Posted on 05/20/2003 4:47:18 PM PDT by NYer
In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.
In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community. [Sacrosanctum Concilium 21]
The changes willed by the approximately 2700 to 4 vote of the world's Catholic bishops in the document cited above can be summarized as 1) restore the active participation of the people, 2) remove accretions and duplications which crept into the Roman Mass in millennium before Pope Pius V imposed it on the Latin Church, and 3) manifest the proper sacramentality of the Mass as an act of Christ, Head and Body. These were legitimate and long over-due reforms, as the virtually unanimous vote of the hierarchy shows. Other goals of the reforms can be read in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
1. Active Participation (Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium 14-20). In the context of the Reformation the essentialism of the Missal of Pius V makes sense. The emphasis is on the theologically essential participant, the priest, without whose power the Eucharist cannot be confected. The role of the laity, who through baptism is a member of the Body of Christ, tended to be passive. The lay person's role in the effecting of the Eucharist was accidental (in the philosophical sense of not being "of the essence"), though the rubrics required the presence of at least one layman (to complete the sign of Christ, Head and members). As a consequence, the people were left to pray privately, their active role fulfilled by the servers. Put another way, their Mass participation was primarily devotional (the rosary, prayer books etc.), as opposed to liturgical (giving the responses, following the prayers devoutly etc.). One of the key reforms of the Council was to restore the properly liturgical role of the people to them. Even before the Council the trend favored lay missals with Latin-English, and dialogic Masses, where the people give the responses, over praying private devotions during Mass. Contrary to the assumption of many Catholics, liturgical piety is more meritorious than personal devotion. Certainly, the quiet and peace of nearly silent Masses fosters a feeling of devotion; however, objectively, through active liturgical participation we exercise the priestly office of Christ Himself conferred by baptism and thus share in His merit. Of course, interior spiritual participation must also be present, and not just external activity, for active liturgical participation to be authentic. Participation in the Pascal Mysteries is not primarily a matter of feeling, or even external doing, but of FAITH and CHARITY.
2. Accretions and Duplications (SC 21-25). The Holy See had long encouraged the study of the nature of the liturgy and the historical origins of its parts. The findings of theologians such as Fr. Joseph Jungmann (The Mass of the Roman Rite, 3 vols., Christian Classics, 1950, 1986), clearly reveal the mutability of the Mass from the time of the earliest known Roman sacramentaries (5th and 6th century). Rather than being a static form, the Roman Rite had absorbed customs from other local Churches (e.g. Gaul), as well as developed it's own, an evolution that ended with Pius V and Trent. What had once been "novelties" when first adopted at Rome became fixed parts of the "immemorial Mass". The only constant being the authority of the Apostolic See to permit, order and even to impose them. Without judging the virtue of this change or that following Vatican II, on which there are legitimate arguments pro and con, the need for the reform of the Tridentine Mass was certainly accepted by all bishops and theologians.
3. Sacramentality of the Roles (SC 26-32). The Church is the mystical Christ, Head and Body (1 Cor. 12). The ministerial priest is the sacramental sign of Christ the Head, who acts in persona Christi capitis (Catechism of the Catholic Church 875, 1348, 1548). The people, though baptism, also exercise an office (CCC 1188, 1273). It is not essential to the confecting of the Eucharist, but is essential to the sacramentality of the Eucharistic assembly. Together, priest and people, are a sacramental sign of Christ's continuing mystical presence in the world through the Church, which makes possible the perpetuation in time of the One Sacrifice of Calvary, Eucharistic Communion and the substantial Presence of the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament itself. The sacramentality of the Church as the Mystical Christ is clearer, therefore, when both priests and laity exercise their proper sacramental offices as Head and Members, respectively.
| Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL |
It seems these discussions surface periodically. Given the number of threads currently running on the topic of the mass, I felt it was time to toss this one out for discussion.
The bishops voted 2700 to 4 in favor of a general restoration of the liturgy itself.
Whether or not you agree with the liturgical changes undertaken by these 2700 bishops, the liturgy of the Novus Ordo remains valid.
In fact, that's the reason for the proliferation of popular devotions, like the rosary, the Stations, Novenas, litanies, and other "sacramentals."
The laity did other things during Mass to keep occupied and to give themselves some form of prayer that THEY could participate in.
"Should" is common in Church documents, even those prior to Vatican II.
"Must" is appropriate for the military, law enforcement, and children. And "must" doesn't prevent abuse, if someone is determined to abuse.
