Breaking Bad Liturgical Habits II
January 4, 2012
George Weigel
As I remarked late last year, the introduction of the third edition of the Roman Missal and the new translations of the liturgical texts offer the entire English-speaking Church an opportunity to correct some bad liturgical habits that have developed over the past four decades. The point of these corrections is neither liturgical prissiness nor aesthetic nostalgia; there is no “reform of the reform” to be found in lace surplices, narrow fiddleback chasubles, and massive candles. The point of correcting bad habits is to celebrate the Novus Ordo of Paul VI with dignity and beauty, so that Holy Mass is experienced for what it is: our participation in the liturgy of saints and angels in heaven—where, I am quite confident, they don’t sing treacly confections like “Gather Us In.”
Note to Celebrants (not “Presiders”): If you’ve fallen into the bad habit of concluding Mass by some variant of “May almighty God bless us all, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” please cease and desist. You were not ordained to the ministry of Word and sacrament to invoke, generically, the divine blessing, which anyone can (and should) do before and after meals; you were given the power to confer the divine blessing by being configured to Christ in Holy Orders. Catholics who embrace the truth of Catholic faith do not enjoy clericalism. But they do not find comfort, much less evangelical leadership, from priests who imagine they can avoid clericalism by unwittingly denying the truth of their own sacramental vocation and its distinctiveness.
Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist: The same admonition applies to you, but in a different way—you must not offer a “blessing,” in any form, to pre-first-Communion children who join their parents in the Communion procession. Eucharistic ministers are not junior-grade clergy or petty officers; no one outside of those in Holy Orders should “bless” in a liturgical context. Again, this is not a matter of prissiness, and still less one of clericalism; it is a matter of doctrinal and theological precision—which, if lost, can damage the celebration of the sacred liturgy. Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist are vastly over-used in U.S. parishes, a practice that risks of signaling that the Mass is a matter of the self-worshipping community celebrating and feeding itself. But the problem of the ordinary use of what is supposed, after all, to be “extraordinary” can be addressed another time. For now, pastors must make it clear that no one blesses children during the Communion procession except bishops, priests, and deacons, i.e., those in Holy Orders.
Music Directors and Pastors: As a general rule, sing all the verses of a processional or recessional hymn. Good hymns have a textual integrity that is lost when we sing hymn-excerpts rather than hymns. It doesn’t take that much more time to sing all six verses of “For All the Saints” or all four verses of “Crown Him with Many Crowns”; cutting such great texts by two-thirds or one-half inevitably sends the signal that music in the liturgy is filler—and there is no room for filler in the sacred liturgy.
The Congregation: Sacred space is different from other space; the inside of the church is different from the narthex (not “gathering space”). Thus we should all break the bad habit of commencing the post-Mass conversation immediately after the conclusion of the recessional hymn or organ postlude. Wait until you leave the interior of the church before beginning to chat with the neighbors. If there is a choral postlude, chatting over it is an insult to the choir, which has worked hard to prepare something beautiful for God; if there is only an organ postlude (with or without a recessional hymn), chatting over it is an insult to the organist. Thirty seconds of silence after Mass are no bad thing.
And while we’re on the subject of the congregation, might we all reconsider our vesture at Sunday Mass? Dressing in one’s “Sunday best” was not an affectation; it was an acknowledgment of our baptismal dignity. Let’s reclaim that dignity and its expression in our “Sunday best.”
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
RESOURCES
George Weigel, Breaking Bad Liturgical Habits
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
1.4.2012 | 3:05am
Irenaeus says:
On the overuse of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, a neglected Vatican document: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/12/ecclesia-de-mysterio-ever-heard-of-it/
1.4.2012 | 5:07am
edmond says:
"Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist are vastly over-used in U.S. parishes, a practice that risks of signaling that the Mass is a matter of the self-worshipping community celebrating and feeding itself." My take on your statement is that SME's take their instructions from parish authorities that sign their authorizations. Please don't shoot the messengers , we are only around because there are not enough priests to bring perfection to the worship. Our job description, if you will, is hard-wire into us by the diocesan ministers in charge.
1.4.2012 | 5:55am
James the Lesser says:
George! Spunky article. I like it. Some of it even stung me. But I will keep all these things and ponder them in my heart. Now, if only a parish pastor or a bishop would write such a letter? There would be a mob with pitchforks and torches "occupying" the front steps of the NCR, demanding that Sr Joan, or Fr Richard write a blistering rebuttal - to give a voice to the 1%, er, I mean, the 99% who are upset with the changes. Still and all, you were clear, charitable, and correct. I wonder if your parish priest will read this, or needs to :-)
1.4.2012 | 5:57am
Tim Collins says:
Great post...only thought is the doctrinally correct term is "Extraordinary Minister of Communion." The use of the term 'eucharist' in this context gives a broader connotation than is meant...contributes to what is essentially a benediction for those pre-communicants. Thank you for the thoughts! AMEN!
1.4.2012 | 5:59am
Tim Collins says:
...I hope I wrote "Eucharistic Minister of Holy Communion" on that comment 30 seconds ago!
1.4.2012 | 8:02am
Dan C says:
Is it possible for the conservative commentators to say a positive thing about Eucharistic ministers? Having been at several parishes, the Eucharistic ministers are the folks taking the Eucharist to the sick, depsite any of Dr. Weigel's varied critiques. This is a habit extending throughout conservative blog-space and in many conservative periodicals.
Or the folks who volunteer for music at Mass-any chance that their contribution would be praised on a conservative blog if they aren't singing Latin lyrics. Unlikely.
There is little chance for an increase in faithful participation in Catholicism in any great substance until these bitter battles end. The way such a peace is envisioned by Dr. Weigel is by a crushing victory in the culture war, ending the battles. This will result in continued reduced numbers of faithful in the same manner as the last 40 years. It will just be a small group of like-minded rich folks worshipping with him in his purer Church.
Once again, the conservative approach is to tear down the contributions of little people. The music volunteers and Eucharistic ministers in my parish certainly do sing songs I dislike. Whatever. Serving my tastes is not the point of the Mass. Nor is serving Dr. Weigel's tastes.
Many a conservative blogger notably enjoyed Spanish folk music at Spanish Masses attended. Amy Welborn, a long critic of liberal liturgical practices, indicated such appreciation. Translated lyrics of such music is pretty weak in substance too. However, this music isn't understood and criticized through the biases of Anglo-American culture war flailings.
So much of this discussion is about taste. And the efforts and time of volunteers in parishes are demeaned continually by individuals like Dr. Weigel who are actually reimbursed and rewarded handily for criticizing such people.
Dr. Weigel needs express his distaste and criticisms in person in his own parish. He should man up and "say it to the faces" of his fellow Catholics who are volunteering.
Or the folks who volunteer for music at Mass-any chance that their contribution would be praised on a conservative blog if they aren't singing Latin lyrics. Unlikely.
There is little chance for an increase in faithful participation in Catholicism in any great substance until these bitter battles end. The way such a peace is envisioned by Dr. Weigel is by a crushing victory in the culture war, ending the battles. This will result in continued reduced numbers of faithful in the same manner as the last 40 years. It will just be a small group of like-minded rich folks worshipping with him in his purer Church.
Once again, the conservative approach is to tear down the contributions of little people. The music volunteers and Eucharistic ministers in my parish certainly do sing songs I dislike. Whatever. Serving my tastes is not the point of the Mass. Nor is serving Dr. Weigel's tastes.
Many a conservative blogger notably enjoyed Spanish folk music at Spanish Masses attended. Amy Welborn, a long critic of liberal liturgical practices, indicated such appreciation. Translated lyrics of such music is pretty weak in substance too. However, this music isn't understood and criticized through the biases of Anglo-American culture war flailings.
So much of this discussion is about taste. And the efforts and time of volunteers in parishes are demeaned continually by individuals like Dr. Weigel who are actually reimbursed and rewarded handily for criticizing such people.
Dr. Weigel needs express his distaste and criticisms in person in his own parish. He should man up and "say it to the faces" of his fellow Catholics who are volunteering.
1.4.2012 | 9:28am
Tony Esolen says:
But our complaints about music extend far beyond matters of taste, into matters of liturgical fitness (whom do we celebrate, God or ourselves?), and matters of doctrine. Saint Paul said we were to become all things to all men, to save some; but I don't think he meant that we were to become stupid for the stupid.
In no particular order:
We should stop calling the treacle "folk music." It isn't. It has not risen from the folk and their traditions (unlike Negro spirituals). It does not have the rhythms that make folk music singable by large groups of people (unlike shape note hymns). Stuff like "On Turkey's Wings" has the melodic characteristics of (very bad) show tunes, to be sung by show-off soloists.
