Oklahoma! Tulsa goes East…
Here’s one that’s sure to get some twisted knickers:
Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa has decreed that the celebrant at masses in the Cathedral will now celebrate ad orientam, to the East (though it’s not clear if the sanctuary points East). Here is a link to Slattery’s column in the diocesan magazine announcing the change, in a pdf format.
The New Liturgical Movement has excerpts as well here, in which Slattery explains why, along with Pope Benedict XVI, he believes ad orientam is superior to versus populum–and is not about the celebrant “turning his back to the people”:
In the last 40 years…this shared orientation was lost; now the priest and the people have become accustomed to facing in opposite directions. The priest faces the people while the people face the priest, even though the Eucharistic Prayer is directed to the Father and not to the people.
This innovation was introduced after the Vatican Council, partly to help the people understand the liturgical action of the Mass by allowing them to see what was going on, and partly as an accommodation to contemporary culture where people who exercise authority are expected to face directly the people they serve, like a teacher sitting behind her desk.
Unfortunately this change had a number of unforeseen and largely negative effects. First of all, it was a serious rupture with the Church’s ancient tradition. Secondly, it can give the appearance that the priest and the people were engaged in a conversation about God, rather than the worship of God. Thirdly, it places an inordinate importance on the personality of the celebrant by placing him on a kind of liturgical stage.
The “reform of the reform” continues apace, which is something of an irony in view of Benedict’s ostensible ‘conservativsm.” Posts on liturgy are always going to create uproars. I will admit that this admixture of rites disturbs me, because it seems to foster division rather than the unity the liturgy aims to do.
And not just in the pews. I was struck by the statements (as related in The Tablet) from the new Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, to a gathering of the Latin Mass Society that the old rite is not to supplant or be construed as superior to the novus ordo. “The view that the ordinary form of the Mass, in itself, is in some way deficient finds no place here,” he said.
What Bishop Slattery seems to be doing is a kind of admixture, I think. That may be even more problematic. Question: Does the Novus Ordo allow for an ad orientam posture?
Hmm.
Something that might be good to some clarification on: “I have restored the venerable ad orientem position when I celebrate Mass at the Cathedral”. that sounds like a personal preference and a personal decision. It doesn’t sound as far-reaching as a formal decree that all celebrants must face the “liturgical east”. Cathedrals tend to be pretty special-event-intensive, and so typically have quite a few priests who say mass in a given month. This may just be an announcement that he, personally, is going to do this.
If this were Chicago, 99% of the priests who say mass at the cathedral, I’m pretty sure, would continue to face the people during the Eucharistic Prayer.
Thirdly, it places an inordinate importance on the personality of the celebrant by placing him on a kind of liturgical stage.
OK, I’m a post-Vatican II kid. But (as has often been observed here) the notion that the priest is not on “a kind of liturgical stage” in the pre-Vatican II Mass doesn’t square with the recollections of most people I’ve talked to who remember the good old days of ad orientem. But wait, this is the part that really sounds weak to me:
…partly as an accommodation to contemporary culture where people who exercise authority are expected to face directly the people they serve, like a teacher sitting behind her desk.
Come again? Surely that part of the reform wasn’t intended to position the celebrant more clearly as a “person exercising authority.” And this implies that, in pre-contemporary culture, teachers faced away from their students… Huh? I know it’s a defense-of-orthodoxy genre requirement to disdain “accomodations to contemporary culture,” but this seems like a misfire.
…And, I should add, I say that as one who’s sympathetic to the theoretical arguments in favor of everyone-facing-the-same-direction. (I’m not anxious to experience it in person, but I get why people like the idea.) I just think the good bishop might be a bit more careful about floating bogus arguments for, or against, the status quo.
That’s a good-looking diocesan magazine, by the way!
I partly agree with you, Mollie. I think establishing dominance was an *unintended* consequence of the versus populum (facing the people) posture. But in my experience it is a consequence.
A single person facing a large group commands attention, whether s/he’s Jack Benny or Nancy Pelosi or Bishop Sheen. Whereas a man standing directly before God, as a priest does in the ad orientem posture (which is a perfectly allowable posture in the Rite), isn’t making eye contact with a congregation–isn’t influencing them in the way a teacher would.
I find Masses celebrated this way to be rather restful, actually.
Did Jesus celebrate his last supper with his closest friends facing ad orientam?
Liturgy isn’t quite that literal…
Even so, yes, during the last supper Jesus raises His eyes to heaven to pray directly to the Father.
The altar (victim and sacrifice) is the focus of the liturgical action — not the East, not the presider, not the crucifix (even a papal one) nor the tabernacle nor the flowers nor… The ALTAR is the focus of the assembly. That’s why the tabernacle should not be in the sanctuary (area).
Of course, 500 years of Tridentine (i.e. anti-Protestant, counter reformation) liturgy obscured this principle because the ALTAR PIECE (i.e. whichever priceless painting or cheap plaster statue it showcased), and not the altar proper, became the main focus — far off in the distance from the unworthy lay folk where Father ascended the steps to offer sacrifice with his holy hands.
It is amazing that so few theologians will speak up and denounce these efforts to preserve the Tridentine Rite for what they are — a direct attack against Pope Paul VI who abrogated this rite and personally oversaw its organic reform. All talk to the contrary, whether by a publican or a pope, is dishonest.
(1) There is one Roman rite–albeit with different forms–so there’s question of admixture of rites.
(2) Of course, the 1970 Missal admits of ad orientem. There are plenty of older churches and chapels without free-standing altars. Do you thing mass can’t be said there? And it is really the only way the liturgy makes sense: the priest faces “east” when addressing God and faces the people when he addresses them, e.g., at the Sursum corda, the Orate fratres, the Collect, the Post-Communion prayer, etc. It is truly the somatic, sacramental way to pray. It also accords perfectly with the practice in the Eastern rites and the older forms of the Roman rite.
(3) And, yes, actually, Jesus and His Blessed Apostles celebrated the Last Supper exactly this way. As Klaus Gamber showed, formal meals in the classical world were taken reclining at table with the participants all on the same side of the table or tables, i.e., all facing the same direction.
Robert Mickens, I’ll preface my comment by remarking that I have no particular stake in “ad orientem”. I’ve never seen it or done it and would be okay with never seeing or doing it.
I do want to state, though, that the bishop does go to some length to stress that he sees it as consonant with the renewed rite, rather than as a step backward. Arguably, this could be seen as building on, rather than regressing from, what has been accomplished so far.
Also, without endorsing this praticular decision or practice, I think there is something to be said for thinking of the liturgical renewal as a work in progress, rather than a finished product.
Just sharing some thoughts.