If you have the time and stamina to plow through it, here are the guidelines issued by Vatican II with regard to sacred music.
Agreed. It's probably known (I have said before) I am not a member of any traditionalist organization.
Something may be valid enough in theory, all very well and good, and turn out to be a disaster of biblical proportions in practice. It may be valid to say Mass in a building that is as sterile as a basketball gymnasium while not being desirable for Catholics accustomed to worshipping in an environment adorned with representational sacred art. It may be "valid" canonically to say "Mass" in the new chic ultra-modern minimalist LA cathedral which is still silly and absurd on a purely aesthetic level. The Novus Ordo Mass can be said by priests reverently and with a great deal of pious devotion while it also has an uncanny tendency to open up to weirdness of all sorts as well. A folk guitar Mass may be valid sacramentally while being highly annoying to people who don't like giddy 1960s and 1970s folk music. Likewise, someone like Bernardin or Weakland may have been validly ordained while still being extremely annoying and unpleasant figures.
The Mass that is usually shown on EWTN from the monastery in Alabama is valid and reverent. I don't take issue with this way of saying Mass, with the goals of Adoremus or similar variations of the Novus Ordo celebrated by orthodox Catholics who reject other liberal and progressive deviations. A lot seems to depend on the intentions and theological orientation of the priests. I don't care whether it's valid or not to celebrate Mass in a building which is an ultra-modernist minimalist iconoclastic monstrosity. I disagree with the cultural and aesthetic assumptions personally. Bad taste is not a good prudential judgment call for Catholic worship. We can debate this for sure. I'll stand with Cordelia Marchmain (in Brideshead Revisited) that modern art is "bosh." Just because we could validly worship in a StarTrek spaceship or a Seattle "Space Needle" doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. While a Mass could be celebrated validly on the bridge of the Enterprise, I would hope the "building committee" would get other proposals from the Irish and Italian multigenerational contractors for the design of my local parish. I see no need for modernist shopping mall architecture for Catholic spaces of worship. I think the modern auditorium design for Catholic parish churches is a mistaken way to understand how to intepret Vatican II.
You will agree, of course, that the Tridentine Mass in Latin is a valid way for Catholics to worship at Mass. And that Catholics in the 1950s were not less valid as Catholics than those worshipping today. I have trouble with the idea that somehow G.K. Chesterton and Edmund Campion were not as authentic because they worshipped differently from Frances Kissling and Rembert Weakland. I see no point to having folk guitars, garish modern art, long political-speech sermons, clapping, liturgical dancing, and germ-spreading handshaking at Catholic Masses. Whether the sacraments at such Masses are valid seems irrelevant. We don't need everybody and your grandmother hovering around the altar and pulpits either. The "the active participation of the people" does not mean we need lesbian musical ministers, but this phrase lends itself to wide interpretation. I've seen parishes where the ushers act like they are taking tickets at a movie theatre. We don't need a lot of aggressive and unnecessary movement and noise at Mass to effect the presence of Christ. In some cases, shorter sermons would be a very good idea.
What seems to be going on is that a door was opened by Vatican II that has let in a lot of silly and annoying things. That doesn't mean Mass in English is wrong or that some of the ideas of liturgical reform are without merit. Moving tabernacles, using improper liturgical vessels, political speeches as sermons, weird art, funky music... - these seem to be part of an un-Catholic liberal agenda. Most educated and/or conservative Catholics who object to these things are right to do so on the level of prudential judgment.
The erroneous idea developed that Latin and the Tridentine rite should be virtually banned.
We do not need further protestanization of the liturgy,IMHO. When a person tells me that they went to an Episcopalian service and "it was just like our Mass" something is VERY, VERY WRONG!! 10 posted on 05/20/2003 6:36 PM PDT by Lady In Blue (Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,Rice 2004)
It's unfortunate that some have gone out of their way to alienate traditionally-oriented Catholics. It does seem that some liturgical social engineers manipulate the Mass in a Protestant style. It's pointless whether it's valid for the congregation to clap their hands to the beat of "Go Tell It on the Mountain." If it is alienating even a few Catholics such practices should be avoided. The idea that a 1960s-style folk Mass is closer to the spirit of early Christians' worship is really a ridiculous one. No one knows what a second-century "Agape" was like.
