The following article is written by Shawn Tribe of the New Liturgical Movement blog, and the book looks like it will be very exciting to read and yes, controversial. I love controversy.
Book Notice: The Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite by László Dobszay
by Shawn Tribe
Many of you will already be familiar with the work of Professor László Dobszay, author of The Bugnini Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform. He has now come out with another work available in English, The Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite.
From the publisher's description of the work:
The volume, like the series, will be aimed at moving the debate about liturgy out of the narrow confines of either ‘pastoral liturgy’, ‘reform of the reform’ or nostalgia and bemoaning of the ruination of liturgical tradition to an entirely higher plane, of serious, scholarly, measured analysis combining historical, philosophical, musicological and liturgical.
This book advances a provocative and controversial set of proposals for the development of future liturgical reform in its attempt to re-engage with a traditional sense of the Roman Rite.
The author is uniquely placed to make the case he does: a mediævalist and musicologist of unparalleled experience and breadth, Dobszay combines – almost uniquely – a profound knowledge of the history of the development of the Roman Rite – especially the Antiphonary – with a personal interest and passionate concern for the lived experience of the rite itself.
The result is a lively and vigorous text based around the idea of the actual liturgical sense of the Roman Rite – meaning a respect for its integrity as an historical tradition that found multiform expression across Europe and also across at least 1600 years, combined with a sympathy for the fact that the rite is still a living entity with a long future ahead of it. Dobszay provides an introduction to the whole meaning of liturgical study and the liturgical sense, scholarly insight, and practical understanding. The text is divided into two sections – an introductory section giving background and history and a rationale for the second section which, segment by segment, examines the current state of the Roman Rite and makes constructive proposals for its development. The text is a provocation – it will certainly excite both considerable hostility and sympathy from a wide range of quarters from conservative to radical wings of the discussion.
The table of contents of the book is as follows:
Part I
1. What the Roman Rite is
2. The Liturgical Movement
3. In the Name of the Council
4. Is the Medicine called Obedience?
5. Objections
6. Lex Credendi
7. From Ecclesia Dei to Summorum Pontificum
8. One Rite Two Forms?
9. The Co-existence of the two Rites
10. Mixing the Rites
11. The Method of the Organic Reform
Part II
1. Ritus, Usus, Consuetudo, Optio
2. The Language of the Liturgy
3. Ad Orientem
4. The Divine Office
5. The Calendar
6. The Readings of the Mass
7. The Proper Chants of the Mass
8. The Sacramentary
9. The Ordo Missae
10. Holy Week
To order: http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=132414
304 Pages, paperback. $49.95 (Hardcover, $140.00)
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
I DON'T KNOW WHY I GET INTO THESE DEBATES!
There is a new Liturgy blog, called Pray Tell. It is on the more progressive side of things, although it appears to strive to be balanced and ecumenical and includes the Orthodox Church's perspective on things. I appreciate having this as an alternative to the more conservative blogs on Liturgy, because we need to know what others are thinking and doing and we need to know the academic premise from which they operate. I believe this blog, like the New Liturgical Movement, strives for some type of academic integrity.
You can see the Pray Tell Blog at: http://www.praytellblog.com/
You can see the New Liturgical Movement Blog at: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/
When you go to the Pray Tell Blog, look at the article on "Coming From GIA." Read the article and then read the comments section below it. I have several entries and even get into a debate with one of the main bloggers of this site, Fr. Anthony, a very gracious young priest and one of the readers, Lynn. Let me know what you think when you read the article and the comments. Why do I do this???????????? Leave a comment on their blog too, but you must use your real name as I have done.
You can see the Pray Tell Blog at: http://www.praytellblog.com/
You can see the New Liturgical Movement Blog at: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/
When you go to the Pray Tell Blog, look at the article on "Coming From GIA." Read the article and then read the comments section below it. I have several entries and even get into a debate with one of the main bloggers of this site, Fr. Anthony, a very gracious young priest and one of the readers, Lynn. Let me know what you think when you read the article and the comments. Why do I do this???????????? Leave a comment on their blog too, but you must use your real name as I have done.
IN THIS YEAR OF THE PRIESTS, SOME GOOD NEWS FOR A CHANGE
In this Year of the Priest, we have a "hopeful" who is entering the seminary. This is a great story. Share it with your young sons! Pray that Grant perseveres in the seminary and God willing is ordained. Many are called, few are chosen! The following story is from ESPN and AP News wire:
Top A's prospect enters priesthood
ESPN.com news services
As a top prospect for the Oakland Athletics, outfielder Grant Desme might've gotten the call every minor leaguer wants this spring.
Instead, he believed he had another, higher calling.
Desme announced Friday that he was leaving baseball to enter the priesthood, walking away after a breakout season in which he became MVP of the Arizona Fall League.
"I was doing well at ball. But I really had to get down to the bottom of things," the 23-year-old Desme said. "I wasn't at peace with where I was at."
A lifelong Catholic, Desme thought about becoming a priest for about a year and a half. He kept his path quiet within the sports world, and his plan to enter a seminary this summer startled the A's when he told them Thursday night.
General manager Billy Beane "was understanding and supportive," Desme said, but the decision "sort of knocked him off his horse." After the talk, Desme felt "a great amount of peace."
"I love the game, but I aspire to higher things," he said. "I know I have no regrets."
In a statement, Beane said: "We respect Grant's decision and wish him nothing but the best in his future endeavors."
Athletes and the priesthood have overlapped, albeit rarely.
Al Travers, who gave up 24 runs during a one-game career for a makeshift Detroit Tigers team in 1912, became a Catholic priest. More recently, Chase Hilgenbrinck of the New England Revolution left Major League Soccer in 2008 to enter a seminary.
Desme spoke on a conference call for about 10 minutes in a quiet, even tone, hardly sounding like many gung-ho, on-the-rise ballplayers. As for his success in the minors, he said "all of it is very undeserving."
The Athletics picked Desme in the second round of the 2007 amateur draft and he was starting to blossom. He was the only player in the entire minors with 30 home runs and 30 stolen bases last season.
Desme batted .288 with 31 homers, 89 RBIs and 40 steals in 131 games at Class-A Kane County and high Class-A Stockton last year. He hit .315 with a league-leading 11 home runs and 27 RBIs in 27 games this fall in Arizona, a league filled with young talent.
Desme went into the AFL championship game well aware it might be the last time he ever played. "There was no sad feeling," he said. He homered and struck out twice, which "defines my career a bit."
The Big West Player of the Year at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Desme was ranked as Oakland's No. 8 prospect by Baseball America. There was speculation the Athletics might invite Desme to big league spring training next month.
Rather, Desme intends to enter a seminary in Silverado, Calif., in August. He said abbey members didn't seem surprised someone who would "define myself as a baseball player" was changing his life so dramatically.
Desme said he didn't consider pursuing his spiritual studies while also trying to play ball. His family backed his decision and he said the positive reaction to his future goal -- the surprising news spread quickly over the Internet -- was "inspiring."
"It's about a 10-year process," he said. "I desire and hope I become a priest." In a way, he added, it's like "re-entering the minor leagues."
Desme's first two years in the minors were beset by shoulder and wrist problems. He said his days off the field gave him time to think about what was most important to him, to read and study the Bible and to talk to teammates about his faith.
In retrospect, he said, those injuries were "the biggest blessings God ever gave me."
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
Your comments?
Top A's prospect enters priesthood
ESPN.com news services
As a top prospect for the Oakland Athletics, outfielder Grant Desme might've gotten the call every minor leaguer wants this spring.
Instead, he believed he had another, higher calling.
Desme announced Friday that he was leaving baseball to enter the priesthood, walking away after a breakout season in which he became MVP of the Arizona Fall League.
"I was doing well at ball. But I really had to get down to the bottom of things," the 23-year-old Desme said. "I wasn't at peace with where I was at."
A lifelong Catholic, Desme thought about becoming a priest for about a year and a half. He kept his path quiet within the sports world, and his plan to enter a seminary this summer startled the A's when he told them Thursday night.
General manager Billy Beane "was understanding and supportive," Desme said, but the decision "sort of knocked him off his horse." After the talk, Desme felt "a great amount of peace."
"I love the game, but I aspire to higher things," he said. "I know I have no regrets."
In a statement, Beane said: "We respect Grant's decision and wish him nothing but the best in his future endeavors."
Athletes and the priesthood have overlapped, albeit rarely.
Al Travers, who gave up 24 runs during a one-game career for a makeshift Detroit Tigers team in 1912, became a Catholic priest. More recently, Chase Hilgenbrinck of the New England Revolution left Major League Soccer in 2008 to enter a seminary.
Desme spoke on a conference call for about 10 minutes in a quiet, even tone, hardly sounding like many gung-ho, on-the-rise ballplayers. As for his success in the minors, he said "all of it is very undeserving."
The Athletics picked Desme in the second round of the 2007 amateur draft and he was starting to blossom. He was the only player in the entire minors with 30 home runs and 30 stolen bases last season.
Desme batted .288 with 31 homers, 89 RBIs and 40 steals in 131 games at Class-A Kane County and high Class-A Stockton last year. He hit .315 with a league-leading 11 home runs and 27 RBIs in 27 games this fall in Arizona, a league filled with young talent.
Desme went into the AFL championship game well aware it might be the last time he ever played. "There was no sad feeling," he said. He homered and struck out twice, which "defines my career a bit."
The Big West Player of the Year at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Desme was ranked as Oakland's No. 8 prospect by Baseball America. There was speculation the Athletics might invite Desme to big league spring training next month.
Rather, Desme intends to enter a seminary in Silverado, Calif., in August. He said abbey members didn't seem surprised someone who would "define myself as a baseball player" was changing his life so dramatically.
Desme said he didn't consider pursuing his spiritual studies while also trying to play ball. His family backed his decision and he said the positive reaction to his future goal -- the surprising news spread quickly over the Internet -- was "inspiring."
"It's about a 10-year process," he said. "I desire and hope I become a priest." In a way, he added, it's like "re-entering the minor leagues."
Desme's first two years in the minors were beset by shoulder and wrist problems. He said his days off the field gave him time to think about what was most important to him, to read and study the Bible and to talk to teammates about his faith.
In retrospect, he said, those injuries were "the biggest blessings God ever gave me."
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
Your comments?
Friday, January 22, 2010
DAY OF PRAYER AND PENANCE: Was Mass mournful?
One of the things that I have noticed with our funeral Masses is that it is difficult to have music that is mournful. Most want music that is uplifting and helps ease the burden of grief. I'm not sure how healthy this is either psychologically or liturgically.
The same is true of a Mass similar to what we celebrated today at St. Joseph Church for the Day of Penance and Prayer commemorating Roe V. Wade. If there is music, what type do you choose? Even the parts of the Mass that are sung can sound joyful even at a "penitential" commemoration.
Today I decided to use "black" vestments to show our grief over the United States Supreme Court's decision 37 years ago to legalize abortion. If this does not grieve the Catholic heart what does? Black or even violet can evoke a sense of grief over our sins and the sins of others and how this sin separates us from God. In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, black vestments (cope not chasuble) are used for Good Friday. The same sentiment is operative on Good Friday in terms of what our sins have done not only to our Savior, but to everyone and the world itself, including us personally. Sin always effects us personally, familialy, ecclesially,and yes, cosmically. We should grieve about this and black symbolizes that grief.
At our 8:00 AM Mass, we sang no hymns, but spoke the official introit and communion antiphons. We sang the Kyrie in a dirge like tone, as well as the Alleluia. We sang the Sanctus, Mystery of Faith, Great Amen and Agnus Dei in Latin without accompaniment, slowly and mournfully. All of this added a since of dirge like, penitential quality.
It is here that I truly appreciate the flexibility that is the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Celebrating Mass in this manner would not have been possible in the EF Form of the Mass--a penitential Mass apart from a funeral simply does not exist and the flexibility in terms of singing some things and not others doesn't exist. You have either a Low Mass, a sung Mass or a Solemn Sung Mass--no other variations. And there would have been no choices for the readings as there is no Mass for an occasion like this.
We also celebrated a school Mass at 11:00 AM. Fortunately, we could choose alternate readings for our elementary school which only goes through grade 6. I don't think the children had ever seen a priest wear black vestments at Mass. I asked them in the homily what they felt when they saw me dressed in black. One student said, I felt sad. Another student said, I felt sorrow. Out of the mouths of babes! I used this as a springboard to tell them that we should all feel sad and sorrowful when people do not respect life and do violence to one another. I asked them if they had seen all the horrible things in Haiti. They all raised their hands affirmatively. I then asked how they would feel if the rest of the world just let them die and did nothing to help them to live. They all thought this would be terrible. While I never used the term abortion with these children, I did help them to understand that God loves everyone and He loves us. He loves us from the very moment He creates us! He wants us to help everyone to live, especially those who are threatened by violence and disasters, especially those who are not born yet.
I went on to explain that we should feel sorrowful and sad when people turn their backs on those who need us to live.
Mass today was not "happy and jolly" but captured the mood of what our judicial branch of government has done to the most vulnerable in our midst, the pre-born children of the USA. God help us if we don't do all in our power to cooperate with God to overturn this nasty piece of legislation and to convert the hearts of those who are pro-choice.
The same is true of a Mass similar to what we celebrated today at St. Joseph Church for the Day of Penance and Prayer commemorating Roe V. Wade. If there is music, what type do you choose? Even the parts of the Mass that are sung can sound joyful even at a "penitential" commemoration.
Today I decided to use "black" vestments to show our grief over the United States Supreme Court's decision 37 years ago to legalize abortion. If this does not grieve the Catholic heart what does? Black or even violet can evoke a sense of grief over our sins and the sins of others and how this sin separates us from God. In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, black vestments (cope not chasuble) are used for Good Friday. The same sentiment is operative on Good Friday in terms of what our sins have done not only to our Savior, but to everyone and the world itself, including us personally. Sin always effects us personally, familialy, ecclesially,and yes, cosmically. We should grieve about this and black symbolizes that grief.
At our 8:00 AM Mass, we sang no hymns, but spoke the official introit and communion antiphons. We sang the Kyrie in a dirge like tone, as well as the Alleluia. We sang the Sanctus, Mystery of Faith, Great Amen and Agnus Dei in Latin without accompaniment, slowly and mournfully. All of this added a since of dirge like, penitential quality.
It is here that I truly appreciate the flexibility that is the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Celebrating Mass in this manner would not have been possible in the EF Form of the Mass--a penitential Mass apart from a funeral simply does not exist and the flexibility in terms of singing some things and not others doesn't exist. You have either a Low Mass, a sung Mass or a Solemn Sung Mass--no other variations. And there would have been no choices for the readings as there is no Mass for an occasion like this.
We also celebrated a school Mass at 11:00 AM. Fortunately, we could choose alternate readings for our elementary school which only goes through grade 6. I don't think the children had ever seen a priest wear black vestments at Mass. I asked them in the homily what they felt when they saw me dressed in black. One student said, I felt sad. Another student said, I felt sorrow. Out of the mouths of babes! I used this as a springboard to tell them that we should all feel sad and sorrowful when people do not respect life and do violence to one another. I asked them if they had seen all the horrible things in Haiti. They all raised their hands affirmatively. I then asked how they would feel if the rest of the world just let them die and did nothing to help them to live. They all thought this would be terrible. While I never used the term abortion with these children, I did help them to understand that God loves everyone and He loves us. He loves us from the very moment He creates us! He wants us to help everyone to live, especially those who are threatened by violence and disasters, especially those who are not born yet.
I went on to explain that we should feel sorrowful and sad when people turn their backs on those who need us to live.
Mass today was not "happy and jolly" but captured the mood of what our judicial branch of government has done to the most vulnerable in our midst, the pre-born children of the USA. God help us if we don't do all in our power to cooperate with God to overturn this nasty piece of legislation and to convert the hearts of those who are pro-choice.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
THE GOOD OLD 70'S
When I was in the seminary in the late "good old" 1970's at St. Mary Seminary and University in Baltimore, we experienced the heyday (mayday?) of the touchy, feely approach to our Sacred Mass and other liturgies. One of the greatest proponents of this form of celebrating the Mass was the Sulpician priest, Fr. Eugene Walsh, (RIP). He was a very practical and down to earth, gentlemanly priest. I knew him rather well. He advocated for more flexibility in the rubrics of the Mass, creativity from the priest and liturgy committees. He wanted engagement by the celebrant with the assembly and vice a versa.
His own modeling of his preference for Mass was one where you always smiled at the congregation as a priest-presider, had big and generous bodily, liturgical gestures and made the prayers of the Mass your own through "adaptation" even with the Eucharistic prayers.
He has influenced perhaps two generations of priests, my age and those a bit older than me, you know the crowd heading for retirement or death (I include myself in that caustic description). These are the very ones who simply can't stand the "reform of the reform" that Pope Benedict has unleashed on our Church and her liturgies.
Oddly enough, the seminary that I attended which was staffed by Sulpician priests, was not that enamored with Fr. Eugene Walsh (RIP). We studied other so-called liturgical theologians and our worship, although certainly creative, was a bit more formal in our main chapel and not of the touchy-feely, personality driven, congregation-adapted style of Fr. Walsh.
At any rate, we do have two primary schools of thought operating today in terms of how the Mass should be reformed or deformed. Which will succeed? The one the Holy Spirit wants which is the one the Magisterium wants. Time will tell and all of us must wait and see.
