USCCB Liturgical Adaptations & Exceptions (Who Else Is Sick & Tired of Them?)

[TPJCatholic]

Here is a sign of hope:

I live in Illinois (suburb of Chicago) and my parish has renovation plans for the next 1-2 years. Part of those plans is to redo the entire altar area, including lowering the chairs to the altar level, and placing the tabernacle in the center directly behind the altar. These changes bring far more reverence back into the liturgy.

This same parish has several schedulings of confession every week and encourages people to go to confession.

Similarly, there is a parish in a farther suburb that built a new Church several years ago and it is an amazingly beautiful Church with the Tabernacle in the center behind the altar and devout statues of the Holy Family and saints across the entire Church.

There is hope.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Orionthehunter:

I generally agree with your comment. I don’t approve when Priest’s take it upon themselves to make unapproved adaptations. Such adaptions can cause confusion and be harmful.

However, we need to also be tolerant that there are sound reasons for adaptations. I fondly recall the more hip Masses during my college days at the Newman Center as it spoke to me there at that stage of my life. Next year when we go visit my soon to be Freshman daughter, I’m sure Mass will be different from my parish but I will be grateful if she is going and getting the graces from Mass.

I don’t think we’ve put enough thought into our practice of “adapting”: the liturgy for different groups of people in order to reach/touch/minister to them better. On the one hand, things like youth Masses do speak on the level of their audiences. The weakness I see, though, is that there is entirely no sense of bringing the “adapted” groups into full, adult participation in the liturgy.

Take youth Mass, for example. For one, young people are told what they need. “You can’t relate to the Mass because Mass is boring. So we’re going to make it more interesting for you.” Bad message, and condescending, too. Secondly, if you pull people in with gimmicks, such as rock music, lights, a party atmosphere, etc., have you really gotten them attached to the Mass, or merely to rock music, lights, party atmosphere, etc. Third, what steps are you taking to expose youth to what the Church holds out as the ideal for liturgy, with the Church’s tradition of sacred music, Latin, kneeling, silence, revernece, etc.

That’s a very particular example, but care needs to be taken across the board to ensure that no one ever gets the impression that adaptations are made because the normative Mass is somehow lacking, i.e. it can’t speak to them. The problem is not with the Mass, but with the participant. Adaptations are simply made as concessions to individual faults and frailty. If there’s a threat of scandal, implying that the Mass needs adaptation, it shouldn’t be done.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Andreas Hofer:

I don’t think we’ve put enough thought into our practice of “adapting”: the liturgy for different groups of people in order to reach/touch/minister to them better. On the one hand, things like youth Masses do speak on the level of their audiences. The weakness I see, though, is that there is entirely no sense of bringing the “adapted” groups into full, adult participation in the liturgy.

Take youth Mass, for example. For one, young people are told what they need. “You can’t relate to the Mass because Mass is boring. So we’re going to make it more interesting for you.” Bad message, and condescending, too. Secondly, if you pull people in with gimmicks, such as rock music, lights, a party atmosphere, etc., have you really gotten them attached to the Mass, or merely to rock music, lights, party atmosphere, etc. Third, what steps are you taking to expose youth to what the Church holds out as the ideal for liturgy, with the Church’s tradition of sacred music, Latin, kneeling, silence, revernece, etc.

That’s a very particular example, but care needs to be taken across the board to ensure that no one ever gets the impression that adaptations are made because the normative Mass is somehow lacking, i.e. it can’t speak to them. The problem is not with the Mass, but with the participant. Adaptations are simply made as concessions to individual faults and frailty. If there’s a threat of scandal, implying that the Mass needs adaptation, it shouldn’t be done.

I don’t disagree that care shouldn’t be taken. However, adaptations don’t necessarily mean that the Mass is lacking. The reason for Vatican II and the impetus of the efforts of both JPII and BenedictXVI at Vatican IIwas to make the Mass more participatory by the laity. Youth Masses allow young people to express themselves via their heartfelt particpation. Joy is a pleasure created by God and we could all learn something by the joy expressed by the young or the enthusiasm by the charismatics or the cultural expression by people from other cultures. Expressoin of joy is its own form of reverence, especially for the children and teens. These are not concessions to individual fraility but celebrations of individual differences.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

The reason for Vatican II and the impetus of the efforts of both JPII and BenedictXVI at Vatican IIwas to make the Mass more participatory by the laity.

