« Boo | Main | "It doesn't work" »
November 22, 2006
All I want...
In "Boo" below, Peter Nixon writes:
The other day Amy talked about people who say things like “I’m not a liturgical hardliner, but…” I certainly would put myself in this category. I’m not pining for a return to the Latin or worship ad orientem. I don’t think liturgical music has all been going to hell since Palestrina. I don’t write long, single-spaced letters to my bishop citing violation after violation of the GIRM.
All I want is for the Eucharist to be celebrated with words, music and gesture that reflects the fact that we are engaged in the worship of God. Why is that so very difficult?
My opinion, very briefly.
1) Because the dominant way about thinking about liturgy among liturgy professionals is that what you want is too vertical. I really don't want to get into stereotypes here, so I will try not to. But for 2 or 3 decades now, the prevailing paradigm of Catholic liturgy has been a)to awaken the attendee to the presence of God within and within his or her brothers and sisters in the community and to do so by b) affirming the goodness and unique giftedness of the gathered community.
2) Because in practice, what is in the books functions, practically as a template and guide and priests are not called on it. I am not convinced that liturgical education has been so great in seminaries of late, and the thrust in professional liturgical ministry programs has been very much on the here and now, on creativity, and so on.
3) What that does, by its very nature, is draw attention to ourselves. Our efforts become supreme, our relatedness, our sensibilities, our interpretations become the guide.
Why?
Because, again, they can. Because the pastoral reality is that it has been allowed.
The perception and practice is that Catholic liturgy is very flexible and stretchy. And when that perception is there, we flex and stretch. In addition, those who have been at it for a while get bored. They think that their boredom, as professionals, must be mirrored in the congregation's. And perhaps it is, but for different reasons than they know.
There is lots more to say, and I'm sure you all will say it. American culture plays a big role in this discussion, the impact of evangelical worship styles and music (a dynamic that is being played out within Protestantism as well, as people just run...out..of..ideas...and get exhausted trying.)
The shortest answer of all: They think you won't like it. They think you'll be bored and go away to a more entertaining place. They think you come to Mass to be affirmed in your uniqueness, and if you and your cute kids aren't given due credit, you'll walk.
Finally, I think ad orientem shouldn't be dismissed too quickly. As i've boringly repeated, I experienced a mild version of it this past summer and was absolutely startled by the difference that one subtle shift in the priest's position during prayer made. It wasn't during the Eucharistic Prayer, but during the prayers from the Chair. He turned, at about a 45 degree angle, to face the same direction as we were. It...made a difference. It shifted the focus of our response. It was fascinating.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Finally, I think ad orientem shouldn't be dismissed too quickly
Beat me to the punch Amy. I was going to say that I too am no liturgical hardliner but that this simple change would make a huge difference in worship and would and would do much to achieve the type of worship we wish we could experience.
Posted by: Mark Adams at Nov 22, 2006 4:20:41 PM
In addition, those who have been at it for a while get bored. They think that their boredom, as professionals, must be mirrored in the congregation's.
I think that sums up our liturgical problems quite nicely.
It also reminds of a Peter and the Wolf performance I took my daughters to recently. They interpreted the story through dance and it was pretty entertaining.
However, they made a point of not narrarating the story. That was fine for my kids, who had heard Captain Picard tell it on cd enough times, but what about the kids who didn't know the story and their parents dropped cash to bring them there?
It seemed to me that the conductor was bored with doing the same old Peter and the Wolf and wanted to mix things up. Considering the musicians had probably performed it the same way a million times - and heard it even more - I can understand.
But they shouldn't have assumed the paying audience wanted something new and different!
Priests and liturgists need to think that way before adding gaudy and obnoxious innovations to what something that is already supremely beautiful.
Posted by: caine thomas at Nov 22, 2006 4:38:20 PM
I am a new parishioner at a Melkite Catholic Church. I'm not there to escape anything in the Latin Church, but the Liturgy is amazing. Just yesterday we had the Divine Liturgy for the feast day, and there were only about 10 or 15 of us there, but it was ALL men. I don't think I've ever been to a daily Mass in the Latin Church that had so many men together, and they weren't there with their family. The funny thing is, not only was it all men, but everyone sat up front and the Priest encouraged us all to participate vocally, and they all did, as far as they were able. There was incense and chanting (Arabic), but most of it was in English, the Priest facing the altar. It was just an amazing experience.
Posted by: Jason at Nov 22, 2006 4:48:24 PM
Also, ad orientem is (or was) a very distinctive aspect of Catholic worship. It helped separate mass from the ordinary such as meetings, classes, and presentations (not to mention protestant worship).
Posted by: trm at Nov 22, 2006 4:54:30 PM
I think we might be dismissing too easily that the liturgists in the Church have a different theology of the Mass, than the Church does. A friend was telling me a story of a woman that wrote her dissertation on the Cluniac revival and the idea of the liturgy being the kingdom of God on earth. Her priest advisor told her that the only problem with the paper was that she used the temple as a type of the Mass, but the priest pointed out that liturgists now know that the type of the Mass is the synagogue (in other words, no sacrifice, just the preaching of the Word). This priest is a liturgist at a Catholic University teaching and advising doctoral students. I do not think this situation is unique.