If we're going to sing all the verses of a hymn -- and I think we should, unless we're talking about fifteen verses -- then those verses had better be what the poet or translator actually wrote, and not the mangled and mutilated and castrated and stultified things that the committees have turned them into.
I am around young people all the time. I teach them for a living. That is, in a couple of weeks I'll be returning to the first year of our twenty-credit course in Western Civilization; my teammates and I are responsible for 147 freshmen. We meet them every day. In short -- I get a pretty fair idea of what impresses young Catholics. Anybody who thinks that the young Catholics (especially the young men) actually LIKE the cadres of middle-aged Caruso wannabes and Leontyne Price wannabes, crooning some effete nonsense, is seriously mistaken. If I offered an informal course on singing polyphony, I'd have forty students signing up for it overnight.
Let's have the priests choose the hymns, and not the music directors. The music directors should choose appropriate music that does not involve the congregation: preludes, for instance.
In no particular order:
We should stop calling the treacle "folk music." It isn't. It has not risen from the folk and their traditions (unlike Negro spirituals). It does not have the rhythms that make folk music singable by large groups of people (unlike shape note hymns). Stuff like "On Turkey's Wings" has the melodic characteristics of (very bad) show tunes, to be sung by show-off soloists.
If we're going to sing all the verses of a hymn -- and I think we should, unless we're talking about fifteen verses -- then those verses had better be what the poet or translator actually wrote, and not the mangled and mutilated and castrated and stultified things that the committees have turned them into.
I am around young people all the time. I teach them for a living. That is, in a couple of weeks I'll be returning to the first year of our twenty-credit course in Western Civilization; my teammates and I are responsible for 147 freshmen. We meet them every day. In short -- I get a pretty fair idea of what impresses young Catholics. Anybody who thinks that the young Catholics (especially the young men) actually LIKE the cadres of middle-aged Caruso wannabes and Leontyne Price wannabes, crooning some effete nonsense, is seriously mistaken. If I offered an informal course on singing polyphony, I'd have forty students signing up for it overnight.
Let's have the priests choose the hymns, and not the music directors. The music directors should choose appropriate music that does not involve the congregation: preludes, for instance.
1.4.2012 | 9:36am
Charles R. Williams says:
Dan,
You are viewing this as a matter of politics and subjective preference. Many of us view it as a matter of principle. And nobody denies that the guitar player at mass is doing his best to please God.
You are viewing this as a matter of politics and subjective preference. Many of us view it as a matter of principle. And nobody denies that the guitar player at mass is doing his best to please God.
1.4.2012 | 9:39am
Irenaeus says:
The problem, Dan C, is that (as Amy Welborn also once said) the Mass is something, not anything, and in general the way we've been doing it for years is not what the Council Fathers intended, nor is it generally celebrated in accord with authoritative documents from Rome or the USCCB. Unfortunately, you're right that a lot of good people who volunteer to do all sorts of things are going to be hurt by the ongoing and necessary liturgical corrections. This is the fault of many bishops and priests and liturgists in the post-conciliar era who failed in the realm of both obedience to the will of the church and in catechesis. So now we must proceed at a measured pace with charity and intentional catechesis about the Mass.
Ultimately, it's not about mere taste or "aesthetics," or what we enjoy. It's letting the Mass be the Mass as the Church intends it, so that Christ might be rightly worshiped and we rightly formed.
Ultimately, it's not about mere taste or "aesthetics," or what we enjoy. It's letting the Mass be the Mass as the Church intends it, so that Christ might be rightly worshiped and we rightly formed.
1.4.2012 | 9:49am
Alberto Hurtado says:
Without one reference to the telos of the Mass or its meaning or its theological significance, this editorial reflects nothing more than a few random rants that George put together while rolling out of bed. Where is FTs editorial standards these days?
1.4.2012 | 10:32am
Ye Olde Statistician says:
Dan C: This will result in continued reduced numbers of faithful in the same manner as the last 40 years.
YOS
IOW, the reduction in the number of faithful began 40 years ago, when... Hmm.
YOS
IOW, the reduction in the number of faithful began 40 years ago, when... Hmm.
1.4.2012 | 11:26am
yun14u says:
To George Weigel .... what can an Extraordinary Minister offer to a wide-eyed pre-Communion child who's blocking the line expecting a "blessing" ?
1.4.2012 | 11:52am
EdSchoen says:
As an orthodox Catholic who has served as a volunteer musician for 40 years, let me suggest that we all lighten up a little. I agree with Dr. Weigel that the recent changes are good. But the problem is not bad music; "Gather Us In" is one of the most liturgically effective entrance songs around. The problem is not lay ministers "blessing" non-communicants; would it really be better to exclude children and visiting non-Catholics completely? And is it so awful that parishoners greet each other warmly in the church after Mass? Certainly we can improve on all of these, but the real issue is the growth of our congregations into real Christians, or real Catholics. I am no fan of the old "folk" song "They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love," but we could use a healthy dose of that today, as well as doctrinal and liturgical correctness.
1.4.2012 | 11:53am
Michael says:
I had the exact same thought as yuy14u. What is the Extraordinary Minister to do with the pre-Communion child that is humbly and reverently coming forth with his or her parents and is expecting a "blessing"? It is difficult to hurt the faith of the child.
1.4.2012 | 12:14pm
Martin says:
@yun14u: Please allow me to offer my opinion. I think it would be a good idea to educate the child about the blessing. That way they'll know who can give the blessing and what to expect. If not unreasonable, the child could be left at the pew. After all we receive a blessing at the end of Mass anyways.
1.4.2012 | 12:22pm
Alex says:
Nice post. These things need to be said. There is such a thing as hierarchy in the order of nature and in the order of beauty. We would do well to remember that there is a difference between an ordained minister and a lay-person, that there is a ritual space that ought to be created in church, not a community lounge. I am young and I am tired of these relative subjective positions: "you worship your way, I'll worship my way." No, there is A way to do things that is most beautiful and most glorious, and that need not negate the virtue of tolerance.
1.4.2012 | 12:55pm
church lady says:
Agree that, to sing the entire hymn is "good", however, if the celebrant leaves after one verse and the congregation follows... should we sing while the church is empty. ??
1.4.2012 | 1:09pm
Catechist Kevin says:
Mr. Ed Schoen says (in part):
"And is it so awful that parishoners greet each other warmly in the church after Mass?"
Sir, while your question is a good one - I suppose it would be better if we ask about the *way* "parishioners greet each other warmly in the church after Mass". (maybe this is where Weigel is coming from?)
I have instructed our children that the church is a place of prayer to Almighty God. It is a place people come to focus on Him. Fostering reverence, awe and wonder in our churches seems appropriate. I tell the kids that it is great that there are others around us - thanks be to God! - but, our focus is not our neighbor... even though they have the Lord with them, too.
Certianly, as you have said, I do not believe "it is so awful that parishioners greet each other" - but, what if there are other parishioners trying to pray? Even if it is just a "Hail Mary" or the "St. Michael prayer"? What if there may be somebody interested in making a holy hour after Mass? (rare these days, I know)
What if the greeting gets so loud (as is the case with the vast majority of churches where I assist at the Holy Sacrifice) one cannot hear themselves pray - even inwardly?
A kind nod of the head, wave of the hand (or handshake), a toned down "How are you today" seems to be appropriate, yes? :) Then maybe go strike up a conversation in the vestibule or outside on the church steps or sidewalk.
Our churches never used to sound like this at all in the past (you know, back when the Mass attendance was nearly 80% of registered Catholics?).
Maybe we should harken back to those days?
Catechist Kevin
"And is it so awful that parishoners greet each other warmly in the church after Mass?"
Sir, while your question is a good one - I suppose it would be better if we ask about the *way* "parishioners greet each other warmly in the church after Mass". (maybe this is where Weigel is coming from?)
I have instructed our children that the church is a place of prayer to Almighty God. It is a place people come to focus on Him. Fostering reverence, awe and wonder in our churches seems appropriate. I tell the kids that it is great that there are others around us - thanks be to God! - but, our focus is not our neighbor... even though they have the Lord with them, too.
Certianly, as you have said, I do not believe "it is so awful that parishioners greet each other" - but, what if there are other parishioners trying to pray? Even if it is just a "Hail Mary" or the "St. Michael prayer"? What if there may be somebody interested in making a holy hour after Mass? (rare these days, I know)
What if the greeting gets so loud (as is the case with the vast majority of churches where I assist at the Holy Sacrifice) one cannot hear themselves pray - even inwardly?
A kind nod of the head, wave of the hand (or handshake), a toned down "How are you today" seems to be appropriate, yes? :) Then maybe go strike up a conversation in the vestibule or outside on the church steps or sidewalk.
