The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Reversing the liturgical field
by Richard McBrien on Sep. 21, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionJudging from the comments, some readers thought last week's column on the "Year for Priests" unduly pessimistic about the present state of the Catholic Church. To the contrary, one of latest developments inside the Vatican only underscores the point of that column.
According to a report late last month by Andrea Tornielli in the Italian daily Il Giornale, the prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, met with Pope Benedict XVI on April 4 (the fact that we have a precise date is significant) to present a list of proposed changes to the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist.
The proposals were said to have been formally approved at a meeting of the congregation in March, and were designed to "restore a greater sense of the sacred" to the celebration of Mass.
Among the proposals that had been approved by the congregation in March and presented to the pope early the next month were calls to end the practices of receiving Communion in the hand and having the priest celebrate Mass facing the congregation.
Once the story was leaked to the press, however, there were denials (of sorts) from the Vatican. Undoubtedly, Vatican officials were miffed by the leak and a statement was issued by the deputy director of the Vatican Press Office, Passionist Fr. Ciro Benedettini, that said only that "for the time being there are no institutional proposals for a modification of the liturgical books used at present."
Some Vatican observers predict that the delay may last as much as a year, or until the matter quiets down.
But what is clear is that something is in the works and it is entirely consistent with what Roman sources have been hearing for some time about the pope's desire to return gradually to Communion on the tongue as the normative practice. At the same time, the Pope knows full well that such a highly controversial reversal of current practice could never be accomplished in an instant.
The practice of Communion in the hand was originally granted by the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship on May 29, 1969 (before it was combined with the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments by Pope Paul VI in 1975), in response to requests from various episcopal conferences, including that of the United States, and with the explicit approval of Paul VI.
Lest anyone question Benedict's personal preference in this matter, it should be pointed out that, beginning on the feast of Corpus Christi last year, those receiving Communion from the pope must do so only on the tongue. He has also expressed support for restoring the practice of the priest's celebrating Mass "facing the East," which means in plain English with his back to the people.
Given the possibility that such reversals (sometimes referred to as a "reform of the reform") will eventually be mandated, one can only imagine the confusion, frustration and anger that many priests and laypeople will experience.
Today, if individual Catholics choose to receive the sacrament on the tongue, they are free to do so. Eucharistic ministers -- priests and laypeople alike -- respect their wishes. The great majority, however, prefer to receive Communion in the hand and continue to do so.
But this proposal, if enacted, would actually prevent Catholics from making that choice for themselves. They would be denied the option, approved by Paul, that has been available to them for the past 40 years, namely, to receive Communion in the hand or on the tongue.
The so-called "John Paul II priests" would very likely be happy with such a reversal of practice and would ostentatiously deny giving Communion to those with outstretched hands. However, many other priests, whether old enough to have been shaped by Vatican II or not, would ignore the mandate and continue to distribute Communion in the hand to those who requested it.
What would happen as a result of this tug of war at Communion time? Would some bishops threaten priests with suspension? If so, how many priests would expose themselves to such a penalty? If the numbers were large, how would the church be able to compensate for the additional decline in the number of available priests?
Mandating the celebration of Mass with the priest's back to the congregation might pose an even greater problem, except in churches built before the Second Vatican Council and still with main altars facing the rear wall. But such churches are probably in the minority today. The architectural problems would be exceeded only by the pastoral dislocations.
May none of this come to pass.
© 2009 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
Given the possibility that
Given the possibility that such reversals (sometimes referred to as a "reform of the reform") will eventually be mandated, one can only imagine the confusion, frustration and anger that many priests and laypeople will experience.
You didn't care that much about these very issues 40 years ago.
Amen!! Richard McBrien is
Amen!! Richard McBrien is sooooooooo out of touch with today's Church. He's a prodcut of the seventies, and seems like he never got out of hippie mode. His rationale is deficient at best. I wonder if Annibale Bugnini the freemason would be satisfied with McBrien's positions?
"Your" church? Fr. McBrien is
"Your" church? Fr. McBrien is well-respected in our global Catholic Church.
What a tremendously
What a tremendously judgmental statement about one of our greatest priests of this time. I find the level of anger and even hatred for anyone who stands for the ecumenical council of Vatican II unbelievable and absolutely in Christian and out of touch with the Holy Spirit.
I pray for a change of heart for some one who choose to hide behind the anonymous screen.
Let's be honest...Fr.
Let's be honest...Fr. McBrien's ideas and attitude is a part of a dying generation. While he may be well intentioned, many of his thoughts are just wrong...he doesn't really understand the Church...though, he thinks he does. Truly, he's a brilliant man. However, brilliance does not equal understanding.
I'm 25 years old, have two kids, and am married to an awesome Catholic gal. WE are a part of generation that will replace McBrien's dissent.
I've read and studied all 16
I've read and studied all 16 documents of Vatican Council II, and be assured, Fr. McBrien does not represent that Great Council.
