 40 years of service to the Novus Ordo as a cantor, soloist, choir member and organist. From my perspective it was a flop from the beginning and only began to slightly improve under Pope Benedict when some took the reform of the reform seriously. I still believe and I think the facts on the ground show it, the Novus Ordo, as structured, is the Rite of Disunity and is spiritually impoverished. It, not the TLM, needs to be suppressed or radically changed to mirror the TLM
Mister TJM,
Have you read Dr. K's "The Once and Future Roman Rite"? Holy cow. 😳 I am just stunned at what I am reading. So much jettisoned from the Holy Mass. It is a fantastic book. Very informative.
Catechist Kev,
It's flabbergasting how much the advertised "restoring the pristine Roman Rite" involved rewriting (with little, if any, historical precedent) or discarding outright so many parts of the Mass, much less introducing complete novelties (e.g., the offertory prayers, based on the Talmud, if I remember correctly; the "memorial acclamation").
Oddly enough (and I hope this doesn't bring the hammer down on them, too), the Ordinariate liturgies retain a fair number of the much-maligned "medieval accretions" that had to be binned for the Novus Ordo. Maybe that represents a crack in the indietrist door, a toehold of traditional liturgy in modern vernacular Catholic worship.
Nick
Mister Nick,
It is interesting to see how several of my friends and their spouses are heading toward the TLM. (we're all spread out over many miles) There really wasn't much "sharing of the info" between these families. They just wanted sacral worship and were not finding it at their local NOs. Even many of said friends' children are going to the TLM. It's fun to watch the Holy Ghost at work!
Catechist Kiev,
I did read it and gave it to my 35-year-old pastor who celebrates the TLM. He will be around decades after the geriatric "rebels" are gone. I love the conclusion that the way the "reform" was handled was a sin against the Holy Spirit. By the way, the laity was not consulted, nor were there synods or listening sessions. This was a vanity project for bored and pampered clergy consumed by hubris.
The TLM is, in its human elements, the result of inculturation and the imposition of that culture on others. All liturgies are culturally biased. And this is not necessarily a bad thing.
The architecture, styles of decoration, types of images used, forms of music, language - all of these are products of the culture - southern European - that came to be seen as the "norm" for Catholic worship.
Fr K Orwell,
And abortion is “healthcare.”
TJM - I take it that, by your vote, you are supporting the INTRINSIC evil of adultery?
While the new missal does have its problems, most of the changes to which people object are not required by it, they are merely options. They have, however, become de facto mandates. In requiring these disruptive changes and suppressing the legitimate options in the new missal for a traditional form of the celebration of the Mass, those in charge of the liturgical reform have rejected the actual Mass of Paul VI just as much as any intransigent advocate for the old Mass. Liturgical peace could be restored if the bishops would just publicly acknowledge that a traditional form of the new Mass — Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem worship, etc. — is allowable and is to be made available to the faithful in a broad and generous manner. There is no reason that such a form of the new Mass should not be celebrated as one of the Sunday Masses in every parish.
"Vice President Kamala Harris visited a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota Thursday, marking the first time that a US president or vice president has publicly visited an abortion provider.
After Democrats spent years trying to sidestep this issue for fear of alienating Catholic voters, the Biden administration is now a staunch defender of reproductive rights following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022, which overturned Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion nationwide. The stop in Minnesota marks part of the vice president’s “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” tour." George Orwell call your office!
This author is behind the times. Catholic voters? We even have priests who vote for them!
TJM - And we have Catholic laity who support the INTRINSIC evil of adultery by their votes.
(Not to mention sexual harassment and fraudulent business dealings...)
I was really hoping to get into a battle in the liturgy war, not sit spectator to political mud-slinging...
Nick
Does it take someone with a PhD to point out that, while the sins of adultery and abortion are both grave, mortal sins, adultery does not kill an innocent baby?
This entire "I gotcha!" "Oh yeah? I'll show you" dialogue between two people posting here is an incredibly tiresome bore...almost as tiresome as the resident papal brown-noser.
Jerome - No, it doesn't. It also doesn't take someone with a PhD to point out that the sin of adultery is an INTRINSIC evil.
Father McDonald said..."It was the iconoclasm of important devotional elements of Catholics, the peek of which was the stripping and “wreckovation” of entire church buildings, the iconoclasm of beautiful altars and art work..."
Yes.
The laity, in overwhelming fashion, had welcomed one liturgical reform after another. But over the years, I have encountered among my brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ, widespread disappointment in regard to wreckovation projects.
I know...beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But I have not encountered many Latin Church Catholics who have had any use for wreckovation.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The major problem with the liturgical reform is not with the missal itself but with the mentality that sees the liturgy as chiefly the work of the gathered community rather than that of God presented through the ministry of the priest. Return to a proper understanding of what the liturgy is and the rest will eventually take care of itself.
Amen Anthony!
I have always understood that the celebration of the Eucharist is a dialogue understood in a broad sense. It is more than just an exchange of words. It is an exchange meant to touch us at the deepest levels and is meant to engage the entire person. That would, I think, be the proper understanding.
It is God's action in, for, and through the community, and the community's response in gratitude, praise, and worship of God.
