Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Traditional, not Traditionalist
(please forgive any typos - I will change them when I have time to proof the post more diligently! Thanks!)
The biggest and most continuous source of controversy in the Roman Catholic church over the last 35 years has been the revised Roman Rite of the Mass. The Paul VI missal (which has been tinkered with as recently as 2000) is a reform that is in need of reform. This idea is not new, but for me, it is one that I have been toying with for at least 20 years. After having read different arguments from different sides, I have found myself in the "reform of the reform" camp, and not the Traditionalist camp. Sacrosanctum Concilium, issued by the Council Fathers of Vatican II is clear in its intent that the traditions of the ancient Roman Rite should be countinued, and that any revision must be done with this intent in mind. This traditional but not Traditionalist idea is one with which I am finally comfortable since, I think, I have come to understand what needs to be done to "fix" the Novus Ordo.
My understanding and proposals are based on the writings of the authors, most of whom are priests, that I have digested over the last 20 years. If something sounds familiar to you but is not directly attributed to someone, then I probably got it from someone else but do not remember exactly from where the idea or statment came.
ARCHITECTURE
The Mass, especially the Liturgy of the Eucharist, should be conducted in a sacred space since it is a sacred action. Thus, it is important to consider architecture as well as the prayers and actions of the priest and the faithful. I will not dwell much on architecture here, but the sanctuary should be a sacred place that is treated with proper respect. The sanctuary should not be a gathering place for the group of the day, nor should it blend in with the church proper so that no demarkation exists between where the pews end and the sactuary begins. The reinstallation of altar rails, where needed, should commence immediately. The tabernacle should be a center focal point, and the altar should be an altar and not a Calvinist table. There are many other ideas that would help if instituted, but I offer these as being the most pressing. I am open to other suggestions.
CONTINUITY AND CONSISTENCY
These architectual changes will help any lay Catholic focus better on the mysteries and general content of the Mass. But architectural changes are not sufficient in and of themselves. I have attended Mass at churches that have wonderful architecture, but the content of the "service" has been abysmal. One of the greatest problems with the Novus Ordo is that it has become a rite of randomness - the tone and content can vary dramatically from place to place and from Mass to Mass (even within the same parish!).
The Council Fathers, as well as Paul VI I should think, believed that consistency and continuity were key to any reformed Roman Rite. Anyone who has any sense at all realizes that consitency and continuity simply does not exist within some parishes, let alone dioceses and archdioceses. Liturgical reformers have been more interested in the Protestantization of the service that downplays or eliminates the mystery inherent in the rite in favor of modernist thought and practices. Sacrosanctum Concilium, and the Council Fathers who issued it, does not envision nor authorize the old Rite to be tossed on the ash heap of history. Converserly, it does not argue that the Missal of 1962 (or any before it) should remain unaltered.
How can the Mass be reigned in, so to speak? How can the Church reform the Roman Rite so that it is the most effective Rite possible?
The following is my basic reform proposal. I have not addressed every minutiae, nor am I suggesting what do in specific times such as the Easter Vigil, Good Friday, etc. My proposals, a marriage of ideas taken from many sources, focuses on the key components of the "regular" Mass.
LANGUAGE
The reform of the reform should start with language. Sacrosanctum Concillium appears to waffle on the debate of Latin versus the vernacular. However, the Council Fathers, save one, felt that there was no need for concern about the potential loss of Latin since they were convinced that it would not happen! Alas, the loss is very apparent, and it is time to find our Latin roots in order to restore continuity, consistency and tradition.
Borrowing from Fr. Brian W. Harrison's, O.S. suggestions (yes, another Australian has made an impact on me, although I go in a slightly different direction that his proposal for an alternate reform), Latin should be reinstituted and made mandatory (no indults permitted) for prayers that do not change. There is nothing in Sacrosanctum Concillium that would "justify the translation of the whole Mass into the vernacular," as Fr. Harrison has noted.
Fr. Harrison writes (and, yes, I know that the Kyrie is in Greek):
"Latin could be retained for all those parts that are recited in a low voice by the priest - that is, the whole of the Offertory and the Canon - and also for most of the unchanging (or relatively unchanging) parts of the common invocations and the final blessing, the Kyrie, Gloria, Preface, Pater Noster, Sanctus, and Angus Dei. (Article 54 actually specifies that the faithful should be able to sing or recite many of those parts in Latin. An exception could be made for the Confiteor if, as I am suggesting, it is to be recited just once at the beginning of the Mass by both priest and people. Since there is no tradition of singing this prayer, and since the Latin contains several passages that are awkward in pronunciation, recitation in the vernacular would probably be more appropriate here.) This would leave for translation into the vernacular those publicly audible parts of the Mass that, because they change every day, would be most unfamiliar and unitelligble to the faithful if they remained in Latin: the opening Introit, antiphon, and Collect; the Scripture readings, Prayer of the Faithful, the Offertory and Communion anitphons, and the postcommunion prayer. I suggest that such a distribution of languages would provide very much the kind of balance that most Council Fathers probably had in mind."
