Summorum PontificumI enjoy reading the comments that my opinion has elicited. They are polite, kind and well put. They also deserve a response, or at least a reaction from the author of the blog.
Many, and I mean, many, say that it is not the Latin that they seek, but the spirit of sacredness and holiness that they get from the ritual. They are elevated by the quiet, the silence, the ability to pray and to prepare for communion. The atmosphere is so much more mystical.
I don't deny that. No one does. To be perfectly honest, I do have a corner in my heart that says that there is room for that in the church. Jesus Himself said, “There are many mansions in my Father’s house.” I also know that it is not what the Fathers of Vatican Council II intended. They intended that the Mass should be a participatory celebration of the mystery of salvation, not a personal, mystical preparation to the reception of communion. They intended the entire Mass to be Eucharist, priest and laity celebrating together. More community singing, more bible stories, mandatory homily, etc. That's why they put the priest as close to the crowd as they could, face to face, joy to joy. That is why we have what we have in this day and age.
Starting on September 14, 2007, those who want the peace and quiet of preparing themselves for communion while the priest turns his back to them, consecrates the bread and wine and prays in whispers in a foreign language will have more opportunities to do so. It is Benedict XVI's opinion that this is good for the church.
R.C. MASS – SACRIFICE OR BANQUET?
I have had an interesting experience over the last week. I am a very staunch Roman Catholic who has reservations about the Pope’s opinion concerning the relaxing of the rules for the celebration of the Mass in Latin, according to the ritual which was installed by Pope John XXIII in 1962. I found a deep, right-wing Internet site where I asserted myself and said that I did not agree with the Pope’s opinion as stated in the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum. More than being a staunch Roman Catholic, I am a fluent reader of Latin. I wrote my opinions over my real name and my real academic credentials. It was a rather interesting give and take which lasted a while, but then ended abruptly for the sake of maintaining civility.
Since then, I have read some comments on my blog, one post which is entitled QUIBUSCUMQUE MISA LATINA PRAEDILIGENT OFFERTUR which you can find if you click here
One of the faithful who made a comment asked me to write a more complete article about my opinion about the TLM (Traditional Latin Mass) so that my opinion would be more clearly exposed, and hopefully, understood. I am therefore going to plunge right into the project so that I can get it done before the reader loses patience.
I. Foundational theology of the Mass, Pre-Vatican II
Before Vatican II the foundational theology of the Mass was situated on the Old Testament concept of the Sacrifice. Just as the sacrifice was the supreme act of worship, reconciliation, intercession and petition, so was the Mass, the supreme act of relationship with God, the non-sanguinary sacrifice of the Lamb of God, offered to God by the Lamb Himself (Jesus on the Cross) for the salvation of Mankind. This act of worship is presented to us from the first pages of Genesis all the way through the Gospels.
Every seminarian who was ordained before 1970 was “formed” in this theology. I know, I was one of them.
This theology was the basis of our prayer style. The priest conducted the rite that made the sacrifice happen. Our priest was the replication of the Levite or the Aaronite and Jesus Himself was the true Priest who was at the same time the Sacrificial Lamb.
Every Mass then, was a sacrifice, a holocaust that was a memory of the holocaust that Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job and others offered. The problem was that not a single pew warmer knew anything about this theology. Every Mass was a sacrifice that reminded us of the demands of the covenant that God had made with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus and not a single simple soul in the pew knew the background of what was going on.
II Foundational Theology of the Mass, per Vatican II
The Fathers of Vatican Council II took clues from Pope Pius XII who was a strong advocate and initiator of liturgical reform. He even created a liturgical commission of imminent scholars who had been at work for some 25 years before the council. Their efforts were so glorious and compelling that the Constitution on the Liturgy was the first to be discussed and accepted by the Fathers. It was never the object of political wrangling by the autocrats of the Roman Curia. It is a Constitution that was ripe when it arrived in Rome.