Fr Fessio would disagree as he traces back the expression “full conscious and active participation” .

This may surprise you.

The Mass of Vatican II

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, was one of two documents issued on the same day, December 4, 1963, the first two documents issued by the Second Vatican Council. The other document, Inter Mirifica, is on social communication. Sacrosanctum Concilium is one of the most important documents of the Council, one that has been the least understood and, I believe, has wrought the most havoc — not by having been fulfilled — but by having been ignored or misinterpreted. Now there should be no argument about the central intent of the Council concerning the liturgy. The Council actually spells out its intent, in paragraph 14 of Sacrosanctum Concilium: “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations, which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.” The key words here are “full, conscious, and active participation.” The Latin for “active participation” is actuosa participatio.

I did a little research into previous uses of that expression in papal and other ecclesial documents. The first papal usage was in 1903 by Pope St. Pius X, whose motto was “Omnia Instaurare in Christo” (To restore all things in Christ). He considered himself a pope of renewal. He was elected in August of 1903 and in November, he issued one of the first documents of his pontificate, a motu proprio called Tra Le Solicitudini, that is, “Among the Concerns.” This was a document on the renewal of sacred music. In it, the Holy Father states, “In order that the faithful may more actively participate in the sacred liturgy, let them be once again made to sing Gregorian Chant as a congregation.”

That’s what the term “active participation” meant when it was first used in a papal document. But it had been used ten years earlier in another document, issued by Pius X before he was pope. He was the patriarch of Venice, and the document — as it turns out — was actually written by a Jesuit, with the wonderful name of Angelo dei Santi (“angel of the saints”). Sounds like a fictitious name.

In any case, the first use of actuosa participatio, i.e., active participation, referred explicitly and exclusively to the restoration of the congregational singing of Gregorian Chant. In 1928, Pope Pius XI reiterated the point in his Apostolic Letter, Divini Cultus. Nineteen years after that, in the Magna Carta of liturgical reform, Mediator Dei, issued by Pius XII, the same term was used with the same meaning. So until the Second Vatican Council, the term “active participation” referred exclusively to the singing of Gregorian Chant by the people.

more…

 

[fix]

buffalo:

This may surprise you.

Indeed, from your article:

The Council’s idea is clear: the liturgy is to be renewed by promoting more active participation through the means of greater education. Nothing whatsoever is said here about any kind of changes or reform of the rite itself. Later, when changes are discussed, the Council states in paragraph 23: “There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them.” So no changes unless there is a real, proven, demonstrable need…

It is also to realize that not all changes have always and everywhere been accompanied by the necessary explanation and catechesis. As a result, in some cases there has been a misunderstanding of the very nature of the Liturgy, leading to abuses, polarization, sometimes even grave scandal.”

 

[Orionthehunter]

I want to ask a straight question as I am confused as there may be an appearance of a disagreement when none really exists. I don’t advocate adaptations and exceptions that are abuses and I don’t think anyone here advocates abuses. However, just so we are clear:

Are these considered abuses:

1. Liturgically correct lyrics but expressed with contemporary styles of music? If so, you must be very disappointed with JPII’s particpation in the World Youth Day Mass in Denver or Benedict XVI’s participation in Cologne.
2. Charismatic Masses with physical and verbal expressions of joy (Amens, alleluias, and clapping). Again, you must be very disappointed in JPII’s encouragement of the Charismatic movement while he at the same time moved to correct abuses that had developed in the movement.
3. Masses with local cultural adaptations prevalent in parishs predominantly composed of immigrants from Latin America or Africa? Cardinal Arinze will take issue with you as he has talked about some of the African adaptations have been instrumental in the evangelization success of the Church in Africa (where the greatest growth in Catholic members is being experienced). It is my understanding that during a visit to our diocese a few years ago, Cardinal Arinze advised my Bishop on how to create a Sudanese Parish within the physical confines of an existing Parish. Let me tell you that my orthodox Bishop is intolerant of abuses but if you were to attend Mass at this Parish, while said in English, it has a “flavor” very distinct to other Masses in the diocese.

