Countercultural San Francisco parish attracts growing congregation

[reggieM]

Still, with all the reforms the Mass remains recognizable and the similarities are more than skin-deep. It does not follow that reform means wholesale destruction.

Do you agree that “there was no aspect of the liturgy that the world’s bishops found was not in need reform and revision. None.” (Let’s forget that at least one Archbishop vehemently denied this).

If so, I’d say that if every aspect of the prior liturgical rite needed reform and revision, that’s a wholesale destruction of the past tradition and the creation of a new liturgy.

 

[reggieM]

That’s not necessary. SC provided guidelines for the reforms, which led to the Editio Typica of the Roman Missal in 1970. The missal is fine as it is.

Of course, some liturgists disagree with you but the Church permits us to hold different opinions on that topic.

What is needed is better formation of priests in liturgy, and better discipline and supervision.

I’d argue that the ambiguous and open-ended nature of the new liturgy makes it difficult to form priests and provide clear disciplinary guidance. The reformed rite still permits a range of styles, and many learned from the past that experimentation (like altar girls) was rewarded with official recognition after a while. The same, probably, will be true for things like liturgical dance and other innovations, which were (I think still are sort of) prohibited but priests took liberties and it becomes more accepted.
Life-Teen Masses (from what I’ve heard) use contemporary rock-styled music (and I’m not necessarily criticizing just pointing to a variance from traditional forms) and these are popular and widespread.
Some even conservative voices are arguing that Mass should be more like Evangelical Protestant services of the mega-church variety with the big stage set up, dynamic preachers running around with a wireless mike in hand and the pop-rock sounds and big-screen visuals and light-shows that are attracting very big congretations.
It’s my belief that the post-Vatican II reform is open to all of that and more, if not literally in liturgical texts (which again, by experience have been shown to have little legislative or disciplinary value - nobody is ever punished for violating the norms), by means of “the spirit of the liturgical reform” which permits a huge range of options.

 

[OraLabora]

Do you agree that “there was no aspect of the liturgy that the world’s bishops found was not in need reform and revision. None.” (Let’s forget that at least one Archbishop vehemently denied this).

Yes.

If so, I’d say that if every aspect of the prior liturgical rite needed reform and revision, that’s a wholesale destruction of the past tradition and the creation of a new liturgy.

No.

Any perusal of an old ceremonial will explain why reform was needed. Any properly executed OF Liturgy, especially with good sacred music, would illustrate that your second proposition is dead wrong.

 

[OraLabora]

I’d argue that the ambiguous and open-ended nature of the new liturgy makes it difficult to form priests and provide clear disciplinary guidance. .

No. I believe this is a fallacy. There is nothing “open ended” about the liturgy. The Roman missal is explicit enough. It offers options where appropriate, none where not appropriate.

Just because a priest can choose from 4 main Eucharistic Prayers and 3 penitential rites does not make the Mass “open ended”.

It’s also fallacious to assume that the EF Mass is somehow inoculated from disobedience just because it is the EF. Currently he EF is being celebrated by enthusiasts keen on its preservation.

If the EF were to be restored as the only form of the Mass today, there’s nothing to suggest that someone who is disobedient enough to not follow the OF rubrics would suddenly become obedient because of the older form, which even has more rubrics to disobey. There was plenty of sloppy liturgy prior to the Council: sped-read low Masses, indifferent music, indifferent mannerisms. Enough folks here who lived through those days have said as much. There nothing to suggest, either, that rock bands and the like would never be used. Prior to the council, popular hymns were sung, in the vernacular, at the Mass. It could be done at low Masses if the hymns were sung before the opening rites and after the dismissal. What makes you so certain that Christian rock music would not be used?

The loss in reverence and popular piety has nothing to do with the form of the Mass. Just look at society in general, with people dressing down, and I mean really dressing down, loss of common courtesy, etc. You’re simply seeing popular culture rubbing off on the Mass. You see it more at the OF because that’s where the majority of believers worship. Those who worship at the EF Mass are in fact going against popular culture. That’s not in itself inherently bad. There’s lots about popular culture to go against. But we need to finally put to rest that old canard that it’s the form of the Mass that is the cause. Again, if it was to become the only form of the Mass, you can bet that popular culture would impregnate it too.

I get that some prefer that form of the Mass for its liturgy and aesthetics. If it were the only place I could hear Gregorian chant, which I love, you could be sure that’s the form I would attend. But fortunately I can hear it at the OF… very good OFs as well (Benedictine men, and women). I get that it is historically valuable to be able to celebrate that form of the Mass.

What I don’t get is the notion that it is some kind of magic pill for all that ails the Church, and more broadly, society.

 

[ProVobis]

Any perusal of an old ceremonial will explain why reform was needed.

How so? You mean it took 1700 some years of organic growth and respectful attendance to show that an entire overhaul was needed?

 

[OraLabora]

How so? You mean it took 1700 some years of organic growth and respectful attendance to show that an entire overhaul was needed?

Just some of the mind-boggling complexity.

(translated from the French):

538. Position of the Hands. 1. The hands can either be joined, extended, or occupied carrying out an act. Joined hands may have three positions; extended hands may have six; we can thus describe 9 positions for the hands. A tenth position takes place when only one hand is occupied: in this case, there are rules to follow on the manner to carry out this act with one hand, and the position of the other hand at that moment…

It then goes on to describe each and every one of those 10 positions in great detail, for the next three pages.

Then the detailed instructions on incensing the altar, prescribing the exact pattern and number of swings of the censer, the manner of coordinating body and censer, etc.

It’s a wonder there was even a single Mass without some rubric broke in error.