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at Nov 22, 2006 5:02:31 PM
a religious woman of my acquaintance was complaining to me recently about how things are "changing" in her parish, and she was getting vexed. The particular instance she cited was the fact that there is now a framed picture of Our Lady, Perpetual Help in the sanctuary. She said, "I've worked so long, and so hard to get Vatican II to this parish; I've taught the documents and tried to get people to accept it, and now this new pastor comes in and starts to turn the clock back." Her complaint about the new picture (and she had other complaints, the picture was just one of many) was that, "Doesn't he understand that when we gather around the table, we're supposed to be focused on the community, and our sharing with our brothers and sisters? THAT's the whole point of the Eucharist, to share this meal with each other and focus on our community, our communion. All these devotional things have their place, but they don't belong in a time and place when we're supposed to be focused on each other."
There's your problem folks. A generation or more of Catholics - very educated Catholics, too - who were taught that the Eucharist is all about us. Now, there are certainly reasons that Our Lady of Perpetual Help should not be the main focus of the sanctuary, but Sister's comments (and I've heard so many similar comments from so many people of a certain age) seem perfectly in line with the spirit that inspires things like this Halloween Mass. Celebrating our community. Keeping the focus on us.
There's where the ad orientem posture comes in so helpfully. It is certainly possible to have a divinely focused Mass celebrated ad populum, but it's so much easier - for priest as well as people - when the priest's attention is focused in the same direction as the faithful.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Nov 22, 2006 5:11:33 PM
I was in a pre-theologiate program for a couple years and was constantly reminded by the rector that "we are the Body of Christ" and that "fixation" on the Eucharist did not build community.
Fixation? How about Adoration!
You must unlearn what you have learned...
Posted by: caine thomas at Nov 22, 2006 5:40:25 PM
A long while back I was asked to describe my "image of God". At first it seemed like a rather silly question, but the more I have thought on it over the years, the more I believe that not only is it a vitally important question, but lies at the heart of many of the problems affecting not only liturgy, but also scripture study, ethics, in fact the whole of theology.
If we do not know who God is, how can we worship Him properly? (See John 4:21-24) Modern scripture study posits a Jesus radically different (and diminished) from the Jesus of the Gospels. As Jesus' divinity is more and more separated from his humanity, and in most cases his humanity elevated at the expense of his divinity, our worship of Christ takes on the image of worship of man.
JPII said, "Original sin is the attempt to abolish fatherhood." For all the ways we see human fatherhood diminished, above all I think the failure is to see God as the Father who created us, loves us, and desires to spend eternity with us.
Similarly the Holy Spirit, rather than the Paraclete who both encourages and accuses, becomes some feeling of love that has no reference to truth.
And so as our images of the Trinity fall further and further from that which has been revealed, is it any surprise that worship falls further away from worship in spirit and truth? It's a bit of a vicious circle, because the liturgy should really be the place where we most properly learn the image of the true God as He becomes sacramentally present. But I suspect that without a return to a more authentic image of God in our minds and hearts, we will continue to struggle to grow in true worship.
It is encouraging to see Pope Benedict autoring a book on the Jesus of faith - who is the Jesus of the Gospels. Perhaps this will bear great fruit even for the return of more authentic worship of the one true God.
Posted by: James at Nov 22, 2006 5:40:33 PM
A woman from my parish was upset that the priest is not supposed to leave the sanctuary during the sign of peace. She said "Who are these people who think they can make rules like that? Don't they know that desgtroys the whole reason we gather-to be a community?" When I suggested that we gather to worship God, she replied, " We worship God in each other." All about us, the prayers, the songs, the gestures, all horizontal, no vertical. We have even been told that it is "selfish" to pray after receiving Communion. We are to stand singing and not until after all have received are we allow (literally) 2 minutes of silent "reflection" At one time, no room was found for God in the inn. Today, there is no room for God in too many parishes.
Posted by: Terentia at Nov 22, 2006 5:41:46 PM
"They think you come to Mass to be affirmed in your uniqueness, and if you and your cute kids aren't given due credit, you'll walk."
Wow, that actually happened to me, except I walked to a new parish because I was singled out for applause during Mass for being so great as to.... (drum roll) bring my children to Mass. "Isn't it great to see parents bringing their children to Mass? Let's have those parents stand up and give them a round of applause!"
Yes, worthy am I of praise, honor and glory.
You can't imagine how mortified I was after struggling mightily throughout Mass to keep the toddlers under control so that those around us _wouldn't_ notice our presence.
There were other reasons I had to find a new parish, but this was simply the last straw.
Posted by: sarah at Nov 22, 2006 5:41:49 PM
I've heard comments like "We're supposed to enjoy church"; "we believe in the congregation", and many others like it. As an organist, I'm bored too, but the boredom arises from having to do the same old, same old, Hagen/Haas, St. Louis Jebs, Eagle's Wings, etc. -- every year -- recessional hymn at last Sunday's Mass, for example, was Let There Be Peace on Earth, which the congregation applauded! My own little subversive act was to play Alleluia, Sing to Jesus as the postlude - he he...
Posted by: Patricia Gonzalez at Nov 22, 2006 5:48:05 PM
James,
Where is that JPII original sin quote from?