Since no one has answered your question, David, I guess I will. Yes, one may celebrate the Novus Ordo ad orientem. It has always been on the books. Whether this is a good idea today, a wise decision or not, is a separate question.
Jim Pauwels,
Your points are well taken.
But my objection to Bishop Slattery, and to others who have beaten up on the alleged problems of the new rite, is that their criticisms are not based on sound theology.
THE ALTAR is the focal point of the Eucharistic action. And more fittingly, it seems, priest and people gather around this altar/mensa in an act of commemoration, each fulfilling a specific role — presbyter invoking, in the name of and with the authority of the Chruch, the Holy Spirit to transform the gifts of bread and wine (of the people) into the Body and Blood of Christ.
The baroque forms, complicated rubrics, precious metal chalices and ornate vestments are incidentals.
A final thought: what of the 1,700 year tradition –still witnessed in the Roman Basilicas– whereby the presider (read: POPE) has ALWAYS faced the people ever since Constantine built the first public Christian worship spaces?
I applaud Robert Mickens’ courage in making these observations, which I think are true. We must see the forest as well as the trees here.
I also believe that Jim Pauwels is unfortunately wrong. It is not possible without intellectual dishonesty to see this as “building on what has been accomplished so far.” If the bishop believes this, he is deluded.
Nomilk is also mistaken as he claims that Jesus and his disciples ate a meal this way. They most assuredly did not. Three sides of a table, reclining, not one presider with everyone else at his back.
With Rita Ferrone’s endorsement, and the direction of the discussion secure in her able hands, I think it is time to go to bed.
It is now 1 a.m. in Rome.
Good (and hot) August night to each and every one. :-)
A single person facing a large group commands attention, whether s/he’s Jack Benny or Nancy Pelosi or Bishop Sheen.
But a single person doing most of the talking in front of, and on behalf of, a large group is naturally going to get attention. We are supposed to be paying attention to the priest, right? I don’t think “attention” and “dominance” are synonymous.
Kathy,
I am trying to find where scriptural accounts are consistent with your comment about “Jesus raises His eyes to heaven to pray directly to the Father.” Pardon my literalness but…I’ve re-read Matthew 26, 17-30 Mark 14, 10:26, Luke 22, 7-20 and John 13, 31-14 and I didn’t see one reference to Jesus looking up? In fact He seems to having an almost an exclusive dialogue with those He purposely gathered to be with Him on His last night (though there is a quick reference to Jesus giving “thanks” – but I suppose He could have been looking down as well, I know I often pray looking downward or giving thanks to those who were with Him on this important night). Furthermore, at least according to my literal reading in later verses (e.g. Mark 14, 32-40) Jesus didn’t begin an exclusive dialogue with the Father until he removed himself from the others, “ ‘Remain here and keep watch.’ He advanced a little and fell to the ground.” Seems to me ad orientem is the way to go when you are praying to the Father by yourself. But wherever and whenever two are more are gathered in His name – perhaps not?
P.S. – My prediction is that this one will surpass the 100 comment benchmark!!!
(1) The reference to St. Peter’s Basilica is a red-herring because, due to the accidents of history, that church is not oriented, i.e., east-facing, but rather west-facing. The pope or other celebrant is not facing the people but rather he is facing east! Apparently, the traditional practice was to have the people face east as well at the appropriate moments. Thus the practice at St. Peter’s confirms the otherwise universal traditional practice elsewhere.
(2) Who said anything about a three-sided table? The common table in the classical period would have been semi-circular or crescent shaped. Thus, at the Last Supper, Jesus and the Apostles were likely all facing the same direction. What we can be sure of, though, is that Jesus was not on the other side of the table by himself facing the Apostles!
Thanks you, Mr. Mickens, although you are probably wasting your time on this bishop.
You gain some insight into Vatican II by reading and studying “What Happened at Vatican II?” by John O’Mally. He deliberately avoided (as much as he could) descriptions that could be characterized as liberal or conservative….instead, he choose to demonstrate the facts of votes for each schema and document and labeled them minority or majority. Fact – over 2,300 bishops voted on most documents over the four sessions. The “minority” never garnered more than 800 votes on any final document including all of the liturgical revisions with Mr. Mickens touching on only one small theological insight of these changes.
In addition, Fr. O’Malley used three terms to describe the “evolution” of thinking and action during Vatican II……every deliberation was marked by ressourcement (going back to the early centuries of the church); development (characterized as doctrine does not change but how we express it in action may); and reaggiornamento (evolution and change).
Slattery’s statements reflect a lack of comprehensive understanding of the work that went into the liturgical documents of Vatican II; his current interpretation of “ad orientam” – not sure any liturgical expert would agree with his argument; and his argument betrays a lack of understanding the core of the sacramental approach of Vatican II – as with most Vatican II documents, liturgy (although the first to be ratified) reflected both a horizontal and a vertical dimension (contrary to this bishop’s announcement) and moved the church from a reactive counter-reformation approach to liturgy to a sacramental approach that shows liturgy as both/and. O’Mally consistently roots every document and vote back to the careful, consistent, evolution of the “both/and” in every phase of the life of the church.
Slattery misses this point completely. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi – his announcement/justification reveals much about his diocesan ecclesiology. If you choose to pray in this fashion, it will impact how people understand church, their participation in the liturgy, etc.
Oone, read on in John.
Mollie, I’ve taken art history classes in which a teacher faces the screen and talks about the images. To me, ad orientem is more like that than like a lecture. The difference is that the image, rather than the teacher, is the authority.
I think Robert Mickens is right on two points: the altar should be the focal point, as the primary Christic symbol. (However, I doubt seriously that Christ would consider this symbolism to be challenged or minimized by His Presence in the tabernacle!) Also, reredos have commanded too much attention from the baroque onward. If not VERY well done, they give the impression that the Kingdom of heaven is both flat and fictional.
“But a single person doing most of the talking in front of, and on behalf of, a large group is naturally going to get attention. We are supposed to be paying attention to the priest, right? I don’t think “attention” and “dominance” are synonymous.” – Good point Mollie
In fact, it might encourage PARTICIPATION – SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
“11. But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions, that their minds should be attuned to their voices, and that they should cooperate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain [28] . Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.”
How would a priest know if his sheep are drifting off course if his focus (or orientation) is not in balance with those he shepards? Seems like the Lord in His whole, complete and real presence (i.e. Body and Blood of Christ) with the sheep and the shepards in each others background is a proper and balanced orientation.
I don’t think having a 2 dimensional debate (ad oreintem vs ad populum) clarifies the whole point – not which way we could, should or have oriented ourselves during our litiguy but WHY!!!!
