The Liturgical Experts’ Long Tassels
Aug 27, 2010
George Rutler
Under the avalanche of commentary on the new translation of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, just approved by the Vatican, I poke my head above the erudite criticisms, to speak as a man whose entire priesthood has been in parishes. I am not a liturgist and, from the parochial perspective of a pastor who has studied worship much less than he has done it, I risk the tendency of many like me who probably unfairly think that liturgists are the ecclesiastical equivalent of lepidopterists.
A pastor is too busy leading people in worship to attend workshops on how to lead people in worship, and his duties in the confessional prevent him from attending seminars on how to hear confessions. I do know that if I followed the guidelines of one liturgical commission, suggesting that I greet each penitent at the church doors with an open Gospel book and then lead a procession to a reconciliation room which looks more like an occasion of sin than a shrine for its absolution, the number of confessions in the middle of the metropolis where I serve would be severely reduced.
Publicly owned corporations are more accountable to their shareholders than tenured bureaucracies, which may explain why it took the Ford Motor Company only two years to cancel its Edsel, and not much longer for Coca Cola to restore its “classic” brand, while the Catholic Church has taken more than a generation of unstopped attrition to try to correct the mistakes of overheated liturgists. The dawning of the Age of Aquarius is now in its sunset repose and the bright young things who seem to be cropping up now all over the place with new information from Fortescue and Ratzinger, may either be the professional mourners for a lost civilization, or the sparks of a looming golden age.
One thing is certain to a pastor: the only parishioners fighting the old battles are old themselves, their felt banners frayed and their guitar strings broken, while a young battalion is rising, with no animus against the atrophied adolescence of their parents, and only eager to engage a real spiritual combat in a culture of death. They usually are ignorant, but bright, for ignorance is not stupidity.
They care little if the Liturgy is in Latin or English or Sanskrit, as long as they are told how to do it, for they were not told. Some critics of the new translations have warned that the changes are too radical, which is radioactively cynical from people who in the 1960’s wantonly dismantled old verities overnight, in their suburbanized version of China’s Cultural Revolution.
Our Lord warned enough about the experts of his day who loved long tassels, and who swore by the gold of the temple rather than the temple, to stay us from placing too much hope in ritual and texts to save lives. Neglect of the aesthetics of worship is not remedied by the worship of aesthetics. A pastor will sometimes observe an over-reaction to the corruption of the Liturgy, so that ritual becomes theatre and Andrei Rubleyev yields to Aubrey Beardsley. Any group or religious community that is too deliberate about external form sows in itself the seeds of decadence.
Liturgy should be chantable, reverent, and expressive of the highest culture we know, without self-consciousness. Ars est celare artem. In tandem with Ovid, for whom it is art to conceal art, Evelyn Waugh said that Anthony Eden was not a gentleman because he dressed too well. It is typical of some schismatic sects that the more they lapse into heresy, the more ritualistic they become. So one will see pictures of a woman claiming to be a bishop, vested like Pius X on his jubilee.
A genius of the Latin rite has been its virile precision, even bluntness. Contrast this with the unsettled grammar of “alternative opening prayers” in the original books from ICEL (the International Commission on English in the Liturgy), whose poesie sounds like Teilhard on steroids.
They were much wordier than the Latin collects or their English equivalents, and gave the impression of having been composed by fragile personalities who had not had a happy early home life. So too, the Prayers of the Faithful cloyingly pursued “themes” usually inspired by an undisciplined concern for air pollution and third world debt.
I think there should be few options in the Liturgy, and no attempt to be “creative,” for that is God’s particular talent. As Vatican II taught in Sacrosanctum Concilium, "[T]here must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”
Unfortunately, we have not yet resolved the problem of the simply bad Lectionary texts. While the Jerusalem Bible and Revised Standard Version are licit, only the Revised New American Bible is accessible for parish use. The Jerusalem Bible is a tool for study but was translated with a tin ear.
I grew up with the King James translation and thus am stunned when Job 38:17 (“Hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?”) is given as “Have you met the janitors of Shadowland?” So Sheol becomes a theme park.
But none of this matches the torture of the trans-gendered RNAB which manages to neuter every creature except Satan who remains male. Our Lord sometimes sounds like the Prince of Wales: “What profit is there for one to gain the whole world …?” and other times like a bored anthropologist: “Two people went up to the temple to pray….” But then the inevitable pronouns kick in and we find out that even after the liturgical gelding, these were men.
The Liturgy by grace changes lives. Any pastor who is blessed with an abundance of priestly vocations in his parish knows that they come in spite of epicene worship, demotic liturgy committees, and flailing song leaders. They simply join the chorus of the Greeks: "Sir, we would see Jesus." I recall a prelate saying that even as a seminarian he hoped one day to be able to say Mass facing the people. It was a revealing statement, inasmuch as when he said Mass he seemed annoyed that the Lord was sometimes getting in the way.
While I am glad for the new and more accurate translation of the Mass, which is not perfection but closer to it than one deserves in an imperfect world, a far more important reform would be the return of the ad orientem position of the celebrant as normative. It is the antidote to the tendency of clerisy to impose itself on the people. When a celebrant at Mass stops and says, “This is not about me,” you may be sure he thinks it may be about him. It would be harder for him to harbor that suspicion were he leading the people humbly to the east and the dawn of salvation.
John Henry Newman was the greatest master of English letters in his century of brilliant English, but he gave no countenance to his vernacular replacing the sacral tongue. That is another matter for another day. But he knew the meaning of cupio dissolvi, and he taught that without such self-abnegation the gift of personality reduces the Passion to pantomime. It was because his priestcraft was also soulcraft, that he solemnly invoked the Sacred Heart at the altar in order to speak "heart to heart" with the people in the street:
“Clad in his sacerdotal vestments, [the priest] sinks what is individual in himself altogether, and is but the representative of Him from whom he derives his commission. His words, his tones, his actions, his presence, lose their personality; one bishop, one priest, is like another; they all chant the same notes, and observe the same genuflections, as they give one peace and one blessing, as they offer one and the same sacrifice.
“The Mass must not be said without a Missal under the priest’s eye; nor in any language but that in which it has come down to us from the early hierarchs of the Western Church. But, when it is over, and the celebrant has resigned the vestments proper to it, then he resumes himself, and comes to us in the gifts and associations which attach to his person.
“He knows his sheep, and they know him; and it is this direct bearing of the teacher on the taught, of his mind upon their minds, and the mutual sympathy which exists between them, which is his strength and influence when he addresses them. They hang upon his lips as they cannot hang upon the pages of his book.”
Father George W. Rutler is pastor of the Church of Our Saviour in New York City and the author most recently of Clouds of Witnesses: Dead People I Knew When They Were Alive. His The Spirit of Vatican II appeared in First Things and He is Not Here, his homily for the Mass for the repose of the soul of Richard John Neuhaus, and Words and Reality in “On the Square.”
Comments:
8.27.2010 | 10:16am
Maximus Decimus Meridius says:
And, if it's not too much trouble, may we please resume kneeling for Holy Communion and capitalizing Him again?
8.27.2010 | 10:23am
Martial Artist says:
Father Rutler,
I doubt that the case could be stated more clearly or cogently. I would add but one additional point to those that Father McCloskey notes, namely:
3. The thoroughgoing elimination of transcendental sacred music from the Mass and hymnody, in favor of music that jars by virtue of its dilute and saccharine emptiness.
I add that as a recent convert to the Catholic Church from almost 40 years as an Episcopalian, and one for whom one of the greatest obstacles to conversion was the absence in most Catholic parishes of music which assists me as a worshipper to be open to the mystery which we encounter in the Mass.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
I doubt that the case could be stated more clearly or cogently. I would add but one additional point to those that Father McCloskey notes, namely:
3. The thoroughgoing elimination of transcendental sacred music from the Mass and hymnody, in favor of music that jars by virtue of its dilute and saccharine emptiness.
I add that as a recent convert to the Catholic Church from almost 40 years as an Episcopalian, and one for whom one of the greatest obstacles to conversion was the absence in most Catholic parishes of music which assists me as a worshipper to be open to the mystery which we encounter in the Mass.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
8.27.2010 | 10:51am
Dan says:
The music is quite arguably the greatest problem with the post-Vatican II liturgy. It is very maddening to hear syrupy songs, often of Protestant origin and often centered on the self (I will serve the Lord, I will do this, and I will do that ... Here I am Lord!, etc.), when Catholicism has such a splendid but now largely ignored musical heritage.
8.27.2010 | 11:04am
Ian says:
@Keith: Sacred Music must be restored but we must be aware that music seems to be a constant battle in the Church - Palestrina had to write his Missa Brevis to convince the pope that music other than chant could be made sacred.
Pius X attempted to undertake a music reform that died on the vine.
Two destructive documents from the USCCB and an Amazonian amount of paper have been wasted by the former Gregorian Institute of America and OCP to produce music that is as un-sacred as possible.
The music battle I believe will actually be a harder battle to fight than the ad orientum one. One can be changed with a document. The other can only be changed with a righting of the Church's cultural ship.
Pius X attempted to undertake a music reform that died on the vine.
Two destructive documents from the USCCB and an Amazonian amount of paper have been wasted by the former Gregorian Institute of America and OCP to produce music that is as un-sacred as possible.
The music battle I believe will actually be a harder battle to fight than the ad orientum one. One can be changed with a document. The other can only be changed with a righting of the Church's cultural ship.
8.27.2010 | 11:10am
Fr Eric says:
Excellent article, and I only had to use a dictionary once. So many poignant comments I laughed out loud. As a pastor, I have witnessed everything you have said. I certainly don't have time for consortiums on confession if I am in the confessional.
Your note on the youth seeking direction because they have never had any is precise, as is the need for ad orientem. I have recently learned the EF, or 62 Missal, and I am able to see more clearly, after having had many years of preconceived thoughts, the theological soundness of this practice.
Your note on the youth seeking direction because they have never had any is precise, as is the need for ad orientem. I have recently learned the EF, or 62 Missal, and I am able to see more clearly, after having had many years of preconceived thoughts, the theological soundness of this practice.
8.27.2010 | 11:22am
Irenaeus says:
Three cheers from this young member of the coming revolution! You've warmed my heart and made my weekend.
8.27.2010 | 12:29pm
Bender says:
**a young battalion is rising, with no animus against the atrophied adolescence of their parents . . . They care little if the Liturgy is in Latin or English or Sanskrit, as long as they are told how to do it, for they were not told.**
Father, when is the last time you were with a bunch of teenagers? Let me tell you, teens care a lot. And they don't accept merely telling them "how" to do something. No, a teen demands that you tell them "why." And neither will they accept that something is "better" or "more beautiful" merely because someone says so.
And those are merely the teens in Catholic schools, CCD, or engaged in youth ministry. Those teens (and adults) not active in the Church have even more questions.
Why the change? Why this and not that? Why this wording? What does this wording mean? And on and on. Every answer is followed by another "Why?"
It is not enough to respond with snark. It is not enough to mock the present language or the people who have prayed it for nearly 40 years.
Father, when is the last time you were with a bunch of teenagers? Let me tell you, teens care a lot. And they don't accept merely telling them "how" to do something. No, a teen demands that you tell them "why." And neither will they accept that something is "better" or "more beautiful" merely because someone says so.
And those are merely the teens in Catholic schools, CCD, or engaged in youth ministry. Those teens (and adults) not active in the Church have even more questions.
Why the change? Why this and not that? Why this wording? What does this wording mean? And on and on. Every answer is followed by another "Why?"
It is not enough to respond with snark. It is not enough to mock the present language or the people who have prayed it for nearly 40 years.
8.27.2010 | 12:32pm
Father Jason Worthley says:
From one parish priest to another, this is a very good article, Father Rutler. Thank you for writing it. Hopefully, the urgently needed "reform of the reform" will come to fruition soon.
8.27.2010 | 1:34pm
Eric says:
I’m a young Catholic (31) and a new Catholic, having converted in 2004. I’m probably not a stupid Catholic, but in many ways I am, to be sure, ignorant. So, feel free to chalk-up my statements to ignorance.
Two weeks ago I went to my first Latin Mass. It was, I presume, done well. There was a deliberate and visible reverence that I appreciated and the prayers and responses by the altar servers were precise and well coordinated. I appreciated kneeling to receive the Host and had the impression that everyone present (quite a small number, even for a mid-week Mass) was serious in their devotion.
However, my immediate and lasting impression was that this Latin Rite absolutely and unequivocally affirmed the validity and necessity of liturgical change, as recognized by the Second Vatican council.
Vernacular: I would not have converted to Catholicism if the liturgy was in Latin. Neither would my mother, sister, and close friend – who all followed into the Church in the last 6 years. It makes absolutely no sense to use Latin over vernacular. Any possible benefit the Latin could have would be profoundly counterweighted by the fact that everyone in a vernacular Mass knows what they are praying and is thereby able to actually participate directly in the work of the liturgy.
Requiring competence in Latin in order to participate fully in the prayers of the Mass is a requirement that places aesthetics (poorly conceived) above charity and communion.
That is not to say that the vernacular should be as it is. No. It should be beautiful, and unified from parish to parish, and doctrinally accurate.
Latin does not add mystery, it obfuscates. Or, worse, it becomes an occasion for the feeling of soulfulness simply because it sounds to common ears arcane and esoteric.
Distractions aside, I pray with the liturgy of the Mass. If it were in Sanskrit, I would, at best, pray alongside it. So, for me, the language matters. I fervently hope that it matters also for other serious, young Catholics. A Latin liturgy could only be completely self-conscious.
Ad Orientem: at the Latin Rite I was surprised at how much I felt closed-off from the work of the priest, not only because he was impossible for me to understand, but because his back was to me the whole time.
I, like the young people you mention, go to Mass to encounter Jesus. Does not the priest act in persona Christi? I don’t imagine Christ facing the wall at the Last Supper, speaking to his disciples with his back turned. It engages our imaginations and facilitates our recognition of the sacramental nature of the priesthood and of the direct offering at each Mass of the bread and wine of the Last Supper to each Catholic when the priest faces us as he does the work of God.
Make the liturgy beautiful, please! Improve the music, PLEASE!! But Latin? Ad orientem? Please, don’t.
Two weeks ago I went to my first Latin Mass. It was, I presume, done well. There was a deliberate and visible reverence that I appreciated and the prayers and responses by the altar servers were precise and well coordinated. I appreciated kneeling to receive the Host and had the impression that everyone present (quite a small number, even for a mid-week Mass) was serious in their devotion.
However, my immediate and lasting impression was that this Latin Rite absolutely and unequivocally affirmed the validity and necessity of liturgical change, as recognized by the Second Vatican council.
Vernacular: I would not have converted to Catholicism if the liturgy was in Latin. Neither would my mother, sister, and close friend – who all followed into the Church in the last 6 years. It makes absolutely no sense to use Latin over vernacular. Any possible benefit the Latin could have would be profoundly counterweighted by the fact that everyone in a vernacular Mass knows what they are praying and is thereby able to actually participate directly in the work of the liturgy.
Requiring competence in Latin in order to participate fully in the prayers of the Mass is a requirement that places aesthetics (poorly conceived) above charity and communion.
That is not to say that the vernacular should be as it is. No. It should be beautiful, and unified from parish to parish, and doctrinally accurate.
Latin does not add mystery, it obfuscates. Or, worse, it becomes an occasion for the feeling of soulfulness simply because it sounds to common ears arcane and esoteric.
Distractions aside, I pray with the liturgy of the Mass. If it were in Sanskrit, I would, at best, pray alongside it. So, for me, the language matters. I fervently hope that it matters also for other serious, young Catholics. A Latin liturgy could only be completely self-conscious.
Ad Orientem: at the Latin Rite I was surprised at how much I felt closed-off from the work of the priest, not only because he was impossible for me to understand, but because his back was to me the whole time.
I, like the young people you mention, go to Mass to encounter Jesus. Does not the priest act in persona Christi? I don’t imagine Christ facing the wall at the Last Supper, speaking to his disciples with his back turned. It engages our imaginations and facilitates our recognition of the sacramental nature of the priesthood and of the direct offering at each Mass of the bread and wine of the Last Supper to each Catholic when the priest faces us as he does the work of God.
Make the liturgy beautiful, please! Improve the music, PLEASE!! But Latin? Ad orientem? Please, don’t.
8.27.2010 | 1:55pm
Ernst says:
Eric,
Yes, your comments do indeed betray a great deal of ignorance, particularly the comment regarding the priest's back facing the congregation. Don't let early modern painted depictions of the Last Supper confuse your concept of how the Supper of the Lord would actually have been celebrated (see Uwe Michael Lange's 'Turning Toward the Lord' for a real historical account of the Last Supper), or diminish your concept of the eschatological symbolism of the liturgy (see Pope Benedict XVI's "Spirit of the Liturgy"), which is greatly diminished by the so-called "facing the people" orientation of the priest.
As for the Latin language, the Church was more greatly unified when it had a standard liturgical language. Right now, we live in the midst of a doctrinal and liturgical Babel in the Church, which is not to say that we should have no vernacular language in the Mass.
Yes, your comments do indeed betray a great deal of ignorance, particularly the comment regarding the priest's back facing the congregation. Don't let early modern painted depictions of the Last Supper confuse your concept of how the Supper of the Lord would actually have been celebrated (see Uwe Michael Lange's 'Turning Toward the Lord' for a real historical account of the Last Supper), or diminish your concept of the eschatological symbolism of the liturgy (see Pope Benedict XVI's "Spirit of the Liturgy"), which is greatly diminished by the so-called "facing the people" orientation of the priest.
As for the Latin language, the Church was more greatly unified when it had a standard liturgical language. Right now, we live in the midst of a doctrinal and liturgical Babel in the Church, which is not to say that we should have no vernacular language in the Mass.
8.27.2010 | 2:20pm
Eric says:
Ernst,
Ignorance is a handy disclaimer that more people should preface blog comments with.
I'll read that book. Thanks for the recommendation. I'll be shocked if at the end of it I'm convinced that Jesus and his disciples all ate facing the wall.
Also, I reiterate that I am not against a so-called, 'reform of the reform'. Eschatological hope in particular is an element sorely missing from common piety and I would welcome an improvement in that regard. Perhaps Ad Orientem would help in that. I couldn't say because my one experience in a Mass that included it was muted by my inability to comprehend anything the priest said. Who knows, if I understood him I might be 100% on-side for a change back to Ad Orientem.
It reminds me of something Jaroslav Pelikan wrote about a monk he knew who shortly after Vatican II was shocked and dismayed by the fact that for years he had been praying psalm 137 in Latin that called for bashing babies heads on rocks!
There's something to be said for knowing what you're praying. A unified liturgy is probably less important than a well-prayed liturgy.
Ignorance is a handy disclaimer that more people should preface blog comments with.
I'll read that book. Thanks for the recommendation. I'll be shocked if at the end of it I'm convinced that Jesus and his disciples all ate facing the wall.
Also, I reiterate that I am not against a so-called, 'reform of the reform'. Eschatological hope in particular is an element sorely missing from common piety and I would welcome an improvement in that regard. Perhaps Ad Orientem would help in that. I couldn't say because my one experience in a Mass that included it was muted by my inability to comprehend anything the priest said. Who knows, if I understood him I might be 100% on-side for a change back to Ad Orientem.
It reminds me of something Jaroslav Pelikan wrote about a monk he knew who shortly after Vatican II was shocked and dismayed by the fact that for years he had been praying psalm 137 in Latin that called for bashing babies heads on rocks!
There's something to be said for knowing what you're praying. A unified liturgy is probably less important than a well-prayed liturgy.
8.27.2010 | 2:53pm
Matt A says:
Excellent article Father.
Eric,
The sad state of affairs today have the priest facing the congregation, and with his back to Christ which has turned the priest into a performer for his audience that comes each Mass. In order to destroy this man-made tradition, we must go back to Ad Orientem precisely because of our tradition, and to restore the reverence back to the Mass, and focus our attention on God.
As for Latin, it unifies the Church! If you do not understand the Latin, you look to the right page of most missals for the translation. The fault lies with the people who don't take the time to see what they are saying.
Only from a unified liturgy will we hope to obtain a well-prayed liturgy.
Eric,
The sad state of affairs today have the priest facing the congregation, and with his back to Christ which has turned the priest into a performer for his audience that comes each Mass. In order to destroy this man-made tradition, we must go back to Ad Orientem precisely because of our tradition, and to restore the reverence back to the Mass, and focus our attention on God.
As for Latin, it unifies the Church! If you do not understand the Latin, you look to the right page of most missals for the translation. The fault lies with the people who don't take the time to see what they are saying.
Only from a unified liturgy will we hope to obtain a well-prayed liturgy.
8.27.2010 | 2:55pm
Julia says:
Eric:
I was in my mid-20s when English became the language of the Mass in the US.
Prior to that we all had missals with the English and the Latin side by side.
In addition to that, after hearing the same Latin words over and over, we pretty much understood most of it. And we certainly knew the significance of the parts of the Mass even if we missed some of the Latin being said.
My adult children who had the advantage of 12 years of Catholic schooling know less about what is happening at Mass than I do. I find myself having to explain things to them that I had assumed they knew.
From the choir loft during my parish's vernacular Masses, I can see that just as many people are daydreaming and not paying attention as they did back in the days of Latin.
When spending a semester in Paris, I had no trouble at the local parish church.
And in the past 15 years I have participated in Latin Masses in Spain and Portugal where I could sing along with the Gregorian chant.
Vernacular language is dividing us. It is a world-wide church, after all.
I was in my mid-20s when English became the language of the Mass in the US.
Prior to that we all had missals with the English and the Latin side by side.
In addition to that, after hearing the same Latin words over and over, we pretty much understood most of it. And we certainly knew the significance of the parts of the Mass even if we missed some of the Latin being said.
My adult children who had the advantage of 12 years of Catholic schooling know less about what is happening at Mass than I do. I find myself having to explain things to them that I had assumed they knew.
From the choir loft during my parish's vernacular Masses, I can see that just as many people are daydreaming and not paying attention as they did back in the days of Latin.
When spending a semester in Paris, I had no trouble at the local parish church.
And in the past 15 years I have participated in Latin Masses in Spain and Portugal where I could sing along with the Gregorian chant.
Vernacular language is dividing us. It is a world-wide church, after all.
8.27.2010 | 3:13pm
Linda says:
Eric,
The Latin really is not a problem - Missals have Latin on one side and English on the other. It is not as if there is no translation and we are left in the dark. Latin is a liturgical language that does not change. The beauty of it was that one could go to a Catholic Church anywhere in the world, use their Missal and know all of the readings, etc. You might not understand the homily, but then that is still the case with the vernacular Mass.
You do know what you are praying if you can read a Missal. At our Extradordinary Form the readings are given in both Latin and English precisely because we had someone attending who could not read.
The Latin really is not a problem - Missals have Latin on one side and English on the other. It is not as if there is no translation and we are left in the dark. Latin is a liturgical language that does not change. The beauty of it was that one could go to a Catholic Church anywhere in the world, use their Missal and know all of the readings, etc. You might not understand the homily, but then that is still the case with the vernacular Mass.
You do know what you are praying if you can read a Missal. At our Extradordinary Form the readings are given in both Latin and English precisely because we had someone attending who could not read.
8.27.2010 | 3:23pm
Roger says:
The fact of the matter is that since changing to the venacular, who knows how the Mass will be said by the priest. I don't think the bishops of VII had in mind what occurred here in the US. A generation of lost souls is a steep price to pay for being too lazy to read the right side of the missal.
8.27.2010 | 3:25pm
Andrew Whaley says:
I had the joy of attending Thomas Aquinas College and, therefore of having great liturgy around me at a moment's notice. But, I remember when I first landed there and experienced the Novus Ordo in Latin for the first time. I felt much like Eric above. Now, I go to mass in our beautiful new chapel and I know the Latin almost as well as the English, but I still get lost in the EF. It is available every day of the week, and though I find it beautiful, it does not engage me. I admit, this may be a fault of my own, but I still get lost in the missal and I don't want an altar boy to say "Domine non sum dignus..." for me.
Eric's point is to be taken seriously. The scripture says, "A loud blessing early in the morning is taken as a curse." Perception matters. The defenders of Ad Orientiem are absolutely right in saying that it puts the priest in the role of "going up" the altar of God, as one of us, for us, but to modern men, it seems as if he is turning his back to us. Latin is beautiful, but I too would never have reverted from Protestantism in a Latin mass environment.
I wish to beat Marty Haugen with a copy of the Glory and Praise just as much as the next guy, but the prevalence of "I" in modern praise music is an emphasis on the intimacy between the soul and God. I get confused- you traditionalists get mad at the "cult of community" the modern fluff liturgists have turned the sacrifice of the mass into, and rightly so. You want to kneel in silence and hate shaking hands at the sign of peace. Fine. But, you then get mad when there is not enough "we" in a song and too much "I". Which is it?
Man was made "a little lower than the angels", who are infinitely "lower" than the throne of God, and yet God poured Himself out and made Himself poor by becoming a true man. If the Incarnation teaches us anything, it is that love can cause one to leave what is objectively better for what can be better received or known by the beloved. Would it be better for a man to read perfect poetry to his wife in a language she doesn't understand or to read her the best translation he can find. He may be fluent in French and cringe at the rendering of his favorite line, but his love for her will be greater than his love for objective beauty, much less exactitude.
Just for the record, I'm all for the new Missal, I love the Latin Novus Ordo, am trying to grow into the EF, and can chant with the best of them, but I don't expect the average Catholic in America to understand and love any of that. I was just told by the head of a major men's organization that over 65% of the men in any given men's conference have not been to confession in over 10 years. They are at a conference. What does that tell you about the rest of the men in the pews who couldn't be bothered. I don't relate to them. I am not a pew warmer, or a simply cultural Catholic, and really don't understand how to even engage them, but the mass isn't just for pedantic snobs like me and you.
Doing it right has to be tempered with pastoral love and charity for the perception and development of the people in the pews, many of whom have only known the liturgical style most of us can't stand.
And, yes, I do plan to be stoned by a crowd of alumni for posting this.
Andrew the Philistine
Eric's point is to be taken seriously. The scripture says, "A loud blessing early in the morning is taken as a curse." Perception matters. The defenders of Ad Orientiem are absolutely right in saying that it puts the priest in the role of "going up" the altar of God, as one of us, for us, but to modern men, it seems as if he is turning his back to us. Latin is beautiful, but I too would never have reverted from Protestantism in a Latin mass environment.
I wish to beat Marty Haugen with a copy of the Glory and Praise just as much as the next guy, but the prevalence of "I" in modern praise music is an emphasis on the intimacy between the soul and God. I get confused- you traditionalists get mad at the "cult of community" the modern fluff liturgists have turned the sacrifice of the mass into, and rightly so. You want to kneel in silence and hate shaking hands at the sign of peace. Fine. But, you then get mad when there is not enough "we" in a song and too much "I". Which is it?
Man was made "a little lower than the angels", who are infinitely "lower" than the throne of God, and yet God poured Himself out and made Himself poor by becoming a true man. If the Incarnation teaches us anything, it is that love can cause one to leave what is objectively better for what can be better received or known by the beloved. Would it be better for a man to read perfect poetry to his wife in a language she doesn't understand or to read her the best translation he can find. He may be fluent in French and cringe at the rendering of his favorite line, but his love for her will be greater than his love for objective beauty, much less exactitude.
