THE DOCTRINE OF ECUMENISM EXPLAINED PROPERLY BY HOLY MOTHER CHURCH

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH

INTRODUCTION

The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiology. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).

The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Communionis notio (1992), and the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.

RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS

FIRST QUESTION

Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

RESPONSE

The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council.[1] Paul VI affirmed it[2] and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”.[3] The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention.[4]

SECOND QUESTION

What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.[7]

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]

THIRD QUESTION

Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?

RESPONSE

The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.[11]

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[12].

FOURTH QUESTION

Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds”[13], they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches.[15]

“It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”.[16] However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches.[17]

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history.[18]

FIFTH QUESTION

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

THE LIVING VOICE OF THE MAGISTERIUM AND LITURGICAL DANCE

I'm back from an excellent seminar with Fr. Robert Barron. What a teacher! This video I found is helpful for those who don't really like the living Magisterium and want to go back to the dead one of the early 1940's or perhaps to the early Church Fathers, or worse yet to their own authority:

This is a good one on judgement and hell:


Now onto liturgical dance! I've written this before, like music that is added to the Mass, the Mass is the music of the Mass, meaning: The Introit, the priest's parts; the other parts that the laity respond and also join the priest in chanting: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Mystery of Faith, Great Amen, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei. The new English missal also offers the possibility of chanting the Orate Fratres and the laity's response as well as the "Lord, I am not worthy, with the priest's Ecce Agnus Dei.

Everything else that is sung is superfluous. These are sung at Mass, but are not the Mass!

NO TO THIS:

YES TO THIS:

The same is true with liturgical dance. The horrible stuff we see in the USA that is called liturgical dance is truly an aberration and superfluous to the Mass, like music thrown into the Mass.

The Mass is the liturgical dance itself. By this I mean a highly choreographed dance, that is prescribed not left to the "genius" of the one dancing or his or her improvisation.

In fact, the Extraordinary Form of the Mass has more dance like characteristics than the Ordinary Form. The OF Mass is often sloppily carried out without a thought to the choreography that is required. The problem too is that the rubrics and general instructions of this missal don't have a choreography except in the most general of terms.

Not so with the EF Mass. It is truly choreographed especially in its highest form, the Solemn Sung Mass or better yet the Pontifical Solemn Sung Mass.

It is like the Israelite's dance around the Ark of the Covenant!

It would be quite easy though to bring the choreography of the EF Mass to the OF Mass especially when celebrated ad orientem!

OKAY, MAYBE I'M GOING AT THIS WRONGLY, LET'S REFORM THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS IN A MINOR WAY THAT WILL MAKE IT MORE PALATABLE TO MORE CATHOLICS

Okay, some of you don't like the Ordinary Form of the Mass compared to the Extraordinary Form because you think it doesn't really follow what Sacrosanctum Concilium truly desired. But worse than that you don't like Sacrosanctum Concilium or the documents of Vatican II and would like to reject these. That makes you a neo-Protestant and like the Orthodox in rejecting an Ecumenical Council and the Magisteriums of all Popes beginning with Pope John XXIII--this is disobedience and the antithesis of the unity that the Holy Father provides to all Catholics who are obedient to him in the areas of faith, morals, canon law and their Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary.

I think one can certainly prefer the EF Mass over the OF Mass. I have no problem with that. But the rejection of an Ecumenical Council is a mortal sin--serious matter, one knows it is serious matter to reject the Magisterium in its living and current form and one does it with full consent of the will. To die in a state of mortal sin means damnation. But surely we call upon God's mercy to lead you to right praise or Orthodoxy as Catholics.

So let's work on reforming the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in a minor way. By that I mean let's keep the 1962 Missal and its lectionary as the given. Having stated that,then let's suggest the following:

I'm working now off of the Sung Mass and the Solemn Sung Mass:

1. Since everyone is joining the ordained priest by virtue of the priesthood of all the baptized, everyone participates in everything according to their status in the Church whether ordained or lay. The altar boys assist the priest and participate with the laity in the same degree in terms of verbal responses and the laity also join in singing the parts of the Mass that pertain to them:
A. A processional hymn is sung
B. Once the procession reaches the sanctuary, the singing of this hymn ends and the Priest and the laity together say the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar in the vernacular each taking their parts. There is no truncation of these prayers.

2. The Choir then sings the Introit as the priest approaches the altar to reverence it and the laity are invited to join in if able, along with the priest. The priest does not say the Introit but joins in the choir singing of it or simply listens.

2. The Kyrie and Gloria are chanted by all in the Greek/Latin and using one of the chant versions.

3. The Collect is chanted by the priest as usual for the EF Mass. The priest is not robotic in his movements but solemn and natural following the rubrics as written.

4. The Liturgy of the Word is chanted in the Vernacular with the option at the altar in the traditional positions by a lay lector for the first reading, the gradual chanted by a cantor in the choir, and the Gospel changed by the deacon or priest. The option of doing this from the ambo is allowed.

5. After the homily that is integral to the Liturgy of the Word, the Credo is chanted in Latin and the option of a litany that is prescribed is offered as an option following the Credo.

6. The altar is prepared and the offerings brought by the laity to the priest.

7. The Mass continues as usual with the Offertory Chant sung during the procession of the gifts and the actual offertory.

8. After the Offertory, the Mass continues as it would in the 1962 missal with the laity taking their parts for the Sanctus, with the priest joining in singing the Sanctus with the Laity and then the canon said in a quiet voice, but not silently, in other words, following the rubrics which explicitly says, low voice, not silent voice. The Congregation sings the Great Amen which is chanted.

9. the Congregation joins in chanting the entire Pater Noster as well as the Agnus Dei and Communion Antiphon and other chants.

The postures of the EF Mass for the congregation are standardized for both the High, Solemn High and Low Masses:

A. Stand for the Procession
B. Kneel for the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar
C. Stand for the Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Collect

D. Sit for the First Lesson and Gradual
E. Stand for the Gospel as soon as the Gradual is competed
F. Sit for the homily

G. Stand for the Credo and Litany
H. Sit for the Offertory procession and offertory

I. Stand for the Orate Fratres, Secret, and Preface dialogue and Preface as well as the Sanctus which is sung as a unity always
J. Kneel for the Roman Canon through the Great Amen
K. Stand for the Pater Noster and following prayers
L. Stand for the Lamb of God, kneel afterwards until the laity's Communion
M. After Holy Communion, Stand for the Prayer after Holy Communion
N. Kneel for the Ite Missa Est and Final Blessing
O. Stand for the Last Gospel and Recessional

I'VE WRITTEN IT BEFORE, I'LL WRITE IT AGAIN!

In the post below this one, the good cardinal says the Liturgy of Pope Paul VI did not revise the Mass as Vatican II envisioned by Sacrosanctum Concilium!

Ao I trust that you have read SC and understand that it should be followed. Without having SC in front of me, let me highlight what I see as indispensable:

1. Latin to be retained, but some vernacular, Pope Benedict models the future with the preface, Canon and Pater Noster in Latin

2. Noble simplicity without useless repetition

3. More lavish use of Scripture, I say SC was implemented in the lectionary

4. Actual participation--the laity must have actual participation in their parts and strict rubrics for their postures

5. Inculturation through art and style of chant but very conservatively

6. Gregorian chant the norm for the Mass parts themselves

So, don't expect the 2002 revised Missal to be dumped but plan to see:

A. The EF Order of Mass restored

B. The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar restored but responded to by the laity even in a sung Mass, but without the double Confiteor

C. Restoration of the traditional Offertory Prayers

D. Communion Rite as in the OF (beginning with Pater Noster and through the Mass's dismissal) with the option of the Last Gospel

E. Revised Roman Calendar as the Amglican Ordinariate has done

I think certain musical instruments should be suppressed such as piano, tambourines, snare drums and guitars.

