Rites and Rubrics...for a Reason

From Baker City, Oregon…here’s the latest announcement in the parish bulletin about our new Bishop Liam Cary’s up-coming first visit to his Cathedral:

We are all looking forward to welcome our new Bishop Liam Cary as he visits our parish and its mission for the first time next weekend. During the morning Mass at 9:30 AM, we ask everyone to be present at least 10 minutes before the Mass starts. This is because there is a brief ceremony that will be done before the Mass starts, whereby Bishop Liam takes possession of the Cathedral, as the new bishop, and technically its new pastor. He will knock three times on the main doors, while I will greet him, offer him a crucifix to kiss as well as the holy water sprinkler (also known as aspergillium,) with which the bishop sprinkles himself and all those present.

As we process towards the altar, he will then reverence the tabernacle and the Mass will start as usual. Since some parts of this ceremony were already done in St Francis of Assisi church in Bend on May 18, they may be skipped here at the Cathedral. But it is very important that everyone be in place before the Mass starts, so that you can follow this unique ritual, which is held only here at the Cathedral parish.

“Unique ritual”? I guess! It’ll be “unique” all right, because no one else in the entire Catholic Church does it this way.

“Some parts of this ceremony were already done” so they’ll be “skipped here at the Cathedral.” Whoever heard of splitting up the parts of a rite in time and space?!

And this rite will be done “only here at the Cathedral parish”?! I certainly hope so! It’s being done for all the wrong reasons, but it should never enter anyone’s mind that this is a ritual that would be repeated in other parishes as well! I think we have lost the sense of what a cathedral and a cathedral parish are all about…at least in the Diocese of Baker.

In addition, Bishop Cary is not taking possession of the cathedral as its pastor; he’s taking possession of the diocese which is represented by the cathedral.

I’ve talked through this whole issue before – go here for the thorough discussion of what’s wrong with the whole idea of attempting the rite of reception after our new bishop has already been ordained AND seated on his cathedra (despite the fact that the chair had been uprooted from its cathedral and unceremoniously transported halfway across the state for an ordination that was NOT taking place in the cathedral).

To be blunt, the problem is this: the ordination was not done properly. Why not? For the sake of convenience. The Cathedral in Baker City is a 2-hour drive from the nearest major airport. It’s a 5-hour drive from Bend, where the chancery office is located. Think of the inconvenience for the visiting dignitaries and guests! (I think small plane travel is possible, but probably quite expensive, and there aren’t too many flights.)

I hate that the ordination was done improperly, but I think we should just stop beating the poor dead horse. We’re not going to make it all better by performing half of a rite in the Cathedral six weeks after the fact to make up for what was not done properly at the time. It makes as much sense as, say, having a priest say all the prayers and words of the rite of confirmation at one Mass in one church, up to the anointing with oil, and then having everyone get together a month later in a different church for him to finish the job.

Now, I’ll bet most people – and maybe even some of you reading this – would say, “So what’s the big deal? Why not have a little special something for the Cathedral, even if it’s not really done right? Who will even know whether it’s done properly or not? And seriously, do you think God really cares?”

The big deal is this: We are Catholic. We have rites. With rubrics. For a reason.

If it doesn’t matter whether we do it right or not, why don’t we all just become Protestants?

The ordination should have taken place at the Cathedral, and the faithful of the Cathedral parish should have been incensed that it did not. There should have been a huge outcry about it, and a demand for it to be held at the Cathedral. There wasn’t. What does that tell you?

It tells me that the faithful of the Cathedral parish have no idea what it means to be the Cathedral parish. They – including the rector – have no idea that the Cathedral is supposed to be the mother church of the diocese. They don’t know they are supposed to be setting the liturgical standards for the other churches to follow.

And the office staff, who’ve been there long enough to have been through a priestly ordination or two, just don’t want the headaches of a big celebration anyway. It’s too inconvenient.

So, you ask, what does it matter then, if no one cares?

Well, I care. And by golly, I am entitled – yes, entitled – to have the rites celebrated correctly. It’s not really all about me, though; it’s really all about the liturgy. In Redemptionis Sacramentum we find that:

…[I]t is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. (12)

That document is concerned primarily with the Mass, but it doesn’t exclude other liturgical rites. And even though I am only one person, I am also one of “the faithful”; and I have a right to ask for – and expect – good liturgy.  That doesn’t mean liturgy according to how I want it, but according to how the Church wants it.

Others should care, but even if they don’t, they are entitled to the liturgy prescribed by the Church. And it’s important that they get it, for how else will they learn what good liturgy really is?

Most people aren’t going to look up the rubrics for a rite – especially one that doesn’t happen often. They’ll just sit back and experience it. And whatever they experience will impact their Catholic identity. The more correctly the rite is celebrated, the more it will enhance our Catholic identity. And the more sloppily it is celebrated, the more it will make us think and act like Protestants. Or worse.