His own modeling of his preference for Mass was one where you always smiled at the congregation as a priest-presider, had big and generous bodily, liturgical gestures and made the prayers of the Mass your own through "adaptation" even with the Eucharistic prayers.
He has influenced perhaps two generations of priests, my age and those a bit older than me, you know the crowd heading for retirement or death (I include myself in that caustic description). These are the very ones who simply can't stand the "reform of the reform" that Pope Benedict has unleashed on our Church and her liturgies.
Oddly enough, the seminary that I attended which was staffed by Sulpician priests, was not that enamored with Fr. Eugene Walsh (RIP). We studied other so-called liturgical theologians and our worship, although certainly creative, was a bit more formal in our main chapel and not of the touchy-feely, personality driven, congregation-adapted style of Fr. Walsh.
At any rate, we do have two primary schools of thought operating today in terms of how the Mass should be reformed or deformed. Which will succeed? The one the Holy Spirit wants which is the one the Magisterium wants. Time will tell and all of us must wait and see.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
ADDING REVERENCE TO THE O.F. MASS
There is a great deal of misinformation concerning the two Masses that are permitted in the Latin Rite, namely what is now called the Ordinary (Normal) Form of the Mass and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. I know that many people have a preference for one over the other and it is true that the majority prefer the Ordinary Form in the vernacular. But those who prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, do so because of the built in reverence, silence and solemnity of the Mass, even in its "noble simplicity" as a Low Mass. They seem to think that the Ordinary Form of the Mass causes people to be less reverent, because the "reverence" isn't built in as in the EF Mass.
I would concur with the last sentence above. Having celebrated both, I indeed see that the EF is more reverent and leads the faithful to reverence. It is not that the Ordinary Form of the Mass can't be reverent, but the manner in which this form is celebrated in so many places has removed so much that leads to reverence.
I have striven over the years to celebrate the Ordinary Form in a reverent way. I have always had for at least 25 years a "high Mass" in the Ordinary Form every Sunday with all the "smoke, bells and whistles." In these Masses, combined with the tabernacle centrally located, reverence permeates the Church and the Mass. I have had the faithful ask me as a result of this more reverent use of the "bells and whistles" why they can't kneel for Holy Communion. I've always stated that "standing symbolizes being raised up with Christ." While true, this theological perspective is more of the Eastern Rite of the Church rather than the Latin Rite. Kneeling for the Canon of the Mass as well as for Holy Communion in the Latin Rite always signified adoration, i.e. worship. It developed very early in the Latin Rite and has a longer tradition in our Latin Rite than standing does.
So, to help our Ordinary Form of the Mass to exude reverence and lead people to be reverent and in a mood of adoration and awe, I would suggest the following for the Ordinary Form of the Mass.
1. Silence before Mass
2. Silence before the Opening Collect, after the readings, after the homily and after Holy Communion. Pope Benedict models a very prolonged silence after the homily and Holy Communion at all his Masses.
3. Trained Altar Servers, who understand what they are doing, have clean and ironed cassocks and surplices and know how to bow properly, genuflect properly and a good choreography of their movements.
4. Trained lectors who dress properly, (Sunday best) and read well.
5. Attention to detail. Beautiful altar clothes, the traditional decoration of the altar, beautiful vestments.
6. Chanting the official Entrance Antiphon even if there is a metrical processional hymn. Chanting the official Offertory and Communion antiphons in addition to any motets or congregational hymns.
7. Have at least one "high Mass" that is sung, uses incense and Holy Water.
All this can be done in the vernacular, facing the people and instilling reverence.
In addition, I would hope that kneeling for Holy Communion would be the norm once again (although this is up to the conference of bishops) and that the tabernacle be prominently displayed at the center of the church, directly behind the altar. These two things will accomplish so much in the recovery of reverence and adoration in our Masses.
Did you notice that I did not mention Latin. While I appreciate it and the EF Mass will help to preserve it, I do believe that the vernacular has helped people to understand the Mass without resorting to missals, missalettes, and the like. I would hope that more vernacular will be possible with the EF Mass in the future.
I would concur with the last sentence above. Having celebrated both, I indeed see that the EF is more reverent and leads the faithful to reverence. It is not that the Ordinary Form of the Mass can't be reverent, but the manner in which this form is celebrated in so many places has removed so much that leads to reverence.
I have striven over the years to celebrate the Ordinary Form in a reverent way. I have always had for at least 25 years a "high Mass" in the Ordinary Form every Sunday with all the "smoke, bells and whistles." In these Masses, combined with the tabernacle centrally located, reverence permeates the Church and the Mass. I have had the faithful ask me as a result of this more reverent use of the "bells and whistles" why they can't kneel for Holy Communion. I've always stated that "standing symbolizes being raised up with Christ." While true, this theological perspective is more of the Eastern Rite of the Church rather than the Latin Rite. Kneeling for the Canon of the Mass as well as for Holy Communion in the Latin Rite always signified adoration, i.e. worship. It developed very early in the Latin Rite and has a longer tradition in our Latin Rite than standing does.
So, to help our Ordinary Form of the Mass to exude reverence and lead people to be reverent and in a mood of adoration and awe, I would suggest the following for the Ordinary Form of the Mass.
1. Silence before Mass
2. Silence before the Opening Collect, after the readings, after the homily and after Holy Communion. Pope Benedict models a very prolonged silence after the homily and Holy Communion at all his Masses.
3. Trained Altar Servers, who understand what they are doing, have clean and ironed cassocks and surplices and know how to bow properly, genuflect properly and a good choreography of their movements.
4. Trained lectors who dress properly, (Sunday best) and read well.
5. Attention to detail. Beautiful altar clothes, the traditional decoration of the altar, beautiful vestments.
6. Chanting the official Entrance Antiphon even if there is a metrical processional hymn. Chanting the official Offertory and Communion antiphons in addition to any motets or congregational hymns.
7. Have at least one "high Mass" that is sung, uses incense and Holy Water.
All this can be done in the vernacular, facing the people and instilling reverence.
In addition, I would hope that kneeling for Holy Communion would be the norm once again (although this is up to the conference of bishops) and that the tabernacle be prominently displayed at the center of the church, directly behind the altar. These two things will accomplish so much in the recovery of reverence and adoration in our Masses.
Did you notice that I did not mention Latin. While I appreciate it and the EF Mass will help to preserve it, I do believe that the vernacular has helped people to understand the Mass without resorting to missals, missalettes, and the like. I would hope that more vernacular will be possible with the EF Mass in the future.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE TWO FORMS OF MASS OF THE LATIN RITE
THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS AND THE NOVUS ORDO
Written by Alan M. Rees
February 2009
The greatness of the Roman rite lies in its antiquity and fidelity to tradition. [Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus.] Every worshiper taking part in the ancient liturgy can in this manner feel joined to all those who have offered prayer and sacrifice before him, and a unity with those who will be offering the same sacrifice in times to come, long after the last fragment of our mortal remains has crumbled into dust. The core of the traditional Canon from the prayer before the Consecration and including the sacrificial prayer after Consecration was in existence by the end of the 4th century. The Reform of the Mass by St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is substantially the same as today. The Missal of St. Pius V (1566-1572) was compiled and published in obedience to the Fathers of the Council of Trent (hence Tridentine). The fact that the Canon remained unaltered for thirteen centuries except for minor additions speaks eloquently of the veneration with which it has always been regarded. The words pronounced at the altar today are, to a very significant degree, the same words, gestures, and motions as those used by Blessed John XXIII, St. Pius V, St. Dominic, St. Edmund Campion, and by the martyrs of North America. Such is the perpetuity of the Church and the continuity of its teaching.
An alternative form of the present mass is now more widely available to those who prefer it. The Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum issued by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007, defines two equal usages of the Roman rite. It is therefore permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass either by following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 or by using the liturgy of the Novus Ordo Missae of Pope Paul VI (1969). These two equal and co-existing usages of the Roman Rite are:
· THE ORDINARY FORM, [the Forma Ordinaria,] the Novus Ordo Missae, of Paul VI (1969)
· THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM, [the Forma Extraordinaria,] the Mass of Blessed John XXIII (1962), also known as the usus antiquior, Gregorian Mass, Tridentine Mass, or Traditional Latin Mass.
These two forms celebrate the same sacrifice and are co-equal. Pope Benedict emphasizes:
“The usus antiquior is not a museum piece but a living expression of Catholic worship … what earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred for us too … It is a treasure that belongs to the whole Catholic Church and which should be widely available to all of Christ’s faithful … It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer and to give them their proper place.”
Pope Benedict’s Motus Proprio of 2007 makes the Extraordinary Form more readily available, dispensing with the permission formerly required of the local bishop. [This was not entirely unexpected in that in 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger had deplored that anyone advocating the existence of the older liturgy is “treated like a leper” and had stated that the “proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted.”]
It is important to correct a number of misconceptions:
1. The Traditional Latin Mass [i.e. the Extraordinary Form] is a product of the 16th century Council of Trent. Not true: it dates back to the beginnings of Christianity.
2. The Traditional Latin Mass was changed or replaced by Vatican II. Not true: the new mass (Novus Ordo) was crafted after the Council by a liturgical commission and promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969. Vatican II never abolished the Traditional Mass. The Council stated that the use of Latin should be retained as far as possible and that Gregorian chant should be preserved. It declared that “since the use of the Mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, and other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.” Although this provided for a limited use of the vernacular, no mention was made of the total abolition of Latin and the substitution of a vernacular mass in its place. The Council had no intention of initiating a liturgical revolution and intended only to introduce a “moderate English alongside the Latin” with no thought of eliminating it.
3. The priest facing the people was introduced by Vatican II. Not true: it became the unwritten practice in the Novus Ordo mass without any directives from Vatican II or by the Missal of 1969. The orientation towards the East (ad orientem) is ancient and is shared by the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church as well as by the Orthodox Church. Cardinal Ratzinger said in The Spirit of the Liturgy that the priest in facing the congregation is tempted “to be an actor.” The mass is not a performance so there is no place for applause. The Mass is a sacrifice and must transcend the personality of the priest.
4. Mass in the vernacular was introduced by Vatican II. Not true: the official language of the Novus Ordo is Latin and the mass may be celebrated either in Latin or in English.
5. The practice of receiving Communion in-the-hand was called for by Vatican II. Not true: this sprang up as an abuse and was subsequently accepted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1977 by a slim majority. This indult can be withdrawn at any time.
6. The Motus Proprio of Pope Benedict making the Traditional Mass more available is intended as a favor to an élite group of nostalgic and pedantic traditionalists enchanted by a dead language. Not true: rather it may be viewed as a “reform of the reform,” a renewal of the Church catalyzed by liturgical renewal.
Certainly, the vast majority of the several thousand bishops at the Council neither wished for, nor mandated, a radical reform of the liturgy. It was never the intention to abandon the use of Latin, Gregorian chant, or requiring the celebrant to face the people. Nothing had been said about standing to receive Communion in the hand, or the use of altar girls. No mention had been made about the use of multiple Canons – in the Roman rite there had always been one Eucharistic prayer. The many changes in the liturgy were for the most part made after Vatican II. Interpretation of the Council’s intent was motivated by what became known as the Spirit of Vatican II.
A Concilium was established by Paul VI charged with task of reorganizing the liturgy. This was controlled by Archbishop Annibale Bugnini. The Concilium document Inter Oecumenici in 1964 was a triumph for the reformers. The rapid changes which followed included the abolition of kneeling to receive Communion, receiving under both forms, the almost exclusive use of the vernacular, the priest facing the congregation, deletion of many prayers in the Mass, no longer requiring kneeling at the Incarnatus Est in the Creed, omission of the Last Gospel, a shortening of the traditional prayer of the priest when placing the Host on the communicant’s tongue. These changes in the late 1960s bore a striking resemblance to Archbishop Cranmer’s reform of the Roman Liturgy in 1549 and 1552 at the time of the English Reformation. Cranmer also abolished Latin, allowed Communion in the hand, and under both species. The sacrificial nature of the Mass was downplayed – remember that Luther spoke of the sacrifice as “the greatest and most appalling horror” and a “damnable impiety.” It has been suggested that Bugnini’s reform following Vatican II introduced more radical change than that made by Luther.
Forty years after Vatican II, Alcuin Reid, a leading liturgist, considered that “the present state of the Roman rite is not all that it should be or what was intended by the liturgical movement or even by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council.” The tendency to creative modification resulted in “deformations” in the liturgy. In the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. In the words of Cardinal Ratzinger, “We abandoned the organic living process of growth over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” Far from modernizing and rendering the liturgy more understandable with increased participation, there occurred a disintegration of belief.
The most grievous change following Vatican II was the loss of reverence. Consciousness of the Real Presence has diminished. The Gregorian chant, the smoke of the incense, kneeling to receive Communion, receiving the Host on the tongue from the priest, had created a sense of otherworldliness, a glimpse into eternity. Innovation replaced holy intimacy with Christ with an unbecoming familiarity, diminished reverence in the face of mystery, precluded awe, and all but extinguished a sense of sacredness. Allowing us to pop a wafer into our own mouths, tends to eradicate any consciousness that something truly miraculous has happened. When Pope Paul VI spoke of “the smoke of Satan entering the Catholic Church,” he was referring to those who wished to turn the Holy Mass into “dross in the name of creativity.”
Pope Paul VI promulgated the revised rite of Mass in April 1969. The new use of the vernacular, he said, is “intended to draw the faithful out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor ….. The divine Latin language, has kept us apart from the world of labor and affairs as if it were a dark screen, and not a clear window.” This substitution, he conceded, “will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin.” He asked rhetorically, “What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth.” His answer may seem banal: “the understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed.” im and not us.Hi
It is not just a question of talking to God in Latin. The Novus Ordo can also be offered in Latin. There is a difference in mood – the TLM is contemplative and is surrounded by silence. The words of prayer impregnate the silence and give birth to meditation and closeness to God. There is an overwhelming emphasis on the Mass as an actual sacrifice, a bloodless re-enactment of Christ’s sacrifice on Mt. Calvary. The priest begins at the foot of the altar, with prayers that he might be worthy to ascend unto thy “holy mount and into thy tabernacles.” These are the words of the psalms from the Hebrew Bible, and they go with an extraordinary insistence on using the language of the ancient Jewish Temple sacrifice – “A holy victim, a pure and unblemished sacrifice.” The priest mounts the steps, reads the epistle and gospel, and comes to the Canon of the Mass. The climax comes in the Consecration. Every gesture by the priest, the signs of the cross, the genuflections, are strictly controlled by the rubrics. There is nothing spontaneous: “The greatness of the liturgy depends on its unspontaneity.” (Ratzinger). The elaborate ritual is a manifestation of sacred time, of timelessness, of time outside of time.
On the positive side, many of the major changes flowing from Vatican II have been highly beneficial. These desirable reforms include extended Biblical readings and delivery of homilies deriving their content mainly from Scripture; Saturday evening masses to satisfy the Sunday obligation; an extended role for the laity in the form of altar servers, lectors, and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion; Extreme Unction renamed Anointing of the Sick administered to those seriously ill and no longer restricted to those at the point of death; a new emphasis on praying the Liturgy of the Hours (Divine Office) by lay people; a revival of the office of permanent deacon; revision of the calendar of the liturgical year; a new Lectionary providing a 3-year cycle of Sunday readings and a 2-year cycle of weekly readings.
On the negative side, we have placed an on overemphasis on “doing things” -- an activism that impedes our understanding of the Mass as essentially a liturgical setting of an historic and present action of divine mercy and sacrifice. Excessive participation produces commotion, movement, and noise, often at the cost of contemplation. Too much attention is focused on our contribution as participants in the Mass at the expense of attention paid to the transcendence of the sacramental offering of the High Priest.
The Holy Father has emphasized that through the Motu Proprio he wishes to enrich the liturgy of the whole of the Church and not merely to protect the right of those who prefer the ancient form. George Weigel recently commented that “Pope Benedict’s point in making this more widely available is neither nostalgic nor retrograde. Rather, by encouraging the more widespread celebration of this classic form of the always-evolving Roman rite, he intends to create a kind of liturgical magnet, drawing ‘the reform of the reform’ in the direction of greater solemnity and reverence in the Catholic Church’s worship.”
I do not mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with preferring the Novus Ordo Mass. Likewise, there is no reason to regard the TLM as somewhat suspect or lesser. As Bishop Bruskowitz said, “The older rite need not be disdained in order to appreciate the new, nor must the newer rite be disparaged in order to love the old.” Those who favor the Novus Ordo and those who prefer the Extraordinary Form can agree to differ and still remain faithful.
The differences between the two forms can be overemphasized. Reverence is not a unique property of the Traditional Mass. The average Catholic without special liturgical formation would find it difficult to distinguish between a mass sung in Latin according to the old Missal and a sung mass according to the new Missal. However, the differences between a liturgy celebrated faithfully according to the Missal of Paul VI and the reality of a vernacular liturgy celebrated with all the freedom and creativity that are possible are enormous. This stems from the fact that many have accepted a great deal of creativity in celebrating the Novus Ordo while others have held that the old form, in Latin with the priest facing the altar, must be celebrated strictly and precisely according to the rubrics, with no modification.