Our churches never used to sound like this at all in the past (you know, back when the Mass attendance was nearly 80% of registered Catholics?).
Maybe we should harken back to those days?
Catechist Kevin
1.4.2012 | 1:11pm
Mary says:
I used to attend a parish that had wonderful sacred music and a reverent Liturgy. But the clergy there had the same snooty attitude that is shown in this post. I eventually realized that a perfect liturgy does not make one holy and that a less than perfect liturgy does not prevent one from being holy. We joined another parish. God will expect us to love one another as we love Him. I don't think He will ask us if we shunned silly hymns or if we disapproved of "lay blessings". But I do agree that "Gather Us In" really grates on one's nerves and I don't sing it!
1.4.2012 | 1:26pm
Scott Woltze says:
@EdSchoen, Actually, it is the most serious thing there is. What stranger to the mass or your average teenager could believe the living God who created the universe is present to be consumed in bread, given the music, dress and slappy self-congratulation in your typical mass?
@yun14u, @Michael,
Offer a warm smile and pat on the head/shoulder.
@DanC, You speak of "peace, peace" and then claim that those you disagree with invariably "tear down the contributions of little people". Where is the charity? Peace begins with charity.
@yun14u, @Michael,
Offer a warm smile and pat on the head/shoulder.
@DanC, You speak of "peace, peace" and then claim that those you disagree with invariably "tear down the contributions of little people". Where is the charity? Peace begins with charity.
1.4.2012 | 1:43pm
RS says:
I am confused by the choices of "For All the Saints" and "Crown Him with Many Crowns," especially as having 6 and 4 verses, respectively. Bishop How wrote 9 verses to "For All the Saints." Though I've never seen all 9 verses in one hymnal, in different hymnals, I have seen various assortments of 3, 4, or 6 of the 9 verses Thring and Bridges wrote to "Crown Him with Many Crowns."
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/c/r/crownhim.htm
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/c/r/crownhim.htm
1.4.2012 | 1:44pm
J. W. Cox says:
The problem I have with Weigel's piece, at least the part excerpted here, is its practicality, or lack of it.
HOW, exactly, does one(s) change decades-long bad behaviors and practices in the liturgy? From what I can tell, many parishioners, often a majority and often the ones in leadership positions, don't see these behaviors and practices as "bad." And the priest either lack the interest or time to explain it let alone try to change it; or they see these behaviors and practices exactly as do the parishioners.
So, exactly or even generally how does one exploit this "opportunity to correct some bad liturgical habits?"
HOW, exactly, does one(s) change decades-long bad behaviors and practices in the liturgy? From what I can tell, many parishioners, often a majority and often the ones in leadership positions, don't see these behaviors and practices as "bad." And the priest either lack the interest or time to explain it let alone try to change it; or they see these behaviors and practices exactly as do the parishioners.
So, exactly or even generally how does one exploit this "opportunity to correct some bad liturgical habits?"
1.4.2012 | 1:56pm
Romulus says:
Only a priest is a minister of the Eucharist -- period. Lay people who assist in the distribution of Holy Communion are called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. It's all explained very plainly in Redemptionis Sacramentum 156.
In my opinion, all blessings are out of place at Communion time. Those presenting themselves for one should be told "peace be with you", with the minister immediately moving on (a general blessing is given at the end of Mass). It is very bad practice when sentiment and ignorance are allowed to introduce countersigns into the heart of the liturgy.
In my opinion, all blessings are out of place at Communion time. Those presenting themselves for one should be told "peace be with you", with the minister immediately moving on (a general blessing is given at the end of Mass). It is very bad practice when sentiment and ignorance are allowed to introduce countersigns into the heart of the liturgy.
1.4.2012 | 2:17pm
James the Lesser says:
I once got to a parish where everyone held hands during the Lord's Prayer, and then lifted them up altogether during the closing, "For the Kingdom, the power, etc." I was able to correct that in about 2-3 weeks (not my first two to three weeks, though. I did wait until at least most parishioners knew my name!). It became a bit of a "family joke" for a while, but they all understood, and as you can imagine, many came up to secretly thank me. One practice that I did let die, however, on my very first Sunday there, was asking everyone who had a birthday that week to stand up and receive a round of applause, or a verse of Happy Birthday. Ugh.
1.4.2012 | 2:24pm
Richard M says:
Hello Dan,
"Having been at several parishes, the Eucharistic ministers are the folks taking the Eucharist to the sick, depsite any of Dr. Weigel's varied critiques."
Those aren't the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (EMHCs - let us get the title right) that George is concerned about.
We're talking about situations where there are anywhere from 12 to 20 EMHC's up in the sanctuary, even when only a few hundred people are receiving communion. Far too often, the number of communicants just does not justify any EMHC's, let alone these regiments. At most, a few minutes might be saved. EMHC's are only supposed to be used when absolutely necessary.
It's become obvious for too long that large numbers of EMHC's are being resorted to as a way of getting more laity "involved" in the liturgy. As if being at mass was not enough.
Hello Ed,
"And is it so awful that parishoners greet each other warmly in the church after Mass?"
Certainly not. But could we do it in the narthex (gathering space, if you like), as George suggests, rather than in the nave? Some people would like to pray in the pews after mass. A cavalcade of chit chat all around is just not conducive to that.
"Having been at several parishes, the Eucharistic ministers are the folks taking the Eucharist to the sick, depsite any of Dr. Weigel's varied critiques."
Those aren't the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (EMHCs - let us get the title right) that George is concerned about.
We're talking about situations where there are anywhere from 12 to 20 EMHC's up in the sanctuary, even when only a few hundred people are receiving communion. Far too often, the number of communicants just does not justify any EMHC's, let alone these regiments. At most, a few minutes might be saved. EMHC's are only supposed to be used when absolutely necessary.
It's become obvious for too long that large numbers of EMHC's are being resorted to as a way of getting more laity "involved" in the liturgy. As if being at mass was not enough.
Hello Ed,
"And is it so awful that parishoners greet each other warmly in the church after Mass?"
Certainly not. But could we do it in the narthex (gathering space, if you like), as George suggests, rather than in the nave? Some people would like to pray in the pews after mass. A cavalcade of chit chat all around is just not conducive to that.
1.4.2012 | 2:32pm
Deacon Greg Kandra says:
Romulus...
Wrong. Priests, bishops and deacons -- all the ordained -- are the ordinary ministers of the Holy Communion.
Those not ordained -- lay people and some religious -- are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.
Wrong. Priests, bishops and deacons -- all the ordained -- are the ordinary ministers of the Holy Communion.
Those not ordained -- lay people and some religious -- are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.
1.4.2012 | 2:33pm
Kyle says:
I think it is a little harsh about talking to your neighbor after mass is over. Would Jesus really be mad that we are showing affection and love of thy neighbor because it is a worship area... I think not. This article is borderline judgemental.
1.4.2012 | 2:41pm
Corrie says:
Thank you for saying that about "Gather Us In". It is on my "do not sing list". I work at a Catholic school ... :)
1.4.2012 | 2:43pm
John says:
I always find it odd when Catholics like Mr. Weigel speak of the liturgy and the need for "theological and doctrinal precision," that nary a word is spoken of the Extraordinary Form, or Traditional Mass, which has always maintained such precision. Unless Mr. Weigel's "liturgical prissiness and aesthetic nostalgia" is a dismissive allusion to that form.
As for singing all verses, far too much liturgical music adheres to the dictum of "more is better," blind to its function within the liturgy, not as a free-standing action. The very terms processional and recessional indicate that the music is an accompaniment; Mass is over when the liturgical action is completed, not when the choir stops singing. A little more attention to precision of word and gesture--the dangers of "prissiness" notwithstanding--might have helped us to avoid at least some of the liturgical horrors of the past 40 years.
As for singing all verses, far too much liturgical music adheres to the dictum of "more is better," blind to its function within the liturgy, not as a free-standing action. The very terms processional and recessional indicate that the music is an accompaniment; Mass is over when the liturgical action is completed, not when the choir stops singing. A little more attention to precision of word and gesture--the dangers of "prissiness" notwithstanding--might have helped us to avoid at least some of the liturgical horrors of the past 40 years.
1.4.2012 | 3:04pm
Romulus says:
Deacon Greg -- Please re-read my post. I didn't say what you seem to think I said. I know very well who're the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. But only those ordained to the priesthood are ministers of the *Eucharist*. Furthermore (addressing Mr. Weigel now), there is no such thing as an "extraordinary minister of the Eucharist".