"The Liturgy is defined as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy the sanctification of humans is manifested by signs perceptible to the senses and is offered in a way which is proper to each of these signs. (Liturgy, Section 1, #7) Pastors must then realize that when the liturgy is celebrated more is required than the observance of the laws governing valid and licit celebrations. The presence of Christ is being celebrated, presence in the person of the priest, present in the Eucharistic species, presence in His word and presence when the church sings and prays. Christ associates the church with Himself in the truly great work of giving praise to God and making people holy." (Same section, same number)
Every Mass is sharing in the heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the heavenly city of Jerusalem toward which we all journey as pilgrims, encouraging one another on the way, singing to God’s glory, venerating the saints and hoping to join them one day in the Divine presence of God.
The theology of the Mass as described and exposed by the Fathers in Vatican II is a dynamic, participatory worship of the church exercising the fullness of baptism.
III Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation
“Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful be led to that full, conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as a “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people" (1 Peter, 2:9) is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.” (Liturgy, Section II, #14)
This statement in the Constitution states the theological reason for the active exercise of the fullness of our baptismal grace. It is the celebration of our dying, rising and resurrecting with Christ through baptism. The Fathers are telling the church that Mass is a celebration of our very existence in the presence of God. Mass is the celebration of the new covenant, reminding us that we have survived the Deluge, the slavery of Egypt, the exile to Persia, the oppression of the Greeks and the Romans and we are being guided to our Salvation in the sacramental presence of God Himself thanks to the passion, death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ.
This worship demands a liturgy which is celebrated in a language which can open as much as possible the understanding of the participants into its divine mysteries.
IV General Norms
“…both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify. Christian people, as far as possible, should be able to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.” (Liturgy, Section III, # 21)
It is interesting to note that the Constitution makes it a point to note that the liturgy will be conducted in Latin. Then, in the very next sentence it says that in order to help the people to better participate, certain important parts of the liturgy should be in the vernacular. It is important to note that the Constitution leaves the degree to which the vernacular will be introduced into the liturgy is left up to the local ecclesiastical authorities. That freedom has now been trimmed back substantially.
V Sacred Scripture
I cannot emphasize this enough. From the papacy of Pius XII through the present day, the Bible has taken on greater and greater importance in our lives as Catholics. Pius XII in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu enjoined the church to turn to the Scripture as its basic source of learning about God. This drive toward the use of Scripture as the source of our knowledge of God drove the Fathers of the Council to make it a greater part of the Mass than it had ever been. The council Fathers wanted us to understand just how radically important the Bible is to our faith. When the reform of the liturgy was complete, a daily Mass goer would have heard stories from about every book in the Bible and have heard about 75 or 80% of the entire Catholic Canon.
That’s not all. The proclamations, the prayers, the psalms, the blessings and exhortations in the Missal were taken almost exclusively from the Bible. Sacred Scripture is of paramount importance to our faith and the expression thereof through our religious acts, i.e. the liturgy. The Mass of today is constructed so that just about everything that is said either by the congregation or by the priest is connected to Sacred Scripture. The Mass is constructed in such a manner that everything that is prayed is aimed at strengthening the faith of the faithful thereby making their relationship with God more meaningful and more secure.
The Mass of today is constructed in the form of a celebration that leads to creating an internal happiness that is meant to strengthen the faithful for the mission. The Mass of today is a Banquet meant to strengthen the participants for the journey. The Mass of today is structured to help the faithful come to know one another in their own community so that they will have fewer reservations about carrying its blessings with them throughout the rest of the week. The Mass of today is an inter-active liturgy of the communion of the saints. That’s why so many of us talk in church these days. That’s also why so many of us have “prayer corners” in our houses with open Bibles and candles so that we can pray as a family in our church of the home. That’s also why so many of us have a Bible near our bed or in another quiet corner so that we can obey the evangelical counsel to pray in the privacy of our own room. That’s also why there are so many Bible studies in Catholic communities these days. There is so much Scripture in the Mass that we thirst for more contact with the Word at another level.