My basic message tonight is expressed cogently and concisely by Pope Benedict:
“There is certainly a difference of emphasis, but a single fundamental identity that excludes any contradiction or antagonism between a renewed liturgy and the preceding liturgy.”
(Pope Benedict XVI. September 12, 2008)
Written by Alan M. Rees
February 2009
The greatness of the Roman rite lies in its antiquity and fidelity to tradition. [Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus.] Every worshiper taking part in the ancient liturgy can in this manner feel joined to all those who have offered prayer and sacrifice before him, and a unity with those who will be offering the same sacrifice in times to come, long after the last fragment of our mortal remains has crumbled into dust. The core of the traditional Canon from the prayer before the Consecration and including the sacrificial prayer after Consecration was in existence by the end of the 4th century. The Reform of the Mass by St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is substantially the same as today. The Missal of St. Pius V (1566-1572) was compiled and published in obedience to the Fathers of the Council of Trent (hence Tridentine). The fact that the Canon remained unaltered for thirteen centuries except for minor additions speaks eloquently of the veneration with which it has always been regarded. The words pronounced at the altar today are, to a very significant degree, the same words, gestures, and motions as those used by Blessed John XXIII, St. Pius V, St. Dominic, St. Edmund Campion, and by the martyrs of North America. Such is the perpetuity of the Church and the continuity of its teaching.
An alternative form of the present mass is now more widely available to those who prefer it. The Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum issued by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007, defines two equal usages of the Roman rite. It is therefore permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass either by following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 or by using the liturgy of the Novus Ordo Missae of Pope Paul VI (1969). These two equal and co-existing usages of the Roman Rite are:
· THE ORDINARY FORM, [the Forma Ordinaria,] the Novus Ordo Missae, of Paul VI (1969)
· THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM, [the Forma Extraordinaria,] the Mass of Blessed John XXIII (1962), also known as the usus antiquior, Gregorian Mass, Tridentine Mass, or Traditional Latin Mass.
These two forms celebrate the same sacrifice and are co-equal. Pope Benedict emphasizes:
“The usus antiquior is not a museum piece but a living expression of Catholic worship … what earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred for us too … It is a treasure that belongs to the whole Catholic Church and which should be widely available to all of Christ’s faithful … It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer and to give them their proper place.”
Pope Benedict’s Motus Proprio of 2007 makes the Extraordinary Form more readily available, dispensing with the permission formerly required of the local bishop. [This was not entirely unexpected in that in 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger had deplored that anyone advocating the existence of the older liturgy is “treated like a leper” and had stated that the “proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted.”]
It is important to correct a number of misconceptions:
1. The Traditional Latin Mass [i.e. the Extraordinary Form] is a product of the 16th century Council of Trent. Not true: it dates back to the beginnings of Christianity.
2. The Traditional Latin Mass was changed or replaced by Vatican II. Not true: the new mass (Novus Ordo) was crafted after the Council by a liturgical commission and promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969. Vatican II never abolished the Traditional Mass. The Council stated that the use of Latin should be retained as far as possible and that Gregorian chant should be preserved. It declared that “since the use of the Mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, and other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.” Although this provided for a limited use of the vernacular, no mention was made of the total abolition of Latin and the substitution of a vernacular mass in its place. The Council had no intention of initiating a liturgical revolution and intended only to introduce a “moderate English alongside the Latin” with no thought of eliminating it.
3. The priest facing the people was introduced by Vatican II. Not true: it became the unwritten practice in the Novus Ordo mass without any directives from Vatican II or by the Missal of 1969. The orientation towards the East (ad orientem) is ancient and is shared by the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church as well as by the Orthodox Church. Cardinal Ratzinger said in The Spirit of the Liturgy that the priest in facing the congregation is tempted “to be an actor.” The mass is not a performance so there is no place for applause. The Mass is a sacrifice and must transcend the personality of the priest.
4. Mass in the vernacular was introduced by Vatican II. Not true: the official language of the Novus Ordo is Latin and the mass may be celebrated either in Latin or in English.
5. The practice of receiving Communion in-the-hand was called for by Vatican II. Not true: this sprang up as an abuse and was subsequently accepted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1977 by a slim majority. This indult can be withdrawn at any time.
6. The Motus Proprio of Pope Benedict making the Traditional Mass more available is intended as a favor to an élite group of nostalgic and pedantic traditionalists enchanted by a dead language. Not true: rather it may be viewed as a “reform of the reform,” a renewal of the Church catalyzed by liturgical renewal.
Certainly, the vast majority of the several thousand bishops at the Council neither wished for, nor mandated, a radical reform of the liturgy. It was never the intention to abandon the use of Latin, Gregorian chant, or requiring the celebrant to face the people. Nothing had been said about standing to receive Communion in the hand, or the use of altar girls. No mention had been made about the use of multiple Canons – in the Roman rite there had always been one Eucharistic prayer. The many changes in the liturgy were for the most part made after Vatican II. Interpretation of the Council’s intent was motivated by what became known as the Spirit of Vatican II.
A Concilium was established by Paul VI charged with task of reorganizing the liturgy. This was controlled by Archbishop Annibale Bugnini. The Concilium document Inter Oecumenici in 1964 was a triumph for the reformers. The rapid changes which followed included the abolition of kneeling to receive Communion, receiving under both forms, the almost exclusive use of the vernacular, the priest facing the congregation, deletion of many prayers in the Mass, no longer requiring kneeling at the Incarnatus Est in the Creed, omission of the Last Gospel, a shortening of the traditional prayer of the priest when placing the Host on the communicant’s tongue. These changes in the late 1960s bore a striking resemblance to Archbishop Cranmer’s reform of the Roman Liturgy in 1549 and 1552 at the time of the English Reformation. Cranmer also abolished Latin, allowed Communion in the hand, and under both species. The sacrificial nature of the Mass was downplayed – remember that Luther spoke of the sacrifice as “the greatest and most appalling horror” and a “damnable impiety.” It has been suggested that Bugnini’s reform following Vatican II introduced more radical change than that made by Luther.
Forty years after Vatican II, Alcuin Reid, a leading liturgist, considered that “the present state of the Roman rite is not all that it should be or what was intended by the liturgical movement or even by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council.” The tendency to creative modification resulted in “deformations” in the liturgy. In the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. In the words of Cardinal Ratzinger, “We abandoned the organic living process of growth over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” Far from modernizing and rendering the liturgy more understandable with increased participation, there occurred a disintegration of belief.
The most grievous change following Vatican II was the loss of reverence. Consciousness of the Real Presence has diminished. The Gregorian chant, the smoke of the incense, kneeling to receive Communion, receiving the Host on the tongue from the priest, had created a sense of otherworldliness, a glimpse into eternity. Innovation replaced holy intimacy with Christ with an unbecoming familiarity, diminished reverence in the face of mystery, precluded awe, and all but extinguished a sense of sacredness. Allowing us to pop a wafer into our own mouths, tends to eradicate any consciousness that something truly miraculous has happened. When Pope Paul VI spoke of “the smoke of Satan entering the Catholic Church,” he was referring to those who wished to turn the Holy Mass into “dross in the name of creativity.”
Pope Paul VI promulgated the revised rite of Mass in April 1969. The new use of the vernacular, he said, is “intended to draw the faithful out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor ….. The divine Latin language, has kept us apart from the world of labor and affairs as if it were a dark screen, and not a clear window.” This substitution, he conceded, “will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin.” He asked rhetorically, “What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth.” His answer may seem banal: “the understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed.” im and not us.Hi
It is not just a question of talking to God in Latin. The Novus Ordo can also be offered in Latin. There is a difference in mood – the TLM is contemplative and is surrounded by silence. The words of prayer impregnate the silence and give birth to meditation and closeness to God. There is an overwhelming emphasis on the Mass as an actual sacrifice, a bloodless re-enactment of Christ’s sacrifice on Mt. Calvary. The priest begins at the foot of the altar, with prayers that he might be worthy to ascend unto thy “holy mount and into thy tabernacles.” These are the words of the psalms from the Hebrew Bible, and they go with an extraordinary insistence on using the language of the ancient Jewish Temple sacrifice – “A holy victim, a pure and unblemished sacrifice.” The priest mounts the steps, reads the epistle and gospel, and comes to the Canon of the Mass. The climax comes in the Consecration. Every gesture by the priest, the signs of the cross, the genuflections, are strictly controlled by the rubrics. There is nothing spontaneous: “The greatness of the liturgy depends on its unspontaneity.” (Ratzinger). The elaborate ritual is a manifestation of sacred time, of timelessness, of time outside of time.
On the positive side, many of the major changes flowing from Vatican II have been highly beneficial. These desirable reforms include extended Biblical readings and delivery of homilies deriving their content mainly from Scripture; Saturday evening masses to satisfy the Sunday obligation; an extended role for the laity in the form of altar servers, lectors, and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion; Extreme Unction renamed Anointing of the Sick administered to those seriously ill and no longer restricted to those at the point of death; a new emphasis on praying the Liturgy of the Hours (Divine Office) by lay people; a revival of the office of permanent deacon; revision of the calendar of the liturgical year; a new Lectionary providing a 3-year cycle of Sunday readings and a 2-year cycle of weekly readings.
On the negative side, we have placed an on overemphasis on “doing things” -- an activism that impedes our understanding of the Mass as essentially a liturgical setting of an historic and present action of divine mercy and sacrifice. Excessive participation produces commotion, movement, and noise, often at the cost of contemplation. Too much attention is focused on our contribution as participants in the Mass at the expense of attention paid to the transcendence of the sacramental offering of the High Priest.
The Holy Father has emphasized that through the Motu Proprio he wishes to enrich the liturgy of the whole of the Church and not merely to protect the right of those who prefer the ancient form. George Weigel recently commented that “Pope Benedict’s point in making this more widely available is neither nostalgic nor retrograde. Rather, by encouraging the more widespread celebration of this classic form of the always-evolving Roman rite, he intends to create a kind of liturgical magnet, drawing ‘the reform of the reform’ in the direction of greater solemnity and reverence in the Catholic Church’s worship.”
I do not mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with preferring the Novus Ordo Mass. Likewise, there is no reason to regard the TLM as somewhat suspect or lesser. As Bishop Bruskowitz said, “The older rite need not be disdained in order to appreciate the new, nor must the newer rite be disparaged in order to love the old.” Those who favor the Novus Ordo and those who prefer the Extraordinary Form can agree to differ and still remain faithful.
The differences between the two forms can be overemphasized. Reverence is not a unique property of the Traditional Mass. The average Catholic without special liturgical formation would find it difficult to distinguish between a mass sung in Latin according to the old Missal and a sung mass according to the new Missal. However, the differences between a liturgy celebrated faithfully according to the Missal of Paul VI and the reality of a vernacular liturgy celebrated with all the freedom and creativity that are possible are enormous. This stems from the fact that many have accepted a great deal of creativity in celebrating the Novus Ordo while others have held that the old form, in Latin with the priest facing the altar, must be celebrated strictly and precisely according to the rubrics, with no modification.
My basic message tonight is expressed cogently and concisely by Pope Benedict:
“There is certainly a difference of emphasis, but a single fundamental identity that excludes any contradiction or antagonism between a renewed liturgy and the preceding liturgy.”
(Pope Benedict XVI. September 12, 2008)
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
A LATINIZED MASS IN THE LATIN RITE: who would disagree with that?
This past weekend at St. Joseph Church in Macon, we began to eliminate the "lame duck" English translation of the Mass for the people's parts. As Latin Rite Catholics, we are learning the Latin parts. We are doing this incrementally. Currently, all of the "Dominus vobiscum" responses as well as the preface dialogue will be in Latin. During Lent we will say goodbye to the English Sanctus and Mystery of faith. St. Joseph already knows the Sanctus and Agnus Dei in Latin. During the Easter season we will teach them Gloria. I'm doubtful of the Creed, but am tempted to paste the new translation of it on the inside cover of our hymnal and start doing it now, but I hate being illicit!
I had the 9:30 AM and 5:00 PM Sunday Masses and both of the congregations did exceptionally well. We sang the preface dialogue, which we have commonly done with the old English form. I was very heartened by the people's embrace of this. Not everyone likes it, but I think everyone is trying and they understand. Catholics I have found are smart and we are the most educated Catholics in the history of the Catholic Church, or so we are told!
I think the use of Latin for these lame duck English parts will make it easier for us to change over to the new English when it is finally allowed. I hope the Bishops will allow us to do it as soon as possible. If the priests of the parish are positive about the new translation and convey that to the people and show them where they can find it and study it, it will go more smoothly. But so far, changing overnight to the Latin parts I mention above went extremely smoothly. I can't imagine changing the English would be more difficult. I didn't have a lenghty catechesis for the people for the Latin transition. We won't really need a lengthy one for the new English--let's get it done and soon!!!!!
I had the 9:30 AM and 5:00 PM Sunday Masses and both of the congregations did exceptionally well. We sang the preface dialogue, which we have commonly done with the old English form. I was very heartened by the people's embrace of this. Not everyone likes it, but I think everyone is trying and they understand. Catholics I have found are smart and we are the most educated Catholics in the history of the Catholic Church, or so we are told!
I think the use of Latin for these lame duck English parts will make it easier for us to change over to the new English when it is finally allowed. I hope the Bishops will allow us to do it as soon as possible. If the priests of the parish are positive about the new translation and convey that to the people and show them where they can find it and study it, it will go more smoothly. But so far, changing overnight to the Latin parts I mention above went extremely smoothly. I can't imagine changing the English would be more difficult. I didn't have a lenghty catechesis for the people for the Latin transition. We won't really need a lengthy one for the new English--let's get it done and soon!!!!!
WEEK OF PRAYER FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY
Why can't my Protestant brothers and sisters receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church? Wouldn't that be a sign of Christian unity?
The reason we have the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity and ecumenical dialogue is that Christians are not unified. The Great Schism began the first major division or "disunity" and the Protestant Reformation was the second. There have been smaller and larger divisions along the way to this day.
The reception of Holy Communion is the clearest sign and symbol that we are in unity with our Lord, the Church He founded and those He has placed to guide and lead His Church, namely the Pope and bishops who are the successors of St. Peter and the other apostles. Complete unity, which receiving Holy Communion implies, is that we believe the same things as well, not only about the Most Holy Trinity, but also about Sacred Scripture and Tradition, the seven sacraments and Christian morality. Orthodoxy in other words (right teaching) must always lead to ortho-praxis or (right practice) of the Faith.
We are far from the unity that being one in Christ implies. Being one in Christ implies being in Full Communion with Him, which receiving Holy Communion is the clearest sign. Therefore let us pray for the full, visible and corporate unity that our Lord desires. Let us not make Holy Communion a gimmick to make it look like we are unified. Your thoughts?
The reason we have the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity and ecumenical dialogue is that Christians are not unified. The Great Schism began the first major division or "disunity" and the Protestant Reformation was the second. There have been smaller and larger divisions along the way to this day.
The reception of Holy Communion is the clearest sign and symbol that we are in unity with our Lord, the Church He founded and those He has placed to guide and lead His Church, namely the Pope and bishops who are the successors of St. Peter and the other apostles. Complete unity, which receiving Holy Communion implies, is that we believe the same things as well, not only about the Most Holy Trinity, but also about Sacred Scripture and Tradition, the seven sacraments and Christian morality. Orthodoxy in other words (right teaching) must always lead to ortho-praxis or (right practice) of the Faith.
We are far from the unity that being one in Christ implies. Being one in Christ implies being in Full Communion with Him, which receiving Holy Communion is the clearest sign. Therefore let us pray for the full, visible and corporate unity that our Lord desires. Let us not make Holy Communion a gimmick to make it look like we are unified. Your thoughts?
Sunday, January 17, 2010
School of Thought that my Generation of Priests were schooled in
When I was in the seminary at St. Mary's in Baltimore between 1976-80, Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx was one of the main theologians studied and his context of faith was seen as the "spirit of Vatican II" force shaping the Church of the future. While this article from the New York Times, which is an obituary, does not go into a great deal of depth, it does reveal many of the theological points of this theologian which if taken to the extreme is really the "deconstruction" of the Catholic Church in order to pave the way for something else altogether different, much like what the Episcopal Church has become. Fortunately, his theology is quite discredited today and by Papa Ratzinger in particular. We also studied Joseph Ratzinger's writing during the period immediately following the Second Vatican Council. His writing were solid! The paradigm that Fr. Schillebeeckx developed and we studied is responsible for the loss of faith of a number of our seminarians. By loss, I mean, loss of Catholic faith. But it certainly did call us to be good social workers. But as Catholics, Orthodox teaching and good works are what go hand in hand. He helped to develop the "New Dutch Catechism" in 1966. It is partially responsible for the heterodoxy of many Catholics in Holland today. The Church there barely exists because of it!
Edward Schillebeeckx, Catholic Theologian, Dies at 95
By PETER STEINFELS, NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 16, 2010
The Rev. Edward Schillebeeckx, a prominent member of a wave of Roman Catholic theologians who helped reshape Catholicism during the Second Vatican Council and whose writings were later investigated for heresy, died on Dec. 23 in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. He was 95.
He died after a short illness, according to the Edward Schillebeeckx Foundation in Nijmegen, which preserves his work.