Just for the record, I'm all for the new Missal, I love the Latin Novus Ordo, am trying to grow into the EF, and can chant with the best of them, but I don't expect the average Catholic in America to understand and love any of that. I was just told by the head of a major men's organization that over 65% of the men in any given men's conference have not been to confession in over 10 years. They are at a conference. What does that tell you about the rest of the men in the pews who couldn't be bothered. I don't relate to them. I am not a pew warmer, or a simply cultural Catholic, and really don't understand how to even engage them, but the mass isn't just for pedantic snobs like me and you.
Doing it right has to be tempered with pastoral love and charity for the perception and development of the people in the pews, many of whom have only known the liturgical style most of us can't stand.
And, yes, I do plan to be stoned by a crowd of alumni for posting this.
Andrew the Philistine
8.27.2010 | 3:34pm
Matt Beck says:
Father Rutler, I love you.
Now will someone please answer this question of mine?
I have in the past served as a lector at Mass, and I can say without a doubt that the translation of the Scriptures currently in use is execrable. My "home reading bible" is the Jerusalem Bible, Catholic edition. It is much better than the lectionary, but the "janitors of Shadowland" comment got me thinking. Exactly what is the stand-alone best, most accurate, and most beautiful biblical translation for personal use?
Now will someone please answer this question of mine?
I have in the past served as a lector at Mass, and I can say without a doubt that the translation of the Scriptures currently in use is execrable. My "home reading bible" is the Jerusalem Bible, Catholic edition. It is much better than the lectionary, but the "janitors of Shadowland" comment got me thinking. Exactly what is the stand-alone best, most accurate, and most beautiful biblical translation for personal use?
8.27.2010 | 3:41pm
Eric says:
Matt/Julia,
I've never seen one of those missals. I'll have to look around for one.
When priest holds up the bread and the wine during the consecration our focus is placed as it should be. I could see that if you were dwelling on how it should be ad orientem, you might be distracted. Perhaps it's my ignorance flaring up again, but the liturgy is not primarily about the tabernacle, but about the consecration (i.e. the representation of the sacrifice). Christ presented his body and blood at his table in fellowship. Our Eucharistic celebration is a memorial of that. Facing East de-emphasizes that we are called to a banquet.
There were a number of changes to the Mass that eroded the tone of reverence in the service. I really think that ad orientem focuses unnecessarily on one part. The quality of the vernacular writing and the complete lack of quality in the music seem to me to be a real problem. My main impression from my one and only experience of the Latin Mass did not validate its accolades as frequently voiced by traditionalists. It was spiritually disengaging and, as I said, left me with the sense that the reform must have been necessary.
I've been to Orthodox and Eastern Rite liturgies that were wonderfully beautiful. Those I did not understand either, but the form itself did communicate beauty and reverence. And the priests faced all sides of the altar. And there was unmistakable 'performance', which ought to be a part of the liturgy. If you want a beautiful liturgy, reform-of-the-reformists ought to look to the OCA for tips.
Also, we're not muslims. All tradition is man-made.
I've never seen one of those missals. I'll have to look around for one.
When priest holds up the bread and the wine during the consecration our focus is placed as it should be. I could see that if you were dwelling on how it should be ad orientem, you might be distracted. Perhaps it's my ignorance flaring up again, but the liturgy is not primarily about the tabernacle, but about the consecration (i.e. the representation of the sacrifice). Christ presented his body and blood at his table in fellowship. Our Eucharistic celebration is a memorial of that. Facing East de-emphasizes that we are called to a banquet.
There were a number of changes to the Mass that eroded the tone of reverence in the service. I really think that ad orientem focuses unnecessarily on one part. The quality of the vernacular writing and the complete lack of quality in the music seem to me to be a real problem. My main impression from my one and only experience of the Latin Mass did not validate its accolades as frequently voiced by traditionalists. It was spiritually disengaging and, as I said, left me with the sense that the reform must have been necessary.
I've been to Orthodox and Eastern Rite liturgies that were wonderfully beautiful. Those I did not understand either, but the form itself did communicate beauty and reverence. And the priests faced all sides of the altar. And there was unmistakable 'performance', which ought to be a part of the liturgy. If you want a beautiful liturgy, reform-of-the-reformists ought to look to the OCA for tips.
Also, we're not muslims. All tradition is man-made.
8.27.2010 | 3:47pm
Dan Sheehan says:
Eric, I would hope you would consider attending at least few more Latin Masses.
I reacted much the way you did to my first experience of the old rite. But I think your judgment may change, as mine did, as you grow accustomed to it and learn your way around the missal.
You may come to appreciate the ad orientem position. You will surely come to appreciate the absence of novelty and outright liturgical abuse.
I reacted much the way you did to my first experience of the old rite. But I think your judgment may change, as mine did, as you grow accustomed to it and learn your way around the missal.
You may come to appreciate the ad orientem position. You will surely come to appreciate the absence of novelty and outright liturgical abuse.
8.27.2010 | 3:51pm
Eric says:
Andrew,
I deeply and abidingly thank you from the bottom of my soul for your comment. Thank you for being more articulate and, as it were, less ignorant than me.
For what its worth, the last time I went to confession (which I do about monthly) it was with an FSSP priest, who rattled off an incomprehensible benediction in Latin like a machine gun, and who also gave the most involved and appropriate penance I have ever received from a priest.
We could use some ante-vatican II penance here and there.
Matt Beck, in my opinion RSV.
I deeply and abidingly thank you from the bottom of my soul for your comment. Thank you for being more articulate and, as it were, less ignorant than me.
For what its worth, the last time I went to confession (which I do about monthly) it was with an FSSP priest, who rattled off an incomprehensible benediction in Latin like a machine gun, and who also gave the most involved and appropriate penance I have ever received from a priest.
We could use some ante-vatican II penance here and there.
Matt Beck, in my opinion RSV.
8.27.2010 | 3:56pm
Roger says:
Dog gone it, Andrew! I can't find my rock! Now where did I leave that boulder?!
8.27.2010 | 4:11pm
Julia says:
"you then get mad when there is not enough "we" in a song and too much "I". Which is it?"
It's not "I" vs "we".
The problem is the focus on us (as a group or as individuals) and what we think, feel, do, etc. instead of focusing on God.
The Mass is an ancient ritual, not a performance for our entertainment.
Something miraculous happens on the altar that benefits us.
Mass is not a pep rally to sing about what we're going to do or how we feel.
The place for that kind of thing is outside the Mass - before or after or at a different place and time.
Most younger Catholics I know have no concept of ritual.
My sons had never heard the word "transubstantiation".
Their Catholic teachers probably thought the word was too hard to understand.
It's not "I" vs "we".
The problem is the focus on us (as a group or as individuals) and what we think, feel, do, etc. instead of focusing on God.
The Mass is an ancient ritual, not a performance for our entertainment.
Something miraculous happens on the altar that benefits us.
Mass is not a pep rally to sing about what we're going to do or how we feel.
The place for that kind of thing is outside the Mass - before or after or at a different place and time.
Most younger Catholics I know have no concept of ritual.
My sons had never heard the word "transubstantiation".
Their Catholic teachers probably thought the word was too hard to understand.
8.27.2010 | 4:11pm
cs says:
"a far more important reform would be the return of the ad orientem position of the celebrant as normative."
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes.
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes.
8.27.2010 | 4:51pm
Agustin Maes says:
Funny how Fr.Rutler references the teachings of Sacrosanctum Concilium without seeming to understand the things that very important document outlined (the first document to be approved and promulgated by the Council), particularly in light of the fact that he is in favor of returning to the celebrant's ad orientem position. Strange too how he talks about the Jerusalem Bible having been translated with a 'tin ear' while ignoring just how dismally tone deaf the new English-language Missal is. As for liturgists being the "ecclesiastical equivalent of lepidopterists," Rutler wants to have his cake and eat it too. If you're going to talk about what SC "taught" (Cf. guidelines against new liturgical forms and innovations radically deviating from pre-established magisterially-approved forms), then you'd better keep in mind that "...the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the fount from which all her power flows." (SC §4.) Fr. Rutler should stop being "...too busy leading people in worship to attend workshops on how to lead people in worship" and reconsider how important real, effective, and affective worship is. After all, he admits to having "...studied worship much less than he has done it." Maybe it's time for Rutler to take off the chasuble and participate in the liturgy once in a while, even if that means tucking a butterfly net under his arm.
8.27.2010 | 5:31pm
Charles E Flynn says:
Matt Beck,
I am not sure that there is a translation that of the bible that fits your description. You might take a look at the Revised Standard Version, available from Ignatius Press:
http://www.ignatius.com/Products/IB-H/ignatius-bible-rsv.aspx
It has always seemed odd to me that nearly four hundred years after the death of Shakespeare, we do not have an English translation of the whole bible that is as good as Allen Mandelbaum's translation of Dante's "Divine Comedy."
If you find the problem of translation fascinating, please read the following books:
1. The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, by Robert Alter.
2. The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, by Leon Kass.
Prof. Kass uses Prof. Alter's translation.
If I recall correctly, these books were favorably reviewed by First Things. The notes in these books make clear how difficult translation is.
If you try to imagine what God had in mind when he inspired the authors of the bible, you realize that even an omnipotent and omniscient being might have a bit of a problem with conveying essential truths not discoverable by reason alone to all peoples, in all places, and all times, using human languages. It might have been more of a problem than developing the properties of the subatomic particles in such a way that we could be here.
I am not sure that there is a translation that of the bible that fits your description. You might take a look at the Revised Standard Version, available from Ignatius Press:
http://www.ignatius.com/Products/IB-H/ignatius-bible-rsv.aspx
It has always seemed odd to me that nearly four hundred years after the death of Shakespeare, we do not have an English translation of the whole bible that is as good as Allen Mandelbaum's translation of Dante's "Divine Comedy."
If you find the problem of translation fascinating, please read the following books:
1. The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, by Robert Alter.
2. The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, by Leon Kass.
Prof. Kass uses Prof. Alter's translation.
If I recall correctly, these books were favorably reviewed by First Things. The notes in these books make clear how difficult translation is.
If you try to imagine what God had in mind when he inspired the authors of the bible, you realize that even an omnipotent and omniscient being might have a bit of a problem with conveying essential truths not discoverable by reason alone to all peoples, in all places, and all times, using human languages. It might have been more of a problem than developing the properties of the subatomic particles in such a way that we could be here.
8.27.2010 | 5:37pm
Julia says:
Eric:
When the president lays a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier he does it on behalf of all of us. He faces the tomb/monument, not us.
Similarly, the Mass is not directed toward us, it is directed toward God to whom the priest is offering His Son again on our behalf.
"the consecration (i.e. the representation of the sacrifice)"
It is not a representation - it's the real thing happening again.
"Christ presented his body and blood at his table in fellowship. Our Eucharistic celebration is a memorial of that. Facing East de-emphasizes that we are called to a banquet."
It's more than a memorial. Receiving Communion is the banquet.
Are you saying that the Mass has been incorrectly celebrated for well over a thousand years?
When the president lays a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier he does it on behalf of all of us. He faces the tomb/monument, not us.
Similarly, the Mass is not directed toward us, it is directed toward God to whom the priest is offering His Son again on our behalf.
"the consecration (i.e. the representation of the sacrifice)"
It is not a representation - it's the real thing happening again.
"Christ presented his body and blood at his table in fellowship. Our Eucharistic celebration is a memorial of that. Facing East de-emphasizes that we are called to a banquet."
It's more than a memorial. Receiving Communion is the banquet.
Are you saying that the Mass has been incorrectly celebrated for well over a thousand years?
8.27.2010 | 5:46pm
Philip says:
I am not yet a confirmed Catholic, but I believe that ideas to change the language back into the latin and positioning the priest ad orientum would only decrease access to a Church that is increasingly becoming "non-mainstream." We are already separated from others due to our religious and moral beliefs (not that that's the Church's fault; it is a result of our fallen world), why would we want to make it harder for the unchurched to attend mass? People in these comments have claimed that a better examination of the missal would make the Latin rite acessible, as it has translations. However, although I was raised in a Lutheran church and considered myself "well churched," I didn't even know what a missal WAS, much less know how to use it. Luckily I attended with friends, but even still I was lost. Latin would only have made thart worse.
So many people may claim that upon later experiences the Latin rite becomes more spiritually fulfilling, and I grant that this may be so. But the problem is, that unchurched people upon visiting a Latin mass will probably not attend again. If anything, the presentation of the Liturgy of the congrgations, i.e. printing paper liturgical bulletins, with every prayer and response (as stupid as it sounds, it's a gift to people like how I was) printed on it for distribution needs looking into, instead of booklets with obscure titles that don't give hints as to what they even contain, much less what they're used for.
Make church easier for those who we're supposed to help bring to Christ; that concerns our great commisson, not to decide where the priest is standing. Let's get our priorities straight.
Mission FIRST
Aesthetics and symbolism second, or lower.
So many people may claim that upon later experiences the Latin rite becomes more spiritually fulfilling, and I grant that this may be so. But the problem is, that unchurched people upon visiting a Latin mass will probably not attend again. If anything, the presentation of the Liturgy of the congrgations, i.e. printing paper liturgical bulletins, with every prayer and response (as stupid as it sounds, it's a gift to people like how I was) printed on it for distribution needs looking into, instead of booklets with obscure titles that don't give hints as to what they even contain, much less what they're used for.
Make church easier for those who we're supposed to help bring to Christ; that concerns our great commisson, not to decide where the priest is standing. Let's get our priorities straight.
Mission FIRST
Aesthetics and symbolism second, or lower.
8.27.2010 | 6:00pm
David Mills says:
Agustin Maes: Funny how you invoke Sancrosanctum Concilium for positions it does not in any way take. There is nothing, literally nothing. to suggest that the priest ought to face the people during the celebration, as there is nothing in it to justify most of the often changes to the liturgy after the Council. Father Rutler is right about this, and in complete obedience to that statement of the bishops at the Second Vatican Council.
Someone who thinks the new translation"dismally tone deaf" has apparently not listened to the version it is replacing, or
Someone who thinks the new translation"dismally tone deaf" has apparently not listened to the version it is replacing, or
8.27.2010 | 6:05pm
Matt says:
I don't understand this "I" problem. A quick look through the Psalms shows lots of them. For example, Psalm 17:7: I will give to the LORD the thanks due to his righteousness, and I will sing praise to the name of the LORD, the Most High. (RSV)
8.27.2010 | 6:11pm
Bender says:
Eric -- your humility is good, but your profession of ignorance is not necessary. You are not ignorant. You know what you know. You know what works with you and what does not. And each point you make is completely valid. And, as I said previously, it is not at all helpful when such concerns as raised by you are simply dismissed out of hand.
Yes, as you note, you are not and were not the only one who felt something lacking in the "old Mass." The popes and bishops and many of the faithful felt the same way. The changes were not some arbitrary, out-of-nowhere imposition. Even Father Ratzinger recognized that all was not as it should have been before the Council.
As for orientation, it seems to me that, all too often, it is the traditionalist detractors of the Ordinary Form who are obsessed with the priest "facing them," and with making Mass "all about the priest." Where I go to Mass, the priest and people do not consider themselves to be facing each other. Rather, they are all facing the altar, with the priest on the other side rightly being seen as an alter Christus, acting in persona Christi, rather than being simply one of the people, a representative, not of Christ, but of the people, with God being over there, rather than at the center of worship.
But the Church is big enough to accomodate those who are unable or unwilling to understand this fundamental concept of the Ordinary Form. That charge of ignorance can be hurled in many directions.
Yes, as you note, you are not and were not the only one who felt something lacking in the "old Mass." The popes and bishops and many of the faithful felt the same way. The changes were not some arbitrary, out-of-nowhere imposition. Even Father Ratzinger recognized that all was not as it should have been before the Council.
As for orientation, it seems to me that, all too often, it is the traditionalist detractors of the Ordinary Form who are obsessed with the priest "facing them," and with making Mass "all about the priest." Where I go to Mass, the priest and people do not consider themselves to be facing each other. Rather, they are all facing the altar, with the priest on the other side rightly being seen as an alter Christus, acting in persona Christi, rather than being simply one of the people, a representative, not of Christ, but of the people, with God being over there, rather than at the center of worship.
But the Church is big enough to accomodate those who are unable or unwilling to understand this fundamental concept of the Ordinary Form. That charge of ignorance can be hurled in many directions.
8.27.2010 | 6:59pm
Diane says:
I’m not sure how relevant the accessibility (to non-Catholics) issue is to discussion on the most reverent and proper celebration of Mass. I’m not trying to dismiss the need to reach out to non-Catholics (I’m a recent convert from Protestantism myself), but the Mass itself is not our primary way of doing this. We reach out, build our relationships, explain how that Mass is the way in which we offer worship to God in the way He ordained (a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary, with us eating His flesh and drinking His blood as He commanded), explain the why’s and wherefore’s of the prayers and liturgical actions, and then invite others to come to Mass with an eye to eventual full communion with the Church and participation in the liturgy. Many non-Catholics will need study, tutoring, and prayer to open themselves to any liturgy. I was turned off by Catholic liturgy in general as a Protestant—perhaps I would have been more turned off by Latin, but then again, perhaps the total otherness of the experience might focused my attention on the Real Presence by stating in no uncertain terms that this Church was different than anything else I had experienced. Some converts are repulsed by liturgy or by Latin and some are drawn by it—we can’t immediately assume that ad orientum or Latin liturgy would turn off all potential converts.
Trying to appeal to the unchurched or fallen away is admirable in some respects but in many Protestant denominations this has led to complete deformations of what passes for liturgy and to more and more attention-grabbing and eye-catching attempts to be “relevant to the seeker”. The result is a church that has no identity, no core, for we believe as we pray and the liturgy is the Church’s prayer. We come back to Calvary at each Mass, contemplate Christ’s sacrifice, and receive His Body from the hands of our priests, who are united to our High Priest. If we become too involved with how we sound to others—be they non-Catholic potential converts, non-Catholic antagonists, cultural Catholics, feminists, environmentalists, or what have you—we twist and deform the words and actions of our prayers in attempt to please them. I’ve heard too many priests change the wording of prayers to make us feel good about ourselves without a thought to how those word changes change the meaning of the prayer and the Mass. “Blessed are we who are called to this supper” means something quite different than “Blessed are those who are called to His supper”.
Being authentically Roman Catholic and presenting our beautiful traditions to God and to the world in the best way we can is, in my opinion, the way to draw others to the Church because we let God do the work. To do otherwise is to make ourselves just one of many “denominations” competing for the attention of the jaded consumer.
Trying to appeal to the unchurched or fallen away is admirable in some respects but in many Protestant denominations this has led to complete deformations of what passes for liturgy and to more and more attention-grabbing and eye-catching attempts to be “relevant to the seeker”. The result is a church that has no identity, no core, for we believe as we pray and the liturgy is the Church’s prayer. We come back to Calvary at each Mass, contemplate Christ’s sacrifice, and receive His Body from the hands of our priests, who are united to our High Priest. If we become too involved with how we sound to others—be they non-Catholic potential converts, non-Catholic antagonists, cultural Catholics, feminists, environmentalists, or what have you—we twist and deform the words and actions of our prayers in attempt to please them. I’ve heard too many priests change the wording of prayers to make us feel good about ourselves without a thought to how those word changes change the meaning of the prayer and the Mass. “Blessed are we who are called to this supper” means something quite different than “Blessed are those who are called to His supper”.
Being authentically Roman Catholic and presenting our beautiful traditions to God and to the world in the best way we can is, in my opinion, the way to draw others to the Church because we let God do the work. To do otherwise is to make ourselves just one of many “denominations” competing for the attention of the jaded consumer.
8.27.2010 | 7:11pm
Eric says:
Philip, I share full agreement with you.
Julia, representation as in re-presentation. It doesn't happen again. It happened once and for all. It is made present to us, mysteriously, across time and space, through the sacrament.
Memorial, as in "do this in memory of me". See also, CCC 1330 and 1341.
I sense a temptation to presume I have unorthodox beliefs because I don't appreciate the same form of the liturgy as you.
The banquet is more than eating, it is also the sharing out.
To paraphrase Georges Florovsky, "good ideas need to change in order to remain the same". I don't think the mass was incorrectly celebrated. But at some point along the way it could have been celebrated in a more fitting way. The last 40 years suggests that the more fitting way has yet to perfectly obtain. But that is not to say that pre-Vatican II had it all right.
Julia, representation as in re-presentation. It doesn't happen again. It happened once and for all. It is made present to us, mysteriously, across time and space, through the sacrament.
Memorial, as in "do this in memory of me". See also, CCC 1330 and 1341.
I sense a temptation to presume I have unorthodox beliefs because I don't appreciate the same form of the liturgy as you.
The banquet is more than eating, it is also the sharing out.
To paraphrase Georges Florovsky, "good ideas need to change in order to remain the same". I don't think the mass was incorrectly celebrated. But at some point along the way it could have been celebrated in a more fitting way. The last 40 years suggests that the more fitting way has yet to perfectly obtain. But that is not to say that pre-Vatican II had it all right.
8.27.2010 | 7:37pm
Dennis says:
I am surprised by all the comments about the liturgy in English or Latin or whatever language. As a priest, I don't think it's about language (I can say Mass and preach fluently in 3 different modern languages). It's about the priest's own state of mind while leading any liturgical celebration. If the priest understands who he is and who he is not while leading the celebration of the Eucharist or of any sacrament, then that liturgy will be lead properly. The focus of the priest must never be on himself, rather his focus must be on Christ. During the celebration of any liturgy, the priest must be in a state of prayer in the presence of the Lord. Then everything blends and works together to lift hearts and minds to the Lord.
8.27.2010 | 7:49pm
Jim says:
Thank you for acknowledging this rising young battalion (of which I am a member). I've always been disturbed by my parents' folk Masses and genderless-God Catholicism. But in a beautiful commentary on where our Church is heading, I've noticed that at the (kneeler-less) chapel where I attend daily Mass, the only people kneeling during the Consecration and after Communion, and receiving Communion on the tongue are under 25! May God let this movement flourish!
8.27.2010 | 7:53pm
Dennis says:
I would also like to make a comment about the priest facing the people and the related comments.
I think most people really have not bothered to look carefully at the texts of the Eucharist. Almost 95% of the Eucharist is addressed to God, the Almighty Father. We are praying to God the Father in thanksgiving for revelation we have received through Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit! This reaches its high point when the priest says the words "through him, with him and in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit all glory and honor is yours almighty Father ... "
In regards to "the back of the priest facing the people ..." The priest was leading the people in prayer of thanksgiving to the Father. In other words, the priest and the people where facing God the Father!
In regards to "the priest facing the people ..." It should be understood that the priest is the "alter Christus" who together with the faithful give thanks to God the Father!
Both have their positive and negative elements.
But no mater what ... we are to give thanks and praise, honor and glory to God our Heavenly Father!
I think most people really have not bothered to look carefully at the texts of the Eucharist. Almost 95% of the Eucharist is addressed to God, the Almighty Father. We are praying to God the Father in thanksgiving for revelation we have received through Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit! This reaches its high point when the priest says the words "through him, with him and in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit all glory and honor is yours almighty Father ... "
In regards to "the back of the priest facing the people ..." The priest was leading the people in prayer of thanksgiving to the Father. In other words, the priest and the people where facing God the Father!
In regards to "the priest facing the people ..." It should be understood that the priest is the "alter Christus" who together with the faithful give thanks to God the Father!
Both have their positive and negative elements.
But no mater what ... we are to give thanks and praise, honor and glory to God our Heavenly Father!
8.27.2010 | 8:22pm
Dennis says:
Julia,
The sacrifice of Christ is a once and for all gift of salvation. The Eucharist is a "recalling" or "remembering" of that event. Through the gift of the sacrament, and by the very nature of who God is as God and for whom time is enternal and one, we are mysteriously brought back to that event in our lives.
Anybody who has experienced the death of a dearly loved one knows this mystery. In any moment in time, we can be "transported" back to the moment of our dearly beloved's death. It's as fresh as ever in our memory.
That is the way the Eucharist should be celebrated as we, through with and in Christ, recall in thanksgiving to the Father the gift of salvation won for us upon the Cross!
The sacrifice of Christ is a once and for all gift of salvation. The Eucharist is a "recalling" or "remembering" of that event. Through the gift of the sacrament, and by the very nature of who God is as God and for whom time is enternal and one, we are mysteriously brought back to that event in our lives.
Anybody who has experienced the death of a dearly loved one knows this mystery. In any moment in time, we can be "transported" back to the moment of our dearly beloved's death. It's as fresh as ever in our memory.
That is the way the Eucharist should be celebrated as we, through with and in Christ, recall in thanksgiving to the Father the gift of salvation won for us upon the Cross!
8.27.2010 | 8:25pm
pb says:
I've been to Orthodox and Eastern Rite liturgies that were wonderfully beautiful. Those I did not understand either, but the form itself did communicate beauty and reverence. And the priests faced all sides of the altar.
Priests? The main celebrant and the concelebrants would be facing East during the anaphora. Plus, the great royal doors would have been closed at that time.
Priests? The main celebrant and the concelebrants would be facing East during the anaphora. Plus, the great royal doors would have been closed at that time.
8.27.2010 | 8:39pm
Brian says:
Eric it is not a table, it is an altar of sacrifice. The Protestants erroneously refer to the altar as a banquet table.
If you have not already read it, I suggest you read Pope Benedict's great work, The Spirit of the Liturgy. Another book that will help you see the Mass as fulfillment of the Temple Sacrifices of Judaism is Taylor Marshall's The Crucified Rabbi. The Carholic faith must must must be viewed in continuity not only with the 2000 year Tradition of the Catholic Church but also in continuity with the much older Tradition of Judaism of which our rituals are the definitive form.
If you have not already read it, I suggest you read Pope Benedict's great work, The Spirit of the Liturgy. Another book that will help you see the Mass as fulfillment of the Temple Sacrifices of Judaism is Taylor Marshall's The Crucified Rabbi. The Carholic faith must must must be viewed in continuity not only with the 2000 year Tradition of the Catholic Church but also in continuity with the much older Tradition of Judaism of which our rituals are the definitive form.
8.27.2010 | 8:49pm
Maria says:
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I have been most impressed with the courageous few who articulated what I also feel deeply at a gut level. At age 51, I lived through the earliest days of the "renewal" after Vatican II. I joined the contemporary choirs of the day from 1972 - 1981 when I graduated college and began to direct one. I learned how to do the popular "folk Mass" extremely well, though tragically, during that time, I never knew the Triduum existed and could only chant Tantum Ergo Sacramentum and Stabat Mater during Holy Week. While getting a Liturgical Music degree at The Catholic University of America, I discovered Latin, chant, the beauty of the Mass, the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, and the documents affecting music from Pius X's Motu Proprio to Liturgical Music Today. I learned to conduct chant!
Now, I can work with today's contemporary musicians who are mostly teens and over 50's, as well as those who chant in scholas. Today, I cantored a funeral Mass which was partly sung in both English and Latin. I understand why we do what we do, and am interested in why some think we should "renew" back to pre-Vatican II.