Or would the Church be served by making all Masses homogonous via a stamping out of contempory music that speak to and attract our young people, Charismatic Masses, or Masses representative to the cultural heritage of people from other countries? If so, “traditional” American’s might be disappointed when we are forced to worship as the Latin’s do or the Africans since we are in a minority in the Church.

 

[fix]

Papal Masses on TV: Benedict XVI Wants a New Director
Joseph Ratzinger has always had serious reservations about Piero Marini, choreographer of John Paul II’s masses. “La Civiltà Cattolica” explains how to coordinate the pontifical liturgies with the medium of television…

The systematic use of television for the papal masses will remain with Benedict XVI.

But it can be foreseen, on the other hand, that the “direction of the liturgy” will not be the same. As a cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger never kept secret his criticisms of some aspects of Marini’s preferred approach.

And even with his inaugural mass Benedict XVI has made it clear that he wants to accomplish a “reform of the reform” in this area, with increased fidelity to the great tradition of the Church.

by Sandro Magisterchiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=32905&eng=y

 

[Orionthehunter]

Fix, I’m not quite sure I understand your point and how it contributes to this discussion.

Are you trying to say that Cardinal Ratzinger is a dissident or that JPII was a heterodox?

Are you saying that BXVI will make liturgical style changes different than JPII? In other words, BXVI is the “flavor” that you prefer over that of JPII liturgically?

Or is there an entirely different point you are trying to make. I apologize for being so dense as I’m not getting it. Once I understand your point, I might be able to respond intelligently.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Orionthehunter:

Fix, I’m not quite sure I understand your point and how it contributes to this discussion.

Are you trying to say that Cardinal Ratzinger is a dissident or that JPII was a heterodox?

Are you saying that BXVI will make liturgical style changes different than JPII? In other words, BXVI is the “flavor” that you prefer over that of JPII liturgically?

Or is there an entirely different point you are trying to make. I apologize for being so dense as I’m not getting it. Once I understand your point, I might be able to respond intelligently.

Short of actually speaking for fix, I think the point is that participation by Benedict XVI does not equal his approval of how things are done. He’s been very clear in his opinions of how the Mass should be celebrated, and the liturgies orchestrated by Cardinal Marini simply don’t conform with that. I don’t think you can consider his participation in one World Youth Day Mass a reversal of everything else he’s written so far.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

I want to ask a straight question as I am confused as there may be an appearance of a disagreement when none really exists. I don’t advocate adaptations and exceptions that are abuses and I don’t think anyone here advocates abuses. However, just so we are clear:

Pope John Paul II Addresses the Bishops

…
The Pope generally speaks diplomatically, especially to bishops. These are pretty hard words, and this is the introduction, so obviously he’s going to give some guidelines for avoiding this polarization, this grave scandal and these abuses. He says, “After the experience of more than thirty years of liturgical renewal we are well placed to assess both the strengths and weaknesses of what has been done . . .” (listen carefully now)“ . . . in order more confidently to plot our course into the future, which God has in mind for His cherished people.” The Pope, here, speaks to our bishops, looking toward the new millennium and says, in effect, Here is what I think is the plan God has for all of his people as we move to the next millennium. And, specifically, here is the liturgical blueprint that, I, the Holy Father, believe we are to follow.

“The challenge now,” he continues, “is to move beyond whatever misunderstandings there have been and to reach the proper point of balance, especially by entering more deeply into the contemplative dimension of worship, which includes a sense of awe, reverence and adoration which are fundamental attitudes in our relationship with God.”

What does the Pope say we must do to restore balance? Enter more deeply into the contemplative dimension of worship. Can you contemplate when you’ve got drummers up in the sanctuary? Where do we find the sense of awe? Not in this “chatty” stuff at Mass: “Good morning, everybody.” Does that inspire a sense of awe? “Have a nice day.” The Pope mentions reverence and adoration. Standing is a sign of respect; but kneeling is a sign of adoration. The Pope says we must restore the sense of adoration.

