Messing with the Mass: The problem of priestly narcissism today

[ProVobis]

I’ll grant you all of that, but if you look at the OF in Latin, ad orientem, following the rubrics (I know it’s rare, but that’s how the actual missal says it should be said), you will recognise the very same mass. I’ve looked at side by side comparisons. The mass was parsed down and some pretty things were cut out, but there’s nothing in the Latin OF that worries me, be it things that are there or things that failed to make the cut.
Now let’s stop looking at 1570 as the year that the mass was made, okay? It wasn’t written in 1570. If it had been, it would have been guilty of all of the same things that are slandered against the newer missal. The mass began in the 1st century, immediately following Jesus’s death. We have only partial records of what it was like back then. Do you really think, though, that the mass of say the Year of Our Lord 75 would look very much like that of 1570? Any difference between them, however, was an innovation at some point.

I believe one should still be able to recognize the canon of the Mass (EF1 in the Latin OF) from the 4th century. Granted we can’t go all the way back to Christ since most of the saints which appear in the canon hadn’t lived yet. And we can’t do much more comparing before then because (as you noted) the Gospels weren’t finished until about 100 AD(?) and approved for the Church much later.

 

[FrancisB]

I’m sure that the canon can be recognised from the early Church, through the mediaeval church, through Trent, and through Vatican II to the present. It’s not just EP I. It’s EP I and II. EP I is fairly close to Trent. EP II is a much older form of the canon with some alterations from the East, but it is still recognisable as the canon in broad terms, which is the only way that we could say that the canon is recognisable from the early church. Exactly what is your point, though? That we should remove all of the other forms of the EP? I agree with you. I think it will happen slowly but surely in the future too. I fully expect that Benedict will suppress everything but the four forms in the missal proper. I have read some articles that this was already in the works, but I haven’t seen any formal pronouncements yet. That said, when the rumours of the universal indult were circulating, they turned out to be right. Once we have removed the strangest of the EP options, I think the focus will return to the four standard options. And option III, I would bet, would be the fist struck down, since it has no bearing on any previous Eucharistic prayers. Option IV, while demonstrably Eastern, is at least drawn from an ancient and clearly Catholic, if not Latin Rite, tradition.

But so what with all of that? The mass is more than just the canon and if recognisable is all that we require, then the Mass of Paul VI is clearly has a recognisable canon in EP I and II. If an unchanging canon is necessary, then we haven’t had it for some time. John XXIII changed the canon before the council. Recognisable, surely, but not unchanging. Where are you going with the canon?

 

[CradleCath]

Ockham, I do believe that the Versus Populum position has created the “closed circle” that Pope Benedict referred to:
“The turning of the priest to the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form it no longer opens out towards what is ahead and above, but is closed in on itself.

As one who spent a good, many years giving speeches to sales-people that I didn’t even know…I believe that this position is a great vehicle for those inclined toward narcissism.

I know the temptation to be admired & loved by the people you are facing. We are all human & who doesn’t want their speech (or Mass) to be considered the best one given that day. However, I also know that this admiration & “love” is forgotten within minutes **if the MESSAGE you give helps no one. **

The Versus Populum position, to those priests who are inclined toward narcissism, has turned the Mass into a performance where the attention is on the priest, instead of upon Christ on the Cross & in the Tabernacle. (IF one can find the Tabernacle.) Becoming an adult before Vatican II, I know that one of the goals of good & holy priests of that time was to become so “invisible” that it became Christ Who was offering the Sacrifice, Christ Who was saying the Mass.

 

[FrancisB]

Ockham, I do believe that the Versus Populum position has created the “closed circle” that Pope Benedict referred to:
“The turning of the priest to the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form it no longer opens out towards what is ahead and above, but is closed in on itself.

As one who spent a good, many years giving speeches to sales-people that I didn’t even know…I believe that this position is a great vehicle for those inclined toward narcissism.

I know the temptation to be admired & loved by the people you are facing. We are all human & who doesn’t want their speech (or Mass) to be considered the best one given that day. However, I also know that this admiration & “love” is forgotten within minutes **if the MESSAGE you give helps no one. **

The Versus Populum position, to those priests who are inclined toward narcissism, has turned the Mass into a performance where the attention is on the priest, instead of upon Christ on the Cross & in the Tabernacle. (IF one can find the Tabernacle.) Becoming an adult before Vatican II, I know that one of the goals of good & holy priests of that time was to become so “invisible” that it became Christ Who was offering the Sacrifice, Christ Who was saying the Mass.

This is a very compelling argument for ad orientem. Of course ad orientem and versus populum are not necessarily opposites and the versus populum orientation was used before the council in churches that were built in a way that required that. I understand that in the past, however, the tradition was for the people to turn their backs to the priest and face east at certain points in the liturgy so as to greet the rising sun of Christ. That kind of gesture might be sufficiently humbling to a priest and drive the point home.

 

[CradleCath]

Not an inconsistency at all. In the other thread I started by saying that I prefer the traditional Mass, but that the radical elements in attendance there make me feel uncomfortable, which is why I generally (but not always) attend mass in the ordinary form in a relatively traditional parish.