My take is we must not lose the Holy Spirit-inspired direction that led Mother Church to provide the possibility of full, conscious, and active participation in the Liturgy. Those who have observed that the vernacular attracted converts that would never have otherwise come, are correct! This is a new age, a secular, questioning, cynical one that "worships" nothing. As Romans 10:14 says, "But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach?" But let us patiently pray for the new translation to be made available. It is a conundrum that Latin is the language of the Church, yet we do not know it. So then let us strive to teach the ordinary parts to the people ... gently but persistently. By all means, offer a Latin Mass at every parish, but not at every Mass. Then let us work on the music, which several have noted has the greatest ability to impact the Liturgy for good or ill. Finally, let us make charity our aim in all things, but especially in how we continue to implement the reforms of Vatican II. The reform is still in it's infancy when you look at the age of Mother Church. It is time to move it along in it's development, but in a good way, led by our Holy Father. SDG - Soli Deo Gloria!
I have been most impressed with the courageous few who articulated what I also feel deeply at a gut level. At age 51, I lived through the earliest days of the "renewal" after Vatican II. I joined the contemporary choirs of the day from 1972 - 1981 when I graduated college and began to direct one. I learned how to do the popular "folk Mass" extremely well, though tragically, during that time, I never knew the Triduum existed and could only chant Tantum Ergo Sacramentum and Stabat Mater during Holy Week. While getting a Liturgical Music degree at The Catholic University of America, I discovered Latin, chant, the beauty of the Mass, the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, and the documents affecting music from Pius X's Motu Proprio to Liturgical Music Today. I learned to conduct chant!
Now, I can work with today's contemporary musicians who are mostly teens and over 50's, as well as those who chant in scholas. Today, I cantored a funeral Mass which was partly sung in both English and Latin. I understand why we do what we do, and am interested in why some think we should "renew" back to pre-Vatican II.
My take is we must not lose the Holy Spirit-inspired direction that led Mother Church to provide the possibility of full, conscious, and active participation in the Liturgy. Those who have observed that the vernacular attracted converts that would never have otherwise come, are correct! This is a new age, a secular, questioning, cynical one that "worships" nothing. As Romans 10:14 says, "But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach?" But let us patiently pray for the new translation to be made available. It is a conundrum that Latin is the language of the Church, yet we do not know it. So then let us strive to teach the ordinary parts to the people ... gently but persistently. By all means, offer a Latin Mass at every parish, but not at every Mass. Then let us work on the music, which several have noted has the greatest ability to impact the Liturgy for good or ill. Finally, let us make charity our aim in all things, but especially in how we continue to implement the reforms of Vatican II. The reform is still in it's infancy when you look at the age of Mother Church. It is time to move it along in it's development, but in a good way, led by our Holy Father. SDG - Soli Deo Gloria!
8.27.2010 | 8:57pm
Brian says:
I find it fascinating that we mere mortals have the audacity to make statements like, "I find something lacking in the old Mass." Honestly, I tend to think that if anything is lacking with regard to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in ANY form it is my worthiness to make such comments.
8.27.2010 | 9:19pm
Blake Helgoth says:
Fr. Rutler,
Thank you for this article. I know there are some that will read it and think you are trumpeting the glories of the Extraordinary Form. However, you are not. You are arguing for the Ordinary Form celebrated as the council father had in mind. I wrote my thesis on the Liturgy in undergraduate, comparing the Mass of Justin Martyr to the Mass of Pius V to the Mass of Vatican II to what we have today. It was very enlightening exercise. I was all about Latin, sacred music, the little details of the Liturgy. Then a priest friend came to the old convent where several younger men (including myself) were living while we attended philosophy and theology classes. He celebrated Mass in the small humble chapel there at the convent, ad orientem. That one change made all the difference in the world. It was so easy to see that the priest was offering the Sacrifice on our behalf, to feel it, to know that it was true rather than an abstract idea of which one struggles to convince themselves. I knew that I was offering my sacrifices of my daily life to the priest so that through him, Christ himself would sanctify them and offer them to the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit. The outward action almost perfectly expressed those of the interior. It was at that moment that I realized that this one thing would restore the liturgy. If this one thing was restored all others would follow. I think many young people long for this ad orientem celebration, but are betrayed by the current liturgical situation instead. Then, in their confusion, become mesmerized by all things traditional, not realizing that these are not the things that really matter. Thank you for anything you have done and will do to restore ad orientam to the Ordinary Form.
Thank you for this article. I know there are some that will read it and think you are trumpeting the glories of the Extraordinary Form. However, you are not. You are arguing for the Ordinary Form celebrated as the council father had in mind. I wrote my thesis on the Liturgy in undergraduate, comparing the Mass of Justin Martyr to the Mass of Pius V to the Mass of Vatican II to what we have today. It was very enlightening exercise. I was all about Latin, sacred music, the little details of the Liturgy. Then a priest friend came to the old convent where several younger men (including myself) were living while we attended philosophy and theology classes. He celebrated Mass in the small humble chapel there at the convent, ad orientem. That one change made all the difference in the world. It was so easy to see that the priest was offering the Sacrifice on our behalf, to feel it, to know that it was true rather than an abstract idea of which one struggles to convince themselves. I knew that I was offering my sacrifices of my daily life to the priest so that through him, Christ himself would sanctify them and offer them to the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit. The outward action almost perfectly expressed those of the interior. It was at that moment that I realized that this one thing would restore the liturgy. If this one thing was restored all others would follow. I think many young people long for this ad orientem celebration, but are betrayed by the current liturgical situation instead. Then, in their confusion, become mesmerized by all things traditional, not realizing that these are not the things that really matter. Thank you for anything you have done and will do to restore ad orientam to the Ordinary Form.
8.27.2010 | 9:57pm
Daniel Koenemann says:
Fr. Rutler
God Bless you! Would that all parish priests think so clearly.
God Bless you! Would that all parish priests think so clearly.
8.27.2010 | 10:01pm
Christine says:
I grew up with the Latin mass, and was thrilled when the Mass was changed to the vernacular. I realized that "hearing" the Latin while reading the English was very distracting, that suddenly I could participate IN and be PART of the Mass. I have attended Spanish masses and have the English on the other side of the missal, BUT hearing it in another language introduced that same distraction. Andrew is so right about reading poetry to someone that they don't understand. Also, you certainly wouldn't be telling someone how deeply you love them in a language that doesn't come from your heart, unless that language is your mother tongue or you are so conversant in it that you can do so. That is how I feel about the Mass. I can recite the prayers in my mind with the priest and they are coming from my heart. I am glad for those who love the Latin mass, that they have the opportunity to go to those Masses, but don't denigrate those of us who aren't enamored with it. It is not about what I am getting OUT of the Mass that is so important, but what I am putting INTO it, that makes the difference.
8.27.2010 | 10:36pm
Eric says:
Brian,
I will read that book.
I suggest you reread the Catechism on the sacrament of the Eucharist.
1383 The altar, around which the Church is gathered in the celebration of the Eucharist, represents the two aspects of the same mystery: the altar of the sacrifice and the table of the Lord. This is all the more so since the Christian altar is the symbol of Christ himself, present in the midst off the assembly of his faithful, both as the victim offered for our reconciliation and as food from heaven who is giving himself for us
1182 The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord's Cross, from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the centre of the Church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs. The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the people of God are invited.
1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principle fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me".
Both table and altar.
At any rate, that we care enough about the liturgy and our desire for it to reflect on earth, as closely as possible, the heavenly liturgy is a sign of God's love and grace active in our souls, for which I give thanks.
Praise be to Him, always and everywhere, and glory. Amen.
I will read that book.
I suggest you reread the Catechism on the sacrament of the Eucharist.
1383 The altar, around which the Church is gathered in the celebration of the Eucharist, represents the two aspects of the same mystery: the altar of the sacrifice and the table of the Lord. This is all the more so since the Christian altar is the symbol of Christ himself, present in the midst off the assembly of his faithful, both as the victim offered for our reconciliation and as food from heaven who is giving himself for us
1182 The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord's Cross, from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the centre of the Church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs. The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the people of God are invited.
1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principle fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me".
Both table and altar.
At any rate, that we care enough about the liturgy and our desire for it to reflect on earth, as closely as possible, the heavenly liturgy is a sign of God's love and grace active in our souls, for which I give thanks.
Praise be to Him, always and everywhere, and glory. Amen.
8.28.2010 | 1:28am
swisswiss says:
The 45+ comments here and copious on other subjects with a catechectical slant will hopefully indicate to the editors an interest in more articles along these lines and less movie and art reviews. Reform of the reform is essential to the reform of art, sacred and secular.
8.28.2010 | 5:07am
Jenny says:
It seems to me that on Pentecost each heard the apostles in their own language. Latin is not a unifying language anymore. Perhaps working on translations is a good idea, I trust the Holy Spirit is still active in our Church.
8.28.2010 | 6:04am
Saint Revolution says:
If one be to understand Good, like any war, one must also study The Enemy, Evil.
Otherwise, anything purported is worthless.
What is Good is, by God and by God's Nature, perfectly antithetical to Evil.
Study Exorcism and The Exorcism Rite...editio typica latina De Exorcismis Rituale Romanus.
Study The Six Levels of Exorcism.
Study, especially, Father Gabrielle Amorth.
You will learn, among many things, one simple Truth.
Latin is The Language of Our Lady who has complete Power over Satan and Possessions.
As one who has witnessed Possession firsthand, there is NO argument made for the vernacular that is valid...ever. The vernacular is another nonsensical deceit and tool whispered throughout The Ages of/by The Great Liar, Satan.
One can wax comfortable in one's self-righteous "anti-God" "know-it-all" Sunday "pew opinions" when one hasn't witnessed The Devil firsthand. After such horror, however, one only wishes and longs for The Perfection Of Jesus through The Traditional PathWays He has gifted to us.
In my former haughty insolence, I used to think, say, and believe that, in Life, I feared only two things: God and myself.
I am wholly and terribly bestruck with the total frightful horror of Satan...and what Its whispering deceits have accomplished and continue to accomplish to Holy Mother Church...and to you and I.
Be aware! We all MUST decrease (including all our irrelevant opinions) so that only Christ may increase.
This includes all your irrelevant opinions...Eric and others.
Words without experience are nothing more than words without experience.
"...visibilum omnium, et invisibilium..."
Deo Gratias.
Otherwise, anything purported is worthless.
What is Good is, by God and by God's Nature, perfectly antithetical to Evil.
Study Exorcism and The Exorcism Rite...editio typica latina De Exorcismis Rituale Romanus.
Study The Six Levels of Exorcism.
Study, especially, Father Gabrielle Amorth.
You will learn, among many things, one simple Truth.
Latin is The Language of Our Lady who has complete Power over Satan and Possessions.
As one who has witnessed Possession firsthand, there is NO argument made for the vernacular that is valid...ever. The vernacular is another nonsensical deceit and tool whispered throughout The Ages of/by The Great Liar, Satan.
One can wax comfortable in one's self-righteous "anti-God" "know-it-all" Sunday "pew opinions" when one hasn't witnessed The Devil firsthand. After such horror, however, one only wishes and longs for The Perfection Of Jesus through The Traditional PathWays He has gifted to us.
In my former haughty insolence, I used to think, say, and believe that, in Life, I feared only two things: God and myself.
I am wholly and terribly bestruck with the total frightful horror of Satan...and what Its whispering deceits have accomplished and continue to accomplish to Holy Mother Church...and to you and I.
Be aware! We all MUST decrease (including all our irrelevant opinions) so that only Christ may increase.
This includes all your irrelevant opinions...Eric and others.
Words without experience are nothing more than words without experience.
"...visibilum omnium, et invisibilium..."
Deo Gratias.
8.28.2010 | 6:06am
Anthony Corner says:
Thank Father for the excellent article. Facing the santuary is definitely the solution for priests not to mistake themselves to be toast-masters.
8.28.2010 | 6:47am
Maria V. says:
Wondered if any had occasion to participate in Geez /Gaez Liturgy of the Ehiopian Catholics ; happened to walk into same accidently couple of times and recognised how heart moving it is , even when words are not understood . Being hebrew chanting ( by a small group of simple people , no instruments ! ) yet the way it grabs at the hearts , like in the hearsay angelic music :) wondered if this is closer to the original version of what our Lord had taught the disciples and if making such accessible to lots more would be the way to bring back many who now are in other churches even !( Tried looking it up on Ytube but nothing close ! )
Interesting that Sanskrit is mentioned :) - Bl.Emmerich mentions that this was the langauge of our first parents and hebrew music and Hindi , which is derived from Sanskrit appears to have good relatedness ; on the other hand , some of the later Arab influenced music such as in Syriac seems to have more of heavy , mournfulness to it - very likely I am wrong too :) !
Interesting that Sanskrit is mentioned :) - Bl.Emmerich mentions that this was the langauge of our first parents and hebrew music and Hindi , which is derived from Sanskrit appears to have good relatedness ; on the other hand , some of the later Arab influenced music such as in Syriac seems to have more of heavy , mournfulness to it - very likely I am wrong too :) !
8.28.2010 | 6:58am
Julia says:
Eric:
"I sense a temptation to presume I have unorthodox beliefs because I don't appreciate the same form of the liturgy as you."
Actually I have only attended one Extraordinary Form Mass since English was first introduced in 1964.
It's the emphasis you make on table, banquet, etc. without also mentioning sacrifice, altar until another commenter brings that up, that concerns me.
The 1182 reference to altar and table is fine, but you had been equating the consecration part of the Mass with a banquet at a table - no mention of what was transpiring at that part of the Mass. Communion comes later.
You would benefit greatly from reading Benedict's book on the liturgy.
As to non-Catholics being turned off by the Mass in Latin: the Mass is extremely different from a Protestant service so I'm not surprised at that. The NO as celebrated in some parishes is practically the same as a Lutheran Missouri Synod Sunday service. It was a Lutheran friend who pointed that out to me and he was right. They say: "And also with you" unlike the "And with your spirit" like we said in the 1960s before the NO in 1969. We even have the same readings.
I was at a Greek Orthodox open house a few years ago. The docent asked us all to identify our religious affiliations. A Baptist gentleman asked what the Orthodox service was like. The docent looked at me, grinning, and said: "It's very similar to what the Catholics used to have before they changed their Mass."
My mother was a Presbyterian and I have been to many Protestant religious services and even drank the grape juice from little plastic cups with my grandmother. Our Mass should look and feel different than a Protestant service or something is terribly wrong.
"I sense a temptation to presume I have unorthodox beliefs because I don't appreciate the same form of the liturgy as you."
Actually I have only attended one Extraordinary Form Mass since English was first introduced in 1964.
It's the emphasis you make on table, banquet, etc. without also mentioning sacrifice, altar until another commenter brings that up, that concerns me.
The 1182 reference to altar and table is fine, but you had been equating the consecration part of the Mass with a banquet at a table - no mention of what was transpiring at that part of the Mass. Communion comes later.
You would benefit greatly from reading Benedict's book on the liturgy.
As to non-Catholics being turned off by the Mass in Latin: the Mass is extremely different from a Protestant service so I'm not surprised at that. The NO as celebrated in some parishes is practically the same as a Lutheran Missouri Synod Sunday service. It was a Lutheran friend who pointed that out to me and he was right. They say: "And also with you" unlike the "And with your spirit" like we said in the 1960s before the NO in 1969. We even have the same readings.
I was at a Greek Orthodox open house a few years ago. The docent asked us all to identify our religious affiliations. A Baptist gentleman asked what the Orthodox service was like. The docent looked at me, grinning, and said: "It's very similar to what the Catholics used to have before they changed their Mass."
My mother was a Presbyterian and I have been to many Protestant religious services and even drank the grape juice from little plastic cups with my grandmother. Our Mass should look and feel different than a Protestant service or something is terribly wrong.
8.28.2010 | 7:27am
Pedro José Izquierdo says:
Thank you, Fr. Rutler, for this excellent article.
I only recently moved to the United States and have found that your masses are generally much more reverent and solemn than most masses in either Spain (where I went to college) or Ecuador (where I'm from). In most Spanish-speaking countries, the liturgy is frequently simplified to the max, filled with popular songs, interrupted by hand-shaking for peace (you wouldn't believe how long this can take), or sometimes even improvised. You are blessed in the U.S. with a strong reverence for liturgical purity.
So, since I love going to mass here and being filled up by the reverence and beauty of the liturgy, I have had to force myself to live the mass well when going back home, since our masses are so "informal". This has helped me to understand something that I think is also very important: like all engagement with God, all prayer, the Mass requires more that we be open to receive graces from God than our presuming to impose upon it our own personal "requirements" of what "works" with us. The fact of the matter is that the Lord is there. Open yourself to Him and forget it if you don't understand everything or if you find it distracting that the priest is not facing you. Who cares? Are we not also distracted by a ripple in the carpet or by the dust in a sunbeam when saying any prayer? Doesn't that say more about me (who gets distracted) than it does about the distraction itself. There will always be distractions.
Now, I'm not at all arguing for an absence of form. On the contrary, I think that we can only appreciate the form and truly live it once we abandon the attempt to satisfy our own aesthetic needs and focus more on the adoration. There are many advantages and disadvantages in using the vernacular or the Latin, just as with the ad orientem position, but it seems to me there is a fundamental error in judging it all exclusively on how it makes us "feel" during the celebration. Why not focus on the Lord more?
I only recently moved to the United States and have found that your masses are generally much more reverent and solemn than most masses in either Spain (where I went to college) or Ecuador (where I'm from). In most Spanish-speaking countries, the liturgy is frequently simplified to the max, filled with popular songs, interrupted by hand-shaking for peace (you wouldn't believe how long this can take), or sometimes even improvised. You are blessed in the U.S. with a strong reverence for liturgical purity.
So, since I love going to mass here and being filled up by the reverence and beauty of the liturgy, I have had to force myself to live the mass well when going back home, since our masses are so "informal". This has helped me to understand something that I think is also very important: like all engagement with God, all prayer, the Mass requires more that we be open to receive graces from God than our presuming to impose upon it our own personal "requirements" of what "works" with us. The fact of the matter is that the Lord is there. Open yourself to Him and forget it if you don't understand everything or if you find it distracting that the priest is not facing you. Who cares? Are we not also distracted by a ripple in the carpet or by the dust in a sunbeam when saying any prayer? Doesn't that say more about me (who gets distracted) than it does about the distraction itself. There will always be distractions.
Now, I'm not at all arguing for an absence of form. On the contrary, I think that we can only appreciate the form and truly live it once we abandon the attempt to satisfy our own aesthetic needs and focus more on the adoration. There are many advantages and disadvantages in using the vernacular or the Latin, just as with the ad orientem position, but it seems to me there is a fundamental error in judging it all exclusively on how it makes us "feel" during the celebration. Why not focus on the Lord more?
8.28.2010 | 8:06am
Diakonos says:
Father Rutler, as would be expected, your essay is superb. What I would like to add to the discussion may seem to be just a bit afield, but I pray for your patience. As I read through most of the foregoing commentary, I focused upon the concern for the ignorance of the Mass and liturgy, in general, of our young people. I've noticed this, too, and it's a tragedy. In this forum it isn't necessary to cite that liturgy is fundamental for an integral and strong faith. Personally, I think that one of the greatest failures in imparting the liturgical tradition (as well as most of the rest of our tradition) along to the young is the so called CCD program, now called officially "Religious Education". I'll leave further discussion of that allegation to another time. However, as coordinator of the RCIA program for the last eleven years in my parish, with the avid and able assistance of my blessed pastor, I have made the liturgy the central tenet of the "instructional" portion of our program. Although, this is anecdotal, it appears to me that this has gone a long way to keeping our newly confirmed Catholics active at Mass. Since, as a deacon, I assist throughout the year at all of the Masses in their various time slots several times each, I do know who comes to Mass and who does not. So far so good! Perhaps more focus should be placed upon the liturgy in the "Religious Ed" classes and less on "journalling" and "feeling good about ourselves". It seems like all these kids know that "Jesus loves them", but none of them seem to known "WHY".
8.28.2010 | 8:42am
John D. Hartigan says:
Dear Father Rutler,
A pox on bad lectionary texts. Time and again, the RNAB trivializes Scripture or lames it down or even mistranslates it. Why dldn't the USCCB leave well enough alone? Why did it have to change passages like "I have fought the good fight" (2 Tim 4:7) to "I have competed well"?
It's been suggested that it wanted to produce a lectionary text that was unique enough that it could be copyrighted with a view to enabling USCCB to earn hefty royalties by forcing all parishes to use it. Let's hope there's a less disheartening explanation, but, be that as it may, it's time to scrap the RNAB and replace it with the RSV.
A pox on bad lectionary texts. Time and again, the RNAB trivializes Scripture or lames it down or even mistranslates it. Why dldn't the USCCB leave well enough alone? Why did it have to change passages like "I have fought the good fight" (2 Tim 4:7) to "I have competed well"?
It's been suggested that it wanted to produce a lectionary text that was unique enough that it could be copyrighted with a view to enabling USCCB to earn hefty royalties by forcing all parishes to use it. Let's hope there's a less disheartening explanation, but, be that as it may, it's time to scrap the RNAB and replace it with the RSV.
8.28.2010 | 9:51am
joe says:
Catholics' liturgical retardation continues to confound me. You will read for hours without anyone specifying any reasons why people no longer kneel, or what the actual difference content-wise is between the new and old rites. And everyone acts like the thought of people actually following along in a Missal that offers translations is a lark... it sure works awfully well in Anglican churches. For all the talk of the specialness of the Mass, Catholic practice as it stands makes it among the most pedestrian of liturgical celebrations. Active participation may be a bad thing if it is not reverent and Christian participation.
8.28.2010 | 11:26am
Steve Kellmeyer says:
The best explanation I have yet heard for the Novus Ordo Mass is this: it is the children's Mass.
That is, the NO Mass is accommodated to people who have an extremely low-level understanding of theology and God. For this reason, it is the most accessible Mass for a largely pagan population.
Once you grow in your understanding of theology, Christianity and Christ Himself, you will naturally gravitate towards the Extraordinary Form. Like any other process of growth, this transition will be rocky and difficult at times, but the rewards are worth it.
There is something to be said for letting those who wish to stay in the ghetto stay. Let them have the secular language, syrupy-song, standing-reception Novus Ordo. At least they get Jesus in the Eucharist and the other sacraments are valid. It's something, a Happy Meal for the itinerant street beggar who would feel self-conscious in a home, even their own.
But, the Extraordinary Form has to be commonly available as well, for a beggar who looks in the window often enough may come one day to yearn to live in the home that he has begun to realize is not a prison, but rather is so bright and warm and utterly different from his own experiences of how the world works.
The new translation of the Novus Ordo brings us to a more appropriate intermediary place between the pagan world and the sacred world of ancient Christian faith.
That is, the NO Mass is accommodated to people who have an extremely low-level understanding of theology and God. For this reason, it is the most accessible Mass for a largely pagan population.
Once you grow in your understanding of theology, Christianity and Christ Himself, you will naturally gravitate towards the Extraordinary Form. Like any other process of growth, this transition will be rocky and difficult at times, but the rewards are worth it.
There is something to be said for letting those who wish to stay in the ghetto stay. Let them have the secular language, syrupy-song, standing-reception Novus Ordo. At least they get Jesus in the Eucharist and the other sacraments are valid. It's something, a Happy Meal for the itinerant street beggar who would feel self-conscious in a home, even their own.
But, the Extraordinary Form has to be commonly available as well, for a beggar who looks in the window often enough may come one day to yearn to live in the home that he has begun to realize is not a prison, but rather is so bright and warm and utterly different from his own experiences of how the world works.
The new translation of the Novus Ordo brings us to a more appropriate intermediary place between the pagan world and the sacred world of ancient Christian faith.
8.28.2010 | 12:15pm
Bill Russell says:
It has been suggested by one optimist that the bishops commission Father Rutler to translate the Bible.
8.28.2010 | 2:10pm
Eric says:
Julia,
In the Novus Ordo Mass I am keenly aware that the Eucharist is both sacrifice and banquet. Reorientation East would reduce the clarity of the element of the banquet, not the sacrifice. More particularly, it separates the image of the priest acting as Christ in breaking the bread and wine at table with those he has called. Because the element of the sacrifice would not be affected, I didn't mention it.
Also, I fully and wholeheartedly agree that our Masses should not seem Protestant. I left that hodgepodge for a reason. While Latin and ad orientem would increase the difference, they are not necessary to the difference.
Steve, you are impressively sophisticated. I find myself nonplussed.
In the Novus Ordo Mass I am keenly aware that the Eucharist is both sacrifice and banquet. Reorientation East would reduce the clarity of the element of the banquet, not the sacrifice. More particularly, it separates the image of the priest acting as Christ in breaking the bread and wine at table with those he has called. Because the element of the sacrifice would not be affected, I didn't mention it.
Also, I fully and wholeheartedly agree that our Masses should not seem Protestant. I left that hodgepodge for a reason. While Latin and ad orientem would increase the difference, they are not necessary to the difference.
Steve, you are impressively sophisticated. I find myself nonplussed.
8.28.2010 | 5:09pm
patricksarsfield says:
Philip (a good example of the consumerist converts and near converts who have writtten on the need for a particular liturgy before the non-Catholic would become Catholic) writes:
"I am not yet a confirmed Catholic, but I believe that ideas to change the language back into the latin and positioning the priest ad orientum would only decrease access to a Church that is increasingly becoming "non-mainstream." We are already separated from others due to our religious and moral beliefs (not that that's the Church's fault; it is a result of our fallen world), why would we want to make it harder for the unchurched to attend mass? People in these comments have claimed that a better examination of the missal would make the Latin rite acessible, as it has translations. However, although I was raised in a Lutheran church and considered myself "well churched,"
I grew up in the still Latin Church and in many ways prefer its liturgy (and especially its Music), but after several decades of English masses with the--at times awful--music which we now hear, I have never once considered leaving the Catholic Church because some other church might have better music or liturgy or bible translations. Protestantism may be founded on consumer choice but Christ's Church is founded on an apostolic foundation.
The reason to be a Catholic is NOT because we serve up the best liturgy (although our sign could read: "billions and billions served") but because Christ founded our Church on the rock of Peter while Martin Luther (and a bunch of other "magisterial reformers" beginning with Menno Simons, Henry Tudor, etc.) broke away from it and founded man-made substitutes on the sands of some number of easily disproven solas.
IOW, The truth of the Catholic Church is not a matter of consumer choice but of Divine foundation. It is that simple.
"I am not yet a confirmed Catholic, but I believe that ideas to change the language back into the latin and positioning the priest ad orientum would only decrease access to a Church that is increasingly becoming "non-mainstream." We are already separated from others due to our religious and moral beliefs (not that that's the Church's fault; it is a result of our fallen world), why would we want to make it harder for the unchurched to attend mass? People in these comments have claimed that a better examination of the missal would make the Latin rite acessible, as it has translations. However, although I was raised in a Lutheran church and considered myself "well churched,"
I grew up in the still Latin Church and in many ways prefer its liturgy (and especially its Music), but after several decades of English masses with the--at times awful--music which we now hear, I have never once considered leaving the Catholic Church because some other church might have better music or liturgy or bible translations. Protestantism may be founded on consumer choice but Christ's Church is founded on an apostolic foundation.
The reason to be a Catholic is NOT because we serve up the best liturgy (although our sign could read: "billions and billions served") but because Christ founded our Church on the rock of Peter while Martin Luther (and a bunch of other "magisterial reformers" beginning with Menno Simons, Henry Tudor, etc.) broke away from it and founded man-made substitutes on the sands of some number of easily disproven solas.