Of course the norm for the Mass would be Ad Orientem as well as kneeling for Holy Communion and intinction the norm for the laity.

All that I write could happen by papal order today with catches is first and implementation Advent of 2013.

So keeping SC 's normative requests in mind how would you revise the Mass keeping in mind that the 2002 missal itself will not be discarded.

I PREDICT A REFORMED MASS WILL BE ANNOUNCED BY THE POPE DURING THIS YEAR OF FAITH AND THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF VATICAN II

THIS IS FROM RORATE CAELI AND THE CARDINAL IS MORE RADICAL THAN ANYTHING I'VE EVER WRITTEN. FOLKS RRFORM IS COMING AND I THINK DURING THIS 50TH AMNIVERSARY OF VATICAN II--REMEMBER I PREDICTED HERE!

The Mass of Paul VI IS NOT the Mass of the Council
Sacrosanctum Concilium never really implemented
From an interview granted by Cardinal Walter Brandmüller to Vatican Insider and published today. The last answer, on the liturgical revolution that should never have happened and destroyed the organic evolution of sacred worship, is particularly relevant.


The Second Vatican Council was a Pastoral Council that also provided dogmatic explanations. Had there ever been anything like it previously in the history of the Church? 
[Brandmüller:] It does in fact seem as though Vatican II marked the beginning of a new type of Council. The language that was used during it and the completeness of the texts show that the Council fathers was not as much motivated by the need to pass judgement on controversial new ecclesiastical and theological issues, but rather by the wish to turn their attention to public opinion within the Church and the entire world, in the spirit of the annunciation.


Shouldn’t a Council be declared a failure if fifty years on it has not been warmly received by the faithful? Benedict XVI warned against a misleading interpretation of the Council, particularly in terms of the hermeneutics of [rupture]…
[B:]This is one of those cliché questions that stem from a new existential sentiment; that feeling of confusion that is typical of our times. But what is fifty years after all?! Cast your mind back to the Council of Nicaea in 325. The disputes surrounding the dogma of this Council - about the nature of the Son, that is, whether he was made of the same substance as the Father or not - continued for more than a hundred years. St. Ambrose was ordained Bishop of Milan on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Council of Nicaea and had to fight hard against the Arians who refused to accept the Nicene provisions. Briefly afterwards came a new Council: the First Council of Constantinople of 381 which was deemed necessary in order to complete the profession of the faith at Nicaea. During this Council, St. Augustine was given the task of dealing with requests and fighting back heretics until his death in 430. Frankly, even the Council of Trent was not very fruitful until the Golden Jubilee of 1596. It took a new generation of Bishops and prelates to mature in the “spirit of the Council” before its effect could really be felt. We need to allow ourselves a little more breathing space.


Let us talk now about the fruits which the Vatican II produced. Can you comment on this?
[B:] First of all of course the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” in comparison with the Tridentine Catechism: after the Council of Trent, the Catechismus Romanus was launched in order to provide parish priests, preachers etcetera with guidelines on how to preach and announce the Gospel or evangelize.

Even the 1983 Code of Canon Law can be considered a consequence of the Council. I must emphasise that the form of the post-conciliar liturgy with all its distortions, is not attributable to the Council or to the Liturgy Constitution established during Vatican II which by the way has not really been implemented even to this day. The indiscriminate removal of Latin and Gregorian Chants from liturgical celebrations and the erection of numerous altars were absolutely not acts prescribed by the Council.

With the benefit of hindsight, let us cast our minds back in particular to the lack of sensitivity shown in terms of care for the faithful and in the pastoral carelessness shown in the liturgical form. One need only think of the Church’s excesses, reminiscent of the [Iconoclastic crisis] which occurred in the [8th] century. Excesses which catapulted numerous faithful into total chaos, leaving many fumbling around in the dark.

Just about anything and everything has been said on this subject. Meanwhile, the liturgy has come to be seen as a mirror image of Church life, subject to an organic historical evolution which cannot - as did indeed happen - suddenly be changed by decree par ordre de mufti. And we are still paying the price today. [Source, adapted]
New Catholic at 8/28/2012 02:46:00 PM
Share

VATICAN II AND FATHER ROBERT BARRON ON ORTHODOXY OR RIGHT PRAISE

On Monday, the Atlanta Province Assembly of Bishops and Priests heard Father Robert Barron speak about the priesthood.

He first spoke about worship as adoration which in Latin literrally means "mouth to mouth." We breathe in God's breath and exhale God's praise, a lovely image.

Worship is also reconciliation, which contains the Latin word cilia which is eyelash. We are together with God eyelash to eyelash.

Orthodoxy is also about worship which means right praise. The question each of us must ask is what do we worship? What is the highest worth to us? Sin is falling away from right worship and making something or someone else the center of our praise which is wrong worship.

The most radical thing Fr. Barron said is that Vatican II has yet to be implemented properly. It is not primarily a Council to modernize the Church but rather a Missionary Council. It seeks the "Christofication" of the world, to evangelize the world by speaking to the world that is secular, atheistic, agnostic and religious.

A sign of doing this with beneficial effects is the role of Pope John Paul and the Church in the fall of Communism. Right praise is meant to change the world.

However we are not to compromise ourselves in this dialogue. Vatican II opened windows to let God's light out, to let God's breath to blow into the world. It did not tear down the walls of the Church but maintained and reiterated dogmatic truths from the 20 centuries of the Church.

More to come. I'm posting this from my IPhone so please excuse mistakes.

IF THE CHURCH IS ALWAYS IN NEED OF REFORM, HOW MUCH MORE FOR A COUNCIL, THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL TO BE SPECIFIC

The type of reform James Carroll has in mind isn't what I have in mind!

This is what most think when they think of reform and specifically the reform of the Second Vatican Council:

Is the Second Vatican Council some kind of sacred cow that can't be reformed? I ask this in all seriousness. The reason why I ask this is that we all have been taught since the Second Vatican Council that the Church is always in need of reform. Since a council, specifically the Second Vatican Council is but a small part of the Church, should not that old adage also apply to the Second Vatican Council?

There are FIVE areas where the Second Vatican Council could use some reform. They are:

1. Sacrosanctum Concilium--it needs to be revisited according the the Extraordinary Form and then its "suggestions" critiqued and then applied anew to the EF Mass and in a very conservative way. This will take years to do. Just keep in mind how long it took us to get the new English translation of the Mass--more than 25 years! Of course to facilitate this critque the Holy Father could add to the option of the 1962 Missal, its slight reform in the vernacular of the 1965 missal. That would be a stroke of genius and reduce the years that it would take to reform Sacrosanctum Concilium and give us a more modest reformed Mass.

2. The Church's dialogue with the secular world needs to be nuanced and refined, if not reformed to make clear that the Church is meant to bring Christ to the secular, not the secular to Christ and His Church.

3. Ecumenism and Interfaith relations need to be reformed accord to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith's decrees of recent decades and this which you can read by pressing HERE.

4. Religious Life needs a serious reform of the reform too. The future of Religious Life is not the LCWR and its New Age version of schismatic religious life, but rather of the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious who are smaller in numbers, but far, far younger and more vibrant and garnering far more new vocations of young women compared to the LCWR which is moribund. You can read an excellent article on the future reform of Religious Life From USA Today by pressing HERE!

