Pope Says Liturgical Abuses Detract from Christ

[R_C]

Using this analogy and argument, all forms of the Liturgy must be seen as having come from Christ. For our Latin Catholic brothers and sisters, this means both the Usus Antiquior and the Novus Ordo.

Excellent point.

Which is why the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum establishes the following:

Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters WE ESTABLISH the following:

Art. 1 The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

 

[Cat]

For the last 25 years priests and bishops have been saying “‘Liturgy’ means ‘the work of the people’”. That definition of liturgy has been pounded into people’s brains in homilies, faith formation classes, RCIA classes, adult education classes, and the like.

Naturally it is startling to hear the pope say the liturgy is God’s work.

I suspect the problem is the word “work”. I think the pope was probably using the word “work” in more of the sense that we speak of a masterpiece like a ‘work of art’ or a musical composition. Creating that masterpiece was work. The 25+ year old definition of work is more the sense of the orchestra and singers having to perform the piece (which is definitely hard work).

God created the Liturgy and the people have to perform it for the creator.

At least that is what I take from it.

Thank you. I suspected that my confusion has something to do with the American-English translation of the Holy Father’s message.

I still have a problem with the idea that God “created the Liturgy.” I believe that Jesus Christ established the Eucharistic feast that replaced the Hebrew system of sacrifice of animals. But I don’t believe that God fed every word and gesture in the Mass to the Church. I believe that God inspires the Church to write the liturgy in accordance with His desires for proper worship, and I believe that the Liturgy that the Church has produced is proper and pleasing to God. That means both Latin forms of the Mass, as well as the other rites (22 Catholic rites? or are there more?) of the Mass.

 

[Cat]

I agree with Cat here. The Greek clearly says that it is the work of the people. I Apostles would have called it something else if it is not the work of the people. And your conclusion is wrong, it doesn’t mean Jesus left us. Jesus in fact guaranteed us that if 2 or 3 are gathered in His Name, He will be among them. Which is the other original meaning of “Church”. Eklesia, a gathering.

Thank you. Yes, I think that we need to go back to the Greek on this one. This isn’t just a “pop phrase” that “liberal VII priests” started foisting upon Catholics back in the 1960s. It’s the original meaning of the word–“Work of the people.”

“Work” in this context is not a noun, but a verb. We don’t “create” a work, or “produce” a work called “Liturgy” as Shakespeare created/produced “works” of literature.

Rather, we do the “work” of worshipping using the “liturgy” as our “script” or “program.” I hope this makes sense. Is it correct?

One more thing–I think we have to be careful about saying that abuses detract from Christ, because it would be easy to fall into an error that is simliar to an error propagated by some evangelical Protestants. This error would be to think that the Liturgy IS Jesus Christ. It is not.

Some evangelical Protestants believe that the Bible IS Jesus Christ, because they incorrectly interpret John 1 (In the beginning was the Word… and the Word is God.) I have personally known Protestants who believed that the Bible IS Jesus.

In the same way, it would be possible for some Catholics to believe that the liturgy of the Mass IS Jesus Christ, hence the phrase “Liturgical Abuses detract from Christ.” Yes, of course, abuse gives an (name removed by moderator)artial or even incorrect picture or image of Jesus Christ. But an abuse does not take anything away from the Person of Jesus Christ. He remains the same no matter what man does to the Liturgy. We receive all of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion, even if liturgical abuses are present in the Mass.

Make sense?

With respect, I often think that Pope Benedict XVI is not clear in his writings to American Christians. So many of us are simply not literate enough to be able to understand what he writes. I sometimes think that the Vatican should install an “interpretation officer” to re-write the Holy Father’s articles and homilies for typical Americans, the majority of whom read at a sixth grade level! And yes, I would place myself in that category. While I was in school many years ago, I read high literature. But years of reading the local newspapers, novels, magazines, etc. have left me with a duller brain, and I find it extremely difficult to understand any of the Holy Father’s encyclicals. I would love to see a “Pope Benedict XVI’s Encyclicals For Dummies!”

 

[lizaanne]

Did Christ write and leave us the Roman Missal?

Did Christ write and leave us the Bible? You are sounding quite Protestant in your question.

Yes, through Holy Church, His mystical Bride, of which He is the head.

I think this is a case of the pride of man - wishing to presume something where we have no place of ownership.

