MOUNTAIN VIEWS: NEW POPE TO TURN BACK THE CLOCK ON REFORMS IN CATHOLIC CHURCH?

OLEAN -- Various columnists for this paper already covered the making of a new pope last spring to a fare-thee-well, driving the tormented editor to declare an informal moratorium on writing further copy about the pomp and circumstance surrounding Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's ascension to Benedict XVI.

We complied. So, in general, did the rest of the American print media, which these days, sadly, are trained by watching too much television to ignore anything that doesn't photograph well, or lend itself to colorful video, or where religion is concerned doesn't contain elements of movement and ceremony.

But in recent weeks, I've noticed a few short items creeping onto inside pages about the Holy Father's vision -- predicted here and elsewhere -- of a venerable Roman Catholic Church that more resembles the one of four decades ago instead of a global organization struggling to accept elements of modernity.

Starting the first week in October, a synod of Catholic bishops from around the world will meet in Rome to plot the future of the church under Ratzinger's leadership. A hefty working text has already been prepared for official consideration, and some sections have sporadically leaked to the Vatican press -- enough to suggest that Benedict XVI has no intention of mellowing from the hardrock conservative positions he held in his previous position as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican office tracing its pedigree directly back to the Inquisition.

Bottom line: Pope John XXIII's liberal changes stemming from the Vatican II conclave to take into account this planet's social and cultural and scientific developments not previously sanctioned by Rome are in deep trouble.

There are some key words in the working text that constitute predictable indicators -- some superficial, some profound. The "translations" below are my predictions, not actual descriptions in the Vatican document of suggestions.

Parish priests will be urged to prevent "profane" types of music from being played during Mass. Translation: Lose the guitars, flutes and drums, boys. It's back to Gregorian chants (which are specifically mentioned in the aforesaid text as more appropriate).

The tabernacle, a large container -- usually bejeweled and gold-plated -- which holds the wheat wafer Host that devout Catholics believe is the actual (not representative) body of Christ after consecration, must be given a "prominent" position on the altar instead of the corner or side repository popular after Vatican II. Translation: Altars, with the tabernacle right in the center as unmistakable focal point, will be turned back around to allow the priest to celebrate Mass in relative solitude with his back to the congregation, instead of facing and speaking directly to the faithful as Vatican II decreed.

Lay persons will participate in the Mass only in a "minimal" fashion. Translation: No more reading of Scripture lessons by members of the congregation, or carrying of the wine and water up the aisle to facilitate Holy Communion, or letting the non-ordained help distribute the Eucharist during that sacrament. Priests only, please, just like in the old days.

During "liturgical gatherings," Latin will be relied upon as the universal tongue instead of English and other regional languages. Translation: A return during celebration of Mass to the Latin liturgy, viewed as confusing mumbo-jumbo by many Catholics before Vatican II, cannot be far behind.

Priests should not be "showmen." Translation: All those brave fathers in Central and South America and Africa and elsewhere who have the courage to question corrupt and dictatorial governments, or the temerity to suggest social and cultural reform, will be muzzled.

The working document, by the way, singles out Catholic politicians who support abortion and divorced persons who remarry for particular criticism and specific proscription against receiving the sacrament of Holy Communion without first making a true confession to a priest. This will also affect various areas of the planet where an acute shortage of priests has triggered the practice of taking Communion after making one's peace with God in one's mind because the preparatory sacrament of confession simply isn't available.

Some Catholics, particularly elderly ones, would welcome these changes, whether they actually occur or not. Many of them hate the Vatican II reforms. I was sitting next to my late beloved and curmudgeonly father in the early 1970s when a bearded guitar-wielder first strode to the altar to play some inspirational song of hope. My father actually stood up in the pew to leave before my mother dragged him back down to the kneeling bench.

I also secretly prized during those days the frequent look of repugnance on his face during the newly instituted "kiss of peace," which soon evolved into a hearty-handshake-with-those-nearby section of the Mass. My father was one of the friendliest gentlemen on earth; he just liked to reserve his handshakes for persons he knew, or trusted, or was happy to see.

Casting aside all the paternal nostalgia, I'm wary of Benedict XVI's plans. This is a man whose mind sees cultural development as conspiracy.