Posted by: caine thomas at Nov 22, 2006 5:53:41 PM
The original sin quote appears in Crossing the Threshold of Hope. I'm not sure which chapter, though I know it's nearer to the end.
Posted by: James at Nov 22, 2006 5:55:26 PM
Caine,
These rays [of fatherhood] encounter a first resistance in the obscure but real fact of original sin. This is truly the key for interpreting reality. Original sin is not only the violation of a positive command of God but also, and above all, a violation of the will of God as expressed in that command. Original sin attempts, then, to abolish fatherhood, destroying its rays which permeate the created world, placing in doubt the truth about God who is Love.
John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (New York, NY, Knopf, 1994), 228.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Nov 22, 2006 6:07:28 PM
May I push a point that Amy and Tim F. made a bit deeper?
That is, the point about the point being the "community", horizontalism and all that.
That's not quite the end point, at least in it's original iterations, as best I can tell from observation and reading and listening. There is deeper assumed point beyond that, and one that I find at least questionable but rarely articulated:
The assumed point is to take the lesson of contemplatives and apply it to a group: that a community that more deeply reflects on and appreciates and [add meaningful verb of choice ad lib. - "owns" comes readily to mind, unfortunately] the presence of Christ in its midst will:
1) Be more fruitful in the works of the Holy Spirit, especially corporal works of mercy and justice and peace, and/or
2) Be more on fire with the Holy Spirit, especially in "prophetic" witness.
Et cet.
I have to say that this implied assumption is very questionable. It certainly seems noble and hearkens to the Acts of the Apostles. But, in reality, in consumer capitalist culture of which the USA is the most fully realized exemplar, the risk of solipsism and narcissism -- and consequent withering of the very apostolates of mercy, justice and peace supposed benefitting from this -- is at least as likely if not more likely.
Posted by: Liam at Nov 22, 2006 6:21:30 PM
The "we are Christ" orientation that runs around many contemporary celebrations of the Mass is light years away from the highly developed doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ. From my vantage point on the organ bench, it seems that many of my fellow worshippers are there, looking for what they do not know and we're generally feeding them some okay music, oral readings of text that they prefer to follow in the misselette, a good-to-middling-to-awful homily, and then some rather incomprehensible actions on the part of the clergy followed by the special "sharing" of Communion.
Pretty thin gruel, no? And rather than refocus and catechize on the Mass, we add bits of window dressing.
Posted by: Mary Jane at Nov 22, 2006 6:36:45 PM
Liturgists have decided that the Mass is about us, when, of course, it's really about Him.
Posted by: Margaret at Nov 22, 2006 6:49:51 PM
I used to live in New Haven CT and attended St. Mary's Church, the Dominican run parish downtown. In fairness to them the parish is really great and they have one of the most solid celebrations of the NO I have ever been to. That being said I remember one evening heading to the 5pm Mass and as I was going up the steps entirely unbidden the thought leapt into my mind, "I am tired of Mass being about me." Despite the best efforts of the most orthodox celebrants, the language of the NO (in the editio typica) coupled with versus populum celebration cannot help but be about the people.
Posted by: Matthew at Nov 22, 2006 7:03:53 PM
I know that the Mass makes present what happened on Calvary, but what exactly did happen on Calvary is what most folk including myself don't seem to understand. To make Mass meaningful, people have to be taught soteriology even if it means that different theories about what Christ did are acceptable and that all we have are theories. I suggest that if we went horizontal it was because the vertical as we were taught it according to Anselm no longer made sense.
Posted by: Caroline at Nov 22, 2006 7:20:32 PM
"a religious woman of my acquaintance ... said, "I've worked so long, and so hard to get Vatican II to this parish; I've taught the documents ...
Like heck she "taught the documents." She must have glossed over where Sacrosanctum Concilium spoke of "pride of place" for Gregorian chant, and that Latin is to be retained in the Roman rite.
Posted by: PMcGrath at Nov 22, 2006 8:11:53 PM
I suggest that if we went horizontal it was because the vertical as we were taught it according to Anselm no longer made sense.
Caroline, you were lucky to learn the vertical. My entire post-VII generation learned none of it. Freshman year of college I finally decided I was going to figure out what the heck the real point of this "go to Mass every Sunday just because" business was about, or else stop going entirely. Thankfully I fell in with a few good kids who actually had solid formation and could explain it...
Posted by: Margaret at Nov 22, 2006 8:39:16 PM
Liturgists have decided that the Mass is about us, when, of course, it's really about Him.
Of course, as we all know, liturgists aren't the only one's who think this. For months, Mass at my parish has ended thus: "The Mass is ended. Go forth to serve one another." After many complaints (I hope not just from me), last Sunday ended with, "The Mass is ended. Go forth to serve one another; oh, and the Lord." A small step, but a welcome one.
Oh, one more thing. For those of you outside the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, here's something else for you to be thankful for: you don't have to put up with this: http://www.recongress.org/.
Posted by: Paul at Nov 22, 2006 8:47:44 PM
I still think you're talking more about catechists than authentic professional liturgists. I'm with Peter on this one.
"But for 2 or 3 decades now, the prevailing paradigm of Catholic liturgy has been a)to awaken the attendee to the presence of God within and within his or her brothers and sisters in the community and to do so by b) affirming the goodness and unique giftedness of the gathered community."