IOW, The truth of the Catholic Church is not a matter of consumer choice but of Divine foundation. It is that simple.
8.28.2010 | 7:28pm
Chris says:
I find it sad and yet unsurprising that so many self-professed Catholics commenting here are little more than overly-liturgical protestants. It's amazing after reading so many of the comments of how absolutely clear it is that so many of you embrace some form of protestant worship in place of authentic Catholic worship. So many here seem to think that the Novus Ordo is somehow what the council fathers called for and that in and of itself is pathetic. After the promulgation of the New Mass, the churches emptied, vocations dried up and almost disappeared, religious orders have all but gone extinct. Yet somehow some here speak of some renewal in the Church that has been proven without any doubt to be a gross myth.
The Holy Father himself had this to say of the Novus Ordo, “After the Council… in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” Why do so many of you think he is incorporating so much of the E.F. into the N.O.? It is as simple as it is obvious. Because the N.O. is not the best and most authentic form of worship that the Latin Church has to offer. As Fr. Z has said, it's the Holy Father marshall plan to restore our true Catholic identity by restoring the Roman Liturgy to it's former beauty and dignity.
Dietrich Von Hildebrand said this of the Novus Ordo, "Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better."
@Eric, I pray that you abandon every and all forms of protestantism, especially when it comes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is heresy and that has never changed, nor will it. The setting of the first Mass, that being a meal, doesn't matter next to the action itself. Even though Christ had yet to be crucified, He gave Himself to us as the perfect Victim and Sacrifice. The priest offers the Sacrifice the God the Father in persona Christi. As my local parish priest put it, if he wanted to serve a meal, he would have become a waiter. Ad Orientum has nothing to do with the priest having his back to you. It is the looking to the east from whence Christ will return and is found in every ancient Christian liturgy. Also, the rejection of Sacred Tradition, which the Church holds as dear as the Sacred Scriptures, as some man made concoction that should be readily dismissed whenever the cultural winds shift, is heresy in and of itself. This is one of the fundamental errors of protestantism and modernism, which is the synthesis of all heresy.
The thing that saddens me the most is that I probably wont live to see the fruits of the reform of the reform. I'm only 24 and yet I'm realistic enough to know that it will take generations to erase the post-conciliar nonsense. I'm sad that I probably won't live to see the day when the Novus Ordo is referred to only in the footnotes of Church history, under the chapter entitled "What were they thinking?" But I am so hopeful for the work that the Holy Father is doing and that things are getting better, slowly and painfully, but better nonetheless. This new missal paraphrase is a step forward, a small one, but a step forward.
Please abandon the evil that is protestantism and embrace Holy Mother Church in all aspects, especially in Her Holy Mass, not the semi-protestant meal services that are basically self-worship, and therefore "utterly fruitless" as the Pope Benedict has said.
The Holy Father himself had this to say of the Novus Ordo, “After the Council… in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” Why do so many of you think he is incorporating so much of the E.F. into the N.O.? It is as simple as it is obvious. Because the N.O. is not the best and most authentic form of worship that the Latin Church has to offer. As Fr. Z has said, it's the Holy Father marshall plan to restore our true Catholic identity by restoring the Roman Liturgy to it's former beauty and dignity.
Dietrich Von Hildebrand said this of the Novus Ordo, "Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better."
@Eric, I pray that you abandon every and all forms of protestantism, especially when it comes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is heresy and that has never changed, nor will it. The setting of the first Mass, that being a meal, doesn't matter next to the action itself. Even though Christ had yet to be crucified, He gave Himself to us as the perfect Victim and Sacrifice. The priest offers the Sacrifice the God the Father in persona Christi. As my local parish priest put it, if he wanted to serve a meal, he would have become a waiter. Ad Orientum has nothing to do with the priest having his back to you. It is the looking to the east from whence Christ will return and is found in every ancient Christian liturgy. Also, the rejection of Sacred Tradition, which the Church holds as dear as the Sacred Scriptures, as some man made concoction that should be readily dismissed whenever the cultural winds shift, is heresy in and of itself. This is one of the fundamental errors of protestantism and modernism, which is the synthesis of all heresy.
The thing that saddens me the most is that I probably wont live to see the fruits of the reform of the reform. I'm only 24 and yet I'm realistic enough to know that it will take generations to erase the post-conciliar nonsense. I'm sad that I probably won't live to see the day when the Novus Ordo is referred to only in the footnotes of Church history, under the chapter entitled "What were they thinking?" But I am so hopeful for the work that the Holy Father is doing and that things are getting better, slowly and painfully, but better nonetheless. This new missal paraphrase is a step forward, a small one, but a step forward.
Please abandon the evil that is protestantism and embrace Holy Mother Church in all aspects, especially in Her Holy Mass, not the semi-protestant meal services that are basically self-worship, and therefore "utterly fruitless" as the Pope Benedict has said.
8.28.2010 | 8:25pm
Bender says:
By their fruits you will know them.
What do we see exhibited here by the traditionally-minded? Obnoxious, snide, uncharitable, impious, vain, and proud. If those are the fruits of the Extraordinary Form or ad orientem or any of the other things promoted here, they are hardly to be commended. Is it really so impossible for you to simply say good things about the EF and ad orientem WITHOUT also denigrating the Ordinary Form and the current translation, and treating them with utter contempt?
You are no better than the progressives with your disgusting distain for the Holy Mass, the Church, and your fellow Catholics.
Once again you traditionalists prove yourselves to be your own worst enemies.
And it is sad and reprehensible that so many people apparently think that such repugnant comments as yours are acceptable.
What do we see exhibited here by the traditionally-minded? Obnoxious, snide, uncharitable, impious, vain, and proud. If those are the fruits of the Extraordinary Form or ad orientem or any of the other things promoted here, they are hardly to be commended. Is it really so impossible for you to simply say good things about the EF and ad orientem WITHOUT also denigrating the Ordinary Form and the current translation, and treating them with utter contempt?
You are no better than the progressives with your disgusting distain for the Holy Mass, the Church, and your fellow Catholics.
Once again you traditionalists prove yourselves to be your own worst enemies.
And it is sad and reprehensible that so many people apparently think that such repugnant comments as yours are acceptable.
8.28.2010 | 9:13pm
Eric says:
'semi-protestant meal services that are basically self-worship, and therefore "utterly fruitless" as the Pope Benedict has said.'
Astounding.
'The setting of the first Mass, that being a meal, doesn't matter next to the action itself.'
Nonsense. Everything that Christ, the eternal Logos of God, did matters. His silence is a Word. His actions are all Word. Of course it matters that it is a meal. This betrays a shockingly narrow theological imagination.
And 'Protestant'? If I am not Catholic, the Church as it stands is not Catholic. I am formed by the present liturgy. I am formed by the Eucharist, from which it flows. I am formed by prayer to God and with the Saints. I pray the Rosary. I am in full acquiescence with the moral teachings of the Church. I go to confession regularly. I attend weekly mass 3-5 days/week and mass every Sunday. I have a priest spiritual director. My children have paintings of their name-saints on their bedroom walls. I subscribe to Magnificat. I regularly read and pray with the Bible and the spiritual writings of the saints. I am, it would seem, more familiar than many involved in this conversation on the contents of the Catechism. And so on, and so forth.
If I am not Catholic, the Church as it stands is not Catholic. Given that you describe the Mass as 'semi-protestant meal services that are basically self-worship, and therefore "utterly fruitless," you may well agree that I am not Catholic, because you think the Church as it stands is not Catholic.
If that is the case, take a seat with the Lefebvrists. You may not be a heretic, but you're probably a schismatic.
If I read you right, I don't suspect that you're representative of the traditionalist crowd en masse, but that you are representative of its impulse followed to an extreme. You are to the traditionalists what Charles Curran is to the 'progressives'. Danger, danger, my friend.
Astounding.
'The setting of the first Mass, that being a meal, doesn't matter next to the action itself.'
Nonsense. Everything that Christ, the eternal Logos of God, did matters. His silence is a Word. His actions are all Word. Of course it matters that it is a meal. This betrays a shockingly narrow theological imagination.
And 'Protestant'? If I am not Catholic, the Church as it stands is not Catholic. I am formed by the present liturgy. I am formed by the Eucharist, from which it flows. I am formed by prayer to God and with the Saints. I pray the Rosary. I am in full acquiescence with the moral teachings of the Church. I go to confession regularly. I attend weekly mass 3-5 days/week and mass every Sunday. I have a priest spiritual director. My children have paintings of their name-saints on their bedroom walls. I subscribe to Magnificat. I regularly read and pray with the Bible and the spiritual writings of the saints. I am, it would seem, more familiar than many involved in this conversation on the contents of the Catechism. And so on, and so forth.
If I am not Catholic, the Church as it stands is not Catholic. Given that you describe the Mass as 'semi-protestant meal services that are basically self-worship, and therefore "utterly fruitless," you may well agree that I am not Catholic, because you think the Church as it stands is not Catholic.
If that is the case, take a seat with the Lefebvrists. You may not be a heretic, but you're probably a schismatic.
If I read you right, I don't suspect that you're representative of the traditionalist crowd en masse, but that you are representative of its impulse followed to an extreme. You are to the traditionalists what Charles Curran is to the 'progressives'. Danger, danger, my friend.
8.28.2010 | 10:11pm
Patrick says:
Obnoxious, snide, uncharitable, impious, vain, and proud.
Yes, well, but -- wrong?
Yes, well, but -- wrong?
8.28.2010 | 10:21pm
Chris says:
@Bender You, sir or madam, are a hypocrite and a tiring one. Not only was nothing I said addressed but I was merely demeaned and belittled and left at that while you sat and commenced to judge that I am as bad a heretic, and for agreeing with the Holy Father no less. If you truly want to bring up the whole "fruits" argument, then I'll be happy to give you 40 years worth of "fruits" that the abandonment of the very things denigrated by so many commentators here has produced. If you were truly a person of integrity, you would have easily been able to show which of my comments were "sad and reprehensible," and yet nothing. What of the Holy Fathers comments or Von Hildebrands? Were they being too "repugnant" for your fragile sensibilities or was only I being so because I had the nerve to quote them? God Bless.
@Eric I never called into question your faith or adherence to the Church, so please spare me the list of Catholic "street cred" if you will. You are clearly living your Catholic Faith and that is nothing but praiseworthy. Please, don't take my comments as anything other than a call to completely abandon heresy. I myself am a convert to the Catholic Church and it is only because of this that I can see in many of your postings the borderline refusal to abandon certain protestant (again, a heresy) views on the Mass and how it should be carried out. Your statement on Tradition above is clearly rooted in protestantism for they reject all tradition as "man-made" which only reinforces the error of sola scriptura.
"Given that you describe the Mass as 'semi-protestant meal services that are basically self-worship, and therefore "utterly fruitless," you may well agree that I am not Catholic, because you think the Church as it stands is not Catholic." You need to pay more attention to what I said and who I was quoting. The Holy Father has said the above consistently for the past 30 years. You can find the quotes through a simple google search or if you would like to actually read it yourself, and they are worth it, I can give you a plentiful list of books that contain his views on the N.O. Mass and hopefully then you will see that I'm simply echoing what many in the Church at all levels have been echoing since VII was still in progress.
I'll say this in the most charitable way I can muster, but don't you dare libel me as a schismatic. I am no such thing and there is not a single doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Church that I do not fully submit to mind, will, body and soul. I did not once libel you as a heretic. I will not stand to have my good name lumped in with open heretics like Curran. While I sympathize with the Society of St. Pius X (not all of them of course for some of them are clearly loons) I believe what the Church teaches, not what they claim the Church teaches. So that being "the case," I will not take my seat with them until they are full reconciled with the Church in which case you will also take a seat with them. You sir, haven't read myself or anything I've actually written "right." I pray for your continued conversion and God bless.
@Eric I never called into question your faith or adherence to the Church, so please spare me the list of Catholic "street cred" if you will. You are clearly living your Catholic Faith and that is nothing but praiseworthy. Please, don't take my comments as anything other than a call to completely abandon heresy. I myself am a convert to the Catholic Church and it is only because of this that I can see in many of your postings the borderline refusal to abandon certain protestant (again, a heresy) views on the Mass and how it should be carried out. Your statement on Tradition above is clearly rooted in protestantism for they reject all tradition as "man-made" which only reinforces the error of sola scriptura.
"Given that you describe the Mass as 'semi-protestant meal services that are basically self-worship, and therefore "utterly fruitless," you may well agree that I am not Catholic, because you think the Church as it stands is not Catholic." You need to pay more attention to what I said and who I was quoting. The Holy Father has said the above consistently for the past 30 years. You can find the quotes through a simple google search or if you would like to actually read it yourself, and they are worth it, I can give you a plentiful list of books that contain his views on the N.O. Mass and hopefully then you will see that I'm simply echoing what many in the Church at all levels have been echoing since VII was still in progress.
I'll say this in the most charitable way I can muster, but don't you dare libel me as a schismatic. I am no such thing and there is not a single doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Church that I do not fully submit to mind, will, body and soul. I did not once libel you as a heretic. I will not stand to have my good name lumped in with open heretics like Curran. While I sympathize with the Society of St. Pius X (not all of them of course for some of them are clearly loons) I believe what the Church teaches, not what they claim the Church teaches. So that being "the case," I will not take my seat with them until they are full reconciled with the Church in which case you will also take a seat with them. You sir, haven't read myself or anything I've actually written "right." I pray for your continued conversion and God bless.
8.28.2010 | 11:01pm
Paul C says:
I know I'm late to the party here, but ROGER kind of said (or made me think) it best (after Fr. Rutler):
When the Mass is said in Latin, either the priest will not know enough Latin to "improve" or "freelance" from the proper form, or especially the Mass attendees will not know enough Latin to know what he means by the change if they even catch that he drifted off-form in the first place!!!
This inhibits so much irritation/abuse, potentially !!!
When the Mass is said in Latin, either the priest will not know enough Latin to "improve" or "freelance" from the proper form, or especially the Mass attendees will not know enough Latin to know what he means by the change if they even catch that he drifted off-form in the first place!!!
This inhibits so much irritation/abuse, potentially !!!
8.28.2010 | 11:14pm
Bender says:
you would have easily been able to show which of my comments were "sad and reprehensible,"
Don't be so arrogant as to think that I was referring only to you. As for your comments, one example will suffice -- your attack on the last 40 years of the Church. It is not merely uncharitable, you by your own words and thoughts set yourself against the communion of the Church.
A little advice? Let go of the rage. Let go of the contempt. Let go of being so presumptuous as to think yourself competent to judge Holy Mother Church. Try a little humility instead.
Don't be so arrogant as to think that I was referring only to you. As for your comments, one example will suffice -- your attack on the last 40 years of the Church. It is not merely uncharitable, you by your own words and thoughts set yourself against the communion of the Church.
A little advice? Let go of the rage. Let go of the contempt. Let go of being so presumptuous as to think yourself competent to judge Holy Mother Church. Try a little humility instead.
8.28.2010 | 11:42pm
Jason says:
What is to stop a priest from celebrating mass facing the tabernacle? I've seen it done. There isn't a rule against it, why don't priests take it upon themselves and lead here?
8.29.2010 | 1:03am
Don Roberto says:
Peace, brothers and sisters. We're all seekers, stumbling, half-blind, on the road to God's Kingdom. Pray. Find time for silence. Read, and study God's Word. Submit humbly to the Magisterium. The capricious ebb and flow of this world's often wicked fancies—the idolatry that surrounds us—will always distract us, if we let it. Peace! If you don't like guitars and drums, join the choir and chant. Recruit an organist. Have more children and take them with you to whatever sanctioned Mass you prefer. And remember that the choirs of angels sing with both the children and the learned. (And we know our "wisdom" doesn't much impress the Lord.) We will only celebrate the perfect liturgy as saints, but the Church here on Earth is protected, and learns over time.
My wife and I were not happy with the lack of reverence in our local parishes, despite the good efforts of the priests. So we moved to one (St. Margaret Mary in Oakland) where Mass is offered in both the Latin/English Novus Ordo and in Latin, ad orientem. This was one of the best decision we've ever made. (Would you believe there are long lines for Confession?) I know that the Holy Spirit is watching over the faithful.
Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem ... et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem ... et in unam, sanctam, Cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclesiam ... et in vitam aeternam. Amen.
Godspeed.
My wife and I were not happy with the lack of reverence in our local parishes, despite the good efforts of the priests. So we moved to one (St. Margaret Mary in Oakland) where Mass is offered in both the Latin/English Novus Ordo and in Latin, ad orientem. This was one of the best decision we've ever made. (Would you believe there are long lines for Confession?) I know that the Holy Spirit is watching over the faithful.
Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem ... et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem ... et in unam, sanctam, Cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclesiam ... et in vitam aeternam. Amen.
Godspeed.
8.29.2010 | 5:18am
Aaron says:
Eric:
The first Mass wasn't a meal. The Mass is, as you know, a representation of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary. Thus, the first Mass could not have been celebrated prior to the Crucifixion. At the Last Supper, Christ instituted the Eucharist, and imposed upon us the Mass. It follows then, that the Mass is first and foremost a sacrifice, the offering up to the Father of the only expiation for our many sins that has any bearing: that of the Body and Blood of the Son, offered on the Cross.
By extension, this is why ad orientam is preferable. Christ is the intermediary of our sins...He alone is our Intecessor. The priest, acting in persona Christi, is thus interceding for us by offering the only thing that makes any intercession possible: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Son. All of the Eucharistic Prayers are addressed to the Father. We are supposed to be praying with the priest, to attach our prayers to the Sacrifice offered up for our salvation. For this reason, we should all be oriented in the same direction. Christ became man, and lived as one of us. His priests are all men, humans, just like us. Therefore, it is only fitting that the priest face the same direction as us...like Christ, he is one of us, and, like Christ, is offering up the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ for himself and us, through the Holy Spirit.
It is perhaps typical of today's Catholic you miss the profound symbolism of the ad orientam posture. This is lamentable, but it is a product of today's neglect of the age-old liturgical practice: lex orendi, lex credendi, or how we pray is how we believe. To summarize, everything we say or do at Mass influences what we believe. When we re-orient the posture of the prayer, we re-orient the meaning of the prayer and the actions that accompany. Essentially, despite whatever the prayer says or is supposed to say, the new posture reflects a different meaning. This is the major problem with versus populum celebration. You can't tell the faithful that the Mass is a sacrifice to the Father when, for all accounts and purposes, the priest is facing them and praying to them. Despite all your wrangling, the fact still remains: people interpret the orientation of the prayer as meaning different things. If the Mass is a Sacrifice, than it should be celebrated as one...if for any other reason than to affirm what we say we believe.
While mentioning the Sacrificial aspect of Mass, you seem to emphasize the Mass as a communal meal (this may not be intentional, but may be the result of a perspective on the Eucharist carried over from Protestanatism--one which I held many years after my conversion). This is true, to a certain extent. When I eat a meal by itself, I can focus on the food and its nourishing quality. When I eat a communal meal with my family, especially a meal with the extended family, the meal ceases to be about food and nourishment, and starts being about the fellowship (this is evidenced by the fact that when the food is gone, no one disperses, but sits down and communes even longer). This is not what Mass is about at all. Mass is about remembering in a very real way our sin, and Christ's Sacrifice for that sin, and partaking in Christ's Sacrifice through Communion. When we Commune, we are first and foremost communing with God by consuming the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of His Son. It is only by virtue of this Communion that our meal becomes a communion with those who commune with us. The focus of our meal is the Eucharist, not communion with others. Christ alludes to this in the Lord's Supper when He hijacks the Passover meal and institutes the Eucharist. The meal is no longer about togetherness, but about Christ. Notice that when the chalice that Christ proclaimed as His Blood was gone, the group dispersed to the Mount of Olives...the meal was over and the gathering complete.
The first Mass wasn't a meal. The Mass is, as you know, a representation of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary. Thus, the first Mass could not have been celebrated prior to the Crucifixion. At the Last Supper, Christ instituted the Eucharist, and imposed upon us the Mass. It follows then, that the Mass is first and foremost a sacrifice, the offering up to the Father of the only expiation for our many sins that has any bearing: that of the Body and Blood of the Son, offered on the Cross.
By extension, this is why ad orientam is preferable. Christ is the intermediary of our sins...He alone is our Intecessor. The priest, acting in persona Christi, is thus interceding for us by offering the only thing that makes any intercession possible: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Son. All of the Eucharistic Prayers are addressed to the Father. We are supposed to be praying with the priest, to attach our prayers to the Sacrifice offered up for our salvation. For this reason, we should all be oriented in the same direction. Christ became man, and lived as one of us. His priests are all men, humans, just like us. Therefore, it is only fitting that the priest face the same direction as us...like Christ, he is one of us, and, like Christ, is offering up the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ for himself and us, through the Holy Spirit.
It is perhaps typical of today's Catholic you miss the profound symbolism of the ad orientam posture. This is lamentable, but it is a product of today's neglect of the age-old liturgical practice: lex orendi, lex credendi, or how we pray is how we believe. To summarize, everything we say or do at Mass influences what we believe. When we re-orient the posture of the prayer, we re-orient the meaning of the prayer and the actions that accompany. Essentially, despite whatever the prayer says or is supposed to say, the new posture reflects a different meaning. This is the major problem with versus populum celebration. You can't tell the faithful that the Mass is a sacrifice to the Father when, for all accounts and purposes, the priest is facing them and praying to them. Despite all your wrangling, the fact still remains: people interpret the orientation of the prayer as meaning different things. If the Mass is a Sacrifice, than it should be celebrated as one...if for any other reason than to affirm what we say we believe.
While mentioning the Sacrificial aspect of Mass, you seem to emphasize the Mass as a communal meal (this may not be intentional, but may be the result of a perspective on the Eucharist carried over from Protestanatism--one which I held many years after my conversion). This is true, to a certain extent. When I eat a meal by itself, I can focus on the food and its nourishing quality. When I eat a communal meal with my family, especially a meal with the extended family, the meal ceases to be about food and nourishment, and starts being about the fellowship (this is evidenced by the fact that when the food is gone, no one disperses, but sits down and communes even longer). This is not what Mass is about at all. Mass is about remembering in a very real way our sin, and Christ's Sacrifice for that sin, and partaking in Christ's Sacrifice through Communion. When we Commune, we are first and foremost communing with God by consuming the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of His Son. It is only by virtue of this Communion that our meal becomes a communion with those who commune with us. The focus of our meal is the Eucharist, not communion with others. Christ alludes to this in the Lord's Supper when He hijacks the Passover meal and institutes the Eucharist. The meal is no longer about togetherness, but about Christ. Notice that when the chalice that Christ proclaimed as His Blood was gone, the group dispersed to the Mount of Olives...the meal was over and the gathering complete.
8.29.2010 | 5:51am
B.B. says:
Ugh. What a lot of unpleasant, uncharitable remarks. Now I remember one of the reasons I left the Catholic Church.
8.29.2010 | 6:15am
Aaron says:
Bender:
I am not angry desolation the last 40 years have wrought...I am saddened.
However, for you to assume that such feelings are against "the communion of the Church" smacks of the same arrogance you decry. The fact of the matter remains: the Church today has been decimated in the last 40 years. The attitude that many felt at the dawn of the Council (the Church must get with the times) has certainly harmed the Faith...not helped it. In fact, much of what has taken place in the last 40 years, at least on a liturgical level, is not within the communion of the Universal Church for the last 2000 years.
The Church, Immaculate and Infallible as She is, is not immune to the errors of individual humans which comprise her. The Church was wrong to allow clerics to assume political positions in feudal Europe. She was wrong to remove the Jesuits from South America at the behest of the Portuguese king (a decision which cause the enslavement of thousands of natives...despite the papal condemnation of the practice). It is entirely possible then, that men speaking for the Church foisted their own agendas onto the faithful while abandoning the nearly 2000 years of wisdom that the Church had accumulated.
But those traditions didn't simply disappear. They endured. The Mass of Bl Pope John XXIII endured. Latin endured. The Vulgate is still the official text of the Holy Bible. Holy priests rejected the modernist push and maintained traditional forms of worship within new liturgical strictures. This is what we are seeing now: a reestablishment of Catholic identity, a reestablishment of Tradition. We are finally going to reconnect with the past.
I am not angry desolation the last 40 years have wrought...I am saddened.
However, for you to assume that such feelings are against "the communion of the Church" smacks of the same arrogance you decry. The fact of the matter remains: the Church today has been decimated in the last 40 years. The attitude that many felt at the dawn of the Council (the Church must get with the times) has certainly harmed the Faith...not helped it. In fact, much of what has taken place in the last 40 years, at least on a liturgical level, is not within the communion of the Universal Church for the last 2000 years.
The Church, Immaculate and Infallible as She is, is not immune to the errors of individual humans which comprise her. The Church was wrong to allow clerics to assume political positions in feudal Europe. She was wrong to remove the Jesuits from South America at the behest of the Portuguese king (a decision which cause the enslavement of thousands of natives...despite the papal condemnation of the practice). It is entirely possible then, that men speaking for the Church foisted their own agendas onto the faithful while abandoning the nearly 2000 years of wisdom that the Church had accumulated.
But those traditions didn't simply disappear. They endured. The Mass of Bl Pope John XXIII endured. Latin endured. The Vulgate is still the official text of the Holy Bible. Holy priests rejected the modernist push and maintained traditional forms of worship within new liturgical strictures. This is what we are seeing now: a reestablishment of Catholic identity, a reestablishment of Tradition. We are finally going to reconnect with the past.
8.29.2010 | 6:21am
Art says:
Et introibo ad altare Deum. I will go unto the altar of God. To God who gives joy to my youth.
I am not ordained. I have been around for a few years. I teach 7th grade religious education (CCD). One of my lessons is for every student to take a missal and highlight every first person pronoun in the Eucharistic Prayer (pick one). Then we try to answer the question: "whose prayer is it?" The real answer is that it is MY prayer. If I remove my own attention and presence from those pronouns, I'm not 'attending' Mass. MY prayer is in English. Since I have not completely memorized all 4 Eucharistic Prayers, it is much easier if the congregation is praying along with me, but I can muddle along or just talk to God when the vernacular has been Latin, Spanish, German, Swedish, or whatever. Is it really "prayer" if I am engrossed in the struggle to remember or translate the 'correct' words? I'll buy a missal after the waves of the new prayers settle down.
Another class is to compare the 4 Scripture passages on the consecration at the last supper. We focus on the 'imperatives'. Take an intimately close look at Luke 22:19-20. There is no "take" and no "eat" ... there is only "do". If the responsibility for this "do" passes on to me, what exactly is the "this" that I am supposed to do? I pray the words of the consecration, and not necessarily silently. I can even do this in Moho, Peru, where the priest is not on either side of the altar, except for maybe once a year, and who cares which side then.
I read somewhere that in the 'early church' the entire congregation said all of the prayers of the Mass aloud. Who 'reformed' that?
I would hope to be considered reasonably articulate and the prayers of the Mass fit me well with only one glaring exception ... the acclamation: "When we eat this ..... (no, they're not really saying this, are they?) and drink this ..... (I've never drunk a 'cup' before!)". So much for transubstantiation!