1.4.2012 | 3:10pm
Alex says:
@ J.W. Cox: Good question. How does one change decades of behavior? I think we might look at vatican II and ask, How does one change centuries of behavior? The answer is the teaching authority of the magisterium of the Catholic Church. The body of Christ is the church and it has many unique members arranged in a certain order, and it is the head (or the apostolic authority) that has the power and authority to guide us into heaven by its teachings. It is not some flat, relative, amorphous community. Rather than trust the teaching authority of the church, I read people commenting, "would Jesus really mind me doing this, or doing that?" Where is the piety? Where is the obedience? Christ, too, lived in perfect obedience to his Father's will. Are we really so proud as to arbitrate for ourselves on such shallow rhetoric?
@Kyle: Your comment about this post being borderline judgemental is exactly the kind of tenuous rhetoric that is totally inimical to the persuit of truth. Judgemental. You bet. But not in the stereotypical sense that our culture instills in us since our early days in the public educative system. Being able to make informed judgements is a good thing. It is what all those learned men do when they convene in councils for our benefit.
@Kyle: Your comment about this post being borderline judgemental is exactly the kind of tenuous rhetoric that is totally inimical to the persuit of truth. Judgemental. You bet. But not in the stereotypical sense that our culture instills in us since our early days in the public educative system. Being able to make informed judgements is a good thing. It is what all those learned men do when they convene in councils for our benefit.
1.4.2012 | 3:19pm
elm says:
@ Kyle: This article is borderline judgemental.
What is judgmental is 'chatty cathies' assuming those staying after Mass to give thanksgiving or adoration are not given the consideration of silence or whispers of those who would rather have social hour. I often thank God that I have become hard of hearing as it allows me to ignore the chatter in the nave, that is unless it is directly ahead or behind me in the pews.
What is judgmental is 'chatty cathies' assuming those staying after Mass to give thanksgiving or adoration are not given the consideration of silence or whispers of those who would rather have social hour. I often thank God that I have become hard of hearing as it allows me to ignore the chatter in the nave, that is unless it is directly ahead or behind me in the pews.
1.4.2012 | 3:21pm
Bill says:
"Surely excluded [from the celebration of mass] is everything which directs the community away from attention to God and his coming and turns its gaze back upon itself...Everything in the celebration which does not guide the hearts and thoughts toward the One being celebrated is evil..." Han Urs von Balthasar--celebrated theologian admired by John Paul The Great.
Too many do not regard or do not fully understand what actually happens at mass. If they did, then there would be no harping such as contained herein against Dr. Weigel's comments. What he presents here is contained in the various documents of Vatican II. They are not his own musings. As Catholics we must learn to be united in our liturgy as defined by the magisterium and stop the cafeteria approach.
Too many do not regard or do not fully understand what actually happens at mass. If they did, then there would be no harping such as contained herein against Dr. Weigel's comments. What he presents here is contained in the various documents of Vatican II. They are not his own musings. As Catholics we must learn to be united in our liturgy as defined by the magisterium and stop the cafeteria approach.
1.4.2012 | 4:11pm
Ellyn says:
Can't imagine having to stand while the congregation sang Happy Birthday....except as an exercise in mortification. It's church; not Chili's!
(and wouldn't a parish really need to be paying royalties...I've heard Happy Birthday is a rather expensive song to us - that is why many restaurants make up their own birthday tune)
As far as warm greetings of fellow parishioners are concerned, I would like to make the distinction between brief, whispered pleasantries and assailing one's pew mates with loud and prolonged discussion of brunch plans and the prospects of Sunday afternoon on the golf course.
(and wouldn't a parish really need to be paying royalties...I've heard Happy Birthday is a rather expensive song to us - that is why many restaurants make up their own birthday tune)
As far as warm greetings of fellow parishioners are concerned, I would like to make the distinction between brief, whispered pleasantries and assailing one's pew mates with loud and prolonged discussion of brunch plans and the prospects of Sunday afternoon on the golf course.
1.4.2012 | 4:12pm
Jeannine says:
Dr. Esolen's comment is great, but I'm afraid that letting the priests choose the music would not improve the situation. For example, our current pastor bought a sound system that plays treacly recorded music before Mass, even though we have a very accomplished organist. Some priests understand liturgical music, and some don't, depending on their training.
I am a cantor, and I sing in the choir at my parish. I have to say that I cringe when I have to sing the egregious "Gather Us In." However, it isn't as bad as "Lord of the Dance."
I am a cantor, and I sing in the choir at my parish. I have to say that I cringe when I have to sing the egregious "Gather Us In." However, it isn't as bad as "Lord of the Dance."
1.4.2012 | 4:19pm
don says:
Regarding the changes in missal text, I don't like being told to "dare" to say the "Our Father." Are we not worthy enough to pray, along with Christ, in the words that Christ gave us? This is the message words like "dare" send.
1.4.2012 | 4:32pm
Magnus says:
The local Bishop has the final say as does the Vatican, not the laity. As much as I like Rocco and George, as laity they can't pronounce on it officially or with any authority to change the local diocesan praxis. No laity has that authority only the Magisterium.
On a positive note: Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion keep the reception of communion from dragging out for a half hour or more in some of the crowded mega metro churches. Most EMHCs have no desire to be a "para-priest". They simply love our Lord and His Church.
On a positive note: Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion keep the reception of communion from dragging out for a half hour or more in some of the crowded mega metro churches. Most EMHCs have no desire to be a "para-priest". They simply love our Lord and His Church.
1.4.2012 | 5:08pm
Bibbit says:
There have been daily masses at my parish where my pastor still uses EMHCs even though there may be less than 20 people. What is so extraordinary about giving communion to 20 people? People think of these ministers as MHCs, but they are E-MHCs. The extraordinary is completely ignored these days. Completely. I can't help of think of the people in the world who walk, yes walk for hours to get to Sunday mass, yet we can't wait an extra 5 or 10 minutes for communion. When I tell kids in my CCD classes that they should still go to mass even if mom or dad won't drive, they look at my like I'm crazy. Walk half a mile or more to church, to church!? Oh, they'll park further than that away from a hockey or football game and walk, but not church. And I live in an area where the walk would be quite safe. I myself often walked to church when in high school (a little over a mile) and folks thought I was odd. And that was quite some time ago. I still often walk to mass, and now when folks see me walking I know some think I must have lost my license. Such a country! By the way, my CCD kids are in high school.
1.4.2012 | 5:16pm
xyzpdq says:
Great article. However, I do have a little nit to pick with you about music. What you are proposing seems to be what I've seen at my parish with its left wing liturgist and choir director. The processional and recessional are not times to show off and sing everything. These two hymns have one purpose and one purpose only to get the priest from the back of the church to the front - and not for the priest to stand around at the foot of the altar to sing another verse. Historically, the entrance chant was first introduced in the liturgy prior to people sitting in nice rows in pews. It was a wake-up call to make room for the priest or bishop as they came forward. This is the sole purpose of what is now called the "opening hymn".
1.4.2012 | 5:23pm
priest's wife says:
about singing 'Happy Birthday' in church
this is one way the Roman-rite might like to 'copy' the Byzantine instead of the other way around. After the final blessing, we sing this - "God grant you many blessed years in health and happiness" you can find the melody in various places.
this is one way the Roman-rite might like to 'copy' the Byzantine instead of the other way around. After the final blessing, we sing this - "God grant you many blessed years in health and happiness" you can find the melody in various places.
1.4.2012 | 5:32pm
Fr. Thomas Kocik says:
The conferral of blessings by those distributing Holy Communion, whether the minister be "ordinary" (i.e., ordained) or "extraordinary," is inappropriate. See the response from the Congregation for Divine Worship in the form of a letter (Prot. No. 930/08/L) dated Nov. 22, 2008.
@Don: We "dare" to say the Lord's Prayer ("audémus dícere...," in the Latin missal) because it is a bold thing to ask God to deal with our sins in the same manner that we deal with those who have offend us. Among other bold petitions.
@Don: We "dare" to say the Lord's Prayer ("audémus dícere...," in the Latin missal) because it is a bold thing to ask God to deal with our sins in the same manner that we deal with those who have offend us. Among other bold petitions.
1.4.2012 | 5:39pm
Romulus says:
Don, "dare" is what the Latin text says. This is a very ancient usage, and completely appropriate to be rendered faithfully in the vernacular. The fact is, we're not worthy at all (as we confess a few minutes later), except in Christ. It is an awesome thing to call upon God as Father, and no time to be thinking about our "right" to do so.
1.4.2012 | 6:07pm
Donna says:
My sister is an EMHC and asked the same question as yun14u. Since my sister's parish priest refuses to address the situation, she is left facing expectant, hopeful children. I suggested she place her hand on the child's shoulder (not the head) and say the prayer from the breviary, "May the Lord bless us, protect us from all evil and bring us to life everlasting."