Kathy,
I don’t need to read on, to quote you again “during the last supper Jesus raises His eyes to heaven to pray directly to the Father.”
The passages I read were “during the last supper” – and again – re-read my previous comment addressing your interpretation of what Jesus did at the last supper.
Nomilk, you’ve now retreated from what you earlier said:
“And, yes, actually, Jesus and His Blessed Apostles celebrated the Last Supper exactly this way.”
None of the options we are looking at are “exactly this way,” thank you.
St. Peter’s, far from being a red herring, is an example of note often discussed in the literature. Today, of course, there are very many churches that face in various directions. Are we all to face the side wall if east is that way? No. What emerges from a closer look at the “ad orientem” terminology is that it is tendentious. The point is not facing east, because “liturgical east” isn’t east. It’s whatever direction the priest is facing.
Mr. Mickens: You write: “It is amazing that so few theologians will speak up and denounce these efforts to preserve the Tridentine Rite for what they are — a direct attack against Pope Paul VI who abrogated this rite and personally oversaw its organic reform. All talk to the contrary, whether by a publican or a pope, is dishonest.”
To lessen your amazement on the first point. Many theologians do not think that the action of one bishop (out of how many in the world?) with regard to one church (out of how many?) in one diocese (out of how many?) is sufficient evidence that the sky is falling.
As for your second point: It is unworthy of you, and hardly an invitation to the dialogue we like to think this blog promotes, to state flat out that all who disagree with you are dishonest. Consider other possible adjectives: “mistaken,” for example, or “poorly informed,” or “naive,” or “less apocalyptic,” etc., etc. But “dishonest”?
Nomilk,
“Thus, at the Last Supper, Jesus and the Apostles were likely all facing the same direction. What we can be sure of, though, is that Jesus was not on the other side of the table by himself facing the Apostles!”
Are you suggesting the Jesus wasn’t the focus of attention that night? …that they were all ignoring the Human and Divine Jesus sitting and eating with them – that they were all facing the “same direction” and therefore looking into space? Granted I don’t know the culture of that time – but I would think that the Son of God would command some attention from those around Him on that special night?
Funny, I don’t recall the Second Vatican Council addressing the orientation of the celebrant in the Roman liturgy, but I’m all for the Catholic “both/and.” So here’s a little Vatican II both/and for you:
The Council explicitly confirmed and approved the liturgical practices of the Eastern Catholic churches. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, # 12. Those practices, almost uniformly, include the requirement of ad orientem celebration of the divine liturgy. Ergo, Vatican II approved ad orientem. Q.E.D.
So before you condemn ad orientem, remember that we, your Eastern brothers and sisters, practice it everyday as our immemorial birthright.
Rita, certainly there are many important ancient examples of churches being built facing due east!
Also, I’m pretty sure if the Pope tried to celebrate ad orientem in St. Peter’s he would be in serious danger of falling down into the confessio…
Fr. Komonchak, I think you are missing the point. The decision of Bishop Slattery has not taken place in a vacuum. To evaluate it in isolation is to fail to see a pattern of great importance emerging. What Bob Mickens has done is to correctly identify this decision with a host of other initiatives now underway that are aimed at discrediting the postconciliar reform of the liturgy by repealing its most obvious features. And this does add up to an attack on Paul VI, whether or not anyone is so injudicious as to present them as such.
“The point is not facing east, because ‘liturgical east’ isn’t east. It’s whatever direction the priest is facing.”
I’m with you 100% on the priest facing liturgical east–although I will admit that that concept is a bit retrograde in the post-conciliar Church, no? But as a layman and fully paid-up member of the priestly people of God, I’d also like to face liturgical east during the liturgy. I can’t do that, though, if the priest’s liturgical east is versus populum. What about the vertical dimension of liturgical prayer? I mean, why are we privileging the celebrant?
The simple solution, of course, is for priest and people to face the same direction.
If I am not mistaken, Masses I have viewed on TV taking place at St. Peter’s have people sitting “behind” the altar. I have oftened wondered to myself (if my memory is correct), there is a seat for everyone’s preference at St. Peter’s, no?
On the largest questions, I do not see why one, rather experimental phase of the Church’s history should be the everlasting paradigm, and why any hint of modification should be thought a discrediting or an attack on anyone.
The windows are open and a fresh breeze is blowing. There is a new freedom to study and practice various liturgical forms–a freedom that was missing for 30 years. What could be more in line with “the spirit of Vatican II?”
And if facing East still has the priest facing the congregation — then what? Make the pew potatoes do a 180? Reorient the entire sanctuary at no small cost?
One advantage in the old days of having the priest turn his back to you: you could read the paper, catch a snooze, clean your nails, play with your baby, and make the rosary rounds.
No one really expected you to pay ATTENTION to what was going on — except, of course, the collection.
Slattery et al should really go into the fertilizer business.
Ms. Ferrone: My point is that there is no “pattern” of bishops choosing to celebrate Masses ad orientem in their cathedral, much less of requiring that this be done in all the churches of their dioceses. I fear that in a little bit we will be hearing complaints that “the bishops’ are trying to undo Vatican II and Pope Paul’s liturgical reform. It’s one bishop in a small diocese in one country!
Jimmy Mac, you forgot to mention another favorite activity of some gents when the priest had his backside toward the people: sneaking outside to take a smoke break as long as they returned to their pews (or rear of the church) for the offertory, consecration, and communion :)
It amazes me how some hierarchs (like Slattery, for instance) still believe that we will be gullible enough to believe their sorry excuses for the reactionary crap they try to foist upon us.
I mean, you can’t make this stuff up, folks (like some bishops can :)
So many thoughts…
Why are ad orientam and versus populi taken as opposites? The notable exception is in Rome, which brings us to:
Did the celebrant in St Peter’s, or has deacon, tell the people “Don’t look at me! God is that way.” as someone sort of claimed above. No personal offence intended — I have heard this same story before and have always tried to picture how they got the congregation to turn around.
Don’t roodscreens and iconostases have something to say about this, ie pre-Trent nobody could see which way the priest was looking anyway? When the West definitively removed these after Trent, it appears little thought was given to the effect of such shattering liturgical change. Did anyone outside the sanctuary really care about which way the priest faced when they could not see him anyway?
Maybe that is what the bishop of Tulsa is referring to when he talks about the “inordinate importance on the personality of the celebrant”. Perhaps this is a step towards overturning Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which places an inordinate importance on one aspect of the personality of the celebrant, gender.