I can’t imagine such minutiae was terribly relevant to anybody but the celebrant who had to sweat through it all trying not to make a mistake. On that note, in fact, there are 13 pages on faults, defects and accidents that can occur at Mass (“Epistle, Gospel, Credo: 1. During the epistle, the hands must touch the book, not just placed on the altar. 2. Before the Munda cor mum, some priests forget to raise their eyes, incline themselves with mediocrity during this prayer, or again rest their joined hands on the altar…”) (author’s italics).

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I’d say that if every aspect of the prior liturgical rite needed reform and revision, that’s a wholesale destruction of the past tradition and the creation of a new liturgy.

Then you would be wrong.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Don Ruggero:

Then you would be wrong.

He’s not wrong. You are. Cardinal Ratzinger said that the OF was a ‘banal, on the spot, product.’ Michael Davies, who was praised by Pope Benedict XVI, proved that the OF is remarkably similar to the the Anglican service created by the heretic Cramner. The OF ruptured the organic development of the Roman Rite. It does not represent the historical form of the Roman Liturgy. It is a break with the past. This is a fact. Modernists can’t whitewash history no matter how much you try.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

He’s not wrong. You are. Cardinal Ratzinger said that the OF was a ‘banal, on the spot, product.’ Michael Davies, who was praised by Pope Benedict XVI, proved that the OF is remarkably similar to the the Anglican service created by the heretic Cramner. The OF ruptured the organic development of the Roman Rite. It does not represent the historical form of the Roman Liturgy. It is a break with the past. This is a fact. Modernists can’t whitewash history no matter how much you try.

Comments of this ilk I leave to the moderators to deal with, since they violate multiple forum rules.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Father, I have frequently seen members on this forum criticize the use of these terms as you have. However, I have not heard a good counter proposal for how one should talk about different approaches within the Church.

Do you have any suggestions for how to compare (to take a fairly non-controversial topic) John Paul’s approach to beatification and sainthood to that of Benedict?

I suppose one could accurately, but quite callously, say one was fast and loose while the other was stingy. But I think it much simpler and not at all perjorative to describe one as more liberal in his approach to this issue, and the other as more conservative.

Time to start talking ideas and not people.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Don Ruggero:

Comments of this ilk I leave to the moderators to deal with, since they violate multiple forum rules.

Facts are facts. They can be deleted but not ignored. That’s why you can’t deny them. The truth is available to anybody who takes the time to research. What I have written is supported by the Pope Emeritus and high ranking theologians and Cardinals.

 

[Digitonomy]

Oh good! I found this question. I had wanted to answer it and then I could not find it.

Yes, thank you for the interesting analysis of the topic.
Don Ruggero:

Pope John Paul II saw as intrinsic to his mission as Successor of Peter his apostolic trips and his solicitude for the Particular Churches.-- and one aspect of that was the recognition of their saints. The workload of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints increased from previous pontificates.

Pope Benedict wanted to underscore the difference between beatification and canonisation. They are theologically distinct…but the distinction can be lost when the Pope actually does both ceremonies and they look so much alike. He yielded back to the Cardinals the carrying out of beatifications that he judged should occur.

That said, in less than eight years, he promulgated the beatifications of 871 people. By contrast, Blessed Pope Paul VI beatified a mere 145 people in 15 years. Pope John Paul II beatified 1327 people in just over 26 years…if anything Pope Benedict would have surpassed the number of John Paul II in far less time.

Relative to canonisation, the numbers under Pope Benedict are smaller 45 compared with John Paul’s 482] but it was not a matter of playing fast and loose as opposed to being stingy. It was a decision that was, ultimately, Ecclesiological focusing on the distinction between beatified and canonised…

I don’t think the minds of either John Paul II or Benedict on this issue could in any way be characterised by words like “conservative” or “liberal” or by terms like “stingy” as opposed to “generous”. John Paul had very valid – and correct – reasons for doing what he did. Benedict the same in his era. There is a wisdom in the thought of each for moment in which they occupied the Chair of Peter.

I grant there are valid reasons and wisdom in their actions. Nonetheless, the approaches are different. How are they different? We must have adjectives to characterize the differences.

Looking at earlier pontificates, John Paul is said to have canonized more saints than all other popes in the history of the Congregation for Causes. - I don’t see how one could deny that this Holy Father took a more liberal approach to the process of canonization. It is then fair to discuss as you did the reasons that justified this approach.

 

[Digitonomy]

One could just as easily say that John Paul 2, being the chief law giver could waive the procedure in specific circumstances, and Benedict 16 chose to follow normal procedures.

Yes, that is what I was saying. It is conservative to follow established rules, procedures, and restrictions. It is liberal to bestow recognition above and beyond the pattern that had been established, or to set aside rules, or modify them to increase the granting of such recognition.

That does not mean that either approach is good or bad.

 

[Digitonomy]

I would suggest that the appropriate way to call different people within the Church is quite simply “Catholic”.

We should all be striving to be orthodox. Inasmuch as we are all sinners, we all reject the teachings of the Church to a certain degree and have some work on our own inner conversion to do to reach sanctity. The Church is universal, so we will find all sorts of people and thoughts within her…

Indeed, and so I don’t find it valuable to deny or ignore these differences. Instead it is useful to occasionally celebrate these differences, and at the very least learn from them. And it is difficult to learn from these differences if one can’t talk about them.

OraLabora:

Yet being called names and labelled falsely in a condescending manner really, really hurt (and I’m sure the person responsible is reading this thread)…
So I do wish the name calling would stop. It is divisive, uncharitable and most certainly NOT Catholic in spirit or letter.

I hear what you are saying, and being condescending or uncharitable is not at all what I am trying to achieve. Rather, in the example I gave I think the adjectives illuminate the manner in which each person chose to fulfill an important evangelistic duty as Vicar of Christ, so that we can better understand the differences and similarities.