How can the Collapse of the Liturgy be reversed?

[maggiemay2u]

But somehow you think that having a more modern education and a bunch of letters after their names (a degree) and some extra money in their pockets (a salary) changes that? Isn’t it just possible that there are some people who willingly work for God, for His Church, for reverence and stand upon the shoulders of giants like the ones who authored the liturgical documents (and so refer to those documents)?

The people who serve in the bereavement ministry and become EMHC to assist at funeral masses are definitely there to be seen and recognized. And how about those folks who bring the joy of the Eucharist to shut ins? I’ll bet they can hardly wait for the cheers from the convalescent home population.

To judge the motives of any one in a ministry seems pretty cheeky, but perhaps it is based on personal experience.

 

[buffalo]

The people who serve in the bereavement ministry and become EMHC to assist at funeral masses are definitely there to be seen and recognized. And how about those folks who bring the joy of the Eucharist to shut ins? I’ll bet they can hardly wait for the cheers from the convalescent home population.

To judge the motives of any one in a ministry seems pretty cheeky, but perhaps it is based on personal experience.

First off, if you attend Mass you are assisiting.

Most funeral Masses do not warrant EMHC.

 

[Rickwood]

But somehow you think that having a more modern education and a bunch of letters after their names (a degree) and some extra money in their pockets (a salary) changes that? Isn’t it just possible that there are some people who willingly work for God, for His Church, for reverence and stand upon the shoulders of giants like the ones who authored the liturgical documents (and so refer to those documents)?

Let’s break this down. First, I said nothing about a salary. I never said that I prefer only paid liturgists – although most of my favorite litugists (ordained priests) are paid.

Second, yes I do believe that formal education with great depth and breadth is very beneficial. I would suggest the Church does too given the formation priests and deacons go through compared to most of our Protestant brethren.

Third, formally educated liturgists would be the first to “reverence and stand upon the shoulders of giants like the ones who authored the liturgical documents” – and they would be far better at doing so without slipping and falling.

 

[Rickwood]

I don’t want to “get involved with the liturgy” to be seen. I’m “seen” enough… I’m a reader and a member of the Parish Pastoral Council, as well as being on the RCIA team and a Bible Study facilitator. I don’t need any more visibility, really. My ego’s overloaded. (add any other smileys that will help denote that comment as a JOKE)

I’m not entirely sure why you felt the need the make the above pronouncement. You’ll have to ponder that one for yourself…

Based upon my own experiences, the majority of people who get involved with the liturgy where I worship clearly seem to do it out of a need to be seen and recognized. Some do it for power – or their perception of power. That’s certainly not everyone, but it’s the majority.

I’d like to be involved with the liturgy so that, as far as possible, we celebrate Mass reverently and properly, avoiding things that the Church forbids or strongly discourages, and including things with the Church highly favors or prefers. This would mean following the rubrics and texts (instead of deviating from them) and incorporating more (eh, who am I kidding, ANY) Latin and chant into the Mass.

Ummmm, ok.

Again, you’ll have to ponder why you felt the need to provide the above information

I initially got involved out of anger. I took a meeting some years ago with my past pastor and we really got into it over liturgical abuses – and I mean abuses, not some of the trifling things people talk about here. His response was a challenge to me to get involved.

If I have one skill it’s recruiting people who serve not for themselves bu the greater glory of God. I have very much enjoyed that aspect of being involved with planning and executing liturgies.

 

[Rickwood]

The people who serve in the bereavement ministry and become EMHC to assist at funeral masses are definitely there to be seen and recognized. And how about those folks who bring the joy of the Eucharist to shut ins? I’ll bet they can hardly wait for the cheers from the convalescent home population.

To judge the motives of any one in a ministry seems pretty cheeky, but perhaps it is based on personal experience.

Look at your entire posting. It’s nothing but sarcasm and judgement.

The EMsHC who take communion to shut in are a VASTLY different group of people at my parish compared to those who “assist” at Mass. Very few crossovers.

(Actually almost all funeral Masses around here DO warrant EMsHC as they are quite large.)

 

[maggiemay2u]

First off, if you attend Mass you are assisiting.

This goes without saying–but most are not acting as EMHC–certainly there are some other nits out there that need picking

Most funeral Masses do not warrant EMHC.

What’s your point? I never said every or even most funeral Masses. In my parish there are many funeral Masses, my mother’s, brother-in-law’s, father-in-law’s funerals, for example, that are as well attended as any Sunday Mass.

The EMsHC were most appreciated, but I’ll bet no one, unless directly involved with the funeral preparation, could name any of them.

 

[Newbie2]

In todays Church that is no guarantee of orthodoxy in following the Church directives.