More seriously, Paul VI’s first encyclical was about Dialogoue. The Dialogue of Salvation. That is what is embodied in the current liturgy. Looking East, or up to heaven, or down at the ground, or inward, can all mean turning toward God. But imo the reform was about God speaking to us through the humanity of His Son. The Council described its purpose at the beginning of Lumen Gentium: “to bring the light of Christ to all men, a light brightly visible on the countenance of the Church. Since the Church is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race, it desires now to unfold more fully to the faithful of the Church and to the whole world its own inner nature and universal mission.” A liturgy that reveals the bright light on the countenance of the Church is the proper consequence of the Council, while a liturgy that looks elsewhere, to the East instead of to the people, is out of synch with the Council’s purpose. IMO.
“it’s one bishop; in a small diocese; in one country” – realize you are trying to make a point but if you are a catholic in the Ok City diocese and find Slattery’s move to be confusing at best, not sure your remarks would be seen as anything but condescending. Geographically, OK City is 20 times larger than any dioceses you have probably ever served in. Yes, it has few catholics; mostly rural.
But, then, that is another issue – the US church seems to appoint these midguided bishops to small dioceses; mostly rural. Unfortunately, catholics are in these dioceses and have to endure years of incompetence; weird announcements and actions that seem to reflect the personal traits of the bishop; priests are assigned to rural parishes who just don’t quite make it in the large cities but then they are told – “well, it is better than no priest at all!”
Need to put yourself in the shoes of a catholic in OK City – this is just one of many “strange” actions by this bishop. Do you think a lay person was asked or consulted about this? It may just be the cathedral but it is a city parish – is the paper article the extent of education and preparation for this change?
Like you, could just excuse this as one bishop in a small diocese – Oklahoma, give me a break. But, that seems to ignore the larger questions about unity in the church; the catholics in this specific diocese, etc.
It seems to me the “ad orientem” problem is really includes two separate issues, 1/ having the priest say Mass facing the people or not, and 2) having the priest facing East.
Having listened to the various arguments here, it seems to me that both facing the people or not facing them have liturgical advantages. Either way, something is gained and something is lost.
However, the forst facing-the-East arguments (which I ever encouneted were in one of Pope Benedict’s books. I really loved the book until I got to those arguments. They strike me as pagan nonsense, or at least some atavistic memories from the ancient days of sun-god worship. Why *should* the East be privileged if we don’t worship sun-gods anymore? Oh, you tell me, that’s what the early Christians did. I say, so what? Their “meanings” of liturgical practices is what counted then and the meanings are what should count today. So what does facing East *mean* to most Catholics? I suggest that for most of us it means nothing at all..
Why not face North or South or West? God is everywhere. I’d say that for people these days *up* would be the direction they’d look if they were told, “Look! Here comes God!
See, this is why we need to sing more of the old Latin hymns.
Christ as the Sun, the morning star, the daystar–these are very common images in ancient hymns, and the imagery comes directly from Scripture.
Why couldn’t it make sense even today for a congregation to come to the 9 o’clock Sunday morning Mass, squinting into the morning sun as they enter the main doors of the church, and, facing East, sing praise to the Father for the Sun of justice?
My concern about all this is that it creates or re-creates a way of celebrating Mass and makes it superior to all others, and by implication makes Catholics who prefer this one “better” Catholics because they like what Bishop Slattery and Pope Benedict like. I suppose the liturgical arguments will go round and round. But the dividing that this conveys unsettles me, when it is all just a matter of taste, or preference rather than some fixed truth. The irony that Kathy got at is that self-styled “orthodox” are the great freelancers, the cafeteria Catholics, in this regard. I don’t know any where that Vatican II sanctioned an anything goes, DIY Catholicism. But that is the criticism, and it seems to comes in handy when we want what we want.
I await what occurs in other parishes within the Diocese of Tulsa and within the province in which the diocese resides.
There are instances where it is specifically written that Jesus looked upwards to pray.
John 11:41
So they removed the stone Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me.
John 17:1
After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed
Claire,
Thank you for these references. For the record I wasn’t questioning if Jesus ever looked up in prayer (in fact I will concede He probably always did) -I was calling to question Kathy’s reference to it during the scriputual accounts of the Last Supper and trying to make a point that we are all guilty of our own biases about our interpretation of our shared Faith – whether we are self proclaimed progressive, liberal, orthodox, conservative, traditionalist etc. We all have our own versions of the caffeteria!!! And Praise Be to God that we do!!! Free Will is the greatest gift God could ever give!!!
I think Bill DeHass is good to bring up O’Malley’s work. If I remember correctly O’Malley primarily presents the turning around of the altars in a symbolic fashion – that the Church was finally saying something like (my quotes not his) “the Counter-Reformation is DONE! The Church is going to face the Modern world face on and those resisting it are going to have to cope!” I don’t recollect him speaking of the symbolic re-orientation in a manner that could equate to a Priest turning their back on the Lord or Priest facing the People – seems like those who dislike the re-orientation always stress the facing the Lord vs People – but in actuality both orientations has everyone facing the Lord (Body and Blood).
So…if we return to ad orientem…does that mean Church hierarchy wants Catholics to again think its “game-on” in regards to a Counter-Reformation?!?!?
The fraternity of St Thomas Becket is a recent fraternity of priests who say the Novus Ordo Mass turned away from the congregation and almost all in Latin. They also use a communion rail and kneelers. I accidentally went to a Mass by them last month. So, they have this kind of admixture that Bp. Slattery is also starting. They seem close to Lefebvrists, but are not schismatic, on the contrary, they are viewed with favor by Pope Benedict, see http://www.zenit.org/article-19935?l=french.
I hated it, but that’s just my personal preference.
But here’s a scary thought. What if reforms are developed and extended to the point where I cannot go to a Mass I am comfortable with, and what if this sequence of liturgical changes (each of which, by itself, is maybe not such a big deal), shifts the entire more of thought and changes our overall faith? I can deepen my faith all I want: if the ground is shifting under me and the entire church is moving in a different and possibly misguided direction, one day I risk not recognizing my Church and being marginalized.
If the Bishop of Tulsa wants everyone at Mass to face toward the coming of the Lord, then he should invite everyone to join him around the altar, standing on either side of him at the Consecration, facing the altar and whatever cardinal direction it happens to be.
Mr. DeHaas: “Small” was meant only to indicate that I wouldn’t take what the bishop of Tulsa does as having much power to make decisions with apocalyptic implications for the whole Church. I doubt that the lay people of Tulsa were consulted, but neither, of course, were they consulted when the Council’s liturgical reforms were decided and implemented. In fact, they were not consulted at all during the Council. During its preparation, when people complained to Pope John XXIII that lay people were left out of the process, he replied that priests certainly knew what their people wanted and they would tell the bishops and the bishops would bring this knowledge to the Council.
