"Individuality" in Liturgy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TAS2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TAS2000

Guest
Hi all,

My parish is attempting to collaborate (or merge) with another parish down the road. Recently, in one of our meetings we had a discussion about how they do not want to “share” Liturgy “staff”. We have a part-time professional liturgy director; they have all volunteers. Now, I don’t know the quality or training of their people, but the reason they gave for wanting to keep these functions seperate in the two parishes was because, as near as I can quote this from memory, “We don’t want to have a cookie cutter Litugry. It is the only real place to show our parish’s individuality.” I was quite taken aback. Mind you, I am not really trained myself, but I thought that was a blatently bad statement. However, the Diocesean rep we have at all these meetings (becasue no one can play nice apparently) agreed with their concerns, and neither of the pastors said anything. So I am asking opinons of all of you. What would you say to this? Where does the GIRM call for individualitly in the Liturgy?
 
Post-Stalinist Russia was concerned with the * personality cult.* I think we have an extensive personality cult in the liturgy where the actions high light the celebrant, or maybe the Liturgical Committee, over the worship of God. Unfortunately we cannot deal with it as directly as the Russians did.
:rolleyes:
 
40.png
TAS2000:
“We don’t want to have a cookie cutter Litugry. It is the only real place to show our parish’s individuality.”
Click to expand...
So much for the “universal” Church and for “unity,” ay?
Pride goeth before the fall…
 
I guess it all depends on what they mean by “cookie cutter liturgy.” I know a priest who sings virtually all of the Mass. He feels that to not sing the Mass is to bring less than his best gifts to God. In the neighboring parish the priest can’t sing a note if his life depended on it. They clearly could not celebrate the same way. Yet, their Masses are consistent with the rubrics.

There is room for “individuality” since the guidlines from Rome provide for that. Priests have a choice of which opening prayer to use on Sundays, they have three different forms of the penitential rite (or four if you count the possiblity of asperges). The Mass celebrated at our Deaf community is quite different from a Spanish Mass.

Unity does not mean uniformity.

Deacon Ed
 
This sounds like one of those statements that doesn’t have anything specifically wrong about it, but it just doesn’t “feel” right… Yes, red flags go up whenever you hear about this, especially since they do not have a formal liturgist position (assuming their pastor is behaving like most pastors these days and staying “out” of the liturgy planning).

As far as “individuality” goes, there is nothing inherently wrong with a broad concern about being forced to mold a parish’s liturgy in conformity with another parish. There are allowable variations in the GIRM for a variety of liturgical details (particularly regarding the “traditions”, with a small-t).

Some things that are allowed to vary from parish to parish include (but are not limited to):
  • Use of music.This includes both the music itself, and in some situations, the placement of music in the liturgy. For the actual music used, all that is required is that it be “appropriate” (non-heretical and sacred). It is licit for one parish to use organ music and Gregorian chant, and another parish to use piano and more contemporary music… People may have strong personal feelings one way or another about this, either hating all contemporary or hating any “old” music, but the fact remains that this is something that is flexible in the eyes of the Church). There is also some flexibility when it comes to the format of music in the liturgy.
  • "Smells & Bells." Some parishes make much more use of incense, altar bells, more altar servers, etc than are absolutely required by the GIRM. Much of this falls under the tradition (small-t) of the Church, and while always allowable, is not mandatory. (For example, some parishes might use incense only on the weekend, not on weekdays).
  • Some parts of the Mass can be done differently, yet still be licit. For example, during a Mass where there is only one reading before the Gospel, the “Alleluia or verse before the Gospel may be omitted entirely if they are not sung” (GIRM 63c). During weekday (non-solemnity) Masses, the homily is optional though recommended.
This only scratches the surface, as you mentioned the GIRM, I assume you have read it to some extent. Really, you need to refer to the GIRM itself when it comes to questioning any given practice… There are many things I have initially thought of as abuses that I have come to discover are licit options, such as the absence of the Alleluia during a daily Mass.

All that being said, yes, I am still concerned by what you have said, because in today’s parish culture what they are worried about raises some questions regarding what they have been doing or are afraid to “lose”. Find out exactly what the practices are over there that they want to keep; attend Masses over there now and then check the GIRM regarding the things that seem just a little too individual to be correct.

The Church does not demand a “cookie-cutter” liturgy, but it does demand a high level of unity and a certain degree of uniformity throughout the Church’s liturgies. The Mass is the “universal prayer of the Church” and does not belong to anyone or any parish, and those parishes who think otherwise are, in essence, “Protestant” in their thinking.

Questions about the liturgy can be asked at Adoremus, adoremus.org/

+veritas+
 
From Sacrosanctum Concilium:
  1. But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions, that their minds should be attuned to their voices, and that they should cooperate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain. Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the “no cookie cutter Liturgy” statement is refering to the above requirement (in bold) from SC, which goes above and beyond conformance to the GIRM.
 
