How can the Collapse of the Liturgy be reversed?

[EasterJoy]

Not at my parish. When we have had them we get about 20-30 attendees – and they are the very sort (angry/bitter) that I have no desire being around.

It may be that pastoral attention to their liturgical needs could address the anger issue, too, though, don’t you think? Right or wrong, being habitually ignored does tempt toward a habit of bitterness and anger.

There are many places where the pastors and their priestly help are already stretched so thin that I would hesitate to make the TLM a requirement, particularly in metropolitan areas where more limited offerings would actually lead to larger stable TLM groups. Nevertheless, I think it is pretty clear that the EF fills a real spiritual need. There are times when not every need can be met, but needs should be addressed whenever possible, and should come before wants. More important than what I think, the Holy See would seem to have the same opinion.

 

[VociMike]

I still don’t understand what you mean.

No one is “in charge of the liturgy” except the Magisterium.

The priest is to say the Mass as written. Why would you ever meed more the the Missal to say Mass?

Why on earth do we need “liturgists”?

I know many priests successfully functioning w/o any “liturgist” to “help” them.

God Bless

And in particular, I’d like to get a sampling of the kinds of liturgical questions, faced by a typical parish, that only a person with an advanced degree is truly equipped to handle.

 

[Ilroy]

I think it’s fine, but it causes a problem in many cases. Most Catholic churches have a large crucifix stuck to the wall right behind the altar. Only one crucifix is supposed to be visible in the sanctuary. To put one on the altar would mean removing the one from the wall which can be a big deal. This also goes against the Pope’s position of not tearing-up sanctuaries once again, so it would be nice to have permission to have at least two crucifixes in the sanctuary, near the altar.

Hmm…looks like we have a self appointed liturgist here telling us how many Crucifixes are allowed in the sanctuary. What is your degree in? I wonder where you are getting this information from, because the documents I have read on this subject do not specify this, only that there IS to be a crucifix.
So, what about the processional crucifix? Is this supposed to be hidden off to the side or some such nonsense? Not in any Church I have been to.

 

[ncjohn]

Oh, please…



Maybe your liturgy collapsed but a whole lot of us have found incredible grace in ours.

If we’re going to have another OF bashing fest, can it at least be taken to the Traditional forum? One is certainly entitled to an opinion that the “liturgy has collapsed”, but let’s please not make that some kind of infallible foundational premise.

 

[bilop]

And in particular, I’d like to get a sampling of the kinds of liturgical questions, faced by a typical parish, that only a person with an advanced degree is truly equipped to handle.

At one of the parishes near us the 80+ year old Monsignor who is the pastor (and only priest) offers Mass in the EF, OF in English, Polish, and Spanish, and the Syro-Malabar Rite.

I’d love to see the look on his face if someone told him he needed a “liturgist” with and advanced degree to advise him

God Bless

 

[VociMike]

Oh, please…



Maybe your liturgy collapsed but a whole lot of us have found incredible grace in ours.

If we’re going to have another OF bashing fest, can it at least be taken to the Traditional forum? One is certainly entitled to an opinion that the “liturgy has collapsed”, but let’s please not make that some kind of infallible foundational premise.

As far as I’m concerned, this has nothing to do with bashing the OF. Bashing those who have brought about the collapse of the liturgy, now that’s another matter.

Now, to get down to points. Do you deny that the pope has declared that there has been a collapse of the liturgy?

At the same time, has the pope made any move to bash the OF? Of course he has not, and thus he does not seem to see the OF as a source of this collapse. And frankly, anybody who answers the question by replying “get rid of the OF” will not and should not be taken seriously.

Maybe you can contribute something more useful to the discussion on your next round. The pope has written that there has been a collapse of the liturgy. The vital question is, how can this be reversed?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

NCjohn, perhaps you are not aware that it was Pope Benedict XVI who proclaimed, as quoted by the OP, that there was indeed a collapse of the liturgy --that this is not something ‘dreamed up’ by the OP or anybody else?

 

[bilop]

Oh, please…



Maybe your liturgy collapsed but a whole lot of us have found incredible grace in ours.