Let us all follow the vicar
Let us all follow the vicar of Christ........let us love and support him!
Wrong! I and everyone I
Wrong! I and everyone I knew back then cared VERY MUCH about being able to receive communion in the hand, feeling strongly that it was far more reverent than sticking out one's tongue!
I totally agree with your
I totally agree with your point.
I also think that priests and people will both embrace Mass ad orientem as well as Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue when the Holy Father so mandates but even now more and more faith communities are moving in this direction; and not even because of the Pope's mandate but because of his humble example. For instance, this past weekend I had the privilege to visit a parish in Mexico. After a 40 year absence there, Mass was ad orientem and Holy Communion was again distributed to those kneeling [this was not forced as the priest only set up temporary kneelers (the Communion rail had been dismantle years earlier) and extended an invitation to the communicants to assume this posture of greater reverence if they so chose and guess what, 99% of the communicants did so!)]
BTW, this was a run of the mill diocesan parish and not one at all associated with any of the traditionalist Catholic orders or movements. Just a regular priest and his community moving in the direction of the Reform of the Reform because it better responds to the human need for reverence and mystery.
I spoke with the priest afterwards and he summed up what he had experienced in the Mass (this was the very first time this priest had ever celebrated ad orientem in public in his 10 years of being ordained) by saying that he felt that he was really focused on Christ's sacrifice and this called him to a deeper conversion.
May more and more priests and their people embrace the Reform of the Reform and bring about the authentic renewal of the Liturgy that Vatican II truly envisioned.
Pax et Bonum
Anonymous said: "You didn't
Anonymous said:
"You didn't care that much about these very issues 40 years ago."
AMEN to that! Where was Father's out spokenness of the people who were upset over the abrupt changes then?
Perhaps Father McBrien needs a refresher in liturgical studies for any liturgist knows that the proper characterization isn't with the priest's back to the people (which infers a negative connotation), but instead has the liturgical meaning of a common direction of prayer.
Because of priests like
Because of priests like McBrien we are headed back to the pre Vatican II church. why? the People of God are tired of your inventions and outbursts. I remember about 4 years ago when Bishop Tod Brown of Orange, CA refused to give a woman communion while she was kneeling. Or recently, when Archbsihop Neirbuerer from San Francisco gave communion to transvesites dressed up as nuns. Or what about the church in Orange, CA that had their EMs and lectors dressed up as Count Dracula and witches as they distributed communion and read the scriptures.
And McBrien wants to know why the Pope is going back to the old ways. There is one reason why: the extremism on the left to do anything they want with the Mass without any regard to Tradition or custom. And they forced this down our throats for 40 years and we could not do a thing about it! Well, hello, we have a new Pope and his name is Benedict.
Where was McBrien's outrage when these things occured? No where. Why because he just did not care. Now, we can honestly say that within the next few years, we will see a major push to have the priest's back facing the people, more Latin hymns, kneeling to receive communion and on the tongue. These things don;t really sound that bad. It's a lot better than watching Eucharistic Ministers and lectors dressing up as witches and vampires.
Mara, some day you will
Mara, some day you will realize how silly to be consumed with such pettiness. If you had a life with any real responsibility or hardship I seriously doubt you would be spending your time whining.
As for "we are headed back to the pre Vatican II church." If that is the case, the Church is done for.
Get a real life.
There is no need to return
There is no need to return Communion on the tongue as the normative practice--it IS the normative practice!
If Jesus Christ did not do
If Jesus Christ did not do it, is it still normative to our Faith?
or formative arising after medieval plagues burned through European cities?
Jesus Christ, nor any of his
Jesus Christ, nor any of his apostles, were chairs of theology departments at universities, so should we still have those?
Actually, the restriction
Actually, the restriction that communion be conferred upon the tongue only developed in the Mediterranean in the second and third century. In the East, it was due to intinction, the practice of immersing the bread in the wine during the liturgy. It has been ladled into the communicant's mouth with a little spoon by the priest ever since. In the West, the practice arose around the same time, but for different reasons. Communicants had begun smuggling the sacrament home for use as good-luck charms or talismans, or else had been ashamed to refrain from communicating. To combat this disturbing trend, bishops began to ask their priests only to distributed it onto the tongues of the faithful, and to give the Eucharist for delivery to homebound persons only to increasingly restricted groups - eventually to only deacons.
The practice of communion on the tongue only dates at least to the times of the catacombs, my friend.
Most Catholics receive
Most Catholics receive communion in the hand because it was mandated. If the rules change most will once again will fall into line with whatever the instruction is. While such compliance may anger the activists the faithful are "a flock following a sheperd". We are talking about a 2000 year old church and a 40 year practice.
In terms of the major argument of the cost of the architecture changes being excessive against a return to the 'priest facing east' it is very shallow. I suspect a survey of all catholic churches in Australia would show the very large majority are more than 40 years old.