VI Conclusion
In conclusion, I want to point out that there are some things of the Mass that will not and cannot change. There are some things that can change, and they will. I have pointed out that the foundational theological point of view of the Mass has changed, but that both of these points of view do not change the essential underlying theology of the Mass. The Fathers of the Council wanted to achieve two major goals: They wanted to construct a more communal liturgical exercise of the priesthood given to us all in our Baptism. Secondly they wanted to construct a more scripturally based liturgical celebration in an effort to make Catholics more sensitive to the revealing power of the Sacred Word. In so doing they kept in mind that there is an intimate connection between worship and belief, so much so that theologians, and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) prominent among them, have repeatedly declared that the lex orandi (the way one prays to God) influences and indeed actually becomes the lex credendi (the way one believes). I am convinced that the best way to achieve what the Fathers of the Council envisioned is through solidly celebrated liturgy in the vernacular.
Those of you who agree with me will know that I will die happy and you won’t have to cry at my funeral. Those of you who disagree with me won’t have the slightest inclination to cry at my funeral. Istum quaeso vobis quia,
Deus, Qui Mariam absolvit,
Et latronem exaudit,
Mihi quoque spem dedit.
Many, and I mean, many, say that it is not the Latin that they seek, but the spirit of sacredness and holiness that they get from the ritual. They are elevated by the quiet, the silence, the ability to pray and to prepare for communion. The atmosphere is so much more mystical.
I don't deny that. No one does. To be perfectly honest, I do have a corner in my heart that says that there is room for that in the church. Jesus Himself said, “There are many mansions in my Father’s house.” I also know that it is not what the Fathers of Vatican Council II intended. They intended that the Mass should be a participatory celebration of the mystery of salvation, not a personal, mystical preparation to the reception of communion. They intended the entire Mass to be Eucharist, priest and laity celebrating together. More community singing, more bible stories, mandatory homily, etc. That's why they put the priest as close to the crowd as they could, face to face, joy to joy. That is why we have what we have in this day and age.
Starting on September 14, 2007, those who want the peace and quiet of preparing themselves for communion while the priest turns his back to them, consecrates the bread and wine and prays in whispers in a foreign language will have more opportunities to do so. It is Benedict XVI's opinion that this is good for the church.
R.C. MASS – SACRIFICE OR BANQUET?
I have had an interesting experience over the last week. I am a very staunch Roman Catholic who has reservations about the Pope’s opinion concerning the relaxing of the rules for the celebration of the Mass in Latin, according to the ritual which was installed by Pope John XXIII in 1962. I found a deep, right-wing Internet site where I asserted myself and said that I did not agree with the Pope’s opinion as stated in the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum. More than being a staunch Roman Catholic, I am a fluent reader of Latin. I wrote my opinions over my real name and my real academic credentials. It was a rather interesting give and take which lasted a while, but then ended abruptly for the sake of maintaining civility.
Since then, I have read some comments on my blog, one post which is entitled QUIBUSCUMQUE MISA LATINA PRAEDILIGENT OFFERTUR which you can find if you click here
One of the faithful who made a comment asked me to write a more complete article about my opinion about the TLM (Traditional Latin Mass) so that my opinion would be more clearly exposed, and hopefully, understood. I am therefore going to plunge right into the project so that I can get it done before the reader loses patience.
I. Foundational theology of the Mass, Pre-Vatican II
Before Vatican II the foundational theology of the Mass was situated on the Old Testament concept of the Sacrifice. Just as the sacrifice was the supreme act of worship, reconciliation, intercession and petition, so was the Mass, the supreme act of relationship with God, the non-sanguinary sacrifice of the Lamb of God, offered to God by the Lamb Himself (Jesus on the Cross) for the salvation of Mankind. This act of worship is presented to us from the first pages of Genesis all the way through the Gospels.
Every seminarian who was ordained before 1970 was “formed” in this theology. I know, I was one of them.
This theology was the basis of our prayer style. The priest conducted the rite that made the sacrifice happen. Our priest was the replication of the Levite or the Aaronite and Jesus Himself was the true Priest who was at the same time the Sacrificial Lamb.
Every Mass then, was a sacrifice, a holocaust that was a memory of the holocaust that Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job and others offered. The problem was that not a single pew warmer knew anything about this theology. Every Mass was a sacrifice that reminded us of the demands of the covenant that God had made with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus and not a single simple soul in the pew knew the background of what was going on.