Although born and raised in Belgium, where he entered the Dominican religious order, Father Schillebeeckx (pronounced SKIL-uh-bakes) joined the theological faculty at the Catholic University of Nijmegen (now Radboud University) in 1958. He soon became a leading adviser to the Dutch bishops, especially during the four sessions of the Second Vatican Council, a marathon reassessment of Catholic life held in Rome from 1962 to 1965.
There he entered into discussions of the council’s documents, which eventually allowed celebration of the Mass in today’s languages rather than only in Latin, endorsed religious freedom, removed many barriers between Catholics, Protestants and other faiths and promoted a positive engagement with contemporary culture.
After the council, Father Schillebeeckx continued pressing for the kind of changes it had initiated. He published and lectured widely on basic theological matters like the nature of revelation and salvation, and on issues of church discipline he argued for democratic procedures in church governance and the ordination of married people, both men and women, to the priesthood.
He helped prepare the “New Dutch Catechism,” which the Dutch bishops published in 1966 and which sold widely.
From 1968 to 1981, the Vatican began three investigations of his writings for heresy. They all ended inconclusively with admonitions, complaints and requests for clarification but with no formal censures or penalties.
Like many Catholic theologians who influenced the council, Father Schillebeeckx had reacted against the neo-scholastic theology that the church adopted in the 19th century as a bulwark against hostile modern ideas. Distilled from the thought of Thomas Aquinas but frequently handed on without any examination of Aquinas’s writings or their medieval context, this neo-scholasticism articulated the faith in series of abstract concepts and propositions presented as absolute, ahistorical and immutable.
Father Schillebeeckx found alternative intellectual resources in modern phenomenology, with its meticulous attention to the actual experience of consciousness. And by studying Aquinas in his medieval context, he recovered a Thomism that expounded the presence and mystery of God in far less rationalistic and conceptual ways than did its neo-scholastic versions.
Strong emphases on human experience and on the importance of examining church teaching in historical context became hallmarks of Father Schillebeeckx’s work.
His early writing on the sacraments, for example, portrayed them as personal encounters with God rather than mechanisms for the distribution of grace. In two books — “Jesus: An Experiment in Christology” (1974) and “Christ: The Christian Experience in the Modern World” (1977) — he recast classical Catholic teachings about Christ around the experiences that gave rise to his followers’ faith in Jesus as messiah and the son of God.
These were groundbreaking attempts at rethinking church doctrine in light of the scholarly research about the historical Jesus that had accumulated in previous decades. But the fact that Father Schillebeeckx did not begin with Christianity’s great creedal statements about Jesus and the Trinity but instead focused on the subjective experience of the first generations of believers, as expressed in the New Testament accounts, stirred considerable controversy and a Vatican investigation.
Critics asked, for example, whether Father Schillebeeckx, by treating the resurrection largely in terms of the “conversion” experiences that Jesus’ disciples underwent after his death, was either denying that Jesus actually rose from the dead or suggesting that it did not matter.
Father Schillebeeckx said he was doing neither. His intention, he said, was to help contemporary people on a journey to belief by portraying the parallel journeys of Jesus’ first followers.
Not all of Father Schillebeeckx’s critics were theological conservatives. Some simply thought that he fell short in his ambitious efforts to master huge amounts of biblical scholarship or philosophical theory and that he consequently opted for arresting but unwarranted positions.
An emphasis on experience led Father Schillebeeckx to much reflection on large-scale human suffering and on salvation as liberation from it. For him, faith in Jesus required not just a mental assent but also a this-worldly response to suffering.
Edward Cornelius Florentius Schillebeeckx was born on Nov. 12, 1914, in Antwerp, Belgium. He was the sixth of 14 children in a middle-class Flemish family.
He attended a Jesuit-run secondary school, and joined the Dominicans in 1934. After a brief military service, he was ordained to the priesthood in 1941. In 1946, postgraduate studies took him to the Sorbonne in Paris and to Le Saulchoir, a nearby Dominican house of studies, where he encountered Marie-Dominique Chenu and Yves Congar, pioneers of the “new theology” that would be a major influence at the Second Vatican Council.
Father Schillebeeckx was variously described as “reserved” and “charming.” Mary Catherine Hilkert, a professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame who edited a volume of essays on Father Schillebeeckx, described him as “utterly gracious.”
Edward Schillebeeckx, Catholic Theologian, Dies at 95
By PETER STEINFELS, NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 16, 2010
The Rev. Edward Schillebeeckx, a prominent member of a wave of Roman Catholic theologians who helped reshape Catholicism during the Second Vatican Council and whose writings were later investigated for heresy, died on Dec. 23 in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. He was 95.
He died after a short illness, according to the Edward Schillebeeckx Foundation in Nijmegen, which preserves his work.
Although born and raised in Belgium, where he entered the Dominican religious order, Father Schillebeeckx (pronounced SKIL-uh-bakes) joined the theological faculty at the Catholic University of Nijmegen (now Radboud University) in 1958. He soon became a leading adviser to the Dutch bishops, especially during the four sessions of the Second Vatican Council, a marathon reassessment of Catholic life held in Rome from 1962 to 1965.
There he entered into discussions of the council’s documents, which eventually allowed celebration of the Mass in today’s languages rather than only in Latin, endorsed religious freedom, removed many barriers between Catholics, Protestants and other faiths and promoted a positive engagement with contemporary culture.
After the council, Father Schillebeeckx continued pressing for the kind of changes it had initiated. He published and lectured widely on basic theological matters like the nature of revelation and salvation, and on issues of church discipline he argued for democratic procedures in church governance and the ordination of married people, both men and women, to the priesthood.
He helped prepare the “New Dutch Catechism,” which the Dutch bishops published in 1966 and which sold widely.
From 1968 to 1981, the Vatican began three investigations of his writings for heresy. They all ended inconclusively with admonitions, complaints and requests for clarification but with no formal censures or penalties.
Like many Catholic theologians who influenced the council, Father Schillebeeckx had reacted against the neo-scholastic theology that the church adopted in the 19th century as a bulwark against hostile modern ideas. Distilled from the thought of Thomas Aquinas but frequently handed on without any examination of Aquinas’s writings or their medieval context, this neo-scholasticism articulated the faith in series of abstract concepts and propositions presented as absolute, ahistorical and immutable.
Father Schillebeeckx found alternative intellectual resources in modern phenomenology, with its meticulous attention to the actual experience of consciousness. And by studying Aquinas in his medieval context, he recovered a Thomism that expounded the presence and mystery of God in far less rationalistic and conceptual ways than did its neo-scholastic versions.
Strong emphases on human experience and on the importance of examining church teaching in historical context became hallmarks of Father Schillebeeckx’s work.
His early writing on the sacraments, for example, portrayed them as personal encounters with God rather than mechanisms for the distribution of grace. In two books — “Jesus: An Experiment in Christology” (1974) and “Christ: The Christian Experience in the Modern World” (1977) — he recast classical Catholic teachings about Christ around the experiences that gave rise to his followers’ faith in Jesus as messiah and the son of God.
These were groundbreaking attempts at rethinking church doctrine in light of the scholarly research about the historical Jesus that had accumulated in previous decades. But the fact that Father Schillebeeckx did not begin with Christianity’s great creedal statements about Jesus and the Trinity but instead focused on the subjective experience of the first generations of believers, as expressed in the New Testament accounts, stirred considerable controversy and a Vatican investigation.
Critics asked, for example, whether Father Schillebeeckx, by treating the resurrection largely in terms of the “conversion” experiences that Jesus’ disciples underwent after his death, was either denying that Jesus actually rose from the dead or suggesting that it did not matter.
Father Schillebeeckx said he was doing neither. His intention, he said, was to help contemporary people on a journey to belief by portraying the parallel journeys of Jesus’ first followers.
Not all of Father Schillebeeckx’s critics were theological conservatives. Some simply thought that he fell short in his ambitious efforts to master huge amounts of biblical scholarship or philosophical theory and that he consequently opted for arresting but unwarranted positions.
An emphasis on experience led Father Schillebeeckx to much reflection on large-scale human suffering and on salvation as liberation from it. For him, faith in Jesus required not just a mental assent but also a this-worldly response to suffering.
Edward Cornelius Florentius Schillebeeckx was born on Nov. 12, 1914, in Antwerp, Belgium. He was the sixth of 14 children in a middle-class Flemish family.
He attended a Jesuit-run secondary school, and joined the Dominicans in 1934. After a brief military service, he was ordained to the priesthood in 1941. In 1946, postgraduate studies took him to the Sorbonne in Paris and to Le Saulchoir, a nearby Dominican house of studies, where he encountered Marie-Dominique Chenu and Yves Congar, pioneers of the “new theology” that would be a major influence at the Second Vatican Council.
Father Schillebeeckx was variously described as “reserved” and “charming.” Mary Catherine Hilkert, a professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame who edited a volume of essays on Father Schillebeeckx, described him as “utterly gracious.”
The Reform of the Reform is indeed in motion
From Catholic World Report: This is an interview with Cardinal Arinze who once headed the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome. He certainly makes sense and like others, he continues to outline Pope Benedict's vision of the "Reform of the Reform."
In the Name of the Church
Interview
Cardinal Arinze on the liturgy as public prayer.
Interview by Matthew A. Rarey
Cardinal Francis Arinze has enjoyed a meteoric career, from becoming the youngest bishop in the world in 1965 at the age of 32, to serving in several of the most vital posts in the Vatican. The native Nigerian currently is prefect emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, having served as prefect from 2002 to 2008. In that position, he helped oversee the process of preparing translations of the liturgy that are truer to the original Latin.
In November, Cardinal Arinze made a visit to Chicago, principally to give the keynote address at the annual fundraiser for the Chastity Education Initiative of the Archdiocese of Chicago’s Respect Life Office. He spoke with CWR during the visit.
CWR: Upon sending to Rome the proposed new English translation of the Roman Missal, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, “There is a tremendous moment of religious renewal that is possible now.” What do you hope would be some of the fruits of the new translation, however it is finalized?
Cardinal Francis Arinze: My hope is that those who want the Mass in English will have a text which would be as near to the original Latin as possible. A faithful translation of the Latin, respecting also the character of English, helping the people to pray with the spirit of piety characteristic of the Latin rite. The best text that can be offered today to the English speaking world—that is my hope. Because the text of the public prayer of the Church guides our prayer—communal prayer, liturgical prayer—it should also inspire our personal prayer.
CWR: How do you hope the new translation will help priests and the faithful better understand the meaning of the Roman rite and participate more fully in the liturgy?
Cardinal Arinze: If priests, religious, and lay faithful give this translation an open-hearted welcome; if they will read it carefully; if the person leading the celebration would do it in the best spirit of what the synod of bishops in 2005 called ars celebrandi, the “art of celebrating” (that means that way of celebrating which manifests our Catholic faith—shows it, encourages it in the people, wakens those whose faith is getting a bit cold, sends the people home on fire to live this faith and to share it, joyful in the faith); if this all happened, that would be good!
CWR: Is the legacy of liturgical abuse following the Second Vatican Council becoming a thing of the past as the “reform of the reform” presses onward under the present Pope? I’m thinking of more faithful liturgical translations, unprecedented support for those who prefer to worship under the Tridentine rite, and a renewed emphasis upon the restoration of such pious acts as taking Communion on the tongue rather than in the hand.
Cardinal Arinze: That is our hope. But the world is big. Who can tell what happens in every corner of the world today among the 440,000 or so priests? The Church has no army. We do not send the Swiss Guard from Rome to police every priest. But of course the Church achieves more by appeal to the human heart, to our spirit of faith: love for Christ, love for the Church, which means, also, obedience to the Church. And it is the Church that tells us how to pray when it is the public prayer of the Church, that is, the liturgy. If it were my private prayer, then nobody is going to tell me how to pray.… But when it is the public prayer of the Church, then the Church is going to tell me what to do…because this is in the name of the Church.
CWR: So the temptation for a celebrant to privatize the liturgy, if you will, is one which ought to be conscientiously resisted?
Cardinal Arinze: The liturgy is not private prayer.… So we follow the guidance which Holy Mother Church has indicated for that celebration—not what I think. Otherwise you might come to Mass and one priest says, “I think there should be 12 lessons in the Mass because I like Holy Scripture very much”.… Another says, “I don’t want to read any lesson at all because the people want to go home.” So we can’t have that! Then another one goes to the altar and begins to behave like a showman, Reverend Showman. He becomes now the center of the celebration. He is no longer drawing attention to Christ, when we are in fact called to celebrate the mysteries of Christ: not myself, not the congregation, not to provoke their applause.
A mirror works very well when the mirror is not seen. But if the mirror is seen, then it is dirty. The priest should mirror Christ. Christ should be at the center. Christ must increase, we must decrease. The more the priest is convinced of being a minister of Christ and the Church, the better the liturgical celebration will be.
CWR: Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa has begun celebrating the Novus Ordo in his cathedral ad orientem, facing the altar rather than the congregation. This move would be a show-stopper for a Reverend Showman. What is your position on restoring this ancient position of the priest at Mass?
Cardinal Arinze: As the Holy Father has said and written often, the most important thing at the Mass isn’t whether the priest faces the people or not, but whether the priest and the people are celebrating while facing God—that we realize we don’t come to Mass to celebrate one another, but to celebrate the mysteries of Christ. You will notice the Holy Father insists now to have the crucifix at the central place, on the altar or very near it at the center. In some places, the arrangement of the altar allows for that. In others, it doesn’t.
Take St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The way the main papal altar is arranged, the pope will face the people. But not all altars are like that. And in any case, what you call ad orientem has never been forbidden. The Second Vatican Council did not make any law saying that the priest has to say Mass facing the people. And what people call the priest having his back to the people is not correct. We should say that he is facing the Lord.
CWR: Are there any differences between Pope Benedict’s approach and Pope John Paul’s approach to evangelization?
Cardinal Arinze: John Paul II often spoke of “new evangelization,” which will never change in content but should be fresh in the method, the ardor, the commitment of the evangelizer. Pope Benedict speaks of fidelity to Christ, to the whole truth—not relativism, picking and choosing within the faith handed down to us from the apostles. So to hold on to that faith and be faithful to it is the same message, though the approach may be different.
CWR: Speaking of a new evangelization, are Muslims off-limits or does evangelizing among them merely impose special challenges?
Cardinal Arinze: When you say evangelization, what we mean is the message of the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ: that Christ is the Savior for all. The Church has no other business.… Now evangelizing means bringing the Good News of Jesus Christ to every human being. If that human being embraces faith in Christ, we do catechesis. We baptize. We set up a Christian community.
If that human being does not believe in Christ, at least we can approach the person: listen to that person, try to understand. And we can try to help that other person understand us. If you are doing that, you are doing what is called interreligious dialogue.… This is part of evangelization, but not the whole. If at some stage that human being gets more interested and wants to listen to Christ and the Gospel, then openly we discuss that. But we never use force. We never use tactics. We never impose, but we propose. Because Christ sent us to bring the Gospel to everyone. And the Good News of Jesus Christ is not a contraband good which we smuggle across customs. In religious matters, we deal straight. We have no hidden agenda in our pocket.
If, of course, a Muslim wants to become a Christian, we are very happy. Why not? And if everybody in the world wants to become a Christian, excellent! Then the Holy Father will close that office for interreligious dialogue in the Vatican. But we have not come to that day yet. So, if others don’t believe in Christ, we still remain friends and collaborate. If they believe in Christ, excellent, we have a catechism. It’s only 700 pages.
CWR: Given your own roots, we must have a question about Africa. Vis-à-vis Africa, the Pope said that the Church cannot be a healing and reconciling force in society unless it’s a “community of persons reconciled with God and with themselves.” How does this caveat situate the Church not only in Africa, but in the entire world?
Cardinal Arinze: Exactly what the Pope said. The Church must continue to preach conversion of heart and reconciliation. Matthew, chapter 5: “If you bring your gifts to the altar, and there you remember your brother has something against you, leave your gifts there and go and be reconciled with your brother. Then you come and offer your gift.” Very clear. Indeed, that was the topic for the Synod of Bishops on Africa held in October: “Reconciliation, Justice, and Peace,” in Africa and the role of the Church.
CWR: What would you most like to see happen before you exit this earthly life?
Cardinal Arinze: I would like everybody to believe in Jesus Christ the Savior; not just to believe, but to live their faith. No à la carte Christianity will do: choosing what elements of faith you like, leaving the others. I would like to see those who already are Christians to be more fervent, and for those who aren’t, to begin to believe in Jesus Christ. The more that happens, the happier I shall be.
Matthew A. Rarey is a journalist based in Chicago.
In the Name of the Church
Interview
Cardinal Arinze on the liturgy as public prayer.
Interview by Matthew A. Rarey
Cardinal Francis Arinze has enjoyed a meteoric career, from becoming the youngest bishop in the world in 1965 at the age of 32, to serving in several of the most vital posts in the Vatican. The native Nigerian currently is prefect emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, having served as prefect from 2002 to 2008. In that position, he helped oversee the process of preparing translations of the liturgy that are truer to the original Latin.
In November, Cardinal Arinze made a visit to Chicago, principally to give the keynote address at the annual fundraiser for the Chastity Education Initiative of the Archdiocese of Chicago’s Respect Life Office. He spoke with CWR during the visit.
CWR: Upon sending to Rome the proposed new English translation of the Roman Missal, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, “There is a tremendous moment of religious renewal that is possible now.” What do you hope would be some of the fruits of the new translation, however it is finalized?