My personal view is that we do not need any significant changes to the current practices; a lot of thought and intellect went into the aftermath of Vatican 2 and the continual snipping away at its outcomes is delibilitating to say the least. the so called 'reform of the reforms' is diappointing and it is a shame that the collective intellect and energy of the church concentrates on the minutae while there are much greater issues that need to be brought to the notice of the church community.
Cheers
Bill
"a lot of thought and
"a lot of thought and intellect went into the aftermath of Vatican 2"
ROFL. Too bad more prayer didn't.
"Most Catholics receive
"Most Catholics receive communion in the hand because it was mandated."
It was never mandated that anyone receive Communion in the hand. It was allowed an an exception to the universal law of the Church, which calls for Communion on the tongue, for certain episcopal conferences, as an option. The universal law never changed.
And I believe the Pope's thinking is that the liturgy is not "minutiae," but rather at the heart and soul of the Church.
Dear Fr. McBrien: "May none
Dear Fr. McBrien:
"May none of this come to pass."
Oh, how I would like to hear...just once...the 'progressive crowd' acknowledge how devastating it was for the 'pre-vatican II crowd' to witness the complete dismantling of the Mass that they and many generations before them had grown to love...along with Adoration, First Fridays, First Saturdays, and other 'theologically backwards' devotions. All of these things were ripped away from them; and when they could have used some consolation, they were told to 'get over it' and 'come into the 20th century'.
One does not have to "imagine the confusion, frustration and anger that many priests and laypeople will experience." All one need do is ask many of the priests and faithful who were forced to endure far more dramatic changes 40 or so years ago.
Romans 12:19
In Christ,
Smooches.
Smooches dude pre-vat
Smooches dude
pre-vat here
NOT devastated
more devastated by how we walk over the poor, the homeless, the ill, the alien, defying directly the Gospel mandates of Jesus Christ, the reason for the season and all of that
The Eucharist is agape
not a balletic dramatic presentation of strictly pre-ordained and specified steps and turns to which we are called to obey like the leaden monks of the Inferno
but to a love feast
in compassion and tolerance and acceptance and love
and peace
So I am not devastated
except by those who demand that I follow their very specific script
in Mexico we hear one another improvise a hymn, and follow
that's why I go to Mass in Mexico
it is a love feast
agape
communion of saints
and sinners
like me
not devastating
yet why do you cite this verse:
19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[a]says the Lord.
this does not sound like a Love Feast.
This does not sound like smooches
And yet, this is ever
frère charles du désert
I am your basic lefty
I am your basic lefty Catholic, and I largely agree with Frere Charles' post, especially the part about the way we walk over the poor.
But the Church does seem to be run right now by a bunch with obsessive compulsive personality disorder: All rules, no joy. The lack of concern with good works is directly related to the obsessions with liturgical detail.
The only change I would like to see at Mass--and here my politics come in conflict with my role as a parent of teenagers--is the expectation of modest dress. For the sake of the teenagers. Don't mean fancy dress, but just dress that covers up in an adequate way.
And some more work on the Good Friday liturgy so that, as someone who is part Jewish, I don't feel neurotic at Mass on that day.
"And some more work on the
"And some more work on the Good Friday liturgy so that, as someone who is part Jewish, I don't feel neurotic at Mass on that day."
Right - because it's about how you feel, and nothing to do with the reality of Christ's death on the cross....
Oh, lighten up, please. I was
Oh, lighten up, please. I was in jest about my neurosis, entirely serious about some of the problems w the Good Friday liturgy, not made any better by the Lefebvrist scandal.
First, there is no Mass on
First, there is no Mass on Good Friday. Secondly, we're Christian. We believe He is the way, the truth, the light. We believe He is the Lord of Lords, consubstantial with the Father. You're offended that we pray to God that others will come to believe in Him???
With the a min. awarness of
With the a min. awarness of the times when through-out history The Church has demonstrated complancy, if not direct involvement, with anti-semitism would bring a more humble response. A little understanding as to how this history may have an effect on our Jewish brothers and sisters could do much to bring the healing of redemption that is at the core of Christ's message, that is why Christ died on the cross.
All rules, no joy The lack
All rules, no joy The lack of concern with good works is directly related to the obsessions with liturgical detail.
....
This is the problem; the Lefties do not get out of their bubble. The Traditionalist oriented are very joyful, helping the poor and carrying the social mission forward. Check out the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, or the EF at St. Agnes Church in Manhattan, or any Knight of Columbus site to see this in action. Go to the March for Life.
The traddies are "joyful"???
The traddies are "joyful"??? 'Sure couldn't prove that statement by the content of their posting on this forum... unless perhaps one finds his/her bliss in nit-picking over rules and trying to evict from the Church anyone who isn't exactly like themselves. They live in their own insulated "bubble".