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

Dittos to scholarly liturgists not being a guarantee of orthodoxy.

I think we can pretty much drop the request to not get threads locked or deleted…it’s one of the forum rules, isn’t it?

To only want “college degree-d” people (instead of people who are loyal to the Pope and the Church and have taken it upon themselves to study the Vatican II documents and the more recent Church documents concerning the liturgy) seems a bit short sighted, IMO.

.

Yep, dittos to that, too.

There are those on either side (“liberal” or “conservative”) in both the officially educated and the “non”-educated.

We do our best and let God sort it out.

 

[japhy]

I’m not entirely sure why you felt the need the make the above pronouncement. You’ll have to ponder that one for yourself…

Lighten up! I’m publicly airing my reasons for wanting to be involved with the liturgy at my parish. I’m trying to avoid people getting the wrong idea about me.

Based upon my own experiences, the majority of people who get involved with the liturgy where I worship clearly seem to do it out of a need to be seen and recognized. Some do it for power – or their perception of power. That’s certainly not everyone, but it’s the majority.

But, as I said, this does NOT describe ME. So I am not in this majority you are describing.

I initially got involved out of anger. I took a meeting some years ago with my past pastor and we really got into it over liturgical abuses – and I mean abuses, not some of the trifling things people talk about here. His response was a challenge to me to get involved.

I got angry with a priest last November; there was a thread about it here and I also shared it on my blog. It was a very weird Mass. Anger is not what I want the driving force to be for me; I want it to be love of God and the desire for my parish to serve Him and worship Him as best we can.

Honestly, Rickwood, I don’t think we have anything to butt heads or argue about. We obviously both love the liturgy very much and want to protect it from abuse. I can assure you my motives are pure.

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

 

[EasterJoy]

But somehow you think that having a more modern education and a bunch of letters after their names (a degree) and some extra money in their pockets (a salary) changes that? Isn’t it just possible that there are some people who willingly work for God, for His Church, for reverence and stand upon the shoulders of giants like the ones who authored the liturgical documents (and so refer to those documents)?

Of course there are people of every economic and educational background who are willing to work for God. In a place where the job of liturgist takes a certain amount of time in excess of what would justly be expected of a volunteer, those who do the job deserve just compensation, whether they accept it or not. That goes for liturgists and musicians as surely as it does janitors.

Like the Constitution and our secular laws, however, the documents of the Church are not trivial to interpret. The commentaries and historical interpretations are many, and because of the authority of bishops, may differ somewhat by diocese. An education comes in very handy, yes. Except in the cases of those remarkable souls who, like Abraham Lincoln, are capable of self-study on such a complex subject, I would think it is a necessity. Otherwise, the pastor could not in good conscience delegate much of substance of the work of liturgist. Of course he must always maintain oversight, but his oversight would need to be so close in that case as to be essentially doing the job himself. It defeats the purpose of having the position at all.

And this is the thing: the supreme liturgist of the Church is the Pope. In every diocese, the chief liturgist is the bishop. In every parish, the vicar whose duty is it to discharge the bishop’s liturgical authority is the pastor. Any liturgist who doesn’t believe that needs to be replaced or disciplined: none should have a “Question Authority” bumpersticker! There must be a complete willingness to be obedient to legitimate authority in every respect.

 

[EasterJoy]

I got angry with a priest last November; there was a thread about it here and I also shared it on my blog. It was a very weird Mass. Anger is not what I want the driving force to be for me; I want it to be love of God and the desire for my parish to serve Him and worship Him as best we can.

I don’t think that controlled anger is a bad thing. It got the money-changers out of the Temple, after all. Love gets angry, sometimes, and can do so without sin. Neither is it totally incompatible with peace.

There is a place for zeal in the pursuit of piety and reverence, as long as it is not allowed to cut loose as it pleases in some ends-justifies-the-means mentality. The key is another gift of the Holy Spirit: self-control. I would go so far as to say that the anger that rises when good is neglected or the unacceptable is tolerated is a gift. If it drives appropriate fraternal correction, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is a holy thing.

 

[ncjohn]

The point of this thread is to discuss ways the Liturgy can be restored. Effectively this means ways to restore a sense of the sacred - something that is sadly missing from the Mass in many places.

It is in no way an “OF bashing fest”. I don’t think there has been a single post in this thread bashing the OF. So, to claim that that is the purpose of this thread is, at best, dishonest on your part.

I’m afraid I have to call you out on this. Please point out all the “OF bashing” on this thread. Basically put up or shut up.

Japhy’s plea bears repeating here:
**Please do me a favor: don’t get this or any other Liturgy & Sacraments thread locked or deleted!

