What do you think of:
The prayer meeting of Assisi?
A good idea.
A mixed bag. I like the additional Eucharistic prayers, since I don’t think the Roman Canon compares well to other traditional Eucharistic prayers (the Liturgy of St. Basil, for instance) in terms of conveying the full richness of the meaning of the Eucharist. I’m particularly fond of prayer IV, since it is modeled on the Eastern liturgies. However, I’ve noticed that some priests use the rather truncated prayer II all the time, and I think it’s a bit thin to be the regular Eucharistic prayer of the Church (my observations may be biased by the fact that in recent years I’ve been to a lot more daily than Sunday Masses, and it’s reasonable and appropriate to use prayer II more often at daily Mass). I suppose that I like the idea of having alternatives to the Roman Canon more than I like how the existing alternatives are actually used. And I’m primarily concerned about the issue as an Anglican hoping for reunion. I would not want to see us going from the 1979 BCP’s Eucharistic liturgy to an exclusive use of the Roman Canon, because I think there would be some serious loss there. So I’m glad that there are alternatives. The other changes are generally reasonable, but I’m not sure the Liturgy is supposed to be reasonable. Something is lost when you strip a traditional liturgy down to its “bare bones.” On the other hand, as I see it the primary culprit here was artificial freezing of the Liturgy for centuries, so that organic development never took place. No wonder that when changes did happen, they too were imposed from above. My preference would be for greater freedom for local bishops and episcopal conferences, within generous but clearly defined limits.
The priest facing the people?
I don’t see why the priest has to face in only one direction all the time, or why both stances couldn’t be used in different circumstances (“high” vs. “low” Mass, etc.). I can see good symbol-value in both approaches. Clearly the “versus populum” is better adapted to teaching, while “versus orientem” conveys God’s transcendence and the mystery of the liturgy more powerfully. On the whole, I would prefer to see the Canon itself normally celebrated “versus orientem,” but in a clearly audible voice.
The reception of Communion from the Cup?
Should always be the norm. Communion in one kind is valid but should be exceptional.
From my perspective this is an expression of the priesthood of all the baptized. The Eucharist is indeed a divine fire, but we have all been sanctified by the blood of Christ so that we can approach it, if we do so in the fear of God and in a state of charity toward our neighbors.
Should be used generously, as Vatican II asked. But Latin remains the normative language of the Roman Rite, and this should be made more evident than it is by the use of Latin at places in the liturgy where it will not hinder full and intelligent participation by the laity (this will obviously vary from one set of circumstances to another).
Again, I can see good symbol-value in both methods. I have no strong feelings here one way or the other.
The excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre?
The Pope’s gotta do what the Pope’s gotta do. Schism is worse than heresy, after all.
The traditional movement in general?
They seem to me to have some valid criticisms of the overly rationalistic approach to the liturgy evident in postconciliar reforms, and of the disconnect between lex orandi and lex credendi that characterizes some forms of "conservative Catholicism. However, in my experience traditionalists (at least the more hardline ones) identify post-Tridentine Catholicism as the be-all and end-all of Christianity, which is a serious mistake. They do not have a serious account of doctrinal and liturgical development, and they often seem motivated by anger and prejudice toward everyone who differs from them. I usually come away from talking to them with a bitter taste in my mouth. They don’t show much that I can recognize as the fruit of humility and charity.
This is not necessarily the case with more moderate traditionalists. One of my best friends is an orthodox Catholic with traditional leanings. I disagree with him on a lot of things, and my theology and piety differ from his widely. But I respect him as my brother in Christ and have learned a great deal from him. So I am not making a blanket condemnation, just a statement about what seems to me to be the trend among traditionalist Catholics.
The Pope praying for the coming of the Messiah in the synogogue?
I have not heard that he did this. However, I don’t think anyone doubts that the Pope believes that Jesus is the Messiah. That being the case, it is obvious that his prayer referred to what we Christians regard as the Second Coming. I doubt that Jews interpreted it otherwise. If someone with less impressive credentials as a pillar of Christian orthodoxy were to engage in such a prayer, it might be misunderstood. (In other words, I would think twice before doing this myself–I would want to be sure that my Jewish friends understood that I interpreted the prayer rather differently from them!)
The statement that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God?
Obviously true.
Edwin
In our church we do say “And with thy spirit” when using the Eucharistic Prayer I.
**