1.4.2012 | 7:33pm
Alberto Maio says:
Dear Mr. Weigel,
I want to thank you for your incisive commentary. As a young Catholic just getting his start in academia I have been shown by you here just how one ought not to write an article. I do not know you, but I can tell that you and I have a lot in common. We share the same aesthetic sensibilities and laud the same principles. We read the "left side" of the Loebs.
I pray I do not end up writing articles like this one. Are you aware of the effect of your words?
There are two readers of this article. Those like myself who already agree with you, and those who disagree with you and regard our position as aloof. You have succeeded in inspiring the conversion of no one. The former and the latter alike have both been secured in their convictions. Readers like myself will agree with all you say, and the others will still think we are jerks.
Best,
Alberto Maio
I want to thank you for your incisive commentary. As a young Catholic just getting his start in academia I have been shown by you here just how one ought not to write an article. I do not know you, but I can tell that you and I have a lot in common. We share the same aesthetic sensibilities and laud the same principles. We read the "left side" of the Loebs.
I pray I do not end up writing articles like this one. Are you aware of the effect of your words?
There are two readers of this article. Those like myself who already agree with you, and those who disagree with you and regard our position as aloof. You have succeeded in inspiring the conversion of no one. The former and the latter alike have both been secured in their convictions. Readers like myself will agree with all you say, and the others will still think we are jerks.
Best,
Alberto Maio
1.4.2012 | 8:37pm
Gil Costello says:
Don, you write "Regarding the changes in missal text, I don't like being told to 'dare' to say the 'Our Father.' "
But isn't it daring to say, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us?"
But isn't it daring to say, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us?"
1.4.2012 | 9:02pm
Steve Colby says:
From my vantage point as a Presbyterian, I find both the article and the comments very interesting. I am puzzled, though, by the decision of First Things to publish it as an "On The Square" article. It seems more of an intramural issue than a Public Square issue.
And David, I also now have "Gather Us In" in my head. Ecumenism isn't all it's cracked up to be.
And David, I also now have "Gather Us In" in my head. Ecumenism isn't all it's cracked up to be.
1.4.2012 | 9:09pm
Linda says:
@Edmond, "we are only around because there are not enough priests to bring perfection to the worship." If there is a priest to say the Mass, then there is "enough priest" to distribute the Sacred Body of Jesus.
"Perfection?" Do you honestly think that it is YOU and other EOM that bring "perfection" to the liturgy? You are truly missing something.
"The messenger" should not need to be told that he is not needed after reading the document from the Pope.
"Perfection?" Do you honestly think that it is YOU and other EOM that bring "perfection" to the liturgy? You are truly missing something.
"The messenger" should not need to be told that he is not needed after reading the document from the Pope.
1.4.2012 | 9:16pm
Todd says:
I suggest a note of caution when amateur liturgists, be they DRE's or scholars of a different discipline, give lessons in good worship.
"Note to Celebrants (not “Presiders”)"
As a matter of fact, "presider" is how the Roman Missal often refers to the priest at Mass. It's always amusing when a conservative gets caught up in his own brand of pc-speak.
As for the kerfuffle over who is a communion minister and who not, just be grateful for those who serve: priest, deacon, or lay person. And focus a little more intently on whom you receive, not who is the servant.
If anyone's really looking for a bad liturgical habit to break, how about the attitude of superiority, of thinking that if only you were in charge, you could remake the Mass in your own image, and God would be pleased.
Better would be to focus on adding good habits: lectio divina with the upcoming Sunday Scriptures.
"Note to Celebrants (not “Presiders”)"
As a matter of fact, "presider" is how the Roman Missal often refers to the priest at Mass. It's always amusing when a conservative gets caught up in his own brand of pc-speak.
As for the kerfuffle over who is a communion minister and who not, just be grateful for those who serve: priest, deacon, or lay person. And focus a little more intently on whom you receive, not who is the servant.
If anyone's really looking for a bad liturgical habit to break, how about the attitude of superiority, of thinking that if only you were in charge, you could remake the Mass in your own image, and God would be pleased.
Better would be to focus on adding good habits: lectio divina with the upcoming Sunday Scriptures.
1.4.2012 | 10:01pm
Matt Yonke says:
don -- The use of the word "dare" in reference to the Our Father is actually quite ancient. It's been used in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which puts it as early as the 5th century, and it was likely in use before then. I understand it does have some odd connotations, but I think it's meant more in the spirit of celebrating that we are allowed to dare. Because of what Jesus did, we can do what would be otherwise unthinkable, approach with boldness the throne of grace! But you're certainly entitled to dislike it, just wanted your dislike to be informed ;)
1.4.2012 | 10:08pm
Hal Riedl says:
George, who appointed you chief of the Liturgy Police? You capture the spirit of Pharisaism--Catholicism as cult not Gospel.
1.4.2012 | 10:15pm
FW Ken says:
I love hymns, including the great classics and some of the new stuff. Yes, that includes the dreaded Gather Us In. But that's just me and the fact remains that hymn-singing at Mass is/a fairley recent innovation.
What if...
Instead of singing all the verses of the processional and recessional hymns, we did away with all that marching around altogether. Ring the bell and let the altar party come in from the sacristy wile the proper Introit is chanted. I was going to say ''chanted by the choir'', but simple chants are easily learned and the congregation could sing as well. Even if they don't, it wouldn't be worse than it is now.
No one stays for the closing hymn anyway (''the Mass is ENDED'), so eliminate that hymn. If the priest wants to end up at the back of the church to greet people, let him walk in silence, or maybe do something radical like pray the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel.
I really do love hymns, and suggest that after the Offertory Psalm, there would be plenty of time for a hymn, of whatever style suits the congregation. Similarly, after the Communion Proper, a hymn would be appropriate. Heck, with the Propers in place AND hymns, the choir might not have to worry so much about a motet, or as our Baptist friends say ''the Special''.
What if...
Instead of singing all the verses of the processional and recessional hymns, we did away with all that marching around altogether. Ring the bell and let the altar party come in from the sacristy wile the proper Introit is chanted. I was going to say ''chanted by the choir'', but simple chants are easily learned and the congregation could sing as well. Even if they don't, it wouldn't be worse than it is now.
No one stays for the closing hymn anyway (''the Mass is ENDED'), so eliminate that hymn. If the priest wants to end up at the back of the church to greet people, let him walk in silence, or maybe do something radical like pray the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel.
I really do love hymns, and suggest that after the Offertory Psalm, there would be plenty of time for a hymn, of whatever style suits the congregation. Similarly, after the Communion Proper, a hymn would be appropriate. Heck, with the Propers in place AND hymns, the choir might not have to worry so much about a motet, or as our Baptist friends say ''the Special''.
1.4.2012 | 10:16pm
Tony Esolen says:
Don -- it's what the Latin actually says: "audemur." "We make bold" would be a good translation, too.
On "Gather Us In, The Nice and the Naughty": I think it's an awful song, just awful. Its melody is hokey, but I could live with that. The words are either heretical or plain dumb: "Not in some heaven light years away"??? What the heck is that supposed to suggest? Who on earth believes in a spatio-temporal heaven somewhere in the universe -- like a Shangri-La tucked away in Tibet? What's the effect that such a verse has on the theologically naive? And what the heck is that prissy "Give us the courage to enter the dance" supposed to mean?
Compare:
Rise up, O men of God,
Have done with lesser things:
Give heart and soul and mind and strength
To serve the King of kings.
Rise up, O men of God,
The Church for you doth wait,
Her strength unequal to her task;
Rise up, and make her great!
Rise up, O men of God,
His kingdom tarries long:
Bring in the day of brotherhood
And end the night of wrong.
Lift high the Cross of Christ,
And where His feet have trod,
As brothers of the Son of Man
Rise up, O men of God!
Now THAT is a hymn that young men can sing! And young women, too -- poking their elbows into the ribs of the young men next to them, to tell them to get going already and do their jobs...
Then we might also have done with One Bed, Two Bodies ...
On "Gather Us In, The Nice and the Naughty": I think it's an awful song, just awful. Its melody is hokey, but I could live with that. The words are either heretical or plain dumb: "Not in some heaven light years away"??? What the heck is that supposed to suggest? Who on earth believes in a spatio-temporal heaven somewhere in the universe -- like a Shangri-La tucked away in Tibet? What's the effect that such a verse has on the theologically naive? And what the heck is that prissy "Give us the courage to enter the dance" supposed to mean?
Compare:
Rise up, O men of God,
Have done with lesser things:
Give heart and soul and mind and strength
To serve the King of kings.
Rise up, O men of God,
The Church for you doth wait,
Her strength unequal to her task;
Rise up, and make her great!
