Lot’s wives…
Apropos of the earlier post on the church’s “dry drunks,” the well-regarded Bishop of Stockton, Stephen Blaire, gave a savory homily last month at the ordination Mass for two new priests from his diocese. (HT: Rocco’s Whispers) In motifs reminiscent of John XXIII–but perhaps aimed at those who would fashion themselves as the new clericalists?–Blaire employed a powerful image from the Old Testament:
“There are some in the Church today who do not look forward in hope with the eyes of faith but tend to be preoccupied with looking back in some kind of nostalgia for a Church they never experienced prior to the Second Vatican Council. I encourage you to study the history of the Church as a living and developing tradition and not to look back as Lot’s wife did or you might end up being a pillar of salt rather then the ‘salt of the earth.’ “
Read more of Blaire’s homily here: http://www.stocktondiocese.org/english/bishop/homilies/homily19May2007.html
But don’t miss this nice bit:
“I have always treasured the words of my first pastor when I was newly ordained: We are here to serve the people and to do it with a touch of class.”
A wonderful homily! I fear it is not the usual message proclaimed to new ordinandi.
This does it for me: ” … study the history of the Church as a living and developing tradition.”
Our RCIA program did a very good job talking about this topic, trying to help would-be converts understand that not everything that comes out of Rome is engraved on stone tablets and must be accepted without thinking.
I find it helpful to think of the Church as the seed that holds all the answers God sees fit to provide humans with.
It is a seed that has grown into a fairly big plant in the past 2,000 years. It shades and protects us. It is beautiful to look at. But it has its cankers as well as its blossoms.
And probably none of us is going to see its final fruit in this lifetime.
Who appointed Blaire to the episcopate?!!?
Great homily, Bishop Blaire!
I am saddened to inform you that many people could not hear your words due to excessive noise caused by igniting time machines.
So the pre-Vatican II church was destroyed by God in a torrent of brimstone and fire as punishment for being unremittingly evil?
Yes, that’s quite a “powerful image,” alright, but I’m rather surprised that a Catholic Bishop would invoke it.
It was JPII.
Apparently, miracles can happen!
:)
It seems to me that Bishop Blair would have done better if he gave some specific examples in his sermon. The dated views of the 1970′s crowd seem to be holding the Church in a kind of time-warp at times. This is most evident to me in visits to justice spirituality conferences.
I wonder if he recognizes the oppressive pastoral problems created by those who think the Church was born in 1969? Just consider the ICEL fiasco.
I like the advice he quotes about “serving the people with a touch of class” and wish more liberal liturgists would take this advice to heart. Enough of the minimalism.
“Enough of the minimalism.”
Well said, Maid of Kent.
Now if you would just post accordingly.
“Just consider the ICEL fiasco.” OK. Read various articles in Commonweal and elsewhere that describe the Vatican’s continual intrusion into the liturgical translation process.
People in glass houses should not throw stones!
No one says that the pre-Vatican II church was evil. All of us should be wary of talking in extremes. The key to understanding Vat II is in John XXIII opening speech to the Council where he neatly points out that the hierarchy was often unduly influenced by secular powers and those decisions were in effect too long.
Vatican II was probably the purest council in that it was not effected by governmental nor aristocratic influences.
It is amazing to me that we keep referring to the excesses when most of them have been eliminated. The vast majority of the laity is fairly content with the liturgy and does not relate to the machinations of Rome which is prompted by a fanatical few.
Bishop Blair is significant in that he stresses engaging the faithful. Let’s engage him rather than come back with automated responses.
Bill said:
“The vast majority of the laity is fairly content with the liturgy and does not relate to the machinations of Rome which is prompted by a fanatical few.”
Any evidence Bill?
Maybe you are referencing the upswing in Mass attendance since 1970 over and above 1964 levels…uh no, can’t be that.
Perhaps you are referencing the upswing in vocations to liturgically observant religious orders (aka monasteries) over and above 1964 levels ….no, can’t be that.
Perhaps you are referencing the upswing in conversions over and above 1964 levels…no, can’t be that either.
Just where is your evidence of liturgically content laity Bill?
By the way – don’t get overly sentimental about the role of the laity in the 1960′s renewal. The movement was heavily clerical (Fr. McManus and Sloyen) and was largely a clerical exercise – not lay.
The Nov. 9, 1979 issue of the “Universe” decried the ICEL translation of the Mass in clear terms. Later the editor, Mr. Monckton (who was a Latinist), was challenged by the liturgical apparatus that crafted the ICEL translation on his views. Mr. Monckton then produced a list of 400 translation errors in the McManus ICEL version we continue to use today. The UK bishops were compelled to engineer an alternative translation of the IV Canon to avoid calling the Precious Blood (already consecrated) “wine” and many know that the UK version of the English Mass does include other modifications from the US version.
There were also episcopal critics of the early ICEL including the pastoral archbishop of Portland in Oregon.