~Liza

 

[SMHW]

I think this is a case of the pride of man - wishing to presume something where we have no place of ownership.

~Liza

That’s not much of an apology for jumping all over Cat.

I don’t know if David Kerr, the author of the article referenced in the original post of this thread, was quoting the pope or paraphrasing him. The words in quotes used the word “action” rather than “work” so we don’t really know if the Pope himself used a word that could be translated as "work or if it was an unfortunate choice of David Kerr.

But it certainly is an alarming thing when the pope *appears *to be contradicting a definition used by the Church. I know that my first reaction was, “What!?!?!?!”

Stupid ambiguous language!

 

[benjohnson]

I have to admit that I sort of love how our Lutheran church does it - we do change the form now and then, but it’s always a historical form. The church bulletin does explain the reasoning and history of the form.

So our liturgy is ‘fresh’ - but historical, never modern. Going through the older liturgies gives me an appreciation of the history of the church and even gives me an appreciation of the regular form.

 

[lizaanne]

That’s not much of an apology for jumping all over Cat.

I don’t make it a habit of apologizing when I’ve done nothing wrong.

~Liza

 

[SMHW]

I don’t make it a habit of apologizing when I’ve done nothing wrong.

~Liza

OK. But I’d like to thank Cat for being brave enough to bring up the “elephant in the room” in that article that no one else seems to have wanted to touch. The usage of the word “work” definitely needs to be clarified.

 

[Lamentabili]

The Remnant has an article on this topic:

Link

 

[japhy]

The Bishops are the Church.

Please do not forget that all the people of God are the Church; the Church is the Body of Christ, of which we are all members.

 

[lizaanne]

Everybody!!! SWAY!!!

:grouphug:

~Liza

 

[japhy]

Liturgy is the work of the people, not the work of God.

For the last 25 years priests and bishops have been saying “‘Liturgy’ means ‘the work of the people’”. That definition of liturgy has been pounded into people’s brains in homilies, faith formation classes, RCIA classes, adult education classes, and the like. Naturally it is startling to hear the pope say the liturgy is God’s work.

Some quotes from the Catechism:
As the rule of St. Benedict says, nothing should take precedence over “the work of God”, that is, solemn worship. (CCC 347, cf. St. Benedict, Regula 43,3)

The word “liturgy” originally meant a “public work” or a “service in the name of/on behalf of the people.” In Christian tradition it means the participation of the People of God in “the work of God.” Through the liturgy Christ, our redeemer and high priest, continues the work of our redemption in, with, and through his Church. (CCC 1069; cf. Jn 17:4)
The liturgy is the “work of God”, meaning that God is at work in the liturgy, because it is the liturgy “through which the work of our redemption is accomplished” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2).

Which is the other original meaning of “Church”. Eklesia, a gathering.

“Church” comes from the Greek Kyriake, which means “the Lord’s”. The term “ecclesial” comes from the Greek ekklesia, which literally means “(the) called-out”. It is not so much that “we gather” but that “God calls us out”, per 1 Peter 2:9: “ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος” (out of darkness you have been called).

 

[ConstantineTG]

“Church” comes from the Greek Kyriake, which means “the Lord’s”. The term “ecclesial” comes from the Greek ekklesia, which literally means “(the) called-out”. It is not so much that “we gather” but that “God calls us out”, per 1 Peter 2:9: “ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος” (out of darkness you have been called).

I thought Church evolved from Eklesia via some Germanic language first.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Did Christ write and leave us the Bible? You are sounding quite Protestant in your question.

Perhaps you might reconsider that characterization.

Further, the point was made and well acknowledged.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Please do not forget that all the people of God are the Church; the Church is the Body of Christ, of which we are all members.

But you also need a bishop/elder to have a Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thank you. Yes, I think that we need to go back to the Greek on this one. This isn’t just a “pop phrase” that “liberal VII priests” started foisting upon Catholics back in the 1960s. It’s the original meaning of the word–“Work of the people.”

“Work” in this context is not a noun, but a verb. We don’t “create” a work, or “produce” a work called “Liturgy” as Shakespeare created/produced “works” of literature.

Rather, we do the “work” of worshipping using the “liturgy” as our “script” or “program.” I hope this makes sense. Is it correct?

One more thing–I think we have to be careful about saying that abuses detract from Christ, because it would be easy to fall into an error that is simliar to an error propagated by some evangelical Protestants. This error would be to think that the Liturgy IS Jesus Christ. It is not.