II Foundational Theology of the Mass, per Vatican II
The Fathers of Vatican Council II took clues from Pope Pius XII who was a strong advocate and initiator of liturgical reform. He even created a liturgical commission of imminent scholars who had been at work for some 25 years before the council. Their efforts were so glorious and compelling that the Constitution on the Liturgy was the first to be discussed and accepted by the Fathers. It was never the object of political wrangling by the autocrats of the Roman Curia. It is a Constitution that was ripe when it arrived in Rome.
"The Liturgy is defined as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy the sanctification of humans is manifested by signs perceptible to the senses and is offered in a way which is proper to each of these signs. (Liturgy, Section 1, #7) Pastors must then realize that when the liturgy is celebrated more is required than the observance of the laws governing valid and licit celebrations. The presence of Christ is being celebrated, presence in the person of the priest, present in the Eucharistic species, presence in His word and presence when the church sings and prays. Christ associates the church with Himself in the truly great work of giving praise to God and making people holy." (Same section, same number)
Every Mass is sharing in the heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the heavenly city of Jerusalem toward which we all journey as pilgrims, encouraging one another on the way, singing to God’s glory, venerating the saints and hoping to join them one day in the Divine presence of God.
The theology of the Mass as described and exposed by the Fathers in Vatican II is a dynamic, participatory worship of the church exercising the fullness of baptism.
III Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation
“Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful be led to that full, conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as a “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people" (1 Peter, 2:9) is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.” (Liturgy, Section II, #14)
This statement in the Constitution states the theological reason for the active exercise of the fullness of our baptismal grace. It is the celebration of our dying, rising and resurrecting with Christ through baptism. The Fathers are telling the church that Mass is a celebration of our very existence in the presence of God. Mass is the celebration of the new covenant, reminding us that we have survived the Deluge, the slavery of Egypt, the exile to Persia, the oppression of the Greeks and the Romans and we are being guided to our Salvation in the sacramental presence of God Himself thanks to the passion, death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ.
This worship demands a liturgy which is celebrated in a language which can open as much as possible the understanding of the participants into its divine mysteries.
IV General Norms
“…both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify. Christian people, as far as possible, should be able to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.” (Liturgy, Section III, # 21)
It is interesting to note that the Constitution makes it a point to note that the liturgy will be conducted in Latin. Then, in the very next sentence it says that in order to help the people to better participate, certain important parts of the liturgy should be in the vernacular. It is important to note that the Constitution leaves the degree to which the vernacular will be introduced into the liturgy is left up to the local ecclesiastical authorities. That freedom has now been trimmed back substantially.
V Sacred Scripture
I cannot emphasize this enough. From the papacy of Pius XII through the present day, the Bible has taken on greater and greater importance in our lives as Catholics. Pius XII in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu enjoined the church to turn to the Scripture as its basic source of learning about God. This drive toward the use of Scripture as the source of our knowledge of God drove the Fathers of the Council to make it a greater part of the Mass than it had ever been. The council Fathers wanted us to understand just how radically important the Bible is to our faith. When the reform of the liturgy was complete, a daily Mass goer would have heard stories from about every book in the Bible and have heard about 75 or 80% of the entire Catholic Canon.
That’s not all. The proclamations, the prayers, the psalms, the blessings and exhortations in the Missal were taken almost exclusively from the Bible. Sacred Scripture is of paramount importance to our faith and the expression thereof through our religious acts, i.e. the liturgy. The Mass of today is constructed so that just about everything that is said either by the congregation or by the priest is connected to Sacred Scripture. The Mass is constructed in such a manner that everything that is prayed is aimed at strengthening the faith of the faithful thereby making their relationship with God more meaningful and more secure.