5. There might need to be some nuances in terms of "Religious Liberty" too.

Some odds and ends:

1. I just celebrated a wedding for two parishioners of mind as a "destination" wedding at Amelia Island, Florida, to be specific, at St. Michael's Church, Fernandina Beach Florida. This is the view from my hotel room:

2. His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke has gone to my mom's home town of Livorno, Italy in lovely and romantic Tuscany to celebrate the EF Mass at the Shrine of Our Lady of Montenero which is right above Livorno (Leghorn) and a wonderful area that my mom and her family would often visit to get away from things. You can read about it HERE.

3. On Monday, August 27 I go to Raleigh, North Carolina for a continuing education conference for the Province of Atlanta. It features Father Robert Barron! I can't wait. I return to the parish in Macon late Wednesday.

YIKES OR LIKES, CAN THE CHURCH REPUDIATE WHAT AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL MANDATES?

My comment first: I reprint dominic's comment from the last post. While he raises interesting objections, I firmly believe that ecumenical council and papal authority are foundational to Catholicism. Does he undermine both and is there another way to suggest reform, question and fomment discussion in a realistic direction? And isn't Pope Benedict the role model for this critique and reform of Vatican II? I report, you decide!

dominic1955 has left a new comment on your post "LET'S GET REAL ABOUT VATICAN II AND THE REFORM OF ...":

Also, I see no point in insisting upon a "reform" in the same way Sacrosanctum Concilium said. That was what was voted on in the Council back in the '60s. Hindsight being 20/20, I think it is best to preserve rather than tinker at this point. The people who wrote Sacrosanctum Concilium were diaticists and antiquarians-precisely the people who should never be given any sort of role whatsoever in any liturgical reform. The Pauline Missal is an amalgamation of faddish Liturgical Movement antiquarianisms mixed with New Theology didacticism. The expanded lectionary, the mutilated and disjointed prayers, the need to have added "eucharistic prayers" and all sorts of other things violates all liturgical orthopraxis and falls into the predictable camp of the Aufklarung Catholicism of late 18th/early 19th Century Germany, the Jansenists, Josephists, Neo-Gallicans, and Protestants.

Heteropraxis has become so widespread in the Latin Church that it is ridiculous, to the point in which many of us have come to believe that papal fiat is what makes something orthodox or not. It should be burned onto the heart and mind of every proper Catholic that the liturgy is not a project to mess with for each passing age to make it "our own". The liturgy is traditio-we need simply to pass on what we have received. Any alterations that should be made will take care of themselves, the work of progressivist egg head committees is the culmination of what Gueranger called the "anti-liturgical heresy".

THE CATHOLIC MASS IS MORE THAN SACRIFICE, MORE THAN MEAL AND MORE THAN THE HUMAN MIND CAN GRASP! IT IS MYSTERY, MYSTERION IN GREEK, SACRAMENTUM IN LATIN, SACRAMENT IN ENGLISH!

Paul Ford a liturgist and pastoral musician wrote the following: “But what are we saying during the Institution Narrative, “Take this, all of you, and eat/drink of/from it,” if we really mean “only those who are Catholics in good standing who have also observed the fast”? ”

But that made me think that his take on this is precisely what is wrong with our theology of the Mass in the post-Vatican II era and it has to do with liturgical literalism as it concerns the Last Supper and the bodily gestures of the priest and the direction in which he faces!

In fact the Institution Narrative in the Eucharistic is a prayer to God recalling the specific event of the Last Supper and the words are directed to the Apostles who alone are present as an anticipation of Good Friday’s Sacrifice and how they will offer that one Sacrifice in perpetuity as a Memorial of the Good Friday event. Only a literal expression of that by the priest facing the people and gesturing to them would make anyone feel as though this prayer is directed to them literally rather than simply a prayer recalling a specific historical event directed to God in prayer. I’ve seen priests change the rubrics and gesture toward the people dramatically during the consecration as though the congregation is the “Apostles” and the words are directed to them rather than God. That’s the pitfall of the priest facing the congregation during this prayer to God that is highly stylistic and not literalistic.

Rather the laity are called to the Banquet of the Sacrifice at the “Ecce Agnus Dei.” “Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him Who takes away the sins of the word; Blessed are those called to the Supper of the Lamb.”

The latter is directed to the laity and those called to Holy Communion and should be done facing them to make that clear and literal. In this case the Sacrifice offered through the Eucharistic Prayer with its words of institution and the share in the Eschatological Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet which is highlighted in the Communion Rite and specifically the “Ecce Agnus Dei” and the subsequent Communion of the priest and laity form a whole and are integrally related, although as in the case of the Old Testament priest who must consume the Holocaust prior to give what is left to those outside of the holy of holies, so too does the priest-celebrant consume first the Holocaust, but not dead flesh and blood as though Good Friday is all there is, but the Glorified and Risen Body of our Lord as a result of Easter Sunday. In other words we receive the Living Lord, the Lamb of God, not a dead holocaust.


The liturgical gesture toward the people in terms of the meal aspect of the Mass is at the “Behold the Lamb of God…Blessed are those called to the Supper of the Lamb.” And this as well as the Mass in its entirety is “eschatologlical” concerning the ultimate or final things, such as death, the destiny of humanity, the Second Coming, or the Last Judgment. So in effect it goes way beyond Pentecost too. Obviously though, Good Friday’s Sacrifice would not be “memorialized” if not for Easter Sunday and if not for Easter Sunday we would not be talking about Pentecost or the Last things.

Ultimately the entire Mass is a mystery and it is a step into eternity which has no trajectory in our time constricted notions of the future in the philosophical sense, it simply is just as God is “I AM.” So we shouldn’t stop at the Last things either but go to the mind of God and back in our sense of temporal time to the creation of Adam and Eve, their original sin, subsequent actual sin, the covenants to save them, the Old Testament priesthood and sacrifice and so on to the new dispensation–there is a connection to all that too.

The Second Vatican Council did not change any dogma or doctrine. It is a pastoral council and framed the discussion of many things in a “developed” way including the Mass. But so does every encyclical a pope writes even if no new doctrines or dogmas are defined but simply described in a new or different way, which might not always be a better way or the final way.

Certainly “Pope Pius XII Mystici Corporis Christi (June 29, 1943) on the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ is one of the more important encyclicals of Pope Pius XII, because of its topic, the Church, and because its Church concept was fully included in Lumen Gentium but also strongly debated during and after Vatican II. The Church is called body, because it is a living entity; it is called the body of Christ, because Christ is its Head and Founder; it is called mystical body, because it is neither a purely physical nor a purely spiritual unity, but supernatural.”–Wikipedia

So the Mass, in whatever form one celebrates it Extraordinary, Ordinary, Eastern Rites, etc hasn’t changed, but its expression certainly does and how it is described theologically does too, but it is still the Mass and thus a Mystery.

LET'S GET REAL ABOUT VATICAN II AND THE REFORM OF THE REFORM OF THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS

Father Z has a post on his blog, "Elements of the Extraordinary Form in the Ordinary Form" which produced a number of comments.

Of course I've been clairvoyant about what the reform of the reform of the Ordinary Form of the Mass will look and feel like and many believe it will be more like the Extraordinary Form but not exactly. Father Z does not seem to think that most of us will see this new Ordinary Form Missal in our lifetime. I'm not sure about that though.