**ncjohn, it is uncalled for and untrue cries of “bashing, bashing!” from people like you that leads to great, positive threads like this being locked or deleted.

James

Yikes! I’ve been “called out”!

Whatever will I do now??!!

I fear James that either you’re reading a completely different thread than I am or that you are in deep denial as to the content of the thread.

Let’s start with the foundational premise of the thread: that the liturgy has “collapsed”.

First, it is clear that the “liturgy” being discussed is the post-Vatican II liturgy: i.e. the OF liturgy. I have heard nobody even begin to claim that any other liturgy is under discussion.

Second, the foundational statement is that the OF has “collapsed”. That means it is in such a state of disarray and so far from its purpose that it may not even be possible to bring it back. Pretty much no matter how one reads that it is “bashing” the OF.

From there on the overwhelming majority of posts are nothing more than whining about one of two categories:

1–abuses the are either seen or perceived
2–things people don’t like about OF liturgies they attend or have attended.

That the priest does this or doesn’t do that. That people don’t like the choice of music or that a “liturgist” is used instead of the priest doing everything. Or that there are (in their opinion) too many lay ministers of one kind or another. Or that it just isn’t “reverent enough”.

Many of the posters here are very fond of the statement “the liturgy isn’t your private property”, and throw it out liberally any time someone expresses a liturgical preference that disagrees with theirs. That is in incredibly rich supply here and I would urge those whining about things that don’t meet their personal preferences to take the advice to heart.

As to abuses, I readily acknowledged that some do exist. But there are, as I stated previously, methodologies in place to deal with those without coming to the conclusions that abuses existing imply that the liturgy itself has “collapsed”.

Then of course we have the post that claims that the thread is about making the OF more transcendent, etc. Another common theme seen here: that the OF just isn’t good enough for us, though the Church has chosen it as its form.

It’s all a bunch of hogwash quite frankly. I grew up pre-Vatican II and attended and served at more of those liturgies than I care to remember. That liturgy was abused more at its very core–as a vehicle of praise and worship–than the worst abuse I have ever seen at an OF liturgy. I have seen far, FAR more faith and spirit-filled people at OF liturgies than I ever did at even one pre-Vatican II TLM. In fact is was the very “collapse” of the TLM of the time as a vehicle for worship that brought the Fathers of Vatican II to call for a new liturgy.

“Great positive threads like this…” Please. I’m sure the “woe is me” whine fests about the horrible OF liturgy will go on *ad infinitum *here. It would be nice though if one could at least acknowledge them for what they are rather than trying to pretend that they are “uplifiting” in some way. There have indeed been a few positive suggestions for ways things could be improved–even if most of them are simply “preference” issues. But the bulk of this has unquestionably just been a “bash fest”

You can let the attacks begin. I’ll not be around any longer to “enjoy” them.

 

[Rickwood]

Lighten up! I’m publicly airing my reasons for wanting to be involved with the liturgy at my parish. I’m trying to avoid people getting the wrong idea about me.

All I was pointing out is that it’s on you to understand why you felt the need to do so.

But, as I said, this does NOT describe ME. So I am not in this majority you are describing.

Fine.

I got angry with a priest last November; there was a thread about it here and I also shared it on my blog. It was a very weird Mass. Anger is not what I want the driving force to be for me; I want it to be love of God and the desire for my parish to serve Him and worship Him as best we can.

Of course.

Honestly, Rickwood, I don’t think we have anything to butt heads or argue about. We obviously both love the liturgy very much and want to protect it from abuse. I can assure you my motives are pure.

Indeed. I will say this much though…

Back around the Jubilee of 2000 I was amongst the most angry and probably technically up-to-date liturgical auditors out there. Everything and anything that was not according to the Church (or at least my interpretation of what the Church demanded) bothered me greatly. And some of it should have. My drive to “fix things” was amplified greatly by a (in retrospect) poorly performing pastor and bishop.

On the other hand, two things became apparent. First, the large number of people who felt they knew what was better than the Church. 99% were fringers – ultra right or ultra left. The great irony is that most of these people pushed their liturgical abuses and their irregularities under the guise of “orthodoxy” and wait for it, “the spirit of Vatican II” and they couldn’t have been more off base. Thankfully at least around here, both of these extreme factions have been largely neutralized as people (including clerics) have become more educated and informed.

Second, those who feel they know it all after printing-out and reading the GIRM, RS, a handful of other Church documents and attending a few liturgical conferences. While I was once one of the worst of this group, I feel I have grown through God’s grace, the patience of my pastor and the wisdom of my spiritual director.

