Stripping the Mass of Externals?

[Jegudiel]

Why do some people (both clergy and lay) work so hard to strip as much external solemness and reverence from the Mass as possible? This isn’t a rhetorical question. Is it because:

They are attempting to make God more accessible and easier to relate to by attempting to bring Him down to our “common person” level?

They are legitimately trying to simplify things to make it more understandable for the average Mass goer?

It’s a way to show (or at least simulate) monastic/mendicant-like piety?

An attempt to further feminize the Mass driven by sexism/feminism?

They are reacting to the past (which they dislike) by removing elements they identify as symbolic of the past?

It simply makes the Masses faster and they take less effort to set-up and celebrate?

I’m not looking for a discussion about the merits (or horrors) of stripping the Mass. There is plenty of that elsewhere on these forums. I am looking for actual reasons why people work to strip the Mass. I suspect the answer is “all of the above and then some” and I would like to understand what the other reasons might be without debating their merits.

 

[SMHW]

By “externals” do you mean things like singing, elaborate vestments, decorations in the church, number of altar servers, language, prayers, and such?

Or am I totally misreading what you are saying?

If I am understanding you correctly then I think it probably has a lot to do with their personal emotional reactions to such “externals”.

Some people think that such externals are for special occasions or special persons --like the Persons of the Trinity. Other people are so horrified by the very idea of extravagance that that they can’t get past that feeling and realize that maybe God could be worth it.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I think it can mainly be attributed to the (horrendously outdated) principle that things have to be simple for people to “understand” them. There are, of course, many reasons why this is asinine.

I’d like to put my own mark on this:

1. I’m not a “poor, stupid, mindless lay person” who needs somebody to swoop down and “save me.”
2. I’m not a Franciscan, Cistercian, or any other type of Religious.

So give me all the gilded surfaces, Biblical allusions and Roman influence you can, please!

 

[Jegudiel]

By “externals” do you mean things like singing, elaborate vestments, decorations in the church, number of altar servers, language, prayers, and such?

Or am I totally misreading what you are saying?

If I am understanding you correctly then I think it probably has a lot to do with their personal emotional reactions to such “externals”.

Some people think that such externals are for special occasions or special persons --like the Persons of the Trinity. Other people are so horrified by the very idea of extravagance that that they can’t get past that feeling and realize that maybe God could be worth it.

Yes. For example stripping away every option like the sanctus bells and incense. Eliminating singing or at least as much as they can. Always using the shortest EP. Wearing a chasuble that looks like a shop rag when beautiful vestments hang in the closets. That sort of stuff.

You mention they are “horrified by the very idea of extravagance.” Where does that feeling come from in the context of the Mass? A year ago I went to my parish for Easter Sunday Mass. I set-up for the Mass and served it. As I was setting up for Mass I asked the pastor “rite of sprinkling?” “nope.” “Incense?” “nope.” “Gold vestments?” “nope.” He BURNED through the Mass in 40 minutes. It was utterly offensive. I figured he had another Mass to deal with but he went out to a nice leisurely breakfast with “his group.”

 

[YoungTradCath]

Yes. For example stripping away every option like the sanctus bells and incense. Eliminating singing or at least as much as they can. Always using the shortest EP. Wearing a chasuble that looks like a shop rag when beautiful vestments hang in the closets. That sort of stuff.

You mention they are “horrified by the very idea of extravagance.” Where does that feeling come from in the context of the Mass?

The attitude comes from the treatment of the Mass as a “duty” that “has to be done,” and from the attitude that the laity (pick: is not smart enough, is not insightful enough, is not educated enough) to “understand” the Mass.

Essentially, it comes from:

1. Utilitarianism.

and

1. The attitude that the laity possess a certain deficiency in their minds or character that makes them unable to “handle” an extravagant Mass.

 

[Nowhere_Man]

Why do some people (both clergy and lay) work so hard to strip as much external solemness and reverence from the Mass as possible? This isn’t a rhetorical question. Is it because:

They are attempting to make God more accessible and easier to relate to by attempting to bring Him down to our “common person” level?

They are legitimately trying to simplify things to make it more understandable for the average Mass goer?