Of course many comments just focused on repudiating the Second Vatican Council altogether and simple restore the Extraordinary Form Mass as the Ordinary Form and suppress the current Ordinary Form. That, in my clairvoyance, won't happen.

However, Father Martin Fox, who concelebrated here in the Spring and has his own blog, "Bonfires of Vanities" offered the most sober comment of all and my clairvoyance tells me he is on target:

Fr Martin Fox says:
22 August 2012 at 12:07 pm

Well, we’re all friends here, so I’ll be the lightning rod. The reason not to scrap the Ordinary Form utterly is because there are questions of reform in the Mass, originally raised by the Council itself (please note I am distinguishing the Council documents from what came after, and then after that after).

I would argue that there are several reforms associated with the Ordinary Form, properly understood, worth preserving:

> Proclaiming the readings once at Mass, from the pulpit.
> Introduction of the vernacular as an option.
> Expanded lectionary and added readings (yes, I know some specifically dislike this; fair enough. I simply mean I think it’s worth defending).
> Prayers of the faithful as an option–properly done, you understand.
> Proclamation of Mass prayers aloud, and even sung as options. (Please correct me, but my experience has been that even with a Solemn High Mass, many of the prayers of Mass, currently proclaimed aloud, remain in a low voice, and are “overlaid” with other, sung prayers.)

Now, in no way am I dismissing the Extraordinary Form. But again, I think these are reforms that have merit.

And it all goes to the merits of the Council. I make a careful distinction between the Council itself and it’s misbegotten implementation, guided by an unclean spirit from who knows where. I take the Council seriously; it called for some reform. If you simply return to the older form, what becomes of that call by the Council? Is that not, in effect, a repudiation of Sacrosanctum Concilium?


I wholeheartedly concur with Fr. Fox, he is as wise as a...!

HIGH CHRISTOLOGY AND HIGH THEOLOGY OF THE ORDAINED PRIEST VERSUS LOW CHRISTOLOGY AND LOW THEOLOGY OF THE ORDAINED PRIESTHOOD

High theology based upon the Old Testament priesthood which Jesus fulfills and the Christian priest immolates:

Low theology stripped of Old Testament underpinnings and classical Catholic ethos:

One the the "theologies" that has disrupted the Church and led to its "deconstruction" theologically is what is called "low Christology." In a nutshell, it is based on the "historical critical method" of interpreting the Gospels. This method, developed first by liberal Protestants toward the end of the 19th century, tries to get back to the "historical" Jesus prior to the early Church adding layers of theology to Him and reading back into His historical life later understandings of Him.

For example, did Jesus really know that He was God from His childhood. Did the Blessed Virgin Mary, did others who associated with Him? Did He actually perform miracles or was there a rational explanation for all that happened in this regard, psychological hysteria, placebo effects, water so shallow, it looked like Jesus walked on it, etc.

This led liberal Protestants to question the Virginal Conception and birth, angels, and even the Nativity as two Gospels describe it. Many even questioned the physical resurrection and spiritualized it. Would your faith be destroyed if they found the bones of Jesus was often asked?

Catholic scholars were allowed to use this method by Pope Pius XII in 1942 when the Holy Father was assured that the method could be used without iconoclastic conclusions and in fact support the Deposit of Faith. But after Vatican II Scripture Scholars who became more intently ecumenical thus working closely with liberal Protestant scholars went wild with this Protestant method that the Church had labeled the basis of the heresy of "modernism" when the sure and certain faith of the Church was deconstructed.

The way the historical critical method was taught to my class of seminarians in the late 1970's led to the loss of faith a good percentage of my class. Yes, we were asked if our faith would be shaken if they found the bones of Jesus. That's where this method ends up if it is used in an unbridled way as the liberal Protestants of the 19th century did. Pope Benedict in his first book as pope shows how to use this method in a reasonable way that lead to faith rather than away from it.

But this low Christology that merely focuses on Jesus as a good, but befuddled man that stumbled into his Messiahship has also been applied to the ordained Priest and brought the theology of the ordained priest into a low theology, one like anyone else in the congregation, but simply called to lead, say the prayers and be like an actor on the stage literally reenacting not the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross, but the Lord's Supper for the audience (I mean sacred assembly) in front of him. Even the words of institution or consecration are not viewed as a prayer of remembrance of what Jesus actually said to the apostles at the Last Supper in anticipation of Good Friday, but are proclaimed to the congregation as though these prayers are directed to them as well as the words, "take this all of you... drink this all of you..."

So a low Christology makes Christ like any of us, a good Man. And the low theology of the priesthood, makes the ordained just like any lay person, liturgically, ontologically and literally and the non ordained priesthood of all the baptized is so clericalized that there is little of no difference in the ordained and non-ordained. This theology in fact was proposed to us in the seminary where it was thought that the future Church would simply call qualified men or women to lead the Eucharistic assembly based on their gifts to do so. This in fact has been done in many places in Europe and specifically I think in Belgium and the Netherlands.

This low theology has ramifications for church architecture too and the iconoclasm of the Catholic sanctuary we've seen over the last 40 years in terms of renovations of old Church retrofitted for this low theology and new construction.

The first thing to go is the altar railing as this is seen as a demarcation between the ordained and non-ordained. The second thing to go is the altar facing the people as facing ad orientem makes the Liturgy just that of the priest who offers sacrifice rather than the congregation doing it with him. The third thing to go is the tabernacle because there shouldn't be any conflict between the static and active presence of the Risen Lord (say what?)! And anyway Jesus did give us the Bread and Wine to be looked at, but to be eaten and drunk.

Fortunately the Eastern Rite of the Church and Eastern Orthodoxy have not bought into this drivel and have preserved the "holy of holies" with the iconostasis and the distinctive character of Holy Orders in offering the sacrifice while still making sure the laity have actual participation through singing the Divine Liturgy in their parts and common gestures, although there is more fluidity for the laity to come and go during the long liturgy and so there is a form of "clericalism" for the priest, deacon and cantors who don't come and go.

The proper Catholic sanctuary must be recovered and can only be recovered through a recovery of the Church's classical high Christology and high theology of the priesthood. In doing so, a new springtime of vocations to the ordained priesthood will occur over time. Yes, I'm clairvoyant!

PREACH IT BROTHER! HOW CHURCH ARCHITECTURE WENT WRONG

My comments first: I have always been fascinated with the Crystal Cathedral and got to see it this past January. I'm thrilled that it will undergo the RCIA process and be baptized Catholic once necessary liturgical renovations are made.

But Duncan G. Stroik is a professor of architecture at the University of Notre Dame where he helped implement a new curriculum in classical architecture in 1990. He played a central role in the revival of interest in sacred architecture that led to the formation of the Society for Catholic Liturgy and the journal Sacred Architecture, of which he is editor. Stroik received his architectural education from the University of Virginia and Yale University.

He says below the following: "One of the major criticisms of Catholic architecture during the past fifty years is that it has incorrectly adopted many of the forms of low-church Protestantism: the theater form, a fear of sacred images, asymmetrical layouts, vacuous sanctuaries, minimalist liturgical elements, prominently placed Jacuzzis for baptism, and the banishment of the Blessed Sacrament to the baptistry. The altar area becomes a stage with a focus on entertainment alongside praise bands that perform upbeat music. In response, liturgists have argued that all of these things are simply the outgrowth if not the requirement of Vatican II. Are they finally admitting their agenda by purchasing a ready for TV megachurch complete with a jumbotron and three huge balconies for the 'spectators'?"

I don't think I could have said it better myself, great minds think alike.

