Friday, February 13, 2009
Chants
The New Liturgical Movement blog has a post about new chant settings of the Mass Ordinary in English (new translation). They are truly awesome work. If we can get these into our parishes it will bring about a renewal of the Liturgy. This fits in with the hermeneutic of continuity perfectly. It follows the call of the Church to give Gregorian Chant pride of place in Catholic worship of the Roman Rite, while still allowing for English translation of the texts. In a word, Brilliant!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Deafening Silence
One of the things that has been lost since the implementation of the New Order of the Mass by Paul VI in 1970 is silence. This, of course, is not something that was supposed to happen. In fact many documents speak of the need to have silence in the Liturgy.
What has opposed this silence is a false notion of what is meant by full, active and conscious participation. For starters, active is a lousy translation of actuosa, which we can see from cognates is more in line with English words actual or actualized than active, which comes from the Latin word activus, not actuosus.
This bad translation leads to the misunderstanding that participation on the part of the Faithful is to be full of activity. What happens, then, is that there is constant motion -- especially singing (more on that...). The lectors tend to go through the readings non-stop -- beginning the Psalm as soon as the Deo gratias is said, etc. There is no time of reflection given. The return of silence is awkward to people at first, but becomes a great part of the hermeneutic of continuity. Ironically, this is one of the reforms desired by the Council. Many of us have experienced Low Mass at which the readings are proclaimed in such a way as to indicate they are something to get through rather than a substantial part of the Mass. True, the Gradual (and its counterpart, the responsorial Psalm) and Alleleluia are supposed to be resonses to the Word of God proclaimed, and as such, by their nature, follow upon the Epistle in a more immediate manner. However, some slight pause for reflection is also good. The irony is, that many of these kind of reforms never made their way into practice in the Church!
The Offertory (or as they call it now, prepartion of the Oblation is generally silent as well. But, because of the mistaken notion of participation, one frequently hears, "Father, I want to say Blessed be God forever." They can't stand silence. It's deafening to them! Some how they feel as though they are participating in the Sacrifice better if they speak those words. The truth is, the best way for them to participate in the Sacrifice is to be silently offering themselves along with the Host.
This, of course, relates to the disorientation of the liturgy. You see, if the people can see all that is happening on the Altar, they will feel drawn to watch and to listen to the words and make responses, all of which distracts them from full, active (actual) and conscious participation because they are not entering into prayer as deeply, but rather stay at the superficial level of making responses. Because of the nearly universal taking of the option to say the prayers aloud (even when there has been a song at the offertory, which means the option doesn't exist), Priests who desire to say the prayers in silence are looked upon as somehow cutting the people off.
While we're at it, the horrible translation of the offertory prayers into English adds another reason to say them silenly -- the ability then to pray them in Latin.
About the music - As is quoted in a document on liturgy that a friend of mine is perfecting, St Pius X reminds us that in the Catholic liturgical tradition, we don't see at Mass, we sing the Mass. To often people want to use music as a way to be active in their worship. Frankly, they often just want to be like their Baptist neighbors by singing lots of hymns at church. In the case of the Offertory of the Ordinary Form, there is no assigned antiphon, but an appropriate hymn that is theologically rich could assist in participation in a proper way. A good choir that is able to sing motets, or a good organist who can play solo pieces, can add much to the ability of the Faithful to enter more deeply into the mysteries they are celebrating. This, while not being silence per se, is a way that allows the people to reflect.
What has opposed this silence is a false notion of what is meant by full, active and conscious participation. For starters, active is a lousy translation of actuosa, which we can see from cognates is more in line with English words actual or actualized than active, which comes from the Latin word activus, not actuosus.
This bad translation leads to the misunderstanding that participation on the part of the Faithful is to be full of activity. What happens, then, is that there is constant motion -- especially singing (more on that...). The lectors tend to go through the readings non-stop -- beginning the Psalm as soon as the Deo gratias is said, etc. There is no time of reflection given. The return of silence is awkward to people at first, but becomes a great part of the hermeneutic of continuity. Ironically, this is one of the reforms desired by the Council. Many of us have experienced Low Mass at which the readings are proclaimed in such a way as to indicate they are something to get through rather than a substantial part of the Mass. True, the Gradual (and its counterpart, the responsorial Psalm) and Alleleluia are supposed to be resonses to the Word of God proclaimed, and as such, by their nature, follow upon the Epistle in a more immediate manner. However, some slight pause for reflection is also good. The irony is, that many of these kind of reforms never made their way into practice in the Church!