Clare: Your final “scary thought” is very eloquently stated: “What if reforms are developed and extended to the point where I cannot go to a Mass I am comfortable with, and what if this sequence of liturgical changes (each of which, by itself, is maybe not such a big deal), shifts the entire more of thought and changes our overall faith? I can deepen my faith all I want: if the ground is shifting under me and the entire church is moving in a different and possibly misguided direction, one day I risk not recognizing my Church and being marginalized.” This is a perfect description of what many Catholics felt as the liturgical changes were being introduced after the Council: I had people tell me precisely that: “I no longer recognize my Church; I feel I no longer belong.”
Liturgists sometimes speak of the versus populum posture as a “closing of the circle.” While I agree with Jim McK that it emphasizes the incarnational aspect of the liturgy, it does not seem to me to leave enough room for worship of God in Himself–which is something Pope Paul VI emphasized in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei.
Within the Mass, as prescribed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (the main legislative document for the celebration of the Mass), there are six points at which the priest must turn to the people. This does not necessarily indicate that he usually is not facing them, but that at these particular moments the versus populum gesture cannot be omitted. In other words, there is no such thing as a purely ad orientem Mass. Does this mixture of the two postures strike the right balance? That, I think, is Slattery’s experiment.
Understand, Fr. K. As I said, understand your direction. Lay observers were included at Vatican II; it appears that Vatican II opened the door to the principle of lay involvement, consultation, etc. Not sure that I would compare 1964 with 2009 in terms of lay involvement. Other than to say that this bishop seems to be pre-Vatican II in his approach to his diocese.
This discussion reminds me (esp. Kathy’s statement that the last 30 years was missing any freedom? now, that is a stretch and a half) of the “battle” between Cardinal Mahoney of LA and Mother Angelica (EWTN) when the cardinal published his document on eucharist (it is a meal – not the sun/son rising in the East) and her negative backlash that his document was close to heretical. Imaginery about the east, sun/son, etc. are nice but are not the core of the sacrament of the eucharist – again, it appears some focus on “accidents” and not “substance.”
With all due respect to the eastern half of our church, the Tulsa bishop is latin rite and the discussion is about the latin rite.
Clare asks -
“But here’s a scary thought. What if reforms are developed and extended to the point where I cannot go to a Mass I am comfortable with, and what if this sequence of liturgical changes (each of which, by itself, is maybe not such a big deal), shifts the entire more of thought and changes our overall faith? I can deepen my faith all I want: if the ground is shifting under me and the entire church is moving in a different and possibly misguided direction, one day I risk not recognizing my Church and being marginalized.”
Welcome to my world for more than two decades of -
Priests leaving the altar after the consecration so they can hold hands with parishioners and say the Our Father
Middle aged women prancing down the aisles in leotards and chiffon skirts skirts with streamers in “liturgical dance” performances
Guest speaker “homilies”
Masses that begin with – Hi there I’m Father Tom and I’m glad to be back from vacation . . .
Listening to “We’ve Only Just Begun” performed in the mass
Having Sister Mary Olive tell my kid that it’s not really possible for him to sin during his preparation for First Reconciliation – talk about mixed signals
and on and on and on
Speaking of introducing parts of the older form into the Novus Ordo, in our parish, the youngest of our three priests (all fine men BTW), has begun to re-introduce some Latin and Greek into the Novus Ordo form of mass. He explained that as a reminder of the connection we have to Eastern Churches, he re-introduced the Kyrie, and because of it is so ancient and because of the artistic and cultural reasons, we will now sing the Angus Dei in Gregorian chant. He tried the Pater Noster, but admitted that “we will need to work our way up to that.” He sometimes gives the final blessing in Latin; a nice touch in my opinion.
As one too young to recall attending the Tridentine form of Mass (all of my personal Church memories are post-Vatican II), I do not fully understand how/why we Catholics almost lost this and other artistic treasures.
It seems that maybe in a mad rush to be modern and ecumenical after Vatican II, we Catholics almost threw the baby out with the bathwater. Of course we need to respect other Christians and other faiths, but we also ought to remember the great gift that we have been given, and the responsibility that entails. The more I learn about these Roman Catholic Latin musical/artistic treasures, the more thankful I am for Pope Benedict and his appreciation of classical art and music.
I will not hold my breath for a Tridentine Mass; we will not have one any time soon. Of course we still have the aging baby boomers (aging, but still having it their way apparently) who insist on running around during mass preening and posing (“helping”), all but crowding the lector and mass servers off the altar, and our choir still sings odd and hard to follow songs (strange melodies and so many songs with ‘en persona Cristi’ lyrics), amplified via microphone, with their weekly performance accompanied by guitars and tambourines instead of the (apparently hated) piano or organ.
About a year ago, in an obvious grab at the priest’s sermon time, some of these busy-bodies began writing up an “explanation” of the readings, and now of course they read this “explanation” before the lector reads the readings. They know very well the public is only good for about an hour of mass, and so time spent by a second lector prancing up to the microphone and reading the “explanation” of the readings is a way to take time from the priest’s sermon. The rubrics of mass stipulate that only the priest shall give the sermon, and these folks are doing an end-run around that rule; quite simply, they want to give the sermon. Ugh, these types seem to never stop with this sort of nonsense. It is in his sermon that Father normally explains the readings and gospel, and relates them to everyday life.
And so progress is sometimes measured in millimeters, and we have miles to go. However it is nice and indeed is hopeful to see how both our youngest priest, and our Mexican priest (for Spanish speakers) value parts of the older form.
I’m with Ann Olivier. God is everywhere. And the Spirit is in a special way present in those other members of the body of Christ with whom we are joining in worship. Why anyone would want to face the wall or the rising sun and ignore their brothers and sisters or forget that God dwells in us too, when praying the mass, beats me.
That said, I can appreciate that people brought up in different traditions may be attached to them. I love museums and spend a lot of time in them, and love Gregorian chant. I think it would be a good thing to preserve as rare historical performances celebrating local tradition, certain ways of celebrating mass that it would not be a good thing to make the norm. To the extent that these ways of celebrating mass may enshrine values and practices that we now see as imperfect expressions of our understanding of what we are doing, I think they are best handled by being framed for participants in a way that makes their limitations as well as their value clear. I thought Archbishop Nichols was being a good teacher in his insistence, for example, that when the Tridentine Mass would be said, celebrants could not arbitrarily exclude girls and women from being altar servers or lectors.
As there’s plenty to say about the bishop’s announcement, and the various postures available to the celebrant, let’s try to avoid the temptation to list all our personal liturgical peeves in this thread. Uncharitable guesses at the motivations of fellow worshippers are also best avoided.