Rise up, O men of God,
His kingdom tarries long:
Bring in the day of brotherhood
And end the night of wrong.
Lift high the Cross of Christ,
And where His feet have trod,
As brothers of the Son of Man
Rise up, O men of God!
Now THAT is a hymn that young men can sing! And young women, too -- poking their elbows into the ribs of the young men next to them, to tell them to get going already and do their jobs...
Then we might also have done with One Bed, Two Bodies ...
1.4.2012 | 11:29pm
AdOrientem says:
Mr. Weigel comments; "The point of these corrections is neither liturgical prissiness nor aesthetic nostalgia; there is no 'reform of the reform' to be found in lace surplices, narrow fiddleback chasubles, and massive candles."
The implication here seems to be that the use of older vestural forms or altar arrangements is somehow necessarily 'aesthetic nostalgia', 'liturgical prissiness' and not an aspect of the reform of the reform; that they are unimportant or shallow even.
This strikes me as itself a rather inadequate, and itself rather shallow, assessment of some of these liturgical aspects, an assessment which certainly seems inconsistent with some of the other fine points made in the piece.
To be clear, I am not suggesting one must use lace, or have a "fiddleback" chasuble, etc., but I think we must recall that the Pope and his Master of Ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini, have made the explicit point that the use of older vestural styles within the context of the papal liturgy have precisely been readopted both as a manifestation of beauty, and also as a manifestation and statement of continuity.
Here is what Msgr Marini said:
"The vestments used, like some of the details of the rite, aim to underline the continuity of today's liturgical celebration with that which characterized the life of the church in the past"
Marini continued saying: “I would like to note that the Pope does not always use ancient liturgical vestments. He often uses modern ones. The important thing is not that they are ancient or modern but that they are beautiful and dignified, aspects that are important for all liturgical celebrations"
(see: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/popes_ancient_ornaments_and_vestments_underscore_continuity_in_the_liturgy/)
So yes, they needn't be all fiddlebacks and lace it goes without saying, but there are two key points here surely; one is that the use of older forms are a manifestation of the Pope's hermeneutic of continuity, and the second is that beauty, including beautiful vestments and altar ornaments, are most certainly important for the sacred liturgy. (And yes, let us recall that the candlesticks where re-arranged as well.) That being said, we can hardly write these elements off, exclude them as one of the manifestations of the reform of the reform, or characterize them as somehow merely prissy and nostalgic aestheticisms without meaning, purpose or substance.
In both regards, there seems to be a clear disconnect between these liturgical principles and what seems to be suggested by Mr. Weigel's quotation above.
The implication here seems to be that the use of older vestural forms or altar arrangements is somehow necessarily 'aesthetic nostalgia', 'liturgical prissiness' and not an aspect of the reform of the reform; that they are unimportant or shallow even.
This strikes me as itself a rather inadequate, and itself rather shallow, assessment of some of these liturgical aspects, an assessment which certainly seems inconsistent with some of the other fine points made in the piece.
To be clear, I am not suggesting one must use lace, or have a "fiddleback" chasuble, etc., but I think we must recall that the Pope and his Master of Ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini, have made the explicit point that the use of older vestural styles within the context of the papal liturgy have precisely been readopted both as a manifestation of beauty, and also as a manifestation and statement of continuity.
Here is what Msgr Marini said:
"The vestments used, like some of the details of the rite, aim to underline the continuity of today's liturgical celebration with that which characterized the life of the church in the past"
Marini continued saying: “I would like to note that the Pope does not always use ancient liturgical vestments. He often uses modern ones. The important thing is not that they are ancient or modern but that they are beautiful and dignified, aspects that are important for all liturgical celebrations"
(see: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/popes_ancient_ornaments_and_vestments_underscore_continuity_in_the_liturgy/)
So yes, they needn't be all fiddlebacks and lace it goes without saying, but there are two key points here surely; one is that the use of older forms are a manifestation of the Pope's hermeneutic of continuity, and the second is that beauty, including beautiful vestments and altar ornaments, are most certainly important for the sacred liturgy. (And yes, let us recall that the candlesticks where re-arranged as well.) That being said, we can hardly write these elements off, exclude them as one of the manifestations of the reform of the reform, or characterize them as somehow merely prissy and nostalgic aestheticisms without meaning, purpose or substance.
In both regards, there seems to be a clear disconnect between these liturgical principles and what seems to be suggested by Mr. Weigel's quotation above.
1.5.2012 | 12:11am
Todd says:
"And what the heck is that prissy "Give us the courage to enter the dance" supposed to mean?"
No idea. It's not in "Gather Us In." Check the fifth verse of "Rise Up. O Men of God." Maybe it's there.
When I think of treacly texts, I think of hymnody, mainly Marian songs, from before Vatican II.
No idea. It's not in "Gather Us In." Check the fifth verse of "Rise Up. O Men of God." Maybe it's there.
When I think of treacly texts, I think of hymnody, mainly Marian songs, from before Vatican II.
1.5.2012 | 12:39am
Lydia says:
The best way to 'break bad liturgical habits' is to get rid of the Novus Ordo Mass.
There should be no place in the liturgy for extraordinary ministers and taking Holy Communion in the hand. Ditto for the priest facing the congregation and making everyone think that the Mass is for their entertainment and satisfaction.
The Extraordinary Form is not about aesthetics or harking back to some nostalgic Golden Age. It's not about lace and fiddleback chasubles. There is a wide gulf between the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms, theologically speaking. For those who can be bothered to investigate the difference, place an OF and EF missal side by side and read the prayers.
There should be no place in the liturgy for extraordinary ministers and taking Holy Communion in the hand. Ditto for the priest facing the congregation and making everyone think that the Mass is for their entertainment and satisfaction.
The Extraordinary Form is not about aesthetics or harking back to some nostalgic Golden Age. It's not about lace and fiddleback chasubles. There is a wide gulf between the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms, theologically speaking. For those who can be bothered to investigate the difference, place an OF and EF missal side by side and read the prayers.
1.5.2012 | 3:04am
edmond says:
Linda, you misread my statement. The SME's were empowered by vatican to merely ASSIST the priests in communion. We are fully aware of this responsibility and its parameters. In the parish I serve daily, I take my cue from the priest. If the chapel is filled until outside the entrance then I get the signal from him. If not, I would rather stay at my pew.
You and everyone else in this discussion site know that the priest numbers are dwindling for a number of reasons and therefore the necessity for SMEs .
You state, "If there is a priest to say the Mass, then there is "enough priest" to distribute the Sacred Body of Jesus". Sorry, but that doesn't apply to all parishes, specially the well attended ones where the priest, alone in many occassions (and ageing), has to make two trips back to the altar to replenish the ciborium with consecrated hosts. One priest nearly tripped on the way back up to the altar because his vestments got in the way...Or if you have attended midnight mass or the easter vigil in large catholic community parishes, one priest is hardly enough.
As for the liturgical music, there is always a struggle between being liturgically compliant and being attractive to the younger parishioners, (undertones from "Sister Act").
Latin songs have their place with people who grew up in that era. It helps bring the holy mass to a more solemn and MEANINGFUL sacrifice, but ONLY if you understand the language. Can you expect the parishes to swell up in mass attendance if teenagers don't understand latin or have no inkling of classical music?
You and everyone else in this discussion site know that the priest numbers are dwindling for a number of reasons and therefore the necessity for SMEs .
You state, "If there is a priest to say the Mass, then there is "enough priest" to distribute the Sacred Body of Jesus". Sorry, but that doesn't apply to all parishes, specially the well attended ones where the priest, alone in many occassions (and ageing), has to make two trips back to the altar to replenish the ciborium with consecrated hosts. One priest nearly tripped on the way back up to the altar because his vestments got in the way...Or if you have attended midnight mass or the easter vigil in large catholic community parishes, one priest is hardly enough.
As for the liturgical music, there is always a struggle between being liturgically compliant and being attractive to the younger parishioners, (undertones from "Sister Act").
Latin songs have their place with people who grew up in that era. It helps bring the holy mass to a more solemn and MEANINGFUL sacrifice, but ONLY if you understand the language. Can you expect the parishes to swell up in mass attendance if teenagers don't understand latin or have no inkling of classical music?
1.5.2012 | 6:56am
John says:
Lydia is right on. The NO has been abused for 50 years now. The re-translation may have improved the text. Nevertheless, the text is overpowered by liturgical bad behavior in most parishes. IMHO the next 500 will not be enough to correct the situation.
1.5.2012 | 7:05am
Kevin Orlin Johnson says:
Yes, unless and until we all get the distinction between taste and law we're never going to have authentic liturgy or decent clergy.