Sounds like something straight out of a catechetical manual.
" ... and the thrust in professional liturgical ministry programs has been very much on the here and now, on creativity, and so on."
Ditto point number one.
"Our efforts become supreme, our relatedness, our sensibilities, our interpretations become the guide."
And while it's true that many of us liturgists and musicians have fallen into this trap, it is not one in which we go solo.
Regarding Amy's points one and two, I challenge her to come up with some particular text in a respected progressive liturgical periodical like Liturgy 90 or Pastoral Music to back this up. I've laid the challenge elsewhere on occasion on the net and nobody has yet to come up with something later than 1978 to prove their point.
On the other hand, one can still peruse through the pages of many catechetical tools and find music suggested for children or even occasionally adult gatherings that typifies the worst of post-conciliar catechetics put into song.
But it makes the commentariat here feel good to gloss over those points and keep the comment boxes running into the several dozen posts on the occasional what-did-you-hear gripe sessions.
Posted by: Todd at Nov 22, 2006 8:55:54 PM
As a priest ordained 12 years, the most wonderful experience of my day is also the most disappointing - the celebration of the Mass. The verticality - and the expectation of the folks that they will be "entertained". However, when I introduced one Novus Ordo Mass a week celebrated 'ad orientem', everything changed - for me as a priest - and for the faithful group that comes every week. It is a PROFOUNDLY different experience to celebrate together "facing the Lord'. I am no Tridentinist - but I am convinced that, as Fr. Aidan Nichols has written, the celebration of Mass 'ad orientem' is the single most important factor in the "reform of the reform."
Posted by: Father Benedict at Nov 22, 2006 8:56:02 PM
I have noticed that the people who tend to say
the mass is about us', and we should celebrate 'in the round' so 'we can see each other faces'; are people that tend to live alone, such as the sister in town who lives in an apartment, away from her other sisters, who live in separate apartments. Our family lives in a crowded house, and we find the vertical focus on God renewing. But when I got my Masters, to say something like "Christology from above' in an approving way was enough to get you branded as a heretic.
Posted by: austin at Nov 22, 2006 9:03:11 PM
I meant horizontal - not "verticality" - guess I was too fazed by all the staring at my "brothers and sisters."
Posted by: Father Benedict at Nov 22, 2006 9:04:29 PM
Amy, You have attended to this serious topic many times of late, and I love almost everything you stand for, with such passion and beautiful prose. It’s why I am a regular reader. Perhaps it’s the built-in brevity of a blog format that has (in my opinion) hindered these exchanges.
The “on the ground” observations are true indeed; especially effective have been your reportage on silly exegesis on certain feasts and at certain biblical passages in the lectionary.
The analysis, however, and the concomitant prescriptions could and should be broadened. I agree with some comments so far that it is not so much trained "liturgists" as it is in-place "catechists". I focus here on what you wrote about seminaries and professional liturgical ministry programs.
SEMINARIES
I believe that you are correct about seminaries – education in liturgy (history, theology, practice) has “not been go great of late” (as you gently put it). Of late? Certainly for decades and probably for centuries. Not the fault of V-II. Its liturgy constitution and conciliar implementation at those levels (Holy See, seminary curriculum, faculty formation) called for a deepening of liturgy programs in ways that would have benefitted us by now at both liturgy and catechesis. For example,
- emphasis on the liturgical year and lectionary as foundational,
- even more emphasis on paschal mystery as foundation of that foundation,
- history rigorously taught,
- fidelity to the tradition fostered so that it becomes the very breath we breathe,
- detailed training on the iconographic and architectural history of the ages,
- awareness of the important arts of liturgical music (psalms and acclamations, not the stupid 4-hymn straightjacket) and homiletics (mystagogy more than “Protestant” hermeneutics that builds bridges from sacred text to listener by focusing only on listener), - etc. etc.
We inherited a seminary program mid-20th century that was too brief in re. liturgy, and too shallow in both facts and inspiration. Despite the deep reforms promised after V-II, we did not get there (I was “on the ground” in this after Vatican II, taught in seminaries for years), and the reasons are several. Little or no money (dioceses and seminaries) went to upgrade curriculum and train faculty. The selection of faculty candidates did not receive enough serious consideration. Most importantly, there was not enough room on the curriculum for all that was necessary. The field ed and psych budgets (money and time) needed to breathe, and they could always “pick up” liturgy along the way.
Four decades ago, in the late ‘60s and early 70s, those of us who were worrying about this lack of commitment at a national and international level sensed that clergy would take the exciting new courses in psychology, the much-praised openness to “new”, the adrenaline-rush of being young and loved more than the distant old monsignor, and – absent a serious training in liturgy – talk about “me” and “me” and the great new things “we” will do for God. We knew then that they would treat the official books and the centuries of tradition they represented as tools in their box. We trained them just enough to know the books and ordo and ministries, but not enough to quake before the “mysterium tremendum”.
We must fix the seminaries, like we promised we would after Trent, and after V-II. I sense that an important part of that is to meld rigorous curriculum to mentor-training. We used to (200 years ago) have more of those in USA. Off to Parish or Montreal for school, then live and work in the bishop’s house until he sensed you were ready for ordination. Both bishops and seminarians have suffered from the removal of seminarians from the household.