The Offertory (or as they call it now, prepartion of the Oblation is generally silent as well. But, because of the mistaken notion of participation, one frequently hears, "Father, I want to say Blessed be God forever." They can't stand silence. It's deafening to them! Some how they feel as though they are participating in the Sacrifice better if they speak those words. The truth is, the best way for them to participate in the Sacrifice is to be silently offering themselves along with the Host.
This, of course, relates to the disorientation of the liturgy. You see, if the people can see all that is happening on the Altar, they will feel drawn to watch and to listen to the words and make responses, all of which distracts them from full, active (actual) and conscious participation because they are not entering into prayer as deeply, but rather stay at the superficial level of making responses. Because of the nearly universal taking of the option to say the prayers aloud (even when there has been a song at the offertory, which means the option doesn't exist), Priests who desire to say the prayers in silence are looked upon as somehow cutting the people off.
While we're at it, the horrible translation of the offertory prayers into English adds another reason to say them silenly -- the ability then to pray them in Latin.
About the music - As is quoted in a document on liturgy that a friend of mine is perfecting, St Pius X reminds us that in the Catholic liturgical tradition, we don't see at Mass, we sing the Mass. To often people want to use music as a way to be active in their worship. Frankly, they often just want to be like their Baptist neighbors by singing lots of hymns at church. In the case of the Offertory of the Ordinary Form, there is no assigned antiphon, but an appropriate hymn that is theologically rich could assist in participation in a proper way. A good choir that is able to sing motets, or a good organist who can play solo pieces, can add much to the ability of the Faithful to enter more deeply into the mysteries they are celebrating. This, while not being silence per se, is a way that allows the people to reflect.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
A Continuation of Continuity
As we reach the altar, the altar is greeted by a kiss. In an ideal situation (which I have not) this can be done from the front side of the altar, so as to begin planting seeds for ad orientem worship. As Mass begins, there is an incensation of the altar. Incense serves many purposes: it smells nice, and it looks good. Beyond those two superficial reasons, there is the respect that is shown for the altar by incensing it.
Incense is also an apatropaic substance. meaning it repels demons! Demons are allergic to incense! So many people claim allergies to incense, and one has to wonder how much is in their heads. This is especially true when they start hacking up a lung before the thurible has even begun to smoke! Seriously though, it seems good to use something in divine worship that drives away evil spirits, because it is they who are the cause of many (not all) of our distractions in prayer.
Again, incense is a source of continuity of worship with the Jews. The same people who are gritting their teeth because they aren't allowed to say the ineffible Name anymore (because they think saying it relates them to the Jews, whom they are actually gravely offending), are the ones who don't like incense.
Once the Priest has incensed the altar (if he's allowed to do so), he retires to the presider's chair. This is a break with previous practice for presbyters -- only Bishops read the Introit and beginning of Mass at the Throne. It is good, however, to have the chair facing North (liturgical), toward the Ambo. The celebrant should turn to greet the people, then turn back. Again, this stresses continuity in some ways. It also underscores that the celebrant is not just presiding over a community, as though it were a board meeeting. He is leading them in prayer. At this point in the Mass, it makes sense that he should at least have the Tabernacle in sight. It certainly does not make sense to be looking at the congregation when not addressing them.
Now, the Priest is bound to hear some complaints about this. "You should look at us more!" These complaints stem from an insecurity that requires their egos to be stroaked by the Priest constantly gazing at them, even when addressing the Father!
This, of course, is one of the biggest problems with proper orientation of the altar to begin with. That horrible polemical term with his back to the people has been used to poison the minds of the People of God for half a century or more. As one Priest friend pointed out, no one complains that the bus driver sits with his back to the people. No one complains that a military leader has his back to the people as he leads a charge. Yet, when the Priest who is leading us on our pilgrimage to Heaven stands at the fore of the Body of Christ, they decide he has turned his back on them. Ridiculous!