The Rite of Reception is supposed to go like this:

1142  The bishop is received at the doors of the church by a minister dressed in cope, who is…the rector of the cathedral church. He offers the bishop a crucifix to be kissed, then a sprinkler of holy water, with which the bishop sprinkles himself and those present. The bishop may then be escorted to the blessed sacrament chapel, where he kneels for a moment in adoration, then to the vesting room (sacristy). There the bishop and the concelebrating presbyters, the deacons, and the ministers put on the vestments for Mass, which is celebrated in the form of a stational Mass.

But here’s my prediction: the half-rite of sort-of-reception into not-really-the-Cathedral will proceed as follows: the rector of the Cathedral will NOT be dressed in a cope (though it’s a possibility), the bishop will NOT be escorted to the Blessed Sacrament Chapel (and there is one to which he could be escorted), and there will be no need to repair to the sacristy, because everyone will already be vested for Mass.

Not only that, but there will likely be only one deacon at that Mass; at least half the altar servers will be cute little girls with pony tails and high heels; if we’re lucky there’ll be an adult male acolyte or two serving, but regardless, all servers will wear sloppy, seven-dwarves-type albs…complete with dopey hoods. Guitars will be strummed, and a tambourine might be jangled, but the beautiful organ in the choir loft will remain silent. In fact, the entire choir loft will be empty, because the “folk group” will be singing from their place at the side of the sanctuary. There won’t be a single syllable of Latin, not one note of Gregorian chant…and no one will notice.

And yes, I do really think God cares.

For more posts on the Mass on this blog, click on the "TLM and Liturgy" tab at the top of the page.

Considering Fatherhood (A Late Father's Day Post)

This is a portion of a homily by Fr. Eric M. Andersen of Our Lady of the Presentation (St. Mary’s) in Eugene, Oregon, given on Father’s Day, June 17th, 2012.

When we consider fatherhood, and Father’s Day is a good day to do so, we can look at St. Joseph as the perfect father. He was a provider, a protector and a teacher. He was the spiritual head of the Holy Family. Isn’t that amazing? St. Joseph was the spiritual head of the Holy Family. That means that Joseph, a just man, was put in charge of being the spiritual head of the Immaculate Sinless Ever Virgin Mary. St. Joseph was not immaculate, nor sinless. On top of that, St. Joseph, a just man, was put in charge of being the spiritual head of God the Son, Jesus Christ. I need not point out that Joseph did not have what it took to be the spiritual head of that family. Well, actually, he did not have what it took on a natural level. He did have it on a supernatural level because God provided for him.

Mary had a far greater capacity for God than did Joseph. Why was he put in charge of the spiritual life of that family? Well, we can say this about pretty much any man because as a general rule, women have a deeper sense of spirituality than do men. But it is not a woman’s vocation to exercise that gift as the spiritual head. Many women become de facto the spiritual head of their family because dad neglects this part of his vocation. But while men do not generally have the same natural gifts in this area, it is their vocation to cultivate these gifts and to use them to glorify God. Men are given the vocation to stand in the place of God in their families. This is not sexist. It is reality.

In fact, it is well known that if dad does not practice his faith, the children will not likely practice their faith as adults. Even if Mom is very devout, it is far less likely that children will continue to practice their faith if their dad did not place any importance on it. In his book, “The Faith of the Fatherless,” Paul Vitz researches the psychology of atheism. It is generally agreed upon that a defective relationship with the father is “the major psychological origin of intense atheism” (109). He distinguishes, however, the way this differs between men and women. “For men, God seems to function primarily as a principle of justice and order in the world––and only secondarily as a person with whom one has a relationship. …For women, by contrast, it is their relationship with God which is primary, while God as a principle of justice and order, though important, is typically seen as secondary (110).

…[A] good and well-ordered relationship with one’s father, or a father figure, leaves a person free to have faith in God. In a normal healthy home, a young child looks to his father with awe. Dad is powerful. Dad loves me. I know that if I am afraid, Dad has courage for both of us. He will help me to be brave. If I don’t believe in myself, Dad will build me up. If I have done something wrong, Dad will hold me responsible but if I am sorry, he will forgive me. If I conquer my fears and achieve something by hard work, Dad will say “That’s my boy.”  

Maybe a boy does not have a father in his life. Or maybe his father is not taking an active part in a boy’s life. The boy can have a father-figure in the form of a coach, or an uncle, a friend’s dad, a scout master, a priest. This father-figure can say something like: “You know I never had a son, but if I had one, I would want him to be just like you.” Those of you who saw the movie “For Greater Glory” will recognize these words and how they changed two lives: the life of the man who spoke them, and of the boy who heard them.

Fathers, do you know how important you are to the lives of your children? Your boys only know what it is to be a man because they can look up to you and copy you. Boys need to spend time with their fathers: whether camping, or hiking, or hunting, or fishing, or playing ball. They need your strength to draw from so that they can become strong, and virtuous, and holy. When they are little, you are like God to them. They will come to relate to God based upon how they relate to you; how you treat them. Will God be distant and angry? Or will God put His arm around their shoulder and tell them He is proud of them?