The ministry of the priest, while essential at mass, is not primary. Neither is the full, active, and conscious participation of the community.
What is primary is God's action.
In the older forms of the mass, the dialogue/participation was restricted to the priest. He "represented" the people. Prayers were written by educated men for the educated priest to pray and, one hopes, understand, with little if any regard for engaging the community in that prayer. (Reading along in a missal is not "engaging" in the prayer.)
With a renewed - and better, I would say - understanding of the role of the laity in the Church at large, the liturgy had to be adapted. "While making clear that the doctrinal integrity of the liturgy is to be maintained, the Council purposely and enthusiastically initiated legitimate modifications to the Tridentine liturgy that would enhance and restore the proper participation of the laity." (The Implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly by John Cavadini, Mary Healy, Thomas Weinandy, Church Life Journal, Oct 17, 2022)
Yes, there are elements of the Mass that are a dialogue, but these are of secondary importance to the action of God in presenting the sacrifice of Jesus to the Father. This action is accomplished through the priest, not the congregation. The reform was correct in restoring the proper liturgical role of the laity. However, this has been over emphasized to the neglect of the singular role of the priest in acting in persona Christ in the offering of the sacrifice. One imbalance has been replaced by another.
Anthony - When I talk about dialogue, I am using it to describe the entire mass, not just the spoken parts that are a dialogue between priest and people, such as "The Lord be with you," "And with your spirit." The entire liturgy is dialogical and all parts are essential and of equal importance.
To overemphasize, "...the action of God in presenting the sacrifice of Jesus to the Father. This action is accomplished through the priest, not the congregation" led to the unfortunate regulation of times past that a person had fulfilled his/her obligation to attend mass if he/she had been there from the time the chalice was uncovered to the time the chalice was covered again.
Think what that says about the Word of God proclaimed in the Scripture readings before the chalice is uncovered. Think about what that says about the importance of the laity hearing the Word of God. (I wonder if that the overemphasis on the words/actions of the priest and the deemphasis on the Word of God was not an overreaction to the Protestant Reformation in which the Word of God was held up as the be-all and end-all of true worship. It would seem likely that the emphasis placed on the sacramental priesthood was also a reaction against the Protestant teaching on the Priesthood of All Believers. We did a lot of silly things in the days (centuries) we spent circling our Catholic wagons to prevent ANY intrusion of Protestant thinking from influencing Catholicism.
I cannot think of any involvement of the laity in the mass that diminishes or restricts or reduces my role as the one in the community acting in persona Christi.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
The entire Mass is indeed a dialogue, one between God and his people. In the Liturgy of the Word God speaks to his people through the ministers of the Church. In the Liturgy of the Eucharist Jesus responds for the people by offering his sacrifice through the ministry of the priest. Although the people are spiritually joined to Christ in this sacrifice, this is not the work of the people, it is the work of God. This distinction is not an overemphasis, nor is it a late development as a reaction to the Reformation. We can see the distinct role of the priest/bishop in offering the sacrifice all the way back to Clement. Additionally, there has always been the sacred space of the sanctuary that was reserved for the priest and his ministers.
You cannot be unaware of those who quite explicitly push the idea that the laity are concelebrants with the priest in the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, reducing the priest to one who merely presides over the action of the gathered community. This is what has led to the proliferation of so-called lay ministries within the sanctuary. The proper ministers of the Mass are those formally instituted and appropriately vested. They are thus identified as assistants to the priest and not as representatives of the gathered community. Let's be honest, the reason that we have the proliferation of extraordinary ministers of Communion, despite multiple directives from Rome to cease the practice, is to highlight the role of the laity as collaborators of the priest, not because of need. We can also see this attitude in the architecture of newer churches which erase the distinction between the sanctuary and the nave. This is especially marked in churches in the round.
The post Vatican II reforms were correct in reemphasizing the proper roles of the laity: listening to the readings, attentively following the prayers, making their proper responses, and singing. All these were lost over the centuries. But this happened, not because of and overemphasis on the role of the priest, but for the practical reason that with the lost of the use of Latin and the high rate of illiteracy even in their vernacular languages it was impossible for the laity to be actively engaged. Thus mere attendance was accepted as the minimum. Vatican II was right in restoring the importance of lay involvement in the liturgy. By this it restored the balance between the priest and the laity in their proper roles. But the proper role of the laity does not include liturgical ministries. Ministers are recruited from the laity, but they act as assistants to the priest in his liturgical role. Both priest and laity have their proper roles but the distinction between them should not be clouded.
Happy Saint Patrick's Day
Anthony - I did not question that being joined to Christ in His sacrifice is a work of God. It is.
"...there has always been the sacred space of the sanctuary that was reserved for the priest and his ministers." Do we know this as "always?"
I am aware that there are people who push all sorts of erroneous ideas. Some say "Quo Primum" (Pope Pius V - 1570) forbids forever any changes in the liturgy in an attempt to invalidate the reforms brought about by Vatican Two. Some maintain that the blessing of the tongue in the old Baptismal rite was a way of making the tongue the "appropriate" place for the reception of communion, attempting to invalidate reception in the hand. These folks say the same thing about the anointing of the priest's hands at ordination - only he can touch the Sacred Species.