The Pope says to the liturgists and the bishops, “The Eucharist gathers and builds the human community, but it is also ‘the worship of the Divine Majesty’.” That’s from Sacrosanctum Concilium, paragraph 33. He continues: “It is subjective in that it depends radically upon what the worshippers bring to it, but it is objective in that it transcends them as the priestly act of Christ himself to which he associates us, but which ultimately does not depend upon us.”

This is why it’s so important that liturgical law be respected: an objective act is taking place. “The priest, who is the servant of the liturgy and not its inventor or producer, has a particular responsibility in this regard, lest he empty the liturgy of its true meaning or obscure its sacred character,” says the Holy Father.

Then he talks about “The core of the mystery of Christian worship.” Is the core of the mystery of Christian worship a sense that we are the people of God? Is it feeling united with each other? Spiritual bonding? Not according to the Pope, who says, “The core of the mystery of Christian worship is the Sacrifice of Christ offered to the Father and the work of the Risen Christ who sanctifies his people through the liturgical sign.” The sacrifice of Christ, sanctification. That’s what the Pope says. Remember, he’s looking now to lead the Church in the new millennium liturgically. He continues: “It is, therefore, essential that in seeking to enter more deeply into the contemplative depths of worship, the inexhaustible mystery of the priesthood of Jesus Christ be fully acknowledged and respected.”

more…

 

[buffalo]

There is a movement to refer to the celebrant as the “presider,” instead of the “celebrant” or the “priest.” Now it’s true, he is a presider. But that’s an abstraction; and I think there’s an agenda behind the abstraction. You see, all the Sacraments need someone who presides: at Confirmation, at the Eucharist, at Confession — and at Baptism. And who can preside at Baptism? The priest is the ordinary minister and presider, but under certain unusual circumstances a layman — man or woman — and even a non-Catholic can preside at Baptism. And, so, I believe some people want to get us in the habit of thinking of the priest as a presider primarily because that’s an abstract term, which could include women.

What does the Pope say about the matter? “The priest, therefore, is not just one who presides, but one who acts in the person of Christ.” You see, only the priest can act in persona Christi capitis, in the name of the Bridegroom (Jesus) over against the Bride (the Church) in the nuptial act, which is the Mass.

Full, Conscious and Active Participation

The Holy Father next discusses three attributes of the liturgy: full, conscious and active participation. Remember that I began by reading paragraph 14 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which states that the purpose of the Council in renewing the liturgy was to achieve full, conscious, active participation? Well, those words can have different meanings. It is very interesting to find out what the Pope thinks they mean, as he tells us what he believes God is calling the Church to do in the liturgy in the new millennium.

First, he talks about the fullness of participation. “The sharing of all the baptized in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ is the key to understanding the Church’s call for full, conscious and active participation. Full participation certainly means that every member of the community has a part to play in the liturgy. And in this respect, a great deal has been achieved in parishes and communities across your land. But, full participation does not mean that everyone does everything. Since this would lead to a clericalizing of the laity and a laicizing of the priesthood, and this was not what the Council had in mind.”

What does he mean by “clericalizing the laity”? It’s the idea that, for example, the lector, the server at the altar, or the cross-bearer participates more actively than the mother with her child in the back of church. It’s the idea that being more like the priest in the sanctuary somehow makes you participate more fully. But the Pope says no to that idea. No, the “clericalizing of the laity” and the “laicizing of the clergy,” whereby the priest doesn’t do priestly things but sits while lay people are distributing the Eucharist, are not what the Council had in mind, says the Pope.

“The liturgy, like the Church, is intended to be hierarchical and polyphonic,” he says. Not concentric and egalitarian, but hierarchical and polyphonic: “Respecting the different roles assigned by Christ and allowing all the different voices to blend in one great hymn of praise.” I’m not saying there shouldn’t be lectors and acolytes, and so on. There should be. But the point is, it’s not how close you get to the altar that determines how fully you participate. If that were the case, then those who aren’t ministers of some sort at Mass would be second-class participants. That’s not what the Council meant, says the Pope, by full participation.