"Negative, oppositional and defensive" might be a better words to describe them, and for sure it is how their minority group behaves in our local area. They don't like anybody very much... except their own group of like-minded folks whom they view as somehow holier and more Catholic than the rest of us. No "joy" in that!
"Negative, oppositional
"Negative, oppositional and defensive" might be a better words to describe them, and for sure it is how their minority group behaves in our local area.
.....
I'll repeat: go to see the KofC in action; or the Franciscans of the Renewal; or the Sisters of Life, or one of the many, many other more 'traditional' groups. Ease into letting go of your stereotypes, through direct experience. It's the American way.
As I said... I DO have
As I said... I DO have personal experience with the retro-uber-orthodox crowd, and their behavior toward other Catholics who are not of their exclusive orthodoxy clique. If they, or you, do not want to be viewed as negative, oppositional and defensive, then don't behave in that manner.
And, may I add, you have plenty of "stereotypes" of your own that need tending — that's a large blind spot for traditionalists who spend a significant amount of time discussing the perceived failings of others, applying their "CINO" label, and then inviting those they disapprove of to leave the Church. If you doubt this, then read through the comments posted by traditionalists on this forum. See just how MANY times you find some variation of the words: "you aren't a real Catholic..." or, "you should join some other church..." or, "you should leave..." or, "I pray daily for the destruction of you liberal progressives".
Anonymous Scrantonian: I
Anonymous Scrantonian: I find the comments from you and others criticizing the liturgical practices after Vatican II and "lefties" as judgmental and "very smug". Such personal reactions are not joyful as you believe traditionalists are. On the contrary, they are mean-spirited and reflect isolated perspectives about the diversity present within the Christian community.
I find the comments from you
I find the comments from you and others criticizing the liturgical practices after Vatican II and "lefties" as judgmental and "very smug".
......
Well, for one I did not criticize the post VII practices in a post so I'm not sure how I was being 'smug'.
I will say that growth is the only sign of life, and the post VII data show a precipitous fall off in every category of liturgical life. The data perhaps make us less joyful than we could be, though it does prompt us, yes, to question those very Post VII liturgical practices. The data are quite clear.
Amen...Amen...Amen
Amen...Amen...Amen
I'm a pre-Vatican II
I'm a pre-Vatican II Catholic, and I welcomed liturgical renewal ("to make new again") like manna and water in the desert!
As did most everyone at the
As did most everyone at the time. Gratitude!
Smooches - Hunh? What are
Smooches -
Hunh? What are you talking about - "how devaasting it was for the 'pre-Vatican II crowd" to witness the complete dismantling of the Mass? I am 81 years old, grew up in the pre-Vatican II years and I wasn't the least bit "devastated" when there were minor changes made in the way Mass was celebrated and there is no way I could ever claim that the Mass was "dismantled." You sound like an obsessive-compulsive old fogey to me. Don't you know that Jesus is there no matter what changes are made? Give yourself a break and lighten up!
So you are saying that 40
So you are saying that 40 years ago there were acceptable "minor changes," yet now these would be unacceptable "major changes."
I wasn't the least bit
I wasn't the least bit "devastated" when there were minor changes made in the way Mass was celebrated and there is no way I could ever claim that the Mass was "dismantled."
.....
Well then J.H., you didn't pay attention to the ensuing chaos following VII and the introductiom of the OF. That is not limited to: dramatic falling away from Mass and the sacraments (by their fruits ye shall know them); dramatic emptying of the seminaries and other houses of formation; the sex crisis, largely a product of the 1970s and to a much lesser extent the 1980s; the loss of belief in the Real Presence.
The data are clear: the way the spirit of VII was introduced into the USA was a disaster.
You've connected all the bad
You've connected all the bad stuff to the spirit of Vatican II.
Now that you've made an assertion, PROVE IT.
You've connected all the bad
You've connected all the bad stuff to the spirit of Vatican II.
Now that you've made an assertion, PROVE IT.
.........
I've checked the CARA and other data on church attendance, vocations, leaving religious life, belief in the Real Prescence, Reconciliation, etc. Each and every indicator is seen falling precipitously in the Post VII era. A granger casuality test would show a reasonable correlation.
What's more, the chaos was world-wide. That means it was not the result of a faulty implementation in one compared to another country. Rather, the fact it was global implies that it was in fact the 'spririt' of VII (a rather ephemeral concept at the least). So we have a timeline, which holds globally. That's a decent hypothesis which would, from what we know, stand up to further scrutiny.
Now, what is your counter hypothesis for this clear time line which holds across various cultures? If it is not the 'spirit' of VII, ahem, "PROVE IT"
I sincerely hope we are not
I sincerely hope we are not in to pay back.
"May none of this come to
"May none of this come to pass."
AMEN
Won't happen for 10 reasons.
