Abbey-Roads2

“Insatiable, incredible!”

Cardinal Dario Castrillon de Hoyos complained that for some traditionalists the Summorum Pontificum, liberalizing the use of the TLM, is not enough - they want even more.  I think I just wrote about this - that some would even like to see Vatican II declared null and void if they had their way.

“Cardinal Castrillon, whose commission works with communities using the old rite, said his office continues to receive letters requesting the Tridentine rite be used not just at one Mass a week but at every Mass, and that such Masses be available not just at one church in a town but at every church.

He said he even got a letter demanding that Rome’s Basilica of St. Mary Major be dedicated exclusively to the celebration of the Tridentine-rite Mass.

Such people, he said, are “insatiable, incredible.”

“They do not know the harm they are doing,” Cardinal Castrillon said, adding that when the Vatican does not accept their demands immediately “they go directly to the Internet” and post their complaints.” - Source

Go easy, go slow.

Be grateful and don’t whine - I think that is what one priest recommends to traditionalists on his site.  Of course Rome knows all about him too…

“Who still uses the term, “gibbet”?” Asked the man in red.

I don’t often take the time to write about English translations of the lectionaries, missals, or Bibles, which have been pretty crappy by the way - I leave that to the experts - who unfortunately seem to have no voice with the USCCB on such matters.  (Our loss.)

That said - “they” are trying to finalize approval for a new translation of the Roman Missal in Florida this week, but so far, the Bishops cannot come to a decision.  From California Daily:

“The task of providing a new translation of the Mass into English commenced in 2001 after the Holy See issued Liturgiam authenticam, which established new norms for the translation of liturgical texts. New translations, said the Vatican document, were to be more faithful to the Latin original, expressing its “dignity and oratorical rhythm.” 

Bishop Galeone said the translation is too slavish to the original text and uses non-colloquial renderings, such as “the gibbet of the Cross.”

“The last time I heard that word [gibbet] was back in 1949, during Stations of the Cross in Lent,” said Galeone, according to a June 13 NCR story. - Source

If the Catholic laity in the US is the most educated in history - why all the fuss? 

Hey!  I just used gibbet in my prayer yesterday while meditating upon the mysteries of the Rosary.  I also use “ineffable” every day in my prayers of reparation to the Holy Face.  I don’t mean to get myself over-wrought on this subject, but I hardly think such words are archaic or foreign to worship.  Perhaps these Bishops are only familiar with Centering Prayer techniques, or making up the Novus Ordo as they go along, and have lost touch with the more obscure traditional Catholic prayers and language.  Indeed, some of them admit they have trouble understanding traditional anything:

Auxiliary Bishop Richard Sklba of Milwaukee agreed with Galeone. “If I have trouble understanding the text when I read it,” he said, “I wonder how it’s going to be possible to pray with it in the context of worship.” Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania complained of the translation’s use of “archaic and obscure” terms, such as “wrought” and “ineffable,” and about its Latin-style sentences that use more dependent clauses. - Source 

Maybe it is just some of the Bishops who have all the problems with comprehension?

(BTW - Last time I checked, the current Roman Missal was selling for around $70.  Now there will be a new translation coming out - and it will not be cheap.  Do you think these gentlemen would at least have the gallantry and respect for the faithful to get it right this time?  People are tired of throwing money away on every new translation that comes off the press.)

Art:  “Dead Bishops” Fernando Botero
 

Where I think it all started - a layman’s perspective.

Recently Archbishop Ranjith, secretary of  the Congregation of  Divine Worship at the Vatican,  has been in the news asking that the now common practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand be reviewed.  The practice “evolved” after the reform of the liturgy took place with the imposition of the Mass of Paul VI - otherwise known as the Novus Ordo.  As we know well, the reformed liturgy has been a source of contention with traditionalists ever since.

After I returned to the Church in 1972, I attended two churches which remained intact from pre-Conciliar days - in other words, the altars were never turned around.  Yes, one church was St. Agnes in St. Paul, but the other church I frequented daily happened to be Assumption in downtown St. Paul.  The “new” Mass was celebrated in both churches, and as far as I could tell at the time, with little distinction in form from the TLM.

And I don’t think it is just a problem of language.

Of course the vernacular was used, which I immediately appreciated, since I could hear and understand what was being said without using a book.  I liked it for the simple reason - being a new convert, in my first fervor - I had the grace of recollection and could “contemplatively” follow the prayers of the Mass along with the priest.  (I know TLM people will want to correct me on this - but it is true.  Also, some priests who favor the TLM are now talking about inserting the vernacular in the Extraordinary rite - it will happen.)

At both churches, Holy Communion was distributed kneeling at the altar rail, on the tongue, by the priest, just as I had been taught in my youth.  Since I wasn’t a liturgist, I experienced the Mass as being the same as the one as before the Council, except of course, it was in English - which as I said, I appreciated and liked.  I still do.

Turning the tables.

My point is this - and I’m convinced of it.  The disrespect for the Eucharist, and subsequent lack of faith in the real presence, began when the altar of sacrifice was turned around to face the congregation, or as in many newer churches, placed in the middle of the assembly.  Yet it isn’t limited to that - I think it involves a key change of focus in the “turn-around” process  of the Mass as well.

In other words, the “new” emphasis in the Mass, or Eucharistic Celebration, centered around the idea that what was happening was more a banquet, a celebration - that everyone present must partake in.  Much  like an ancient  ”love-fest” - and the partaking meant the apparently mandatory reception of the “bread and the wine”.  I also think this “turn-around” was responsible for the increased participation by the laity in sacredotal duties during the celebration of the Eucharist.