People push all sorts of erroneous ideas to advance their agendas. Thus is has always been and always will be. world without end. Amen.
The distinction between sanctuary and nave is a function of architectural style, not doctrine.
People need not be literate to learn the proper responses of the mass. People learn all sorts of things simply by hearing them repeatedly. You probably, and I, can recall advertising jingles with little effort, yet neither of us has made a decided effort to learn them. People need not be literate to hear the words of the Sacred Scriptures proclaimed in a language they could understand. If the loss of Latin was a cause for excluding the congregation from the prayers, why wasn't Latin dropped in favor of the local tongues?
The ministry of lector serves the congregation, not the priest. I am not be assisted by the men and women who read the Scriptures at mass. "29. Servers, lectors, commentators, and members of the choir also exercise a genuine liturgical function. They ought, therefore, to discharge their office with the sincere piety and decorum demanded by so exalted a ministry and rightly expected of them by God's people." (SC 29) I don't see how having a lector read the scriptures in any way "clouds" the distinction between priests and laity.
Vatican Two opens and some Council Fathers make a public statement;
"We wish to convey to all men and to all nations the message of salvation, love and peace which Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, brought to the world and entrusted to the Church.
In fact, it is for this reason that we, the successors of the apostles, all united in prayer with Mary, the Mother of Jesus, forming one single apostolic body whose head is the successor of Peter, are gathered here at the invitation of His Holiness Pope John XXIII.
Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we intend in this meeting to seek the most effective ways of renewing ourselves and of becoming increasingly more faithful witnesses of the Gospel of Christ.
We will strive to propose to the men of our times the truth of God in its entirety and purity so that they may understand it and accept it freely.
Conscious of our duties as pastors, we wish deeply to meet the demands of those who seek God “and perhaps grope after him and find him though he is not far from any one of us” (Acts 17: 27).
Faithful, therefore, to the mandate of Christ, who offered Himself as (a) holocaust “in order that he might present to himself the Church in all her glory … (My bolding)
If you ever hear a Priest, Prelate or Pope describe the Holy Holocaust as a Holocaust, give him some money, $100.00 ( I Used to pay a priest an extra $20 when he said the Roman Canon).
I post such things as this at The NLM and then they are deleted within thirty minutes.
What's sad is that once the Council started the progressives gained control and no word about The Holy Holocaust was ever spoken.
The word holocaust was taken over by Jews in 1967 (observation by Prof Finklestein who said E. Weisel was the one who began using it in 1967, after the council abandoned its use).
There are over one billion Catholics alive today. If you asked any one of them "What is the holocaust?" there is not one - NOT ONE - who would say it is the pluperfect salvific self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary.
No, every singe one of them would say it has to do with the WW2 crimes committed against The jews by the Nazis.
No matter how many times "hermeneutic of continuity is asserted" the true of the matter is it what a famous Thomas said "Continuity must be demonstrated not simply declared."
I joke around that the motto of Rome since 1962-1965 is "Everything is different, nothing has changed."
The Holy Holocaust of the Roman Rite, what is it?
The four sacrifices in the Holocaust of the Mass/Divine Liturgy
1. The Holocaust Sacrifice offered to God is
an offering to His sovereign greatness.
2. The Sacrifice of Propitiation offered to
appease His Justice.
3. The Sacrifice of Impetration offered to
implore His bounty.
4. The Eucharistic Sacrifice offered to thank
Him for his bounty.
The Divine Liturgy/Mass is a Holy
Holocaust which the One True Holy Roman
Catholic and Apostolic Church offers to God
as an offering to His greatness and power; a
sacrifice of propitiation to appease His
Justice; a sacrifice of impetration to solicit
His bounty; and a Eucharistic sacrifice
offered to Him in thanksgiving for all of His
favors.
OR, it is the Lord's Supper as Rome said in the 1960s
The distinction between the sanctuary and the nave is not just a function of architectural style. It developed to reflect a theological understanding of the liturgy. In the ancient church the sanctuary was often separated from the nave not just by steps or a low railing, but by a screen of columns. This demarcated an area reserved to the priests and his ministers. A well preserved example of this can be seen in Santa Maria in Cosmedin in Rome. This was a typical feature in ancient churches. In the east this would develop into the full iconostasis.
The lector serves the congregation as the does the priest, but he does so as an extension of the ministerial priesthood, not as the action of the gathered community. The problem is not with having a lector read a the Mass — that is his ministry — but to substitute a pro-lector for him. This is a proper ministerial office and is marked by the rite of installation and the wearing of proper vestments. His place is with the priest in the sanctuary. In proclaiming the readings at the Mass he speaks in the name of God to the people. What we typically have, however, are in reality pro-lectors, simple laymen called from the congregation and wearing street clothes. This gives the impression that it is the congregation that is speaking to itself. Indeed, the use of pro-lectors in place of proper lectors, like the use of extraordinary ministers of Communion, has been advanced to promote the idea of the assembled faithful as the central actors of the liturgy.