He still condemns the use of condoms to fight AIDS in Africa. He's already bounced, without adequate explanation, the respected editor of a liberal Jesuit magazine in this country.

Many Catholics are unaware that Ratzinger even criticized the immensely popular Harry Potter books as harmful to children.

In a letter of praise two years ago to a narrow-minded German critic of author J.K. Rowling, then-Cardinal Ratzinger described her astoundingly successful books as "subtle seductions" for youths and works that "act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly."

Get real. I personally think J.K. Rowling deserves some Nobel-level award for becoming a one-woman assault squad on illiteracy. Do you know how hard it is to pry kids away from the TV or iPod or cell phone and get them to actually read a book? The numbers are there. Rowling actually has children reading again, using their TV-stunted imaginations anew to convert print into thought, to transform type into imagery. Her harmless books are stimulating and superbly written, and most children understand they are merely interesting works of fantasy about magic and good and evil and pretend sorcery -- stuff kids are intrigued by and will find anyway.

If the new pope really wants to do some good in this vein, he should take a gander at the hideously violent and often demonically promotional TV fare that is available to the majority of toddlers and youngsters in this country. Talk then about conditioning senses and warping vulnerable minds.

In his years as a promising priest and bishop, Ratzinger was viewed as somewhat of a liberal and reform-minded theologian. He once wrote a short book that viewed Vatican II with enthusiasm and promise. In his previous post as protector of the faith, however, the native of Germany became more and more conservative until he was known and routinely described as "God's Rottweiler" -- a ferocious defender of venerable Vatican views and practices.

In an excellent article in the July 25 edition of the "New Yorker" magazine, Anthony Grafton describes him in this role as "a snapping guard dog who threatens all dissidents with appropriate punishment." Ratzinger, writes Grafton, "was a censor, and he did his job well."

Since last April, Catholic writers around the world, particularly in Europe and North America, in article after article, have speculated that Ratzinger will realize he is now the spiritual head of the oldest and largest religious organization on the planet and -- as the "New Yorker" writer puts it -- will now "show a milder countenance in his new office." Not very likely. As Grafton writes, Ratzinger has repeatedly denounced "the intellectuals who confused social reform with Christianity" and is at heart himself fearful about intellectual conclusions.

"The intellect," he once told a gathering of about 800 priests, "does not always grant vision, but provides the conditions for intellectual games, and artfully conjures syntheses into existence where there is really nothing but contradiction." Only faith, believes the new pope, will abide.

I agree with author Grafton. A prelate who's fearful that Harry Potter books will block the spiritual growth of young Christians "may find it harder than he thinks to take on modernity in all its sprawling strangeness."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Hanchette, a professor of journalism at St. Bonaventure University, is a former editor of the Niagara Gazette and a Pulitzer Prize-winning national correspondent. He was a founding editor of USA Today and was recently named by Gannett as one of the Top 10 reporters of the past 25 years. He can be contacted via e-mail at Hanchette6@aol.com.

"He is no longer in unison with the congregation - he is facing the opposite direction from everyone else."

Not as I see it.

As I see it, the consecrated Host is God, and the priest and everyone else are oriented towards God by facing God and holding up God. It's a circle, not a rectangle, but the orientation is all the same way: towards the center of the circle, where God is.

I can see either way as full of theological meaning and symbolism, and do not really think that one way is more theologically correct than the other.

I do agree that one way is more traditional than the other, and I would say that for those who find especially deep meaning in the form of the Mass practiced before the 1960s there should certainly be Masses done that way. I can't see any particularly good reason not to bring the important things home to people in the way they are best prepared to receive it.

CCC 1301 The sign of peace that concludes the rite of the sacrament signifies and demonstrates ecclesial communion with the bishop and with all the faithful.116

116 Cf. St. Hippolytus, Trad. Ap. 21:SCh 11,80-95.

Hebrew, Greek and Old Slavonic are old languages, to be sure.
But they were street languages back at the time of the formation of their respective churches. Greek, Hebrew and Old Slavonic were also used, in their day, to blaspheme and to negotiate porneia.

I dont thing old = sacred.
Nothing wrong with old, but it seems to me that old = old, and sacred is what's said and meant, not which linguistic vehicle is used.

Before I became an Orthodox Christian, I used to attend Novus Ordo masses and, quite frankly, I found the exchange of peace in the nave a distraction at best and a possible cause of scandal at worst.