This is something that I’ve heard before from other Catholics & I’ll NEVER understand. We go to Mass to commune with God, not the people in attendance. I spent about 25 yrs. in a parish where most of my friends & neighbors attended Mass, worked on committees together & visited in the parking lot after Mass. Later we began to have coffee & donuts after Mass. That was very nice & I looked forward to it. However, that would never keep me from attending a Mass that I think represents the whole of Catholicism.

What I said is that I have no more respect for disobedient traditionalists that refuse to accept papal authority than I do for disobedient liberals that refuse to accept papal authority.

Disobedient is disobedient & I don’t think anyone respects that whether it comes from traditionalists or liberals. I have seen you say this several times & cannot figure out where you are going with it. You seem to think that a lack of respect for disobedient Catholics is unusual??

I am a moderate and a papist. I prefer tradition because it is tradition, but I reject the idea that our disciplines cannot be changed by the authority of the magisterium. It is the dogma that is unchanging, not rubrics. This is exactly the attitude that I was talking about among the traditionalists that makes me feel uncomfortable. If you would stop attacking me for being open to the changes decreed by popes

.

I’ve been “open” to changes that were decreed, not by the Pope, but by the Second Vatican Council for 40 years. I attended the Novus Ordo Mass & threw my rosary away (& had to buy a new one when Pope John Paul II proclaimed the Year of the Rosary in 2002).

QUOTE]

And if Benedict said that we were all going to use the 1962 missal, I would happily submit to that. What I hope for is a 2011 missal that applies Vatican II to the traditional Latin mass and abrogates both of the current forms, but that is the pope’s decision, not mine.

Thank God that it IS the Pope’s decision because, if you actually read his words & watch his Masses, you’ll know that he’s not going to “mess with” the Mass of the Ages.

The pope’s view of the issue is mine as well: the (deliberate) misinterpretation of the council is what caused the problems. It’s not the council.

I used that same line for years: “It wasn’t the council, but the application of the documents.” Using that helped me to combine my belief in the infallibility of the Pope & the Magisterium when they are in full communion with one another……. with what I see as the rotten fruit of Vatican II.

I was able to stay convinced of that, until I read the actual documents of the council **for the second time. **For instance:

From SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM:
"Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity;** that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.”**
Council also desires that, where necessary,** the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.” **

That is Entirely too vague!! “New Vigor”? Too ambiguous. “New vigor” could call for younger priests with the retirement age at 50. “New Vigor” could mean that the Novus Ordo Mass was to lose the Sacred Silence that allowed for vigorous meditation.

The “needs of modern times”?
This can be read to mean that guitar music satisfies the “needs of modern times”. Or it could have meant that we would have 15 minute Masses to allow extra time for all of the people who work on Saturday during “these modern times“.

Also from SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
13. Popular devotions of the Christian people are to be highly commended, provided they accord with the laws and norms of the Church, above all when they are ordered by the Apostolic See.

Again, vague. Which Laws? Which norms? The Laws & norms of Trent & Vatican I were still in effect when this was written.
“Devotions proper to individual Churches also have a special dignity if they are undertaken by mandate of the bishops according to customs or books lawfully approved.”

Devotions?? Were they speaking of Novenas? Benediction?? Retreats?

And, of course**:“As far as possible**, notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided.”

In NONE of the Church documents from the beginning, when Christ named Peter as our Pope, until 1960 have I EVER read these words used in directions from a council**.……“as far as possible”**

The bottom line is that this Council which many have used to change our Church was strictly pastoral.

Do I believe that the documents were purposely made ambiguous & vague? I don’t know.
What I do know is that Pope John XXIII himself stated in his Opening Address at the beginning of Vatican II that the Council was not intended to be a doctrinal council concerned** with defining any articles of Faith;** rather it was to be a “pastoral” council that was concerned with representing the Catholic Faith in a manner “acceptable to the modern world“. Looking at this “modern world”, I can’t help but wonder what he was thinking.

 

[Ockham]

The Versus Populum position, to those priests who are inclined toward narcissism, has turned the Mass into a performance where the attention is on the priest, instead of upon Christ on the Cross & in the Tabernacle. (IF one can find the Tabernacle.) Becoming an adult before Vatican II, I know that one of the goals of good & holy priests of that time was to become so “invisible” that it became Christ Who was offering the Sacrifice, Christ Who was saying the Mass.

Exactly. For the priests with an attractive personality their congregations can often develop a cult of personality. If people are going to Mass because Father has such a quirky sense of humour (for example) Christ is no longer being worshipped as He should. If people start parish shopping to find a priest or liturgy they prefer they are on the road to becoming a denomination instead of a member of the one holy apostolic church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Exactly. For the priests with an attractive personality their congregations can often develop a cult of personality. If people are going to Mass because Father has such a quirky sense of humour (for example) Christ is no longer being worshipped as He should. If people start parish shopping to find a priest or liturgy they prefer they are on the road to becoming a denomination instead of a member of the one holy apostolic church.

I agree, and that is what the CC has become. sadly that what people have been doing.
it is embarassing to invite non Catholic to the Church when we have to shop for a good Church. or even have to tell them to find a good Catholic Church to go to. it was never like this before, never.