I am open to a discussion on what parts of the Mass should be prayed by the priest in a low voice. Perhaps Fr. Harrison is correct, but it is not something on which I have particularly strong thoughts one way or the other.
LITURGY OF THE WORD
Much has been said about the institution of the A, B, and C cycle of readings versus the old set calendar. Many people like to focus on the fact that the second reading is usually not a good thematic fit with the first reading, the responsorial Psalm and the Gospel. The argument for bringing back a set calendar for the purposes of reminding the faithful of important themes is persuasive; but, having grown up in the reformed reading system, I cannot say that I feel that I have suffered in any way, nor am I aware of any position that advocates a change based on damage suffered. The key is the quality of the homily given by the priest. Happy-go-lucky and touchy-feely homilies can obliterate the meaning of any set of readings. Discipline in the content of homilies seems to be much more important here.
As for who should do the readings, the Gospel is reserved to the priest or deacon (with the obvious exception of Palm Sunday; if other exceptions exist, they are not coming to mind right now). Just this last Sunday, my wife and I had to suffer through a joint reading that included two lay persons. This is the perfect example of liberal liturgists gone wild. Although the sermon was fine, my (and my wife's) irritation level made it more difficult to concentrate on the priest's sermon as well as actively and prayerfully participate in the rest of the Mass.
I have no objection in having lay persons recite the rest of the readings so long as they are competent. Too often the faithful have to suffer through butchered pronounciations and mumbled parts that make the readings unbearable if not unintelligble. If a competent, and rehearsed person, is not available, the priest or deacon should read the daily selections (and, no, I did not choose the last two words
FACING EAST and THE LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST
The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharistic, although key components of the Mass, should be performed in such a way that the distinct nature of each is not lost. Various priests have suggested, and I agree, that the priest should face the same direction as the people during the entire Offertory and Eucharistic Prayer as he is the one re-presenting (not repeating nor simply memorializing in a Protestant fashion) the sacrifice of Calvary. The priest's position is necessarily elevated due to the awesome gravity of the mystery of the crucified Christ. When the priest faces us during this time, the focus tends to be on him in a communal meal fashion. As Fr. Harrison points out: "Vatican II never remotely suggested this change (facing the people), which is more radically Protestant in spirit even than the Lutheran custom and traces its origin to the Calvinist 'Lord's Supper.'"
Fr. Aidan Nicols, O.P. writes: "By an apparent paradox, we need the liturgy not to be intrusively relevant to the secular roles that the society of a fallen world constructs for us. We need the liturgy to estrange us from our ordinary workaday selves by enabling us to find a new identity in those voices that speak there of adoration, purification, and the endless trandscendence of the peace beyond all undestanding of the City of God." Fr. Aidan's point is applicable to the entire Mass, but as it is applied to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, getting away from the Calvinist visual that now permeates the Latin Church is the right idea. Fr. Aiden continues: "The liturgy must make us aware of the identity of the Mass with Calvary." It is obvious that the awareness of which he writes is lost in many, if not most, Latin Rite churches today.
As for the Euchartistic Prayer, only the prayer that has become to be known as Number One should be retained. There is no evidence that the Council Fathers envisioned nor wanted any new prayers to be used here. If tradition, consistency, and continuity are important (and they are essential) then the use of the Eucharisitic Prayer of the "old" rite is necessary. The use of the new prayers is, in essence, a creation of a new rite and not a reform of the old even if one thinks the new prayers are of equal quality. This core component should be deemed untouchable.
Also, it is important that sacred vessels be used. Glass, clay, etc. do not fit the definition.
So, what about facing east? Given the architecture of many church buildings, this is not always possible, hence my emphasis on the priest facing the same way as the people during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
EVERYTHING ELSE
There are many other practices and ideas that need to be eliminated or radically changed. I have discussed most of these in previous posts (such as the elimination of altar girls, the drastic reduction in the use of Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers, the use of a communion paten, suitable music, etc.) I realize that not all important issues have been touched on in this post, but I trust that the reader will find these issues to be the ones that should be at the top of the list for discussion. What is most important here is that we strive to be Roman Catholics and not modern Protestants. I will leave you with Father J.P. Parsons' words on the original reform movement:
"Initially the idea is to make modern life revolve around the liturgy, but as the movememt develops, there is an increasing tendency to make the liturgy revolve around modern life."