Read his article:

Should the Bishop Have Bought the Crystal Cathedral?

by Duncan G. Stroik
August 22, 2012
Crisis Magazine

Three miles from Disneyland there is another famous theme park, which proclaims itself as “America’s Television Church.” The Crystal Cathedral, perhaps the first mega-church in the United States, is about to undergo conversion classes so that it can finally get the cathedra and bishop it has always wanted. The Diocese of Orange, California, has purchased the thirty-one-acre property and its four buildings for $53 million, a steal even in this real estate market. Realizing that recent cathedrals built from scratch have cost upwards of $200 and $250 million on the West Coast, retrofitting sounds like a financially savvy move. However, turning this prismatic beacon of televangelism into a house of God may be easier said than done.

Does this purchase signal a new role for Catholic charity: to buy up properties of bankrupt Protestant ministries? If so, there may be some good opportunities in the future. How does the bishop encourage full, active, and conscious participation in the liturgy by purchasing one of the buildings most associated with religion as theater? Begun as an open-air service at a drive-in theater, the church was designed around Rev. Schuller’s flamboyant preaching. Associated with glitz and money, it was the site of fancy and expensive holiday celebrations including trapeze artists, live animals for Christmas, and a lavish $13 million production called Creation.

Said to be the first all-glass structure built for religious purposes, it is associated with the feel-good theology of the 1980s. How to convert a building like this and at the same time disassociate it from its founder and his theology? Crystal Cathedral Ministries was a religion about self-promotion, and, appropriately, its main buildings were designed in disparate modernist styles by three well-known architecture firms: Richard Neutra, Philip Johnson and John Burgee, and Richard Meier. Each building is a personal expression of the architect, so that together they create a campus without much to unify them. Perhaps what may be of more concern to its future owner, the Neutra tower (1968) does not meet earthquake codes and the Crystal Cathedral (1980) and the Welcoming Center (2003) are high maintenance glass and metal buildings. This could be an expensive investment.

Can the Crystal Cathedral be converted to a Catholic Cathedral? We shall see. After all, the much noted cathedrals of Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Francisco are all expressionistic modernist sculptures. The diocese has said that they will not change the exterior of the church and will not compromise the architectural integrity of the 2700-seat interior. Yet, without a radical transformation the building will always come across as a technological mega-church rather than as a sacred place. It needs to be totally gutted and reconceived. And even if the interior can be functionally retrofitted for Catholic liturgy, many believe that its identity will always be that of the Crystal Cathedral.

One of the major criticisms of Catholic architecture during the past fifty years is that it has incorrectly adopted many of the forms of low-church Protestantism: the theater form, a fear of sacred images, asymmetrical layouts, vacuous sanctuaries, minimalist liturgical elements, prominently placed Jacuzzis for baptism, and the banishment of the Blessed Sacrament to the baptistry. The altar area becomes a stage with a focus on entertainment alongside praise bands that perform upbeat music. In response, liturgists have argued that all of these things are simply the outgrowth if not the requirement of Vatican II. Are they finally admitting their agenda by purchasing a ready for TV megachurch complete with a jumbotron and three huge balconies for the “spectators”?

The timing of this is wrong. A whole new generation of priests, laity, and theologians has grown up with this stuff and find these Protestant innovations dated and lacking in substance. They desire an architecture that grows out of the Church’s rich tradition and that will enable them in worship. Asked what cathedrals should look like in the twenty-first century, they point to Saint Patrick’s in New York, Saint Peter’s in Rome, Notre Dame in Paris, and other obvious suspects. These are buildings constructed hundreds of years ago, yet continue to speak to believers and unbelievers alike today. A timeless architecture built for the ages, a cathedral should be a durable building constructed out of masonry, transcendent in height, and directional in length. Unfortunately for the new generation and their children, the Orange diocese has chosen the opposite direction and will foist on them a building that is of its time and not particularly suited to Catholic worship and devotion. Twenty years from now, it will not matter that Orange got a really good deal whereas another California diocese quadrupled its budget. People will simply ask if it is a beautiful cathedral, worthy of the Creator.

This editorial first appeared in issue 21 (Spring 2012) of Sacred Architecture and is reprinted with permission.

IF ONLY, IF ONLY!!!! BUT THAT'S WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE!

This is a humble Italian parish celebrating the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Please note how well the congregation participates in all the responses both spoken and sung. This is actual participation and what Vatican II sought for the renewal of the Mass. THIS MASS IS IN THE BLOOD OF THIS CONGREGATION, IT IS A PART OF THEM AS THIS FORM OF THE MASS WAS ONCE A PART OF ALL CATHOLICS IN THE LATIN RITE UNTIL THE DISRUPTION.

If only we had focused on what this congregation does for the past 50 years, would we be in the turmoil we are in now liturgically and otherwise? Please note how comfortable the congregation is with the passage of time and the great silences of the EF Mass. IF ONLY...oh well.

And this Italian priest sings and says the Latin sounding a great deal like I do! You've got to love us Italians.

Please read Shawn Tribe's intro to this:

Feast of St. Rocco in Val Vigezzo
by Shawn Tribe

Speaking personally, I always enjoy seeing liturgies celebrated in different places in the world, particularly festal liturgies which involve processions as it provides a real opportunity to look for local customs and traditions -- as well as shared customs and traditions.

I came across these videos on Messainlatino.it which show the celebration of the feast of St. Rocco on August 19th in the church of Santa Caterina d'Alessandria in Val Vigezzo, Italy and thought some of our readers might be interested in them. The Mass was celebrated by Don Alberto Secci who has been shown on NLM before -- though not by name (see image above).

Here is a video taken from the Mass:

SENSE AND SENSIBILITY WHEN IT COMES TO THE REFORM OF THE REFORM OF THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS

This video is a Spanish Mass in the Ordinary Form, Ad Orientem with some Latin and done in the way I recommend in my post:

This video which is brief, and has the traditional priest who blogs under the title "The Hermeneutic of Continuity" celebrating an Ordinary Form with EF sensibilities. What confuses things is that the EF's altar cards are on the altar. The thing that makes it clear that it is an Ordinary Form Mass is that he has an altar girl serving. Interesting. I prefer the Spanish Mass above as it follows the rubrics and General Instruction of the Roman Missal more closely:


Certainly when a Cardinal in the curia of the Vatican says that he believes that the Ordinary Form of the Mass will be reformed in the future to be more like the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, but that it won't be exactly the Extraordinary Form of the Mass but a combination of both with one Roman Missal once again as the norm for the Latin Rite (not to exclude exceptions for those who desire the 1962 missal by way of indult) I think that this conversation that leads to the raising of the possibility of some future reform will not take place any time soon. And as everyone knows I am clairvoyant but maybe not.

So what can we do in the meantime to make the best of the current Roman Missal in the Ordinary Form which can be celebrated all in Latin or a hybrid of Latin and vernacular or all in the vernacular? What is the common sense solution that needs no revision of the Ordinary Form and embraces the Ordinary Form Missal in its entirety, options and all?

I've written it before and I'll write it again:

1. Say the Black and Do the Red as it concerns the General Instruction and specific rubrics of the Ordinary Form Missal.

2. Make mandatory the chanting of the official "Introit" and "Offertory and Communion Antiphons" but obviously not excluding good and doctrinally correct metrical hymns or anthems or other music associated with the Mass and seen as "filler."