And your daughters need you too. Fathers, do you know how important you are to the very life of your daughters? You are given daughters to love and protect. It is a man’s vocation to guard the holy reputation of a lady and to protect the purity of her soul and body. A man must prove himself worthy of the woman he loves by guarding and protecting her in this way so that she will trust him to be her husband and the father of her children. She has a good family name that she will not see tarnished because of some scoundrel with a handsome face. But a woman must learn this from her father. A girl must know that she is precious and that a man must prove himself worthy of her.

On this Father’s Day, let us look to the example of St. Joseph. He did not have what it took, but with the help of God, he did what God gave him to do. Guys, let’s face it; we do not have what it takes. I don’t have what it takes to be a good priest, you don’t have what it takes to be a good husband and father, ––BUT–– we must have hope and a good sense of humor. Let us turn to God. He is the true Father. He will give us what it takes to be the men we need to be, to make our father’s proud of us, and to take care of our mothers and venerate them as they deserve to be venerated. For you husbands, to love your wife as she deserves to be loved; to take on the role of the spiritual head of the family; to treat your wife in a way that you would want your daughters to be treated by their husbands.

Men, we live in an increasingly fatherless society. Whether we are priests or husbands… we are being called to be fathers to the whole society: to be signs of God’s Fatherly love to a world that does not know what true self-sacrificial love is. Let us step up to this noble vocation and ask God to give us the grace of piety to be providers, protectors, and teachers, and to be spiritual heads of our families. Let us look to St. Joseph: a real man; a chaste man; a heroic and pious man; a saint. I believe in you men out there. As a priest, as your spiritual father, I am setting the bar high because I believe in you, I love you, and I am proud of you. With the help of your wives, with the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the example of St. Joseph, and by the power of God Almighty and an army of archangels behind us––men, we can do it! 

Vortex: Don't Remain Silent!

Michael Voris is reading my mind again. The June 21 Vortex is another “must see”.

Here’s the video; the script is below, with my own comments interspersed in italics.

Here’s the script (my emphases, and my comments in bracketed italics):

Catholics are supposed to have BIG MOUTHS. Saints and Popes have said so.

Here’s a POPE:

And since, in order that the deceits of the enemy may be avoided, it is necessary first of all that they be laid bare; since much is to be gained by denouncing these fallacies for the sake of the unwary, even though We prefer not to name these iniquities "as becometh saints," yet for the welfare of souls We cannot remain altogether silent.

That was Pope Leo XIII.

Here’s a Saint:

I've had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence. 

Saint Catherine of Siena, for the more curious among you.

[I have seen that quote attributed to St. Catherine of Siena a number of times, but have been unable to track down the exact place where she said it. Nevertheless, it’s a great exhortation! Probably the main reason I started this blog was because, as I told an adviser, “there are some things that need to be said”.]

Silence in the face of evil, sin, immorality never serves the good and only cowards or those who care about their own interests ever counsel silence.

Now there are many in the Church these days who prefer to remain silent. They call it prudence… but it isn’t prudence at all.

[Some people have tried to tell me this. It's amazing how many people want to tell you NOT to write something! Some people have suggested that it’s better just to say the “nice” things and pray for a conversion of heart of those who abuse the liturgy, etc. But, really, the Church does call for us to speak up when things are really going rotten.]

Prudence is doing what is appropriate to the situation: the proper response according to the circumstances. So for example, if a house is burning down, the proper response is to yell your head off and shout for someone to call the fire department and pull all the fire alarms and make a ton of noise.

Well, my fellow Catholics, the house IS burning down – the house of the Church. Gigantic flames are leaping out of every window; people are dying in the flames; the smoke of Satan which Pope Paul VI highlighted decades ago is choking and blinding huge numbers.

The fire is so huge and engulfing that the air around the world has now become poisoned as well. Everywhere modern man has immersed himself in the vomit of his own sin because so many in the Church – leaders especially – have given in to the spirit of the age.

[To wit: little preaching against contraception for 40 years. No preaching against homosexual “marriage” for fear of political and even legal repercussions. Heck, there’s little preaching of anything of substance! Even in RCIA there’s a fear of mentioning the unmentionable, for fear that the catechumens will back out! Instead, the new people are told how inclusive the Church is.]

The Church Militant requires constant, never-ending vigilance – a constant and steady drum beat of war being pounded out. We are at war. Too many fail to see this. They don’t want war… as if they could escape it.

[Ah yes. And how many say, “What’s the big deal?” or “Live and let live.” Or “This isn’t Rome, you know.” Or “Sometimes there are more important things than being ‘right’.”]

St. Paul himself said near the end of his life, “I have fought the good fight.”

When leaders in the Church laid down their weapons in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, and began cavorting with the world in a vain and naïve hope that the world could be cajoled into accepting the cross, it was then that the identity of the Church became obscured.

[More and more this seems so very true to me. And the reason for the “cavorting with the world” was because certain forces within the Church wanted that to happen. They wanted a Protestantization of the Church because they were Modernistis, and the Modernist mentality permeates the Protestant denominations.]