The Mass of today is constructed in the form of a celebration that leads to creating an internal happiness that is meant to strengthen the faithful for the mission. The Mass of today is a Banquet meant to strengthen the participants for the journey. The Mass of today is structured to help the faithful come to know one another in their own community so that they will have fewer reservations about carrying its blessings with them throughout the rest of the week. The Mass of today is an inter-active liturgy of the communion of the saints. That’s why so many of us talk in church these days. That’s also why so many of us have “prayer corners” in our houses with open Bibles and candles so that we can pray as a family in our church of the home. That’s also why so many of us have a Bible near our bed or in another quiet corner so that we can obey the evangelical counsel to pray in the privacy of our own room. That’s also why there are so many Bible studies in Catholic communities these days. There is so much Scripture in the Mass that we thirst for more contact with the Word at another level.
VI Conclusion
In conclusion, I want to point out that there are some things of the Mass that will not and cannot change. There are some things that can change, and they will. I have pointed out that the foundational theological point of view of the Mass has changed, but that both of these points of view do not change the essential underlying theology of the Mass. The Fathers of the Council wanted to achieve two major goals: They wanted to construct a more communal liturgical exercise of the priesthood given to us all in our Baptism. Secondly they wanted to construct a more scripturally based liturgical celebration in an effort to make Catholics more sensitive to the revealing power of the Sacred Word. In so doing they kept in mind that there is an intimate connection between worship and belief, so much so that theologians, and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) prominent among them, have repeatedly declared that the lex orandi (the way one prays to God) influences and indeed actually becomes the lex credendi (the way one believes). I am convinced that the best way to achieve what the Fathers of the Council envisioned is through solidly celebrated liturgy in the vernacular.
Those of you who agree with me will know that I will die happy and you won’t have to cry at my funeral. Those of you who disagree with me won’t have the slightest inclination to cry at my funeral. Istum quaeso vobis quia,
Deus, Qui Mariam absolvit,
Et latronem exaudit,
Mihi quoque spem dedit.
10 comments:
Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply! I will study it more closely over the next few days and let you know what I think, if that would be alright.
In Christ
John (Taliesin)
John:
Thank you for your first name. I welcome your presence in the world of ParsishWorld.net.
Be my guest.
Sir,
I find I have little to disagree with in your discussion of the Mass as envisioned by the Fathers of Vatican II. However, my experience tells me that something is amiss in the execution as experienced by most Catholics.
The mass is indeed a participation in the divine service of heaven, and it is indeed a respite from the day to day life and a re-energizing for the futhering of the kingdom in the world, to the goal that all the world be sanctified, be made holy, in the love of the Father for the Son, and the Son for us, that we might share in His divine life.
The enrichment of the liturgy by more scripture is indeed a wonderful thing. I think the lectionary can be improved, however. I think that there has been a selection bias in the lectionary which detracts from the goals of Vatican II. Note the exclusion of the passages of the psalms which are "imprecatory", the making of optional of the passages in the epistles which suggest hierarchy, submission, etc, and the elimination of passages which condemn fleshly sins like homosexual practices. This fits with a generalized sense of "cheap grace", as discussed by the protestant Bonhoeffer, which is emphasized almost exclussively, in my experience, in the homiletics I have experienced. We have plenty of "all are welcome" and little of "repent and believe." This is not in accord with Vatican II, as your references themselves would support. Vatican II would have us have more of the gospel, not less.
Also, I would very much like to have a good vernacular mass, for all the reasons you have put forth. But, we do not have it. The mass in Latin derives early on, as you know, from a vernacular form of the mass for the Roman Empire which was not widely conversant in Greek. Leaving aside the desirability of a "lingua franca" for our polyglot modern times, the latin aspect of the mass of Good John XXIII is not what most people are seeking. Nor is it a solitary "Jesus and me" experience, as is implied in your discussion. How can we be made holy if we bring the world into the most holy places? Is it not an inverse of Vatican II to do so? Are we not to bring the holy into the world, to transform it? Chit chat, performance mentality with the performers on stage, whether they be musicians or overly familiar Priests is a bringing of the world into the holy places.