PROFESSIONAL LITURGICAL MINISTRY PROGRAMS
One cannot fault your "on the ground" observations, but the emphasis in professional programs, I am convinced, was not on “the here and now”, creativity, etc. Perhaps we are comparing apples and onions.
There have been only a few programs with graduate level degrees in liturgy – Berkeley CA, Collegeville MN, Notre Dame IN, Catholic University (program I completed), along with Trier (short-lived) and Paris and Rome. There may have been, for some years, a program or two in South America. They are not to blame for the mish-mash masquerading as good liturgy. The only problem was and is that they have too few students. Few dioceses and religious communities sent enough students. Some loosey-goosey students came into these programs, but the curriculum was and is strong and a gift to the universal church. We need more students in those schools.
“Center for Pastoral Liturgy” was an official designation given to only a few offices in the seminal years post V-II – again at Collegeville MN (short-lived), Notre Dame IN, and Catholic University (short-lived, from 1975 to 1984; I know since I was director there for 6 years), and at the Mexican-American Cultural Center. With the inevitable follies expected among imperfect humans, there were mistakes in these places, but not so many or so systematic as to here place the blame for mish-mash. We directors felt that we were shoveling sand against the tide. We shoveled sand for more awareness of the mystery and tradition and more fidelity to the carefully and beautifully restored sacramental rites. The tide was down the hall at the religious ed departments (we said, too generalistically), at the rel ed publishers, and in the qualifications held for directors of rel ed in most dioceses and parishes (and in the parishes they often planned the “odd” rites like first communion and confirmation...and the birthday cake at Christmas eve. The tide was those priests who knew enough, had faculties from their Ordinary, but liked themselves more than the “mysterium tremendum”. (BTW, link here to sex abuse crisis.)
There were and are many more programs in liturgical ministry of another type, I do not know them enough to wend my way though the blame there. Yet I sense that many liturgists of the diocesan MC variety, took their sand shovels, retreated up the coastal bluff and dune, and there mentored others in the fine points of exact ceremony and french cuffs. Down the coast, other dunes were taken by liturgists who saw themselves as creators of rite and right. Too few liturgists avoided these extreme temptations for retreat. To seek for full, active, and conscious participation in the paschal mystery and in the fullness of ecclesial sacraments remains the goal, irrespective of tidal swings.
FACING EAST
This topic is far more complicated than just priest facing people or all facing an altar to the east. The terminus of vision is important – are we facing towards a reredos that we conflate with altar? an apse of eschatological significance (we just finished a mosaic apse of “Christ in Glory” at church where I work)? or a plain panel wall fronted by a devil-clad priest (a la the hideous wall in the slide show)? A set of organ pipes (Milwaukee cathedral inter alia)? Some picture window that sucks out our attention and profiles the clergy?
The direction of prayer in important too. Building churches that allow us to “face east” while praying is both traditional and often still possible, and always a “desideratum”. Yet this doesn’t answer all questions about who faces where and whom in the building. There are more than 2 choices. Look at a map of Rome. The “papal altar” at the Vatican (and some other major basilicas) has and had the congregation facing west, the pope facing east. Or did all turn their backs on the altar and face east at times? The attending clergy or courts faced north or south across the papal atar area (transept arms). Equally ancient sanctuaries have differing configurations. No easy or single solution for all Christians, again not just priest place, but many intertwined issues.
Related = posture and demeanor and intent of priest, deacon, cantor, et al.
Accept no facile solutions from either “Form - Reform” conflabs or quick returns to Tridentine configs.
WHITHER
Those who produced the slide show from halloween and the liturgy there documented, are neither hideous nor perps. What I found most arresting was the long series of arriving parents and children – the sweetness, the love, the obvious care they want to take of their children and the future, jumps out to the viewer. All the more pity that for decades we have under-cared for seminaries, seminarians, graduate programs of liturgy, and centers for pastoral liturgy.
In general, the professional liturgists (graduate degrees, and / or those in leadership of diocesan offices for decades, anyway) can only be blamed for not shouting louder to bishops and universities for more resources. Having gone hoarse, I can hear them say that the real problem was not enough students – too few inspired by local mentors to pursue graduate study in liturgy and commit time and money there, too few seminarians and thus too little in resources to recruit+train faculty, too few collage catechists ready to go back to school to fill out the lacunae that allow silly rites to fester.
Let’s get way more committed to serious and long-term education.
I write this Thanksgiving eve from coastal dunes on Cape Cod, where I work for 2 churches – one in the first town settled by Plymouth Pilgrims after Plymouth was too small, one in the almost-first town settled by Boston Puritans after the contiguous-to-Boston villages were too small. In both cases, the “too small” calls were based on opinions too varied to allow cohabitation. So the radicals came to two ends of Cape Cod. Splintering and on and on.
At Thanksgiving, we recall those Separatists. More than a turkey menu, they lived and taught a message of commonwealths that would rather splinter. The Catholic witness is far more committed to staying together in the paschal mystery.