The Church Militant was exchanged for the Church of Nice because the crowd that is afraid to fight – or refuses to acknowledge the Divinely revealed truths of not just the possibility of Hell, but its reality – did not want to sully their hands in the blood and mud of combat.

[Or…because they got what they wanted… or are well on their way to getting it. There are plenty of people – laity and clergy alike – who are quite happy with the movement of the Church toward a phenomenalistic and personalist approach to theology and the liturgy.]

The giants of the Church, Her greatest earthly commanders, were abandoned; and in their place, wimps took over – cowards and shrinking violets – terrified to confront anything…except, of course, Orthodoxy.

When it comes to Orthodoxy – faithful Catholics who love the truth of the Church and defend the Magisterium with everything they’ve got – suddenly the weak crowd springs to life to beat them down. Priests who offer reverence to God in the Masses they say from the depths of piety; faithful who cling to the heart of Our Blessed Lord and preach His truths in the face of sneering and detraction; against these, the wimps suddenly discover a robustness of personality and vigor that would make the gods of Olympus quake.

[Ain’t that the truth! I experienced this first hand in the Diocese of Baker last year as we watched helplessly as the Apostolic Administrator closed one avenue after another for us to have at least a monthly EF Mass in Bend, Oregon! Always there was the excuse, “I have to move Fr. TLM to the farthest corner of the diocese…there’s just nothing else I can do. So sorry…” Yeah…right.]

But they run like scared school children from rebellious priests and defiant religious. They bow down before the rapidly aging woman who is the real power behind the Catholic education office or the chancery department of this or that.

[Most priests hate to mess with the power structure of a parish, and they are probably wise to size things up for a while before making changes. But the changes in personnel never seem to come…unless it’s getting rid of the “divisive” ones (like me), who agitate for greater orthodoxy. The status quo is kept because of the fear that the money will walk away.]

Mortal sins are treated as jokes and those who point them out as judgmental and divisive.

Popes and saints say something FAR different from many who exercise various levels of authority in the Church these days. The Church of go-along, get-along is quickly MOVING along… into oblivion. Hundreds and hundreds of parishes have closed; hundreds more have had to merge.

Homosexual mafias among the clergy and religious are routinely ignored or given a wink and a nod. Heterodox instructors in schools, colleges, and seminaries are given a pass except for the most outrageous of expressions and even then, not much happens at all. And in the face of all this, the saints and popes from heaven itself call us to NOT be silent, but to open our mouths and stand up and say “The emperor has no clothes! Your house is on fire! People are dying due to your lack of action and plunging into Hell!”

Do leaders think that somehow they will escape judgment for this current state of affairs? Have they deluded themselves with all their own happy talk and Church chit-chat? The truth must be said and it must be said clearly.

[I think it shows that that truly do not believe in Hell!]

Pope Gregory the Great famously said, "If people are scandalized at the truth, it is better to allow the birth of scandal, than to abandon the truth.”

[If only…IF ONLY…we had more priests and bishops who would apply this adage.]

So who are you gonna listen to: the wimps, or the popes and saints?

For other Vortex posts, click on the "Vortex" tab at the top of the page.

Vortex: The Church of "Nice"

Yesterday’s “Vortex" (June 20) was well worth watching – view it below if you haven’t seen it yet.

Interestingly, what struck me especially at the beginning of the video is that this is a perfect “companion piece” to what I was trying to say in my post yesterday; Archbishop Prendergast was making some good points in his homily about the “two usages” of the Roman Rite, but the reality is a little less rosy.

As a commenter on that post said:

The new Mass does not express nor teach the fullness of our Catholic faith. It just doesn't, no matter how reverently it's offered. It was created to appeal to Protestants by making the Holy Mass more like a Protestant service, not to sustain and continue to teach Catholics their faith.

And when one takes a close look (heck, you don't even have to look very closely), comparing it with the Traditional Mass and what it expresses and teaches, there's just not really much comparison.

It's valid, it's licit, but it's very, very unfortunate that generations of Catholics have grown up with nothing but the new Mass. It's no mystery why we have lost so many souls, so many have lost the Faith. And ironically, I sincerely doubt we brought in many Protestants by this brilliant move (tongue in cheek).

Another commenter added:

One [form] is a plain Jane Chevy and the other a Rolls Royce. They will both get you from A to B but that's about the only thing they have in common

Here’s “The Vortex”, with the script below.

Have you attended Mass lately at the Church of Nice?  The Catholic Community of St. Nice?

You know, the typical suburban parish where Fr. Pleasant starts his homily with a stupid priest joke and then goes on to say essentially nothing that can specifically help you get to heaven.

Then you can participate by singing a horribly composed piece of something that is supposed to be music as the altar girls looking totally vacant and out of place while escorting some members of the congregation up to the sanctuary with the gifts… all the while with the band crooning away.

The FEW young people who you might see look totally bored as they keep checking their phones for texts. 

To be fair, even Father looks a little bored when the spotlight has temporarily shifted from him to some other action downstage…er…somewhere else in the sanctuary.