One unfortunate result has been that in some cases, there is too much emphasis on the personality and opinions of the priest in long-winded politicized sermons. The Mass actually in point of fact IS NOT supposed to be ideological in the modern sense. It is not about raising social consciousness. The people are there to worship, pray, and commune sacramentally with God for grace and to achieve the blessings of salvation in Heaven.
An excellent question! I posted the following historicial perspective to a different thread yesterday. In case anyone here missed it, it's worth repeating:
"Pius V did indeed do something unprecedented in the history of the Church, and that was to freeze, in effect, the liturgy as it had developed up to that point in the 16th century. In doing this, Pius V stabilized, homogenized and thus preserved the unity of the Church during a turbulent time of mass apostasy by preserving the venerable and sacred liturgy of the centuries. His act, unprecedented though it was, was yet done out of a perceived necessity given the Protestant Revolution."
"We must not have the simplistic view, as some of our badly misinformed traditionalist brethren, that the Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil, or invalid. Michael Davies, a very renowned scholar from England, has, in many of his works, sufficiently shown that this could not be true, that the Novus Ordo is somehow intrinsically evil. In his various works on the Mass, he has demonstrated, in fact, the intrinsic goodness of the normative Mass, published by Paul VI, not to be confused mind you, with any wretched translations that may have appeared in the vernacular, especially the English language. "
"On the other hand, there must be said something for the defense of the authority of the Catholic Church, which has the power to guard and protect the sacred liturgy. "
"We must not have the simplistic view, as some of our badly misinformed traditionalist brethren, that the Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil, or invalid. Michael Davies, a very renowned scholar from England, has, in many of his works, sufficiently shown that this could not be true, that the Novus Ordo is somehow intrinsically evil. In his various works on the Mass, he has demonstrated, in fact, the intrinsic goodness of the normative Mass, published by Paul VI, not to be confused mind you, with any wretched translations that may have appeared in the vernacular, especially the English language. "
"So what were some of the changes that were needed, according to the Council Fathers? Sometimes in their fervor for promoting the traditional Mass, traditionalists blind themselves by the following erroneous propositions: (1) to cast the blame entirely on the twenty first ecumenical Council of Vatican II as the cause of all the invalid, sacrilegious and innovative liturgical experimentation of today. Vatican 11, albeit a pastoral Council, was still protected by the Holy Spirit, attended by twenty-five hundred or more bishops; convoked by a validly elected Pontiff who prepared schema for two years, which were orthodox, dogmatic, and definitive outlines of our Faith; the promise of Our Lord never to leave His Church; the indefectibility of the Church of Christ; all these defeat this proposition of the traditionalists."
" (2) The second erroneous proposition of the traditionalists is that the form of the Mass, frozen by Pius V, was the Mass celebrated by the early Christians in apostolic times. In answer to this erroneous proposition, overwhelming historical evidence exists for any serious student of the liturgy to know that it took almost five centuries to form the very core of the Roman Rite Mass, the Roman Canon."
" (3) The third erroneous proposition of the traditionalists is that the rite of the Mass is identified with the very sacrament of the Eucharist. Two basic facts oppose this view: (1). The very fact that there are 17 oriental rites (give or take a few variations), that are officially recognized by the official Church, and whose development also hearken back to the ancient Church. (2). The second fact that opposes this third assumption of the traditionalists is that historical evidence itself reveals the human development of the rites of the Mass."
"
"(4) The fourth erroneous traditionalist proposition is that nothing in the traditional Mass needed reform or clarification. In answer to this, in fact, for the student of the liturgy, many things were confusing about the tradition a I Mass which needed clarification. (Admittedly, these items were not of the essence of the liturgy nor detrimental to the flow of the sacred action. Still, had Pius XII lived longer, he would probably have addressed these cloudy areas of the Mass, as effectively as he had reformed the rites of Holy Week in the mid '50s). Following are some examples of the areas that needed to be addressed: in an effort to show the distinctiveness of the priesthood of the celebrant of the Mass, and the "priesthood' of all believers," the traditional Mass constantly had the priest recite the same prayers and antiphons of the people and the choir, such as the Introit, 'the Gradual, the Communion verse, the Gloria, the Credo, and others. This was due, of course, to the prevalency of private and low Masses in which no choir and general public may have been present. Yet at a sung Mass, all these similar prayers were reduplicated by both priest and choir , instead of being able to be sung by both priest and people together. Another example, is that the traditional Mass, especially a sung Mass, seemed to put an emphasis on endings of prayers, e.g., the Doxology of the Secret (per omnia saecula saeculorum), the very end of the final Doxology (per ipsum...), the ending of the libera nos, etc.