Cardinal Francis Arinze: My hope is that those who want the Mass in English will have a text which would be as near to the original Latin as possible. A faithful translation of the Latin, respecting also the character of English, helping the people to pray with the spirit of piety characteristic of the Latin rite. The best text that can be offered today to the English speaking world—that is my hope. Because the text of the public prayer of the Church guides our prayer—communal prayer, liturgical prayer—it should also inspire our personal prayer.
CWR: How do you hope the new translation will help priests and the faithful better understand the meaning of the Roman rite and participate more fully in the liturgy?
Cardinal Arinze: If priests, religious, and lay faithful give this translation an open-hearted welcome; if they will read it carefully; if the person leading the celebration would do it in the best spirit of what the synod of bishops in 2005 called ars celebrandi, the “art of celebrating” (that means that way of celebrating which manifests our Catholic faith—shows it, encourages it in the people, wakens those whose faith is getting a bit cold, sends the people home on fire to live this faith and to share it, joyful in the faith); if this all happened, that would be good!
CWR: Is the legacy of liturgical abuse following the Second Vatican Council becoming a thing of the past as the “reform of the reform” presses onward under the present Pope? I’m thinking of more faithful liturgical translations, unprecedented support for those who prefer to worship under the Tridentine rite, and a renewed emphasis upon the restoration of such pious acts as taking Communion on the tongue rather than in the hand.
Cardinal Arinze: That is our hope. But the world is big. Who can tell what happens in every corner of the world today among the 440,000 or so priests? The Church has no army. We do not send the Swiss Guard from Rome to police every priest. But of course the Church achieves more by appeal to the human heart, to our spirit of faith: love for Christ, love for the Church, which means, also, obedience to the Church. And it is the Church that tells us how to pray when it is the public prayer of the Church, that is, the liturgy. If it were my private prayer, then nobody is going to tell me how to pray.… But when it is the public prayer of the Church, then the Church is going to tell me what to do…because this is in the name of the Church.
CWR: So the temptation for a celebrant to privatize the liturgy, if you will, is one which ought to be conscientiously resisted?
Cardinal Arinze: The liturgy is not private prayer.… So we follow the guidance which Holy Mother Church has indicated for that celebration—not what I think. Otherwise you might come to Mass and one priest says, “I think there should be 12 lessons in the Mass because I like Holy Scripture very much”.… Another says, “I don’t want to read any lesson at all because the people want to go home.” So we can’t have that! Then another one goes to the altar and begins to behave like a showman, Reverend Showman. He becomes now the center of the celebration. He is no longer drawing attention to Christ, when we are in fact called to celebrate the mysteries of Christ: not myself, not the congregation, not to provoke their applause.
A mirror works very well when the mirror is not seen. But if the mirror is seen, then it is dirty. The priest should mirror Christ. Christ should be at the center. Christ must increase, we must decrease. The more the priest is convinced of being a minister of Christ and the Church, the better the liturgical celebration will be.
CWR: Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa has begun celebrating the Novus Ordo in his cathedral ad orientem, facing the altar rather than the congregation. This move would be a show-stopper for a Reverend Showman. What is your position on restoring this ancient position of the priest at Mass?
Cardinal Arinze: As the Holy Father has said and written often, the most important thing at the Mass isn’t whether the priest faces the people or not, but whether the priest and the people are celebrating while facing God—that we realize we don’t come to Mass to celebrate one another, but to celebrate the mysteries of Christ. You will notice the Holy Father insists now to have the crucifix at the central place, on the altar or very near it at the center. In some places, the arrangement of the altar allows for that. In others, it doesn’t.
Take St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The way the main papal altar is arranged, the pope will face the people. But not all altars are like that. And in any case, what you call ad orientem has never been forbidden. The Second Vatican Council did not make any law saying that the priest has to say Mass facing the people. And what people call the priest having his back to the people is not correct. We should say that he is facing the Lord.
CWR: Are there any differences between Pope Benedict’s approach and Pope John Paul’s approach to evangelization?
Cardinal Arinze: John Paul II often spoke of “new evangelization,” which will never change in content but should be fresh in the method, the ardor, the commitment of the evangelizer. Pope Benedict speaks of fidelity to Christ, to the whole truth—not relativism, picking and choosing within the faith handed down to us from the apostles. So to hold on to that faith and be faithful to it is the same message, though the approach may be different.
CWR: Speaking of a new evangelization, are Muslims off-limits or does evangelizing among them merely impose special challenges?
Cardinal Arinze: When you say evangelization, what we mean is the message of the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ: that Christ is the Savior for all. The Church has no other business.… Now evangelizing means bringing the Good News of Jesus Christ to every human being. If that human being embraces faith in Christ, we do catechesis. We baptize. We set up a Christian community.
If that human being does not believe in Christ, at least we can approach the person: listen to that person, try to understand. And we can try to help that other person understand us. If you are doing that, you are doing what is called interreligious dialogue.… This is part of evangelization, but not the whole. If at some stage that human being gets more interested and wants to listen to Christ and the Gospel, then openly we discuss that. But we never use force. We never use tactics. We never impose, but we propose. Because Christ sent us to bring the Gospel to everyone. And the Good News of Jesus Christ is not a contraband good which we smuggle across customs. In religious matters, we deal straight. We have no hidden agenda in our pocket.
If, of course, a Muslim wants to become a Christian, we are very happy. Why not? And if everybody in the world wants to become a Christian, excellent! Then the Holy Father will close that office for interreligious dialogue in the Vatican. But we have not come to that day yet. So, if others don’t believe in Christ, we still remain friends and collaborate. If they believe in Christ, excellent, we have a catechism. It’s only 700 pages.
CWR: Given your own roots, we must have a question about Africa. Vis-à-vis Africa, the Pope said that the Church cannot be a healing and reconciling force in society unless it’s a “community of persons reconciled with God and with themselves.” How does this caveat situate the Church not only in Africa, but in the entire world?
Cardinal Arinze: Exactly what the Pope said. The Church must continue to preach conversion of heart and reconciliation. Matthew, chapter 5: “If you bring your gifts to the altar, and there you remember your brother has something against you, leave your gifts there and go and be reconciled with your brother. Then you come and offer your gift.” Very clear. Indeed, that was the topic for the Synod of Bishops on Africa held in October: “Reconciliation, Justice, and Peace,” in Africa and the role of the Church.
CWR: What would you most like to see happen before you exit this earthly life?
Cardinal Arinze: I would like everybody to believe in Jesus Christ the Savior; not just to believe, but to live their faith. No à la carte Christianity will do: choosing what elements of faith you like, leaving the others. I would like to see those who already are Christians to be more fervent, and for those who aren’t, to begin to believe in Jesus Christ. The more that happens, the happier I shall be.
Matthew A. Rarey is a journalist based in Chicago.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
OUT WITH THE OLD, IN WITH THE OLDER! THEN COMES THE NEW!
This weekend at St.Joseph Church, we are phasing out the old, "lame duck" ICEL translation of the English Mass. But we are not yet implementing the new English translation. Rather, we are substituting the Latin responses. We will do this gradually over the next several months.
This weekend we are replacing, "The Lord be with you" and "also with you" with, "Dominus Vobiscum" "Et cum spiritu tuo." We will also replace the current English Preface Dialogue with the Latin Responses.
During Lent we will say good-bye to the "lame duck" English Sanctus, and Mystery of Faith, using the Latin ones. Eventually, during the season of Easter, we will sing the Latin Gloria. I'm not too sure about the Credo yet. It might be a bit much for the congregation in Latin, but we'll see. We'll do this only gradually.
When the new English translation of the Mass is allowed, we will return to the English. But by then, our entire congregation will be familiar with all of the Latin parts of the Mass.
Do you think this is a good way to phase out the lame duck English parts of the Mass in order to introduce sometime later the new English translations with Latin in the interim?
This weekend we are replacing, "The Lord be with you" and "also with you" with, "Dominus Vobiscum" "Et cum spiritu tuo." We will also replace the current English Preface Dialogue with the Latin Responses.
During Lent we will say good-bye to the "lame duck" English Sanctus, and Mystery of Faith, using the Latin ones. Eventually, during the season of Easter, we will sing the Latin Gloria. I'm not too sure about the Credo yet. It might be a bit much for the congregation in Latin, but we'll see. We'll do this only gradually.
When the new English translation of the Mass is allowed, we will return to the English. But by then, our entire congregation will be familiar with all of the Latin parts of the Mass.
Do you think this is a good way to phase out the lame duck English parts of the Mass in order to introduce sometime later the new English translations with Latin in the interim?
Friday, January 15, 2010
HORRAY FOR THE RETRANSLATED ENGLISH MASS! Catholics really are smart enough for it!
There are many people who are really, really opposed to the newly revised English Translation of the Mass. The following article which appeared in America Magazine is the best I have read on the topic. I'm looking forward to the new translation. It has to be an improvement over what we have and it is.
Defending the New Roman Missal
A response to Father Michael Ryan
Peter M. J. Stravinskas | FEBRUARY 1, 2010
the cover of America, the Catholic magazine
I n his essay “Why Don’t We Say, ‘Wait?’” (Dec. 14), Father Michael Ryan describes his involvement in the liturgical renewal following the Second Vatican Council. Let me begin my response to his article by doing the same.
I was a freshman in high school when the “vernacularization” of the liturgy began and a junior in college seminary when the process reached its climax. Having majored in classical languages, I naturally was quite interested in the process and flattered when I was invited by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) to participate in the translation effort. Frankly, I was also surprised that someone of my thin experience had been asked to take part in a project that would influence the spiritual lives of millions of Catholics for decades to come.
When I first reviewed the translation guidelines sent by ICEL, I was disappointed. Ideology, it seemed, had taken precedence over accuracy. Anima was not to be rendered as “soul,” I was informed, because doing so would set up an unnecessary dichotomy between body and soul. No feminine pronouns were to be used for the church, and common words were favored over precise theological or liturgical vocabulary. The goal was to capture the general meaning of the text, rather than a faithful rendering of a rich and historically layered Latin prose. I tried to work within these parameters, but I found it difficult to do and still remain true to the original text. My translations were evidently unsatisfactory because, upon submitting them, I was politely but firmly uninvited from serving on the commission.
When the English Missale Romanum appeared in 1970, it was clear we had been handed a paraphrase instead of a translation. As a young priest required to use these texts, I quickly determined that something needed to be done to return to the people of God what Father Ryan dubs “their baptismal birthright”—that is, an English liturgy that seeks to convey all the depth, truth and beauty of the original Latin. By 1992, I had assembled a team of scholars who produced an alternative translation of the Ordinary of the Mass and presented that effort to the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy in Washington, D.C., and the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome. Hostility was the response from Washington—copies of our draft were gathered and destroyed at the bishops’ meeting—while Rome expressed a guarded interest in our project.
Ultimately, the Holy See came to the realization that many of the vernacular translations of the liturgy were problematic. (English was not the only example, just one of the more egregious.) In 2001 the Congregation for Divine Worship promulgated Liturgiam Authenticam setting forth a coherent philosophy of translation. The document called for revised translations in keeping with these norms and the establishment of an oversight committee, Vox Clara, to ensure the fidelity of future translations.
A new, reconstituted ICEL set to work immediately on a new English missal. The level of input was such that many complained that the project would never be completed because of the painstakingly sensitive consultative process. Yet with guidance from Vox Clara and experts in Rome, the new text was completed and was approved by the U.S. bishops in 2009.
Reclaiming the Council’s Vision
The Jesuit Refugee Service affirms to accompany, serve and defend the rights of vulnerable and often forgotten people.
In his essay, Father Ryan argues that not enough consultation has taken place, and that “we should just say, “Wait’” before implementing the new translations. I disagree. As a Web site set up to defend the new translation proclaims, “We've waited long enough!”
Ryan argues that the Roman Curia and other parties are involved in a “systematic dismantling of the great vision of the Council’s decree” and that the Congregation for Divine Worship is raising “rubricism to an art form,” with liturgy being used “as a weapon—to advance specific agendas.” In my view, present efforts are precisely seeking to reclaim “the great vision of the council’s” constitution. Over the years my various apostolates have provided me with a vantage point from which to consider liturgical life in this country and abroad. So much of what I have witnessed or had described to me by eyewitnesses has been nothing shy of a betrayal of the council’s great vision and, in my judgment, largely responsible for the rapid emptying of the pews.
What curial officials and the pope are arguing for, with the enthusiastic support of junior clergy, is not a moribund “rubricism” but a genuine ars celebrandi that makes the sacred mysteries palpable. Not a few observers have noted that much of the liturgical change that occurred after the council—both officially sanctioned as well as in explicit violation of church law—would have been unthinkable to the council fathers. What is required now is a careful re-building process. Is this “turning back the clock”? In some sense, it is. Permit me a mundane example. If a man is told by his physician that he must lose 50 pounds or face serious problems, he must “turn back the clock” to the time when he was lighter in order to save his life. Mutatis mutandis—that is what the church at the highest levels is calling us to do.
Father Ryan writes that “before long the priests of this country will be told to take the new translations to their people by means of a carefully orchestrated education program…” The author makes such efforts sound almost sinister, but in my book he is simply describing the process of catechesis. I hope that this process will be better handled than the “carefully orchestrated education program” that followed the postconciliar liturgical changes. In 1977 priests throughout the country were required to preach for three consecutive weekends, not simply on the issue of Communion-in-the-hand, but on why it should be done. Many priests who balked at the historically inaccurate catechetical materials were harassed by liturgical directors and even threatened by bishops with suspension. It seems that many of those who pushed for the reforms are waking up to find their program repudiated and have now become conservatives, opposed to change.
Father Ryan shares the concern of Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pa., the former chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, who has complained that the U.S.C.C.B. did not have a direct hand in the antiphons of the Missale Romanum. In a speech to the bishops conference in November, Bishop Trautman cited paragraph 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which he argued gave the episcopal conferences the authority to produce and approve liturgical translations. Yet the paragraph in question in no way calls for what Bishop Trautman demands: it stipulates that episcopal conferences are to approve translations (not produce them), with subsequent approval by the Holy See.
Ironically, the very same paragraph of the conciliar constitution also states that, “The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites....Care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” In other words, if paragraph 36 had been followed in regard to the primacy of Latin, the Ordinary of the Mass would not have been translated into the vernacular in the first place!
Examining the Translation
Finally, Father Ryan highlights as examples of a liturgical agenda “at best trivial and at worst hopelessly out-of-touch” several new texts that are products of “flawed principles of translation.” I am delighted with the examples he proffers because each is, in fact, an exemplar of what is so important about the new translation project.
And with your spirit. The earliest translation of the Mass from 1965 actually used this wording. St. John Chrysostom explains that when the people respond in this way they are affirming the ontological change that has taken place in the priest by virtue of the Sacrament of Order, thus enabling him to call down the Spirit upon the elements of bread and wine, transforming them into the body and blood of Christ.
Consubstantial. There is nothing inherently wrong with the present “one in being” in the Nicene Creed; it is not unfaithful to the meaning of either homoousios or consubstantialis. However, one of the underlying principles of the new translation was to use explicitly sacral and theological vocabulary whenever possible. Does the average Catholic know what “consubstantial” means? Probably not. But that same Catholic probably does not know what “one in being” means, either. However, because the latter phrase contains three very common English words, that person in the pew thinks he knows its meaning and thus passes over it without a thought. Coming upon “consubstantial,” that same person will be forced to pause over the significance of the term; it will give the priest the opportunity to preach about its profound meaning.
Incarnate. The present version is plainly inaccurate (“He was born of the Virgin Mary”). The Latin reads: Et incarnatus est...ex Maria Virgine; the moment of the Incarnation was not when He was born (liturgically celebrated on December 25), but when He was conceived (March 25). The translators could have given us “He was made flesh,” but, again, seeking to use more precise language, they gave us “incarnate,” thus giving the clergy yet another “preachable” moment. Several years ago Archbishop Rembert Weakland boasted that the church in the United States was home to the most intelligent and theologically astute Catholics in the history of the church. Surely, then, our congregations should be able to comprehend words like “consubstantial” and “incarnate.”
Joseph, spouse of the same Virgin. This line comes from the Roman Canon. The Latin speaks of Joseph as eiusdem Virginis sponsi, which is exactly “spouse of the same Virgin.” One reason the church was reluctant to highlight St. Joseph until relatively recent centuries was the fear that his relationship to Mary would or could be misunderstood. And so when Pope John XXIII added Joseph’s name to the Canon, it was determined that no one should be led into error or confusion, thus giving us “of the same Virgin.” Which is to say, that while Joseph and Mary were indeed husband and wife, Mary remained a virgin—a critical theological point.
We are warned by Father Ryan to expect “discredit to the church” and “disillusionment to the people” if the new translation sees the light of day. He tells us of the “chilling reception” it has received in South Africa, in spite of a “careful program of catechesis in the parishes.” I beg to differ. There was no “program of catechesis” to speak of in South Africa and, in fact, some liturgical observers even argue that the translation was thrust onto the faithful precisely to cause a negative reaction. Having conducted several workshops on the new texts over the past year, I can only attest to very positive reactions, from clergy and laity alike.