If we’re going to have another OF bashing fest, can it at least be taken to the Traditional forum? One is certainly entitled to an opinion that the “liturgy has collapsed”, but let’s please not make that some kind of infallible foundational premise.

John,

Most people are not upset with the OF. They are upset at the abuses of the OF. If every Mass was celebrated in accordance with the GIRM, no one would be talking about a “collapse”. I attend the OF almost every weekend (the EF maybe 5 times a year), but always at parishes where it is properly done.

God Bless

God Bless

 

[benedictgal]

NCjohn, perhaps you are not aware that it was Pope Benedict XVI who proclaimed, as quoted by the OP, that there was indeed a collapse of the liturgy --that this is not something ‘dreamed up’ by the OP or anybody else?

In fact, is quote is taken directly from the Holy Father’s second book on the liturgy, A New Song for the Lord.

It’s interesting. When I had gone to the FDLC meeting, there were some at the conference who didn’t take what the former Cardinal Ratzinger said as serious since, they noted, he didn’t have a degree in liturgy. I thought to myself, “that’s strange, because, ultimately, sound theology flows from the source and summit of the Church’s life: the Holy Sacrifice.”

 

[japhy]

Hmm…looks like we have a self appointed liturgist here telling us how many Crucifixes are allowed in the sanctuary. What is your degree in? I wonder where you are getting this information from, because the documents I have read on this subject do not specify this, only that there IS to be a crucifix. So, what about the processional crucifix? Is this supposed to be hidden off to the side or some such nonsense? Not in any Church I have been to.

Watch your tone; we can be respectful here.

GIRM 117, in describing the altar, says: “Also on or close to the altar, there is to be a cross with a figure of Christ crucified. The candles and the cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified may also be carried in the Entrance Procession.”

GIRM 122, referring to the entrance procession, says: “The cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified and perhaps carried in procession may be placed next to the altar to serve as the altar cross, in which case it ought to be the only cross used; otherwise it is put away in a dignified place.”

And GIRM 308 reiterates, saying: “There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation.”

Whether GIRM 122, in saying the (possibly processional) crucifix serving as the altar cross “ought to be the only cross used”, means that an altar cross should preclude another crucifix in the sanctuary (such as one hanging on the wall in the apse) is a matter of interpretation. Does it mean “the only cross used on/at the altar”, or more generally “the only cross used near the altar”? In other words, does a wall-crucifix in the sanctuary preclude the presence of a crucifix on the altar (especially if that altar is away from the back wall of the apse, a “people’s altar”)?

My parish has no wall-crucifix… we have a “resurrectrix”. Thus, the processional crucifix is placed in the sanctuary so that a crucifix is near the altar. There’s no reason it couldn’t be placed at the altar, in my opinion.

I would not advocate removing a wall-crucifix for the purpose of using a crucifix on the altar; but at the same time, I wouldn’t be so rigid as to forbid the presence of a crucifix on the altar if there were also a crucifix on the wall. But as I am not a trained liturgist, this is not my decision to make. That said, however, we have seen the Pope’s preference for an altar cross, even in situations where there is a (large!) crucifix already present in the sanctuary.

Please do me a favor: don’t get this or any other Liturgy & Sacraments thread locked or deleted!

 

[ncjohn]

The pope has written that there has been a collapse of the liturgy. The vital question is, how can this be reversed?

The pope is certainly entitled to his opinion, and that generalization is nothing more than his opinion. It carries no weight beyond being that of a highly respected individual. But I know many highly respected individuals with whom I disagree on all matter of things.

Unfortunately, as I noted previously, you have taken this opinion and made it an objective truth and then posited that it needs to be addressed as truth.

My answer is that it doesn’t need to be reversed. There are methodologies in place to deal with abuses. That abuses exist does not constitute a linkage that the liturgy has collapsed, despite how the pope may verbalize it. Where abuses exist, deal with the abuses. The liturgy itself is just fine.

 

[Ilroy]

Watch your tone; we can be respectful here.

GIRM 117, in describing the altar, says: “Also on or close to the altar, there is to be a cross with a figure of Christ crucified. The candles and the cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified may also be carried in the Entrance Procession.”