3. After reverencing the altar, the Mass begins at the chair, which preferably is to the side of the altar and angled in such a way as facing the side of the altar, but where the laity can clear see the priest. The entire Introductory rite with the Greeting, Penitential Act in any of its forms, Gloria and Collect are prayed at the chair.

4. The Liturgy of the Word is proclaimed at the ambo with lay readers wearing Sunday best and approaching from their seat in the congregation and returning when competed.

5. The homily is preached either at the ambo or from the chair.

6. The Creed and Universal Prayer are prayed from the Chair.

7. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is celebrated "Ad Orientem" with all the options that are available to the priest-celebrant and at his exclusive discretion.

8. Holy Communion is distributed at kneelers or an altar railing. The norm is to stand, the option is to kneel, the decision until further notice is at the exclusive discretion of the lay person receiving. The chalice is given to the laity by way of "intinction" which means those who receive an "intincted" host are instructed to drink the Precious Blood by receiving the Body and Blood of Christ on the tongue. Those who choose to receive the Host on the hand do so as the rubrics expect and do not receive an "intincted" Host.

9. The Post Communion Prayer, any announcements and Final Blessing and dismissal occur at the chair and then the recessional.

Annonomous 5 makes a good point about returning to the traditional way of the priest facing ad orientem in both the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rites of the Church when he makes a comment on it in reference to Pater Ignotus and Andy Milam's debate about the term "actor." The following is A-5's astute evaluation of Mass with the priest facing the people:

Pater,

You convinced me in the last long thread that your understanding of the term "acting" is valid, but it isn't exclusively so, and nothing prohibits its overlapping with a simultaneous use in Andy's sense in the Mass, and that is unfortunate.

Given the ubiquity of performance art, especially in its televised and cinematic forms today, versus populum is going to strike a responsive chord in the congregation that is not at all desirable. Most of the congregation will have been socialized and conditioned by big and small screens to see versus populum through the filter of modern visual media that are heavily devoted to programming at odds with Catholic doctrine. It's inescapable, except perhaps for the blind, who are a very small segment of the population.

The very fact of turning the priest to face in the same direction of the population, on the other hand, will serve as an immediate visual cue that the Mass is fundamentally different from cinematic and other such experiences.

IS THE 1950'S LITURGICAL MOVEMENT TOO 1950'S AND TOO ICONOCLASTIC? SHOULD WE BE STUCK IN THE 1950'S?

ICONIC:

ICONOCLASTIC:

It is my humble opinion, that no matter how well-meaning it was for the Liturgists in the 1950's to promote Mass facing the people so that the congregation could "see" what the priest does during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, we can now confirm the old adage that the "way to hell is paved with good intentions."

What is there to see? The priest first and foremost and his facial expressions. The congregation begins to think the more holy looking, the more pious and the more seemingly authentic the priest is by his demeanor that somehow this is edifying. What it is,though, is making the priest an "actor" on the "stage" sense and not just the "actor" in the sense of the action of the Liturgy coming from God's initiative to make Holy the people of God and the offerings on the altar as He gives the people of God the means by which they acknowledge their need to worship and be saved.

What else is there to see? Nothing. The action of the Holy Spirit is invisible and hidden through sacramental and sacred signs. The "noble simplicity" of the Ordinary Form as stripped the Eucharistic Prayer of what would have been interesting to see once or twice.

Ultimately, the 1950's mentality about facing the people was a good idea gone bad and one that needs to be reversed! Will common sense prevail and steps be taken to do so? Common sense seems to be lacking in many quarters of the progressive element of the Church.

Time will tell. There is more foment now for ad orientem and coming from the grass roots then there was for facing the people in the 1950's which came primarily from certain liturgists of a certain mentality. The 1950's isn't where we need to be today.

THE HIERARCHY ORDAINS TWO WOMEN! I, FOR ONE, AM GRATEFUL

And for this ordination to take place in my home town makes me proud!

DOES THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS HAVE TOO MANY OPTIONS? AND THE OPTION OF THE EXTRAORIDNARY FORM COMPLICATES THINGS TOO, DOESN'T IT?

One of the things that many others and I like about the Ordinary Form of the Mass it that there are options. Some, though, say there are too many options.

I like the option of the numerous Eucharistic Prayers that are available as well as the prefaces. The Memorial Acclamation has three options. There are about three options for the Priest's greeting at the beginning of Mass, though I usually only use "The Lord be with You," because the other options are a variation of the Trinitarian formula and thus seem redundant to me if I've already begun the Mass, "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." I tend to like the options for the Penitential Act as well. And then there are the multiple choices for the Dismissal of the Mass.

The area of the liturgy that has the greatest number of options in terms of Scripture, prayers, prefaces and music is that of Nuptial liturgies and Funeral liturgies. In fact since the Second Vatican Council, priests are encourage to allow couples preparing for marriage to choose from the rich variety that is available for the Nuptial Liturgy. The same is true for those who are bereaved. They can choose prayers, readings and music from an approved list.

In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, there are no choices for the Liturgy whatsoever, there is one option for Weddings and Funerals. This in a sense is the Extraordinary Form's "noble simplicity." Of course when things are in Latin exclusively, it is better to have no choices so that the missal the laity have can be followed without the laity having to figure out what choices have been made, especially at it regards the preface and Roman Canon.

But in the English Mass where people can hear what is going on and don't really need to follow in a Missal as with the Extraordinary Form, multiple choices do not present the same conundrum for the person in the pew in terms of knowing what is happening.

What do you think of all the options and if you were getting married or burying a loved one, would you like some say in what is chosen for the Nuptial and Funeral liturgies?

PEOPLE RECEIVING BLESSING DURING HOLY COMMUNION WHEN THEY CANNOT RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION; PRAYTELL I HAD A BRAINSTORM

For a few decades now, the custom has arisen (which is neither prescribed nor forbidden by the rubrics) in many Catholic churches for people who are not able to receive Holy Communion to come forward during Holy Communion to receive a blessing. This would apply to baptized Christians from Protestant Churches, Inquirers, catechumens, candidates, those who broke the Communion fast, children of pre-Communion age and those who are in a state of mortal sin and thus should not receive Holy Communion. In fact in the latter, this allows them more dignity in at least approaching the Lord for a blessing rather than remaining at the pew as others go forward wondering why "Johnny" isn't going and what sins he committed that keep him from going.

At Praytell, the discussion was more on what the lay Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion would say to such people. Here are some examples that someone suggested in light of the fact that laity who distribute Holy Communion cannot give a priestly blessing with the "Sign of the Cross":

May Christ, present in the Eucharist,
bless you and remain with you always.

May the Lord who feeds us
Fill your heart and your mind with a knowledge of his love.

May the gift of faith in the Risen Christ
abound and overflow in your life.

May the Holy Spirit grant you spiritual communion
with all who partake of this holy meal.

Those blessings above inspired me to write my own comment on Praytell and this is it:

A little less than half of our elementary school kids are Protestant (we have a Messianic Jew and an Reformed Jew as well). For at least thirty years we’ve encouraged them to come forward for a blessing. But we keep it brief. If I’m doing it, I simply say “May God bless You” with a “small” Sign of the Cross hand blessing. Our retired bishop simply says “God Bless You” and touches the back of his hand to their head. I’ve instructed our EM’s to say what seems natural, “bless you” or “God Bless You” or simply hold their hand over the persons head without the Sign of the Cross or to touch the head as our retired bishops does with the back of their hand. At our normal Masses the same procedure is in place.