Rita Ferrone wrote:
“It is not possible without intellectual dishonesty to see this as “building on what has been accomplished so far.” If the bishop believes this, he is deluded. … What Bob Mickens has done is to correctly identify this decision with a host of other initiatives now underway that are aimed at discrediting the postconciliar reform of the liturgy by repealing its most obvious features.”
Of course, it is possible that the bishop is deluded, or intellectually dishonest, or both. But aren’t there other possibilities? Along the same lines – I would be the last to dispute that there are some people who actively conspire to roll back the renewal. But because the bishop does something that happens to please them, does that necessarily mean he is a party to their conspiracy?
Laypersons, bishops, priests, liturgists, scholars, and others who have lived both before and through the course of the liturgical renewal, reflect on and critique the fruits of the renewal. That is both an unavoidable aspect of human nature, and a good and necessary practice in the continuing work of implementing the great vision of the Council.
It may be that, at least in Tulsa, the church lives with more than one way of configuring the human beings in the celebration. It may even be that those configurations live in a certain tension with one another. I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem. There is tension aplenty in renewed liturgy – e.g. do we celebrate in English, Spanish or Tagalog? Do people receive on the tongue or in the hand? Do we accompany with organ or electric guitar? Our worship, for the most part, seems to survive and even thrive amid a multiplicity of options.
Ah, the liturgy wars go with much of the usual division between those who loved the old comfort of the 1950′s Church and those who want to maximize their and others active participation. So when Vatican ii changes were introduced, of course some, including priests, were unhappy. But that was then and this is now.
In criticizing Bishop Slattery for saying he’s building on the past ,I think what’s being said is we’re trying to go back to the past by gradually doing away with the necessary reforms of Vatican II.
I think Bill D, is right though that the issue is larger and has to do with general Church trends from Rome which supports basically loyalty, and wants to recover ground lost during the Council.
Thus Episcopal appointments may produce quirky actions by those, who as long as they are loyal to the curia, will be blest and perhaps approved.
I think that part of the silliness in discussion here , did Jesus raise his eyes at the last Supper,
is just part of trhe unfortunate apolgetic to deal with the movement backward to the Tridentine Liturgy that I think Mr. Mickens rightly scores.
Since there’s so much invested for some in how liturgy is the rubber meting the road, some harsh language may result, but also oversensitivity to the way adults talk to each other.
This debate will go on and on like other liturgy threads here.
There will continue to be strong divide about what good liturgy is and where Church leadership at the local or world level is going with it, but those problems are microcosms of the broader divide within the Church, that from my perspective continues to grow – a divide that is hurting not due to a lack of civility, but of leadership and, in some quarters anyway, of honesty.
I’m fortunate to serve and worship in a community where this discussion is mostly irrelevant. With our antiphonal seating, two halves face one another in posture, but the Eucharist is literally, and hopefully spiritually central.
I’m more interested in this development as a perceived means to an end. Is the end a more meaningful worship? Does God care about the orientation, the decorations, and what are admittedly, the peripherals of worship?
It is much more demanding for a bishop to train his clergy to be better preachers, to take their time at Mass and be mindful of the pace of good liturgy than to change one thing at one church and hope/cross fingers that (magically?) everything else will fall into line.
As for his given reasoning, I think Bishop Slattery comes off very poorly in his justification for this–but I’ve written about that elsewhere.
If not properly oriented, we must insist on calling it versus populum.
Here’s a link to America blog and Fr. Martin’s comments (it does appear that he is getting his content from Commonweal bloggers – H/T to David Gibson; no mention of OneonTobit or others contributions).
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=30411146-3048-741E-2808262853304967
I find myself rather unconcerned about this entire ad orientem issue. As long as the presider is turned away from the people only during the preface and Eucharistic Prayer (which, as I understand it, should be the case when the current liturgy is celebrated ad orientem), then I’m not so concerned. It could even solve the problem of the priest trying to make eye contact with the assembly all during the Eucharistic Prayer, or such banalities as the priest, during the offertory prayer, encouraging the assembly to see a certain movie, as I was once privileged to witness.
So if it’s a celebration that is according to the rubrics and spirit of the reformed liturgy where the celebrant merely has his back to the assembly for those 5-10 minutes or so (and the assembly can hear what is being said), I say “Meh.” If it means open season on dragging back all kinds of candles and gradines and frilly crap and going back to the altar as a shelf against the back wall of the church, then I say “Whoah!”
All this seems to show that we are more about Emily Post, then helping “The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.”
But I really appreciate that no one has discussed abortion for a week or so.
If there ever was a vivid example of “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic,” these liturgical inanities are it.
If Slattery et al think that this action will somehow cause the heavens to part and all of the problems of the church vanish in one big poof of incense, they need to stop smoking whatever it is they are using.
Jimmy Mac – love it! Was up in STL a few weeks ago – we do an annual get-together for all the students I taught in college (they organize; have a bi-monthly e-mail message; and keep tabs on each other).
Any way, a friend who is a priest of STL and the academic dean for Kenrick Seminary (theology school for STL) was telling us that he had just submitted his resignation. This guy is and was the most ultramontane person I know – all but teaches only in latin; refuses to use or even suggest any type of acknowledgement of the use of the feminine in language, texts, etc.; loves the Tridentine Rite, not a fan of Vatican II, etc. But, he is resigning because he finds himself to be the most “liberal” of the Kenrick staff and he is mortified by this. Of course, this is the archdiocese that ordained a few last year and this year and almost everyone of them said their 1st Masses using the Tridentine Rite.
Regarding the priest facing ad orientum; sure it would be different than now, but I do not see it as being inherently bad or foolish.
I understand the description of the priest and the people both facing the same direction, and I also can understand how in a way, that when the priest faces ad orientum, it is a reminder that he is leading the congregation in a prayer to God; he is leading them in offering Mass.
Also, it occurred to me that the priest facing ad orientum is a reminder that he will be offering the sacrifice of Mass – whether the crowd is there or not.
As for the notion that this action will; “…somehow cause the heavens to part and all of the problems of the church vanish…”; I cannot imagine that the Bishop Slattery or anyone else for that matter, think that way Jimmy.
All the sniping aside (frankly I am amazed at the amount of sniping on this particular thread, about this point), while I admit it is not my place to critique a Bishop regarding this sort of thing, I do not see a problem with him trying it.
Per Bishop Slattery: “I have restored the venerable ad orientem position when I celebrate Mass at the Cathedral.”
Though the Bishop has limited the restoration to himself, I have to doubt, given his position of authority and the “negatives” he lists in his statement regarding the post-VII posture of the priest during the Mass, that there will be any non-ad orientem Masses at the Cathedral or, perhaps, throughout the diocese. It would be the rare priest who would not understand that ad orientem is now the only acceptable orientation in the Diocese of Tulsa.