Then the Pope comes to active participation. “Active participation certainly means that in gesture, word, song, and service all the members of the community take part in an active worship, which is anything but inert or passive. Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness, and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily or following the prayers of the celebrant and the chants in music of the Liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way, profoundly active. In a culture that neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.”

 

[buffalo]

Especially in our noisy world, we need to have silence. Especially in our world where it is hard to pray, we need to have contemplative adoration. In a world that doesn’t respect the liturgical cycles and seasons, we need to celebrate the Feast of the Ascension on a Thursday, not on a Sunday. Precisely because we have to be counter-cultural, we need to say there’s something more important than the workday. It’s our feast day.

Finally, the Holy Father discusses conscious participation. He says, “Conscious participation calls for the entire community to be properly instructed in the mysteries of the liturgy” — the Council’s main instruction — “lest the experience of worship degenerate into a form of ritualism. But it does not mean a constant attempt within the liturgy itself to make the implicit explicit, since this often leads to verbosity and informality which are alien to the Roman Rite and end by trivializing the act of worship.”

Conscious participation, then, is not a multiplication of commentators telling us what’s happening as the Mass goes along; it’s not laid back informality and the trivializing of the liturgy. That’s why I think it may seem like a small thing, but it’s a very bad to begin a liturgy by saying, “Good morning, everyone.” That’s not how you begin a sacred liturgy. You begin a sacred liturgy, “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” or better yet, “In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.”

The Holy Father continues: “Nor does conscious participation mean the suppression of all subconscious experience, which is vital in a liturgy which thrives on symbols that speak to the subconscious, just as they speak to the conscious. The use of the vernacular has certainly opened up the treasures of the liturgy to all who take part.” There is, then, a positive value to the vernacular. “But,” the Holy Father continues, “this does not mean that the Latin language, and especially, the Chants which are so superbly adapted to the genius of the Roman rite, should be wholly abandoned.”

What, then, does the Pope say about full, conscious, active participation? That it should be hierarchical, that there should be quiet, and worship in awe and reverence, and that there should be a place for Latin and, certainly for Chant in the liturgy. I submit to you that in most parishes across this country that’s not what you habitually find at the ordinary Masses for the people. Thus, although the Pope doesn’t say it in so many words, he is of the opinion that the way Mass is currently celebrated doesn’t conform fully to the mandates of the Council, as intended by the Church for the next century.

 

[BayCityRickL]

Tantum ergo:

But just where is the so-called “push” for these adaptations coming FROM?

The average rank-and-file Catholic over the last 40 years has NOT been pushing for any of the above. …

Just how many of our bishops have been active in asking for these things over the last 40 years? I’ll bet not all that many, and I’ll also bet that most of the other bishops either had too much else on their plate, or trusted the “wiser” ones who ASSURED them that these changes were what the PEOPLE wanted, yadda yadda.

For all the talk of cafeteria Catholics, most of them are NOT in any sort of position where they sought or were able to implement most of these changes.

I am not a conspiracy person and I tend to err on the side of caution and dryness. . .but I am REALLY starting to wonder WHAT happened in my lifetime. It just doesn’t seem purely coincidental that the whole atmosphere since a few bishops “ran” with “the spirit of Vatican II” has basically been not a refreshing of the faith but a twisting, a revising, and even outright defiance of the faith.

I’m responding to post #3 in this thread, which I have just started to read.

I think the “push” comes from a lot of “conferences” and “seminars” where you wouldn’t think anything was being decided. I agree with your sentiments that roughly run parallel to my own, to wit: Gee, nobody ever asked me!

I was an altar server in the last gasping days of the Latin Mass. I sense that there was a lot of boredom in the pew. When the altar was turned around and the Mass went into English, a tremendous amount of informality and distraction was interjected, including lay readers, hootenany guitar masses, and mixed gender servers, for examples.