Won't happen for 10 reasons. I usually agree w/ Fr. McBrien (and usually defend him), this time however, I respectfully disagree. All he has is a date and conjecture. I am no fan of B16 however, let's be fair. I will list reasons why I think "reform of the reform" is D.O.A.(dead on arrival).
1. If he is such a proponent why hasn't he once celebrated the extraordinary rite in public, at any of his visits, anywhere? He never has.
2. Ad Orientem. He has not even attempted to say the Pauline Mass (Ordinary Rite) ad orientem, not once in public. Again, a proponent would jump at the chance.
3. Although he has directed that communicants receive kneeling and on the tongue when he himself gives communion, he has never instructed or demanded that everyone else at papal masses receive on the tongue, never.
4. Crisis. When he turned his back when at the Tridentine altar in the Sistine Chapel during a baptism, the news flashed around the world, the resulting feedback wasn't very good, he was ridiculed. Again it showed the Vatican II crowd won't have anything to do with this.
5. Diocese of Linz in the archdiocese of Vienna. When a conservative bishop was appointed, the diocese went into crisis mode. Parishoners not only complained but the "churches emptied", it was a crisis. This was according to cardinal Schonborn a conservative. Speaking of Schonborn. When B16 lifted the excommunication against Williamson, he publicly criticized the Vatican. Schonborn is the architect of B16's pontificate, working behind the scenes to get B16 elected.
6. Internal criticism. The church no longer speaks with a single voice. B16 was "burned" during the Williamson debacle. The criticism was from internal sources, Schonborn and most bishops in Europe. This is unheard of.
7. Minority. Conservatives, although loud, represent only a small minority in the church. Where were the conservatives when churches emptied in Austria? Fact, the church cannot simply survive w/ conservatives, it would simply collapse, most churches would close and many, most? dioceses would file for bankruptcy.
8. Schism, many would simply leave, the final death blow to the church in Europe and elsewhere. In the US, many would not listen, will the church throw out millions because they refuse to receive on the tongue? It would be a pr disaster, B16 is very sensitive to pr, especially after Williamson.
9. B16 said that when he approved the Motu Propio, he stated he only hoped that it would influence the ordinary to make it more holy. He didn't say he would replace parts of the ordinary w/ the extraordinary.
10. Finally, it will take 2 years to implement the new translation. One more year to go, one year to adjust. Any other Motu's will take years to develop and implement. In 2 yrs B16 will probably not be here if his recent fall in the bathroom is any indication. Of course, the official version is that he "just" fell. It sounds alot like syncope secondary to cardiovascular or medication issues to me. Anyhow, the next pope will possibly a progressive, everyone has had enough of the right wing and the various crises that have erupted because of them which has kept the church in turmoil.
Nope, nada, won't happen.
Allow me to offer some
Allow me to offer some divergent ideas.
1. When the Holy Father makes a pastoral visit, he celebrates Mass according to the custom of the nation he is visiting. Pope John Paul II did this as well, though he occasionally went overboard, particularly in his choice of music and vestment. But, for all of Pope John Paul's great qualities and contributions, he was not a liturgist. He himself admitted that.
2. It is custom, since the erection of the Papal Altar at St. Peter's, for the supreme pontiff to celebrate Mass in the manner in which he does now, facing the direction he does. There are many possible explanation for this, one is that the pontiff, in facing the direction he does, is facing the entrance to the Confessio. Another is that, since the College of Cardinals used to be seated behind the High Altar, and the Holy Father's throne was placed beneath Bernini's sculpture of "Peter's Chair", it could be argued that the Holy Father was facing liturgical east, from the perspective of the primary congregation (that of the Cardinals). In much the same way, priests who offered Mass for Mother Angelica's sisters used to face toward the sisters (who were the primary congregation for the liturgy) and away from any laity/visitors to the chapel. It appeared as if the priest were celebrating ad orienten, when in fact, he was not.
3. The Holy Father is merely expressing his preference in distribution of Holy Communion. It is debatable whether or not he will mandate this for all papal Masses, though it is doubtful, given the impracticalities, particularly at outdoor Masses and/or Masses during his papal visits (for example, the Mass at Yankee Stadium). I would also note that I attended the annual Pallium Mass in 1994 as a guest of then-Archbishop Rigali. I was to receive Holy Communion from Pope John Paul II, though ultimately he was not well enough to distribute to anyone. My party was informed that the only proper way to receive from the Holy Father is on the tongue. It was not mandated, and we did not kneel, but it was the custom even then.
4. The Holy Father is not governed by poll numbers. Undoubtedly his missteps (we all make them!) cause him to be cautious and not to change for the sake of change, but he is also not afraid of change (such as mandating Communion kneeling and on the tongue, his use of more traditional and appropriate liturgical vesture, his reverting to a proper throne and crozier, etc). It should also be noted that the Holy Father celebrates his private morning Masses ad orientem, as did Pope John Paul II before him.