Some evangelical Protestants believe that the Bible IS Jesus Christ, because they incorrectly interpret John 1 (In the beginning was the Word… and the Word is God.) I have personally known Protestants who believed that the Bible IS Jesus.

In the same way, it would be possible for some Catholics to believe that the liturgy of the Mass IS Jesus Christ, hence the phrase “Liturgical Abuses detract from Christ.” Yes, of course, abuse gives an (name removed by moderator)artial or even incorrect picture or image of Jesus Christ. But an abuse does not take anything away from the Person of Jesus Christ. He remains the same no matter what man does to the Liturgy. We receive all of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion, even if liturgical abuses are present in the Mass.

Make sense?

With respect, I often think that Pope Benedict XVI is not clear in his writings to American Christians. So many of us are simply not literate enough to be able to understand what he writes. I sometimes think that the Vatican should install an “interpretation officer” to re-write the Holy Father’s articles and homilies for typical Americans, the majority of whom read at a sixth grade level! And yes, I would place myself in that category. While I was in school many years ago, I read high literature. But years of reading the local newspapers, novels, magazines, etc. have left me with a duller brain, and I find it extremely difficult to understand any of the Holy Father’s encyclicals. I would love to see a “Pope Benedict XVI’s Encyclicals For Dummies!”

Don’t forget also that the work of the people involves making the offering of bread and wine and calling God to remembrance to make the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. One thing I appreciate so much in the East is that we make our own bread to offer.

 

[japhy]

I thought Church evolved from Eklesia via some Germanic language first.

From etymonline.com: O.E. cirice “church, public place of worship, Christians collectively,” *from W.Gmc. kirika (cf. O.S. kirika, O.N. kirkja, O.Fris. zerke, M.Du. kerke, O.H.G. kirihha, Ger. Kirche), from Gk. kyriake (oikia), kyriakon doma “Lord’s (house),” from kyrios “ruler, lord,” from PIE root *keue- “to swell” (“swollen,” hence “strong, powerful”). Phonetic spelling from c.1200, established by 16c.
Gk. kyriakon (adj.) "of the Lord" was used of houses of Christian worship since c.300, especially in the East, though it was less common in this sense than ekklesia or basilike. An example of the direct Greek-to-Germanic progress of many Christian words, via the Goths; it was probably used by West Germanic people in their pre-Christian period. Also picked up by Slavic, via Germanic (cf. O.Slav. criky, Rus. cerkov). Romance and Celtic languages use variants of L. ecclesia. French église (11c.) is from L. ecclesia. Church key is early 14c.; slang use for "can or bottle opener" is by 1954, probably originally U.S. college student slang. Church-mouse, proverbial in many languages for its poverty, is 1731 in English.

 

[Cat]

Some quotes from the Catechism:
As the rule of St. Benedict says, nothing should take precedence over “the work of God”, that is, solemn worship. (CCC 347, cf. St. Benedict, Regula 43,3)

The word “liturgy” originally meant a “public work” or a “service in the name of/on behalf of the people.” In Christian tradition it means the participation of the People of God in “the work of God.” Through the liturgy Christ, our redeemer and high priest, continues the work of our redemption in, with, and through his Church. (CCC 1069; cf. Jn 17:4)
The liturgy is the “work of God”, meaning that God is at work in the liturgy, because it is the liturgy “through which the work of our redemption is accomplished” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2).

“Church” comes from the Greek Kyriake, which means “the Lord’s”. The term “ecclesial” comes from the Greek ekklesia, which literally means “(the) called-out”. It is not so much that “we gather” but that “God calls us out”, per 1 Peter 2:9: “ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος” (out of darkness you have been called).

Thank you.

I think the important thing is that the people are not just sitting there vege-ing out and logging “time served, credit me for heaven” while the priest, deacon, lector, and choir/cantor do the actual physical “labor” of the Mass.

We, the laybpeople, are supposed to “work” during the Mass–pay attention, concentrate on the hymns, prayers, readings, etc., join in (either audibly or in our hearts) the parts of the Mass that the congregation is responsible for, assume whatever physical postures and gestures are required (if we are physically able), and of course, prepare ourselves to receive the Lord in Holy Communion.

The paragraph in the OP made it sound like Mass is a “work” in the sense of “a work of Shakespeare”.