It’s obvious that a lot of people including priests are looking for loopholes in the rite of the Mass. I think that a lot of these things are meant to be gender sensitive. But, they have become gender sensitive only in superficial ways, to my thinking. E.G. banners in church, as decorations. The idea, I suppose, is that we need a “color” sensation and experience. The accomplishment was not so much what was produced, as who was making the changes. And, I think, that was the point.

At the USCCB meetings, I heard some comments in the last year about NOT making any more changes in the Mass, simply because people were tired of them.

And, by now, anybody over 25 has experienced the confusion about being told that now standing is the appropriate posture, when we were equally told something else just a few years ago.

I think that constant change is somebody’s idea of keeping the congregation alert. You have to dig deeper behind the changes themselves, and look at who is making them and who is giving the rationalization for them.

IMHO we’ve had about 30-40 years of musical bad taste. Even on EWTN it is rare to catch an inspiring musical rendition of the Mass.

It’s too upsetting. I’ll stop there.

 

[BayCityRickL]

tee_eff_em:

FTR (and as a datapoint), while the US does *translate *some holy days to Sunday (Epiphany, Corpus Christi), some others simply “lose” their obligation when they fall on Saturday or Monday (Assumption, All Saints).

The Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, on the other hand, translate some holy days when they fall on Saturday or Monday (ie, both the celebration and its attendant obligation (naturally) move to Sunday). cf. the bottom of this page

By far, the goofiest calendar shenanigans in the US involves our national patroness, the Immaculate Conception. It remains a day of obligation even when 8-Dec falls on Saturday or Monday. **But: ** When it falls on Sunday (necessarily the 2nd Sunday of Advent), the celebration is translated to Monday 9-Dec, but the obligation does not translate? (cf. the bottom of this page)

tee

Before the changes of Vat II, Jan 1 was the Feast of the Circumcision. Notice, we don’t even hear that word used any more. And, the closest we get is the Feast of the Presentation in the Temple.

Circumcision was the sign and act of the covenant between God and Abraham. Now, circumcision was dropped as a requirement of conversion even on the pages of the New Testament. But, there is still something to be said that this sign of the covenant was put on Jesus, both in obedience to the law, and as the definitive fulfillment of humanity’s covenant.

Remember, before 1966 or so, we had to go out in the cold to Church to celebrate this.

The feast day was changed to the solemnity of Mary, or something like that. Then it was changed to the feast of the Holy Family.

The Bishops seems bound and determined to make us go to church on that Day. When they started “playing around” with Jan 1, I began to lose some sense of commitment. P.S. aren’t there ENOUGH Marian feasts in the year? Didn’t we just celebrate one on Dec 8?

I’m glad that the Baptism of Jesus became one of those feasts that was promoted to a Sunday. That event is really very symbollic and important to us, and a fulfillment of the signs of the Temple sacrifices.

 

[tee_eff_em]

BayCityRickL:

Before the changes of Vat II, Jan 1 was the Feast of the Circumcision. Notice, we don’t even hear that word used any more. And, the closest we get is the Feast of the Presentation in the Temple.

…

The feast day was changed to the solemnity of Mary, or something like that. Then it was changed to the feast of the Holy Family.

The Bishops seems bound and determined to make us go to church on that Day. When they started “playing around” with Jan 1, I began to lose some sense of commitment. P.S. aren’t there ENOUGH Marian feasts in the year? Didn’t we just celebrate one on Dec 8? …

In fairness, this was not a change by the USCCB (which is the topic of this thread, in spite of your change of the Title), but was a change by the Universal Church.

Also: In the current calendar 1-Jan is still the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God; The Feast of the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph is celebrated on the Sunday in the Octave of Christmas, or on 30-Dec when there is no such Sunday (ie when Christmas day falls on Sunday).