Posted by: Tom Ryan at Nov 22, 2006 9:42:41 PM
"I think ad orientem shouldn't be dismissed too quickly"
I agree entirely. Nearly 20 years ago I sometimes used to go to weekday Mass at a church where the priest liked to have the tiny lunchtime congregation stand around the altar in a circle for the liturgy of the eucharist. It is amazing what a reorientation it is (no pun intended), how much difference it makes, to be facing the same way as the priest - something I'd never have expected or imagined, being too young to have done it from the other side of the altar. I'm sure the intention wasn't to advertise what's been lost, but that was certainly the effect.
Posted by: Paul at Nov 22, 2006 10:05:22 PM
Once the Tridentine Mass was chucked, it did become necessary, it seems to me, for every priest to become an expert liturgist, and for the Church to set up all kinds of graduate programs, etc., etc., if it expected to have the liturgy become the utopia that the reformers envisioned. Of course that didn't happen, and, frankly, I can't believe that it ever will happen. Part of the beauty of the universal regime of the Tridentine Mass was that it was independent, in a way, of the understanding and relative sophistication of the celebrant and the participants. It retained its integrity without everyone having to be an expert in order to maintain it.
Posted by: Little Gidding at Nov 22, 2006 10:15:39 PM
I remember seeing pictures of John XXIII and Pius XII celebrating Mass at an altar in St. Peter's.
As you know, the altar there has always been ad orientem, but also--by accident at least--versus populum. In order to face East, in other words, the celebrant ended up facing the people, because the Basilica was built "backwards", as it were, for reasons of topography.
It was pointed out to me by a traditionalist that the altar used to be so cluttered with candelabras and crucifixies and sundry holy objects that the celebrant was almost screened from view.
I wasn't sure that I entirely bought that argument, but I did notice something else: the look on the faces of John and Pius. They were absorbed in their work. They were taken up in the ceremonies and paying little heed to the people gathered before them. They weren't putting on a show. They were celebrating "facing the people" the same way they would celebrate if they were "facing the wall".
Watch Pope Benedict say Mass...the Washington Post has some links that still work of the Inauguration Mass and the Requiem for JPII, I think. It's the same thing. He almost never seems to be noticing attention-starved us. His mind is on the Work of God at the altar and it seems that he is all alone their with his Lord.
I think if priests were trained to say Mass ad orientem--to get into the spirituality of the thing--they could say Mass facing the people in such a way as to allow us to be intimate observers of the sacred action, but not as if they were putting on a show. Pope Ratzinger suggests that it would make all the difference in the world to have a small crucifix on the altar facing the priest so that he could celebrate "turning toward the Lord."
I'm not trying to argue that this is superior to having everyone facing East together, but rather that it would be a vast improvement. What's primarily wrong with the liturgy, the Pope says, is not a question of particular ceremonies. It is that we have lost the sense of what a liturgy is. And recapturing the sense of facing the Lord together in the liturgy, the priest busied with actions and comtemplation directed to God is the first step toward renewal.
Posted by: Jeff at Nov 22, 2006 10:34:35 PM
Dear Amy,
Increasingly I think as much or more about what did NOT happen at these liturgical travesties than what did talke place. The only real tragedy is to come to the end of our lives and not be a saint. The Mass is designed to strengthen and feed us on the journey to salvation. What father, seeing that his children were hungry, would give them stones instead of bread? What priest seeing the deep spititual need in our lives would give us these ego baths rather than the spiritual nourishment and solid meat of instruction that will help us?
Your point is well taken, your manner of expressing it is a model of restraint, the evidence you have pointed to is clear and convincing - and you will be largely ignored, and eventually castigated if you persist, by those who are propagating the problem.
Valid points will be disputed, descriptions of actual problems will be turned into charges of personal attacks, clear examples of, yes, blasphemous practices will be explained away.
Blasphmey is a deadly, ultra-serious sin. If it is clear, conscious, and done out of true bad motive within the Church, which is Christ's vehicle for accomplishing His saving mission, we leave God few alternatives but to act, and act decisively to stop it before it destroys souls.
Fortunately most of these incidents don't seem to have that character - yet. As members of the Church, laity and clergy, we have a grave responsibility not to let even a boneheaded but lighthearted lark or riff on the rubrics of public worship become tainted with the demonic. Or even set the stage for the demonic to enter later by the next logical stage of transgression that would naturally follow.
The demonic is always trying to take over the holy, folks. It's actually happening. As in: the perversity of truly evil men and women who do truly evil deeds. We're on the other team in the contest. At a bare, bare minimum during the liturgy we have to focus on setting aside our silly stupid egos (which you know who would like to use as a means to desecrate the holy) and enter into the mysterious reality of the Divine presence. That's called active participation. If we are not doing that, we are not doing the right thing at Mass.
I once heard a story of a reforming saint in the Middle Ages who while visiting a country church for Mass heard the priest rush through a semi-blasphmous parody of the Latin that filled in the place for the priest's dialog in the actual Mass. His internal visceral reaction included the inevitable rage.
But afterward he spoke to the priest and asked in a tone of voice that was at once gentle, earnest, and sarcastic, "Don't you think you ought to take it a bit easier on the Lord?"
I guess that's my reaction too. Even in all our modern obtuseness, self-importance, and jaw-droping hubris, can't we take it a little easier on the Lord?