How did the final texts receive such overwhelming support from the American bishops, if they are so bad? Father Ryan contends that the bishops were just “worn down” by the Holy See and so caved in. I disagree. The majority of the bishops saw the merit of the work and were tired of the delaying tactics of a vocal if tiny minority of opponents. Is this translation perfect? Of course not. No translation is, but we ought never make the best the enemy of the good. It is a vast improvement over the uninspiring, banal and all-too-often theologically problematic texts we have been using for nearly 40 years. The New Testament speaks of chairos, an especially fortuitous moment. We are approaching a liturgical chairos for English-speaking Catholics, which we should embrace with gusto.
In addition to Father Ryan’s article and the Web site he set up to summon support for further delays, he has also written to the rectors of all the cathedrals in the country seeking to rally them to his cause. His campaign has provoked a counterreaction among younger clergy and seminarians who have helped to set up the site “We’ve waited long enough.” The site has already garnered thousand of signatures and should give pause to Ryan and his supporters. It is these young priests, after all, who will be using these texts when our generation (God willing) will be participating in the Liturgy of Heaven, where language will not be an issue.
Rev. Peter Stravinskas is the editor of The Catholic Response, publisher of Newman House Press and executive director of the Catholic Education Foundation.
Defending the New Roman Missal
A response to Father Michael Ryan
Peter M. J. Stravinskas | FEBRUARY 1, 2010
the cover of America, the Catholic magazine
I n his essay “Why Don’t We Say, ‘Wait?’” (Dec. 14), Father Michael Ryan describes his involvement in the liturgical renewal following the Second Vatican Council. Let me begin my response to his article by doing the same.
I was a freshman in high school when the “vernacularization” of the liturgy began and a junior in college seminary when the process reached its climax. Having majored in classical languages, I naturally was quite interested in the process and flattered when I was invited by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) to participate in the translation effort. Frankly, I was also surprised that someone of my thin experience had been asked to take part in a project that would influence the spiritual lives of millions of Catholics for decades to come.
When I first reviewed the translation guidelines sent by ICEL, I was disappointed. Ideology, it seemed, had taken precedence over accuracy. Anima was not to be rendered as “soul,” I was informed, because doing so would set up an unnecessary dichotomy between body and soul. No feminine pronouns were to be used for the church, and common words were favored over precise theological or liturgical vocabulary. The goal was to capture the general meaning of the text, rather than a faithful rendering of a rich and historically layered Latin prose. I tried to work within these parameters, but I found it difficult to do and still remain true to the original text. My translations were evidently unsatisfactory because, upon submitting them, I was politely but firmly uninvited from serving on the commission.
When the English Missale Romanum appeared in 1970, it was clear we had been handed a paraphrase instead of a translation. As a young priest required to use these texts, I quickly determined that something needed to be done to return to the people of God what Father Ryan dubs “their baptismal birthright”—that is, an English liturgy that seeks to convey all the depth, truth and beauty of the original Latin. By 1992, I had assembled a team of scholars who produced an alternative translation of the Ordinary of the Mass and presented that effort to the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy in Washington, D.C., and the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome. Hostility was the response from Washington—copies of our draft were gathered and destroyed at the bishops’ meeting—while Rome expressed a guarded interest in our project.
Ultimately, the Holy See came to the realization that many of the vernacular translations of the liturgy were problematic. (English was not the only example, just one of the more egregious.) In 2001 the Congregation for Divine Worship promulgated Liturgiam Authenticam setting forth a coherent philosophy of translation. The document called for revised translations in keeping with these norms and the establishment of an oversight committee, Vox Clara, to ensure the fidelity of future translations.
A new, reconstituted ICEL set to work immediately on a new English missal. The level of input was such that many complained that the project would never be completed because of the painstakingly sensitive consultative process. Yet with guidance from Vox Clara and experts in Rome, the new text was completed and was approved by the U.S. bishops in 2009.
Reclaiming the Council’s Vision
The Jesuit Refugee Service affirms to accompany, serve and defend the rights of vulnerable and often forgotten people.
In his essay, Father Ryan argues that not enough consultation has taken place, and that “we should just say, “Wait’” before implementing the new translations. I disagree. As a Web site set up to defend the new translation proclaims, “We've waited long enough!”
Ryan argues that the Roman Curia and other parties are involved in a “systematic dismantling of the great vision of the Council’s decree” and that the Congregation for Divine Worship is raising “rubricism to an art form,” with liturgy being used “as a weapon—to advance specific agendas.” In my view, present efforts are precisely seeking to reclaim “the great vision of the council’s” constitution. Over the years my various apostolates have provided me with a vantage point from which to consider liturgical life in this country and abroad. So much of what I have witnessed or had described to me by eyewitnesses has been nothing shy of a betrayal of the council’s great vision and, in my judgment, largely responsible for the rapid emptying of the pews.
What curial officials and the pope are arguing for, with the enthusiastic support of junior clergy, is not a moribund “rubricism” but a genuine ars celebrandi that makes the sacred mysteries palpable. Not a few observers have noted that much of the liturgical change that occurred after the council—both officially sanctioned as well as in explicit violation of church law—would have been unthinkable to the council fathers. What is required now is a careful re-building process. Is this “turning back the clock”? In some sense, it is. Permit me a mundane example. If a man is told by his physician that he must lose 50 pounds or face serious problems, he must “turn back the clock” to the time when he was lighter in order to save his life. Mutatis mutandis—that is what the church at the highest levels is calling us to do.
Father Ryan writes that “before long the priests of this country will be told to take the new translations to their people by means of a carefully orchestrated education program…” The author makes such efforts sound almost sinister, but in my book he is simply describing the process of catechesis. I hope that this process will be better handled than the “carefully orchestrated education program” that followed the postconciliar liturgical changes. In 1977 priests throughout the country were required to preach for three consecutive weekends, not simply on the issue of Communion-in-the-hand, but on why it should be done. Many priests who balked at the historically inaccurate catechetical materials were harassed by liturgical directors and even threatened by bishops with suspension. It seems that many of those who pushed for the reforms are waking up to find their program repudiated and have now become conservatives, opposed to change.
Father Ryan shares the concern of Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pa., the former chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, who has complained that the U.S.C.C.B. did not have a direct hand in the antiphons of the Missale Romanum. In a speech to the bishops conference in November, Bishop Trautman cited paragraph 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which he argued gave the episcopal conferences the authority to produce and approve liturgical translations. Yet the paragraph in question in no way calls for what Bishop Trautman demands: it stipulates that episcopal conferences are to approve translations (not produce them), with subsequent approval by the Holy See.
Ironically, the very same paragraph of the conciliar constitution also states that, “The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites....Care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” In other words, if paragraph 36 had been followed in regard to the primacy of Latin, the Ordinary of the Mass would not have been translated into the vernacular in the first place!
Examining the Translation
Finally, Father Ryan highlights as examples of a liturgical agenda “at best trivial and at worst hopelessly out-of-touch” several new texts that are products of “flawed principles of translation.” I am delighted with the examples he proffers because each is, in fact, an exemplar of what is so important about the new translation project.
And with your spirit. The earliest translation of the Mass from 1965 actually used this wording. St. John Chrysostom explains that when the people respond in this way they are affirming the ontological change that has taken place in the priest by virtue of the Sacrament of Order, thus enabling him to call down the Spirit upon the elements of bread and wine, transforming them into the body and blood of Christ.
Consubstantial. There is nothing inherently wrong with the present “one in being” in the Nicene Creed; it is not unfaithful to the meaning of either homoousios or consubstantialis. However, one of the underlying principles of the new translation was to use explicitly sacral and theological vocabulary whenever possible. Does the average Catholic know what “consubstantial” means? Probably not. But that same Catholic probably does not know what “one in being” means, either. However, because the latter phrase contains three very common English words, that person in the pew thinks he knows its meaning and thus passes over it without a thought. Coming upon “consubstantial,” that same person will be forced to pause over the significance of the term; it will give the priest the opportunity to preach about its profound meaning.
Incarnate. The present version is plainly inaccurate (“He was born of the Virgin Mary”). The Latin reads: Et incarnatus est...ex Maria Virgine; the moment of the Incarnation was not when He was born (liturgically celebrated on December 25), but when He was conceived (March 25). The translators could have given us “He was made flesh,” but, again, seeking to use more precise language, they gave us “incarnate,” thus giving the clergy yet another “preachable” moment. Several years ago Archbishop Rembert Weakland boasted that the church in the United States was home to the most intelligent and theologically astute Catholics in the history of the church. Surely, then, our congregations should be able to comprehend words like “consubstantial” and “incarnate.”
Joseph, spouse of the same Virgin. This line comes from the Roman Canon. The Latin speaks of Joseph as eiusdem Virginis sponsi, which is exactly “spouse of the same Virgin.” One reason the church was reluctant to highlight St. Joseph until relatively recent centuries was the fear that his relationship to Mary would or could be misunderstood. And so when Pope John XXIII added Joseph’s name to the Canon, it was determined that no one should be led into error or confusion, thus giving us “of the same Virgin.” Which is to say, that while Joseph and Mary were indeed husband and wife, Mary remained a virgin—a critical theological point.
We are warned by Father Ryan to expect “discredit to the church” and “disillusionment to the people” if the new translation sees the light of day. He tells us of the “chilling reception” it has received in South Africa, in spite of a “careful program of catechesis in the parishes.” I beg to differ. There was no “program of catechesis” to speak of in South Africa and, in fact, some liturgical observers even argue that the translation was thrust onto the faithful precisely to cause a negative reaction. Having conducted several workshops on the new texts over the past year, I can only attest to very positive reactions, from clergy and laity alike.
How did the final texts receive such overwhelming support from the American bishops, if they are so bad? Father Ryan contends that the bishops were just “worn down” by the Holy See and so caved in. I disagree. The majority of the bishops saw the merit of the work and were tired of the delaying tactics of a vocal if tiny minority of opponents. Is this translation perfect? Of course not. No translation is, but we ought never make the best the enemy of the good. It is a vast improvement over the uninspiring, banal and all-too-often theologically problematic texts we have been using for nearly 40 years. The New Testament speaks of chairos, an especially fortuitous moment. We are approaching a liturgical chairos for English-speaking Catholics, which we should embrace with gusto.
In addition to Father Ryan’s article and the Web site he set up to summon support for further delays, he has also written to the rectors of all the cathedrals in the country seeking to rally them to his cause. His campaign has provoked a counterreaction among younger clergy and seminarians who have helped to set up the site “We’ve waited long enough.” The site has already garnered thousand of signatures and should give pause to Ryan and his supporters. It is these young priests, after all, who will be using these texts when our generation (God willing) will be participating in the Liturgy of Heaven, where language will not be an issue.
Rev. Peter Stravinskas is the editor of The Catholic Response, publisher of Newman House Press and executive director of the Catholic Education Foundation.
HAITI: A PLACE OF GREAT SUFFERING AND GREAT MIRACLES
I have just returned from my South Florida vacation. Of course the big news in south Florida is the devastation of Haiti. Many of the hotel workers where I stayed are Haitian. There certainly was a somber mood.
Miami has a very large Haitian community. Mass was offered at the Cathedral. Family members here are rightly fearful of what has happened to their loved ones in Haiti. Please continue to pray for everyone involved.
As Catholics, the best way to channel our money to help with the ongoing relief is through Catholic Relief Services.
This weekend, my parish, St. Joseph Church in Macon will make an announcement that our second collection for the weekend of January 23/24 will be for Haiti relief. This will give our parishioners time to prayerfully consider what they will give. However, this doesn't stop anyone from giving directly to Catholic Relief Services.
We live in a world that is not our true home and often is not friendly towards us. If old age or disease do not take us, accident, natural disasters and other unforeseen events will. All we can do is to pray for a happy death. A happy death is dying a practicing Christian after having lived a repentant life, striving to follow Jesus by carrying our cross in union with Him. No matter how gruesome our death might be, it is happy when we have participated in God's gifts of faith, hope and love during the short time of our earthly pilgrimage.
It is hard not to question God when people who have suffered so much, are made to suffer even more in the face of a devastating natural disaster such as an earthquake. For now, it is best to focus on the love that is being poured out on Haiti through the prayers of so many, the actual assistance that is taking place and the many small miracles that are occurring even as we read. We recognize that many are trapped in the most desperate of situations and we pray that God will ease their suffering and carry them with His abiding grace to peace, healing and comfort.
God bless Haiti and the Haitian people at this most horrible time.
Miami has a very large Haitian community. Mass was offered at the Cathedral. Family members here are rightly fearful of what has happened to their loved ones in Haiti. Please continue to pray for everyone involved.
As Catholics, the best way to channel our money to help with the ongoing relief is through Catholic Relief Services.
This weekend, my parish, St. Joseph Church in Macon will make an announcement that our second collection for the weekend of January 23/24 will be for Haiti relief. This will give our parishioners time to prayerfully consider what they will give. However, this doesn't stop anyone from giving directly to Catholic Relief Services.
We live in a world that is not our true home and often is not friendly towards us. If old age or disease do not take us, accident, natural disasters and other unforeseen events will. All we can do is to pray for a happy death. A happy death is dying a practicing Christian after having lived a repentant life, striving to follow Jesus by carrying our cross in union with Him. No matter how gruesome our death might be, it is happy when we have participated in God's gifts of faith, hope and love during the short time of our earthly pilgrimage.
It is hard not to question God when people who have suffered so much, are made to suffer even more in the face of a devastating natural disaster such as an earthquake. For now, it is best to focus on the love that is being poured out on Haiti through the prayers of so many, the actual assistance that is taking place and the many small miracles that are occurring even as we read. We recognize that many are trapped in the most desperate of situations and we pray that God will ease their suffering and carry them with His abiding grace to peace, healing and comfort.
God bless Haiti and the Haitian people at this most horrible time.
Friday, January 8, 2010
REFORM OF THE REFORM, WE ARE ON TRACK!
This article reprinted from the National Catholic Reporter says it all. The reform of the reform is not opposed to the Ordinary Form of the Mass, it just wants it to be as sacred as it can be. Ways to do this are to pay attention to detail, choreography of movements, music, adoration, meaning kneeling for Holy Communion and less emphasis on the priest's abilities and improvizations. If you scroll to the next entry concerning the EF Nuptial Mass at my parish, you would never know that I was the celebrant. It could have been any good looking priest in the world. All I had to do in this Nuptial Mass was follow the rubrics, nothing was left to my creativity or the bride and groom's. That's call "catholic" or universal.
Papal liturgist endorses 'reform of the reform'
Cites 'the necessity of a new liturgical renewal'
Jan. 07, 2010
By Father Matthew Gamber, Catholic News Service
Vatican
VATICAN CITY -- The pope's chief liturgist, Msgr. Guido Marini, endorsed calls in the church for a "reform of the reform" of Catholic liturgy.
"For some years now, several voices have been heard within church circles talking about the necessity of a new liturgical renewal," Marini said.
A fresh renewal movement would be "capable of operating a reform of the reform, or rather, move one more step ahead in understanding the authentic spirit of the liturgy and its celebration," he said.
Marini, who has served as master of papal liturgical ceremonies since late 2007, spoke Jan. 6 to a conference of priests from English-speaking countries gathered in Rome to mark the Year for Priests. The conference was sponsored by the Australian Confraternity of Catholic Clergy and the U.S.- based Confraternity of Catholic Clergy.
The papal liturgist said the goal of the new reform movement "would be to carry on that providential reform of the liturgy that the conciliar fathers had launched" but which has "not always, in its practical implementation, found a timely and happy fulfillment."
Marini stressed that the liturgy celebrated by the church should be marked by historical continuity.
"I purposefully use the word continuity, a word very dear to our present Holy Father," Marini said. "He has made it the only authoritative criterion whereby one can correctly interpret the life of the church."
Marini said that an appreciation of continuity would help bring together divergent schools of thought regarding the liturgy.
"The liturgy cannot and must not be an opportunity for conflict between those who find good only in that which came before us, and those who, on the contrary, almost always find wrong in what came before," he said.
The way forward for any liturgical renewal is "to regard both the present and the past liturgy of the church as one patrimony in continuous development," he said.
He offered suggestions for showing continuity in the liturgy and gave examples from current papal liturgical celebrations.
The tradition of praying while facing East, and so symbolically facing the Lord, is now seen in the placement of a crucifix on the altar of St. Peter's Basilica, he said. "Hence the reason for the proposal made by then-Cardinal Ratzinger and presently reaffirmed during the course of his pontificate, to place the crucifix on the center of the altar, in order that all, during the celebration of the liturgy, may concretely face and look upon the Lord, in such a way as to orient also their prayer and hearts," he said.
A renewed emphasis on "adoration," explained by Marini as "union with God," also will foster continuity with the past and should be a criterion for future liturgical practices, he said. Everything in the liturgy must be conducive to adoration, Marini said, including the music, the singing, the periods of silence, the way of proclaiming the Scriptures as well as the liturgical vestments and the sacred vessels.
He said it was this same desire to renew a sense of adoration that prompted Pope Benedict to make it the norm in papal liturgies for the pope to distribute Communion on the tongue to people kneeling.
"By the example of this action, the Holy Father invites us to render visible the proper attitude of adoration before the greatness of the mystery of the eucharistic presence of our Lord," Marini said. He said the same attitude of adoration "must be fostered all the more when approaching the most holy Eucharist in the other forms permitted today."
Throughout his talk Marini quoted extensively from the writings of Pope Benedict concerning the liturgy.