I find the longer blessings above a bit much but only in light of the Ordinary Form’s truncation (for the laity only) of the formula for distributing Holy Communion which was “May the Body of Christ keep you safe for eternal life,” but in Latin of course. The other versions for the blessings shown above are reminiscence of the old Latin formula and thus would be more appropriate in the Extraordinary Form not the Ordinary Form. But if we restored to the laity their version of what the priest says prior to his Holy Communion in the Ordinary Form, I would suggest, “May the Lord keep you safe for eternal life.” Otherwise the Ordinary Form’s formula “The Body of Christ” for those not receiving should be ” The blessing of Christ.” This September I’m meeting with our EM’s for a workshop and I think that’s exactly what I will recommend to them, not to touch, but simply look at the person requesting the blessing and say, “The blessing of Christ” which ties in nicely with “The Body of Christ” in the Ordinary Form. And if the EM, deacon or priest happen to be holding the host for the next person, all the better “symbol” of making a “spiritual communion” by tasting through seeing.

So, what do you think?

A SUMMER RERUN OF THE REFORM OF THE REFORM OF THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS

The following "summer rerun" is the Ordinary Form of the Mass for the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, Husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary, March 19, 2012 celebrated Ad Orientem or "toward God" or toward the Liturgical East at Saint Joseph Church, Macon, Georgia. Of course the choir is singing Schubert's Mass in G which is not Gregorian Chant and doesn't really invite congregational participation. This is a Mass of both Latin and English and perhaps the "template" of what the norm for the reform of the reform could be in the future but of course with Mass settings that a normal parish could sing with the cantor, choir or schola.

In many ways I wish we had sung our normal English Mass parts to show how Ad Orientem can show forth the continuity of the two forms of the one Roman Rite even in an English Ordinary Form Mass. That might be my next production! I think that would show how the reverence of the Extraordinary Form can be brought to the Ordinary Form with only minor revisions when celebrated Ad Orientem. The liberties that I should not have taken but did (and really are minor compared to all the silly stuff we see today in the Ordinary Form that detract from reverence rather than add to it) apart from how the Penitential Act is executed, is that I kissed the altar as in the Extraordinary Form each time I turned from it to the congregation and I added the "double genuflections" at the consecration and after the Great Amen. But that's it! You can, of course, fast forward to these parts.

Please note especially:
1. how the Introductory Rite is carried out which is reminiscent of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, but entirely the Ordinary Form's version of it.
2. the Communion Procession with reception of the Body and Blood of Christ by receiving both the Sacred Host and from the Chalice through intinction with the option of kneeling although standing is the norm in the Ordinary Form, kneeling the legitimate option and the choice being the communicant's. It slows things down and certainly is more dignified and reverent looking. The law of outward reverence is the law of interior Faith!

IT DOESN'T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST OR A LITURGIST TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO RENEW AND IMPROVE THE SACRED LITURGY OR TO DIAGNOSE WHAT WENT TERRIBLY WRONG IN THE LATE 1960'S AND 1970'S AS IT REGARDS THE LOSS OF THE SENSE OF THE SACRED!

When I was a young adult, around 17 years old, I always loved reading the Catholic newspapers my home parish in Augusta would provide. There were three, The National Catholic Register, Our Sunday Visitor and one other which I can't remember now, similar to the Visitor. We were also provided later with Catholic Update.

Later in the seminary I became aware of the ultra liberal, post Catholic, National Catholic Reporter and its mirror image the ultra conservative, reactionary Wanderer. I never read the Wanderer for I found it acrimonious and mean spirited, but I loved the National Catholic Reporter because its articles were written in a "hard news" style and you got a lot of news especially what was happening in the "developing post Catholic" part of the Church.

At the time in the late 1970's and 80's I thought the post Catholic ethos would rule the day even from the Vatican. That shows you how fallible I was and the NCR crowd was/is. As an aside, our former bishop, Raymond W. Lessard asked priests not to provide either the Wanderer or the National Catholic Reporter in parish churches. In a conversation with the famous Scripture Scholar, Fr. Raymond Brown in the 1990's, I asked him what he thought of the National Catholic Reporter and he told me directly, "It's a rag!" with his emphasis on "rag!" Fr. Brown was well ahead of Fr. Z who refers to it as the National Catholic Fishwrap, which it is except for their reporter John Allen who is decent!

But back to the normal, more orthodox and sensible newspapers of my wonderful youth.

I can remember reading articles in these newspapers in the early 1970's where some of the columnist, like Fr. Robert Fox and Joseph Breig would raise the alarm about what was happening in the Church in general and the Mass in particular. Read the following from the "History of Our Sunday Visitor during this time:

[Early on, the Second Vatican Council convoked by Pope John XXIII had been the source of high hopes, as reported in numerous articles in Our Sunday Visitor. A reader poll found that 60 percent of the paper's readers favored having the Mass in English. Hopes ran high with an upbeat mood as each new Council decree was reported.

Even the death of the Pope on June 3, 1963, had been the occasion for rejoicing about his accomplishments. Wrote Joseph Breig: "John XXIII made Catholics feel completely at home with their fellow man of other faiths. He made the laity realize that they had a voice and status in the Church that was their right. He relaxed tensions among Catholics themselves, making Catholics aware that they were not alone in possessing truth." (MY COMMENT HERE: This first optimistic paragraph sets the stage for all that will go wrong when simple truths are exaggerated and the Catholic truth become just one amongst many other "truths" and even Jesus Christ will be questioned as to whether or not He is the universal Messiah with others in other religions!) Back to the article:

But what had begun in high hopes soon disintegrated into an atmosphere of factionalism and discontent. One writer asked, "Is this the Church of joy or of anger?" Catholics used to a lifetime of unchanging security suddenly faced numerous changes: Mass was no longer in Latin, the priest now faced the people, old hymns were abandoned in favor of folk Masses. Our Sunday Visitor wavered from whole-hearted endorsement of the renewal in the Church to questioning the direction such renewal was taking. It initially endorsed the anticommunist crusade against Vietnam, then turned against that ugly little war. It experienced a decline in readership as it alternately alienated the traditional and liberal Catholic reader.

On July 25, 1968, Pope Paul VI issued an encyclical forbidding artificial contraception. Overnight, birth control became the hottest issue of debate among Catholics. Our Sunday Visitor supported the Pope's decision; columnists asked why dissenting theologians should still be teaching at Catholic universities and seminaries.

The late 1960s witnessed the low-point for the Church in the United States: priests and sisters by the thousands left their ministry; the number of converts plummeted; vocations began to decline at an alarming rate; disagreement was widespread over whether priests and Religious should be involved in politics. Catechetical materials seemed to abandon much of the traditional faith, a development Our Sunday Visitor decried openly in print.]

Returning to my meme and comments:

It was the late 1960's and 70's that saw all of the above taking place after a Council that brought so much excitement and hope for a truly Catholic moment that would enable the Church to conquer the world with Christ's love. The greatest excitement, at least 60 percent of the Catholic liked was the vernacular liturgy. But they wanted the Liturgy of the Tridentine period in the vernacular and that is what we got to begin with, although the Liturgical Movement of the 1950's also wanted the Mass facing the people so the people could see what the priest was doing and make the "meal" aspect more intelligible.

And the vernacular Liturgy would make the Mass more intelligible to non-Catholics and spur more converts for the Church; it would aid in the evangelization of the world.