Posted by: Glenn Juday at Nov 22, 2006 10:49:42 PM
Yep--you're going to have to fight your way past the gatekeepers to get what you want. I've always found this report from a 2002 liturgy conference sponsored by the St. Louis Archdiocese to be instructive, especially Fr. Philibert's keynote.
Note how many times he uses "we" and you will have some idea of what we are up against.
http://www.adoremus.org/0702LiturgyConference.html
Posted by: Dale Price at Nov 22, 2006 10:53:27 PM
It never fails to amaze me how whenever Sacrosanctum Concilium is mentioned the part about the Latin being retained is always mentioned but:
"But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters."
always seems to be glossed over. For the purpose of greater "advantage" Sacrosanctum Concilium both allowed and recommended that Mass in the venacular be said.
As for ad orientem, I can't think of a better way to ensure that Christ never becomes the focus of the Mass that to once again hide the consecration behind the robes of the priest. Then perhaps we can go back to ringing little bells so that all of the Rosary praying faithful can stop long enough to watch the priest raise the body and blood, before going on to the next decade.
Are there problems? Certainly, but the answer is for the bishops to enforce a much tighter adherence to approved practice. It's starting to happen many palces, but will take time.
A lot of it is catechizing. It drives me crazy to see people walk past the tabernacle in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel without a look, yet genuflect to the alter before they sit down. Moving the tabernacle would not solve the real problem. They are genuflecting by habit, not as a deliberate act of homage to the Real Presence present in the tabernacle. My teenage students know better, and react appropriately, stopping as they pass the arch of the chapel to genuflect.
As for the music...How many parishes actually have a Music Minister who is trained for the job? Surely all are trained musicians of varying talent and skill, but how many have ever taken even a single class of liturgical music?
We need to work on the real problems. Getting the flock to think vertically instead of horizontally would surely help.
Posted by: TerryC at Nov 22, 2006 11:37:36 PM
The ad orientem discussion doesn't really have to be "all about us." Really, this is a red herring. We are a presence of Christ in the Mass--we just are a presence of Christ. It's not a matter of looking at ourselves, but of just being present.
The question of ad orientem is a. who the priest is, and b. to whom the Mass is directed. The priest is both with us and for us. He is supposed to be both. But in the versus populum posture he is only "for us," never "with us." This is not friendliness but exagerrated clericalism.
The Mass is our prayer through Christ to the Father. We should all be gazing at the Father, with Christ (in Whose Person the priest stands) as our head, offering a single worship. In the ad orientem posture, the priest seems to be offering the Eucharist to us, and we to him. Again, this exagerrates the priest's importance. Even in the person of Christ, the priest's focus should be on the Father, and our focus should be on the Father as well, through the sacrifice.
Posted by: Ephrem at Nov 23, 2006 9:45:01 AM
(SB: In the *versus populum* posture, the priest seems to be offering the Eucharist to us, and we to him.)
Posted by: Ephrem at Nov 23, 2006 9:47:59 AM
To say
"(SB: In the *versus populum* posture, the priest seems to be offering the Eucharist to us, and we to him.)"
is to give way too much credit to position.
If the question of who the priest is and who we are has come down to a matter of position then we already don't get it.
My problem with the priest facing away from the faithful is that when he does the most important thing that a priest does, the consecration is hidden. For me the consecration is already infused with mystery. Through the power of himself the eternal High Priest turns the bead and wine into his own body and blood. The priest merely stands in the person of Christ. Ephrem said we should all be gazing at Christ. True. Christ is present in the body and the blood. If he is hidden behind the priest then I'm gazing at the priest's back not at Christ. As for gazing at the Father, unlike Christ which is physically present in the body and blood the Father has no physical loci, he is no more located on the back wall of the church than he is in the crucifix that often hangs behind the alter.
The priest is indeed suppose to be with us and for us. He is with us because he is facing the Real Presence of Christ, just as we do. He is for us because only he can preside "in the the place of Christ" for a valid consecration.
This is a matter of catechizing the rank and file. No change of priestly posture can substitute for this instruction.
Posted by: TerryC at Nov 23, 2006 10:39:33 AM
A lot of interesting points.
Let me say this: some here point to the priests, and their (mis)formation in liturgy, or to "liturgists" (somewhere--most parishes don't have any liturgist except the priest), as the culprits. And they deserve their share of the blame (although Todd is absolutely right that a lot of nonsense comes from catechetical materials that don't reflect good liturgical theory).
However, I can tell you the priest can and will face resistance from various segments of the lay faithful. Some won't like "something new," others will say, "this is turning back the clock!" some will complain that Mass isn't "fun" or that there will be less "participation" . . .
Also, the priest is always being asked to "load up" the Mass, as I describe it. Somehow, merely having the Mass isn't always enough, so we have to have this or that recognition, this or that program tacked on.
And every week the issue arises of announcements, which easily turn into a news broadcast. And the vestibule turns into a bazaar.
I'm not saying, feel sorry for the priest, or let him off the hook. But some folks who comment on these subjects sure seem to think the priest is their enemy. He's not.
Posted by: Fr Martin Fox at Nov 23, 2006 10:44:51 AM
to give way too much credit to position.