Submitting his intellect and will to those with authority over the calendar, but wishing they would explain it better,
tee

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Orionthehunter:

I want to ask a straight question as I am confused as there may be an appearance of a disagreement when none really exists. I don’t advocate adaptations and exceptions that are abuses and I don’t think anyone here advocates abuses. However, just so we are clear:

Are these considered abuses:

1. Liturgically correct lyrics but expressed with contemporary styles of music? If so, you must be very disappointed with JPII’s particpation in the World Youth Day Mass in Denver or Benedict XVI’s participation in Cologne.
2. Charismatic Masses with physical and verbal expressions of joy (Amens, alleluias, and clapping). Again, you must be very disappointed in JPII’s encouragement of the Charismatic movement while he at the same time moved to correct abuses that had developed in the movement.
3. Masses with local cultural adaptations prevalent in parishs predominantly composed of immigrants from Latin America or Africa? Cardinal Arinze will take issue with you as he has talked about some of the African adaptations have been instrumental in the evangelization success of the Church in Africa (where the greatest growth in Catholic members is being experienced). It is my understanding that during a visit to our diocese a few years ago, Cardinal Arinze advised my Bishop on how to create a Sudanese Parish within the physical confines of an existing Parish. Let me tell you that my orthodox Bishop is intolerant of abuses but if you were to attend Mass at this Parish, while said in English, it has a “flavor” very distinct to other Masses in the diocese.

Buffalo’s post did a good job of bring out JPII’s thought on the Mass. He’s another person whose opinion can’t be accurately represented simply by what he does or permits. He was never too willing to exercise raw papal authority over the heads of others. This meant that sometimes he simply went along with things he didn’t like. In his reflections “Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way” he even laments that the new ordination rite lacks the richness of the previous rite. To me this conveyed a sense that, at least in one respect, it was inferior. Yet instead of changing the rite, he deferred to his predecessor and celebrated it as is. He does things he doesn’t like for the sake of those who will be shaken or offended by change. He saw what happened the last time the rite was revised heavy-handedly and knew the results were not healthy. I think John Paul’s laissez faire attitude also extended to those movements he supported in the sense that he promoted what was good in them, be it a fostering of community, a solid number of vocations arising from them, or whatever good fruit they might bear, and was easy on the criticism. He would always much rather coax and propose action than risk imposing it through direct orders, which he only did if he thought there was a very serious reason to do so.

As to your distinct questions:

1. Vatican II and all its subsequent popes called for chant and polyphony to retain pride of place in the liturgy. I suppose that so long as contemporary music is the exception and traditional chant and hymnody are the norm, there could be a place for modern styles. If JPII participated in Masses that did not conform to the Council and his own words, it is because he refused to disregard the decision making of a cardinal who JP felt should be allowed to do his job, even if his sensibilities did not coincide with the pope’s.
2. Praise the good, strive to correct the bad. And perhaps he even thought that the style of worship was a healthy one for particular Catholics with charismatic spirituality. But I highly doubt JPII ever insinuated that the spirituality of a particular movement/order be foisted upon the whole Church. This is what happens when bishops’ conferences or liturgy committees make “contemporary” innovations the norm for a parish or region
3. Inculturation has much less to do with local adaption of the litrugy than it does with discerning how the Gospel will best take root in a particular culture. The Latin liturgy is meant to transcend culture, so the more one anchors it to one particular local culture, to more one deviates from the ideal. The Church has said that some adaptation may be acceptable in certain circumstances, and this falls under the competence of the responsible ordinary, but this, also, is not to be considered the norm.

The problem I see with your examples is that they take things which the Church regards as acceptable for “sometimes” use (much like Cookie Monster now eats a “sometimes food”) and turn them into things that are always and everywhere applicable. That’s partially how the US got to be so much of an exception in the universal Church. Our independent minded and somewhat legalistic society seeks to exploit every exception available to it, instead of trying first to conform itself to the mind of the Church.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Andreas Hofer:

Buffalo’s post did a good job of bring out JPII’s thought on the Mass. He’s another person whose opinion can’t be accurately represented simply by what he does or permits. He was never too willing to exercise raw papal authority over the heads of others. This meant that sometimes he simply went along with things he didn’t like. In his reflections “Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way” he even laments that the new ordination rite lacks the richness of the previous rite. To me this conveyed a sense that, at least in one respect, it was inferior. Yet instead of changing the rite, he deferred to his predecessor and celebrated it as is. He does things he doesn’t like for the sake of those who will be shaken or offended by change. He saw what happened the last time the rite was revised heavy-handedly and knew the results were not healthy. I think John Paul’s laissez faire attitude also extended to those movements he supported in the sense that he promoted what was good in them, be it a fostering of community, a solid number of vocations arising from them, or whatever good fruit they might bear, and was easy on the criticism. He would always much rather coax and propose action than risk imposing it through direct orders, which he only did if he thought there was a very serious reason to do so.