Many stategems have been used to increase active participation in the mass. In the past, extensive rubrics were used to minimize the improvisation and personality worship aspects that detracted from the holiness of what was being done. Now, we have tried "face to face" Priest / congregation interactions, and a minimizing of the hierarchical realities of the heavenly realms. We do not see fruits of increased holiness either as a society or in individuals. Sancitification has not occured, but the opposite. Vatican II has been betrayed. I used to think this was done maliciously by the post Vatican II progressives, who had a leveling agenda more suited to marxist ideology than Christian thought. I now think that the maliciousness is restricted to a few figures, and the majority are merely mistaken who want to bring multiple extraordinary ministers in, and dancing girls, and jokes, and parlor room chatter. This is, after all, no ordinary Rotary Club banquet, but the wedding feast of the Lamb, who is himself the offering we share, as the Jews did their sacrificial meals. We are to come dressed appropriately in our wedding garments supplied by Jesus himself- clothed in virues, with attitudes both solemn and joyful. Gum chewing indifferent jeans wearing bored people, or people who think its all about "power" and "fairness" and so push themselves into what they see as the best seats in the banquet (such as priest-like postures) are horribly misguided and not in tune with Vatican II. The post conciliar church has tried to apply multiple correctives in the forms of clarifications, changes in the GIRM, etc, to curtail such misapplications, to no avail. The whole idea of discontinuity with the Church past is alien to Vatican II. Good John XXIII and Paul VI both made it clear that nothing substantive was to change in the matter of doctrine in Vatican II. The main change requested by Vatican II, as I can see it, was to lift the rubrical barriers so people would obey out of love, not fear of sin. A good example is the lifting of the Friday abstinence from meat. If one reads the 1966 documents on this matter, we are still asked to abstain, or substitute some other type of penitencial practice, and remove the sin of failing to do so. Good luck finding anyone who teaches that in your typical parish! It appears from our practice and your statements that this message was not received, or was taken advantage of by people with a leveling agenda foreign to Catholicism. People who are Catholic should not want a radically new Church. That is the goal of revolutionaries who feel they must destroy the foundations to build a new structure. The Catholic method of growth is build on what was built before, so that what came before becomes even more itself than it was, with the additions showing the glory that was already there in even more striking ways to fit the times of the viewers.
This is why Pope Benedict expressly made this Motu Proprio. We have lost our way, especially in the LA diocese, and need to reanchor ourselves on the Rock of Christ through fidelity to His Bride. We cannot find our true identity by abandoning all that He has done for us before, and to do so is to dishonor Him and our fathers in the faith. We must adopt the hermeneutic of continuity, which does not exclude change (witness St. Thomas Aquinas' hymn for Corpus Christi "Tantum ergo" which explicity states this)
I believe you yourself feel the pain of this discontinuity when you mention how you have to spend hours after the LA diocese religious eduction sessions explaining away the discontinuous and probable heretical insinuations of some of the speakers. You mention that they have some sort of gnostic secret knowledge (although you use more generous words) gained by their studies which makes their shocking statements acceptable. This spirit is not the spirit of Vatican II, but a spirit of the pernicious Clericism of the the professors.
I personally would like to see the Mass of Paul VI adopt the forms of the transitional mass of the 1960's. The beauty and richness of the Tridentine mass are preserved, spoken aloud and in English, with the responces of the servers said by the congregation. That would be a truer application of Vatican II. That sort of thing is what I think Benedict XVI, and John Paul II were driving at. I think that allowing the older latin form of the Roman rite to coexist with the newer rite will allow the present discontinuity with the past to be corrected slowly, so that the gains of Vatican II are not just washed away with the dross.
John, you may call me Paul:
Do you think that if we keep this up, Joe Catholic will learn anything about the Mass? We have crossed the line into wonderfully challenging areas, some of which could use a lot more discussion than what is present here.
It is my conclusion that your entire comment comes to a crashing crescendo exclamation point in the last sentence.
Allow me a couple days and I will pick up on some of the wonderful points you made for the sake of our readers. I am grateful for your generous participation. I know that you are busy (aren't we all).
Paul,
You're right about the exclamation point. I hope I wasn't offensive, just passionate. Please feel free to end this at any time. After all, this is your blog, and so you should feel free to set the agenda.