That well may have happened if the Tridentine Liturgy, with its strict rubrics and embrace of the truly beautiful in art and architecture had remained along with the pre-Vatican II ecclesiology but adapted to call the laity as well as the clergy to holiness. (This would have prevented the wholesale iconoclasm or destruction of traditional sanctuaries and churches built prior to the Council and new ones that were built afterward.) But once the door was open to change and Vatican II's documents written in an ambiguous, general way that allowed for exaggerated interpretations, even Pope Paul VI endorsed his committee's decision to revamp the Mass, dumb it down, allow for wholesale experimentation and inculturation with little or no central Roman authority. It left it to the local dioceses (Churches) and their bishops to carry out the reforms based on experimentation. And that is when the Church suffered division and fragmentation. Not only was the Mass different from diocese to the diocese but radically different from parish to parish, even parishes next door! And then the priesthood was dumbed down or "laicized" and the "priesthood of all the Baptized" elevated "clericalizing" the laity! This is the "spirit of Vatican II" ecclesiology that so disrupted the liturgy too as well as the life of the Diocese and the local parish!

The loss of the sense of reverence and sacredness did not come from the vernacular to begin with. It came from the loss of the Tridentine Mass rubrics, chant, ethos and quiet, austere, sober, appreciation for the action of God in the Mass. (God as Actor?)The second translation of the "dumbed down" Mass in the 1970 Missal did dumb down the English and dramatically so, causing the loss of the sacred content of words, Catholic liturgical spirituality and devotion, but this has been corrected in the revised English Mass.

Coupled with this was the poor catechesis that ensued that blinded new generations to the truths of the Mass and eroded the Tridentine roots of well formed pre-Vatican II Catholics into becoming something quite different than what they were prior to the Council and this difference was far from good and holy for many. They lost their Catholic identity and handed on that loss to their children and their children's children. And that's the way it is!

The reform of the reform based upon continuity with the council means returning to the basics of the pre-Vatican II Church in the areas of faith and morals, as well as personal discipline and the building up of the unity of the Church based on the acceptance of the faith and morals of the Church.

But it also means returning the Liturgy to the Tridentine spirituality and reverence. This can happen even if the vernacular stays and I believe today even more than 60% of Catholics would not want the return to an exclusively Latin Mass, but if they experienced the reverence of the Tridentine form of the Mass in English, they would embrace it wholeheartedly, at least 60% of them would!

Let me reiterate the only thing that needs to be done. The 2002 Typical Edition of the Roman Missal which we have in the 2012 English Translation of the Missal only needs to have the following changes made to the Order of the Mass and and the reconstitution of the rubrics of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass:

1. Prayers at the Foot of the Altar but eliminating the double Confiteor only (in other words it is recited by priest and laity together).
2. Introit (Gregorian Chant in Latin or English for this, as well as the Offertory and Communion Antiphons, mandatory).
3. Kyrie
4. Gloria
5. Collect (preceded by the sacred greeting "the Lord be with you" or the other options, no banal or secular greetings or introductions allowed).

6. Liturgy of the Word as it is in the Ordinary Form, with the option of the traditional Gradual and the addition of the Tridentine Lectionary for year A, the others becoming B, C, D

7. Credo
8. Prescribe Universal Litany which is brief with maybe one or two other options, but brief and very general

9. Offertory Procession (optional as it is currently in the OF)
10. Traditional Offertory Prayers
11. Roman Canon with traditional Rubrics required for Sundays and Solemnities, other Eucharistic Prayers for weekday, funerals, weddings and lesser feasts and recited in a low but audible voice
12. The Rite of Holy Communion beginning with the "Our Father" as it is currently in the Ordinary Form, but kneeling for Holy Communion by way of host only or by intinction only. The only Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should be well trained and installed "Acolytes" who are vested either in Alb or Cassock and Surplice and assist as altar servers!
13. The Final Blessing and Dismissal after the quiet recitation of the "Placeat" and the Last Gospel only for the Low Mass, not the Chanted or Sung Mass.
14. The Roman Calendar needs only a minor adaptation to make it like the Anglican Ordinariate Calendar that returns Ember Days, the Season of Septuagesima prior to Lent and the Octave of Pentecost and Sundays after Epiphany for winter's Ordinary Time and Sundays after Pentecost/Trinity for spring, summer and fall's Ordinary Time. It is easily done without changing the Roman Missal or the lectionary at all.

It does not take a liturgist or a rocket scientist to get things back on track!

TOO MUCH HYPE; TOO MUCH HORIZONTAL; NOT ENOUGH CONTINUITY

Two forms of the one Latin Rite and two different emphasis, can you detect them?

None of these videos are meant to show liturgical abuses but each of them in their own subliminal way do. This first one shows too much hype and exaggerated gestures and diversity of rubrics. What strikes as the worst of it?

This video shows what happens when the focus is simply on the priest and the congregation, what Pope Benedict calls the enclosed circle, the horizontal to the detriment of the vertical. It is all to common today but passes as what "Vatican II wanted." Really?

This video shows the corruption of the Mass when facing the people. Just who is this ad libing, over-performing priest talking to, I mean, praying to? If there was ever a short video on the glory of ad orientem, this is it. This is the meal and warm fuzzy community theology that is way too prevalent today. Will the EF enrichment ever kick-in?

There is but one Latin Rite with two expressions of the Mass and evidently of the priesthood. Do you detect those differences in the two following two videos?

Video – FiNews #57 – I'm A Catholic Priest -... by AirMaria
This video certainly presents a different ethos, what many would call the Vatican II difference. What is it?


Pray God, that Cardinal Burke's liturgical vision and aspirations come to be:


Cardinal Burke is [in part]responsible for overseeing the Church's liturgy as a member of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship.

He is grateful to Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI for giving the Church "a font of solid direction" regarding worship, based on the Second Vatican Council's vision of a "God-centered liturgy and not a man-centered liturgy."

That intention was not always realized, he said, since the council's call for liturgical reform coincided with a "cultural revolution."

Many congregations lost their "fundamental sense that the liturgy is Jesus Christ himself acting, God himself acting in our midst to sanctify us."

Cardinal Burke said greater access to the traditional Latin Mass, now know (sic) as the "extraordinary form" of the Roman rite, has helped correct the problem.

"The celebration of the Mass in the extraordinary form is now less and less contested," he noted, "and people are seeing the great beauty of the rite as it was celebrated practically since the time if Pope Gregory the Great" in the sixth century.

Many Catholics now see that the Church's "ordinary form" of Mass, celebrated in modern languages, "could be enriched by elements of that long tradition."

In time, Cardinal Burke expects the Western Church's ancient and modern forms of Mass to be combined in one normative rite, a move he suggests the Pope also favors.

"It seems to me that is what he has in mind is that this mutual enrichment would seem to naturally produce a new form of the Roman rite – the 'reform of the reform,' if we may – all of which I would welcome and look forward to its advent."

THIS EPISCOPAL VIDEO IS PERHAPS THE BEST ILLUSTRATION OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SINCE THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL!

This is an educational video produced by the Anglican Church in Canada. He tries to show that in Anglicanism or the Episcopal Church there is a Protestant strain and a Catholic strain and both co-exist. The video uses the approach to the "Eucharist" of both strains to make the point.

It also makes the point for us as Catholics since the Second Vatican Council. We have become a divided Church based on the theology of the Mass, either "high Church theology" which is actually our heritage as Catholics or "low Church theology" which is the Reformation's approach to the Eucharist and the Church.

Who would have thought an Episcopalian video would make things so clear for us. Obviously we must recover our Catholic high theology and purify ourselves of the Protestant influences in our theology since the Second Vatican Council or we risk becoming Anglicans while claiming to be Roman Catholics!