In the “orientation of the priest” thread that I began, the discussion has turned into a rather hotly contested debate on the importance of rubrics. There are some who do not seem to think that rubrics and norms are important to the point that they claim that the Mass is not the liturgy. There are others who advocate the rule of the law of prayer is the law of faith (as has been mentioned several times by Francis Cardinal Arinze and then-Cardinal Ratzinger).
Since I think the ‘some’ in this refers at least in part to me, I will point out that I have said, and maintain, not that the Mass is not the liturgy, but rather that the liturgy is not the Mass.
By this I mean that the form of liturgy used does not define, constrain, or bind the Mass. Liturgies come, go, and change. Any liturgy the Church wants to use is good enough for me. The liturgy is not the Mass, it is just the way it is being celebrated in that place on that day.
Also, I don’t think I have said that the rubrics should be ignored, although in the heat of the exchange I agree this may have been a fair inferrence from some of my comments. More accurate would be that I don’t care what the rubrics are. I leave the details of what to wear, where to stand, who should help out, how the altar should be dressed, etc, etc, to the clergy. I admit to some personal preferences in some of these matters, but I don’t expect my preferences to be reflected, or even noted.
I would include in this not checking up on the priest, comparing his actions to the GIRM, etc. If he changes the Creed in a way that changes its meaning, or the Lord’s Prayer, or something like that, that would give me pause. If he shows up wearing light blue vestments and gives the homily from the choir loft, I’d probably just assume that he was allowed to do that and give it no more thought. I suppose that may seem like ignoring the rubrics. The distinction is that I think he should do it the way he is supposed to, but I’ll defer to him on the ‘supposed to’ part, except for maybe extreme and ridiculous examples. (Which I’m sure are forthcoming.)
The polemics behind my original thread prompted me to begin this one because there seems to be a lot of misgivings and a lot of misinformation flowing out there.
First of all, the Mass is the Holy Sacriifce. It is the most important action (work) in which we, as Catholics, partake. It was no small statement that the Council Fathers made when they said that the Mass is the “source and summit” of the life of the Church. The basic core of the Catholic Faith lies in the Paschal Mystery, which is best and most perfectly expressed in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Okay. Let the salvos begin!
This is what got the fireworks going, I think. The Mass is the Holy Sacrifice. Mass attendence is the first precept of the Church. But the Mass is not the most important work in which Catholics partake. The Mass enables us to live our lives more fully and completely as Christians. Our most important work is to love our neighbors. The Mass helps us immensely in that work.
I agree that the Paschal Mystery is at the core of Catholic faith. I agree that the Paschal Mystery is expressed in the Mass. I don’t agree that those two facts combine to make Mass attendance the most important aspect of being Catholic.
But more to the point of the topic of rubrics I think, is that the liturgy – the words and gestures used by the Church at the Mass – are not the sum total of the Mass, nor can they bind, constrain or define the Mass. The Mass can be accomplished with different words and gestures and the Church is in fact using ten or so different liturgies right now.
The words of the liturgy have no inherent power. The gestures performed have no inherent power. I recognize that the precise form of the words and gestures are important to some people. They are not important to me. I don’t believe they are essential, or even important, to celebrating a ‘proper’ Mass, if proper means a Mass that does what Christ intended us to do when He said “Do this in rememberance of Me.”