The priest is a “celebrant” and lay-servers are “ministers”.  (Now that’s a language problem.) 

As the reform took root, lay people, most often more women than men, began taking their places in the sanctuary alongside the priest.  Transporting the Eucharist from the tabernacle to the table, and then handing it out to the dinner guests who stood around or in line; the “participants” in turn took the ”wafer”  from the “minister”.  Eventually, as more and more  license was taken, the focus seemed to be placed entirely upon the people; “Grams and gramps have been married 50 years - round of applause!” or, “A round of applause for the music ministry!  Aren’t they great?”  Hence, the centrality of the Eucharist, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,  diminished and became obscured.

So there you have it - “They” screwed up when they turned the altars around and permitted lay people to have free reign in the sanctuary.  It is not so much about the vernacular, or even communion in the hand - it is about the desacralization of the sanctuary and the eroding effect it had on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  Anyway - that is my take on it.   

(Maybe my next post should be, “Liturgists with academic degrees, but absolutely no taste.”  LOL!  They mean well.)

[Top photo:  Just a comment.  For over 20 years JPII sat through some very weird liturgies and never really said anything publicly against them.  No offense, but I wonder what he was thinking?] 

Catholic News headline:

“Pope dons green vestments for eco-fest at Loreto.”  And that brilliant piece is from Catholic News.

 Huh?

Hey, guess what - it’s Ordinary Time… that’s the color.  LOL! 

Liturgy and music. 

Truth be told, I love sacred music - I once or twice (Or maybe several times more than that) commented on this blog that I really didn’t like  church  music - what I really meant was that sentimental stuff we are supposed to “actively” sing every Sunday at that tired old Novus Ordo liturgy, whose music is now so passe.  I gave people like Brian Michael Page  from Christus Vincit the idea that I didn’t like sacred music at all… and he has never commented again on my blog. 

My all time favorite music for liturgy is Gregorian chant and those  hymns from the monastic office.  I really don’t like orchestras and baroque music at Mass.  That is just me however - for instance, I never attend the 10AM High Mass at St. Agnes, only the 6:30AM in which there is no singing.  (There are critics who say some people in attendance at the St. Agnes High Masses are there more for the ‘entertainment’ than the worship experience - I don’t know, I don’t attend.)  I’ve never believed people when they tell me  ”singing is twice praying” - if that’s the case, I can claim part of their prayer - since they are praying twice.  (Also - Augustine probably didn’t coin that cliche either.)

Mavis Staples

On the other hand, I love Gospel Music, and the music influenced by it - R&B, Blues, even some hip-hop.  Mavis Staples recently released a great CD, “We’ll Never Turn Back”  which more or less chronicles the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s in both traditional and contemporary Gospel music.  I have to say, this is the music I most deeply love, The Staples Singers, Rev. Al Green, Marvin Gay, Mavis Staples, Aretha, Merry Clayton - she did the background vocals on “Gimme Shelter”,  and so many others… Otis Redding, and so on.

Respect yourself.

African American Gospel singers do indeed esteem their music as Sacred.  Mavis Staples’ dad always reminded her of this fact, that they were singing for the Lord and spreading his Gospel.  I’ve never attended a Gospel church but I’ve watched clips on TV and in the movies.  Catholics can’t criticize or condemn their exuberant worship-style as inappropriate or unsuitable for worship; for one, it is outside of our cultural experience and ecclesial jurisdiction;  and more importantly, because these congregations have no liturgy.  It ain’t liturgy - although it is authentic prayer, hearing the Word of God, praise and worship - it isn’t liturgy.  Nevertheless, these Protestant denominations certainly are offering high praise and worship - and I’m pretty sure people are not there just to be entertained - well, maybe some of the white folk.

I’m told some black Catholic congregations will employ similar music at their celebration of Mass.  I’m sure it is a lot more meaningful than some of the junk we have to sing Sunday after Sunday  at the average Novus Ordo most of us attend.  Having said that, I still prefer a silent Mass - maybe I’m Quaker at heart?

Gimme that ole time Motu Proprio.

Today is the feast of Pius X, the great Pope who was so concerned about modernism, warning of the heresies emerging in the late 19th and early 20th century - which have taken hold in a few sectors of today’s Catholic Church.  He wrote a Motu Proprio of his own on Sacred Music entitled, “Inter Sollicitudines” - he must be weeping in Heaven as he watches liturgical dancers and church-lady music directors in their tight little tops and shorts, conducting contemporary congregations in those schmaltzy sing-a-longs during Mass, accompanied by Joanne Castle on the piano.

At least black Gospel singers have passion and soul - not to mention reverence and devotion.  (Have you ever noticed how Black people dress up for church?  I should do a post on ‘Church Hats’ for black women.   But I digress.)

Anyway, here is something from the first paragraph of St. Pius X’s Motu Proprio - contemporary Catholic liturgists and music directors would do well to read it - unless they think it has been suppressed or something…

“Among the cares of the pastoral office, not only of this Supreme Chair, which We, though unworthy, occupy through the inscrutable dispositions of Providence, but of every local church, a leading one is without question that of maintaining and promoting the decorum of the House of God in which the august mysteries of religion are celebrated, and where the Christian people assemble to receive the grace of the Sacraments, to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, to adore the most august Sacrament of the Lord’s Body and to unite in the common prayer of the Church in the public and solemn liturgical offices. Nothing should have place, therefore, in the temple calculated to disturb or even merely to diminish the piety and devotion of the faithful, nothing that may give reasonable cause for disgust or scandal, nothing, above all, which directly offends the decorum and sanctity of the sacred functions and is thus unworthy of the House of Prayer and of the Majesty of God.”- Pius X