“I have to doubt, given his position of authority and the “negatives” he lists in his statement regarding the post-VII posture of the priest during the Mass, that there will be any non-ad orientem Masses at the Cathedral or, perhaps, throughout the diocese. ”
Hi, William, without knowing the diocese, it’s difficult to say. In Chicgo, I’d think this would cause barely a ripple among the presbyterate. In the neighboring diocese of Rockford, reputed to be conservative and with a bishop who asserts his authority, you probably would see some priests begin doing it.
Here’s a dynamic I could see playing out. You’re probably aware of the reported differences in approach between “Vatican II” priests and “John Paul II” priests. Because of the differences in age and experience, there are parishes in which the VII priest is pastor, with a JPII priest as associate or vicar. One could well imagine the younger guy chafing somewhat under the thumb of his more progressive boss. Perhaps, now that the bishop has spoken up, the JPII guy will feel that he has permission or “cover” to celebrate the mass the way he’s wanted to.
The only thing that sprang to my mind was the ancient pagans, and the elaborate steps they took to make sure that they adequately worshiped the sun. Think Stonehenge and other elaborate solstice rituals (like the one that fell on the day that we now celebrate as Christmas). I have no doubt that facing ad orientam, like Christmas trees and various other Christian symbols, originated in pagan practices that were co-opted to convert, appease, or even hide, depending on where and when the practice originated.
Zenit passes on Bishop Slattery’s message.
“Though the Bishop has limited the restoration to himself, I have to doubt, given his position of authority and the “negatives” he lists in his statement regarding the post-VII posture of the priest during the Mass, that there will be any non-ad orientem Masses at the Cathedral or, perhaps, throughout the diocese.”
I do not understand your point William. You apparently disagree with Bishop Slattery’s decision regarding the ad orientam posture, and fear his diosesan priest will follow his lead.
Why wouldn’t the priests in a particular diocese tend to follow the example of their Bishop?
It seems to me that is just how things ought to work.
How could this particular bishop satisfy you, how could he calm your fears? What could he do to make you happy?
Sean,
I am sorry that your parish goes so much against your liturgical preferences.
I have my own nostalgia of times gone by: what happened to the worker-priest of my childhood, the religious sister who delivered such interesting homilies, the group discussions that sometimes replaced the homilies, and the energetic folksy tunes that sounded so full of joy? They have all but disappeared…
The spectrum of liturgical styles explored in the last few decades is just incredible, isn’t it? I wonder what will resonate for the next generation of worshipers (“if there are any Catholics left”, my daughter would add.)
Jim – can guarantee you that Tulsa is not the archdiocese of Chicago. The only reason some pastor won’t immediately do this is because some locales are a couple of hundred miles from Tulsa and the bishop probably only makes it there every other year.
This guy is from your archdiocese – 69 years old. Finally got a master’s degree after ordination at Loyola. Some time during his service, he became involved in the Catholic Extension Association and from there, someone must have felt he had the experience to deal with a diocese such as Tulsa that covers half of the state of Oklahoma.
He has no expertise or training in liturgy – he is 6 yrs. away from submitting his resignation on his 75th birthday. Some talk about the cult of personality that JPII seemed to have….this move seems to travel down the same road – personal preference, his decision, etc. – is this really a pastoral decision and is this really best for the diocese?
Sorry, Ken, your way is what has led the church down the sex abuse road. The church is much more than a hierarchy – in fact, the majority at Vatican II stated that fact. But, as Fr. Martin ends, the minority seem determined to set policy.
Ken–
I don’t disagree with the Bishop’s personal choice to move to ad orientem when he says Mass in the Cathedral. However, he essentially leaves little if any room for his priests to choose otherwise. True he doesn’t explicitly state that ad orientem must be used, but to my reading of his statement, he is delivering a clear message to the diocesan priests that ad orientem is how Masses will be said. I’m sure you’ve read his statement. It’s replete with loaded words and phrases that drive his message home:
“In the last 40 years, … this shared oreintation was lost.”
“Unfortunately, this change had a number of unforeseen and largely negative effects.”
The change from ad orientem was a “serious rupture with the Church’s ancient tradition.”
The Vatican II change “places inordinate importance on the personality of the priest.”
IMO, if the diocesan priests in Tulsa had an option, the Bishop would have said so.
What intrigues me about these liturgical discussio ns is the intensity of the discussions, As Bob Nunz points out, whether Jesus looked up or down at the Consecration is really a trivial matter — so why the fury over it? Having been a party to some of the discussions for years now I have to look for some serious existential reason to account for it.
One theme that occurs ad nauseum is “the past”, I wonder whether fury of the conservatives is rooted somehow in their view of the past *as such* as an ultimate value that must be retained come Hell or high water. Does it have something to do with the fear of death? Does repetition of the past somehow guarantee a sort of (pseudo) immortality? Or what?
Amd wju tje omtemsotu pf the liberals? Another often-recurring theme is the authority, or rather a claimed misuse of the authority by bishops. Do the fanatic liberals see their shepherds as some sort of surrogate mean Dad who needs to be put in his place? Or what? There is no ridding humanity of the past — we are ourselves tomorrow’s past. Is that why they seem to want constant change?
What explains the nastiness of these discussions? I just get tired of people whom I admire calling each other dishonest.
Claire,
Thank goodness most of these things weren’t in my parish – at least my current one.
The problem with “variety” and varied “liturgical style” is that it often results in things that are point blank violations of canon law. For example, a religious sister cannot give a homily in a Catholic Church and group discussions can’t replace a homily. Those things are illicit, and for good reason. This isn’t to say a sister can’t preach or that group discussions aren’t good things, they just aren’t supposed to be part of the mass.
I think that’s part of the bishop’s point. As a very holy priest I know once said – in a group discussion – the mass isn’t about you and me, and it’s not about the priest – it’s about Him.
Bill,
What this has to do with the abuse crisis I can’t see. Look at the culprits. Paul Shanley was a perffect spirit of VII, guitar playin “street priest” and the worst of all the abusers tried in Boston. Even the heirarchy that covered for him were not hidebount ultamontanists – they were by and large progressives. Cardinal Mahony, who is frequently criticized for his behavior in the crisis is certainly no liturgical traditionalist. This issue and the abuse crisis are completely unrelated and it is about time people stopped using it as a cudgel to beat down people like Ken who disagree with you.
William
The same could be said about many of the liturigical changes following VII. Almost all were permitted alternatives, not mandatory norms, yet now the very people who say we should be open to change want to treat them as if they are traditions that can’t change.