GIRM 122, referring to the entrance procession, says: “The cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified and perhaps carried in procession may be placed next to the altar to serve as the altar cross, in which case it ought to be the only cross used; otherwise it is put away in a dignified place.”

And GIRM 308 reiterates, saying: “There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation.”

Whether GIRM 122, in saying the (possibly processional) crucifix serving as the altar cross “ought to be the only cross used”, means that an altar cross should preclude another crucifix in the sanctuary (such as one hanging on the wall in the apse) is a matter of interpretation. Does it mean “the only cross used on/at the altar”, or more generally “the only cross used near the altar”? In other words, does a wall-crucifix in the sanctuary preclude the presence of a crucifix on the altar (especially if that altar is away from the back wall of the apse, a “people’s altar”)?

My parish has no wall-crucifix… we have a “resurrectrix”. Thus, the processional crucifix is placed in the sanctuary so that a crucifix is near the altar. There’s no reason it couldn’t be placed at the altar, in my opinion.

I would not advocate removing a wall-crucifix for the purpose of using a crucifix on the altar; but at the same time, I wouldn’t be so rigid as to forbid the presence of a crucifix on the altar if there were also a crucifix on the wall. But as I am not a trained liturgist, this is not my decision to make. That said, however, we have seen the Pope’s preference for an altar cross, even in situations where there is a (large!) crucifix already present in the sanctuary.

Please do me a favor: don’t get this or any other Liturgy & Sacraments thread locked or deleted!

Yes, I see all that…the part of the GIRM I checked was thus:

II. Arrangement of the Sanctuary for the Sacred Synaxis
(Eucharistic Assembly)

starting with paragraph #295. In this section it only states that a crucifix is to be present in the sactuary, but not that ONLY one is allowed. That was my simple point.
I am sorry you took offense to my asking for reference to where the PP got his information. I’ll try to be a little calmer in future as he probably got under my skin a bit with his attitude this whole thread.

 

[Rickwood]

John,

Most people are not upset with the OF. They are upset at the abuses of the OF. If every Mass was celebrated in accordance with the GIRM, no one would be talking about a “collapse”. I attend the OF almost every weekend (the EF maybe 5 times a year), but always at parishes where it is properly done.

God Bless

God Bless

Some believe the EF is some sorta “silver bullet.” What they don’t understand is that when it was celebrated on a wide scale it too was rife with abuses and irregularities.

Some suggest the licit options allowed by the OF of the Mass are the reason for abuses and irregularities we see today. That’s just not supported by history. An abuse is an abuse.

 

[nightwalker]

The pope is certainly entitled to his opinion, and that generalization is nothing more than his opinion. It carries no weight beyond being that of a highly respected individual. But I know many highly respected individuals with whom I disagree on all matter of things.

Unfortunately, as I noted previously, you have taken this opinion and made it an objective truth and then posited that it needs to be addressed as truth.

My answer is that it doesn’t need to be reversed. There are methodologies in place to deal with abuses. That abuses exist does not constitute a linkage that the liturgy has collapsed, despite how the pope may verbalize it. Where abuses exist, deal with the abuses. The liturgy itself is just fine.

For the most part, all here would agree. However, in practice the liturgy leaves much to be desired. Even when nothing is wrong, there is the question of is this the best we can give?

The Question of this thread, like so many others, it how do we get from “just fine” in theory to splendid (beautiful, transcendent, ____) in practice? Not merely what to avoid, that is easily covered (in theory). But how can we build up, reaching further up and further in?

 

[Rickwood]

It may be that pastoral attention to their liturgical needs could address the anger issue, too, though, don’t you think? Right or wrong, being habitually ignored does tempt toward a habit of bitterness and anger.

There are many places where the pastors and their priestly help are already stretched so thin that I would hesitate to make the TLM a requirement, particularly in metropolitan areas where more limited offerings would actually lead to larger stable TLM groups. Nevertheless, I think it is pretty clear that the EF fills a real spiritual need. There are times when not every need can be met, but needs should be addressed whenever possible, and should come before wants. More important than what I think, the Holy See would seem to have the same opinion.