There is a delicate balance between 'contemplative' and 'charismatic'. I learned late in life that at the core of every charismatic there must be a contemplative, because what would I do on a desert island or in a jail cell? However, all of you must remember that "we" are the community of the Kingdom; we must love our neighbor as ourselves; we are called to share the Good News IN the world; and that "we" have to recognize that there are "charismatics" among us and, like it or not, they bring a wonderful lively aspect of the Spirit into our midst. Yes, they try to join hands during the Lord's Prayer, but for God's sake, don't kill them off. (Did you know that the rubrics for Mass allow "family members" to join hands during the Lord's Prayer? Let's just use Eucharistic Prayer 3 ... "Father hear the prayers of the FAMILY You have gathered here before You" and we're safe!)
Blessings in abundance, all the best, and ENJOY!
Art in Carlisle PA USA
I am not ordained. I have been around for a few years. I teach 7th grade religious education (CCD). One of my lessons is for every student to take a missal and highlight every first person pronoun in the Eucharistic Prayer (pick one). Then we try to answer the question: "whose prayer is it?" The real answer is that it is MY prayer. If I remove my own attention and presence from those pronouns, I'm not 'attending' Mass. MY prayer is in English. Since I have not completely memorized all 4 Eucharistic Prayers, it is much easier if the congregation is praying along with me, but I can muddle along or just talk to God when the vernacular has been Latin, Spanish, German, Swedish, or whatever. Is it really "prayer" if I am engrossed in the struggle to remember or translate the 'correct' words? I'll buy a missal after the waves of the new prayers settle down.
Another class is to compare the 4 Scripture passages on the consecration at the last supper. We focus on the 'imperatives'. Take an intimately close look at Luke 22:19-20. There is no "take" and no "eat" ... there is only "do". If the responsibility for this "do" passes on to me, what exactly is the "this" that I am supposed to do? I pray the words of the consecration, and not necessarily silently. I can even do this in Moho, Peru, where the priest is not on either side of the altar, except for maybe once a year, and who cares which side then.
I read somewhere that in the 'early church' the entire congregation said all of the prayers of the Mass aloud. Who 'reformed' that?
I would hope to be considered reasonably articulate and the prayers of the Mass fit me well with only one glaring exception ... the acclamation: "When we eat this ..... (no, they're not really saying this, are they?) and drink this ..... (I've never drunk a 'cup' before!)". So much for transubstantiation!
There is a delicate balance between 'contemplative' and 'charismatic'. I learned late in life that at the core of every charismatic there must be a contemplative, because what would I do on a desert island or in a jail cell? However, all of you must remember that "we" are the community of the Kingdom; we must love our neighbor as ourselves; we are called to share the Good News IN the world; and that "we" have to recognize that there are "charismatics" among us and, like it or not, they bring a wonderful lively aspect of the Spirit into our midst. Yes, they try to join hands during the Lord's Prayer, but for God's sake, don't kill them off. (Did you know that the rubrics for Mass allow "family members" to join hands during the Lord's Prayer? Let's just use Eucharistic Prayer 3 ... "Father hear the prayers of the FAMILY You have gathered here before You" and we're safe!)
Blessings in abundance, all the best, and ENJOY!
Art in Carlisle PA USA
8.29.2010 | 8:46am
James Kabala says:
"The best explanation I have yet heard for the Novus Ordo Mass is this: it is the children's Mass.
That is, the NO Mass is accommodated to people who have an extremely low-level understanding of theology and God. For this reason, it is the most accessible Mass for a largely pagan population."
I don't know what on Earth people hope to gain by inflammatory comments of this type.
That is, the NO Mass is accommodated to people who have an extremely low-level understanding of theology and God. For this reason, it is the most accessible Mass for a largely pagan population."
I don't know what on Earth people hope to gain by inflammatory comments of this type.
8.29.2010 | 8:48am
James Kabala says:
The thing I find most interesting about the Tridentine vs. Novus Ordo debate is that it takes place almost exclusively among professional Catholics and intellectuals. If you asked 100 Catholics "How was the Mass different before Vatican II?," 99 would answer "It was in Latin and the priest faced the other way." Maybe a few would also mention that there was no sign of peace. The many small changes in prayers, the addition of three new Eucharistic prayers, the question of sacrifice vs. meal, the ABC reading cycle - these are things of which the average Catholic has no awareness.
I am not saying that that is a good thing - one could say it is very bad that today's Catholics are so ill-informed about liturgical history. But it is something that people who debate these issues ought to take into account, and very few do.
I am not saying that that is a good thing - one could say it is very bad that today's Catholics are so ill-informed about liturgical history. But it is something that people who debate these issues ought to take into account, and very few do.
8.29.2010 | 9:14am
Diane says:
Do you really think, that if Jesus Christ came back among us, here in the United States, he would speak to us in Latin?
I don't. The church is the people and if you want the people to respond and participate in the Mass, they why should it be in a different language?
When Christ was celebrating the last supper, he faced his friends and disciples, he did not turn his back on them.
Why do those in authority in the Church continually look back instead of forward?
I don't. The church is the people and if you want the people to respond and participate in the Mass, they why should it be in a different language?
When Christ was celebrating the last supper, he faced his friends and disciples, he did not turn his back on them.
Why do those in authority in the Church continually look back instead of forward?
8.29.2010 | 1:56pm
Lisa Waites says:
I am not Catholic, and so perhaps my opinion won't be particularly welcome amidst this heated debate, but I am a church musician, composer, and theology student who has witnessed the wounds of the "worship wars" from a variety of Protestant perspectives, and I have collected a few battle scars of my own over the years. I think one sentence in particular from Rutler's piece is instructive for all of us who follow Christ.
"Neglect of the aesthetics of worship is not remedied by the worship of aesthetics."
Oh, that we the people of the holy Catholic church (the one I confess when I recite the Apostle's creed too, by the way) would simply worship God rather than idolizing the forms we use to lift our praise. Oh, that we would be willing to submit our liturgical preferences (whatever they are) at the foot of the cross, laying down that which burdens us, that which is too heavy for us to carry. Christ alone is able to bear the weight of our sin, our selfishness, our disordered desire. How loudly we clamour for our favourite hymns or prayers. How easily we point our fingers at those who disagree. How quickly we abandon the grace of God, leaving God at the altar while we chase after that which can never satisfy, seeking satisfaction on our own terms. We demand what seems good to us, perhaps forgetting to ask what the purpose of Christian worship actually is, and to Whom it belongs. What are we attempting to do, and as we do it, whose glory do we seek?
Of course the choices that our various traditions prayerfully and thoughtfully make regarding music and language are important. Of course both the history and the vision of the Church matters. Of course it is right and good to have a lively discussion over these issues in a terrific e-journal like this one, which I often read with great pleasure.
But I also think it is vitally important for us to remember that the purpose of our scholarly commentary is not to score points on First Things, but to peacefully learn what we can from each other, joyfully re-presenting our First Love in word and deed.
"Neglect of the aesthetics of worship is not remedied by the worship of aesthetics."
Oh, that we the people of the holy Catholic church (the one I confess when I recite the Apostle's creed too, by the way) would simply worship God rather than idolizing the forms we use to lift our praise. Oh, that we would be willing to submit our liturgical preferences (whatever they are) at the foot of the cross, laying down that which burdens us, that which is too heavy for us to carry. Christ alone is able to bear the weight of our sin, our selfishness, our disordered desire. How loudly we clamour for our favourite hymns or prayers. How easily we point our fingers at those who disagree. How quickly we abandon the grace of God, leaving God at the altar while we chase after that which can never satisfy, seeking satisfaction on our own terms. We demand what seems good to us, perhaps forgetting to ask what the purpose of Christian worship actually is, and to Whom it belongs. What are we attempting to do, and as we do it, whose glory do we seek?
Of course the choices that our various traditions prayerfully and thoughtfully make regarding music and language are important. Of course both the history and the vision of the Church matters. Of course it is right and good to have a lively discussion over these issues in a terrific e-journal like this one, which I often read with great pleasure.
But I also think it is vitally important for us to remember that the purpose of our scholarly commentary is not to score points on First Things, but to peacefully learn what we can from each other, joyfully re-presenting our First Love in word and deed.
8.29.2010 | 4:08pm
Eric says:
Aaron,
It's an interesting theological question that I will look into, "was the last supper also the Eucharist?" I suspect it was. That is was before the Crucifixion may not be relevant. He died for sins I had not yet committed, after all. Ordinary time/space jurisdictions don't apply to the Eucharist. And the scriptural defense of transubstantiation revolves, in part, on his saying "this IS my body" "this IS my blood". It would be ironic if the first Eucharist was 'just a symbol'.
I understand the symbolism of ad orientem. I don't believe it is necessary to the perception of the Eucharist as sacrifice. When I go to Church I contemplate the Eucharist as sacrifice. The orientation of the priest does not cut me off from this. There is nothing definitive in his orientation that prevents me from recognizing it.
This is not wrangling on my part. I went to a EF Mass in Latin with the priest ad orientem and - lex orendi, lex credendi - I immediately perceived a gap between the way of praying and my belief. It is not to say that the Latin mass was wrong in it's expression, but that it seemed incomplete. I identify this with the orientation of the priest. What seemed incomplete in the Latin Mass is, perhaps not coincidentally, the same as that which is incomplete in your description of the meaning of the Mass.
On my perception of the Mass as communal meal you write: "this is not what Mass is about at all. Mass is about remembering in a very real way our sin, and Christ's Sacrifice for that sin, and partaking in Christ's Sacrifice through Communion."
There seems to be recurring theme here of reducing the depth of the Eucharist by declaring it as 'only' the sacrifice. I repeat, from the Catechism:
"The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated, and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's body and blood."
I am not confused about the theology of the Eucharist, and I don't have a Protestant hangover. I have a vision of the Eucharist that is enriched by an appreciation of its fullness as both Sacrifice and Banquet of Communion.
Why do you think there are so many parables about wedding feasts and festive celebrations, all of which would enjoin food and drink? You move past the Last Supper to the Cross, when you should carry the Last Supper with you to the Cross to fully understand it.
By way of comparison, it is as if I said baptism is about dying to sin and about being reborn to new life. And you reply, no, "it is about dying to sin". Well, yes, it is. But that does not exhaust the riches of its meaning.
My impression of ad orientem is that it reduces the clarity of the full meaning of Eucharist by eroding the sense in which it is sacrifice and also, inseparably, banquet.
Finally, to say that "The meal is no longer about togetherness, but about Christ," is also a misunderstanding of the significance of the Eucharist, again reflecting an impoverished perspective. Togetherness is, to be sure, not the end (i.e telos) of the Eucharist. It is, however, an integral part of the Eucharist.
Togetherness is only possible through the Eucharist and is a direct consequence of it. Communion (com+unis) is not accidentally an alternative name for the Eucharist. The unity of God and his people is most perfectly achieved through the Eucharist. Through the Eucharist we have togetherness in Christ.
Sacrosanctum Concilium 50 Reads:
"The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved."
Intrinsic nature, several parts, connection between them.
My opinion is that the Novus Ordo Mass achieves this better with the reorientation of the priest. I would be willing to bet $10,000 that if you asked everyone in my Parish after Mass, "was Fr. Edmund praying to you during the consecration?" they would all say, No. And think you were crazy for asking.
Chris, you decried commentors as "overly-liturgical protestants," described all forms as protestantism as heresy, and then requested that I abandon all forms of protestantism. That comes pretty close to calling me a heretic.
I've read your quote from Ratzinger. You paraphrase in a way that makes his, admittedly strong words, repellent and offensive. As for the Pope, I would love to have a conversation with him about his, and plan to read the books that people have been suggesting. From the excerpts that I have read, I would say that my experience of the Mass as it is celebrated sometimes veers into community self-worship, but, in my experience, more often stays the course of worshiping God.
Denigrating the Novus Ordo as mostly inauthentic worship that borders on, or crosses into, heresy is no good. I encounter Christ in the Mass; the Living God. This is neither fruitless nor heretical.
Sorry I likened you to Curran. That really is low.
Peace.
Eric
It's an interesting theological question that I will look into, "was the last supper also the Eucharist?" I suspect it was. That is was before the Crucifixion may not be relevant. He died for sins I had not yet committed, after all. Ordinary time/space jurisdictions don't apply to the Eucharist. And the scriptural defense of transubstantiation revolves, in part, on his saying "this IS my body" "this IS my blood". It would be ironic if the first Eucharist was 'just a symbol'.
I understand the symbolism of ad orientem. I don't believe it is necessary to the perception of the Eucharist as sacrifice. When I go to Church I contemplate the Eucharist as sacrifice. The orientation of the priest does not cut me off from this. There is nothing definitive in his orientation that prevents me from recognizing it.
This is not wrangling on my part. I went to a EF Mass in Latin with the priest ad orientem and - lex orendi, lex credendi - I immediately perceived a gap between the way of praying and my belief. It is not to say that the Latin mass was wrong in it's expression, but that it seemed incomplete. I identify this with the orientation of the priest. What seemed incomplete in the Latin Mass is, perhaps not coincidentally, the same as that which is incomplete in your description of the meaning of the Mass.
On my perception of the Mass as communal meal you write: "this is not what Mass is about at all. Mass is about remembering in a very real way our sin, and Christ's Sacrifice for that sin, and partaking in Christ's Sacrifice through Communion."
There seems to be recurring theme here of reducing the depth of the Eucharist by declaring it as 'only' the sacrifice. I repeat, from the Catechism:
"The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated, and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's body and blood."
I am not confused about the theology of the Eucharist, and I don't have a Protestant hangover. I have a vision of the Eucharist that is enriched by an appreciation of its fullness as both Sacrifice and Banquet of Communion.
Why do you think there are so many parables about wedding feasts and festive celebrations, all of which would enjoin food and drink? You move past the Last Supper to the Cross, when you should carry the Last Supper with you to the Cross to fully understand it.
By way of comparison, it is as if I said baptism is about dying to sin and about being reborn to new life. And you reply, no, "it is about dying to sin". Well, yes, it is. But that does not exhaust the riches of its meaning.
My impression of ad orientem is that it reduces the clarity of the full meaning of Eucharist by eroding the sense in which it is sacrifice and also, inseparably, banquet.
Finally, to say that "The meal is no longer about togetherness, but about Christ," is also a misunderstanding of the significance of the Eucharist, again reflecting an impoverished perspective. Togetherness is, to be sure, not the end (i.e telos) of the Eucharist. It is, however, an integral part of the Eucharist.
Togetherness is only possible through the Eucharist and is a direct consequence of it. Communion (com+unis) is not accidentally an alternative name for the Eucharist. The unity of God and his people is most perfectly achieved through the Eucharist. Through the Eucharist we have togetherness in Christ.
Sacrosanctum Concilium 50 Reads:
"The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved."
Intrinsic nature, several parts, connection between them.
My opinion is that the Novus Ordo Mass achieves this better with the reorientation of the priest. I would be willing to bet $10,000 that if you asked everyone in my Parish after Mass, "was Fr. Edmund praying to you during the consecration?" they would all say, No. And think you were crazy for asking.
Chris, you decried commentors as "overly-liturgical protestants," described all forms as protestantism as heresy, and then requested that I abandon all forms of protestantism. That comes pretty close to calling me a heretic.
I've read your quote from Ratzinger. You paraphrase in a way that makes his, admittedly strong words, repellent and offensive. As for the Pope, I would love to have a conversation with him about his, and plan to read the books that people have been suggesting. From the excerpts that I have read, I would say that my experience of the Mass as it is celebrated sometimes veers into community self-worship, but, in my experience, more often stays the course of worshiping God.
Denigrating the Novus Ordo as mostly inauthentic worship that borders on, or crosses into, heresy is no good. I encounter Christ in the Mass; the Living God. This is neither fruitless nor heretical.
Sorry I likened you to Curran. That really is low.
Peace.
Eric
8.29.2010 | 4:17pm
Lisa says:
Lisa,
Well said.
What I like most about this conversation is that, however heated it can become, it is between people who would have God praised in the best way.
Ad orientem and Latin vs. Vernacular are not so much a matter of aesthetics, but of theology.
I think we almost universally agree that most new Churches are ugly and don't look like Churches. The music is mostly terrible, as is most Church music produced since the mid 1900's. The art, if there is any, is often incomprehensible and/or theologically off-side. The American Church has a terrible translation of the Bible (thank God, in Canada we don't use that!). And the wording of the liturgy could use serious improvement (here's hoping on the current revision).
Eric
Well said.
What I like most about this conversation is that, however heated it can become, it is between people who would have God praised in the best way.
Ad orientem and Latin vs. Vernacular are not so much a matter of aesthetics, but of theology.
I think we almost universally agree that most new Churches are ugly and don't look like Churches. The music is mostly terrible, as is most Church music produced since the mid 1900's. The art, if there is any, is often incomprehensible and/or theologically off-side. The American Church has a terrible translation of the Bible (thank God, in Canada we don't use that!). And the wording of the liturgy could use serious improvement (here's hoping on the current revision).
Eric
8.30.2010 | 7:37am
Ben Dunlap says:
Eric,
You said: "My opinion is that the Novus Ordo Mass achieves this better with the reorientation of the priest"
There are a couple of replies I'd like to make that I don't think have already been hashed through in this thread.
First, there's nothing in the liturgical books of the Novus Ordo that calls for a reorientation of the priest. "Versus populum" celebration has nonetheless become the standard practice, but even the latest edition of the Roman Missal (published in 2000 or 2002, I can't remember which) includes several rubrics that direct the priest to turn toward the people at various points in the mass, which implies that the Missal assumes that the priest is not facing the people for the rest of the time.
This is very odd and I don't mention it here to be a rubricist or to make a "no true Scotsman" argument, but more to prepare for my second point, which is this: Even the best theological criticism of a particular liturgical form ends up falling short if it does not first fully consider the question of what the liturgy is and how we -- both as individuals and corporately as the Church -- ought to be related to it.
The first half of Ratzinger's "Spirit of the Liturgy" is devoted to exploring this question, and it's a rich and rewarding text; the argument, surprisingly enough, centers on an exegesis of liturgical texts that occur very early in the Old Testament.
My personal reflections on this question have lately gotten me thinking that there are two kinds of liturgical fidelity that the Church needs. The more obvious one is individual: We all need to use the liturgy that the Church gives us, and make our peace with it.
Priests can't be ad-libbing, and the people ought to do their best to devoutly participate in the liturgy as it's actually written, even when that drives them up the wall -- perhaps even especially when it drives them up the wall for the best theological reasons.
But the second kind of liturgical fidelity is corporate. The Church herself must faithfully hand on what she has been given -- exercising appropriate stewardship where needed, of course, but always with a significance reticence about changing the form of prayer that our fathers have handed down to us.
In my opinion the liturgical reform of 1970 did not exercise this second kind of fidelity to the extent that it should have. As far as I can tell, this is also the opinion of Pope Benedict and of many serious, devout, and orthodox liturgical scholars.
The Missal which the 1970 reform produced, then -- while it may be theologically excellent in many ways -- is liturgically deficient in a very important way, insofar as its departure from what had come before was unprecedented in the (very very old) history of the Roman Rite.
And one unhappy consequence of this failure of corporate stewardship is that the other kind of liturgical fidelity has suffered as well. I'm certain that individual liturgical fidelity -- priests being attentive to rubrics, avoiding ad-libbing, etc. -- depends to a great extent on the demonstration of corporate fidelity by the Church's central authority.
CCC 1124-5 sums it up in what Ratzinger called "golden words":
"1124. The Church's faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles ... Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.
1125. For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community. Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy."
And I would draw this conclusion: Individual priests or communities can only feel "religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy", in the deepest and most abiding way, when they can clearly see the Church herself leading the way in demonstrating that respect.
I should point out that I am not, in any way, criticizing Vatican II's call for a reformed Missal. But I am saying that the Missal we got in 1970 was almost certainly not what Vatican II called for.
Is it nonetheless theologically excellent in many ways? Of course! it was the product of much informed labor and prayer and many good intentions.
Does it also sever us, in many ways, from the living Roman liturgical tradition, that stretches back at least to the 6th century? Yes, and that's a cause for great regret and the basis of the desire, on the part of many, for a "reform of the reform".
To take this back to 'ad orientem', then: There are undoubtedly good theological arguments for either style of celebration. But the weight of tradition should aways bear heavily on any liturgical question. And I think that fact has been tragically obscured since 1970.
You said: "My opinion is that the Novus Ordo Mass achieves this better with the reorientation of the priest"
There are a couple of replies I'd like to make that I don't think have already been hashed through in this thread.
First, there's nothing in the liturgical books of the Novus Ordo that calls for a reorientation of the priest. "Versus populum" celebration has nonetheless become the standard practice, but even the latest edition of the Roman Missal (published in 2000 or 2002, I can't remember which) includes several rubrics that direct the priest to turn toward the people at various points in the mass, which implies that the Missal assumes that the priest is not facing the people for the rest of the time.
This is very odd and I don't mention it here to be a rubricist or to make a "no true Scotsman" argument, but more to prepare for my second point, which is this: Even the best theological criticism of a particular liturgical form ends up falling short if it does not first fully consider the question of what the liturgy is and how we -- both as individuals and corporately as the Church -- ought to be related to it.
The first half of Ratzinger's "Spirit of the Liturgy" is devoted to exploring this question, and it's a rich and rewarding text; the argument, surprisingly enough, centers on an exegesis of liturgical texts that occur very early in the Old Testament.
My personal reflections on this question have lately gotten me thinking that there are two kinds of liturgical fidelity that the Church needs. The more obvious one is individual: We all need to use the liturgy that the Church gives us, and make our peace with it.
Priests can't be ad-libbing, and the people ought to do their best to devoutly participate in the liturgy as it's actually written, even when that drives them up the wall -- perhaps even especially when it drives them up the wall for the best theological reasons.
But the second kind of liturgical fidelity is corporate. The Church herself must faithfully hand on what she has been given -- exercising appropriate stewardship where needed, of course, but always with a significance reticence about changing the form of prayer that our fathers have handed down to us.
In my opinion the liturgical reform of 1970 did not exercise this second kind of fidelity to the extent that it should have. As far as I can tell, this is also the opinion of Pope Benedict and of many serious, devout, and orthodox liturgical scholars.
The Missal which the 1970 reform produced, then -- while it may be theologically excellent in many ways -- is liturgically deficient in a very important way, insofar as its departure from what had come before was unprecedented in the (very very old) history of the Roman Rite.
And one unhappy consequence of this failure of corporate stewardship is that the other kind of liturgical fidelity has suffered as well. I'm certain that individual liturgical fidelity -- priests being attentive to rubrics, avoiding ad-libbing, etc. -- depends to a great extent on the demonstration of corporate fidelity by the Church's central authority.
CCC 1124-5 sums it up in what Ratzinger called "golden words":
"1124. The Church's faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles ... Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.
1125. For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community. Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy."
And I would draw this conclusion: Individual priests or communities can only feel "religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy", in the deepest and most abiding way, when they can clearly see the Church herself leading the way in demonstrating that respect.
I should point out that I am not, in any way, criticizing Vatican II's call for a reformed Missal. But I am saying that the Missal we got in 1970 was almost certainly not what Vatican II called for.
Is it nonetheless theologically excellent in many ways? Of course! it was the product of much informed labor and prayer and many good intentions.
Does it also sever us, in many ways, from the living Roman liturgical tradition, that stretches back at least to the 6th century? Yes, and that's a cause for great regret and the basis of the desire, on the part of many, for a "reform of the reform".
To take this back to 'ad orientem', then: There are undoubtedly good theological arguments for either style of celebration. But the weight of tradition should aways bear heavily on any liturgical question. And I think that fact has been tragically obscured since 1970.
8.30.2010 | 7:41am
Scott says:
While I appreciate the article as it stands, agreement is made with so many of the respondends. If we want a true language of the Mass, Hebrew seems to be the original. I believe the apostles adapted to the local people to preach the word. Paul spoke many languages and did not try to preach to the Greeks in Hebrew. When the world spoke Latin, speak Latin. If we are vilified for bad priests, weed out the priests not the language. I believe that Marion apparitions have always spoken the local languages...take a hint. I too do not believe i would have joined THE Church 20 yrs ago if the mass was in Latin. I have seen very reverent priests celebrate mass in english and hebrew and other languages. I have seen priests that should be run out of town irreverently throw the Blessed Sacrament around and they would do it no matter the language. They are poor priests either way.
Music. Wow. What a topic. Have you found a few lowly mortals in a parish of 350 people that can sing chant? I can't. Now, if you are in the big city, where you can pay song leaders, have at it. I am 4 hrs drive from any city big enough to try. Go to a LifeTeen Steubenville conference sometime and tell me if worship is not in modern music as well. Remember, in the time of Pope Gregory, chant was modern music and Mozart wasn't always classical. People, get off your "pius" high horse and take advantage of worship fully, actively and conciously at all masses. Your biases keep you from true worship. Your sacrosanctimony speaks much louder than your love of God.
Music. Wow. What a topic. Have you found a few lowly mortals in a parish of 350 people that can sing chant? I can't. Now, if you are in the big city, where you can pay song leaders, have at it. I am 4 hrs drive from any city big enough to try. Go to a LifeTeen Steubenville conference sometime and tell me if worship is not in modern music as well. Remember, in the time of Pope Gregory, chant was modern music and Mozart wasn't always classical. People, get off your "pius" high horse and take advantage of worship fully, actively and conciously at all masses. Your biases keep you from true worship. Your sacrosanctimony speaks much louder than your love of God.
8.30.2010 | 7:52am
Dan says:
Great article, Father Rutler. I am not as bothered by the attempt at "inclusive language" but I suppose that is because I grew up with it. King James version? Haven't spent more than 30 minutes reading it, in my entire life. Otherwise, I heartily concur with everything you have said. Well done.
8.30.2010 | 9:47am
Ben Dunlap says:
"If we want a true language of the Mass, Hebrew seems to be the original. I believe the apostles adapted to the local people to preach the word."
I don't think the argument for Latin is so much about what was originally used by Jesus and the Apostles, as it is about the tradition of the Roman Rite. There are a wide variety of liturgical rites in the Church -- many in the East and a handful in the West -- and the world-wide Church has used a wide variety of liturgical languages since very early on.
But the Roman Rite was celebrated exclusively in Latin for at least a thousand years before 1970, and probably for much longer. The use of Latin in western Catholic worship persisted, by tradition, long after Latin had disappeared from everyday speech in the West.
I'm sure there are many reasons for this, some good and some bad, but given the extremely long tradition and given that Vatican II explicitly called for the laity to have a working familiarity with the Latin of the Mass, it seems a shame that we've more or less abandoned Latin in practice in our worship.
Do we need to go back to everything in Latin including the readings? Of course not. But we absolutely need to reconnect with the ancient tradition of our rite, which means among many other things that we Roman-Rite Catholics still ought to use at least a little bit of Latin in our everyday worship.
I don't think the argument for Latin is so much about what was originally used by Jesus and the Apostles, as it is about the tradition of the Roman Rite. There are a wide variety of liturgical rites in the Church -- many in the East and a handful in the West -- and the world-wide Church has used a wide variety of liturgical languages since very early on.
But the Roman Rite was celebrated exclusively in Latin for at least a thousand years before 1970, and probably for much longer. The use of Latin in western Catholic worship persisted, by tradition, long after Latin had disappeared from everyday speech in the West.
I'm sure there are many reasons for this, some good and some bad, but given the extremely long tradition and given that Vatican II explicitly called for the laity to have a working familiarity with the Latin of the Mass, it seems a shame that we've more or less abandoned Latin in practice in our worship.