+veritas+:
This sounds like one of those statements that doesn’t have anything specifically wrong about it, but it just doesn’t “feel” right… Yes, red flags go up whenever you hear about this, especially since they do not have a formal liturgist position (assuming their pastor is behaving like most pastors these days and staying “out” of the liturgy planning).

As far as “individuality” goes, there is nothing inherently wrong with a broad concern about being forced to mold a parish’s liturgy in conformity with another parish. There are allowable variations in the GIRM for a variety of liturgical details (particularly regarding the “traditions”, with a small-t).

Some things that are allowed to vary from parish to parish include (but are not limited to):
  • Use of music.This includes both the music itself, and in some situations, the placement of music in the liturgy. For the actual music used, all that is required is that it be “appropriate” (non-heretical and sacred). It is licit for one parish to use organ music and Gregorian chant, and another parish to use piano and more contemporary music… People may have strong personal feelings one way or another about this, either hating all contemporary or hating any “old” music, but the fact remains that this is something that is flexible in the eyes of the Church). There is also some flexibility when it comes to the format of music in the liturgy.
  • "Smells & Bells." Some parishes make much more use of incense, altar bells, more altar servers, etc than are absolutely required by the GIRM. Much of this falls under the tradition (small-t) of the Church, and while always allowable, is not mandatory. (For example, some parishes might use incense only on the weekend, not on weekdays).
  • Some parts of the Mass can be done differently, yet still be licit. For example, during a Mass where there is only one reading before the Gospel, the “Alleluia or verse before the Gospel may be omitted entirely if they are not sung” (GIRM 63c). During weekday (non-solemnity) Masses, the homily is optional though recommended.
This only scratches the surface, as you mentioned the GIRM, I assume you have read it to some extent. Really, you need to refer to the GIRM itself when it comes to questioning any given practice… There are many things I have initially thought of as abuses that I have come to discover are licit options, such as the absence of the Alleluia during a daily Mass.

All that being said, yes, I am still concerned by what you have said, because in today’s parish culture what they are worried about raises some questions regarding what they have been doing or are afraid to “lose”. Find out exactly what the practices are over there that they want to keep; attend Masses over there now and then check the GIRM regarding the things that seem just a little too individual to be correct.

The Church does not demand a “cookie-cutter” liturgy, but it does demand a high level of unity and a certain degree of uniformity throughout the Church’s liturgies. The Mass is the “universal prayer of the Church” and does not belong to anyone or any parish, and those parishes who think otherwise are, in essence, “Protestant” in their thinking.

Questions about the liturgy can be asked at Adoremus, adoremus.org/

+veritas+
Click to expand...
The GIRM never requires the use of incense, Sanctus bells or altar servers…
 
Ah, yes. I think I fall soundly into category mentioned above- nothing inherently wrong with the statement, but somehow it just doesn’t feel right. I have not attended services there, so I can’t say for certain they are doing anything bad. But I have seen and heard of many bad examples over the years, and I guesss that is my big fear. I have heard that they use recorded music regularly over there, and they currently have a temporary administrator, not a permanently assigned priest, so I doubt he is taking a very active role in litugry planning at all. But again, I do not know this for sure. I guess I was really interested in hearing what some of you might have said as a response to this statement, as I was in this meeting, and I am sure this topic will arise again. So I’d like to have some possible responses ready. These talks will continue for some time, so there shoul dbe other opportunities, as this was a major concern for them.
 
40.png
TAS2000:
I guess I was really interested in hearing what some of you might have said as a response to this statement, as I was in this meeting, and I am sure this topic will arise again. So I’d like to have some possible responses ready. These talks will continue for some time, so there shoul dbe other opportunities, as this was a major concern for them.
Click to expand...
I know you know this, but the best way to prepare is to prepare 🙂 Read the GIRM, get to know what things are truly not to be done and what things are allowable.

In particular, take note of Church teachings that talk about the Mass as the universal prayer of the Church. I don’t have quotes for you offhand, but I’m sure the GIRM and Catechism have some wonderful “responses” for you (as well as Sacrosanctum Concilium, already quoted by someone else, and Gaudium et Spes, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and Ecclesia de Eucharistia)

The other thing is to know what battles to pick. A very wise priest friend of mine likes to say “there are very few emergencies in the Church” – and he’s right. Some things are actual emergencies that need to be addressed immediately, but on the other hand, most things (even the ones that need to be fixed) are not. Slower methods sometimes work better 🙂

One idea is to find a really good article on the Liturgy (and the importance of following the rubrics of the Church 😉 ) and print off copies for everyone at your next meeting. Two good ones that I can think of offhand are:

“Why Stick to the Book?” by Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki (in the August-September 2004 edition of "Homiletic & Pastoral Review, a priestly academic journal)

“The Grammar of Catholic Worship” by Paul V. Mankowski, S.J. (in “The Mind and Heart of the Church”, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991.)

Good luck,

+veritas+
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top