Anthony - In what ancient church was the sanctuary separated from the nave by a screen of columns. And do steps constitute a "separation," or are they a necessary architectural form to facilitate moving from one level to another in a structure?
Is the separation in Santa Maria part of the 6th century construction, or the 8th century expansion or the 12th century renovation, the 1718 refurbishment?
"This was a typical feature in ancient churches." All of them? Some? The ones in Rome but not elsewhere? What about Egypt or Ireland?
A lector is one who reads the scriptures at mass. Lay men and women wear street clothes, which is entirely appropriate for their ministry. A lector can also be a person officially installed in this ministry.
No one who hears "The Word of the Lord" spoken at the end of a Scripture reading thinks that the congregation is speaking to itself.
Father, now you are just being deliberately contentious. There is plenty of archeological evidence for the use of chancel screens in the early church. Any familiarity with early Christian architecture, or a simple internet search, would show this. I assume that you actually know this. If not, I would suggest you pick up a good book on early Christian architecture.
The ordinary minister for the readings is an installed lector properly vested and seated with the priest. What you do not address is why has this been abandoned in favor of layman called up from the congregation and vested in ordinary street clothes. This — along with the widespread use of extraordinary ministers of Communion, the elimination of visible separation of the sanctuary from the nave, and the building of churches in the round — did not happen accidentally. They became popular to push a theological point: the gathered community is the minister of the Mass, not Jesus Christ acting through the ordained priest and his ministers.
Anthony, good points. The modern GIRM even calls for a demarcation between the sanctuary and the nave, by elevation or "by a particular structure and ornamentation"--anyone want to go in for some rood screens?
Nick
Anthony - There are many pictures and diagrams of ancient churches that do not have screens separating the nave and sanctuary. The styles of churches varied a great deal as did the means of distinguishing the nave from the sanctuary.
Churches in the round, such as St. Peter the Apostle where I am pastor, have a distinct separation between the raised sanctuary and the congregation's seating area. While there is no screen, no rail, no iconostasis, the distinction is plain to anyone.
Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral in Los Angeles is not built in the round, but has a slightly raised area at one end that is plainly the sanctuary. The floor under the congregation slopes gently up from the front to the back, helping to provide a clearer line of sight for those seated toward the rear.
I don't know that in my 66 years I have ever, outside of the seminary, experienced installed lectors as lectors at a parish mass.
THEN, you take the unfortunate step in imputing nefarious motives to those who design churches and who call lay men and women in "ordinary street clothes to be lectors at mass. They were denying the role of Jesus and His ministers in the mass.
I'd ask for something other than traditionalist conjecture to support this claim, but knowing there is no evidence, I will forbear.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
A screen, although widespread, was just one way to demarcate the sanctuary. What is important is that such a demarcation was made. And while we could argue about the earliest churched, it must be admitted that such a demarcation became standard and has persisted for over a thousand years. The development of the minor orders to assist the priest rather than have ordinary members of the laity perform this tasks was also a form of demarcation.
As for many modern churches, there has clearly been an attempt to minimize the distinction between sanctuary and nave, between the space for the priest and that of the laity. One must ask why, in older churches, the expense was taken to remove the altar rails. This did not happen just for aesthetic reasons. There was a theology driving it.
And why have you not seen installed lectors outside of the seminary? The whole point of renaming the minor orders as ministries was to separate them from merely being a path to ordination as a priest and to restore them as regular ministries. There is no reason that proper lectors could not have been established in parishes. That was the intent after all. Since installed lectors are the proper and ordinary ministers of the Word, why do you not establish them in your parish rather than relying on simple laymen performing the task? Will you also cease using extraordinary ministers of Communion in a routine manner? If no, why not?
Finally, it can hardly be labelled as imputing when there have been so many voices openly proclaiming the position that it is the entire assembly, and not just the priest, that is confecting the Eucharist. Do you not remember the attempt to rebrand the priest as the presider rather than as the celebrant? The changes in church architecture were driven by theology, not just fashion.
"The development of the minor orders to assist the priest rather than have ordinary members of the laity perform this tasks was also a form of demarcation."
What supports your contention that the development of minor orders...was also a form of demarcation"?
Altar rails were removed because they were no longer needed for the distribution of communion. Instead of people lining up kneeling, people lined up standing. No one thought that the removal of the altar rail meant that there was no longer a space defined as "sanctuary" and a space defined as "not sanctuary.
"The whole point of renaming the minor orders as ministries was to separate them from merely being a path to ordination as a priest and to restore them as regular ministries."
Note your phrase: "...to restore them as regular ministries." That seems to imply that what was lost through a "development" was rightly restored. Restoration is a good thing in my mind.
"There is no reason that proper lectors could not have been established in parishes." That may be so, but were they? Again, in my 66 years a never, outside of seminary, any "installed lectors" doing the readings at mass.
I rely on "simple" - your word, not mine - lay men and lay women - my words, not yours - as lectors because they do the job well, because they are authorized by the Church to do the job, and, most importantly, because ministry is not restricted to the ordained or to those in formation for ordination. Being a lector at mass is a proper role for lay men and women as Baptized Christians.