I’d say that these are probably the top two reasons (and they seem to go hand-in-hand) people push for the simplification, watering down, and removal of external beauty and symbolism from the Mass. I consider both reasons to be kind of insulting as it’s like they’re trying to say most people are too dull or stupid to understand the intricacies and symbolism of a Mass celebrated with all the solemnity It deserves. Not to mention it represents a large break with the traditions of the Roman rite, something that had worked well and fed the people for hundreds of years, in favor of a Mass that is stripped of its symbolism to make it “easier” to understand, but this change doesn’t truly make it easier to understand, so much as it creates a passive congregation. A congregation that may have “active participation” with their mouths and eyes, but has become numb in their hearts and souls, a congregation that hears but does not truly listen, a congregation that claims to “finally” understand the Mass, but does live it.
I know this because I’m very guilty of this, and I know others that are too. It used to be that I couldn’t tell you what the first reading was, what the homily was about, or what was said during the Eucharistic Prayer. I’ve found that an increase in symbols: the Sanctus bells to highlight the important parts of Mass, especially the epiclesis, which went previously unnoticed; the use of incense to show the purification of the altar, gospel, and us in the presence of Holiness, and the raising of our prayers to heaven; and the beautiful vestments to highlight Who the priest is representing.
I feel that we are truly being deprived of overt symbols that actually help us to understand the Mass.

It’s a way to show (or at least simulate) monastic/mendicant-like piety?

I’ve heard this as a reason, but I don’t understand it; it holds no water. I’ve been to four different monasteries, and they were more grandiose that the masses I’d attended at parishes, even the cathedral. Mendicancy, however, makes a tad more sense as they can be more simple, but it’s just as varied as parish masses. Take EWTN for example: they are run by Franciscans, who are mendicants, but their Mass is just as, if not more solemn and grandiose as parish masses.

It simply makes the Masses faster and they take less effort to set-up and celebrate?

In some cases, such as when the priest has to say five masses at three parishes before 3pm, this is a valid reason, and unfortunately becoming a more common one (PLEASE pray for vocations!), in cases where the priest isn’t strained for time this isn’t good reasoning. Shouldn’t Our Lord be given the utmost respect and devotion?

 

[SMHW]

You mention they are “horrified by the very idea of extravagance.” Where does that feeling come from in the context of the Mass? A year ago I went to my parish for Easter Sunday Mass. I set-up for the Mass and served it. As I was setting up for Mass I asked the pastor “rite of sprinkling?” “nope.” “Incense?” “nope.” “Gold vestments?” “nope.” He BURNED through the Mass in 40 minutes. It was utterly offensive. I figured he had another Mass to deal with but he went out to a nice leisurely breakfast with “his group.”

See, I think it is an attitude they carry over from their secular lives.

Given that you had unlimited money would you you have a home that is decorated like that of the royal family or would you prefer a more subdued style? There are people who would very much dislike living in something like the royal palace. They just *really *don’t like the look.

There are people who dress up to go to the grocery store. And then there are people who would just as soon live their entire lives (work and leisure) wearing shorts, a Hawaiian shirt, and sandals because they think suits are pretentious.

Look at the architecture styles that have been popular in the last 50 years. I’m talking about bridges and office buildings. They tend to be very utilitarian. When they are “artistic” it is often very different from traditional ideas of beauty. “Beauty” is often interpreted to be something which resembles (in actuality or figuratively) nature: trees, rivers, mountains, volcanoes…

I think it’s the same at Mass and in church buildings. We have come through a secular period which to a large extent has disdained previous centuries’ “trappings” of respect and beauty. That attitude had carried over to our view of the sacred.

 

[Jegudiel]

See, I think it is an attitude they carry over from their secular lives.

Given that you had unlimited money would you you have a home that is decorated like that of the royal family or would you prefer a more subdued style? There are people who would very much dislike living in something like the royal palace. They just *really *don’t like the look.

There are people who dress up to go to the grocery store. And then there are people who would just as soon live their entire lives (work and leisure) wearing shorts, a Hawaiian shirt, and sandals because they think suits are pretentious.

Look at the architecture styles that have been popular in the last 50 years. I’m talking about bridges and office buildings. They tend to be very utilitarian. When they are “artistic” it is often very different from traditional ideas of beauty. “Beauty” is often interpreted to be something which resembles (in actuality or figuratively) nature: trees, rivers, mountains, volcanoes…

I think it’s the same at Mass and in church buildings. We have come through a secular period which to a large extent has disdained previous centuries’ “trappings” of respect and beauty. That attitude had carried over to our view of the sacred.

I don’t know if the last 50 years was any more “secular” than the 50 years preceding it here in the USA? It any event you’d think the Church would be a haven away from such influences.

A priest who gave me communion many years asked me what was wrong a few months ago at Mass. Since he was the celebrant and is a friend I was ultra-diplomatic but I said I was tried of having the Mass treated as if it was something we had to endure to get out hands stamped for the week. He got defensive and said in essence that as long as the Mass is valid, all the grace from God is still there and that we shouldn’t worry about external matters.