To me, it is the height of arrogance for people to want the Priest to go into God's house and stand with his back to God, who, while omnipresent, is most substantially present in the Eucharist. Where the Son is, there are also the Father and the Holy Spirit. It never occurs to people that it's rude to walk into someone's house and stand with your back to Him! A restoration if orientation in the Liturgy will go a long way toward applying a hermeneutic of continuity.
With my current situation, I am in a parish with the presider's chair on the south side, but placed diagonally (which is it's own problem -- more on that later), so that the Pastor can sit facing the congregation, at least partially. I am forced, then, to turn in the chair if I wish to face the Ambo from which the Word of God is being proclaimed. There just seems to be a problematic understanding of where one's attention should be. Oh, and the eyes cast downward custom applies here as well. Certainly there is no reason to watch the congregation (which always mutiplies during the readings). The Priest, like everyone else, is supposed to be listening actively to the Word of God being proclaimed -- not paying attention to everything else that's going on in the church.
Incense is also an apatropaic substance. meaning it repels demons! Demons are allergic to incense! So many people claim allergies to incense, and one has to wonder how much is in their heads. This is especially true when they start hacking up a lung before the thurible has even begun to smoke! Seriously though, it seems good to use something in divine worship that drives away evil spirits, because it is they who are the cause of many (not all) of our distractions in prayer.
Again, incense is a source of continuity of worship with the Jews. The same people who are gritting their teeth because they aren't allowed to say the ineffible Name anymore (because they think saying it relates them to the Jews, whom they are actually gravely offending), are the ones who don't like incense.
Once the Priest has incensed the altar (if he's allowed to do so), he retires to the presider's chair. This is a break with previous practice for presbyters -- only Bishops read the Introit and beginning of Mass at the Throne. It is good, however, to have the chair facing North (liturgical), toward the Ambo. The celebrant should turn to greet the people, then turn back. Again, this stresses continuity in some ways. It also underscores that the celebrant is not just presiding over a community, as though it were a board meeeting. He is leading them in prayer. At this point in the Mass, it makes sense that he should at least have the Tabernacle in sight. It certainly does not make sense to be looking at the congregation when not addressing them.
Now, the Priest is bound to hear some complaints about this. "You should look at us more!" These complaints stem from an insecurity that requires their egos to be stroaked by the Priest constantly gazing at them, even when addressing the Father!
This, of course, is one of the biggest problems with proper orientation of the altar to begin with. That horrible polemical term with his back to the people has been used to poison the minds of the People of God for half a century or more. As one Priest friend pointed out, no one complains that the bus driver sits with his back to the people. No one complains that a military leader has his back to the people as he leads a charge. Yet, when the Priest who is leading us on our pilgrimage to Heaven stands at the fore of the Body of Christ, they decide he has turned his back on them. Ridiculous!
To me, it is the height of arrogance for people to want the Priest to go into God's house and stand with his back to God, who, while omnipresent, is most substantially present in the Eucharist. Where the Son is, there are also the Father and the Holy Spirit. It never occurs to people that it's rude to walk into someone's house and stand with your back to Him! A restoration if orientation in the Liturgy will go a long way toward applying a hermeneutic of continuity.
With my current situation, I am in a parish with the presider's chair on the south side, but placed diagonally (which is it's own problem -- more on that later), so that the Pastor can sit facing the congregation, at least partially. I am forced, then, to turn in the chair if I wish to face the Ambo from which the Word of God is being proclaimed. There just seems to be a problematic understanding of where one's attention should be. Oh, and the eyes cast downward custom applies here as well. Certainly there is no reason to watch the congregation (which always mutiplies during the readings). The Priest, like everyone else, is supposed to be listening actively to the Word of God being proclaimed -- not paying attention to everything else that's going on in the church.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
More on continuity
So many parishioners comment to me that I celebrate Mass like the Priests did when they were young (50s and 60s). The question is, why is this noticeable? I don't do anything extraordinary (forgive the pun). I just follow the General Instructions of the Roman Missal.