5 and 6. The Curia is not behind Pope Benedict. Those who are his supposed advisors are the very ones who often get him in trouble. This is partly why he has made bold moves in appointing people he knows are loyal to him and to the Church, not to their own power base. Many were shocked, for example, when he appointed Cardinal Levada, but he knows Levada and trusts him. He appointed Archbishop Burke for much the same reason. When Cardinal Schonborn offered his comments, they were not so much directed at the Holy Father as they were toward the Curia.
7. And you evidence is....
8. I honestly don't believe that to be the case. I don't believe that there is any evidence whatsoever that Catholics would leave by the millions over something like the manner of receiving Communion or the direction the priest faces at Mass. If they did leave, over what really are minor disciplinary practices that have little to do with dogma or Church teaching, then their faith must not have meant all that much to them in the first place.
9. There is no evidence to support a claim that Pope Benedict wants to replace "parts of the ordinary with the extraordinary". Rather, he wants to continue to refine the ordinary rite to make it more holy, more majestic and more in keeping with Catholic tradition. The ordinary Roman Rite can be celebrated with great solemnity and beauty, if done properly, without innovations, banal music and priest celebrants and "liturgical committees" taking creative license with the words of the Mass. I think we will see this first hand when the revised translations are finally operative. For many, it may be the first time that people have seen Mass celebrated properly. I would also add that Communion on the tongue is the normative way to receive Communion, and on the hand is a concession granted by the Holy See, just like girl servers and vigil Masses. It does not reflect a genuine desire for "change" or an evaluation of the normative to be insufficient in some way. Rather, it is the Holy See saying "I know lots of you are doing this anyway, so rather than make a huge deal about it, in the interest of unity, I am going to allow you to continue this practice, though really, it is not normative". Also, a priest is free to celebrate Mass ad orientem without any permission.
10. Who is to say that a Motu Proprio is not already written? I admire your ability to diagnose a medical problem long-distance. It is very impressive. Finally, your last statements are bordering on ludicrous, only because they do not take into account reality. First, the so-called "progressive" movement among clergy in the Church is practically non-existent. Second, Pope John Paul II appointed cardinals who were, at worst, "moderates" and at best, orthodox. Third, it is highly unlikely that Pope Benedict will appoint any "progressive" cardinals. Indeed, thus far, his appointments have trended much as those of Pope John Paul II. Thus, it is HIGHLY unlikely that any "progressive" will be elected supreme pontiff anytime in the near future.
Just a few thoughts.
10.) We can only hope and
10.) We can only hope and pray for the good of Our Holy Mother Church, while observing the phenomenon you recount here, plus the creeping presence of Opus and the disproportionate influence and favoring of the SSPX (including demanding NOTHING for their re-acceptance). Indeed as you point out, the stacking of the College of Cardinals and nishops by Wojtyla and Ratzinger do not bode well for the coming generation.
And yet, a reasonable one was NEARLY elected instead of Ratzinger, and there may be several secret Monsenor Romero's sleeping within the College (let me not bore you in reminding you he to everyone's surprise turned out to be quite more than expected).
We can only hope, and pray . . .
oremus pro Suae ecclesiae
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
"Wojtyla and
"Wojtyla and Ratzinger'
Shouldn't you being using the proper canonical titles when refering to Popes? You have complained here at NCR about other people doing it?
I gave specific examples of
I gave specific examples of recent episodes that actually occured that show that B16 will probably not implement any drastic reforms. I really don't think you disagree with anything I wrote, you actually confirm it in several places, that the "reform of the reform" won't happen but B16 may just "refine the ordinary".
Furthermore, if the church mandates that communion on the tongue is the only way to receive many will simply continue receiving in the hand or not go at all because of flu concerns. You can bet the farm on that one. My statement was the church will NOT throw out people for continuing to receive on the hand. I'll concede that if we get anything at all we'll get some watered down version stating what is the "norm", and how nice and pretty it is but will not mandate anything. Also, I might remind you that all bishops and cardinals who attended Vatican II council were 100% immersed in and were experienced with the Tridentine Mass but replaced it anyhow. Same thing w/ the election of B16. He didn't win the first two rounds, which is actually surprising considering that JPII's conservative pontificate was so popular and he packed the college of cardinals w/ conservatives. Those are the reported facts. If it was challenging to elect a conservative after a very long and popular conservative pontificate then one can imagine how difficult, if not impossible it will be to elect a conservative after the divisive (imagined or real) pontificate of B16. So don't bet the farm if you think the next pope will be a conservative. Finally, you said "I admire your ability to diagnose a medical problem long-distance. It is very impressive." Why, thank you for the compliment Clint. Actually, diagnosing online or over long distances in this age of electronic medical records is becoming quite popular. Regardless, considering B16's age and his medical conditions his pontificate will be a short one. This is nothing new and not meant in any disrespect, after his election it was reported in this way, even quoting his brother George's concern for his health.