John
John:
The personal stuff.
In my book, passion is expected, not offensive.
Please allow me to assure you that one of your remarks will more than likely cause the birth of another post on this blog...the one about sanctity.
The public stuff.
STATEMENT OF CORPORATE PURPOSE of PARISHWORLD.NET
Evangelization is our primary purpose.
The reason why I am adding to our conversation is simple. I found myself nodding all through my reading of your excellent contribution to our discussion about the Motu Proprio. (Not for lack of wakefulness, I might add)
I am using your wonderful statements about the pedagogy of the Church, the Scripture and the intention of John XXIII when he convened the Second Vatican Council. Our readers and Catholics at large have to know this.
"The Catholic method of growth is to build on what was built before, so that what came before becomes even more itself than it was, with the additions showing the glory that was already there in even more striking ways to fit the times of the viewers."
"I think that allowing the older latin form of the Roman rite to coexist with the newer rite will allow the present discontinuity with the past to be corrected slowly, so that the gains of Vatican II are not just washed away with the dross."
Unity is the single, most powerful sign of the Church. The unity of the Church is what Vatican II is all about. It has no anathemata because it was meant to bring clearer dogmatic understandings to doctrine that had already been proclaimed. When we look at the documents we cannot but see that the apostolic succession was reaching out to us to ground us more firmly in the counsels of Jesus Himself through the acceptance of the traditional
practices of the Church through the centuries.
Our friend, Taliesin said it better than I could. Thank you and God bless you.
Paul Dion, STL
Theology Editor
ParishWorld.net
I have no theology backround, but have kept current with Catholic teachings. I can only given my opinion on my own experience. In the last 54 years I have experienced all the changes in the Mass. I don't feel the same sense of "Holiness & Reverence" I experienced in Church pre-Vatican II. Many Catholic churches I have been in is like, "they have taken my Lord and I don't know where they have layed him." The Tabernacles are off in a chapel or side of the church. The Lord should be our center of attention, not the priests, lectors & eucharistic ministers. They also dare not put a statue up in front as it might distract you from the Mass, but we'll put up a giant screen because people can't read from a book to sing a song. The Latin Mass will not be for everyone, but for those who prefer it, it should be available. You have to remember to that the priests did not have the sound system available to our priest today. So with the microphone, everyone will be able to hear the word being said, even if their back is to the people. I really don't mind the venacular, but in the current Mass, there is barely a quiet moment for personal prayer,even after receiving Communion, which is a personal time between you & the Lord, not you, the Lord & the community. Anyway, I know there are many out there that feel the same way about the current Mass, but then there are many who have known no other way. Peace...
If I put together all the comments that I have received here and those that I have read elsewhere, I come to one conclusion and one question.
1 Conclusion: The answer is not in the language and the ritual, it is in the discipline. Demand that and you will be OK.
1 Question: The Anglican church has had pomp and ceremony for nearly 300 years in the vernacular. Did something sink on its way across the Atlantic?
I enjoyed reading your article and the comments. I attend the mass in Latin once in a while and I join the choir in the singing of the Gregorian chants. Grateful that I learned the mass in Latin and the extent of my latin vocabulary is in the Pater Noster.
In my travels I have the opportunity to hear mass in different languages and I am deeply touched by the rituals of the mass and the essence of the banquet of the Lord is by no means reduced in vernacular. Some celebrations are more boisterous than others, some, the offertory gifts are offered with dancing steps (modestly).
Ours is wheather to join in or isolate ourself in the gathering.
quess
Dear Mr. Dion,
We meet again...
I am sure you know where I stand on this, it was all over my blog for the good part of 2 weeks.
Deo gratias! for Summorum Pontificum.
One of the many little things I remember from our little exchanges, and debates, is a Latin phrase you attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas, "Virtus in medio stat" or "In medio stat virtus" (Virtue lieth in the middle). And here is where I really stand on this issue. Of course my "middle" is not necessarily your "middle", but I will not get into that, lest we affirm the principle of "relativism".