What is (sadly) unusual is that I interpret the GIRM with a hermaneutic of continuity. When I look at an instruction in the Roman Missal (Ordinary Form) I interpret it in light of tradition. It is interpreted in light of how things were done in the previous editions of the Missal (Extraordinary Form). Oh, and I alway follow the Latin instructions, never relying on someone else's translation.
From the very beginning the proximate preparation for Mass, in the sacristy, I try to interpret things as they have been done for time immemorial. I ask for quiet in the sacristy, as it is to be a place of prayer. I actually do pray the vesting prayers, beginning with the hand-washing, and finishing with the Forma Intentionis -- the statement of intention to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Rite of the Holy Roman Church.
The procession toward the altar and back to the sacristy are done, in the words of the Extraordinary Form's rubrics, oculis dimissis --with the eyes looking downward as a sign of one's own unworthyness. The procession is not a time to greet the people or smile and wave. It is a time of final preparation for Mass. It is a liturgical movement that requires a certain gravitas or solemnity. Sadly, many Priests use this as a time to be "friendly" by smiling and possibly even shaking hands with people on the way up the aisle. We should never confuse joy with silliness. This is what Cardinal Arinze, in the name of the Holy Father, really, called the Ars Celebrandi the are of the celebrant. We shall continue with a series of post on this over the next several weeks.
What is (sadly) unusual is that I interpret the GIRM with a hermaneutic of continuity. When I look at an instruction in the Roman Missal (Ordinary Form) I interpret it in light of tradition. It is interpreted in light of how things were done in the previous editions of the Missal (Extraordinary Form). Oh, and I alway follow the Latin instructions, never relying on someone else's translation.
From the very beginning the proximate preparation for Mass, in the sacristy, I try to interpret things as they have been done for time immemorial. I ask for quiet in the sacristy, as it is to be a place of prayer. I actually do pray the vesting prayers, beginning with the hand-washing, and finishing with the Forma Intentionis -- the statement of intention to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Rite of the Holy Roman Church.
The procession toward the altar and back to the sacristy are done, in the words of the Extraordinary Form's rubrics, oculis dimissis --with the eyes looking downward as a sign of one's own unworthyness. The procession is not a time to greet the people or smile and wave. It is a time of final preparation for Mass. It is a liturgical movement that requires a certain gravitas or solemnity. Sadly, many Priests use this as a time to be "friendly" by smiling and possibly even shaking hands with people on the way up the aisle. We should never confuse joy with silliness. This is what Cardinal Arinze, in the name of the Holy Father, really, called the Ars Celebrandi the are of the celebrant. We shall continue with a series of post on this over the next several weeks.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The empty seat in the Choir Stall
It is with inexpressible sadness that I write about the death of a dear friend from the seminary. The Reverend Mr. Adam Crowe, a transitional deacon from the Diocese of Ogdensburg, NY slipped from this world today. I can imagine the emptiness that will be felt by all as they look at his empty seat in the choir stalls of the chapel at Saint Charles Seminary. Every day, at least twice a day, they'll all be reminded of his absence.
We truly do not know the day or the hour when the Son of Man will come for us. No one could have ever expected that he would never see Adam alive again. If we did, we would have gone to see him one last time -- or called at least. It would have put a whole new priority on attending his ordination to the Diaconate last June. I would have flown to Washington to attend the March for Life with him last week. But, we didn't know.
No one can know the anguish that must be felt at Saint Charles tonight. How could we? Please keep the men at Saint Charles Seminary in your prayers, for the next several weeks will be bleak for them all. With God's grace, they will survive, forever changed by this day.
All of us who knew Adam are also forever changed by our brief time together. He was always one to brighten our day with his radiant joy.
Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei.
We truly do not know the day or the hour when the Son of Man will come for us. No one could have ever expected that he would never see Adam alive again. If we did, we would have gone to see him one last time -- or called at least. It would have put a whole new priority on attending his ordination to the Diaconate last June. I would have flown to Washington to attend the March for Life with him last week. But, we didn't know.
No one can know the anguish that must be felt at Saint Charles tonight. How could we? Please keep the men at Saint Charles Seminary in your prayers, for the next several weeks will be bleak for them all. With God's grace, they will survive, forever changed by this day.