"I have learned to deepen my knowledge these past two years in service to our Holy Father, Benedict XVI. He is an authentic master of the spirit of the liturgy, whether by his teaching or by the example he gives in the celebration of the sacred rites," Marini said
Papal liturgist endorses 'reform of the reform'
Cites 'the necessity of a new liturgical renewal'
Jan. 07, 2010
By Father Matthew Gamber, Catholic News Service
Vatican
VATICAN CITY -- The pope's chief liturgist, Msgr. Guido Marini, endorsed calls in the church for a "reform of the reform" of Catholic liturgy.
"For some years now, several voices have been heard within church circles talking about the necessity of a new liturgical renewal," Marini said.
A fresh renewal movement would be "capable of operating a reform of the reform, or rather, move one more step ahead in understanding the authentic spirit of the liturgy and its celebration," he said.
Marini, who has served as master of papal liturgical ceremonies since late 2007, spoke Jan. 6 to a conference of priests from English-speaking countries gathered in Rome to mark the Year for Priests. The conference was sponsored by the Australian Confraternity of Catholic Clergy and the U.S.- based Confraternity of Catholic Clergy.
The papal liturgist said the goal of the new reform movement "would be to carry on that providential reform of the liturgy that the conciliar fathers had launched" but which has "not always, in its practical implementation, found a timely and happy fulfillment."
Marini stressed that the liturgy celebrated by the church should be marked by historical continuity.
"I purposefully use the word continuity, a word very dear to our present Holy Father," Marini said. "He has made it the only authoritative criterion whereby one can correctly interpret the life of the church."
Marini said that an appreciation of continuity would help bring together divergent schools of thought regarding the liturgy.
"The liturgy cannot and must not be an opportunity for conflict between those who find good only in that which came before us, and those who, on the contrary, almost always find wrong in what came before," he said.
The way forward for any liturgical renewal is "to regard both the present and the past liturgy of the church as one patrimony in continuous development," he said.
He offered suggestions for showing continuity in the liturgy and gave examples from current papal liturgical celebrations.
The tradition of praying while facing East, and so symbolically facing the Lord, is now seen in the placement of a crucifix on the altar of St. Peter's Basilica, he said. "Hence the reason for the proposal made by then-Cardinal Ratzinger and presently reaffirmed during the course of his pontificate, to place the crucifix on the center of the altar, in order that all, during the celebration of the liturgy, may concretely face and look upon the Lord, in such a way as to orient also their prayer and hearts," he said.
A renewed emphasis on "adoration," explained by Marini as "union with God," also will foster continuity with the past and should be a criterion for future liturgical practices, he said. Everything in the liturgy must be conducive to adoration, Marini said, including the music, the singing, the periods of silence, the way of proclaiming the Scriptures as well as the liturgical vestments and the sacred vessels.
He said it was this same desire to renew a sense of adoration that prompted Pope Benedict to make it the norm in papal liturgies for the pope to distribute Communion on the tongue to people kneeling.
"By the example of this action, the Holy Father invites us to render visible the proper attitude of adoration before the greatness of the mystery of the eucharistic presence of our Lord," Marini said. He said the same attitude of adoration "must be fostered all the more when approaching the most holy Eucharist in the other forms permitted today."
Throughout his talk Marini quoted extensively from the writings of Pope Benedict concerning the liturgy.
"I have learned to deepen my knowledge these past two years in service to our Holy Father, Benedict XVI. He is an authentic master of the spirit of the liturgy, whether by his teaching or by the example he gives in the celebration of the sacred rites," Marini said
EF NUPTIAL MASS at ST. JOSEPH CHURCH
This wedding on January 2nd was for David Bushey and Stephanie Howe. It was the first of its nature at St. Joseph in over 40 years and my first ever, even as a Catholic, let alone a priest:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Happy Epiphany Season!
I'm away on my winter vacation and won't be blogging until I return, the weekend of the 17th of January. God bless you.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
THE HOLY NAME OF JESUS!
In the Extraordinary Form of the Calendar, this Sunday is not Epiphany Sunday, that solemnity will be celebrated on the correct date, January 6, thus uniting us with the Orthodox and millions of other Catholics and Christians elsewhere, but rather the "Most Holy Name of Jesus." I've never given a homily on this Solemnity. I'm celebrating it this afternoon for the first time ever at 2:00 PM with the EF High or Sung Mass. So I went looking for some resources on the internet to help me develop a homily for today and I found the following by Fr. Hathaway of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. I may read this homily or use it in part for this afternoon's Mass, but of course giving credit where credit is due.
“His name was called Jesus.” By Fr. Hathaway, Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
+
We have begun a New Year. Make this New Year’s resolution: the daily resolution to grow more holy. For not to go forward in the spiritual life - is to fall backwards.
One excellent way to advance in the spiritual life is by invoking the Holy Name of the Savior. Throughout history, Christians have called upon the Holy Name to ward off evil, resist temptation, cure bodily ills.
The Acts of the Apostles records St Peter’s response to a lame beggar, “Gold and silver I have not, but what I have I will give thee, ‘In the name of Jesus Christ arise and walk.’ And the man arose and walked glorifying God.”
In the fourth century, St John Chrysostom beseeched Christians to carry the holy Name as a staff. “As you would not go abroad without clothes or shoes, so neither go forth without this Holy Name... speak it as you cross your threshold. It will be for you a staff, armor, and tower of defense.”
In 1943, a terrible plague broke out in Lisbon, Portugal. Thousands of people were dying in the streets and marketplaces. So many died so quickly that the dead could not be buried properly. Ravening dogs ate the flesh of exposed corpses causing disease to advance all the more.
A holy Bishop, Monsignor Andre Dias, despairing of human help, urged the unhappy people to call upon the Holy Name of Jesus. He implored the sick to say often: “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus”; he asked they write this name on cards and carry them around, place them under their pillow at night... but mostly, to constantly invoke the Holy Name on the lips.
At one point, Monsignor Dias summoned all to the Church of St Dominic. There, he preached to them of the Holy Name of Jesus, blessed water with this name, then sprinkled the water upon the sick and dying. The sick were restored to health; the dying rose from their agony.
News of this event spread and soon all Portugal was freed of the plague. From Portugal came numerous associations dedicated to spreading devotion to the Holy Name.
Am I plagued by a certain temptation? Is my flesh prone to a particular vice? Is my imagination an easy prey by which the devil leads me into sin?
We may not always have holy water to bless ourselves with, a church to run to, a priest to confide in... but we can always invoke the name, “Jesus” to rout the enemies of our salvation.
Sacred scripture calls this Name “holy and terrible”; St Paul tells us that every knee must bow to the Name “those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.”
Do I have nightmares? Do I get impatient or angry? Do I suffer from impure thoughts? Then I must train myself to frequently invoke the holy Name of Jesus. “Jesus, come to my aid”; “Jesus, have mercy on me a sinner”; “Jesus, Thou hast purchased me by Thy Most Precious Blood, do not loose me.” This Holy Name will scatter my fears and overcome my weakness.
St Bernard tells us, “Nothing so restrains the violence of anger, eases the swellings of pride, heals the wounds of spite, checks the flow of sensuality, extinguishes the flame of lust, restricts the thirst of greed, and puts to flight the craving for whatever is unbecoming” as the Name: Jesus.
Moreover, habitual use of the Holy Name is a sign of predestination.
St Francis de Sales says those who have a habit of repeating the Holy Name may feel certain of dying a holy death. For the saint tells us, “every time we say ‘Jesus’ we apply to ourselves the saving blood of the Redeemer to our souls.”
The name ‘Jesus’ means ‘savior.’ Holy scripture tells us it is a name of power, “There is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12); scripture comforts us to its effectiveness, “Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee.” (Ps 49:15)
But the power and effectiveness of the Holy Name will only really be known by us if we practice invoking It often both in, and out of our necessities.
We have begun a New Year. What the future holds we do not know... but we know it depends on us.
For if we want this world to be a better place - we must become more holy.
So let us go forth determined to increase the life of Christ in our souls by avoiding sin and doing good works. To help us in this holy endeavor, there is no more easy a practice than of frequently and affectionately invoking the Holy Name. By simply repeating the Holy Name of the Prince of Peace: “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,” we shall bring a little more peace into this poor world of ours. For if we but open our soul more to Christ, He will have a little more room on earth to put His peace.
“His name was called Jesus.” By Fr. Hathaway, Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
+
We have begun a New Year. Make this New Year’s resolution: the daily resolution to grow more holy. For not to go forward in the spiritual life - is to fall backwards.
One excellent way to advance in the spiritual life is by invoking the Holy Name of the Savior. Throughout history, Christians have called upon the Holy Name to ward off evil, resist temptation, cure bodily ills.
The Acts of the Apostles records St Peter’s response to a lame beggar, “Gold and silver I have not, but what I have I will give thee, ‘In the name of Jesus Christ arise and walk.’ And the man arose and walked glorifying God.”
In the fourth century, St John Chrysostom beseeched Christians to carry the holy Name as a staff. “As you would not go abroad without clothes or shoes, so neither go forth without this Holy Name... speak it as you cross your threshold. It will be for you a staff, armor, and tower of defense.”
In 1943, a terrible plague broke out in Lisbon, Portugal. Thousands of people were dying in the streets and marketplaces. So many died so quickly that the dead could not be buried properly. Ravening dogs ate the flesh of exposed corpses causing disease to advance all the more.
A holy Bishop, Monsignor Andre Dias, despairing of human help, urged the unhappy people to call upon the Holy Name of Jesus. He implored the sick to say often: “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus”; he asked they write this name on cards and carry them around, place them under their pillow at night... but mostly, to constantly invoke the Holy Name on the lips.
At one point, Monsignor Dias summoned all to the Church of St Dominic. There, he preached to them of the Holy Name of Jesus, blessed water with this name, then sprinkled the water upon the sick and dying. The sick were restored to health; the dying rose from their agony.
News of this event spread and soon all Portugal was freed of the plague. From Portugal came numerous associations dedicated to spreading devotion to the Holy Name.
Am I plagued by a certain temptation? Is my flesh prone to a particular vice? Is my imagination an easy prey by which the devil leads me into sin?
We may not always have holy water to bless ourselves with, a church to run to, a priest to confide in... but we can always invoke the name, “Jesus” to rout the enemies of our salvation.
Sacred scripture calls this Name “holy and terrible”; St Paul tells us that every knee must bow to the Name “those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.”
Do I have nightmares? Do I get impatient or angry? Do I suffer from impure thoughts? Then I must train myself to frequently invoke the holy Name of Jesus. “Jesus, come to my aid”; “Jesus, have mercy on me a sinner”; “Jesus, Thou hast purchased me by Thy Most Precious Blood, do not loose me.” This Holy Name will scatter my fears and overcome my weakness.
St Bernard tells us, “Nothing so restrains the violence of anger, eases the swellings of pride, heals the wounds of spite, checks the flow of sensuality, extinguishes the flame of lust, restricts the thirst of greed, and puts to flight the craving for whatever is unbecoming” as the Name: Jesus.
Moreover, habitual use of the Holy Name is a sign of predestination.
St Francis de Sales says those who have a habit of repeating the Holy Name may feel certain of dying a holy death. For the saint tells us, “every time we say ‘Jesus’ we apply to ourselves the saving blood of the Redeemer to our souls.”
The name ‘Jesus’ means ‘savior.’ Holy scripture tells us it is a name of power, “There is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12); scripture comforts us to its effectiveness, “Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee.” (Ps 49:15)
But the power and effectiveness of the Holy Name will only really be known by us if we practice invoking It often both in, and out of our necessities.
We have begun a New Year. What the future holds we do not know... but we know it depends on us.
For if we want this world to be a better place - we must become more holy.
So let us go forth determined to increase the life of Christ in our souls by avoiding sin and doing good works. To help us in this holy endeavor, there is no more easy a practice than of frequently and affectionately invoking the Holy Name. By simply repeating the Holy Name of the Prince of Peace: “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,” we shall bring a little more peace into this poor world of ours. For if we but open our soul more to Christ, He will have a little more room on earth to put His peace.
HOW SWEET IT WAS!
As mentioned in an earlier blog, I celebrated the Extraordinary Form of the Nuptial Mass yesterday for now married, Mr. and Mrs. David (Stephanie Howe) Bushey. Here are some of my reflections on this form of the wedding and Nuptial Mass.
There were a good number of young people there from Christendom College. Apart from the EF of the Mass, they have a very traditional reverence and piety. Many in attendance were familiar with the EF Mass and participated in an active verbal way with the sung and spoken Latin responses. This was marvelous.
But getting back to the traditional reverence and piety of the congregation; this is what I remember growing up as a Catholic in the pre-Vatican II Church. Even as a very young child, let's say before I even turned five, I can remember the hushed reverence of the congregation and how pious people were after they received Holy Communion. I can remember people returning from Holy Communion, kneeling with their face buried in their hands. As a child I thought they were upset, but my parents reassured me they were just grateful to Jesus and His divine mercy.
Reverence, reverence, reverence marked this form of the celebration of the Mass including the Nuptial liturgies. This is in marked contrast with so many of our OF forms of nuptials where there is a giddiness and a total ignorance of what our form of prayer and reverence are all about. If all of our wedding liturgies were as reverent as the one yesterday, I think most priests would begin to favor once again the celebration of weddings over funerals. At least today, for funerals, people seem to be in a more reverent mood and hunger for spiritual meaning in the face of death, but not so much for weddings!
There was no room in the EF Nuptials for the congregation to acknowledge the bride and groom with applause or cat calls. And there is no place for the bride and groom to kiss. So often in the OF form of Nuptials as soon as the bride and groom kiss, there is loud applause and yes,(and I have experienced this many times) cat calls from the congregation. At the recession in OF nuptials, there is not only loud and sustained applause, but a hooting, guttural groaning and the like that you might see and hear on the "Tonight Show." It's down right silly and stupid but because of the loss of the sense of the sacred that is what our nuptials in the OF liturgies have disintegrated into.
The EF form of the Nuptials was so serious, so prayerful and so solemn everyone knew that applause and guttural groaning in this form was totally out of place. The sense of the sacred was too profound and solemn to add anything profane to the Liturgy. I understand now, more than ever, why older people (most of whom are now dead) use to tell me when I was first ordained how much they missed the reverent silence and the sense of the sacred they experienced prior to the reforms of the Liturgy. I didn't really understand their lament until recently and they were right to lament. We have lost the sense of the sacred in our reform liturgies and I'm more and more convinced it is the reform and dumbing down of ritual and sacred actions that has contributed to it. The way you pray is the way your believe and if you pray with a flawed translation of the vernacular, rubrics that are not followed or worse yet spontaneously made up and a giddiness about things sacred, it only follows that the profane will be incorporated into the liturgy and people will lose all respect for that which is sacred thinking their giddy silliness and entertainment form of participation will adequately replace true spirituality and reverence.
While I do love the Latin and think our Catholic people are smart enough to actively participate in this language, even verbally, I do appreciate the vernacular also and see accurate translations of the Latin to be a blessing for the Church. I still contend though, if the form of the Mass and the other sacraments had simply been left alone and good, accurate translations of the rubrics and texts of these sacraments been accomplished without changing the order, gestures or bodily postures of these Sacraments, true renewal and an increase of devotion and reverence would have remained with us and just maybe, (I'm not clairvoyant) we would have maintained the high level of active participation in our Church and at Sunday Mass.
By high level of active participation, I mean almost 90% of Catholics attending Mass on Sunday as was the case prior to the Second Vatican Council. Today, we consider it a blessing if we have at least 20% attending. This is truly shocking and it should be sobering to those who think the renewal of the last 45 years has actually been renewal. Why go to Mass if one does not believe what the Church believes about the Mass, if our celebrations betray that belief through banalities, entertainment forms of participation, and downright profane activities in the church and her celebrations? Why should the nearly 70% who absent themselves from Sunday Mass and active participation take seriously what we do if the outward signs of what we do, do not inspire or lead to true worship, reverence and spirituality--that sense of the sacred that was so characteristic of Catholic parishes of a by-gone era?
Let's get with it and continue the reform of the reform. Pope Benedict knows what he is doing and we need to support him. Perhaps in another 45 years the liturgical landscape will have improved and the absence of Catholic people in our pews and the loss of the sense of the sacred will have all been truly reformed.
Your thoughts?
There were a good number of young people there from Christendom College. Apart from the EF of the Mass, they have a very traditional reverence and piety. Many in attendance were familiar with the EF Mass and participated in an active verbal way with the sung and spoken Latin responses. This was marvelous.
But getting back to the traditional reverence and piety of the congregation; this is what I remember growing up as a Catholic in the pre-Vatican II Church. Even as a very young child, let's say before I even turned five, I can remember the hushed reverence of the congregation and how pious people were after they received Holy Communion. I can remember people returning from Holy Communion, kneeling with their face buried in their hands. As a child I thought they were upset, but my parents reassured me they were just grateful to Jesus and His divine mercy.
Reverence, reverence, reverence marked this form of the celebration of the Mass including the Nuptial liturgies. This is in marked contrast with so many of our OF forms of nuptials where there is a giddiness and a total ignorance of what our form of prayer and reverence are all about. If all of our wedding liturgies were as reverent as the one yesterday, I think most priests would begin to favor once again the celebration of weddings over funerals. At least today, for funerals, people seem to be in a more reverent mood and hunger for spiritual meaning in the face of death, but not so much for weddings!