There is no such thing as giving too much credit to position in the Roman rite. The significance of gesture within the sanctuary simply cannot be overestimated. Every little motion has something to say--and directionality is all-important. What we are talking about is DIRECTIONALITY: to Which of the Persons in the Trinity we are praying. The Father. Any liturgist of whatever persuasion will tell you that the Mass is directed towards the Father. Ad orientem posture makes that clear.
As for the hidden consecration, it's a good point. At a high Mass (the one I saw on YouTube anyway) the elevation is not high enough for the people to see the Eucharist then, either, which seems illogical to me. But on the other aspect, theologically there is meaning: "Truly You are a hidden God"--this is a Scripture passage that among other things underlies St. John of the Cross's mystical theology and is referenced in the first line of St. Thomas Aquinas' Adoro Te Devote. We know what is happening on the altar, even if we don't see it happening. There's an analogy to the fact that we see the truth about the Eucharist only with the eyes of faith.
(One of many possible posititive readings of that gesture, I would think.)
Posted by: Ephrem at Nov 23, 2006 12:03:22 PM
I attend an indult Mass and the average age of the congregation is 35 and under. There is full active participation. I imagine most of us in the congregation are sick of the nonsense served up by our elders.
I can hardly wait for the motu proprio which will allow for a more frequent use of the 1962 Missal. The thing I find most amusing is how many of the self styled experts are pulling their hair out at the thought. Maybe they know they should be afraid, or perhaps they know they are dated and dare I say it out of touch?
Posted by: WRiley at Nov 23, 2006 6:31:14 PM
If the consecration in a mass celebrated ad orientum is "hidden", how much more hidden is the consecration behind an iconostasis in an Eastern Divine Liturgy?
Posted by: craig at Nov 24, 2006 9:47:14 AM
"Once the Tridentine Mass was chucked, it did become necessary, it seems to me, for every priest to become an expert liturgist, and for the Church to set up all kinds of graduate programs, etc., etc., if it expected to have the liturgy become the utopia that the reformers envisioned. Of course that didn't happen, and, frankly, I can't believe that it ever will happen. Part of the beauty of the universal regime of the Tridentine Mass was that it was independent, in a way, of the understanding and relative sophistication of the celebrant and the participants. It retained its integrity without everyone having to be an expert in order to maintain it.
Posted by: Little Gidding"
I've been wondering about that for a long time. As a 62 yr old who reverted in 1991, when I came back so many things were so changed. Sor instance, I had a hard time understanding why Mass would be different depending on which parish church you went to.
I had never heard of liturgists back before I dropped out in the 70s.
So - in a nutshell - after VII there were so many choices to make in readings and what the choir sang that it required a special person to decide this every week? Is that the idea? I had grown up with all of that spelled out in full in the missal with its charts directing you to what was the text of the ordinary part of the Mass, the readings, antiphons, collects, introits, graduals, etc. etc. etc. On Sundays at High Mass the choir director passed his/her choice of a few hymns by the pastor to make sure they were appropriate and that was the only thing ever in question.
Maybe too much "choice" is the problem - it gives us the idea that we or our liturgist have a say in how the Mass is "done" and that we are more important than we really are. Also it takes the focus off that miracle that happens up there on the altar whether we see it or not. And the bells are NOT to alert the people praying rosaries that they should look up. That's a bogus argument. There is nothing to "see" anyway. It's the substance of the materials that changes - not the accidentals that are apparent to us. Maybe that's why so many don't believe it anymore, they think they should see some change. Materialism is behind wanting to "see" everything or we feel cheated or schnookered.
Additionally, the palpable reverence soon disappeared since we were so heavily involved in putting the script together. There was a real feeling that something incredible was happening up there. You could hear a pin drop. That's all gone - we have bought into the materialist culture.
Archbishop Gregory has a graduate degree in Liturgy from the Gregorian or another one of those Roman universities. However, when in Belleville, he left the diocesan liturgy department to be run by a woman who was into liturgical dancing. It was embarassing to see these young women who remind me of "dancing girls" in the old Bible movies. Even Braxton who is supposedly conservative has liturgical dancers at his Mass taking over reins of the Belleville Diocese.
I think you almost have to be my age or older to understand how radically different the Mass is now. Another thing that shocked me was the AA-like holding of hands during the Our Father (which used to be said by the priest and there was no "for thine is the kingdom" like the Protestants). And when did the church start advocating the "orans" position by the folks in the pews during parts of the Mass. I get dirty looks when I don't participate in either of these.
And finally, I sing in the choir and Communion is brought up to us. There is never any question that EVERYONE is going to get that host. Sometimes I say no just to make a point. What if I had a serious sin that had not been confessed. Back in the day, everybody didn't receive Communion all the time, so nobody looked at you like you must have committed adultery over the week-end if you didn't go to Communion. I think this pushing of Communion on everybody has subtly told people that nothing is too bad to keep you from receiving Communion. Ergo, nothing really needs to be confessed since if you are OK to receive Communion into your body then why would you need it to get in heaven?
Rant over. I'll try not to do it again. It's fascinating to read comments on this kind of thread. It fills in the blanks caused by my having been away.
Posted by: Julia at Nov 24, 2006 10:57:39 AM