The priest is both presider and celebrant. Being presider does not diminish his role as celebrant, and being celebrant does not diminish his role as presider. A man can be a husband and father, a woman a wife and mother. A student can be a teacher, as many graduate assistants, people who are both taking classes and teaching classes, will tell you.
I will continue to use Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion as long as the Church authorizes me to do so.
Father, I must admit that I think that you are being disingenuous in your explanation for the removal of altar rails. Even if not used, there was no need to go to the expense of removing them. I have also heard enough justifications that the reason was to break down the barrier between the priest and the laity. The same is true about describing the priest as a presider rather than celebrant, that he is merely leading the entire assembly which is making the offering of the Mass. I have even been present at a Mass where the people were told to remain standing and stretch out their hands during the consecration. The idea of the laity as concelebrants with the priest is not so unheard of as to be disregarded as a rational for some of the liturgical changes we have witnessed.
I do not question the licitness of your use of extraordinary ministers — the Church does allow it — but your preference. Why not install the proper and ordinary ministers? Pope Paul's intent in renaming them was to restore them as regular ministries in their own right. Why not follow through? That you have never seen it in 66 years is not compelling. With the liturgical reform we have seen things that have not been done for over a thousand years, or indeed ever. And again, why has this one reform of Pope Paul VI not been implemented? Why, rather, the use of extraordinary ministers undistinguished from the ordinary laity?
Anthony - You are disingenuous in that you pose many questions but answer none that I propose. For example, see my questions on March 17 at 5:38.
The priest is BOTH presider and celebrant. There is no contradiction in that. He can be both without detriment to the other.
As for the participation of the congregation in offering the sacrifice, note: "CCC 1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering."
Note also the words of the first Eucharistic prayer: "Remember, Lord, your servants N. and N. and all gather here whose faith and devotion are known to you. For them, we offer you this sacrifice of praise, or they offer it for themselves and all who are dear to them."
You ask, "Why not install the proper and ordinary ministers?" First, Does this include women who, being Baptized, are prepared to participate in this ministry? Second, I find it wholly unnecessary.
The same would be true for the official installation of lectors for mass.
Both Extraordinary Ministers and Lectors are not, as you suggest, simply assisting the priest. They are carrying our ministries in their own right.
Look again at that quote from the Catechism: "The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering." Although united, the sacrifice of Christ is distinct from the offerings of the faithful. The sacrifice of Christ is made present through the ministry of the priest, not that of the assembly. It is only that this sacrifice is thus offered that the offerings of the faithful can be united to it. This is the sacrifice of praise that is mentioned in the Eucharistic Prayer.
The participation of the faithful in liturgical ministry does not flow from their baptism. Rather, it is the product of the delegation of the hierarchical church and is united to the sacramental priesthood. That you see no necessity in installing proper ministers and prefer to use those called from the congregation who perform their tasks in an extraordinary manner underscores my original point about seeing the the liturgy as chiefly the work of the gathered community rather than that of God presented through the ministry of the priest.
Anthony - No, there is one sacrifice, not a sacrifice offered by the priest and a separate or "distinct" sacrifice offered by the people. To say there is more than one sacrifice is to diminish the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ. The lives, praise, sufferings, prayer, and work of the faithful is joined with and becomes part of the one sacrifice.
Baptism is the basis for any participation in the liturgy, whether as a member of the congregation, as a priest, or as any minister of the liturgy. CCC 1213: "Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life,..." To serve as a minister of the altar, the Baptized must be called. The priest is called to orders by the bishop, the pastor calls members of his congregation to serve in a variety of roles.
The work done at the Eucharist is the work of God done for us. Just as we share in that work of God through reception of communion, through our voiced responses to the prayers, through our singing, etc., we also share in the work by fulfilling roles to which we have been called.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
Yes, there is indeed only one sacrifice, but it is neither of the priest nor of the people, it is of Jesus Christ. But this one sacrifice is made present to us not by the assembled faithful, but by the priest alone. See the Council of Trent:
He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God the Father, by means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption; nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to be extinguished by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed,--that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit,--declaring Himself constituted a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech, He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught. For, having celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of the children of Israel immolated in memory of their going out of Egypt, He instituted the new Passover, (to wit) Himself to be immolated, under visible signs, by the Church through (the ministry of) priests. (Session XXII, Ch. 1.)
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the [Page 155] grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different.(Idem, Ch. 2)
"The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ" made present "by the Church through (the ministry of) priests." The priest is not just acting as a presider leading the people in a sacrifice of praise; he is making present to the people the sacrifice of Christ.
Baptism is required to be called to ministry but it is not sufficient. Liturgical ministries are a function the hierarchical church and flow from the ministry of the priest in his role to sanctify, teach, and guide. Yes, in the absence of properly installed ministers other lay people may be deputed to perform these functions, but this is not ideal. This provision should not be used to prefer such deputed substitutes for properly instituted ministers.
Anthony - So the sacrifice of the congregation is not distinct from that of the sacrifice offered by the priest which is the self-offering of Jesus to His Father. They are joined together in the ONE sacrifice.