But through it all, no one says a word – before or after – because it wouldn’t be nice. Little mention, as a matter of fact, of anything of substance at all, because it’s a sure fire bet that someone sitting out there in the audience will be offended and that wouldn’t be nice.

There are of course the contracepting couples – check; the divorced and remarried – check; the cohabiting – check; the believers in abortion rights or same sex marriage – check.

And if you breathe a word about any of those topics, a letter is sure to get fired off to the chancery, and the priest will get hauled in front of the bishop, and have to give an accounting for preaching the teachings of the faith.

I want to share a quick story with you. I heard this with my own ears so it isn’t something that was told to me in a garbled misreported way. I was present at the event.

A bishop was speaking before a gathering of mostly lay people and lamenting the horrible condition of his diocese. Marriages down, baptisms down, sacraments all down, vocations falling off the cliff, parishes closing down…everything down.

He lamented the state of affairs for a couple of minutes and then said, “But there is one area in which things are looking up: burials.” Yep: burials. We have had a 200 percent increase in the number of people being buried in our Catholic cemeteries which, he added – get this; he actually said this; I heard it with my own two ears – “which goes to show you: even if they miss a few sacraments here or there, we still get ‘em in the end.”

Honest to God: those were his exact words.  A joke about the current state of affairs – the dismal soul-costing state of affairs in the Church – offered up as a cheap laugh line as souls flee from the Church and quite possibly eternal salvation.

This man is a successor of the Apostles. Can you even begin to imagine St. Peter or any of the Apostles cracking a joke about souls being lost?  By the way, he was READING his comments from prepared remarks – not just winging it – which means he contemplated this line, and thought about it, and made the conscious decision to include it.

But see, in the Church of NICE, this is standard fare. To even say anything about it means you AREN’T nice.  You’re just a big meanie. You can’t take a joke. 

Nothing is really sacred in the Church of Nice – most especially Our Blessed Lord. We can worship him dressed immodestly; with no real education about what Mass is REALLY about; show up a few minutes late or later; bolt out right after we’ve gone up and grabbed the bread; sung emotional, whiney, fingers-on-the-chalkboard music; and felt like we are all very nice people.

And the leaders will neither say nor do anything about it. They like the Church of Nice, because since they are the leaders, they are perceived as nice as well. “Nice” is the most disgusting language in the lexicon of modern Catholicism. 

“Nice” means never being objectionable, always agreeable; never taking a stand. It is an apt substitute for the word “coward” – which is fitting, since the etymology of the word “nice” comes from the Latin word meaning stupid..like a COW… as in COWARD.

Let’s get something clear and understand it clearly: Our Blessed Lord was most assuredly NOT “nice”. He was filled with zeal and passion, and upset the status quo of those leaders who were content to let souls be damned so they could be perceived as nice.

The “nice” gang is the gang of the lukewarm – the ones who never venture too far this way or too far that way; the guardians of the middle of the road; the ones who everyone likes because they are “nice”.

Love is not about being “nice”.  It is about being charitable, which has noting to do with the social convention of being “nice”.  Love is fiery, passionate, totally absorbed in the beloved for the sake of the beloved. It does not care about itself; it throws itself with reckless abandon headlong into danger for the sake of the beloved.

It’s fitting that when there are two people and one has a romantic interest in the other, but the other isn’t interested at all, the supreme blow-off line is, “I’m really not interested… I mean, he or she is NICE and all, but...”

“Nice” is a cheap substitute for LOVE. It never has passion; it will never bleed for anyone or anything.  It couldn’t spell zeal if it tried. “Nice” is boring and conventional, uninspiring…and, frankly, for spiritual losers.

Why are Catholic parishes closing up faster than lemonade stands at the North Pole? Because they’re all so flippin’ nice. And “nice” – meaning lukewarm – is what Our Blessed Lord promises in the book of the Apocalypse He will vomit out of His mouth.

Even God can’t tolerate “nice”.

For other posts on the EF Mass, click on the "TLM and Liturgy" tab at the top of the page.
For other Vortex posts, click on the "Vortex" tab at the top of the page.

Thoughts on Archbishop's Homily at Eucharistic Congress

I’m very impressed that Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa, Canada has a blog!

And I’m impressed that he can and does say the Extraordinary Form of the Mass! Thank you, Your Excellency!

On his blog, this archbishop has a post about his celebration of a Solemn Pontifical Mass at the International Eucharistic Congress in Dublin, Ireland. There are great photos there, and also at the New Liturgical Movement blog.

Archbishop Prendergast also posted his homily for that Mass. He introduced the topic of the difference between the two forms of the Mass, noting that (my  emphases throughout):

This is an important point as we gather to celebrate the Mass in its Extraordinary Form during an International Eucharistic Congress when most of our fellow Catholics—and we ourselves—will celebrate in the Ordinary Form.

For, sometimes many in the Church make the mistake of thinking that the Roman Rite has two different Masses, and it’s a matter of taste, which one a person prefers. But the beautiful, profound truth is that we have only one, holy sacrifice of the Mass in two usages: the ordinary and extraordinary forms. This is perhaps one of the best examples of that most Catholic expression of “both/and” and not “either/or.”