I really couldn’t believe he said that. Knowing he is a fan of Pope Benedict XVI and knowing he loves to watch papal Masses on EWTN I asked what would happen if the next papal Mass was from a lunch room somewhere at the Vatican City and it took only 25 minutes completely devoid of singing, incense, bells, good preaching, beautiful vestments and furnishings, etc. He told me not to be absurd.

 

[SMHW]

I don’t know if the last 50 years was any more “secular” than the 50 years preceding it here in the USA? It any event you’d think the Church would be a haven away from such influences.

It’s not a matter of whether the last 50+ years have been secular or not. It’s more whether secular world has had a similar appreciation for beauty as the Christian world. I think for centuries it did.

But I think we are coming out of a time period where that was not the case.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It’s not a matter of whether the last 50+ years have been secular or not. It’s more whether secular world has had a similar appreciation for beauty as the Christian world. I think for centuries it did.

But I think we are coming out of a time period where that was not the case.

Of course. I am personally convinced that the secular world has, on the whole, utterly lost all sense of beauty. And this is having a deleterious effect on our liturgy. Thankfully, we are clearly in the midst of a realization of this problem, and we are also at the beginnings of what I consider a restoration of beauty in our Catholic Church.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes. For example stripping away every option like the sanctus bells and incense. Eliminating singing or at least as much as they can. Always using the shortest EP. Wearing a chasuble that looks like a shop rag when beautiful vestments hang in the closets. That sort of stuff.

You mention they are “horrified by the very idea of extravagance.” Where does that feeling come from in the context of the Mass? A year ago I went to my parish for Easter Sunday Mass. I set-up for the Mass and served it. As I was setting up for Mass I asked the pastor “rite of sprinkling?” “nope.” “Incense?” “nope.” “Gold vestments?” “nope.” He BURNED through the Mass in 40 minutes. It was utterly offensive. I figured he had another Mass to deal with but he went out to a nice leisurely breakfast with “his group.”

Well, the GIRM says that “on solemn occasions more precious vestments may be used”, not that they must be used, and that “the beauty of a vestment should derive from its material and design rather than from lavish ornamentation”, which in the absence of specific instructions from the local bishop is a bit in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, we have to be obedient to the one given the choices.

I would like to hear from a priest about how much latitude there is to dispense with the Easter rite of sprinkling and incense when the means and competent assistants are available. For instance, if the presider had altar servers that would probably set something on fire if ever allowed near a censor or if there was a section set aside near the front of the church for people who are seriously fragrance-intolerant, I suppose that would be a reason to leave out the incense. I can’t judge when I don’t have the facts, but I’d think a serious reason would be needed to “burn through” or dispense of the usual things intended to heighten the solemnity of the most solemn Sunday Mass of the liturgical year. I would have felt scandalized if I were you, too.

If your parish has vestments that look like shop rags, ask the altar society about that. Maybe those need to be retired.

 

[EasterJoy]

In some cases, such as when the priest has to say five masses at three parishes before 3pm, this is a valid reason, and unfortunately becoming a more common one (PLEASE pray for vocations!), in cases where the priest isn’t strained for time this isn’t good reasoning. Shouldn’t Our Lord be given the utmost respect and devotion?

The thing is, I know a priest who is very reverent and whose Masses seem to go at a solemn pace, but who actually finishes Mass faster than other priests who seem to be “burning through.” I guess he’s just efficient? I think that kind of efficiency is a good thing. It is obvious haste at the expense of reverence that is offensive.

[PS I think you mean three, not five? Not that presiding at three Masses is not more than enough to tire a person out, but my understanding is that except under extraordinary circumstance, three is normally the Sunday and Holy Day limit for a priest (and two on other days).]

 

[Jegudiel]

Well, the GIRM says that “on solemn occasions more precious vestments may be used”, not that they must be used, and that “the beauty of a vestment should derive from its material and design rather than from lavish ornamentation”, which in the absence of specific instructions from the local bishop is a bit in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, we have to be obedient to the one given the choices.

I would like to hear from a priest about how much latitude there is to dispense with the Easter rite of sprinkling and incense when the means and competent assistants are available. For instance, if the presider had altar servers that would probably set something on fire if ever allowed near a censor or if there was a section set aside near the front of the church for people who are seriously fragrance-intolerant, I suppose that would be a reason to leave out the incense. I can’t judge when I don’t have the facts, but I’d think a serious reason would be needed to “burn through” or dispense of the usual things intended to heighten the solemnity of the most solemn Sunday Mass of the liturgical year. I would have felt scandalized if I were you, too.

If your parish has vestments that look like shop rags, ask the altar society about that. Maybe those need to be retired.