There was no room in the EF Nuptials for the congregation to acknowledge the bride and groom with applause or cat calls. And there is no place for the bride and groom to kiss. So often in the OF form of Nuptials as soon as the bride and groom kiss, there is loud applause and yes,(and I have experienced this many times) cat calls from the congregation. At the recession in OF nuptials, there is not only loud and sustained applause, but a hooting, guttural groaning and the like that you might see and hear on the "Tonight Show." It's down right silly and stupid but because of the loss of the sense of the sacred that is what our nuptials in the OF liturgies have disintegrated into.
The EF form of the Nuptials was so serious, so prayerful and so solemn everyone knew that applause and guttural groaning in this form was totally out of place. The sense of the sacred was too profound and solemn to add anything profane to the Liturgy. I understand now, more than ever, why older people (most of whom are now dead) use to tell me when I was first ordained how much they missed the reverent silence and the sense of the sacred they experienced prior to the reforms of the Liturgy. I didn't really understand their lament until recently and they were right to lament. We have lost the sense of the sacred in our reform liturgies and I'm more and more convinced it is the reform and dumbing down of ritual and sacred actions that has contributed to it. The way you pray is the way your believe and if you pray with a flawed translation of the vernacular, rubrics that are not followed or worse yet spontaneously made up and a giddiness about things sacred, it only follows that the profane will be incorporated into the liturgy and people will lose all respect for that which is sacred thinking their giddy silliness and entertainment form of participation will adequately replace true spirituality and reverence.
While I do love the Latin and think our Catholic people are smart enough to actively participate in this language, even verbally, I do appreciate the vernacular also and see accurate translations of the Latin to be a blessing for the Church. I still contend though, if the form of the Mass and the other sacraments had simply been left alone and good, accurate translations of the rubrics and texts of these sacraments been accomplished without changing the order, gestures or bodily postures of these Sacraments, true renewal and an increase of devotion and reverence would have remained with us and just maybe, (I'm not clairvoyant) we would have maintained the high level of active participation in our Church and at Sunday Mass.
By high level of active participation, I mean almost 90% of Catholics attending Mass on Sunday as was the case prior to the Second Vatican Council. Today, we consider it a blessing if we have at least 20% attending. This is truly shocking and it should be sobering to those who think the renewal of the last 45 years has actually been renewal. Why go to Mass if one does not believe what the Church believes about the Mass, if our celebrations betray that belief through banalities, entertainment forms of participation, and downright profane activities in the church and her celebrations? Why should the nearly 70% who absent themselves from Sunday Mass and active participation take seriously what we do if the outward signs of what we do, do not inspire or lead to true worship, reverence and spirituality--that sense of the sacred that was so characteristic of Catholic parishes of a by-gone era?
Let's get with it and continue the reform of the reform. Pope Benedict knows what he is doing and we need to support him. Perhaps in another 45 years the liturgical landscape will have improved and the absence of Catholic people in our pews and the loss of the sense of the sacred will have all been truly reformed.
Your thoughts?
Saturday, January 2, 2010
WE THREE KINGS: WHAT AN EPIPHANY!
A rabbi posed this question to his students: “How can you tell when the night has ended and the day is beginning to dawn?” One student replied, “Could it be at that moment when you can see an animal in the distance and tell whether it is a sheep or a goat?” “No,” said the rabbi. Another student offered, “Could it be when you can look at a tree in the distance and tell whether it is a fig tree or a sycamore?” Again, the rabbi said, “No.” “Well then,” asked his students, “when can you tell when night has ended and day is dawning?” In response, the rabbi explained, “It is when you can look into the face of another and see that he is your brother. If you cannot do this, then no matter what time it is, it is still night.”
Many Christians will celebrate the Feast of the Epiphany tomorrow on January 3rd while a significant number will celebrate on the traditional date of January 6 concluding the twelve days of Christmas. The angels, the shepherds and the magi at the birth of Jesus comprise not just a cute story about the birth of Jesus, but signify the dawn of a new day in the history of all humankind. The dawn of this new day shows vividly that in Jesus Christ, God embraces all people.
One of the most memorable movies of 1984 was “Places in the Heart,” a beautifully told story about life in a small Texas town during the Great Depression. The main character, played by Sally Field, is a young wife whose husband dies in a tragic accident, and it is up to her to raise her children and harvest the cotton crop in time to save the farm. Along with a very realistic portrayal of life during this time period, including some intense scenes depicting racial violence and the degradations of poverty, what many movie goers found most memorable was the last scene. We see all the main characters of the story at a church communion service. In the course of that communion, all differences or race and class are gone and even those characters who died violent deaths in the story are restored to the community. Reconciliation had been established at this “Lord’s Supper” which in fact is meant to be a foretaste of the life of heaven. (It was an amazing example of Hollywood getting theology right in a movie.)
What the Angels, shepherds and Magi experience and proclaim is a new age of love and reconciliation between God and humanity. We now see everything from the best vantage point, where tragedy is resolved, reconciliation accomplished in a moment of all encompassing love from God. A cute story that captures the imagination is all about God embracing not just the chosen people, the Jews, but embracing astrologers, pagans and all sorts of people and bringing them into the kingdom of God too. The Magi represent the response that all of us should give to God’s initiative in the world, a new way of living life, filled with faith in Jesus, hope and love.
The Gospel proclamation about the birth of Jesus and the exotic characters that are made aware of this unusual birth is meant to challenge us to wonder in amazement at what God is doing in the world and in our own personal lives. In a sermon for Epiphany from a 5th century bishop and saint of the Church, Peter Chrysologus, known as Peter of the Golden Word, he states, “Today, the Magi find in the manger the one they have followed as he shone in the sky. Today, the Magi see clearly the one they have long awaited, as he lay hidden among the stars. Today, the Magi gaze in deep wonder at what they see: heaven on earth, earth in heaven, man in God, God in man, and the One whom the whole universe cannot contain now enclosed in a tiny body. As they look, they believe and do not question, as their symbolic gifts bear witness: incense for God, gold for a king, myrrh for one who is to die.”
First, the poor in the persons of the Shepherds are made aware of the birth of the Messiah. Lastly kings, exotic and rich astrologers acknowledge Jesus appearance as decisive. Everything is changed because Jesus has come among us. We can ignore him and turn away, but we cannot avoid the fact of his coming, which has redefined the purpose of life itself. If we do not follow him we will be moving away from the dawn of new light, away from the homecoming God has planned for us. To move toward the light is to take up a lifelong discipleship. God has disturbed our comfort, challenged our prejudices, and forced us to consider the demands of love by taking His place among the poor first and lastly all of humanity in need, symbolized by the rich astrologers. How difficult it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God, yet with God in the Person of a Baby, all things are possible. What an Epiphany!
Many Christians will celebrate the Feast of the Epiphany tomorrow on January 3rd while a significant number will celebrate on the traditional date of January 6 concluding the twelve days of Christmas. The angels, the shepherds and the magi at the birth of Jesus comprise not just a cute story about the birth of Jesus, but signify the dawn of a new day in the history of all humankind. The dawn of this new day shows vividly that in Jesus Christ, God embraces all people.
One of the most memorable movies of 1984 was “Places in the Heart,” a beautifully told story about life in a small Texas town during the Great Depression. The main character, played by Sally Field, is a young wife whose husband dies in a tragic accident, and it is up to her to raise her children and harvest the cotton crop in time to save the farm. Along with a very realistic portrayal of life during this time period, including some intense scenes depicting racial violence and the degradations of poverty, what many movie goers found most memorable was the last scene. We see all the main characters of the story at a church communion service. In the course of that communion, all differences or race and class are gone and even those characters who died violent deaths in the story are restored to the community. Reconciliation had been established at this “Lord’s Supper” which in fact is meant to be a foretaste of the life of heaven. (It was an amazing example of Hollywood getting theology right in a movie.)
What the Angels, shepherds and Magi experience and proclaim is a new age of love and reconciliation between God and humanity. We now see everything from the best vantage point, where tragedy is resolved, reconciliation accomplished in a moment of all encompassing love from God. A cute story that captures the imagination is all about God embracing not just the chosen people, the Jews, but embracing astrologers, pagans and all sorts of people and bringing them into the kingdom of God too. The Magi represent the response that all of us should give to God’s initiative in the world, a new way of living life, filled with faith in Jesus, hope and love.
The Gospel proclamation about the birth of Jesus and the exotic characters that are made aware of this unusual birth is meant to challenge us to wonder in amazement at what God is doing in the world and in our own personal lives. In a sermon for Epiphany from a 5th century bishop and saint of the Church, Peter Chrysologus, known as Peter of the Golden Word, he states, “Today, the Magi find in the manger the one they have followed as he shone in the sky. Today, the Magi see clearly the one they have long awaited, as he lay hidden among the stars. Today, the Magi gaze in deep wonder at what they see: heaven on earth, earth in heaven, man in God, God in man, and the One whom the whole universe cannot contain now enclosed in a tiny body. As they look, they believe and do not question, as their symbolic gifts bear witness: incense for God, gold for a king, myrrh for one who is to die.”
First, the poor in the persons of the Shepherds are made aware of the birth of the Messiah. Lastly kings, exotic and rich astrologers acknowledge Jesus appearance as decisive. Everything is changed because Jesus has come among us. We can ignore him and turn away, but we cannot avoid the fact of his coming, which has redefined the purpose of life itself. If we do not follow him we will be moving away from the dawn of new light, away from the homecoming God has planned for us. To move toward the light is to take up a lifelong discipleship. God has disturbed our comfort, challenged our prejudices, and forced us to consider the demands of love by taking His place among the poor first and lastly all of humanity in need, symbolized by the rich astrologers. How difficult it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God, yet with God in the Person of a Baby, all things are possible. What an Epiphany!
Friday, January 1, 2010
A HAPPY AND BLESSED NEW YEAR TO YOU IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2010!
A HAPPY AND BLESSED NEW YEAR TO YOU IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2010!
Today, January 1, 2010 we will celebrate two Masses in honor of The Blessed Virgin Mary, The Mother of God. These will be at 8:00 AM and 10:00 AM. As well, we will commend the world to God's grace and peace on this World Day of Prayer for Peace.
Our Catholic identity is very much united to our veneration and love for our Blessed Mother, the Mother of God. It is a sweet relationship and she always directs us to her Son who is the Savior of the world.
This is the 8th Day of the Octave of Christmas. Since Christmas Day, time has stood still liturgically. These eight days are in effect one long day. This is a marvelous way to extend our celebration of Christmas and to savor its joy. Like a kid who does not want Christmas Day to end because 24 hours goes by so fast, the Church gives us "one day" that last 192 hours. I think I'm ready now for the day after Christmas!
And what a day the day after Christmas will be. I will be celebrating my first Nuptial Mass in the Extraordinary Form! The main difference between it and the Ordinary Form of the Nuptial Mass is that after the bridal procession, everyone, including the bridal party kneels for prayer. There is the traditional versicle "+Our help is in the name of the Lord" with the congregational responses and a concluding prayer. Then the priest is allowed to say some of his own remarks. The couple and their two witnesses then come forward for a very simple exchange of vows and rings. After the vows, the priest sprinkles the married couple with Holy Water, then he blesses the rings, they exchange them there are some concluding versicles and prayers and the wedding party returns to their kneelers for the beginning of the Nuptial Mass.
In other words, they are married prior to the Mass beginning. They attend their very first Mass, from its beginning, as a married couple. The couple to be married are David Bushey and Stephanie Howe. They both met at Christendom College. Stephanie is a member of a Catholic parish in the Diocese of Richmond that is completely "Extraordinary Form" oriented for all the sacraments. David is a long time member of St. Joseph Church. The marriage prelude to the Nuptial Mass may be done in English.
In the Ordinary Form of the Nuptial Mass, the couple actually exchanges vows after the homily. So they are not married for the Introductory Rite and the Liturgy of the Word. I didn't realize that the EF Nuptial Mass celebrated the vows as a prelude to the Nuptial Mass. It makes sense to me to have the EF way of celebrating the Nuptial Mass. It is powerfully symbolic for them to listen to the Word of God and hearing the homily as a married couple for the very first time at their Nuptial Mass.
In addition, in the EF form of the vows, the priest must ratify the "consent" given in their public vows with a blessing, "I join you in Matrimony, in the Name of the Father + and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This blessing is omitted in the OF form of consent. I do believe this omission should be revisited. In the uniate Eastern Rites of the Church, the priest must ratify the consent with this type of blessing or the marriage vows are not valid. The Latin Rite states that the Nuptial Blessing accomplishes this now, but it is not as clear as it is in the EF Rite which also has a nuptial blessing, in fact two, one after the Lord's Prayer and one immediately following the "Ite Missa est" and prior to the Placeat and final Blessing of Mass. The Eastern Rite does not emphasize as the Latin Rite has done, since Vatican II only, that it is necessary for the priest to ratify the marriage vows for the validity of the ceremony. We now teach that the couple "marries" themselves as an exercise of their baptismal priestly rights--a rather vague and peculiar theologizing. The Eastern Rite in union with us doesn't buy it!
Then on Sunday, St. Joseph will have its monthly Latin High Mass in the Extraordinary Form at 2:00 PM--back to back Extraordinary Masses! I really love celebrating this form of the Mass and find its beauty to be truly edifying, inspirational and beneficial to my priestly spirituality and growth. I also love the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Having these two forms as possibilities in one parish is truly an enrichment, so much so that I think I'm getting tooth decay because it is indeed so sweet. In fact I feel just like Jackie Gleason! "HOW SWEET IS IS!"
May your New Year in our Lord be sweet too! God bless you.
Today, January 1, 2010 we will celebrate two Masses in honor of The Blessed Virgin Mary, The Mother of God. These will be at 8:00 AM and 10:00 AM. As well, we will commend the world to God's grace and peace on this World Day of Prayer for Peace.
Our Catholic identity is very much united to our veneration and love for our Blessed Mother, the Mother of God. It is a sweet relationship and she always directs us to her Son who is the Savior of the world.
This is the 8th Day of the Octave of Christmas. Since Christmas Day, time has stood still liturgically. These eight days are in effect one long day. This is a marvelous way to extend our celebration of Christmas and to savor its joy. Like a kid who does not want Christmas Day to end because 24 hours goes by so fast, the Church gives us "one day" that last 192 hours. I think I'm ready now for the day after Christmas!
And what a day the day after Christmas will be. I will be celebrating my first Nuptial Mass in the Extraordinary Form! The main difference between it and the Ordinary Form of the Nuptial Mass is that after the bridal procession, everyone, including the bridal party kneels for prayer. There is the traditional versicle "+Our help is in the name of the Lord" with the congregational responses and a concluding prayer. Then the priest is allowed to say some of his own remarks. The couple and their two witnesses then come forward for a very simple exchange of vows and rings. After the vows, the priest sprinkles the married couple with Holy Water, then he blesses the rings, they exchange them there are some concluding versicles and prayers and the wedding party returns to their kneelers for the beginning of the Nuptial Mass.
In other words, they are married prior to the Mass beginning. They attend their very first Mass, from its beginning, as a married couple. The couple to be married are David Bushey and Stephanie Howe. They both met at Christendom College. Stephanie is a member of a Catholic parish in the Diocese of Richmond that is completely "Extraordinary Form" oriented for all the sacraments. David is a long time member of St. Joseph Church. The marriage prelude to the Nuptial Mass may be done in English.
In the Ordinary Form of the Nuptial Mass, the couple actually exchanges vows after the homily. So they are not married for the Introductory Rite and the Liturgy of the Word. I didn't realize that the EF Nuptial Mass celebrated the vows as a prelude to the Nuptial Mass. It makes sense to me to have the EF way of celebrating the Nuptial Mass. It is powerfully symbolic for them to listen to the Word of God and hearing the homily as a married couple for the very first time at their Nuptial Mass.
In addition, in the EF form of the vows, the priest must ratify the "consent" given in their public vows with a blessing, "I join you in Matrimony, in the Name of the Father + and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This blessing is omitted in the OF form of consent. I do believe this omission should be revisited. In the uniate Eastern Rites of the Church, the priest must ratify the consent with this type of blessing or the marriage vows are not valid. The Latin Rite states that the Nuptial Blessing accomplishes this now, but it is not as clear as it is in the EF Rite which also has a nuptial blessing, in fact two, one after the Lord's Prayer and one immediately following the "Ite Missa est" and prior to the Placeat and final Blessing of Mass. The Eastern Rite does not emphasize as the Latin Rite has done, since Vatican II only, that it is necessary for the priest to ratify the marriage vows for the validity of the ceremony. We now teach that the couple "marries" themselves as an exercise of their baptismal priestly rights--a rather vague and peculiar theologizing. The Eastern Rite in union with us doesn't buy it!
Then on Sunday, St. Joseph will have its monthly Latin High Mass in the Extraordinary Form at 2:00 PM--back to back Extraordinary Masses! I really love celebrating this form of the Mass and find its beauty to be truly edifying, inspirational and beneficial to my priestly spirituality and growth. I also love the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Having these two forms as possibilities in one parish is truly an enrichment, so much so that I think I'm getting tooth decay because it is indeed so sweet. In fact I feel just like Jackie Gleason! "HOW SWEET IS IS!"
May your New Year in our Lord be sweet too! God bless you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)