This may the true – that we have one, holy sacrifice of the Mass – but it is an unfortunate practical fact that the two “usages” are widely discrepant in most parishes where I’ve seen the NO celebrated. There is so little of the one in the other that it is no wonder we tend to view them as to different Masses. As the Archbishop says:

The differences most often grab our attention. We can overlook the shared, fundamental basis of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Sadly, for some, a particular devotion to one form can result in a reluctance to appreciate the truth, goodness and beauty of the other. Tragically, the preferred form of celebrating the sacrament of the Most Holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ can divide Catholics. In our human weakness, we can become competing camps rather than a united Mystical Body of Christ.

Again, I see the grain of truth here. Yes, there is division. I suppose it cuts both ways, but considering that the NO is so widely accepted and the EF so narrowly tolerated, the divisiveness cannot really be said to come from both “sides” equally. But let’s not point fingers…

Just a different "usage"?

And yes, there is the “shared basis of the sacrament of the Eucharist”. In my neck of the woods, though, I find it a huge challenge to remember this when I attend local Novus Ordo Masses. There is not a lot of beauty to be seen in the way these liturgies are celebrated nor in the way the sanctuary is appointed; the truth is often distorted by liturgical abuses; goodness is spoiled by trite homilies, bids for applause and laughter (canned jokes, for instance), and just too many extraordinary ministers.

Both usages of the Roman Rite, when celebrated with attention, devotion, and full and conscious participation, are beautiful, dignified, and moving expressions of our Catholic Christian faith.

Again, this is only true when the Novus Ordo is celebrated according to the rubrics. It is only true when we dispense with guitars, trumpets, and tambourines, happy-clappy ditties that pass as music, overly dramatic readings of Scripture, and adlibbing of prayers by the celebrant.

I hasten to add that I have seen the Novus Ordo celebrated with attention, devotion, and reverence; it was beautiful and dignified. This was largely because in addition to the rubrics being followed, the music was the music chosen by the Church – the propers for the Mass and the seasonal Ordinary – in the language of the Church – Latin. Yes, it is possible to also have a beautiful and dignified and reverent Mass in the vernacular, but it’s a little more  difficult to attain.

And I must also hasten to add that despite having participated in a NO Mass that was celebrated in the just about the best manner possible, I came away with the distinct feeling that something was missing. Too much has been omitted from the NO, and you don’t notice that until you experience the EF Mass for a time (at least, that’s how it was for me).

His Excellency goes on to say:

The Holy Father expressed the hope that each form might have a positive influence on the other. There is a lot of speculation about what that might mean. What it does not mean is that we blend the forms together. We must celebrate each form according to its proper Rite. Instead, perhaps, we might see each one’s strengths enhancing the other.

From the Ordinary Form, for example, we might hope to see a more robust presentation of the texts of Sacred Scripture. We can include new saints whom the Church has declared since 1962, who themselves celebrated or attended the Mass of what we know today as the Extraordinary Form. St. Padre Pio, St. Maximilian Kolbe, and St. André Bessette—whose faith led to the building of St. Joseph’s Oratory in my home town of Montreal—immediately come to mind.

From the Extraordinary Form, we might hope to see the influence of a careful attention to the words and gestures. We also hope to see the sober, careful dignity so characteristic of the Roman Rite.

He’s making a good and charitable point here, but think about it: he suggests that the EF can benefit from, basically, calendar changes that the NO has added. Granted, the calendar needs to be updated with the feasts of new saints.

But look what the extraordinary form can offer to the NO: “sober, careful dignity”. That, I would suggest, is a much more substantive change. In other words, I don’t think the NO has much to offer the EF, but the EF has much to offer the NO – and it’s all stuff that probably shouldn’t have been taken away in the first place.

The Archbishop, in his homily, assumes the best of both worlds concerning the two forms of the Mass – and I think that was a great way to discuss the issue at a Eucharistic Congress. We need that optimism!

Still…there’s a long road to travel before the two forms are on equal footing with each other, and those who desire unrestricted access to the EF Mass actually have it – even though it’s a liturgical right they have been given by Pope Benedict XVI.


For other posts on the EF Mass, click on the "TLM and Liturgy" tab at the top of the page.

Fr. Jeremy Driscoll on Liturgical Reform

There’s an informative video (below) and accompanying article provided by the June 15, 2012 edition of CatholicNewsService. (H/T Chant Café for the video)

The tag on the YouTube video says: “This week's Vatican Report features an interview with Benedictine Father Jeremy Driscoll, speaking about the liturgical reform that followed the Second Vatican Council.” 

I’ve provided a transcript below the video.

Here’s an excerpt from the article. Read more here.

Even among the vast majority of Catholics who have accepted the Mass in its current form, debates often occur over aspects of worship that include choices in sacred music, the correct manner of receiving Communion, and, in the English-speaking world, the revised translation of the Mass, which was introduced last year.