Clint, just because their is
Clint, just because their is silence from progessives in the priesthood doesn't mean they don't exist. Progressive priests and theologians have been given numerous examples of what happens when they speak up.
It's not so much any changes themselves which will indeed send more Catholics out the door, it's symbolic meaning of the changes. Traditionalists see them as enhancing the sacredness of the Mass, others see them as enhancing the sacred set apart nature of the priest in relationship to the laity.
The churches which are growing, as opposed to dieing, have clergy who get down and dirty with their flocks, share their pain and suffering, and offer some hope. Catholicism as you seem to understand it and defend it, is a church of the intellect. It is reasonable with in it's own logic. Logic does not feed the souls of people who are stressed as to where their next meal is coming from--a helping hand and a friendly smile does though.
There is no dichotomy between
There is no dichotomy between service and intellect. The Church is the advocate of both. Historically, she has been at the forefront of service to the poor and the needy. Historically, with some notable exceptions (Galileo), the Church has also nurtured the intellect. Indeed, it was the early Church fathers, most notably St. Augustine, who labored to demonstrate that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. St. Thomas Aquinas and the other Scholastics continued in that tradition, demonstrating that one can apprehend some basic truths about God using one's reason and intellect, then one fully comes to know God through faith. Then, when one's faith is formed, one is called to live that faith through service, as St. James reminds us. A person can have an intellectual, logical faith and still offer a "helping hand and a friendly smile".
Many great saints, fostered by the intellectual and spiritual formation that they received from Mother Church, went on to do great things in service to the least of our brothers and sisters. Many more whose names are known to God alone, do even more acts of service with extraordinary love, fostered and encouraged by the formation that the Church offers.
The Church has been able to continue in her growth and development for close to 2000 years because she appeals, not to emotions and feelings, which are transitory and require no commitment or choice, but rather to the intellect and to reason. The Church offers evidence for her positions and her teachings, even those we do not agree with. She proposes intellectual and logical reasons why a person should accept the Church's teachings.
And, when she is not able to offer full explanations, she is strong enough to admit it. She admits, for example, that we do not fully understand how Christ is made truly Present under the forms of bread and wine at Mass. St. Thomas Aquinas posited the most logical hypothesis thus far in the theory of transubstantiation, but, though the Church accepts that thesis as the most in keeping with our understanding of reality and the explanation that is most consistent with Tradition, she admits at the same time that we will never be able to fully understand the "how", but accept it on faith as a great mystery, much like the Immaculate Conception, Mary's Assumption and the greatest of all, the mystery of the Most Blessed Trinity.
Other Christian communities (for only the Roman Catholic and Uniate, Eastern Orthodox, Schismatic Catholic Churchs (Polish Catholic, etc) are Churches) appeal mostly to the feelings and to emotions. Their preaching and music are designed to touch the heart, to encourage outpourings of feelings and emotions. People feel good when they go to many of those church services. But, there is no commitment required of them there. They talk of a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ", implying that the personal is more essential and important than the communal.
They talk of making a "decision to accept Jesus as lord and savior", without any understanding of what that means or how a Christian is expected to live and behave. They make these "decisions" based on feelings, often with little, if any, catechesis or formation beforehand. They talk of multiple baptisms or backsliding because they realize that when those good feelings wear off, or when life gets tough, people will turn away because they have nothing invested in their faith. They break away and join other churches, or form their own, when they get angry at the pastor or the people or feel that they have gotten all out of the church that they can. They say "God does not care which church you belong to, as long as you worship Him". But, these are emotional responses.
Finally, the Church learns from her mistakes. After Vatican II, during the implementation phase, the Church did not offer reasons for the changes, particularly to the liturgy, the source and summit of our lives. I recall a priest friend telling me that one Sunday at his home parish they went to Mass and the Communion rail was in place, the Mass was in Latin, the high altar was there, etc. The next Sunday, the rail, high altar and Latin were all gone. The only explanation given was that Vatican II said to do this. And, the great tragedy was that Vatican II did not say to do away with ANY of that!But, this time, as Bishop Saratelli has pointed out, the Church is prepared and will offer catechesis and logical and reasonable explanations for the liturgical revisions. They will be explained in their proper context as restoring sacredness and reverence to the liturgy, as well as properly communicating what the Church actually believes ("consubstantial with the Father" and "one in being with the Father" in the Creed are NOT the same things, for example).
I believe that the great majority of Catholics will accept the changes. There will be some initial confusion, and perhaps some complaints, but once people understand the purpose behind the revisions and have some time to become acclimated to them and to recognize and reflect upon the beauty of the revised liturgy, they will welcome the changes. At least those who do not have some ideological axe to grind will do so. Those with the axe to grind, I'm convinced, will not be happy with any liturgical change unless they design and propose it.