As to your distinct questions:

1. Vatican II and all its subsequent popes called for chant and polyphony to retain pride of place in the liturgy. I suppose that so long as contemporary music is the exception and traditional chant and hymnody are the norm, there could be a place for modern styles. If JPII participated in Masses that did not conform to the Council and his own words, it is because he refused to disregard the decision making of a cardinal who JP felt should be allowed to do his job, even if his sensibilities did not coincide with the pope’s.
2. Praise the good, strive to correct the bad. And perhaps he even thought that the style of worship was a healthy one for particular Catholics with charismatic spirituality. But I highly doubt JPII ever insinuated that the spirituality of a particular movement/order be foisted upon the whole Church. This is what happens when bishops’ conferences or liturgy committees make “contemporary” innovations the norm for a parish or region
3. Inculturation has much less to do with local adaption of the litrugy than it does with discerning how the Gospel will best take root in a particular culture. The Latin liturgy is meant to transcend culture, so the more one anchors it to one particular local culture, to more one deviates from the ideal. The Church has said that some adaptation may be acceptable in certain circumstances, and this falls under the competence of the responsible ordinary, but this, also, is not to be considered the norm.

The problem I see with your examples is that they take things which the Church regards as acceptable for “sometimes” use (much like Cookie Monster now eats a “sometimes food”) and turn them into things that are always and everywhere applicable. That’s partially how the US got to be so much of an exception in the universal Church. Our independent minded and somewhat legalistic society seeks to exploit every exception available to it, instead of trying first to conform itself to the mind of the Church.

Actually, you and I are on the same track. I think that exceptions (defined as those liturgical changes that require permission from teh Bishop or Rome) need to be rare and adaptations (accommodation for different cultures or age groups within a diocese) need to be carefully scrutinized for their application. My reaction is that so many who advocate more traditional Masses want it applied across the board with virtually no accommodation to the worshippers. For instance, I occassionally attend Mass at my daughter’s high school as I did yesterday for All Saints Day. In their Mass, their joyful expression thru their music to them was more reverrent than chants and organ music. We need to look at some things thru the eyes of others rather than applying our particular preferences to them.

 

[buffalo]

Does anyone believe that JPII traveled so extensively to see the liturgy first hand in other countries (as well as for other reasons).

Did anyone notice his concentration in prayer during these liturgies? Could it be he was digesting all of this with the idea that he would have to correct the meanderings of VII?

And the Liturgists going away thinking he approved?

Just a thought.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

In their Mass, their joyful expression thru their music to them was more reverrent than chants and organ music. We need to look at some things thru the eyes of others rather than applying our particular preferences to them.

I cannot speak to the mass you mention, but what came to mind is the quote often attributed to Cardinal Newman. In speaking with his Anglican friend who told him he may worship God in his way and he will worship in his own way Newman said no you worship in your way and I will worship in His way.

The point in all this is we should have masses that are in conformity with the mind of the Church.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

I cannot speak to the mass you mention, but what came to mind is the quote often attributed to Cardinal Newman. In speaking with his Anglican friend who told him he may worship God in his way and he will worship in his own way Newman said no you worship in your way and I will worship in His way.

The point in all this is we should have masses that are in conformity with the mind of the Church.

I’ll take comfort that these Masses are in conformity with the mind of the Church since they ahve been celebrated by our Bishop (one well-known nation-wide for his orthodoxy and dedication to liturgical standards) and he fully participated and never expressed concern about the “flavor” (as this is a diocesan school directly under his control, located less than a mile from teh Chancery and never hesitated to interject himself into the school when he thought appropriate, I have no doubt he would have expressed himself if dissatisfied). However, this being said, I can assure you that some who have posted on this thread would not have been pleased as the “flavor” was definitely geared to youth.