Is there not something vulgar about the expression “a touch of class”?
That said I think His Excellency gave some good advice. I wonder if anyone of the newly ordained will listen.
I see the Mais is alleging a 70′s time warp from her 50′s time warp.
Oh the good old glorious days of high clericalism that the good bishop warns about in ghis speech.
Time warp or time woof? I wonder.
Somehow none of what the Maid says above is ad rem. Even critics of the New Liturgy acknowledge its value. At least there are texts to get wrong. Prior to 1960 very few had the foggiest of what was going on.
The liturgy is so much more engaging. All of us are happy that those who dresses as clowns are no longer around. Ditto for extemporaneus renditions of the Lord’s Supper.
More of us sing, partake of communion, are absorbed and content with the renewal. It is not a disavowal of the substance. More like making real what one did not appreciate because of language and aristocratic celebrants.
The problem with the bishops comment is that it attacks a straw man.
I don’t think there is a general movement to restore the Tridentine Rite as the norm. There is, however, a desire to re-establish some of the liturgical roots that were violently severed in the 70′s. The upcoming MP should be seen in this light, I think – as preserving a reference point of heritage and liturgical tradition. Frankly, I don’t understand what seems to me to be fear and hostility regarding the old rite and many of the old liturgical practices.
Perhaps Bishop Blaire should be more concerned with having only two new priests and having one of the lowest priest to population statistics in the country than he is with this boogeyman.
Question: what were the liturgical roots “violently severed” in the 70′s?
Liturtgical reform, it struck me, was to return to a more pristine era of the early Church where all understood and participated in the celebration of the Lord’s supper.
I also think that focusing on the liturgy example of the Bishop (who is stressing don’t be just a rules and regs guy and think you’re doing worship and sacraments well) is missing his point.
I think he is concerned with new priests and not just number but quality – and that is what may give us some hope for the future
Bob says that Bishop Blair need not be too “concerned” about the number of new priests ordained for the bishop’s diocese , (he only has two) because of their “quality” (though Bob does not explain why he presumes the quality in a class of two is better than the quality in a class of ten).
We see similar rejoinders about “quality” vs. “quantity” from K. J. Schiori and her declining and schism torn TEC.
Perhaps the old Shakers said similar things to themselves – “We are mighty few in number but my goodness at least we are smarter than everyone else.”
I think these and similar comments are good examples of self-delusion. The situation is dire, our post “60′s pastoral practices have failed by every measurable indicator, but we continue to tell ourselves “everything is working just fine – the “60′s practices are bringing great fruit – consider the “quality” of our (dwindling) recruits into the clergy.”
Our hope is not in a better educated but sparse clergy but in Christ and through Him in our own willingness to read the “signs of the times” revealed by Bishop Blair’s ordination class of two. It may be time to make some course corrections in pastoral policy.
After all – unless one rejects the role of the ministerial priest 20 poorly educated priests are always better than only two well educated priests because irrespective of their education or “quality” sins are forgiven, Masses are celebrated, and the sick are anointed. Bob’s hope of “quality” as a substitute for many would leave many without the sacraments.
Bob wrote: “Liturtgical (sic) reform, it struck me, was to return to a more pristine era of the early Church where all understood and participated in the celebration of the Lord’s supper.”
That sounds close to the antiquarianism criticized in Mediator Dei. It seems to seek out the infallibility of the archaeologist to define good liturgy.
Unless you were there no one knows to what extent formality and perhaps some liturgical Hebrew or Aramaic was used in the earliest Christian liturgies. For example, I see no reason to presume early liturgies resembled a Call to Action ceremony, however, I can see where formal Christian worship finds its precedent in the temple of ancient Jerusalem.
Suffice it to say we can understand our Mass today. As for quality of priests, I’ll take two priests who can relate to people in a pastoral way — over ten priests who keep quoting “rules,” strut around with their new-fangled birettas and cassocks, and don’t have a clue about the people they are supposed to be serving in Christ’s name.
My former cathedral parish acually grew in numbers with attention to dignified celebration of the Novus Ordo, excellent preaching, and excellent music (including a national award).
While we may not know exactly what transpired at the earliest Christian liturgies, we are all too familiar with the human process of accretion and encrustration. We also know how bishops gradually took on imperial Roman trappings and behaviors in worship and conduct. And, of course, we know all too well the crap that would ensue as vertical distance increased between the ordained and non-ordained.
If the Tridentine is “traditional,” so are barnacles on a ship!
I see the Maid is still into trying to have the last word.
Of course it would be important to have more Eucharistic confectors, but the problem may reside in the obligations curently created.
Moreover, as alter Christus, our expectations of clergy should be etremely high -certainly not thinking good liturgy = good rubrics – my point there.
The categoriues laid down by the bishop in his homily as non-desirable for new (and older clergy) are germane especially today when many want to worship at the altar of clericalism.