A group wanted to start an EF even though there is one right down the road. They were given a “time” on my church’s schedule, all the furnishings were provided and they received support in finding a priest to celebrate the EF for them. They also received publicity in out parish bulletin.

It lasted about six months. Few were interested. They pulled their own plug.

 

[Rickwood]

Hmm…looks like we have a self appointed liturgist here telling us how many Crucifixes are allowed in the sanctuary. What is your degree in? I wonder where you are getting this information from, because the documents I have read on this subject do not specify this, only that there IS to be a crucifix.
So, what about the processional crucifix? Is this supposed to be hidden off to the side or some such nonsense? Not in any Church I have been to.

LOL! A perfect illustration!!!

 

[Rickwood]

W

…I would not advocate removing a wall-crucifix for the purpose of using a crucifix on the altar; but at the same time, **I wouldn’t be so rigid as to forbid the presence of a crucifix on the altar if there were also a crucifix on the wall. **But as I am not a trained liturgist, this is not my decision to make. That said, however, we have seen the Pope’s preference for an altar cross, even in situations where there is a (large!) crucifix already present in the sanctuary…

This is a prime example of a liturgical abuse/irregularity that is often tolerated, even celebrated by those who go nutty at just about every other liturgical abuse/irregularity they believe they see. That’s exceedingly bad form and it’s a real problem.

I agree – don’t rip the crucifixes off the wall! The Pope agrees with that too. And by all means specify/encourage a crucifix on the altar! Just provide some official language somewhere that allows it without contravening the GIRM. Comments in the Spirit of the Liturgy are not license to ignore official Church documents.

 

[Rickwood]

Yes, I see all that…the part of the GIRM I checked was thus:

II. Arrangement of the Sanctuary for the Sacred Synaxis
(Eucharistic Assembly)

starting with paragraph #295. In this section it only states that a crucifix is to be present in the sactuary, but not that ONLY one is allowed. That was my simple point.
I am sorry you took offense to my asking for reference to where the PP got his information. I’ll try to be a little calmer in future as he probably got under my skin a bit with his attitude this whole thread.

“Simple point” my eye. Your comments were rude and then you try to blame me for them?
Ilroy;4027602**:

Hmm…looks like we have a self appointed liturgist

here telling us how many Crucifixes are allowed in the sanctuary. What is your degree in? I wonder where you are getting this information from, because the documents I have read on this subject do not specify this, only that there IS to be a crucifix.
So, what about the processional crucifix? Is this supposed to be hidden off to the side or **some such nonsense? ** Not in any Church I have been to.

 

[Rickwood]

At one of the parishes near us the 80+ year old Monsignor who is the pastor (and only priest) offers Mass in the EF, OF in English, Polish, and Spanish, and the Syro-Malabar Rite.

I’d love to see the look on his face if someone told him he needed a “liturgist” with and advanced degree to advise him

God Bless

Why would you post such a thing? I know it is meant as a shot, but it sounds like that cleric is his own liturgist – the overwhelming preference.

 

[PrayforMallory]

With all due respect, I think that if you force a priest who will not observe the rubrics of the NO to celebrate the EF, particularly if his parish is enamored with his alterations of the NO and nobody, but nobody, knows or wants to know any Latin, you’re not going to find that he magically feels a need to follow the rubrics of the EF, either. You will have parallel innovations in the EF in a heartbeat.

Be careful what you wish for.

Maybe so. That would certainly be troublesome.

Forcing the EF in this sort of situation though, might bring the priest in question closer to an official state of schism, which is most likely the reality anyway, if his Masses are filled will abuses.

It’s unfortunate, but if this is the situation, if he wouldn’t even obey the strict rubrics for the TLM, then he’s never going to have good liturgy, because he’ll blatantly ignore the official instructions.

And for some reason, liturgical abuses seem to go hand in hand with a heterodox perspective on faith and morals.

I might be foolish, but I feel like things need to move closer to a head. Eventually, there’s going to be a Reformed American Catholic Church (if there’s not already one brewing somewhere). Might as well get it over with sooner, in my opinion.