The priest is acting as presider and celebrant. Acting in both ways does not diminish one or the other.
Baptism is sufficient for the calling some receive for one kind of ministry or another. Ministers function not as an assistant to the priest, but as servant/members of the Body of Christ
Fr. Kavanaugh,
What you are failing to acknowledge is that the proper liturgical ministry is that of the installed ministers acting alongside the priest and assisting him in his priestly ministry of sanctifying, teaching, and guiding. What you are doing in not calling people to ministry but purposely refraining from calling them to the proper hierarchical ministry in order to promote the notion that the laity can minister to itself without benefit of the hierarchical church. Again, this, whether intended or not, leads to the idea that it is the gather community that is the actor of the liturgy, rather than Jesus Christ acting through the priest and his ministers.
The GIRM states:
91. The celebration of the Eucharist is the action of Christ and of the Church, namely, of the holy people united and ordered under the Bishop. It therefore pertains to the whole Body of the Church, manifests it, and has its effect upon it. Indeed, it also affects the individual members of the Church in a different way, according to their different orders, functions, and actual participation. In this way, the Christian people, “a chosen race, a royal Priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession,” expresses its cohesion and its hierarchical ordering. All, therefore, whether ordained ministers or lay Christian faithful, in fulfilling their function or their duty, should carry out solely but totally that which pertains to them.
You are violating this by having the laity who have not been installed into proper ministry fulfilling the functions of those ministries. The Church has developed installed ministries for a particular purpose, one that you have chosen to ignore.
Anthony - What I do not acknowledge is that those who serve on the altar as lectors and altar servers or Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist are there to serve the priest who is presiding/celebrating. They are serving the congregation in the act of worship. The priest does not need their "service."
I am not "calling" these people to ministry - they have been called by virtue of their Baptism.
They are not ministering without benefit of the "hierarchical" church. They carry out their ministry as effectively and as appropriately as at installed lector or acolyte. Neither they nor the congregation they serve nor the Church at large would benefit were they to be installed.
Proclaiming the Word at Mass is a function of the hierarchical church, not that of the lay assembly. No, the laity are not called to liturgical ministry by virtue of their Baptism, but by calling of the Church. It is not a question of being effective, but of office. Lector and acolyte are two hierarchical offices. Those that you are calling from the congregation do not possess these offices.
Why is this important? The old adage is lex orandi, lex credendi. By presenting a liturgy where the lay assembly is seen to proclaim the Word of God and administer Communion to itself, the mediating role of those in orders is diminished. If the lay assembly can minister to itself then it can also teach itself, dispensing with the binding authority of the Magisterium of the Church. It also tends to reduce the Mass to communal meal shared among the faithful rather than the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ being made present through the ministry of the priest at the altar. Only 20% of Catholics now believe in the Real Presence. I shudder to think how few view the Mass as a sacrifice. In turn, I must ask you why is it so important not to properly install proper ministers and having them serve vested and alongside the priest?
Anthony - Proclaiming the word is a function of the Church, not some branch of the hierarchy. Jesus did not say, "Go and teach all nations, but only if you hold and office in the Church."
I do see it as a question of being effective. An "installed" lector who is a lousy reader and, therefore, ineffective should be replaced by an uninstalled lector who does the job well.
No one in the congregation see an uninstalled lector as the congregation presenting the Word of God to itself or an Extraordinary Minister as the congregation presenting Communion to itself.
In turn, I have already answered the question you have asked in turn.
(The 20% figure is disputed. See: https://media.ascensionpress.com/2019/08/16/how-accurate-is-the-pew-survey-on-the-eucharist/)
If you find someone who would make a better lector, then go ahead and have him installed as one. This is the proper course of action.
We clearly disagree with the nature of liturgical ministry. I will go with what the Church has always understood and is still the norm.
Anthony - Where are we told by the Church that the Lectors, etc., are assisting the priest?
And since you say "always," we will assume that this understanding is Apostolic...
The separation of roles between clergy and laity has been clearly marked: by ordination, by vesture, and by presence in the sanctuary. One had to have received tonsure before even being ordained into one of the minor orders. The exercise of these offices has always been restricted and has never, until recently, been open to the laity in general.
Always as in as far back as we have adequate descriptions of the liturgy, and continuing for over a thousand years until recently. That the apostolic age that preceded this was any different is mere speculation. If you want to posit that it was different in the apostolic age then it is incumbent upon you to present the evidence. Otherwise, we have no reason to believe that it was so. Implying such is just projecting your preferences. In any case, the Church came to this universal practice quite early. Your desire for a democratically organized church does not fit history and is merely a product of 20th century political thought.
Anthony - I have not suggested that there is no "separation of roles between clergy and laity." We are, after all, a hierarchical Church. I have no desire for a democratically organized Church as you wrongly suggest. What I desire is a continued recognition of the Sacrament of Baptism as the foundation for ministry, and a recognition of the dignity that gives to all who are incorporated into the Body of Christ.
"...never, until recently..." is, in my estimation, a weak argument against lectors and other members of the laity acting as lectors and/or ministers of the Eucharist. Any addition or change in the liturgy was, at the time of its introduction, something that was "never, until now" done.
