Reverence is Subjective?

[DominvsVobiscvm]

What would you say to someone who says that reverence and solemnity, or the feel for it, are subjective, and so I have no objective basis for saying that a traditionally celebrated Mass is more reverent than a typical Nervous Ordo?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

DominvsVobiscvm:

What would you say to someone who says that reverence and solemnity, or the feel for it, are subjective, and so I have no objective basis for saying that a traditionally celebrated Mass is more reverent than a typical Nervous Ordo?

I wouldn’t say, specifically, that they are “subjective” so much as the are culturally significant. That is, what is reverent in one culture may not be so in another. Here’s a simple example: in Western culture kneeling is seen as a sign of reverence and, thus, many prefer it for the reception of communion. In the East, however, kneeling is not seen as a sign of reverence and thus Eastern Catholics, for the most part, receive communion standing with their arms crossed on their chest.

We have to be careful that we don’t turn what is culturally appropriate into a theological statement.

Deacon Ed

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Obviously you’re correct, Deacon. But that’s not what I’m talking about.

 

[Munda_cor_meum]

DominvsVobiscvm:

What would you say to someone who says that reverence and solemnity, or the feel for it, are subjective, and so I have no objective basis for saying that a traditionally celebrated Mass is more reverent than a typical Nervous Ordo?

This kind of relativism has always bewildered me too. This is very similar to the things my liberal Protestand friends say. I try to ask the question: “If all religeons are equal, then why don’t you want to be Catholic”. You could ask a similar question of your friend. If the traditional and the NO Mass are equally reverent, they should have no problems participating in the traditional rite.

Ultimately, this probably will not convince them, but hopefully it will get them to start thinking about why they prefer the NO rite. Do they do it for their own convenience or for the greater glory of God?

 

[Detroit_Sue]

I think it’s subjective from parish to parish. What is reverent in one parish is abusive in another.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Nervous Ordo?

I sure hope that’s a typo. It certainly isn’t very respectful. The Pauline Mass (1970) can be as beautiful and reverent as a 1962 (often called “Tridentine” esp. if in Latin) Mass, and both can be done in Latin or in English (or any other vernacular tongue) beautifully and reverently–and, of course, both can be done badly and irreverently.

I’ve been to good and bad examples of both. Except in cases of gross liturgical abuse where either the words of consecration were incorrect, or the matter of the species of bread and wine were incorrect (these two are the main causes of invalid Masses), so long as the Eucharist is validly present, it’s a good and valid Mass, whether I happen to like certain points of it or not, whether the priest mumbles, the parishoners can’t sing–loudly, there is too much or not enough incense, etc.

 

[Munda_cor_meum]

Detroit Sue:

I think it’s subjective from parish to parish. What is reverent in one parish is abusive in another.

You really think so? I suppose - especially considering cultural differences - that to a certain extent this could be true, but why stop at the parish? Why not go all the way down to the individual and state that what is reverent for one individual is abusive for another?

This line of thinking always makes me nervous. I’m just wondering where it will end.

 

[Detroit_Sue]

Munda cor meum:

You really think so? I suppose - especially considering cultural differences - that to a certain extent this could be true, but why stop at the parish? Why not go all the way down to the individual and state that what is reverent for one individual is abusive for another?

This line of thinking always makes me nervous. I’m just wondering where it will end.

It should have ended with Paul.

Since that didn’t happen, Cardinal Arinze did a great job with Redemptoris Sacramentum, but there is still open defiance/private interpretation of that document.

As for the individual interpretation, birds of a feather…

 

[otm]

My dictionary defines “reverence” as “a feeling of profound awe and respect and often love, veneration”, and further as “a profound emotion inspired by a deity”.

I have found reverence in both the Tridentine rite and the Pauline rite. I have also found abuse in each, and tedium, and at times boredom, and delight. I could go on to list a whole range of emotions I have experienced at both.