Yet according to one distinguished scholar, such disputes are largely rooted not in the liturgical texts themselves, but in contemporary misunderstandings about the very nature of Catholic worship.

Benedictine Father Jeremy Driscoll is a professor at Rome's Pontifical Athenaeum of San Anselmo and the author of a guidebook for non-experts, "What Happens at Mass."

A zealous debunker of what he regards as false dichotomies and oppositions, Father Driscoll rejects a common complaint that the reform has turned the Mass into a communal meal at the expense of its traditional sacrificial dimension, or that it places excessive importance on the faithful instead of focusing on God.

Transcript of the Video

The Liturgical Reform

We associate the reform of the liturgy with the desire of the Council expressed especially in its document Sacrosanctum Concilium. But the document in itself is not sufficient in indicating the reform or the limits of the reform I would say either one.

Because in fact the Church lives after a Council and continues to do its work; and the reform was indicated in broad strokes by the Council was continued under the pontificate of Paul VI.

A Loss of the Sacred?

The missal of Paul VI does not presume any less reverence at all than the Tridentine missal.

We Americans in any case rather have come naturally to think that in the liturgy we want to express ourselves, and if it doesn’t feel like us, then we don’t want to say it!

But the whole tradition of liturgy is not primarily expressive of where people are and what they want to say to God. Instead it is impressive. It forms us, and it is always bigger than any given community that celebrates it.

Mass Facing the People

I think the mass can be celebrated very beautifully and worthily in either direction. The question is what the priest understands his role to be, and how he expresses [it] in his style of celebration.

If he’s facing the assembly and the assembly is gathered around the altar, you’re making a kind of visual symbol, rightly, a symbol of the whole community united. The symbol is slightly tweaked if the priest turns toward the east…you hear it said, “turning his back to the people”. Well, that’s a misinterpretation of what the priest is doing, and it’s sort of like “that guy has turned his back on us.” No; it’s Christ, the priest, turns to face the Father, with his people behind him. That’s what it means.

People can feel offended by what they call the priest turning his back and you can’t see what’s happening. But in fact there is nothing to see! The mystery is invisible no matter which way you turn, so that’s why we shouldn’t fight about it – “I can’t see, I can’t see!” No! You can’t!

Sacrifice or Supper?

Sacrifices are meals. That’s a way in which one participates in a sacrifice.  Very close to that question that you’ll hear the same sort of worry or complaint is that the Tridentine Mass is focused on God, and the Mass of Paul VI is focused on the assembly.

Textually, that is not true, but in our talk perhaps we’ve made that mistake. But they’re inextricable. Christ is crucified, risen, sends the Spirit, for the sake of building the Church.  

You can’t have Mass without, in the end, noticing the Church, that is to say noticing the community. That’s the whole purpose of it. But that’s different from the community expressing itself. That’s a mistake! The community is impressed, indeed comes into being precisely because of God’s action. And precisely by focusing on God, the community comes into being.

So again, those are false opposites, those are not to be opposed.

  

Active Participation

Participation doesn’t necessarily mean doing something. Participation – the deepest participation – on the part of the assembly is following it. The missal of Paul VI is presuming that the people understand themselves – and are instructed in this way – understand themselves to be involved in the ritual action from start to finish. And that their very presence in the church is participation – to hear the Word, to sing the song, to stand now, to kneel now. To receive the Sacrament. That’s participation.

Criticism and the Reform

Basically the reason to be critical would be to say, is this working, was this a good move or not? And of course it can be changed further. As we look at things that were eliminated, and perhaps regret their loss, of course those can be put back in in a new form of the missal.

So I think it’s a living product that takes place under the guidance of Peter.

For more posts on the Mass on this blog, click on the "TLM and Liturgy" tab at the top of the page.

Save the Liturgy, Save the Large Family

This just in from the comment section of “What If I’m WrongAbout NFP?” (my emphasis) 

My husband and I are NFP teachers, and we do the "sex talk" at the marriage prep our cluster hosts every spring. We work hard to put forth the essence of the Church's teaching in the 45 minutes given to us. We also think carefully about how we present ourselves verbally and physically in an attempt to make Catholic Large Family life attractive. (we have 7 children so far).

This is what it looks like in the trenches (at least in the Northeast). One or 2 couples out of 30 in these prep classes have an understanding of Church teaching. Most are openly living together and contracepting. Even those who go to Mass every weekend are often introduced to the reasons behind the teaching against contraception for the first time at our session!...

  

There are some good points here.

For one thing, there is the fact that most couples – even Catholics – live together and/or are having sex before marriage, and often they are using some kind of illicit contraception. Bishops, priests, and the laity are all quite aware of this, I believe.

And why are people living this way? As I have opined elsewhere[1]:

Historically, right around the time of Humanae Vitae and Roe v. Wade, Catholics had also been introduced to the Novus Ordo, and they were being shown that it was acceptable to tamper with the liturgy, to make it “more relevant”, to not follow the rubrics. What would this tell them about the Church? It would suggest that if we may interpret the “source and summit” the way we want to, then surely we may interpret other Church teaching that way, too. And it would suggest that surely we should be living contemporary lives; maybe the Church is just behind the times on this contraception thing. We’ve got to help her along and make the change ourselves so that the Church will be more relevant to others.