Do we need to go back to everything in Latin including the readings? Of course not. But we absolutely need to reconnect with the ancient tradition of our rite, which means among many other things that we Roman-Rite Catholics still ought to use at least a little bit of Latin in our everyday worship.
8.30.2010 | 11:29am
Lisa Waites says:
Good Morning Eric,
Your response to my post has made me very curious - in your opinion, what has made most of the music in the church terrible since the mid 1900's? Why are you dissatisfied? I ask because I am a composer and because I believe that we don't have to sacrifice good theology to have pleasing aesthetics in worship.
Actually, how can one exist without the other? God is beautiful. When God is represented faithfully, evocative beauty is necessarily present. Are you saying that most church music does not faithfully represent God? If so, is it the lyrics or the music itself that you think is inadequate?
Hoping to learn from your perspective,
Lisa
Your response to my post has made me very curious - in your opinion, what has made most of the music in the church terrible since the mid 1900's? Why are you dissatisfied? I ask because I am a composer and because I believe that we don't have to sacrifice good theology to have pleasing aesthetics in worship.
Actually, how can one exist without the other? God is beautiful. When God is represented faithfully, evocative beauty is necessarily present. Are you saying that most church music does not faithfully represent God? If so, is it the lyrics or the music itself that you think is inadequate?
Hoping to learn from your perspective,
Lisa
8.30.2010 | 12:49pm
Ken says:
As much as I appreciate all the the wishes and words for restoration, I can't help but notice the fact that many priests who wish and speak for Latin and ad orientem as the norm do not do this themselves at their daily novus ordo.
The only way there is going to be a counter-revolution is if good men lead. Not just talk. Not just wish. But lead.
When all of the above priests start saying no-more to the vernacular and facing away from the tabernacle as their daily practice, I'd take these arguments more seriously. This is not a request for everyone to return to the traditional Latin Mass (my ultimate desire). But my point is priests have a lot of power they are not currently using. A better use of time would be to use ONLY Latin and ONLY ad orientem as a start in one's parish and see how it goes. Then write about that.
The only way there is going to be a counter-revolution is if good men lead. Not just talk. Not just wish. But lead.
When all of the above priests start saying no-more to the vernacular and facing away from the tabernacle as their daily practice, I'd take these arguments more seriously. This is not a request for everyone to return to the traditional Latin Mass (my ultimate desire). But my point is priests have a lot of power they are not currently using. A better use of time would be to use ONLY Latin and ONLY ad orientem as a start in one's parish and see how it goes. Then write about that.
8.30.2010 | 1:19pm
Jeff says:
I particularly liked his point about the horrendous translations in the New American Bible and others like it. Tin ear city, but something more insidious than that I've always felt.
8.30.2010 | 1:59pm
Rodolfo says:
Do we need more witnesses that those of the total annihilation of the worship of the Church, with this NOM? Clown in masses, altar girls, all kind of liturgical deviations in the name of enculturation, so as the “people of God” feel as if it they were at a party. We supposed being worshiping God but, the NOM resemblance a gathering of people who meet there to have a nice meeting.
8.30.2010 | 2:07pm
Eric says:
Lisa,
I preface these comments by making clear that my impression is just that, an impression. I don’t study music, can’t play music, and am not well informed on what goes on, musically, on a broad scale. However, I have attended a number of Catholic Churches and, for years before that, several evangelical Churches.
First, I would say that most people’s taste in music is really bad. There is a lot of good music, but most of what most people like is really, really bad. I mean music generally, not just Church music. It’s a mystery to me why this is so. Almost all pop music is bad. The individuals performing each part may be very skilled, but the whole is just not good. People with bad taste will make bad music. People with bad taste will exert pressure to have bad music around them. This spills over into Church.
Second, the appropriateness of the music is a part of the problem. Indeed, we can have pleasing aesthetics in worship. It seems to be quite a feat to have people who are a) Christian, b) theologically aware, c) have good taste and d) either compose music in light of a, b, and c or direct in a Church setting music in light of a, b, and c.
Pop music comes back into this. Most evangelical churches have worship music that is, or comes close to, pop music. I follow Plato in The Republic in thinking that music has an impact on us that is not (at least not only) subjective. Pop music within the context of a Catholic liturgy is not appropriate. It can be appropriate in a separate worship setting that is not a liturgy, but not in a liturgy. Many evangelical Churches, who tend to have better musicians and better managed music, border on having a worship services that are hybrid worship-entertainment gatherings. Culturally, I don’t have a problem with that, but if it is the primary mode of weekly worship it is gravely flawed. The effect the music has on us is not supportive of the work of the liturgy. Music should be, as you say, evocative, or, I prefer, incubative of particular spiritual dispositions. We need to evoke the right dispositions.
Third, the lyrics are often too individualistic, or are theologically unsound, or direct attention away from what is going on in the Mass, or are just ugly. The old hymns are great insofar as they avoid this problem, typically. Also, the music should help to enlighten us. To paraphrase Norman Brown, Church music is overly sentimental if on its way to the heart it gets stuck in the tear ducts.
By way of example of bad Church music, I recently went to a Mass where a girl sang a solo while the congregants received the Eucharist. She had a beautiful voice and sang with great emotion and wonderful timing. She was the centre of attention. Once she finished, people applauded. For a serious Catholic, that is nothing less than brutal. She would be great on American Idol, but has no place singing like that in a Mass and the effect was 100% other than it should have been. This is also a sign of the ‘self-worship’ indictment mentioned in past comments. There is serious blasphemy at work when people applaud a ‘performer’ at the height of Mass.
An example of new music that I think is well done are the chants from Taize. They are simple. The lyrics are either biblical or traditional. They are designed to and successfully facilitate prayer (lectio divina). The encompass the liturgy at Taize, but do not draw attention away from the liturgy. They are perfectly interchangeable as individual songs or communal songs. For example, they can be prayed with 6000 people or, as is done every night in my home, with children before bed. The accompanying instruments can be weak, but the chants themselves are good.
In summary, I think Church music should follow the maxim mentioned above, lex orendi, lex credendi . As you pray, so you believe. It should point beyond us to dwell on the work and glory of God and reflect the beauty of its subject.
I looked at your web site, but my computer won’t play the music for some reason.
Kind Regards,
Eric Milner
Calgary, AB
I preface these comments by making clear that my impression is just that, an impression. I don’t study music, can’t play music, and am not well informed on what goes on, musically, on a broad scale. However, I have attended a number of Catholic Churches and, for years before that, several evangelical Churches.
First, I would say that most people’s taste in music is really bad. There is a lot of good music, but most of what most people like is really, really bad. I mean music generally, not just Church music. It’s a mystery to me why this is so. Almost all pop music is bad. The individuals performing each part may be very skilled, but the whole is just not good. People with bad taste will make bad music. People with bad taste will exert pressure to have bad music around them. This spills over into Church.
Second, the appropriateness of the music is a part of the problem. Indeed, we can have pleasing aesthetics in worship. It seems to be quite a feat to have people who are a) Christian, b) theologically aware, c) have good taste and d) either compose music in light of a, b, and c or direct in a Church setting music in light of a, b, and c.
Pop music comes back into this. Most evangelical churches have worship music that is, or comes close to, pop music. I follow Plato in The Republic in thinking that music has an impact on us that is not (at least not only) subjective. Pop music within the context of a Catholic liturgy is not appropriate. It can be appropriate in a separate worship setting that is not a liturgy, but not in a liturgy. Many evangelical Churches, who tend to have better musicians and better managed music, border on having a worship services that are hybrid worship-entertainment gatherings. Culturally, I don’t have a problem with that, but if it is the primary mode of weekly worship it is gravely flawed. The effect the music has on us is not supportive of the work of the liturgy. Music should be, as you say, evocative, or, I prefer, incubative of particular spiritual dispositions. We need to evoke the right dispositions.
Third, the lyrics are often too individualistic, or are theologically unsound, or direct attention away from what is going on in the Mass, or are just ugly. The old hymns are great insofar as they avoid this problem, typically. Also, the music should help to enlighten us. To paraphrase Norman Brown, Church music is overly sentimental if on its way to the heart it gets stuck in the tear ducts.
By way of example of bad Church music, I recently went to a Mass where a girl sang a solo while the congregants received the Eucharist. She had a beautiful voice and sang with great emotion and wonderful timing. She was the centre of attention. Once she finished, people applauded. For a serious Catholic, that is nothing less than brutal. She would be great on American Idol, but has no place singing like that in a Mass and the effect was 100% other than it should have been. This is also a sign of the ‘self-worship’ indictment mentioned in past comments. There is serious blasphemy at work when people applaud a ‘performer’ at the height of Mass.
An example of new music that I think is well done are the chants from Taize. They are simple. The lyrics are either biblical or traditional. They are designed to and successfully facilitate prayer (lectio divina). The encompass the liturgy at Taize, but do not draw attention away from the liturgy. They are perfectly interchangeable as individual songs or communal songs. For example, they can be prayed with 6000 people or, as is done every night in my home, with children before bed. The accompanying instruments can be weak, but the chants themselves are good.
In summary, I think Church music should follow the maxim mentioned above, lex orendi, lex credendi . As you pray, so you believe. It should point beyond us to dwell on the work and glory of God and reflect the beauty of its subject.
I looked at your web site, but my computer won’t play the music for some reason.
Kind Regards,
Eric Milner
Calgary, AB
8.30.2010 | 2:33pm
Ben Dunlap says:
"It seems to be quite a feat to have people who are a) Christian, b) theologically aware, c) have good taste and d) either compose music in light of a, b, and c or direct in a Church setting music in light of a, b, and c."
Here again is where tradition can come to the rescue, at least for the music directors. Strictly speaking there's no need to sing any hymns at mass at all, except perhaps for a recessional. The Roman Rite already has an official songbook (the Graduale Romanum) with biblical text and suitable music prescribed for every Sunday of the year -- at the entrance, between the readings, at the offertory, and during communion. Some of these Propers have been sung by western Catholics for at least a thousand years on the particular Sunday to which they're assigned. And some of them have been sung for much longer than that.
There are also many simplified editions of these Propers, in Latin and in English (and presumably in other languages), and many of these are available for free online; e.g.:
http://musicasacra.com/communio/
So in the same way that one can look to tradition to sidestep the thorny theological debates about the direction the priest faces during mass -- one can also move away from the endless and unresolvable debate over matters of taste in music, once again by taking one's primary cues from the western ritual tradition. And all of this can be done right now, today, in the context of the Novus Ordo, with very little cash outlay and without the need for highly-trained musicians.
Here again is where tradition can come to the rescue, at least for the music directors. Strictly speaking there's no need to sing any hymns at mass at all, except perhaps for a recessional. The Roman Rite already has an official songbook (the Graduale Romanum) with biblical text and suitable music prescribed for every Sunday of the year -- at the entrance, between the readings, at the offertory, and during communion. Some of these Propers have been sung by western Catholics for at least a thousand years on the particular Sunday to which they're assigned. And some of them have been sung for much longer than that.
There are also many simplified editions of these Propers, in Latin and in English (and presumably in other languages), and many of these are available for free online; e.g.:
http://musicasacra.com/communio/
So in the same way that one can look to tradition to sidestep the thorny theological debates about the direction the priest faces during mass -- one can also move away from the endless and unresolvable debate over matters of taste in music, once again by taking one's primary cues from the western ritual tradition. And all of this can be done right now, today, in the context of the Novus Ordo, with very little cash outlay and without the need for highly-trained musicians.
8.30.2010 | 3:01pm
Eric says:
Ben,
You're right.
Also, regarding the NO you said "Is it nonetheless theologically excellent in many ways? Of course! it was the product of much informed labor and prayer and many good intentions."
I appreciate that, and the rest of your post. One of the things I find difficult about this subject is that it often seems that reform-of-the-reform traditionalists find the NO Mass completely lacking. When it is done well it can be very well-prayed and does not detract from orthodox worship.
Eric
You're right.
Also, regarding the NO you said "Is it nonetheless theologically excellent in many ways? Of course! it was the product of much informed labor and prayer and many good intentions."
I appreciate that, and the rest of your post. One of the things I find difficult about this subject is that it often seems that reform-of-the-reform traditionalists find the NO Mass completely lacking. When it is done well it can be very well-prayed and does not detract from orthodox worship.
Eric
8.30.2010 | 5:42pm
Mitchell says:
Whether in Latin, English, Spanish or whatever language for one to say they would not heed Christ's calling oneself to the Church because of the language prayed at Mass is lazy, selfish and the defeat of one's soul. The fact remains the Church has been here for thousands of years and Latin has been its' Mother Tongue for hundreds. To be a Catholic one should have respect for Latin and the Church's traditions. To learn a few prayers in Latin shows one's devotion to the Catholic Church. In the age of internet, texting, multitasking etc. if a convert can not learn a few things it is of sheer laziness. This is a clear case of looking at what the Church can do for you and not what you can do for the Church. Vernacular has its' place but not at the disappearance of Latin. For those who do not want to learn a few prayers in Latin, you have your vernacular Mass, so what is the problem for those of us who prefer to follow the Church's traditions and what the Magesterium has to say about the subject? Is the fear that you may have to study something outside the 1 hour at Mass? Or learn something YOU feel un-necessary? Too many little popes in the Church, that is a problem.
8.30.2010 | 6:15pm
Anon, MP says:
Eric,
With all due respect, You were formed a Protestant. You are concverting to Catholicism. Mass in Latin is the normative for the Catholic Church. Either OF or EF. If we are allowed the vernacular to further our understanding than it should be embraced as just that. Allowed. We should all journey to do in ht eFaith as the Church would like. And that is to retain Latin, for parts pertaining to the people , that can easily be memorized. If you can not do it upon your conversion you, we all, should strive for that in our lifetimes, knowing that there in no penalty for not doing so. It does not change the facts. Latin is our patrimony and to be a Catholic, truly, is too accept all our traditions, even if you prefer not to learn them. Active participation could be noted to include learning a few things, including some Latin prayers. Nothing comes overnight but during the course of one's lifetime continual exposure to Latin will foster the understanding. That is a fact with anything with continual exposure. Your preference to not do so, echoed by a few more posting here does not scream Roman Catholic as much as you might wish it to. Outright opposition to the traditions of our Faith and what makes us different from others can never be good for the Church. Just because you think you understand that which you deem most important does not negate the rest of what it is to be Catholic. Latin is part of that, our identity. Think a little, you may not be ready to convert. The above is meant in all charity for our Faith as a whole. I will pray for you.
With all due respect, You were formed a Protestant. You are concverting to Catholicism. Mass in Latin is the normative for the Catholic Church. Either OF or EF. If we are allowed the vernacular to further our understanding than it should be embraced as just that. Allowed. We should all journey to do in ht eFaith as the Church would like. And that is to retain Latin, for parts pertaining to the people , that can easily be memorized. If you can not do it upon your conversion you, we all, should strive for that in our lifetimes, knowing that there in no penalty for not doing so. It does not change the facts. Latin is our patrimony and to be a Catholic, truly, is too accept all our traditions, even if you prefer not to learn them. Active participation could be noted to include learning a few things, including some Latin prayers. Nothing comes overnight but during the course of one's lifetime continual exposure to Latin will foster the understanding. That is a fact with anything with continual exposure. Your preference to not do so, echoed by a few more posting here does not scream Roman Catholic as much as you might wish it to. Outright opposition to the traditions of our Faith and what makes us different from others can never be good for the Church. Just because you think you understand that which you deem most important does not negate the rest of what it is to be Catholic. Latin is part of that, our identity. Think a little, you may not be ready to convert. The above is meant in all charity for our Faith as a whole. I will pray for you.
8.30.2010 | 6:30pm
Ben Dunlap says:
Eric, I've been reading Adrian Fortescue's "The Mass" recently. The first half is a historical study of the Roman Rite. Lovely book. It's a little older (1912 I think), so I'm sure some of the scholarship is out of date, but on the other hand it completely avoids getting into our modern liturgical wars because those were not even on the horizon when the book was written.
At any rate I've found the book to be softening my view of the 1970 reform while at the same time sharpening my critique of it, if that makes sense.
I guess I mean that the more I study the history of the Mass, the more I can begin to understand what the reformers in the late 1960s were aiming at, and to sympathize with their goals -- while at the same time seeing even more clearly that they went off the rails somewhere along the line.
Fortescue is a brilliant wit as well. He keeps this mostly under wraps in the book but it sneaks out continually, especially in the footnotes. Great stuff.
At any rate I've found the book to be softening my view of the 1970 reform while at the same time sharpening my critique of it, if that makes sense.
I guess I mean that the more I study the history of the Mass, the more I can begin to understand what the reformers in the late 1960s were aiming at, and to sympathize with their goals -- while at the same time seeing even more clearly that they went off the rails somewhere along the line.
Fortescue is a brilliant wit as well. He keeps this mostly under wraps in the book but it sneaks out continually, especially in the footnotes. Great stuff.
8.30.2010 | 6:55pm
Bender says:
It is amazing that all these protesters of the last 40 years should be considering themselves to be faithful traditionalists. Apparently they think that the Church is merely a human construct, that it was and is merely subjective human actions that were involved in the development of the liturgy, that the Church has been in error, and the Holy Spirit was nowhere to be seen.
Truth be told -- they and the progressives are two sides of the same coin.
It is incredibly sad that they cannot find it in themselves to love the Church, but must instead be CONSTANTLY complaining about the Mass, the music, the orientation, altar servers, bishops, priests, EMHCs, the conduct of other people, the way others dress, the architecture, the homilies, the theology, CCD, RCIA, and on and on, some of it bordering on blasphemy.
Oh if we only had some TRUE traditionalists -- people who, with tradition, did not believe themselves to be competent to judge the Church, who did not believe themselves to be popes unto themselves, and did not have the prideful audacity to criticize her at every opportunity, as well as engage in obnoxious insults and condescension toward fellow Catholics. Oh, if we only had some true traditionalists who knew the meaning of charity in truth.
Truth be told -- they and the progressives are two sides of the same coin.
It is incredibly sad that they cannot find it in themselves to love the Church, but must instead be CONSTANTLY complaining about the Mass, the music, the orientation, altar servers, bishops, priests, EMHCs, the conduct of other people, the way others dress, the architecture, the homilies, the theology, CCD, RCIA, and on and on, some of it bordering on blasphemy.
Oh if we only had some TRUE traditionalists -- people who, with tradition, did not believe themselves to be competent to judge the Church, who did not believe themselves to be popes unto themselves, and did not have the prideful audacity to criticize her at every opportunity, as well as engage in obnoxious insults and condescension toward fellow Catholics. Oh, if we only had some true traditionalists who knew the meaning of charity in truth.
8.30.2010 | 8:24pm
Ben Dunlap says:
"Mass in Latin is the normative for the Catholic Church ... the traditions of our Faith ... the rest of what it is to be Catholic. Latin is part of that, our identity".
What you say is absolutely true about the Roman Rite, but I think it's important to be very careful about identifying "the Roman Rite" with "the Faith". There are plenty of Catholics in the world who are in full and visible communion with the successor of Peter, but worship God according to ancient traditions that have nothing at all to do with the Latin language, and never have.
Melkites, Maronites, Syro-Malabars, Ruthenians, Chaldeans... the list is long. These people, in their millions, "hold and teach the Catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles", and many of them have done so since the time of the apostles, without uttering a syllable of Latin all the while.
Seems to me that if you hold that Latin is some sort of Catholic uber-language, you actually end up weakening the case for the day-to-day use of Latin in the Roman-Rite liturgy. If Latin is /the/ language of the Church, but the Syro-Malankars and the Ethiopians don't have to use it in worship, why should I use it either?
The stronger argument is that Latin is the precious liturgical inheritance of the Roman Rite and should be cherished as such by those who worship God according to the Roman Rite. The rest of the Church needn't concern themselves with Latin much at all, at least in their liturgies.
What you say is absolutely true about the Roman Rite, but I think it's important to be very careful about identifying "the Roman Rite" with "the Faith". There are plenty of Catholics in the world who are in full and visible communion with the successor of Peter, but worship God according to ancient traditions that have nothing at all to do with the Latin language, and never have.
Melkites, Maronites, Syro-Malabars, Ruthenians, Chaldeans... the list is long. These people, in their millions, "hold and teach the Catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles", and many of them have done so since the time of the apostles, without uttering a syllable of Latin all the while.
Seems to me that if you hold that Latin is some sort of Catholic uber-language, you actually end up weakening the case for the day-to-day use of Latin in the Roman-Rite liturgy. If Latin is /the/ language of the Church, but the Syro-Malankars and the Ethiopians don't have to use it in worship, why should I use it either?
The stronger argument is that Latin is the precious liturgical inheritance of the Roman Rite and should be cherished as such by those who worship God according to the Roman Rite. The rest of the Church needn't concern themselves with Latin much at all, at least in their liturgies.
8.30.2010 | 10:50pm
Eric says:
Ben,
Thanks. I'll try to track that book down, though it may not be easy to find. I also plan on looking at Guardini's "Spirit of the Liturgy".
The irony about this conversation on my side is that a) every night I sing prayers in Latin to my children, and b) the Church we regularly attend uses the Kyrie (Greek!), and Latin responses for the sanctus and agnus Dei as well as O Salutaris every Friday for exposition and adoration.
Ha!
We do have girl altar servers, though, so perdition still nips at our heels.
Also, nice idea transforming your lawn into a native plant garden.
Thanks. I'll try to track that book down, though it may not be easy to find. I also plan on looking at Guardini's "Spirit of the Liturgy".
The irony about this conversation on my side is that a) every night I sing prayers in Latin to my children, and b) the Church we regularly attend uses the Kyrie (Greek!), and Latin responses for the sanctus and agnus Dei as well as O Salutaris every Friday for exposition and adoration.
Ha!
We do have girl altar servers, though, so perdition still nips at our heels.
Also, nice idea transforming your lawn into a native plant garden.
8.30.2010 | 11:34pm
Ben Dunlap says:
Eric,
The Fortescue I've got is a 1999 reprint by a publishing house called "Preserving Christian Publications". Apparently they're still in business and selling a hardback edition on the Web: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=2488718761
Thanks for your kind comments.
The Fortescue I've got is a 1999 reprint by a publishing house called "Preserving Christian Publications". Apparently they're still in business and selling a hardback edition on the Web: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=2488718761
Thanks for your kind comments.
8.31.2010 | 1:08am
Roseanne Sullivan says:
I am delighted with Fr. Rutler's writing. I never read anything of his before. Intelligent, witty, and erudite summary of just the truth. Now I want to read more of his writings. I am smitten, simply smitten. Now I wonder, why doesn't anyone else who writes about these matters send out such brilliant sparks?
8.31.2010 | 6:11am
Lucien Tenebrae says:
Anyone who thinks he "understands" the words of the Mass because it's in English and not Latin is sadly mistaken. There is the Deepest of Mysteries at work here from the dawn of time, and a facile understanding of the language only obscures things further.
8.31.2010 | 7:20am
George says:
Concerning how Jesus might have sat at the Last Supper, I submit that this should not be at issue for the Mass. The Mass is not a recreation of the Last Supper although Jesus did institute the form and matter of the Eucharist, and established the priesthood then.
The point of ad orientem is to direct our hearts toward God interiorly with the help of outward posture.
Ad populum, as experience well shows, tends to turn the Mass into a performance rather than an act of worship.
The point of ad orientem is to direct our hearts toward God interiorly with the help of outward posture.
Ad populum, as experience well shows, tends to turn the Mass into a performance rather than an act of worship.
8.31.2010 | 8:37am
john says:
I can't believe so many people think it matters to God whether the priest is facing East or West. This seems like a matter of more concern to astrologists than those who believe in God as Jesus knew Him.
8.31.2010 | 10:21am
Fr. Hugo says:
I am convinced that Vatican II was a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church. We haven't yet fully experienced the fruit of Vatican II. One reason is that too much was said and done in the "spirit of Vatican II" without fully understanding the true message of Vatican II. That has led to turmoil within the Church.
We are in need of a liturgical language that can help us in our worship and praise of God. The new English translation of the Liturgy should help move our liturgical celebrations in the right direction.
We are in need of a return to sacred music in our liturgies that can inspire and help raise our minds and hearts to God. Pope Benedict XVI is leading us in that direction.
We are in need of a mystical language that can help lead us into a deeper and intimate relationship with the living God. A mystical language is similar to a lover's language. In the mystical language, Christ is the Lover and the soul is the beloved.
Instead of spending much time and energy trying to find the right answer to our questions and trying to solve problems, I believe the Holy Spirit wants us to find the right questions to ask, and then find ways to live with the right questions with a confident trust in Divine Providence.
We are privileged to live at a time in history when the Holy Spirit is about to bring about a renewal of the Church. We are facing great trials and tribulations now as the Holy Spirit is leading the Church through a purification and purging. We need to go through the pain and suffering that has been brought about by the turmoil and scandals within the Church. Do not be afraid. The Light of Christ is about to shine through the darkness.
The Holy Spirit is preparing men and women to become God-fearing leaders in the Church. The Holy Spirit is raising up both men and women, young and old, to be witnesses of a great out-pouring of grace upon the Church and the world. The Holy Spirit is calling us into holiness of life. The Holy Spirit is raising up saints for the Church of today and for the Church of tomorrow. Do not be afraid.
We are in need of a liturgical language that can help us in our worship and praise of God. The new English translation of the Liturgy should help move our liturgical celebrations in the right direction.
We are in need of a return to sacred music in our liturgies that can inspire and help raise our minds and hearts to God. Pope Benedict XVI is leading us in that direction.
We are in need of a mystical language that can help lead us into a deeper and intimate relationship with the living God. A mystical language is similar to a lover's language. In the mystical language, Christ is the Lover and the soul is the beloved.
Instead of spending much time and energy trying to find the right answer to our questions and trying to solve problems, I believe the Holy Spirit wants us to find the right questions to ask, and then find ways to live with the right questions with a confident trust in Divine Providence.
We are privileged to live at a time in history when the Holy Spirit is about to bring about a renewal of the Church. We are facing great trials and tribulations now as the Holy Spirit is leading the Church through a purification and purging. We need to go through the pain and suffering that has been brought about by the turmoil and scandals within the Church. Do not be afraid. The Light of Christ is about to shine through the darkness.
The Holy Spirit is preparing men and women to become God-fearing leaders in the Church. The Holy Spirit is raising up both men and women, young and old, to be witnesses of a great out-pouring of grace upon the Church and the world. The Holy Spirit is calling us into holiness of life. The Holy Spirit is raising up saints for the Church of today and for the Church of tomorrow. Do not be afraid.
8.31.2010 | 11:27am
pdn Michael says:
Ahem! Some time ago, Holy Week to be exact, I joined a discussion here that included many of the same and many similar comments.
I confess that I have not read all the posts here, but I still think its safe to say that, just like that earlier string, I don't find one of the participants here who even mentions the notion of "thanksgiving" which, after all, is the most precise definition we have in English for "Eucharist."
In that former string I tried to point out that what the Orthodox perceive as an over-concentration on sacrifice on the part of Western Christians in general loses stifles, at least to some extent, the sense of thankfulness we should always not only experience, but that we should "bring to" Sunday morning. Particularizing notions of "sacrifice" cause us to lose sight of the fact that the entire liturgical act presents us the opportunity to participate in the entire life of God in Christ; his sacrifice, to be sure, but also his incarnation, his transfiguration, his presentation in the temple, his resurrection and his ascension and, significantly, "his second coming which he is yet to make." (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). ALL of that, not merely the sacrifice of Christ, is present in the celebration of the Eucharist.