I grew up in the Novus Ordo, of course, since I am 24. I abandoned my faith in high school because I didnt know enough of it to defend myself against Protestant apologetics. I embraced atheism. Coming back to the faith, after a short stint as a Protestant fundamentalist, I quickly became a "Catholic fundamentalist" as my religion survey-test told me (remember that one?). I discovered the Latin Mass, and wanted to go to one. I found a website talking about a Latin Mass in my very city. I attended it. I was amazed at what was taking place before me. Though confused, I was drawn into this Mass, the mystery. What was this priest doing for 10 minutes silently whispering to the tabernacle, or the Cross, or is he consecrating? I wasn't sure, but I was paying more attention to whether I should be kneeling, standing, or sitting. The singing descended upon the congregation from above, so beautiful were the hymns, even though I didnt understand them, were able to move my soul. I discovered later on they were SSPX, bummer.
But, I quickly found the Indult. I now attend the Indult as often as my gas budget permits, to Ontario, CA.
I attend the Novus Ordo more than the TLM, obviously, since it is more available. But let me say a few things.
1. Participatio actuosa, in Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium, has been studied by a competant scholar, to mean something different from the common and even literal understanding of "active participation". It is assumed that this simply means "doing something". But I believe it has been misunderstood to mean functional stuff like lectoring, and being extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, etc. As well as singing and even dancing (*cringe*). However, this scholar demonstartes that the actual meaning, coined not by Vatican II, but by Pope St. Pius X, means that the individual enters into the mystery of the Mass, with his intellect and soul focused on what is going on at the Holy Mass. It was a teaching to end the "abuse" of laxity, and mind-wandering. St. Pius X even said to follow all that is going on at the altar and pray the prayers along with the priest. That is what I do at Mass when I follow along at Mass with my missal (I know how you feel about missals).
2. Vernacularization is not "bad", since the movement to Latin, was indeed a movement into the vernacular. So I am not against it. But, Latin was to be preserved in the Novus Ordo, and so was Gregorian Chant.
3. I personally believe that the reason why folks dress the way they do to Holy Mass, just as they dress to the beach, night club, or Wal-Mart, is that they don't see the place itself, the church, as any place different as any other place.
4. If the people in the pew pre-Vatican II didn't know the theology of the Mass, I will tell you one thing, I don't think most people in the pews know the theology of the Mass either, nor do they even know their catechism. I tested the parents of the teens on a paper test, with BASIC question about the Catholic faith. One even protested and rudely challenged my statements in front of the other parents. I also took her place, since she used to teach my class. She complained to my DRE, that I tested her. Guess what, she had the highest score of 55%! What is the solution? Catechesis! The folks who do go to the Latin Mass, those who I know personally, know their faith. Not only do they know Latin, and understand Latin, they know their catechism, they know their church history, and they know that community is for after Holy Mass. That's why there really isnt a war in the parking lot as to who can get to the exits first.
5. You asked for an argument FOR the Latin language. I will give you one, and you have probably heard it already. I try to attend Holy Mass every day. When time was short during the school year, I went to a Spanish Mass. I don't speak Spanish, but I know enough of it to get the gist of it. I didn't understand most of the Mass, but I know the Mass well enough, that I responded in English as I knew where we were in the Mass b/c of the gestures. I'll tell you one thing, even in a Mass foreign to me, I knew what we were supposed to do before the other folks did, and it's in their own language! This is a catechetical crisis more than it is a liturgical one. I understand the Mass, and that's why I can even go to a Vietnamese Mass and still know what to do, but most people can't. They have to find a Mass in their language, otherwise they won't go. If today was 1960, I could fly to Brazil and attend a Mass I would feel comfortable in; I could go to Paris and go to any Mass offered; I could go to Wadowice, Poland and worship in a familiar language. The Catholic can't do that today.
6. I believe we can combine the theology of the TLM and the NO Mass. It is a gathering of the people, and the community, but they are there for a purpose, and there can be a number of them, but primarily, it is the propitiatory Sacrifice of Calvary, made present, offered up for the sins of the priest and the people: “Pray brethren that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God…”
God Bless,
Laurence
Post a Comment