Now, if we are free to re-write liturgical rules for the Mass, why should we not be free to form our consciences according to moral relativism? And this is what happened.

Dissident theologians and priests, aided and abetted by silent bishops (and some vocal ones, as well), led the faithful astray by blatantly asserting that disobedience was the order of the day when it came to Humanae Vitae’s affirmation of the Church’s ban on contraception.

The changes in the Mass took away some of the mystery that had been there previously, including the mystery of the Eucharist. Belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist has declined outrageously since Vatican II. Reverence at the typical Novus Ordo Mass has declined compared to what it was (and still is) in the extraordinary form. The number of religious vocations has declined. The number of children born to Catholic families has declined. I don’t think all these things are unrelated.

The liturgy has suffered in its redefinition and revision; and our faith has suffered because of that: lex orandi, lex credendi.

The innovations and modifications that resulted in a weakening of the sense of reverence that was previously shown for the Eucharist include: receiving Holy Communion in the hand instead of on the tongue (which diminishes the sense of the Real Presence of Christ); allowing lay “ministers” to handle the Eucharist (creating a false sense of our “equality” with priests and therefore with Jesus); renovations that lower the sanctuary to the level of the people; removing “barriers” (like communion rails) between the people and the sanctuary; having the priest face the people as if he is a talk-show host; de-emphasizing the altar as a place of sacrifice and over-emphasizing the concept of Mass as a shared meal; introducing popular music as a replacement for Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony.

Likewise, our sense of the mystery, beauty, and inherent dignity of life – from conception to natural end, and even of life that has not yet been conceived – has been compromised by the innovations, modifications, and revelations of science. While scientific advances themselves have the potential to increase our sense of reverence for life, they can also be used for evil: the capability of creating a new human being outside the womb; the advances in fertility treatment that result in “extra” babies being aborted; the use of human embryos to harvest stem cells for research. All of these things give us the sense that we mere creatures have become Creators, able to “create” (and destroy) life at our own whim; able to regulate the health and genetic soundness of that life; and able to “create” or “not create” that life as we see fit – as if life is just another commodity or resource we must learn to exploit to our advantage.

To recap:

After Vatican II, the liturgy changed…dramatically: Less reverence…less respect…fewer “absolutes”…

After Vatican II, Humanae Vitae confirmed the Church’s perennial teaching against contraception, but dissident theologians and clergy encouraged dissent and rebellion against that teaching: Less reverence for life…less respect for large families…fewer “absolutes”…

People saw that the Church could change the liturgy; why couldn’t the Church change the teaching on contraception? And why didn’t She?! If the stodgy old men in Rome won’t make the Church more “contemporary”, the faithful must do it themselves…right?!

So the Catholic faithful were taught to follow their consciences with regard to birth control, and a whole bunch of them chose illicit contraception. Family size decreased. The vocations “crisis” ensued. Etc.

Interestingly, if you find a group of people who attend the EF Mass regularly, you will often find large families. While correlation does not imply causation, it’s worth a try: if we return to the reverence and mystery and awe of the EF Mass, perhaps we can recover the sense of reverence and mystery and awe of life that leads couples to embrace the concept of not limiting the number of children they will accept from God.

Save the liturgy, save the large family.

But instead, for now, NFP has been called in to save the day. The commenter mentioned above added:

But in defense of NFP teachers, we need to meet people where they are before we hit them with the deeper issues behind Catholic teaching. "Hmmm, NFP might work for us..." is a more possible step than "I need to get off contraception and be open to life!" Though I have seen this happen too, happily!

There is some truth to this statement, too: Our bishops and priests have neglected to talk about the evil of contraception for over 40 years now. To counteract contraceptive use, the USCCB calls for NFP programs in every diocese; NFP teachers have to deal with the contraceptive mentality of today’s culture, which has infected an overwhelming proportion of Catholics.

And why does the USCCB call for NFP programs? It’s not because NFP is a good thing. It’s because unrestrained use of NFP is a lesser sin than the use of illicit contraception. The teaching of NFP is promoted because “if we don’t teach them NFP, they’ll use contraception.”

That may well be true. The illicit use of NFP is to be preferred over the use of illicit contraception (it is permitted to choose a lesser evil over a greater evil)…but only if there is no other option.

There is another option in this case, though: Teach the evil of contraception. Teach the need for “serious reasons” to avoid procreation. Teach the sanctity and value of life – the blessings and joys – and yes, the sacrifices – of large families.

Teach the Truth. 

And follow the thread back to the source: restore to the liturgy the dignity, reverence, and devotion that is proper to the worship of God – who is, after all, the Author of Life.

Click on the NFP tab at the top of the page for a list of other NFP posts on this blog.

---

[1] In my article “Abortion, Contraception, and the Liturgy”, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, October, 2009.