That needs to stop now!
The biggest and most continuous source of controversy in the Roman Catholic church over the last 35 years has been the revised Roman Rite of the Mass. The Paul VI missal (which has been tinkered with as recently as 2000) is a reform that is in need of reform. This idea is not new, but for me, it is one that I have been toying with for at least 20 years. After having read different arguments from different sides, I have found myself in the "reform of the reform" camp, and not the Traditionalist camp. Sacrosanctum Concilium, issued by the Council Fathers of Vatican II is clear in its intent that the traditions of the ancient Roman Rite should be countinued, and that any revision must be done with this intent in mind. This traditional but not Traditionalist idea is one with which I am finally comfortable since, I think, I have come to understand what needs to be done to "fix" the Novus Ordo.
My understanding and proposals are based on the writings of the authors, most of whom are priests, that I have digested over the last 20 years. If something sounds familiar to you but is not directly attributed to someone, then I probably got it from someone else but do not remember exactly from where the idea or statment came.
ARCHITECTURE
The Mass, especially the Liturgy of the Eucharist, should be conducted in a sacred space since it is a sacred action. Thus, it is important to consider architecture as well as the prayers and actions of the priest and the faithful. I will not dwell much on architecture here, but the sanctuary should be a sacred place that is treated with proper respect. The sanctuary should not be a gathering place for the group of the day, nor should it blend in with the church proper so that no demarkation exists between where the pews end and the sactuary begins. The reinstallation of altar rails, where needed, should commence immediately. The tabernacle should be a center focal point, and the altar should be an altar and not a Calvinist table. There are many other ideas that would help if instituted, but I offer these as being the most pressing. I am open to other suggestions.
CONTINUITY AND CONSISTENCY
These architectual changes will help any lay Catholic focus better on the mysteries and general content of the Mass. But architectural changes are not sufficient in and of themselves. I have attended Mass at churches that have wonderful architecture, but the content of the "service" has been abysmal. One of the greatest problems with the Novus Ordo is that it has become a rite of randomness - the tone and content can vary dramatically from place to place and from Mass to Mass (even within the same parish!).
The Council Fathers, as well as Paul VI I should think, believed that consistency and continuity were key to any reformed Roman Rite. Anyone who has any sense at all realizes that consitency and continuity simply does not exist within some parishes, let alone dioceses and archdioceses. Liturgical reformers have been more interested in the Protestantization of the service that downplays or eliminates the mystery inherent in the rite in favor of modernist thought and practices. Sacrosanctum Concilium, and the Council Fathers who issued it, does not envision nor authorize the old Rite to be tossed on the ash heap of history. Converserly, it does not argue that the Missal of 1962 (or any before it) should remain unaltered.
How can the Mass be reigned in, so to speak? How can the Church reform the Roman Rite so that it is the most effective Rite possible?
The following is my basic reform proposal. I have not addressed every minutiae, nor am I suggesting what do in specific times such as the Easter Vigil, Good Friday, etc. My proposals, a marriage of ideas taken from many sources, focuses on the key components of the "regular" Mass.
LANGUAGE
The reform of the reform should start with language. Sacrosanctum Concillium appears to waffle on the debate of Latin versus the vernacular. However, the Council Fathers, save one, felt that there was no need for concern about the potential loss of Latin since they were convinced that it would not happen! Alas, the loss is very apparent, and it is time to find our Latin roots in order to restore continuity, consistency and tradition.
Borrowing from Fr. Brian W. Harrison's, O.S. suggestions (yes, another Australian has made an impact on me, although I go in a slightly different direction that his proposal for an alternate reform), Latin should be reinstituted and made mandatory (no indults permitted) for prayers that do not change. There is nothing in Sacrosanctum Concillium that would "justify the translation of the whole Mass into the vernacular," as Fr. Harrison has noted.
Fr. Harrison writes (and, yes, I know that the Kyrie is in Greek):
"Latin could be retained for all those parts that are recited in a low voice by the priest - that is, the whole of the Offertory and the Canon - and also for most of the unchanging (or relatively unchanging) parts of the common invocations and the final blessing, the Kyrie, Gloria, Preface, Pater Noster, Sanctus, and Angus Dei. (Article 54 actually specifies that the faithful should be able to sing or recite many of those parts in Latin. An exception could be made for the Confiteor if, as I am suggesting, it is to be recited just once at the beginning of the Mass by both priest and people. Since there is no tradition of singing this prayer, and since the Latin contains several passages that are awkward in pronunciation, recitation in the vernacular would probably be more appropriate here.) This would leave for translation into the vernacular those publicly audible parts of the Mass that, because they change every day, would be most unfamiliar and unitelligble to the faithful if they remained in Latin: the opening Introit, antiphon, and Collect; the Scripture readings, Prayer of the Faithful, the Offertory and Communion anitphons, and the postcommunion prayer. I suggest that such a distribution of languages would provide very much the kind of balance that most Council Fathers probably had in mind."