There truly is more than running around quoting one’s interpretation of the GIRM and RS. That is lost on quite a few who post here, probably because they are severely frustrated by the shenanigans they come into contact with. They don’t seem to be denying it – they just don’t get it. I pray they do in time – I honestly do, because in the meantime they might well be doing damage to themselves and others with their actions.

 

[Rickwood]

Cardinal Ratzinger, now our Holy Father, wrote in 1998 “I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy”. So the pope sees the collapse of the liturgy as a fact.

My question is simple: how can this collapse of the liturgy be reversed?

Back to your question:

#1.) Bishops and pastors who care and want to do the right thing.

#2.) Prayer.

(without #1 and #2 it’s pretty much a guaranteed fruitless battle.)

#3.) Communication and expectations from #1.

#4.) Education and training.

That’s pretty much it.

 

[AMDGtoo]

I fear James that either you’re reading a completely different thread than I am

I guess I’m reading a completely different thread too because I don’t see a “whine fest”. I do know that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI has said that the liturgy (our liturgy) has collapsed, and I do see concern about that and discussion about how that may be reversed–some say only through modern educated professionals while others point out that even devoted and loyal to the Church volunteers are capable of the reverence necessary, and some even suggest that the priest is quite capable (he was considered so before and there are Church documents he can refer to.).

I’ll not be around any longer to “enjoy” them.

I’m sorry you need to leave but that’s your decision. God Bless.

 

[japhy]

All I was pointing out is that it’s on you to understand why you felt the need to do so.

I didn’t want you (or anyone else in this thread) to have the wrong impression of me and thereby possibly ascribe the wrong intent to what I say and do here. Damage control; nothing more.

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

 

[japhy]

Let’s start with the foundational premise of the thread: that the liturgy has “collapsed”. … the foundational statement is that the OF has “collapsed”. That means it is in such a state of disarray and so far from its purpose that it may not even be possible to bring it back.

I don’t think the Pope said the liturgy has collapsed; he is speaking of the collapse of the liturgy, meaning the liturgy is collapsing. That is, it is in the process of falling apart. Clearly the person who started this thread thinks A) this is a reversible process, and B) it has not reached “totality”. I’d like to think the Pope agrees.

Pretty much no matter how one reads that it is “bashing” the OF.

I think we can have this conversation without “bashing” the OF. I think the OF, even done correctly and in Latin (or a pristine translation), has some shortcomings (i.e. problems, ambiguities, difficulties, etc.) that the EF does not have. But I also think the EF is in need of positive reform.

You can let the attacks begin. I’ll not be around any longer to “enjoy” them.

Right, because the only way to respond to this post is an “attack”… anyway, your loss. I’m sure there will be continued constructive conversation in here.

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

 

[EasterJoy]

In fact is was the very “collapse” of the TLM of the time as a vehicle for worship that brought the Fathers of Vatican II to call for a new liturgy.

That the current liturgy is experiencing problems and that liturgies prior to Vatican II experienced problems are not mutually exclusive possibilities. It is not necessary to compare the depth and seriousness of the problems in order to agree that all problems in liturgy need to be identified and dealt with. I think we can agree that this is on-going work. We are never going to reach the point where no vigilance will be neeed with regards to the Mass and the sacraments.

You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. The most perfectly-written liturgy in the world is still vulnerable to the hard-heartedness of those who might choose to celebrate and assist at it. The question, I suppose, is how to address both the fruits and roots of that hard-heartedness.

 

[japhy]

In fact is was the very “collapse” of the TLM of the time as a vehicle for worship that brought the Fathers of Vatican II to call for a new liturgy.

Is there proof of that claim? The Vatican II document on the liturgy spoke in glowing terms about the efficacy and beauty and splendor of the yet-unreformed liturgy. And to say the council called for a “new liturgy” is not accurate.

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

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Is there proof of that claim? The Vatican II document on the liturgy spoke in glowing terms about the efficacy and beauty and splendor of the yet-unreformed liturgy. And to say the council called for a “new liturgy” is not accurate.

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

If you read the very first lines of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, it says;

1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change;vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Vatican II didn’t operate out of a vacuum. There were definite needs and litugical reform was one of them…

Jim

 

[AMDGtoo]

Vatican II didn’t operate out of a vacuum. There were definite needs and litugical reform was one of them…

Vatican II may not have operated out of a vacuum and yes, there was an attempt to make to make the Church more “relevant” to modern man, but I have actually heard these opening words interpreted as the Church wanting to get “modern man” to understand the riches the Church has to offer. Whatever way the opening words are interpreted, I still don’t recall a call for a wholesale liturgical reform.