One major point: it is NEVER permitted to use Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion routinely at regular parish Masses. Never. Not only Ecclesia de mysterio but Immensae caritatis (Instruction on Facilitating Sacramental Eucharistic Communion in Particular Circumstances, January 25, 1973), Inaestimabile donum (Instruction Concerning Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, April 17, 1980), Ecclesiæ de mysterio (Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest, August 15, 1997), and Redemptionis Sacramentum (Instruction on Certain Matters to be Observed or to be Avoided Regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, March 25, 2004) all made it abundantly clear that this is unlawful.
If your bishop and your priest use EMHCs at every Mass, they are in open schism.
I know that the Vatican Chancery writes in a deliberately, elaborately obscure manner, not wishing to hurt anybody's feelings, but these directives are extraordinarily clear. Still, they do assume that you know something about what a parish is, how our churches are required to be designed and built, what the Holy See is and what its authority is, so even if Americans are aware of these documents they're likely to misunderstand them.
But make no mistake. It is absolutely unlawful to use EMHCs at regular parish Masses. Your bishop knows this, and he does not care. Your bishop is in flagrant disobedience. Your bishop is publicly committing the sin of disobedience. That's all that there is to it.
Check it out for yourself! And call him to correction. It's the laity's neglect of our duty as the Body of Christ that enables our bishops to commit this and all of their other offenses. Check it out, and call your clergy to correction.
One major point: it is NEVER permitted to use Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion routinely at regular parish Masses. Never. Not only Ecclesia de mysterio but Immensae caritatis (Instruction on Facilitating Sacramental Eucharistic Communion in Particular Circumstances, January 25, 1973), Inaestimabile donum (Instruction Concerning Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, April 17, 1980), Ecclesiæ de mysterio (Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest, August 15, 1997), and Redemptionis Sacramentum (Instruction on Certain Matters to be Observed or to be Avoided Regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, March 25, 2004) all made it abundantly clear that this is unlawful.
If your bishop and your priest use EMHCs at every Mass, they are in open schism.
I know that the Vatican Chancery writes in a deliberately, elaborately obscure manner, not wishing to hurt anybody's feelings, but these directives are extraordinarily clear. Still, they do assume that you know something about what a parish is, how our churches are required to be designed and built, what the Holy See is and what its authority is, so even if Americans are aware of these documents they're likely to misunderstand them.
But make no mistake. It is absolutely unlawful to use EMHCs at regular parish Masses. Your bishop knows this, and he does not care. Your bishop is in flagrant disobedience. Your bishop is publicly committing the sin of disobedience. That's all that there is to it.
Check it out for yourself! And call him to correction. It's the laity's neglect of our duty as the Body of Christ that enables our bishops to commit this and all of their other offenses. Check it out, and call your clergy to correction.
1.5.2012 | 8:20am
TheInformer says:
So WONDERFULLY NAIVE!
I get the sense that seminaries teach the priests to be namby-pamby about these seemingly trivial ideas suggested by Mr. Weigel. Sure, I agree completely with all of his column today but where oh where do we consistently see any of this given importance? (the seminaries also must teach ways of homilizing inoffensively! I am rarely challenged....with notable exception)
I've been going to daily Mass for going on 24 years now, in many states and countries. I want to remain optimistic but it's hard to deny the casual and minimalist celebration of the Mass I've seen, and seen, and seen. No wonder the average Catholic knows virtually nothing about the Faith and practice of it. 45 minutes/week of the bare minimum liturgy at an average parish ain't gonna help much!
I get the sense that seminaries teach the priests to be namby-pamby about these seemingly trivial ideas suggested by Mr. Weigel. Sure, I agree completely with all of his column today but where oh where do we consistently see any of this given importance? (the seminaries also must teach ways of homilizing inoffensively! I am rarely challenged....with notable exception)
I've been going to daily Mass for going on 24 years now, in many states and countries. I want to remain optimistic but it's hard to deny the casual and minimalist celebration of the Mass I've seen, and seen, and seen. No wonder the average Catholic knows virtually nothing about the Faith and practice of it. 45 minutes/week of the bare minimum liturgy at an average parish ain't gonna help much!
1.5.2012 | 8:48am
Sarah M says:
Thank you Mr. Weigel (and Mr. Esolen in his comments, too) for sticking up for us younger Catholics. Too much I hear that young people want to dress casually, sing "contemporary" songs, and innovate on the form of Mass. This is hardly true, at least for me and my converted peers. It is always refreshing to read an affirmation of the Novus Ordo, too, since a lot of times the response to "How do we stop all these Boomers from running amok with the liturgy?" is "The Latin Mass!"
1.5.2012 | 10:08am
emma says:
@yun14u:
At our parish, EMHC will tell the pre-first communion child or adult "Receive Jesus Christ in your heart." It is a simple command of spiritual communion, since the person cannot consume Christ at that time.
I didn't know it was "bad form" for the priest to give a quick blessing to someone in the communion line. Is this just oppinion, or is it stated officially somewhere? Just wondering.
Peace!
At our parish, EMHC will tell the pre-first communion child or adult "Receive Jesus Christ in your heart." It is a simple command of spiritual communion, since the person cannot consume Christ at that time.
I didn't know it was "bad form" for the priest to give a quick blessing to someone in the communion line. Is this just oppinion, or is it stated officially somewhere? Just wondering.
Peace!
1.5.2012 | 12:02pm
DFWShook says:
@yun14u:
How about the priest prior to Communion (or better yet at the begining of his Homily) explain to those in attendance that the EMHC's cannot give blessings and that only those receiving Communion should be coming forward at that time. If someone would like a blessing, they should stop by and see the priest or deacon right after Mass.
How about the priest prior to Communion (or better yet at the begining of his Homily) explain to those in attendance that the EMHC's cannot give blessings and that only those receiving Communion should be coming forward at that time. If someone would like a blessing, they should stop by and see the priest or deacon right after Mass.
1.5.2012 | 12:17pm
Cynthia Scholl says:
Who the heck are you to judge other Catholics in this manner? This was a nit-picky, nasty blog. Be thankful for the attendance at Mass of the faithful and quit criticising those who don't meet your perfectionistic standards. Look to your own sins first, brother.
1.5.2012 | 12:55pm
MegavIdeo says:
@Emma and yun14u
My priest often gives blessings both before communion and in the communion line. Is there actually a rule that this shouldn't be done? If everyone at the church is fine with it, there's no problem right?
My priest often gives blessings both before communion and in the communion line. Is there actually a rule that this shouldn't be done? If everyone at the church is fine with it, there's no problem right?
1.5.2012 | 1:45pm
Jan says:
This was a good post - he's not judging. We can't continue the "do whatever feels good" in our parishes anymore - some of the practices are ridiculous and promote division - like the hand-holding during The Lord's Prayer.
As for the EMHC overuse - the same people who fuss about waiting half an hour to receive Holy Communion are the same people who will stand in line for an hour or more to eat at a restaurant or see a movie. But I don't know if that particular criticism was intended for ultra-large parishes; rather, maybe it was for small parishes (not a couple hundred people but a few dozen) where there are two EMHC's besides the priest...that's crazy.
As for the EMHC overuse - the same people who fuss about waiting half an hour to receive Holy Communion are the same people who will stand in line for an hour or more to eat at a restaurant or see a movie. But I don't know if that particular criticism was intended for ultra-large parishes; rather, maybe it was for small parishes (not a couple hundred people but a few dozen) where there are two EMHC's besides the priest...that's crazy.
1.5.2012 | 5:24pm
CeileDe says:
Does anyone here think having EMHC's saves any time?
In the time each goes up to the altar, receives first, gathers at stations, and watches as most people go to the priest anyway, the priest would have been done at the altar rail had he distributed that way.
It was all really about blurring the line between ordained and lay and about moving away from transubstantiation as taught at Trent and affirmed at V2. Saving time was just the sales line. So, if there's no effect on time, and there's no change in theology, just why do we have them again?
As for their bringing the Sacrament to the sick this is laudable but don't the sick need priests to visit to hear their confession first?
In the time each goes up to the altar, receives first, gathers at stations, and watches as most people go to the priest anyway, the priest would have been done at the altar rail had he distributed that way.
It was all really about blurring the line between ordained and lay and about moving away from transubstantiation as taught at Trent and affirmed at V2. Saving time was just the sales line. So, if there's no effect on time, and there's no change in theology, just why do we have them again?
As for their bringing the Sacrament to the sick this is laudable but don't the sick need priests to visit to hear their confession first?