We don't know the exact liturgical practices in the Apostolic age. I think it is hardly "mere speculation" to think that, long before certain practices became commonplace, there was great variation from place to place.
As for presenting evidence, I still wait for your evidence that the ministers in the liturgy are there to assist the priest, rather than serving the worshipping congregation.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
Our conversation has not been about ministry in general but of liturgical ministry in particular. The laity are, by virtue of their baptism, called to ministry. But the ministry of the laity is not to the assembly of the faithful but to the world:
But the laity, by their very vocation, seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God. They live in the world, that is, in each and in all of the secular professions and occupations. They live in the ordinary circumstances of family and social life, from which the very web of their existence is woven. They are called there by God that by exercising their proper function and led by the spirit of the Gospel they may work for the sanctification of the world from within as a leaven. In this way they may make Christ known to others, especially by the testimony of a life resplendent in faith, hope and charity. Therefore, since they are tightly bound up in all types of temporal affairs it is their special task to order and to throw light upon these affairs in such a way that they may come into being and then continually increase according to Christ to the praise of the Creator and the Redeemer. (Lumen Gentium, 31)
Thus Vatican II distinguishes between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood:
Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity. (LG, 10.)
You are falsely opposing assisting the priest and serving the congregation. The action of liturgical ministers is both:
Bishops, therefore, with their helpers, the priests and deacons, have taken up the service of the community, presiding in place of God over the flock, whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing. (LG, 20)
Priests and deacons serve the community by assisting the bishop in the performance of his duties. Leading the assembly in worship and administering the sacraments is, properly speaking, the munus of the bishop. Even priests and deacons acting in the liturgy are doing so as his assistants. This is true of all liturgical ministers. Even when the laity are performing liturgical duties, these are not lay ministries, i.e. ministries proper to the laity. Like priests and deacons, they are assistants of the bishop in the performance of his duties. This is why they are distinguished by being properly instituted into their ministry, and by vesture and position in the sanctuary rather than in the nave with the common laity. Lay ministries, those that flow from their baptism, are in the temporal order.
Anthony - I have not said or suggested that there is no distinction between "...the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood" yet you keep bringing this up.
I do not "falsely oppose assisting the priest and serving the congregation." I don't think there is any opposition whatsoever. I do think that, whereas in the past we understood ministry, liturgical or otherwise, to be the proper role of the ordained, we have come to a fuller understanding of who is called to ministry, liturgical or otherwise. We had the same narrow understanding of who had a vocation.
I understand the celebration of the Eucharist to be THE place where the temporal and spiritual orders come together, as they did (and do) in the Incarnation. The Exsultet tells us that the Eucharist is the "... blessed night, when things of heaven are wed to those of earth, and divine to the human." At mass, we don't have some who exist in the spiritual order (the ordained and the officially installed) and those who exist in the temporal (the "common laity.") The entire community gathered around the altar is transported to a different sphere of existence, as close as we will be on this side of the tombstone to the heavenly realms.
As for ancient tradition, the only example I have found, there may be others, addressing the role of lectors/readers from the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (ca 215). In the liturgy, (11.) "The reader is appointed when the bishop gives the book to him. He does not have hands laid upon him.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
I keep bring up the distinction between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood because you keep blurring that distinction. Proclaiming the Word to the assembled faithful and administering the sacraments is a function of the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood. This includes the liturgical ministers who assist the priest, not just the priest himself. Vatican II and the new missal both reaffirm this traditional teaching. You, however, deny this by insisting that the ministers act as agents of the congregation rather than as assistants to the priest in serving the congregation. This is highlighted by your use of minister who have not been properly installed and are not properly vested.
The priest and the faithful are united together in the Eucharist, but by each performing his proper role. The priest and his ministers by proclaiming the Word, offering Christ's Sacrifice, and administering the Eucharist to the faithful; the faithful by listening to the Word, joining their prayers to our Lord's offering, and receiving the Eucharist. Participation at the liturgy is not limited to those who perform liturgical ministries. The laity are fully participating by listening to the Word, joining their prayers to the Sacrifice offered by Christ through the priest, and by receiving the Communion. At the Mass the laity are ministered to, in the secular order they minister to the world. One role complements and completes the other.
Anthony - The proclamation of the Word of God, even during the celebration of the Eucharist, is a task given to the disciples of Jesus, not only to the ordained.
I do not insist that lay lectors are "agents of the congregation." I have repeatedly said that lay lectors serve the congregation. Nothing of that service is improved or enhanced by having lectors installed or "properly" vested.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
Proclaiming the Word of God to the world is a task for all the baptized. Proclaiming, i.e. teaching, it to the gathered assembly is the task of the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood, which includes aid of the priest's ministers. Lectors serve the congregation, as do priests, but they minister as assistants to the priest in his ministry to the faithful. This is the practice of the Church and the teaching of Vatican II. Formally installing them in their ministry makes this clear. There is no good reason not to formally install them. By not doing so you give the false impression that their ministry in assembly is a function of their baptism alone.
Anthony - I do not agree that proclaiming the Word of God to the gathered assembly is a task of the ministerial/hierarchical priesthood.