This is also the "facing East" trump card in my book (of course, it is in the Orthodox Liturgy book, too:) ). It's a conscious corporate effort to lose our life in That Life. Fr. Rutler has it exactly right here, it is all of us pointing, directing our worship to him.
I confess that I have not read all the posts here, but I still think its safe to say that, just like that earlier string, I don't find one of the participants here who even mentions the notion of "thanksgiving" which, after all, is the most precise definition we have in English for "Eucharist."
In that former string I tried to point out that what the Orthodox perceive as an over-concentration on sacrifice on the part of Western Christians in general loses stifles, at least to some extent, the sense of thankfulness we should always not only experience, but that we should "bring to" Sunday morning. Particularizing notions of "sacrifice" cause us to lose sight of the fact that the entire liturgical act presents us the opportunity to participate in the entire life of God in Christ; his sacrifice, to be sure, but also his incarnation, his transfiguration, his presentation in the temple, his resurrection and his ascension and, significantly, "his second coming which he is yet to make." (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). ALL of that, not merely the sacrifice of Christ, is present in the celebration of the Eucharist.
This is also the "facing East" trump card in my book (of course, it is in the Orthodox Liturgy book, too:) ). It's a conscious corporate effort to lose our life in That Life. Fr. Rutler has it exactly right here, it is all of us pointing, directing our worship to him.
8.31.2010 | 1:12pm
Lisa Waites says:
Hi Eric,
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my post yesterday. I appreciated hearing your perspective in large part because you are not musician! I think that it is very helpful for composers to hear what listeners long for in the Church, and to consider what might be motivating those preferences.
I agree that much of what we call worship today does not adequately "point beyond us to dwell on the work and glory of God", nor does it appropriately "reflect the beauty of its subject." Yet I am also increasingly convinced that musical reform by itself cannot accomplish what you are asking for, no matter how aesthetically tasteful or theologically solid the repertoire may be.
I believe that our biggest difficulty is our artificial separation of the musical gift from the life of the Giver. If worship music is to truly point us beyond ourselves, then it must participate in the work and glory of God. If music is to reflect the beauty of its subject, then technical or artistic excellence (though important) cannot be used as the ultimate measure of its worth. Music is good if it is saturated by God, who by His own presence makes it beautiful. Trying to form people’s spiritual dispositions by making less individualistic and more theologically sound musical choices may be beneficial in the sense that the repertoire may then do less damage to the body of Christ, but for vibrant health in the Church, something much more than this is needed. Our sacramental imagination (or lack thereof) affects all the arts, but in my opinion, music is particularly disposed toward not only describing but also participating in God’s epiphany to the world. It is participation in the Triune Life that allows worship to be made real, and music can convey this reality with stunning clarity as a faithful part of the liturgy.
Unfortunately, as you pointed out in your example of “bad Church music,” many of our congregations have either forgotten or have apparently never actually learned how to praise God in ways that would have been considered properly Christian by the early Church. Because of this neglect or ignorance, idolatrous entertainment has gradually displaced Christian worship to an extent that I personally find alarming. Sometimes we have even encouraged this in the name of “progress” or “cultural relevance”. Much of the discontent that we have over “worship music” in the Church is not really about the genre, instrumentation, or age of the pieces in question. This may be the presenting conflict, and it may be very noisy, but the real issue is much deeper than the tempo or the texture of the music.
As I see it, if we are not only able to have a performer at Mass, but are able to clap for her during the Eucharist, then we have badly misunderstood the purpose and function of liturgical music. Have we unwittingly become ecclesial imitators of pop culture even at worship, rather than faithful disciples who bear witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the living tradition of the Church? In the words of James K.A. Smith, “Worship is the ordering and reordering of our material being to the end for which it was meant.” Glorification of the musicians isn’t part of the plan!
I appreciate your interest in my composing, and I don't know why you had difficulty hearing the music. Everything seems fine from the "control room" view at Reverb Nation. I've attempted to paste a song link here.
http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_4939125
This particular hymn is titled "Glory Be". If you visit the website again and are still having problems, you could leave me your email address there and I will gladly send you the music directly in a “tune pack”. I would be interested in hearing your opinion, although I’m not certain that I can claim everything on your list as a composer. I am a Christian, and I am trying to become more theologically aware, but as for having good taste, well, you’ll have to have a listen and make up your own mind! I am delighted to have found a theologically-minded neighbour, and have enjoyed this exchange of ideas.
Blessings,
Lisa
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my post yesterday. I appreciated hearing your perspective in large part because you are not musician! I think that it is very helpful for composers to hear what listeners long for in the Church, and to consider what might be motivating those preferences.
I agree that much of what we call worship today does not adequately "point beyond us to dwell on the work and glory of God", nor does it appropriately "reflect the beauty of its subject." Yet I am also increasingly convinced that musical reform by itself cannot accomplish what you are asking for, no matter how aesthetically tasteful or theologically solid the repertoire may be.
I believe that our biggest difficulty is our artificial separation of the musical gift from the life of the Giver. If worship music is to truly point us beyond ourselves, then it must participate in the work and glory of God. If music is to reflect the beauty of its subject, then technical or artistic excellence (though important) cannot be used as the ultimate measure of its worth. Music is good if it is saturated by God, who by His own presence makes it beautiful. Trying to form people’s spiritual dispositions by making less individualistic and more theologically sound musical choices may be beneficial in the sense that the repertoire may then do less damage to the body of Christ, but for vibrant health in the Church, something much more than this is needed. Our sacramental imagination (or lack thereof) affects all the arts, but in my opinion, music is particularly disposed toward not only describing but also participating in God’s epiphany to the world. It is participation in the Triune Life that allows worship to be made real, and music can convey this reality with stunning clarity as a faithful part of the liturgy.
Unfortunately, as you pointed out in your example of “bad Church music,” many of our congregations have either forgotten or have apparently never actually learned how to praise God in ways that would have been considered properly Christian by the early Church. Because of this neglect or ignorance, idolatrous entertainment has gradually displaced Christian worship to an extent that I personally find alarming. Sometimes we have even encouraged this in the name of “progress” or “cultural relevance”. Much of the discontent that we have over “worship music” in the Church is not really about the genre, instrumentation, or age of the pieces in question. This may be the presenting conflict, and it may be very noisy, but the real issue is much deeper than the tempo or the texture of the music.
As I see it, if we are not only able to have a performer at Mass, but are able to clap for her during the Eucharist, then we have badly misunderstood the purpose and function of liturgical music. Have we unwittingly become ecclesial imitators of pop culture even at worship, rather than faithful disciples who bear witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the living tradition of the Church? In the words of James K.A. Smith, “Worship is the ordering and reordering of our material being to the end for which it was meant.” Glorification of the musicians isn’t part of the plan!
I appreciate your interest in my composing, and I don't know why you had difficulty hearing the music. Everything seems fine from the "control room" view at Reverb Nation. I've attempted to paste a song link here.
http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_4939125
This particular hymn is titled "Glory Be". If you visit the website again and are still having problems, you could leave me your email address there and I will gladly send you the music directly in a “tune pack”. I would be interested in hearing your opinion, although I’m not certain that I can claim everything on your list as a composer. I am a Christian, and I am trying to become more theologically aware, but as for having good taste, well, you’ll have to have a listen and make up your own mind! I am delighted to have found a theologically-minded neighbour, and have enjoyed this exchange of ideas.
Blessings,
Lisa
8.31.2010 | 1:56pm
Isaac says:
While some traditionalists certainly go over the top in their criticisms of the last 40 years, I think that any rational observer would have to concede that the fruits of Vatican II have not been good. Pope Paul VI himself admitted that somehow "the smoke of Satan has entered the Temple of God" following the council. Pope Benedict has repeatedly referred to the Novus Ordo Missae as a "banal, on-the-spot product." Dietrich von Hildebrand, referred to as a 20th-century Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius XII, infamously wrote in "The Devastated Vineyard" that "Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better." Is Pope Benedict a Schismatic? Were Pope Paul VI and von Hildebrand? Being a faithful Catholic does not mean that one must abandon all reason and judgment and blindly accept every prudential decision of every pope and council as good. Popes err, bishops err, and even Ecumenical Councils can err when not teaching infallibly. Are we required to be obedient to the Pope in even in disciplinary matters? Of course! Are we required to agree with him in all of his decisions? Of course not! At the end of the day, I think we Catholics need to sadly admit that Vatican II was a deeply flawed council that has had horrible consequences for the Church throughout the world. The only way to experience a new springtime is to roll back the vast majority of the changes of the last 40 years while putting out unambiguous clarifications of Vatican II documents that leave no room for a liberal/modernist interpretation. Before anyone criticizes my treatment of Vatican II, please read "The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber" and "Pope John's Council." These two histories of the council (one by a moderate/liberal, one by a traditionalist) should put to rest any doubt that the crisis of the last 40 years lies squarely at the feet of the overly ambiguous Vatican II documents themselves. Was it a valid council? Of course. Did it teach heresy? No, but its documents contained ambiguous phrases (i.e. "the Church of Christ 'subsists in' the Catholic Church") that allowed modernist Catholics to have a field day muddying the doctrinal waters after the Council.
8.31.2010 | 2:08pm
Isaac says:
For Bender specifically, I want to add this addendum to my earlier comment:
The reason that (most) traditionalists criticize the path the Church has taken in the past 40 years is because they love Her so much. A liberal wing of bishops and "experts" at the Council and afterward thought that by "modernizing" the church they would renew Her and that a new springtime would result. Instead, their well-intended reforms resulted in a mass exodus from the priesthood and religious life, a rapid and severe reduction in vocations, a horrible deterioration in Mass attendance, and the near-destruction of catechesis in an entire generation of Catholic youth. In the wake of this mass destruction, what could the proper response be other than anger and criticism? Christ guaranteed that Hell would never prevail against His Church, but he never guaranteed that Hell would not make inroads, or that Hell would seem to be advancing toward victory for long stretches of time. I don't think that it's abandoning trust in Christ to say that maybe we shouldn't wait until Hell has 99% prevailed against the Church to stand up and try to undo the damage. Certainly that last 1% will never fall, but do we just abandon the other 99% and hope that somehow things get better while we sing our Marty Haugen and lament that no one is teaching our children about the reality of sin?
The reason that (most) traditionalists criticize the path the Church has taken in the past 40 years is because they love Her so much. A liberal wing of bishops and "experts" at the Council and afterward thought that by "modernizing" the church they would renew Her and that a new springtime would result. Instead, their well-intended reforms resulted in a mass exodus from the priesthood and religious life, a rapid and severe reduction in vocations, a horrible deterioration in Mass attendance, and the near-destruction of catechesis in an entire generation of Catholic youth. In the wake of this mass destruction, what could the proper response be other than anger and criticism? Christ guaranteed that Hell would never prevail against His Church, but he never guaranteed that Hell would not make inroads, or that Hell would seem to be advancing toward victory for long stretches of time. I don't think that it's abandoning trust in Christ to say that maybe we shouldn't wait until Hell has 99% prevailed against the Church to stand up and try to undo the damage. Certainly that last 1% will never fall, but do we just abandon the other 99% and hope that somehow things get better while we sing our Marty Haugen and lament that no one is teaching our children about the reality of sin?
8.31.2010 | 4:05pm
As always I appreciate Father Rutlers comments. I never forgot your talk about giving conditonal absolution to the firemen on the 11th of September AD 2001. Now as to some recommedations to other commentators look into these:
www.fisheaters.com; www.latinmass-ctm.org; www.latinmassmagazine.org; www.keepthefaith.org; www.olvs.org or www.lepantopress; www.voiceofcatholicradio.com.
Books- 1. Douay(-ai) Rheims bible, 2. The Catechism of the Council of Trent or The Catechism explained by Spirago-Clarke, 3. Confessions of a Roman Catholic and the Catholic church has the answer by Fr. Paul Whitcomb (Converted from protestantism in the 1950's), 4. Pillars of fire by Dr. Karl Stern.
Converts- Greta Palmer, Hamish Frasier
Information about why latin is used and much information can be looked into at these websites and books.
Tu Iesu per Mariae
www.fisheaters.com; www.latinmass-ctm.org; www.latinmassmagazine.org; www.keepthefaith.org; www.olvs.org or www.lepantopress; www.voiceofcatholicradio.com.
Books- 1. Douay(-ai) Rheims bible, 2. The Catechism of the Council of Trent or The Catechism explained by Spirago-Clarke, 3. Confessions of a Roman Catholic and the Catholic church has the answer by Fr. Paul Whitcomb (Converted from protestantism in the 1950's), 4. Pillars of fire by Dr. Karl Stern.
Converts- Greta Palmer, Hamish Frasier
Information about why latin is used and much information can be looked into at these websites and books.
Tu Iesu per Mariae
8.31.2010 | 7:56pm
Remember these actors: Daniel (Danny) Thomas, Jamie Farr, and radio host Casey Kasem are all of Lebanese descent. The actor Gregory Peck is of Armenian descent. Look at the movie "The Scarlet and the Black" at the end a credit to Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty is shown.
As to latin remember the Maronite catholics, in Lebanon, use Aramaic (is this a dead language?), and in the synagogue and mosque are used Hebrew and Arabic; not vernacular. A dead language cannot become corrupted. As when latin was universal (Katolitokos in Greek) it made sense, and most likely inspired by the Holy Ghost, to use this language so that even should the priest not speak each others language they could communicate and the same with documents. Worship and following the teachings of Holy Mother church can be taught by the priest, monks and nuns to the people.
Just as penance is to be done until we die so too must we study our faith.
God be with you.
As to latin remember the Maronite catholics, in Lebanon, use Aramaic (is this a dead language?), and in the synagogue and mosque are used Hebrew and Arabic; not vernacular. A dead language cannot become corrupted. As when latin was universal (Katolitokos in Greek) it made sense, and most likely inspired by the Holy Ghost, to use this language so that even should the priest not speak each others language they could communicate and the same with documents. Worship and following the teachings of Holy Mother church can be taught by the priest, monks and nuns to the people.
Just as penance is to be done until we die so too must we study our faith.
God be with you.
8.31.2010 | 11:43pm
Bender says:
Isaac -- you are twisting and distorting what those men said for your own personal ends.
Yes, one of the poor fruits of the "Spirit of Vatican II" is that even self-proclaimed traditionalists feel free to twist and distort truth in this way.
Yes, one of the poor fruits of the "Spirit of Vatican II" is that even self-proclaimed traditionalists feel free to twist and distort truth in this way.
9.1.2010 | 12:18am
BernadetteY says:
I am also a convert from the Episcopal church and can't wait until the Apostolic Constitution becomes a reality.
Some of you should to the Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church, San Antonio, TX and watch their video of the Anglican Use Mass.
It is beautiful and reverent and in English. VII did not intend on many of the innovations that some Bishops, priests and laypeople have done to the NO.
Once they were put in place it was difficult to correct them. They are taken from the protestant churches. Thank God for Pope Benedict who has seen the harm and is trying to bring back the reverence. There are many Bishops and priests who do not believe in the teachings of the Church today, just as has happened in the Anglican Communion. Look where they are now?
I am lucky to attend a traditional parish where they have both the TLM and the NO, but all is done in order and the hymns are traditional.
If someone wants a more protestant liturgy try the Episcopal church. In most of the NO parishes I have attended everyone is talking before Mass and several times the priest is going up and down the aisle talking to people. Sorry but I go to Mass to worship Christ. Try preparing for Communion when everyone is talking and running around visiting. These are the problems I see with the NO. I didn't convert to just become another type of protestant.
Latin can be beautiful and there should be parishes in every city that celebrate the TLM for those who want it.
Some of you should to the Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church, San Antonio, TX and watch their video of the Anglican Use Mass.
It is beautiful and reverent and in English. VII did not intend on many of the innovations that some Bishops, priests and laypeople have done to the NO.
Once they were put in place it was difficult to correct them. They are taken from the protestant churches. Thank God for Pope Benedict who has seen the harm and is trying to bring back the reverence. There are many Bishops and priests who do not believe in the teachings of the Church today, just as has happened in the Anglican Communion. Look where they are now?
I am lucky to attend a traditional parish where they have both the TLM and the NO, but all is done in order and the hymns are traditional.
If someone wants a more protestant liturgy try the Episcopal church. In most of the NO parishes I have attended everyone is talking before Mass and several times the priest is going up and down the aisle talking to people. Sorry but I go to Mass to worship Christ. Try preparing for Communion when everyone is talking and running around visiting. These are the problems I see with the NO. I didn't convert to just become another type of protestant.
Latin can be beautiful and there should be parishes in every city that celebrate the TLM for those who want it.
9.1.2010 | 5:58am
Isaac says:
Bender - how am I twisting their words? Have you read "The Devastated Vineyard"? How about "Spirit of the Liturgy"? You seem to have some sort of vendetta against those of a more traditionalist mindset. Unless you substantiate your accusations with some sort of actual evidence, I'm afraid that there is no point in arguing with you.
9.1.2010 | 8:26am
paul says:
The best English translation of the Bible is Monsignor Ronald Knox's, which was authorized for pubic use by the hierarchy of England and Wales in 1946.
Once one reads this, no other translation seems adequate.
Once one reads this, no other translation seems adequate.
9.1.2010 | 10:03am
Tom R says:
******
I think there should be few options in the Liturgy, and no attempt to be “creative,” for that is God’s particular talent. As Vatican II taught in Sacrosanctum Concilium, "[T]here must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”
******
I have a real problem, not with the intent of this paragraph, but its phrasing. There is a good reason for maintaining a constancy in the Mass, that reason being tradition. When the tradition is universal, as it once was, the followers could reasonably be members of one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, instead of drones who can tell each other, "Oh, we don't do that in our parish."
However, to say that "no attempt to be “creative,” for that is God’s particular talent" is a denial of the manifestation of God in the Mass. For, it is only through human creativity, inspired by the divine revelation of Christ, that the Mass came into being. It is precisely why Paul wrote of many parts, but one body. God manifests his creativity in his very creation. Since we are created in his image and [i]likeness[/i] we can, and should be, creative.
Having said this, I agree that we've lost tradition, and that is a very bad thing.
I think there should be few options in the Liturgy, and no attempt to be “creative,” for that is God’s particular talent. As Vatican II taught in Sacrosanctum Concilium, "[T]here must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”
******
I have a real problem, not with the intent of this paragraph, but its phrasing. There is a good reason for maintaining a constancy in the Mass, that reason being tradition. When the tradition is universal, as it once was, the followers could reasonably be members of one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, instead of drones who can tell each other, "Oh, we don't do that in our parish."
However, to say that "no attempt to be “creative,” for that is God’s particular talent" is a denial of the manifestation of God in the Mass. For, it is only through human creativity, inspired by the divine revelation of Christ, that the Mass came into being. It is precisely why Paul wrote of many parts, but one body. God manifests his creativity in his very creation. Since we are created in his image and [i]likeness[/i] we can, and should be, creative.
Having said this, I agree that we've lost tradition, and that is a very bad thing.
9.1.2010 | 1:52pm
Kathy from Kansas says:
In response to Julia's comment:
"Mass is not a pep rally to sing about what we're going to do or how we feel.
The place for that kind of thing is outside the Mass - before or after or at a different place and time. "
I heartily agree. As a Catholic "revert" (came back to the Catholic Church only after years as a Protestant), one thing I love about the Protestant church communities that I know is that there is a WEALTH of activities outside the Sunday worship, from youth groups, Sunday school and family activity nights to Bible studies and "small groups" that meet every week, year after year. There has been far less of this in most Catholic parishes, and so the functions of all those other activities get tacked on to the Mass--and the Mass was simply not meant to serve all those other functions. The Mass is our corporate worship. That is all.
People have legitimate needs for personal sharing, folk/praise songs, and giving each other slaps on the back. But the Mass is not meant to bear the burden of trying to meet all those needs. Those needs would and should be met in the healthy variety of other activities and groups that should be ongoing on in our parishes.
Sorry, but the Protestants do have something to teach us in that regard.
"Mass is not a pep rally to sing about what we're going to do or how we feel.
The place for that kind of thing is outside the Mass - before or after or at a different place and time. "
I heartily agree. As a Catholic "revert" (came back to the Catholic Church only after years as a Protestant), one thing I love about the Protestant church communities that I know is that there is a WEALTH of activities outside the Sunday worship, from youth groups, Sunday school and family activity nights to Bible studies and "small groups" that meet every week, year after year. There has been far less of this in most Catholic parishes, and so the functions of all those other activities get tacked on to the Mass--and the Mass was simply not meant to serve all those other functions. The Mass is our corporate worship. That is all.
People have legitimate needs for personal sharing, folk/praise songs, and giving each other slaps on the back. But the Mass is not meant to bear the burden of trying to meet all those needs. Those needs would and should be met in the healthy variety of other activities and groups that should be ongoing on in our parishes.
Sorry, but the Protestants do have something to teach us in that regard.
9.2.2010 | 12:22pm
Mundabor says:
Beautiful article, Father.
I wish I had had priests like you when I was younger. And I wish I could see more priests like you around now that I am an adult.
Brick by brick, as they say.....
M
I wish I had had priests like you when I was younger. And I wish I could see more priests like you around now that I am an adult.
Brick by brick, as they say.....
M
9.3.2010 | 9:07pm
JFM says:
I'm no longer RC, and happily so and having so stated I'm reluctant to comment on your internal struggles. But after carefully reading almost all of the comments (I really must get a life), I have some questions and observations.
Isn't this entire debate a bit of a rather precious exercise engaged in by zealots and pedants and completely off the radar of John and Mary average Catholic? Isn't the Vatican acutely aware that growth is in Africa and Asia where there is almost no appetite for a Latin mass? Wouldn't a command to Africans (or even Latin Americans) to abandon the vernacular (and African liturgical dance) and adopt Gregorian chant be greeted with derisive laughter and mass exodus to pentacostal Protestantism or at least Anglicanism? Don't traddie Catholics put far too much blame on the NO and ignore all of the changes in Western secular culture, morals, and society in the last 40 years (I'm a child of the 60's so I speak from personal experience) which really account for a general decline in ALL denominations? Finally, wouldn't some of you feel more comfortable in the SSPX fold which you already are in spirit if not in fact?
Isn't this entire debate a bit of a rather precious exercise engaged in by zealots and pedants and completely off the radar of John and Mary average Catholic? Isn't the Vatican acutely aware that growth is in Africa and Asia where there is almost no appetite for a Latin mass? Wouldn't a command to Africans (or even Latin Americans) to abandon the vernacular (and African liturgical dance) and adopt Gregorian chant be greeted with derisive laughter and mass exodus to pentacostal Protestantism or at least Anglicanism? Don't traddie Catholics put far too much blame on the NO and ignore all of the changes in Western secular culture, morals, and society in the last 40 years (I'm a child of the 60's so I speak from personal experience) which really account for a general decline in ALL denominations? Finally, wouldn't some of you feel more comfortable in the SSPX fold which you already are in spirit if not in fact?
9.5.2010 | 3:30pm
Christine says:
Bender wrote, “Apparently they think that the Church is merely a human construct, that it was and is merely subjective human actions that were involved in the development of the liturgy, that the Church has been in error, and the Holy Spirit was nowhere to be seen.”
On the contrary, the Holy Spirit has been working—particularly when it intervened to guide Pope Paul VI to reject the Consilium’s request to remove the canon from the Mass.
Bender later writes, “It is incredibly sad that [traditionalists] cannot find it in themselves to love the Church, but must instead be CONSTANTLY complaining about the Mass, the music, the orientation, altar servers, bishops, priests, EMHCs…”
On the contrary, it is traditionalists’ deep love for Holy Mother Church that obliges us to point out inauthentic practices that disserve Her. Have you ever studied the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium? Are you aware that 99% of modern Novus Ordo Masses are *not* in compliance with its directives? The irony is that modern liturgists are always talking about following the “spirit of Vatican II,” yet they refuse to follow this so-called spirit when VII’s documents order them to do what they don’t like.
Paragraph 55 only allowed communion under both kinds under extremely limited circumstances. It was never supposed to be the norm. Lest you’re unaware, it was the Protestant reformers who reintroduced the practice of communion under both kinds, to undermine the Catholic belief in the Eucharist as oblation.
P. 114: “The Church acknowledges Gregorian Chant as specially suited to the Roman Liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” When was the last time your parish allowed Gregorian Chant during its liturgy, much less given it *pride of place*?
Nothing was ever said in SC of changing the centuries-old norm of communion on the tongue, kneeling to receive, all-male altar servers, the role of EMHCs, or of Mass ad orientem. All of these were later innovations foisted from above on the laity, who meekly accepted them, in spite of the fact that some of these innovations were actually liturgical abuses introduced by disobedient bishops.
When Pope Paul VI introduced the Novus Ordo Mass, it was the hope of the liturgists that it would bring a renewal of faith in the Catholic Church. The facts show the exact opposite: thousands of people left the Church, vocations nosedived, priests and religious abandoned their vows of celibacy in order to marry or cohabitate, and belief in the true Presence in the Eucharist dropped.
Today, 70% of Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation. And it’s not clear all our priests do either, considering the way the Eucharist is treated in many parishes—as nonchalantly as if it were mere bread.
I love Holy Mother Church and my Catholic faith too much to let it go to pieces. The pseudoliturgists of the 60s have had their say, and the results have been abysmal. Traditionalists are trying to rescue the Church from further decay—and we won’t be silenced by modernists trying to shout us down or namecall.
On the contrary, the Holy Spirit has been working—particularly when it intervened to guide Pope Paul VI to reject the Consilium’s request to remove the canon from the Mass.
Bender later writes, “It is incredibly sad that [traditionalists] cannot find it in themselves to love the Church, but must instead be CONSTANTLY complaining about the Mass, the music, the orientation, altar servers, bishops, priests, EMHCs…”
On the contrary, it is traditionalists’ deep love for Holy Mother Church that obliges us to point out inauthentic practices that disserve Her. Have you ever studied the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium? Are you aware that 99% of modern Novus Ordo Masses are *not* in compliance with its directives? The irony is that modern liturgists are always talking about following the “spirit of Vatican II,” yet they refuse to follow this so-called spirit when VII’s documents order them to do what they don’t like.
Paragraph 55 only allowed communion under both kinds under extremely limited circumstances. It was never supposed to be the norm. Lest you’re unaware, it was the Protestant reformers who reintroduced the practice of communion under both kinds, to undermine the Catholic belief in the Eucharist as oblation.
P. 114: “The Church acknowledges Gregorian Chant as specially suited to the Roman Liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” When was the last time your parish allowed Gregorian Chant during its liturgy, much less given it *pride of place*?
Nothing was ever said in SC of changing the centuries-old norm of communion on the tongue, kneeling to receive, all-male altar servers, the role of EMHCs, or of Mass ad orientem. All of these were later innovations foisted from above on the laity, who meekly accepted them, in spite of the fact that some of these innovations were actually liturgical abuses introduced by disobedient bishops.