I am open to a discussion on what parts of the Mass should be prayed by the priest in a low voice. Perhaps Fr. Harrison is correct, but it is not something on which I have particularly strong thoughts one way or the other.
LITURGY OF THE WORD
Much has been said about the institution of the A, B, and C cycle of readings versus the old set calendar. Many people like to focus on the fact that the second reading is usually not a good thematic fit with the first reading, the responsorial Psalm and the Gospel. The argument for bringing back a set calendar for the purposes of reminding the faithful of important themes is persuasive; but, having grown up in the reformed reading system, I cannot say that I feel that I have suffered in any way, nor am I aware of any position that advocates a change based on damage suffered. The key is the quality of the homily given by the priest. Happy-go-lucky and touchy-feely homilies can obliterate the meaning of any set of readings. Discipline in the content of homilies seems to be much more important here.
As for who should do the readings, the Gospel is reserved to the priest or deacon (with the obvious exception of Palm Sunday; if other exceptions exist, they are not coming to mind right now). Just this last Sunday, my wife and I had to suffer through a joint reading that included two lay persons. This is the perfect example of liberal liturgists gone wild. Although the sermon was fine, my (and my wife's) irritation level made it more difficult to concentrate on the priest's sermon as well as actively and prayerfully participate in the rest of the Mass.
I have no objection in having lay persons recite the rest of the readings so long as they are competent. Too often the faithful have to suffer through butchered pronounciations and mumbled parts that make the readings unbearable if not unintelligble. If a competent, and rehearsed person, is not available, the priest or deacon should read the daily selections (and, no, I did not choose the last two words
FACING EAST and THE LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST
The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharistic, although key components of the Mass, should be performed in such a way that the distinct nature of each is not lost. Various priests have suggested, and I agree, that the priest should face the same direction as the people during the entire Offertory and Eucharistic Prayer as he is the one re-presenting (not repeating nor simply memorializing in a Protestant fashion) the sacrifice of Calvary. The priest's position is necessarily elevated due to the awesome gravity of the mystery of the crucified Christ. When the priest faces us during this time, the focus tends to be on him in a communal meal fashion. As Fr. Harrison points out: "Vatican II never remotely suggested this change (facing the people), which is more radically Protestant in spirit even than the Lutheran custom and traces its origin to the Calvinist 'Lord's Supper.'"
Fr. Aidan Nicols, O.P. writes: "By an apparent paradox, we need the liturgy not to be intrusively relevant to the secular roles that the society of a fallen world constructs for us. We need the liturgy to estrange us from our ordinary workaday selves by enabling us to find a new identity in those voices that speak there of adoration, purification, and the endless trandscendence of the peace beyond all undestanding of the City of God." Fr. Aidan's point is applicable to the entire Mass, but as it is applied to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, getting away from the Calvinist visual that now permeates the Latin Church is the right idea. Fr. Aiden continues: "The liturgy must make us aware of the identity of the Mass with Calvary." It is obvious that the awareness of which he writes is lost in many, if not most, Latin Rite churches today.
As for the Euchartistic Prayer, only the prayer that has become to be known as Number One should be retained. There is no evidence that the Council Fathers envisioned nor wanted any new prayers to be used here. If tradition, consistency, and continuity are important (and they are essential) then the use of the Eucharisitic Prayer of the "old" rite is necessary. The use of the new prayers is, in essence, a creation of a new rite and not a reform of the old even if one thinks the new prayers are of equal quality. This core component should be deemed untouchable.
Also, it is important that sacred vessels be used. Glass, clay, etc. do not fit the definition.
So, what about facing east? Given the architecture of many church buildings, this is not always possible, hence my emphasis on the priest facing the same way as the people during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
EVERYTHING ELSE
There are many other practices and ideas that need to be eliminated or radically changed. I have discussed most of these in previous posts (such as the elimination of altar girls, the drastic reduction in the use of Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers, the use of a communion paten, suitable music, etc.) I realize that not all important issues have been touched on in this post, but I trust that the reader will find these issues to be the ones that should be at the top of the list for discussion. What is most important here is that we strive to be Roman Catholics and not modern Protestants. I will leave you with Father J.P. Parsons' words on the original reform movement:
"Initially the idea is to make modern life revolve around the liturgy, but as the movememt develops, there is an increasing tendency to make the liturgy revolve around modern life."
That needs to stop now!