This made for a very confusing emphasis on sung endings, instead of the whole prayer. The third area revolves around some "vestigial organs" of previous ancient rites whose vestiges in the traditional Mass provoked some questions on the parts of scholars. One such notable example is the priest turning to the people after the Creed to greet them and invite them to prayer, to a prayer which never follows. It is at this point in history that the prayer of the faithful, or the "bidding prayers" followed, gradually atrophied, and then only the introduction of the rite remained. "
"(5) The fifth erroneous traditionalist proposition is that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid. This proposition is the most serious of all, for it undermines the whole indefectible nature of the Church, that She could be guilty of promoting invalid sacraments. As absurd as this proposition is, many either explicitly or implicitly hold to this viewpoint. To give some examples: Once, while giving a mission at a traditionalist parish (at the time in which I celebrated only the Novus Ordo Latin Mass with Canon #1), wherein I could not celebrate my private Novus Ordo Latin Mass on the altar of the main chapel, the chapel which had a charter and constitution that forbade the Novus Ordo Mass from being celebrated on it. Instead, I was forced to celebrate my Mass on a table in the library off from the side of the chapel, Another incident was on the occasion of a visit to a traditionalist order of sisters who claimed union with our Supreme Pontiff. But when asked what Missal I was to follow, and what Mass I was to say, and after responding that I say the same Mass as the Holy Father, was consequently refused access to celebrate Mass in their chapel. Arid I asked the dear Mother Superior, "Do you mean to tell me that if the Holy Father were to come to your convent, you would not allow him to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass, even if he used Latin and the first Canon, as I was planning to do?" And she answered, "Yes."
These incidents clearly display an ignorance of Church history, of the history of that liturgy, of ecclesiology, and of sacramentology. For the failure to distinguish between the essential elements of the Mass common to all liturgies of all rites, and the accidental elements of other rites which are found in those liturgies is a true root cause for all of the above erroneous propositions. "
Fr. David-Ladislaus Przedwiecki, O.F.M.
In other words, the mass that had evolved over the centuries was frozen by Pope Pius V, for reasons that seemed valid in its time. Errors had crept into the rite and the council fathers wanted to allow it to breathe again. One can argue, perhaps, that they went too far.
Many of these innovations are now beginning to wane. I use the word "beginning" as it will take a few years to undo what has been in place for 40. Your post makes excellent points! I agree wholeheartedly, especially after having been raised in the Latin rite of pre VCII.
As for the EWTN mass at the Alabama monastery, I hope you and your family will be able to join us next year on our pilgrimage.
For actual schismatic traditionalists, there are probably any of several advisable strategies. They need stronger signs from Rome and from bishops that they are interested in defending orthodoxy. In light of the Hitchcock article posted earlier and various other matters such as the scandals of last year, I can see how some traditionalists might be difficult to be persuaded. But I don't reject Mass in English, the council, or Pope John Paul II, so I don't accept extreme postures while also being open to debate the Latin Mass issue. I think it should be offered for Catholics who desire it. It should not be hidden as in the past. Where abuses in the Novus Ordo and issues of questionable taste arise, they need to be addressed. I think better education in Catholic institutions is the main answer. Good leaders will emerge from orthodox educational institutions, as they always have.
This aside, the utilization of the 'dialogue' Mass prior to V.II was a fruit of the liturgy movement, and a good one. Although people were to respond in Latin (and they did,) few complained of "not understanding," as their Missals were quite plainly in both English and Latin, side-by-side.
The complaint voiced by Sinkspur (the Rosary ladies) is accurate, but voiced in a manner which tends to overstate the problem. There were a number who said the Rosary. There were a number who fell asleep. There were a number who came late/left early. So what? There are those, TODAY, who fall asleep/don't sing/talk between themselves.
We will always have those who don't SEEM to "participate" at Mass--or don't even seem to PRAY at Mass. What shall we do about that?
The answer of some was, in effect, reductio ad absurdum, and they managed to eliminate, almost root and branch, the idea of "sacred time/sacred space," beginning with elimination of the sacral language and proceeding with the elimination of sacred music, then going far beyond both--to the elimination of the Tabernacle as the center of sight and worship.
This has led to blue-jeaned, shorts-attired, T-shirt & sneakers worshippers and, as one would expect, a somewhat casual treatment of the King of the Universe in ways both minor and major. Yet this is applauded as "active" participation.
Go figure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.