Leaving out the sprinkling, incense, nice vestments, etc. is certainly not an “abuse” and I’m not suggesting it is. But if you look at the Masses in my parish, they almost appear like they have been carefully reviewed to remove as much as possible. It becomes most apparent on Christmas and Easter where the church is loaded and the Mass still takes only 50 minutes even though communion lasts a long time.

The best analogy I can make is a meal. A Papal Mass is like a eating a full dinner at a 5 star restaurant. My parish is like walking up to a ticket window on the side of a building and having a brown bag lunch slid out to you. Both will keep you alive. Both satisfy your need to eat but the nourishment is altogether different.

 

[Jegudiel]

The thing is, I know a priest who is very reverent and whose Masses seem to go at a solemn pace, but who actually finishes Mass faster than other priests who seem to be “burning through.” I guess he’s just efficient? I think that kind of efficiency is a good thing. It is obvious haste at the expense of reverence that is offensive.

[PS I think you mean three, not five? Not that presiding at three Masses is not more than enough to tire a person out, but my understanding is that except under extraordinary circumstance, three is normally the Sunday and Holy Day limit for a priest (and two on other days).]

I agree with you. I don’t like Masses that drag. However if you took part in a Mass celebrated by my pastor you would think that possibly he had Crohn’s Disease or possibly a very weak bladder, yet he goes out to breakfast with his friends directly after Mass. The obvious desire to “get it done” throughout the Mass is more than irritating. It makes me sad. For the record I only see him at the first Mass of the day and we are blessed with enough priests that he usually only has to celebrate 2 Masses/Sunday.

 

[Jegudiel]

It’s not a matter of whether the last 50+ years have been secular or not. It’s more whether secular world has had a similar appreciation for beauty as the Christian world. I think for centuries it did.

But I think we are coming out of a time period where that was not the case.

I think if there was any real change (and I would question that), the Christian world lost every bit as much appreciation for beauty as the secular world.

 

[Jegudiel]

There is another variable. Many people (particularly those who came up with the EF Mass) equate a short Mass with a good Mass. As fast as the Masses are in my parish today they are still longer than the old Low Masses that used to be celebrated there on Sunday.

I think some priests realize that people like short “ticket-punching” Masses and maybe they play to that.

 

[Quarles47]

Why do some people (both clergy and lay) work so hard to strip as much external solemness and reverence from the Mass as possible? This isn’t a rhetorical question. Is it because:

They are attempting to make God more accessible and easier to relate to by attempting to bring Him down to our “common person” level?

They are legitimately trying to simplify things to make it more understandable for the average Mass goer?

It’s a way to show (or at least simulate) monastic/mendicant-like piety?

An attempt to further feminize the Mass driven by sexism/feminism?

They are reacting to the past (which they dislike) by removing elements they identify as symbolic of the past?

It simply makes the Masses faster and they take less effort to set-up and celebrate?

I’m not looking for a discussion about the merits (or horrors) of stripping the Mass. There is plenty of that elsewhere on these forums. I am looking for actual reasons why people work to strip the Mass. I suspect the answer is “all of the above and then some” and I would like to understand what the other reasons might be without debating their merits.

Sometimes the most simple explanation is the best. In this case it is simply a case of the stupids.

 

[TimothyH]

We are the temple of the Holy Spirit. I think we should focus on adorning the Temple of the Holy Spirit with a life of virtue and the rest will follow.

I wonder if drab liturgies are not a result of lukewarm lives rather than the cause of it. Rather than complaining about the liturgy, maybe we should give something to God first as an offering.

Rather than calling priests and other Christians stupid, maybe we should take seriously Jesus’ warnings to the Churches in Revelation.

"And to the angel of the church in La-odice’a write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation. "'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing; not knowing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. Therefore I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, that you may be rich, and white garments to clothe you and to keep the shame of your nakedness from being seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten; so be zealous and repent… (Revelation 3:14-19)

-Tim-

 

[Jegudiel]

We are the temple of the Holy Spirit. I think we should focus on adorning the Temple of the Holy Spirit with a life of virtue and the rest will follow.

I wonder if drab liturgies are not a result of lukewarm lives rather than the cause of it. Rather than complaining about the liturgy, maybe we should give something to God first as an offering.

Rather than calling priests and other Christians stupid, maybe we should take seriously Jesus’ warnings to the Churches in Revelation.

"And to the angel of the church in La-odice’a write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation. "'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing; not knowing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. Therefore I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, that you may be rich, and white garments to clothe you and to keep the shame of your nakedness from being seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten; so be zealous and repent… (Revelation 3:14-19)

-Tim-

I think you’re right. No way could some people act the way they do at Mass if they had healthy spiritual lives. Just no way.