That's very odd because I have not experienced anything like that. The Sign of Peace at my Parish's Mass is never anything like that. It is a very cordial, but brief, acknowledgement of who your neighbor is (according to local customs a handshake).

"CCC 1301 The sign of peace that concludes the rite of the sacrament signifies and demonstrates ecclesial communion with the bishop and with all the faithful.116"

I do not see in this rubric you quote a requirement that the faithful shake hands. In fact, I do not even see from this a requirement that the celebrant tell them to do squat. Formerly, at least in the Latin ritual, the Pax was exchanged at the altar and this seems consistent with the rubric you have quoted.
FYI, if one were to attend an Orthodox liturgy, one would find that during the communion of the priest, the laity kiss all of the icons in the temple. And just before they receive Holy Communion, each communicant will bow to the entire congregation. This seems perfectly satisfactory, more dignified, and much less intrusive that the current Latin practice.
But if you want to go about shaking hands with people, go for it. Don't let me stop you.

"What are you getting out of the Mass?"

Uhhhnnnhhh--the purpose of Mass attendance is to worship God.

Why bother attending Mass to worship God if you (not you personally) will not even follow Christ's specific commandment ("I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.")?

A simple handshake or acknowlegement of your "neighbor" at Mass is suficient.

"'Eagles' Wings,' musically, is another 2-step 'soft rock' piece. The genre is useful for slow dances and hotel lobby pianists, especially if they are near the hotel bar."

I do not find it so.
Actually, I find that it is quite a bit more difficult to sing well than the other usual three-notes-up/three-notes-down church fare, because it goes through quite a range, and has interesting changes between the verses.

Anyway, I think all we're talking about here is matters of taste: you don't like the musical score. I do.

Nobody can argue that the text of the song is not sacred: it's the 91st Psalm.
So it comes down to a matter of what one thinks of the music.

De gustibus non disputandem.

But if you want to go about shaking hands with people, go for it. Don't let me stop you.

I will continue to extend my hand of friendship toward my neighbor.

"'I will continue to extend my hand of friendship toward my neighbor.' Yeh. Though 'Pull my finger' is probably still out"

"ROFL"

(Well, except maybe at low, low Mass.)

I do not see in this rubric you quote a requirement that the faithful shake hands.

It doesn't. It is what ever the person and or customs dictate. It is up to the individual to extend the gesture or not. That is why I say that if you are Roman Catholic and do not extend some simple of "Sign of Peace" to you neighbors in the pews, maybe you need to examine why you are at Mass in the first place if you are not serious about following Christ's commandment to us to love one another...

Still ROFL

"(Well, except maybe at low, low Mass.)"

Fortunately, the "low Mass" is unheard of in the Orthodox Church. I'm curious to know its derivation. Some say it came into being in Ireland during the years of the Cromwellian persecution of the Roman Catholics.

Ooooo too hot to handle! "That is why I say that if you are Roman Catholic and do not extend some simple of "Sign of Peace" to you neighbors in the pews, maybe you need to examine why you are at Mass in the first place if you are not serious about following Christ's commandment to us to love one another..."

LOL I'm not RC and I will not even go near that remark.

Frankly, I make it a point to stand at least one pew away from people to avoid that silliness.

************

I must confess I agree with you.

Actually, Low Mass dates back earlier than the 16th. Century. Not exactly sure when, though.

I agree with you. I think Low Mass, in hindsight, should never have been invented. The true, normative form of the Mass is the Solemn High Mass. Hence, there is no such thing as a "reduced" liturgy in the Eastern Rites/Orthodox. Liturgical minimalism has bred the "Low Mass Mentality" and this mentality was damaging both pre and post V2, just manifested in different ways.

Whatever restorations or future reforms are to be done, they need to go a long way to eradicate a liturgically minimalist mentality among the faithful.

"I will continue to extend my hand of friendship toward my neighbor."

Yeh. Though "Pull my finger" is probably still out?

**************

LOL!!

"I agree with you. I think Low Mass, in hindsight, should never have been invented."

Hhhhhm. Do you perceive a possible contradiction here with the way things should work within the Church? What did our Lord say?

Mat 16:18 "...I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Jhn 16:13 "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:..."

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.