I agree Dr. Dale. It isn't
I agree Dr. Dale. It isn't going to happen for all your reasons. And what is behind your reasons pushing His agenda the way He wants through so many of His people? The Holy Spirit who cannot be bound by rules of man or even church - Jesus came to correct the Jewish church of His time even though it was a faith started by His Father and the Holy Spirit is working to push His church in the direction He wants it to go and noone or nothing can stop Him over time - there may be hiccups but the way forward is the only way.
Dr. Dale: I propose that the
Dr. Dale: I propose that the Arian Crisis shows us that the Church will survive even if the majority leave. And the Western Schism; and the Protestant revolution.
The Church will survive no matter what. Maybe not in large numbers. The Pope is making the "hermeneutic of continuity" between before and after the Council, as opposed to the "hermeneutic of rupture" which is the unfortunate state of most of the Church.
I agree...May none of this
I agree...May none of this come to pass. While there are a number of Vatican 2 practices that could be modified, those outlined by Fr. McBrien would definitely be a step backward that the bulk of young parishioners would find difficult to understand. As an 83 year old reader, I, too, would find this a big step backwards.
there it is the same old
there it is the same old mantra... "the bulk of young parishioners would find difficult to understand."
What young people find difficult to understand is a certain generation's contempt for the sacred and its outdated notion of church.
You wouldn't know what a young person was thinking if they spent all afternoon telling you. Why? Because you dont want to hear!!
Perhaps it is you who do not
Perhaps it is you who do not want to hear. No one has expressed "contempt for the sacred".
A valid question would be, how can someone be fully engaged in their own worship of God while simultaneously observing and critiquing the worship of someone else? Is this "outdated notion of Church" of which you speak, related to an institution or the community of God's people?
we show our "contempt for the
we show our "contempt for the sacred" when we refuse to give shelter to the homeless, clothe the naked, food to the hungry, health care to ill, abundantly and without seeking recompense, when we refuse sanctuary to the alien in our midst.
Amen!
Amen!
Who is refusing to help the
Who is refusing to help the poor, etc? The Catholic Church is by far the largest and most generous charitable organization in the world.
I hope someone is listening.
I hope someone is listening.
Longitudinal studies
Longitudinal studies conducted by James Davidson, Dean Hoge, and other sociologists of religion show that while the laity, both old AND young, are moving in one direction, the JPII priests and bishops are moving steadily in another direction. These sociologists believe that when the older generations of the laity die off, the church will witness the widest "expectation gap" between the remaining laity, on the one hand, and the self-described "orthodox" clergy, on the other hand.
In other words, today's younger Catholics --- upon entering middle age --- will NOT accept the paternalism pushed by the JPII priests and bishops.
Not at all a rosy picture.
I am a 23 year old, so I
I am a 23 year old, so I guess you could call me a young parishioner. You do not speak for me or my generation. I would definitely welcome these changes. I love attending small, intimate masses, and I think that having the priest face the way the congregation is facing would put more focus on where it needs to be--on Jesus--and would bring the congregation in even closer to what is going on in the mass. Namely because the priest becomes "one of us" so to speak and he stands along side us in front of our Lord. What an awesome thought!
It is quite obvious that
It is quite obvious that pastoral sensitivity is not a priority in the Curia nor the Vatican as a whole...
If this comes to pass, the hierarchy will see many empty churches. Bodies seated in pews and money count...let's see what the hierarchy does when neither is present.
Rachel, I hope you're right,
Rachel, I hope you're right, but I fear that too many indifferent Catholics will simply "go along" and continue to put their money in the collection baskets. They simply want to "punch their Sunday ticket" for the week and get about their business for the rest of the day.
I hope I'm wrong, but......
What about receiving from the
What about receiving from the cup? Eastern Rite used to use a long spoon for both the "bread and the wine".
Also I believe those receiving from B16 kneel? If we go back to the communion rail, it is more time consuming than standing.
Sorry if we keep you in Mass
Sorry if we keep you in Mass an extra five minutes during your week. We can make back that time if the priest would stop injecting stupid comments and making up their own rites.
Uh-oh, you make a good point
Uh-oh, you make a good point there. With the baby boomers aging our knees can't take the kneeling anymore. My knees are killing me right now and I am only 55.
Sorry. This is not
Sorry. This is not correct.
It is easier to move along the communion rail to distribute Holy Communion, and more efficient, than for people to come forward, one by one, in procession.
This is not to denigrate this practice; it is merely the "experiential" anecdotal practice for centuries.
"Aye-yi-yi-yi-yi!" What next?
"Aye-yi-yi-yi-yi!" What next?
I agree with your closing
I agree with your closing wish, Father. I have only one question: How can a priest face the east in a church with a north-south orientation? Or when the altar is positioned at the west end of the church? I don't get this at all. Is the pope using symbolic language, or what?
East is wherever the Pope or
East is wherever the Pope or your local Bishop says it is.
Sweet God! Are the hierarchy
Sweet God! Are the hierarchy now defining even true north?
Post new comment