All of us who knew Adam are also forever changed by our brief time together. He was always one to brighten our day with his radiant joy.
Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
On the Hermaneutic of Rupture
There are some Priests who just don't get it. They love to tell you (me) things like, "that's how we used to do it before Vatican II. We don't do that anymore." Now, this was in the context of a discussion about couples cohabitating prior to marriage. I say they should be asked to separate until they are married -- he says that's how we used to do it. It seems, in his mind, that once they decide to get married, it's OK if they want to live together. They should confess a few days before the wedding and then abstain for a whole 72 Hours. We should counsel them to "try to abstain" until they are married, "if you can."
TRY TO ABSTAIN? IF YOU CAN?
Would he counsel Ted Bundy to try to abstain from serial murders if he can? Would he suggest to pregnant women that they should try to abstain from abortion if they can? I just don't get it. There used to be a day in which Priests could talk to other Priests about things like this and get the same answer from anyone. Now, it's all up for grabs. Life is interesting!
If they're mad it must be good!
There is an article today on Rorate Caeli about certain persons who are a tad upset about the lifting of the Excommunications by His Holiness. In case you missed it -- His Holiness has remitted the penalty of Excommunication imposed upon the Four Bishops of the SSXP ipso facto when they were consecrated by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
What can I say? When some people get upset, you know something good is going on. These are the people who are so invested in the hermaneutic of rupture/discontinuity that they can't stand the fact that continuity with the past is being stressed. To them, it is a condemnation of their life's work (which was largely about destroying all that had been before in order to make way for the new).
Can you believe the fella who deems himself confident to declare "for them there is no place for the mercy of Christ?" Those kind of words tend to come back to haunt us. The sad thing is, he probably doesn't have any problem with being easy on pro-abort politicians.
Bishop Fellay of the SSPX has requested our prayers on two occasions in the past -- and they have been answered. He has asked through the BVM that the Mass be liberated, and this happened on 07.07.07; he asked that the excommunications be lifted (again through the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary (of Lourdes). Now he asked for clarifications to be made of certain theological concerns they have with Vatican II. Through the intercession of Our Blessed Mother, let us all ask Our Lord to direct these theological discussions to be fruitful and bring about unity. Our Lady brought about two seeming insurmountable goals toward reunification of the SSPX with Rome. She can and will bring about this third goal -- so let us begin our Rosary Crusade.
While we're at it -- let's ask her to do the same thing with the Orthodox. I truly believe that it is unity with those who have the Sacraments that is crucial.
Mary, Mother of the Church, bring about through your powerful intercession the end to divisions that separate Catholics from one another and from the Orthodox. Pray for us, most holy Mother of God, ut unum simus!
What can I say? When some people get upset, you know something good is going on. These are the people who are so invested in the hermaneutic of rupture/discontinuity that they can't stand the fact that continuity with the past is being stressed. To them, it is a condemnation of their life's work (which was largely about destroying all that had been before in order to make way for the new).
Can you believe the fella who deems himself confident to declare "for them there is no place for the mercy of Christ?" Those kind of words tend to come back to haunt us. The sad thing is, he probably doesn't have any problem with being easy on pro-abort politicians.
Bishop Fellay of the SSPX has requested our prayers on two occasions in the past -- and they have been answered. He has asked through the BVM that the Mass be liberated, and this happened on 07.07.07; he asked that the excommunications be lifted (again through the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary (of Lourdes). Now he asked for clarifications to be made of certain theological concerns they have with Vatican II. Through the intercession of Our Blessed Mother, let us all ask Our Lord to direct these theological discussions to be fruitful and bring about unity. Our Lady brought about two seeming insurmountable goals toward reunification of the SSPX with Rome. She can and will bring about this third goal -- so let us begin our Rosary Crusade.
While we're at it -- let's ask her to do the same thing with the Orthodox. I truly believe that it is unity with those who have the Sacraments that is crucial.
Mary, Mother of the Church, bring about through your powerful intercession the end to divisions that separate Catholics from one another and from the Orthodox. Pray for us, most holy Mother of God, ut unum simus!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