The more I talk with people who want to attend a Tridentine Mass, and the more comments I read of those who do, the more I get the impression that people are looking for a religious “fix”, or “high”, and they find it in the Tridentine, but not the Pauline rite.

I find neither one more reverent than the other. I do find, at times, that the attitude of the priest celebrant can impact how I feel.

All things being equal (and when are they ever?), the Tridentine Mass appears more focused on God transcendent, and the Pauline Mass appears to have more balance of God imminent/transcendent. I also find some people are really uncomfortable with the issue of God imminent.

 

[Bob_Baran]

No, I do not think that reverence is subjective in the sense of being reverent toward Our Lord. It is expressed not only inwardly, but as an outward sign. When a person is reverent among you, you know it! All the bickering about which mass is this or which mass is that wastes a lot of energy that could be spent on evangelizing. We are suppose to attend Mass as a form of thanksgiving to God for all the gifts he has given us and that He sent His only Son to die for us.

 

[EddieArent]

DominvsVobiscvm:

What would you say to someone who says that reverence and solemnity, or the feel for it, are subjective, and so I have no objective basis for saying that a traditionally celebrated Mass is more reverent than a typical Nervous Ordo?

DominisVorbisvm. We know what true reverance is. Not every action is sacred. Unfortunitly, there are too many here and everywhere that apoligize for everything that shows disrepect. It’s sort of like the people who justify feacle matter in “art” in that they think anything goes.

Look for my post regarding Fr. Collin’s homily. Yes, he is a priest that celebrates the Novus Ordo, but his homilies hit home and we need more like him.

 

[AmyS]

Bob Baran:

No, I do not think that reverence is subjective in the sense of being reverent toward Our Lord. It is expressed not only inwardly, but as an outward sign. When a person is reverent among you, you know it! All the bickering about which mass is this or which mass is that wastes a lot of energy that could be spent on evangelizing. We are suppose to attend Mass as a form of thanksgiving to God for all the gifts he has given us and that He sent His only Son to die for us.

Great post… Forgetting what we are their for is what leads to a lack of reverance. Yes we are there as a group, but, I believe in leading as an individual. Sometimes we have to evangelize to eachother. It is our duety to keep things in “liturgical” line… Eucharist means “thanksgiving” and we need to focus on that…

 

[AmyS]

EddieArent:

DominisVorbisvm. We know what true reverance is. Not every action is sacred. Unfortunitly, there are too many here and everywhere that apoligize for everything that shows disrepect. It’s sort of like the people who justify feacle matter in “art” in that they think anything goes.

Look for my post regarding Fr. Collin’s homily. Yes, he is a priest that celebrates the Novus Ordo, but his homilies hit home and we need more like him.

I think the problem isn’t so much justifying the actions of those who disrespect, I don’t think any serious Catholic would condone any abuses… I think it is arguing against generalizations… Who knows? Any disrespect is just plan wrong, and hearbreaking.

 

[Munda_cor_meum]

Tantum ergo:

I sure hope that’s a typo. It certainly isn’t very respectful. The Pauline Mass (1970) can be as beautiful and reverent as a 1962 (often called “Tridentine” esp. if in Latin) Mass, and both can be done in Latin or in English (or any other vernacular tongue) beautifully and reverently–and, of course, both can be done badly and irreverently.
.

I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you here. There really is no room in the Tridentine rite for “liturgical abuse”. I know exactly at every moment what is (supposed to be) going on. Of course, my command of latin is so poor at this point that the Priest could be reciting his grocery list, but I know what is supposed to be happening.

That really is not the case with the Pauline rite. Many think it a good thing that the Pauline rite is more open and feeling and tries to focus more on Christian fellowship instead of focusing on the Mass as a sacrifice. I really cannot argue too much with that, but one of the inevitable side effects of this is an endless stream of questions to Zenit going something like: “My Priest dressed in tights and pranced about the altar chanting ‘hare krishna’. Is that liturgical abuse?”