1.5.2012 | 8:20pm
Brenda says:
What about priest pastors who almost seem to want to walk that fine line between obedience to the Holy See and disobedience. For instance, at the Midnight Mass, our notoriously liberal minded priest pastor welcomed all of the non-Catholics to the Midnight Mass -- but then never once mentioned the instruction about who should and should not receive the Holy Eucharist. It appeared to me and a few others that a number of non-Catholics 'received' nonchallantley and almost unconsciously... : (
1.5.2012 | 10:14pm
ksundaram says:
Fine George. But tell it to the Bishops and their conference, because these things go on with their permission and approval. The laity pointing these things out are seen as bringing dissension. Unless there is authority insisting on your take (I agree that you are correct, and I don't even possess a philosophy or theology advance degree and thus am not qualified by the powers that be running dioceses today) this article is just another puff of wind. What we need is a way to insist that we are entitled by laws of the Church that can be enforced and a way to seek remedy to the poor exercise...where is the how, George?
1.5.2012 | 11:50pm
TeaPot562 says:
Circa 1970, I took my older son, just home from a BSA weekend, to a 5:30 p.m. Sunday Mass. Usually all three priests then resident in our parish would be at Holy Communion to help distribute. For some reason, neither of the non-celebrant priests showed up. Maybe one was on a sick call and the other had a car break down. Anyway, Fr. Brilliantes (Filipino descent) spent 25 minutes going back and forth at the Communion Rail at communion time.
A shortage of priests in some of the larger parishes may be a justification for Extraordinary Ministers, in order to alleviate strain on those priests who ARE present.
TeaPot562
A shortage of priests in some of the larger parishes may be a justification for Extraordinary Ministers, in order to alleviate strain on those priests who ARE present.
TeaPot562
1.6.2012 | 12:18am
Lydia says:
My husband and I have a friend who is a Russian Orthodox priest. He was invited to go to a Mass at a Catholic church by his neighbour. Afterward, he remarked that after watching how the sacred mysteries were handled at the Mass, he couldn't believe that Catholics actually profess belief in the Real Presence. Says a lot doesn't it?
1.6.2012 | 11:15am
pulchritudomusicae says:
It's probably been addressed above, but it should be made clear that:
1. Hymns are NOT the first option or even the second option for singing at Mass. Chant Propers are the first option for music in each and every Mass according to the GIRM.
2. Many hymns (which mostly originate from Germany during the Reformation) were 10, 15, or more verses long, and we simply have three or four verses that have been translated and chosen for our hymnals/missals. Someone arbitrarily chose what should be included, so I don't think it's a hugely important issue if a verse or two are left off.--If you want the music to be part of the Mass, sing the Propers!
(http://musicasacra.com/sep)
1. Hymns are NOT the first option or even the second option for singing at Mass. Chant Propers are the first option for music in each and every Mass according to the GIRM.
2. Many hymns (which mostly originate from Germany during the Reformation) were 10, 15, or more verses long, and we simply have three or four verses that have been translated and chosen for our hymnals/missals. Someone arbitrarily chose what should be included, so I don't think it's a hugely important issue if a verse or two are left off.--If you want the music to be part of the Mass, sing the Propers!
(http://musicasacra.com/sep)
1.6.2012 | 12:51pm
Albert2007 says:
A. The blessing of children and non-Catholics in the Communion line is not in the rubrics of the Roman Missal; it is something that many priests have added to the Mass on their own. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, however, says (sec. 24): "[T]he Priest Celebrant ... will remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of the Mass."
B. The "Modern Catholic Dictionary" (by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.) says that "Fraternal correction ... usually involves a serious fault, either unknown as to gravity by the offender or hoped to be corrected by such admonition. .... It should never be exercised merely for the sake of the offended, but mainly to help the offender or benefit a third party. In some religious communitites it is a recognized form of fostering humility and a valuable aid to growing in Christian perfection."
B. The "Modern Catholic Dictionary" (by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.) says that "Fraternal correction ... usually involves a serious fault, either unknown as to gravity by the offender or hoped to be corrected by such admonition. .... It should never be exercised merely for the sake of the offended, but mainly to help the offender or benefit a third party. In some religious communitites it is a recognized form of fostering humility and a valuable aid to growing in Christian perfection."
1.6.2012 | 1:31pm
yun14u says:
@Hal Riedl
I do not think G. Weigel is becoming Liturgy Police. All the so-called "norms" during Mass such hand-holding during The Lord's Prayer and handshake exchange during offering the Sign of Peace were brought on by priests, albeit young or old, who must have been sleeping during classes at the Seminary. G. Weigel just brought the attention to these flagrant behaviors during Mass. Remember the main focus at Mass and be reverent about it (duh !) If someone wants the Kumbaya, please take it to the parking lot or parish hall AFTER MASS.
I do not think G. Weigel is becoming Liturgy Police. All the so-called "norms" during Mass such hand-holding during The Lord's Prayer and handshake exchange during offering the Sign of Peace were brought on by priests, albeit young or old, who must have been sleeping during classes at the Seminary. G. Weigel just brought the attention to these flagrant behaviors during Mass. Remember the main focus at Mass and be reverent about it (duh !) If someone wants the Kumbaya, please take it to the parking lot or parish hall AFTER MASS.
1.6.2012 | 3:17pm
Albert2007 says:
The blessing of children and non-Catholics in the Communion line is not in the rubrics of the Roman Missal; it is something that many priests have added to the Mass on their own. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, however, says (in sec. 24) that the celebrant is not allowed to add, remove, or change anything in the Mass.
Mr. Weigel is not being pharasaical or judgmental. He is making observations and offering information and fraternal correction to priests, deacons, and extraordinaryy ministers of Holy Communion (EMHC's).
Mr. Weigel is not being pharasaical or judgmental. He is making observations and offering information and fraternal correction to priests, deacons, and extraordinaryy ministers of Holy Communion (EMHC's).
1.19.2012 | 11:20am
Mark says:
I agree. Sing all the verses.
However, Weigel makes a claim that cannot serve as the reason to do so. He says, "Good hymns have a textual integrity that is lost when we sing hymn-excerpts rather than hymns."
Of course some hymns do. Many, as we have them, don't.
Weigel cites the need to sing all four verses of "Crown Him with Many Crowns." But my question is "Which four?" Or is it five as in the hymnal my parish uses?
Actually "Crown Him" has nine verses, a combination of original verses written by Matthew Bridges and later ones written by Godfrey Thring. What's in most hymnals is a mash-up of original and later verses. So much for "textual integrity."
We always sing all the verses in my congregation. But Weigel's demand for "textual integrity" is thin ice since any number of hymns are already missing verses. We just don't notice that on the pages of our hymnals.
Here's "Lift High the Cross"
http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/l/l118.html
And "Crown Him with Many Crowns"
http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/c/c396.html
However, Weigel makes a claim that cannot serve as the reason to do so. He says, "Good hymns have a textual integrity that is lost when we sing hymn-excerpts rather than hymns."
Of course some hymns do. Many, as we have them, don't.
Weigel cites the need to sing all four verses of "Crown Him with Many Crowns." But my question is "Which four?" Or is it five as in the hymnal my parish uses?
Actually "Crown Him" has nine verses, a combination of original verses written by Matthew Bridges and later ones written by Godfrey Thring. What's in most hymnals is a mash-up of original and later verses. So much for "textual integrity."
We always sing all the verses in my congregation. But Weigel's demand for "textual integrity" is thin ice since any number of hymns are already missing verses. We just don't notice that on the pages of our hymnals.
Here's "Lift High the Cross"
http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/l/l118.html
And "Crown Him with Many Crowns"
http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/c/c396.html
1.19.2012 | 2:24pm
Father G says:
I applaud Mr. Weigel for writing this article but, is Mr. Weigel aware that he has his own liturgical habit to break? While it is very common to say "Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist " or "Eucharistic ministers", the correct terminology is "Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion" or "Communion ministers". As it states in article 154 of Redemptionis Sacramentum, the title "'minister of the Eucharist' belongs properly to the Priest alone." Laypeople are only authorized to distribute Holy Communion.
Mr. Weigel is correct that "Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion" cannot give blessings to children during Holy Communion, but it needs to be pointed out that there is no rubric or instruction which permits a bishop, priest , or deacon to give blessings at that time either. The blessing is given to all by the bishop or priest at the end of Mass.
Mr. Weigel is correct that "Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion" cannot give blessings to children during Holy Communion, but it needs to be pointed out that there is no rubric or instruction which permits a bishop, priest , or deacon to give blessings at that time either. The blessing is given to all by the bishop or priest at the end of Mass.
1.20.2012 | 3:36pm
Auntie Coosa says:
Could you address the practice of some Celebrants who break the Host as they say the Words of Consecration?
Thank you for addressing the meaning of "Sunday best."
Thank you for addressing the meaning of "Sunday best."