When Pope Paul VI introduced the Novus Ordo Mass, it was the hope of the liturgists that it would bring a renewal of faith in the Catholic Church. The facts show the exact opposite: thousands of people left the Church, vocations nosedived, priests and religious abandoned their vows of celibacy in order to marry or cohabitate, and belief in the true Presence in the Eucharist dropped.
Today, 70% of Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation. And it’s not clear all our priests do either, considering the way the Eucharist is treated in many parishes—as nonchalantly as if it were mere bread.
I love Holy Mother Church and my Catholic faith too much to let it go to pieces. The pseudoliturgists of the 60s have had their say, and the results have been abysmal. Traditionalists are trying to rescue the Church from further decay—and we won’t be silenced by modernists trying to shout us down or namecall.
9.5.2010 | 3:56pm
Christine says:
John Zmirak put it well when he wrote:
"From now on, to get a movie ticket, Americans should have to kneel before a consecrated celibate wearing ceremonial robes and take the ticket between their teeth – never daring to touch it with their hands. Within a generation or so, they’d all develop certain ideas about movie tickets and their significance.
Now take the Eucharist and reverse the process, treating it like a movie ticket…Enough said."
Eric wrote, “Reorientation East would reduce the clarity of the element of the banquet, not the sacrifice.”
Considering that 70% of Catholics today do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, I’d say a little more emphasis on sacrifice is needed, not less. 15th- and 16th-century Protestant reformers loathed the Mass because of its sacrificial nature; they (except for Luther) refused to think of it as anything other than symbolic; to weaken its sacrificial character, they started calling the High Altar a "table," called Holy Communion the "Lord's Supper," introduced communion under both kinds, turned the minister toward the congregation, and allowed communion to be taken standing and in the hands.
As you well know, these are precisely the changes liturgical innovators introduced to the Catholic Mass in the 1970s. Is it any surprise that Catholics today--including the most well-intentioned--have a more Protestantized understanding of this their central act of worship?
"From now on, to get a movie ticket, Americans should have to kneel before a consecrated celibate wearing ceremonial robes and take the ticket between their teeth – never daring to touch it with their hands. Within a generation or so, they’d all develop certain ideas about movie tickets and their significance.
Now take the Eucharist and reverse the process, treating it like a movie ticket…Enough said."
Eric wrote, “Reorientation East would reduce the clarity of the element of the banquet, not the sacrifice.”
Considering that 70% of Catholics today do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, I’d say a little more emphasis on sacrifice is needed, not less. 15th- and 16th-century Protestant reformers loathed the Mass because of its sacrificial nature; they (except for Luther) refused to think of it as anything other than symbolic; to weaken its sacrificial character, they started calling the High Altar a "table," called Holy Communion the "Lord's Supper," introduced communion under both kinds, turned the minister toward the congregation, and allowed communion to be taken standing and in the hands.
As you well know, these are precisely the changes liturgical innovators introduced to the Catholic Mass in the 1970s. Is it any surprise that Catholics today--including the most well-intentioned--have a more Protestantized understanding of this their central act of worship?
9.5.2010 | 4:00pm
Christine says:
One more thing: anyone who would like to gain basic fluency in this discussion should read Michael Davies's POPE PAUL'S NEW MASS. It is like a detailed version of Klaus Gamber's REFORM OF THE ROMAN LITURGY.
John Zmirak provides an excellent, balanced summary of traditionalists' concerns in a short article found here:
http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/zmirak/07821.html
John Zmirak provides an excellent, balanced summary of traditionalists' concerns in a short article found here:
http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/zmirak/07821.html
9.5.2010 | 4:12pm
Christine says:
JFM wrote: “Isn't this entire debate a bit of a rather precious exercise engaged in by zealots and pedants and completely off the radar of John and Mary average Catholic? … Wouldn't a command to Africans (or even Latin Americans) to abandon the vernacular (and African liturgical dance) and adopt Gregorian chant be greeted with derisive laughter and mass exodus to pentacostal Protestantism or at least Anglicanism? Don't traddie Catholics put far too much blame on the NO and ignore all of the changes in Western secular culture, morals, and society in the last 40 years (I'm a child of the 60's so I speak from personal experience) which really account for a general decline in ALL denominations?”
Are you seriously saying the Church should accommodate secular interests, and conform itself to the world? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Or are we so desperate for members that we would sell out our core beliefs just to fill up the pews? And even if the pews are filled, what success is it if two out of every three parishioners next to us don’t even believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, are practicing contraception, are pro-choice, or are divorced and remarried? I hate to fill you in, but this is the face of Novus Ordo parish today. Perhaps not *your* particular parish, but many, many, many today. I’ve attended enough to know! I would prefer a smaller, more vigorous, *holier* Church than what we have at present—and if that means that those who hate the Church’s traditions and laws leave Her for more enticing prospects, so be it.
Are you seriously saying the Church should accommodate secular interests, and conform itself to the world? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Or are we so desperate for members that we would sell out our core beliefs just to fill up the pews? And even if the pews are filled, what success is it if two out of every three parishioners next to us don’t even believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, are practicing contraception, are pro-choice, or are divorced and remarried? I hate to fill you in, but this is the face of Novus Ordo parish today. Perhaps not *your* particular parish, but many, many, many today. I’ve attended enough to know! I would prefer a smaller, more vigorous, *holier* Church than what we have at present—and if that means that those who hate the Church’s traditions and laws leave Her for more enticing prospects, so be it.
9.7.2010 | 11:26am
Dave Phelps says:
As a former evangellical protestant/episcopalian (yes there are such things) converted in 1998, I only know of the current Mass. It was its power that played a part in my conversion. It seems to many who know more than I that it has been diluted. I look forward to more power, as a result of the changes.
As to the music, really, vapid and saccharine come to mind. Some of the old Protestant stuff is excellent and I love when they are sung at Mass. The old old Catholic music is really wonderful. I often only have to look at the date of the song to know if I will find it annoying, anything after 1960 is suspect........
Dave Phelps
As to the music, really, vapid and saccharine come to mind. Some of the old Protestant stuff is excellent and I love when they are sung at Mass. The old old Catholic music is really wonderful. I often only have to look at the date of the song to know if I will find it annoying, anything after 1960 is suspect........
Dave Phelps
9.12.2010 | 1:07pm
Christine says:
Fr. Dennis wrote: "The Eucharist is a "recalling" or "remembering" of that event.... Anybody who has experienced the death of a dearly loved one knows this mystery. In any moment in time, we can be 'transported' back to the moment of our dearly beloved's death. It's as fresh as ever in our memory.
That is the way the Eucharist should be celebrated as we, through with and in Christ, recall in thanksgiving to the Father the gift of salvation won for us upon the Cross!"
Father,
Perhaps it was just an error in phrasing, but your explanation of the Holy Sacrifice strikes me as extremely Protestant. As Catholics, we believe in transubstantiation, that the host becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Your graveside analogy would be perfect if, instead of merely recalling the memory of our loved one there, our loved one literally rose from the dead and stood right before our eyes. Jesus is just as present at the consecration--not merely recalled or remembered, but truly present, and hidden under the form of a humble wafer. This is why we can adore the Blessed Sacrament without committing idolatry--because we are really and truly adoring Our Lord, and not a piece of bread.
I hope I simply misunderstood your explanation, and that you indeed acknowledge the Catholic teaching on this.
That is the way the Eucharist should be celebrated as we, through with and in Christ, recall in thanksgiving to the Father the gift of salvation won for us upon the Cross!"
Father,
Perhaps it was just an error in phrasing, but your explanation of the Holy Sacrifice strikes me as extremely Protestant. As Catholics, we believe in transubstantiation, that the host becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Your graveside analogy would be perfect if, instead of merely recalling the memory of our loved one there, our loved one literally rose from the dead and stood right before our eyes. Jesus is just as present at the consecration--not merely recalled or remembered, but truly present, and hidden under the form of a humble wafer. This is why we can adore the Blessed Sacrament without committing idolatry--because we are really and truly adoring Our Lord, and not a piece of bread.
I hope I simply misunderstood your explanation, and that you indeed acknowledge the Catholic teaching on this.
10.5.2010 | 12:10am
Willia Musielak says:
This is also the "facing East" trump card in my book (of course, it is in the Orthodox Liturgy book, too:) ). It's a conscious corporate effort to lose our life in That Life. Fr. Rutler has it exactly right here, it is all of us pointing, directing our worship to him. Make church easier for those who we're supposed to help bring to Christ; that concerns our great commisson, not to decide where the priest is standing. Let's get our priorities straight.
10.24.2010 | 12:47pm
Andrew Meszaros says:
If there was a great new cell phone or some wonderful new laptop to appear or a new automobile on the market: wouldn’t most people desire to get one and to learn how to use it?
So then why is getting to know some Latin, a “treasury of incomparable excellence” (Pius XII), a “regal language” (John Paul II) not equally desired by many? Should we only seek excellence in cell phones and laptops? “It is not so excellent to know Latin, as it is pitiful not to know it” (John Paul II).
So then why is getting to know some Latin, a “treasury of incomparable excellence” (Pius XII), a “regal language” (John Paul II) not equally desired by many? Should we only seek excellence in cell phones and laptops? “It is not so excellent to know Latin, as it is pitiful not to know it” (John Paul II).
10.24.2010 | 1:03pm
Dillydaydream says:
Eric
Try the Douay Bible here - if you could manage the King James, you can manage this. http://www.drbo.org/ This is the online version.
http://www.baroniuspress.com/ You can buy it here - also the 1962 missal.
I started going regularly to the 1962 rite about two years ago. Before then, I went in 1982 once, and had the same reaction as you. I still forget sometimes where to knell - but I'm learning. I found that the key thing for me was the silent canon. I can actually concentrate on the Consecration better. No-one should be criticising you for ignorance - catechesis is very hit and miss these days. I well remember arguing with the nun who was leading the pre-baptism course for my Ist baby. Pure misleading woffle. I was a cradle Catholic, and my ignorance was astounding until recently. Now I happily go to the New Mass when it is properly and reverently celebrated - but it has a new dimension. Good luck and don't be put off.
Try the Douay Bible here - if you could manage the King James, you can manage this. http://www.drbo.org/ This is the online version.
http://www.baroniuspress.com/ You can buy it here - also the 1962 missal.
I started going regularly to the 1962 rite about two years ago. Before then, I went in 1982 once, and had the same reaction as you. I still forget sometimes where to knell - but I'm learning. I found that the key thing for me was the silent canon. I can actually concentrate on the Consecration better. No-one should be criticising you for ignorance - catechesis is very hit and miss these days. I well remember arguing with the nun who was leading the pre-baptism course for my Ist baby. Pure misleading woffle. I was a cradle Catholic, and my ignorance was astounding until recently. Now I happily go to the New Mass when it is properly and reverently celebrated - but it has a new dimension. Good luck and don't be put off.
10.24.2010 | 1:50pm
John Henry says:
No, Fr Rutler, this is not a great article. Lacking the bones and muscles of a compelling argument, it reclines on the soft cushion of angry ridicule that – along with drink and cigars – buoyed up an angry and dissipated Evelyn Waugh.
It is utterly hypocritical to praise the ‘bluntness’ and ‘virile precision’ of the Latin collects and then to commend the ‘new and more accurate translation of the Mass’ which will give us gibberish like the following:
For them, we offer you this sacrifice of praise or they offer it for themselves and all who are dear to them, for the redemption of their souls, in hope of health and well-being, and paying their homage to you, the eternal God, living and true.
There are important things to be said about the liturgy that you – as a well-read, intelligent pastor of souls – should be teaching us. Instead, we get this uncharitable, flabby, self-indulgent piece. You can do better.
It is utterly hypocritical to praise the ‘bluntness’ and ‘virile precision’ of the Latin collects and then to commend the ‘new and more accurate translation of the Mass’ which will give us gibberish like the following:
For them, we offer you this sacrifice of praise or they offer it for themselves and all who are dear to them, for the redemption of their souls, in hope of health and well-being, and paying their homage to you, the eternal God, living and true.
There are important things to be said about the liturgy that you – as a well-read, intelligent pastor of souls – should be teaching us. Instead, we get this uncharitable, flabby, self-indulgent piece. You can do better.
10.24.2010 | 4:10pm
Rick says:
I can remember as a young child attending the Tridentine form Mass in Latin. When I first learned to assist at Mass as an altar server (Altar "Boy" yet in those days) I remember bowing at the Confiteor and following the ritual forms similar to the "old" Latin Mass, even when saying it in English. This may not have been entirely licit, as my wife tells my that my mother recently told her that our local priest had started to make changes before the approved changes, such as they were, were to have taken place. So in any case, I have seen all the changes from the first, with respect to the supposed mandates of Vatican II. One thing that really shocked me was when as a college student in the late 1970's I read some of the English translations of Vatican II and Post-Conciliar documents. I was surprised to learn that the altar was not moved out so as to allow the priest to move behind it and face the people, but rather so that the altar could be incensed around its entire perimeter. Likewise, the change to allow (not originally to apparently "mandate") the vernacular was really intended more for third world illiterate countries, as I recall, not for literate countries like the USA, where it was certainly easy to read the left (Latin) and right (in this case, English) sides of the missal.
I have attended "Byzantine Rite" liturgies in Russian and Ukrainian forms, in the native languages and in English. The liturgical solemnity was paramount, whatever the language. And while I am admittedly a "High Church" guy when it comes to ritual, I would probably prefer a solemn Englsh celebration of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostum or of St. Basil the Great than any less solemn form of the Novus Ordo in Latin. In some of the Byzantine celebrations the consecration takes place not only what in Latin is termed "ad Orientem, " but also behind "the Doors." The comment above attempting to state that the Consecration at Mass is somehow rendered more obviously important to the congregation by the priest facing the people lacks validity. I have attended such Byzantine liturgies in which the congregation does not just kneel for this, but lies prostrate upon the floor. This surely communicates and realizes a greater epiphany than to claim that it is rendered more obviously apparent by having the priest face the congregation. Having said that, and recognizing that this solemnity of form is more important to me than the actual language, I think there is definite validity to the argument for a dedicated liturgical language. My parents had told me what a comfort it was for them as American (USA) citizens to attend Mass whether in the Philippines, Hong Kong, or elsewhere, to find the Universal Church celebration in Latin and they were able to actively participate. In contrast, though I could speak German well enough to get by, I was probably less able to assist at German Novus Ordo Masses when backpacking through Germany and German-speaking lands in the mid-1970's. Beyond such practical, but less immediate concerns, there is a valid argument for Latin as a unifying liturgical language from a philosophical or metaphysical sense.
In any case, there is no denying that the translations of ICEL have been poor, and certainly "less than faithful" to the Latin official Novus Ordo. Our local community has, like many, had an influx of Mexican/Hispanic immigrants, and in attending some of the Spanish language Masses, it was readily apparent to me that the Spanish translation was in many respects more accurate. For instance, it was readily apparent that the Spanish translation of "et cum spiritu tuo" was accurately rendered whereas the English "and also with you" was obviously unnecessarily inaccurate!
I won't even go into detail about how it seems as if there has been an attempt to obscure the official rubrics, so that no one bows during the Credo when we vocalize the mystery of the Incarnation, yet everyone follows the unwritten "rubric" of uplifting their hands (or holding hands) at the Pater Noster. There are many timeless ramifications to the appropriate liturgical postures --and if you think that liturgical ritual is superfluous, think again. While I certainly can't agree with thinkers like Joseph Campbell in all of their conclusions, even a cursory reading of his seminal work, "Primitive Mythology: The Masks of God" will give an appreciation for the importance of ritual and ritual liturgy to mind and soul of Man.
This more accurate English translation is at the least an important first step. There is no denying that we should expect and demand an accurate translation of the liturgy from the official Latin. Demanding that liturgical music conform so that the music is not of prime importance to the extant that the text be modified to fit the music, rather than the converse, should not be considered unreasonable either. Consideration for having the celebrant face "ad Orientum" regardless of altar position might make an impression that this is less about "performance art" and more about timeless ritual communion with the ineffable.
I have attended "Byzantine Rite" liturgies in Russian and Ukrainian forms, in the native languages and in English. The liturgical solemnity was paramount, whatever the language. And while I am admittedly a "High Church" guy when it comes to ritual, I would probably prefer a solemn Englsh celebration of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostum or of St. Basil the Great than any less solemn form of the Novus Ordo in Latin. In some of the Byzantine celebrations the consecration takes place not only what in Latin is termed "ad Orientem, " but also behind "the Doors." The comment above attempting to state that the Consecration at Mass is somehow rendered more obviously important to the congregation by the priest facing the people lacks validity. I have attended such Byzantine liturgies in which the congregation does not just kneel for this, but lies prostrate upon the floor. This surely communicates and realizes a greater epiphany than to claim that it is rendered more obviously apparent by having the priest face the congregation. Having said that, and recognizing that this solemnity of form is more important to me than the actual language, I think there is definite validity to the argument for a dedicated liturgical language. My parents had told me what a comfort it was for them as American (USA) citizens to attend Mass whether in the Philippines, Hong Kong, or elsewhere, to find the Universal Church celebration in Latin and they were able to actively participate. In contrast, though I could speak German well enough to get by, I was probably less able to assist at German Novus Ordo Masses when backpacking through Germany and German-speaking lands in the mid-1970's. Beyond such practical, but less immediate concerns, there is a valid argument for Latin as a unifying liturgical language from a philosophical or metaphysical sense.
In any case, there is no denying that the translations of ICEL have been poor, and certainly "less than faithful" to the Latin official Novus Ordo. Our local community has, like many, had an influx of Mexican/Hispanic immigrants, and in attending some of the Spanish language Masses, it was readily apparent to me that the Spanish translation was in many respects more accurate. For instance, it was readily apparent that the Spanish translation of "et cum spiritu tuo" was accurately rendered whereas the English "and also with you" was obviously unnecessarily inaccurate!
I won't even go into detail about how it seems as if there has been an attempt to obscure the official rubrics, so that no one bows during the Credo when we vocalize the mystery of the Incarnation, yet everyone follows the unwritten "rubric" of uplifting their hands (or holding hands) at the Pater Noster. There are many timeless ramifications to the appropriate liturgical postures --and if you think that liturgical ritual is superfluous, think again. While I certainly can't agree with thinkers like Joseph Campbell in all of their conclusions, even a cursory reading of his seminal work, "Primitive Mythology: The Masks of God" will give an appreciation for the importance of ritual and ritual liturgy to mind and soul of Man.
This more accurate English translation is at the least an important first step. There is no denying that we should expect and demand an accurate translation of the liturgy from the official Latin. Demanding that liturgical music conform so that the music is not of prime importance to the extant that the text be modified to fit the music, rather than the converse, should not be considered unreasonable either. Consideration for having the celebrant face "ad Orientum" regardless of altar position might make an impression that this is less about "performance art" and more about timeless ritual communion with the ineffable.
10.24.2010 | 11:08pm
Joseph O'Leary says:
I believe the Jerusalem Bible and the NRSV are so flawed as to be unusable. Why no draw on the best of different translations in composing the Lectionary?
I am in despair at the illiteracy rampant among those composing our most important texts. In the Catechism the word "principal" is misspelt as follows: "1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principle fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus."
In the new translation of the liturgy there are many grammatical mistakes as well as mistranslations of individual items of vocabulary (a criticism that cannot be made of the 1973 translation, flat though it is). For instance:
"Among the revisers’ other problems with English usage is an inability to get the word order of subject and the auxiliary “may” right in subjunctive clauses: “Grant that, just as, being conformed to him, we have borne by the law of nature the image of the man on earth, so by the sanctification of grace may we bear the image of the Man of heaven.” Obviously, the line should read “we may.” “Look upon us and have mercy, that as we follow, by your gift, the way you desire for us, so may we never stray from the paths of life.” It should be, “so we may never stray”. There are a dozen such errors." (From the Pray Tell site.)
I am in despair at the illiteracy rampant among those composing our most important texts. In the Catechism the word "principal" is misspelt as follows: "1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principle fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus."
In the new translation of the liturgy there are many grammatical mistakes as well as mistranslations of individual items of vocabulary (a criticism that cannot be made of the 1973 translation, flat though it is). For instance:
"Among the revisers’ other problems with English usage is an inability to get the word order of subject and the auxiliary “may” right in subjunctive clauses: “Grant that, just as, being conformed to him, we have borne by the law of nature the image of the man on earth, so by the sanctification of grace may we bear the image of the Man of heaven.” Obviously, the line should read “we may.” “Look upon us and have mercy, that as we follow, by your gift, the way you desire for us, so may we never stray from the paths of life.” It should be, “so we may never stray”. There are a dozen such errors." (From the Pray Tell site.)
10.25.2010 | 3:16am
John says:
@Bender:
For someone who seems thoroughly aggravated by the howls of traditionalists, you seem awfully contemptuous yourself. And very..impatient?
First and foremost, the numerous complaints with regard to the travails of the Novus Ordo strike me as reasonable. Vatican II ended about 9 years before I was born; when my folks had me, the English version of the Novus Ordo had only been mandated for about 5 years.
So who cares about that? Well, I do, for this reason:
Between the time I began paying attention at Mass--say 7 or 8 years old--and the time I took Confirmation as a Catholic, I noticed some pretty distinctive changes. Most of them were NOT for the good!
The degree of reverence..fell dramatically. I won't claim that things were perfect to begin with, certainly they weren't. But the overall expectations of dress code, our general conduct when we went to Church, even the means of conducting the Mass..everything became desperately informal.
By my late 20's, during my second tour of duty in the Air Force, I struggled to find a Mass that didn't drive me nuts. I remember trying one church and witnessed half the congregation dressed in jeans and t-shirts. That wasn't for some weekday thing, by the way, this was 10 AM on SUNDAY! The PARENTS were as casual as the kids!
I never went back to that one. I found another that had at least a vague sense of decorum.
..Which actually leads me to address another comment you made: So teens are asking lots of questions. ..And..this is a bad thing? Why? I once tried volunteering as a catechist's aid for a year. ..For 6th graders. The one thing I truly regret the most was..we had to follow an "inclusive" curriculum that, for my purposes, all but murdered most of the interest that kids might develop.
In fact, one of the best things that happened that year was an evening during which the catechist forgot or lost his notes. We wound up managing a brief bit of Q&A instead. I wish that one could've lasted much longer to be honest.
Kids have energy and want to know a LOT..NOW!! That's a GOOD thing! They also want to know their limits.
When I was a teen, I remember everybody making a big to-do of the fact that we could "make up our own rules". Trouble was, when you were 13 and had no real knowledge about anything, being creative, making up your own rules, and truly accomplishing anything by doing so..was durn near impossible!
People need to have rules to know what works well and what doesn't. That's why we had so many rules for Mass. ..And why we need many of them back now.
Now, for what it's worth, I've had more than a few testy arguments with die-hard traditionalists too. I do not believe I could readily get on with SSPX or the like, they're too sticky about insisting that it can ONLY be done THIS way, not that. As I told one, I felt they were being quite rigid.
But I have a terrible time with most "modern" ideas too. As far as I'm concerned, if the traditionalist is too rigid about what MUST be done, the modernist is too rigid about what CAN'T be done, ie. we can't possibly do anything that resembles the old traditions.
I've never understood why those two sides couldn't meet somewhere in the middle.
That's why I, personally, tend to be pretty sticky about orthodoxy. I'm no more interested in hearing about the "glory" of innovation than I am in hearing about the "good old days". Stick to the ruddy rules, please, and if you don't like them, perhaps you ought to reconsider your ideas of worth, possibly even including..finding some other way to worship.
So, while I'm not a priest or a seminarian, I'm quite thrilled with the younger crop of priests and bishops who seem interested in revitalizing a large chunk of tradition. Perhaps if we can remember our past, we can knock it off with the clown show that too often passes for a Mass.
For someone who seems thoroughly aggravated by the howls of traditionalists, you seem awfully contemptuous yourself. And very..impatient?
First and foremost, the numerous complaints with regard to the travails of the Novus Ordo strike me as reasonable. Vatican II ended about 9 years before I was born; when my folks had me, the English version of the Novus Ordo had only been mandated for about 5 years.
So who cares about that? Well, I do, for this reason:
Between the time I began paying attention at Mass--say 7 or 8 years old--and the time I took Confirmation as a Catholic, I noticed some pretty distinctive changes. Most of them were NOT for the good!
The degree of reverence..fell dramatically. I won't claim that things were perfect to begin with, certainly they weren't. But the overall expectations of dress code, our general conduct when we went to Church, even the means of conducting the Mass..everything became desperately informal.
By my late 20's, during my second tour of duty in the Air Force, I struggled to find a Mass that didn't drive me nuts. I remember trying one church and witnessed half the congregation dressed in jeans and t-shirts. That wasn't for some weekday thing, by the way, this was 10 AM on SUNDAY! The PARENTS were as casual as the kids!
I never went back to that one. I found another that had at least a vague sense of decorum.
..Which actually leads me to address another comment you made: So teens are asking lots of questions. ..And..this is a bad thing? Why? I once tried volunteering as a catechist's aid for a year. ..For 6th graders. The one thing I truly regret the most was..we had to follow an "inclusive" curriculum that, for my purposes, all but murdered most of the interest that kids might develop.
In fact, one of the best things that happened that year was an evening during which the catechist forgot or lost his notes. We wound up managing a brief bit of Q&A instead. I wish that one could've lasted much longer to be honest.
Kids have energy and want to know a LOT..NOW!! That's a GOOD thing! They also want to know their limits.
When I was a teen, I remember everybody making a big to-do of the fact that we could "make up our own rules". Trouble was, when you were 13 and had no real knowledge about anything, being creative, making up your own rules, and truly accomplishing anything by doing so..was durn near impossible!
People need to have rules to know what works well and what doesn't. That's why we had so many rules for Mass. ..And why we need many of them back now.
Now, for what it's worth, I've had more than a few testy arguments with die-hard traditionalists too. I do not believe I could readily get on with SSPX or the like, they're too sticky about insisting that it can ONLY be done THIS way, not that. As I told one, I felt they were being quite rigid.
But I have a terrible time with most "modern" ideas too. As far as I'm concerned, if the traditionalist is too rigid about what MUST be done, the modernist is too rigid about what CAN'T be done, ie. we can't possibly do anything that resembles the old traditions.
I've never understood why those two sides couldn't meet somewhere in the middle.
That's why I, personally, tend to be pretty sticky about orthodoxy. I'm no more interested in hearing about the "glory" of innovation than I am in hearing about the "good old days". Stick to the ruddy rules, please, and if you don't like them, perhaps you ought to reconsider your ideas of worth, possibly even including..finding some other way to worship.
So, while I'm not a priest or a seminarian, I'm quite thrilled with the younger crop of priests and bishops who seem interested in revitalizing a large chunk of tradition. Perhaps if we can remember our past, we can knock it off with the clown show that too often passes for a Mass.
3.25.2011 | 6:18am
Chris Pierce says:
Listening to Fr. Rutler speak or reading his commentary is always a great pleasure. He is brilliant, dignified, and filled with wisdom. But what I really love is his half-smile wit and sometimes laugh out loud comments. I tell people to read and listen to him as often as possible. This article was a perfect example of his kick **** and take names brilliance. Wouldn't you just love to have a weekend retreat with him and be able to sit around drinking coffee listening to him chat with everyone?
1. Vernacular
2. Mass not being celebrated ad orientem
resulting on loss of mystery and sacredness. Long live the Pope of the true Renewal of the Liturgy, B 16 may he live long to finish the job.