Lectors do not act as assistants to the priests, but as agents of the Lord Jesus Christ in the task he commanded.
No one in the congregation thinks that an uninstalled lector is the "congregation speaking to itself." This is a construct you have fabricated. Maybe you think the congregation is too stupid to understand the lector when she says, "A reading from the book of the Prophet Habakkuk," or he says, "The word of the Lord." I do not agree with your assessment.
Priests require no assistance in proclaiming the Word of God.
There is no good reason, other than to ease your imaginary fears about what the congregation thinks, to install lectors formally.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
Proclaiming the Word of God at Mass is part of the process of teaching the faithful, which is indeed the function of the priest. His role at the Mass is not just limited to pronouncing the words of Institution. To think thus is to have a very limited understanding of the priesthood. The congregation does not teach itself; it is taught by the priest. Lectors do not operate independent of the ministry of the priest. Your position puts you at odds with Church tradition and Vatican II. And if the priest needs no assistance in proclaiming the Word of God at Mass, then dispense with lectors altogether and let the priest do the readings. There is no good reason not to formally install lector other than the intent to blur the proper distinctions between the priesthood and the laity, elevating the laity to be teachers of themselves.
Anthony - I do not think, as you uncharitably suggest, that the priest's role at the mass is "just limited to pronouncing the words of institution." A priest for 39 years, I have a pretty good understanding of priestly ministry, probably giving it far more thought and prayer than you.
You like to make things up, as you did by wrongly saying that I believed lectors to be "agents of the congregation."
When the lector finishes a reading and says, "The word of the Lord," everyone, except you it seems, knows that this is God teaching us, not the congregation/laity teaching itself.
You want to maintain tradition on the one hand, but say that lectors could be dispensed with altogether if a priest needs no assistants to fulfill this task. Well, most of the priests I know are perfectly capable of reading the Scriptures.
As for tradition in the larger sense, most liturgical practices fall into the category of the "Subject to Change." The traditional colors we wear at various season can be changed. The placement of the right thumb over the left when a priest folds his hands can be changed. The percentage of beeswax in candles can be changed. Many of our "traditions" which seem to some to be essential are not, and the rationale for maintaining them is largely concocted after the fact. (I think also of the "tradition" of teaching that Confirmation is analogous to Bar/Bat Mitzvah or that it makes us "soldiers for Christ." It is neither - it is a sacrament of initiation and should be celebrated AT INITIATION along with Baptism and First Communion. The "tradition" of separating these three sacraments has caused us great grief and needs to ne rectified.)
Fr. Kavanaugh,
You are dodging the issue. Teaching the faithful is the office of the priest. The reading of Scripture at the liturgy is part of this office. When the lector proclaims the readings, is he doing so as part of this teaching office or as a member of the faithful proclaiming the Word to itself? Yes, it is ultimately form God, but does he do so as an exercise of the office of the priesthood ministering to the faithful or simply as a member of the faithful proclaiming the Word to itself?
You are mischaracterizing my remarks about dispensing with lectors. I was just extending your remark that the priest requires no assistance in proclaiming the Word of God. Since proclaiming the Word at the liturgy part of the teaching office of the priest, if he needs no assistance then he does not need the assistance of a lector. I am actually in favor of installing of actual ministers of lector and acolyte to perform the duties proper to them. That being said, while the missal does say that a layman may be deputed to do the readings if an installed lector is not available, it does not say that he must or should be so deputed. It is only an option. Contrary to the opinions of some, in the absence of a proper lector, it is completely legitimate for the priest to do the readings himself. Note that I am not advocating this; just pointing it out.
Finally, just because some traditions are subject to change does not meant that all are. Some have important theological reasons behind them and should be retained. Sacrosanctum Concilium stated that the rites should be revised "where necessary." Otherwise they should be respected. One of the major faults since the council has been an anti-traditional bias that sees no value in tradition, holds that everything is open to change, and then insists that such changes are then above criticism, all in the name of Vatican II.
Anthony - No one in the congregation thinks the congregation is proclaiming the Word to itself. The lector says "A reading from the book of Genesis," the people hear "A reading from the book of Genesis," and they understand that this reading is from the book of Genesis. 99.9% of them know that Genesis is a book in the Bible. (The other 0.1% think the lectors is talking about a luxury car brand, but that's another issue...)
I did not mischaracterize your remarks. Your words addressed to me were: "His role at the Mass is not just limited to pronouncing the words of Institution. To think thus is to have a very limited understanding of the priesthood." You were wrong and uncharitable in suggesting that I think thus.
It is completely legitimate for the priest to proclaim the readings himself. It is also perfectly legitimate for the priest to appoint a lay reader to proclaim the readings. Installing the lectors offers no benefit.
All traditions are subject to change. On the other hand, Tradition is not subject to change. That which is merely traditional has been changing since Day One and will continue to do so. However, Tradition does not change, though it may be expressed differently or understood more fully and presented in a different way.
I see great value in Tradition. I don't see great value in maintaining mere traditions simply because they are traditions. Changes are never above criticism, and neither is tradition.
Post a Comment