Sean –
Mass is primarily about Him, and I grant you that the awareness of the centrality of His presence has been lost. But Mass is *also* about Him-and-you and Him-and-me and you-and-me and us-and-everybody else. There really are two sides to this whole discussion.
What I really don’t feel has been addressed enough in this (long) thread is the fact that one way of doing mass (ad orientam) is considered superior to the other. That is the heart of the problem, for me–and it is a two-tiered system of authenticity that is being set up in Rome and Tulsa and beyond.
I suppose we could and will argue all day about which one we like best.
The question as to why liturgy prompts such passions is also a very good. I have no ready answers or suppositions.
David, I don’t see this as right or wrong. The priest facing the altar is certainly as legitimate as him facing the congregation. It is like taking the Eucharist on the tongue or in the hand; both are acceptable.
Surely – provided he stays within the Roman rubrics of Mass – the priest use whatever form he prefers. As such, this sort of thing is the priest’s decision, and basically his alone.
Why would we as laity, think that we should have a say in this particular matter? Should we not grant the local priest any authority at all, should the laity intervene in or hold big discussions about everything he does, even in matters of detail and form such as this?
Ken: You may not see this as a matter of right or wrong, but the Pope and Bishop Slattery, among others, do. Is that a problem, do you think?
Also, we likely have different views on clericalism, but I think the eucharist is an important, really vital, issue of Catholic life, and so lay people (and all the faithful) should speak their minds on something like this, as well as other matters. I don’t see the Mass as a function of the personal prerogatives of the priest, though others will have a different view.
The question as to why liturgy prompts such passions is also a very good [one]. I have no ready answers or suppositions.
Perhaps because we are, as Wittgenstein put it, “ceremonious animals.”
As to whether ad orientem or versus populum is better: I figure there is ample precedent for both in the tradition — though I suspect if one totaled up the number of Masses said throughout history, more were said ad orientem than versus populum. I can see the theological arguments for both sides and in some ways don’t really have a dog in this fight. I suspect, though, that the historical and theological questions are not really what is at issue. I think for a lot of people versus populum symbolizes “Vatican II” (which in turn symbolizes the various changes in the church over the last 45 years), for good of for ill (which is funny, since nothing was said about this at Vatican II). So to some it symbolizes a new openness to the world and inclusion of the laity. To others it symbolizes an abandonment of tradition and a secularization of the Church. So I think the passion with which some people react to the issue, on both sides, is an indication of the power of ritual in the Catholic tradition. Which is, I think, on the whole a good thing. The fact that we care about this (albeit in varying degrees and from different perspectives) is a sign that we are still Catholic.
If the “ad orientem” posture is better or preferable and the the “versus populum” posture has unfortunate consequences, then it would follow that everyone ought to adhere to the better and abandon the worse. In my opinion any hypothesis that one is better than the other needs further exploration. Certainly the laity have as much right as anyone to express informed opinions. In the meantime we have an established practice, the posture versus populum. I wonder if it is a good idea for anyone to make a unilateral decision to change the current practice, and even further, to impose what he prefers it on those who are beholden to him. I should add that I do not think that Bishop Slattery has offered a knock-down argument for his preference. In such matters as this the assertion of authority, even by implication, seems at least inappropriate
If the good bishop wishes to repair what he sees as “a serious rupture with the Church’s ancient tradition,” I have no problem with the priest facing ad orientem — PROVIDED THAT THE BISHOP AND HIS PRIESTS DOING SO WILL ALSO INVITE THE LAITY TO JOIN THEM AROUND THE ALTAR FOR THE LITURGICAL CELEBRATION AS WAS DONE BY THEIR ANCIENT PREDECESSORS IN THE ANCIENT BASILICAS BEFORE THE LAITY WERE CONSIGNED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE NAVE OF THE CHURCH AND THE ALTARS WERE MOVED TO THE APSE. Only then could I acknowledge the legitimacy of this decision by Bishop Slattery. After all, if we’re going to be traditional, we should be consistent with ancient practice.
Furthermore, Bishop Slattery has a poor memory of “the good old days” when we witnessed the backsides of priests “saying” the Tridentine Mass. Back then, the priest was, indeed, “on a kind of liturgical stage” for a liturgical style that stressed the mystery of the divine presence on the altar.
Will the good bishop invite the laity (or at least a representative portion of them) to stand by his side in semicircle fashion around the altar as he presides at the sacred liturgy? I’ll believe it when I see it.
Well just to round this out, I noticed an interesting take on differing views and opinions about the liturgy in a couple of British periodicals; the Times-online versus the Tablet:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/08/pope-brings-order-out-of-liturgical-chaos.html
While the liturgical beat and divide will go on (and on), for still more pot stirring discussion, see Walter Brueggeman’s talk on the relationship between effective liturgy and economic policy at NCR today.
Mr. Gibson has stated with a little more political correctness what concerns me about this bishop’s decision.
Here is a link about the recent conference sponsored by CELEBRATION, liturgical organization. There were 7 key speakers: http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/celebration-holds-first-annual-conference-effective-worship
Would suggest that the question of “ad orientem” in the Tulsa Cathedral by the bishop feels very much like “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”. In a diocese where 50% or more of the catholics are hispanic and many of those are illegal/legal immigrants, where is the pastoral and eucharistic communities ministry – could not this effort and time been better spent on the bishop learning how to say mass in spanish and supporting his Hispanic parishes in this way?
At a time in our nation when the biggest social justice issue is national healthcare – this bishop decides it is an opportune time to change his liturgical style. Again, seems to miss the point of the eucharistic liturgy and community?
Points from some of the speakers:
“worship is relevant when tied to what is really happening in the world. How can we worship without urgent reference to the collapse of the global economy, a slow tsunami that, despite our wish that it soon be over, the market go back up, we get back to our lifestyles, is the wolf at the door for millions of our neighbors facing unemployment, default and foreclosure on what once seemed assured and self-sufficient lives? How can we worship without recognition that part of our national calamity is that a huge deficit is funding the hoped-for recovery, paying for two wars against a shadowy enemy who, we are told, may already be in our midst and therefore requires a police state to protect us and our basic rights and freedoms?
Can our pulpits remain silent while unresolved issues of race and poverty run like visible scars through American culture? And while the fate of 12 million people is left in limbo for want of immigration reform, among them our own Catholic brothers and sisters, welcomed to harvest, slaughter, prepare and serve our food, pave our sidewalks, fix our roofs, make our beds and clean our hotel bathrooms, but alienated and despised for seeking a path to citizenship?
How can we worship if our sharing of the Word and our standing together at the family table of Eucharist does not address all this fear and suffering?”
John Allen – “NCR senior correspondent reprised his forthcoming book The Future Church: How Ten Trends Are Revolutionizing the Catholic Church (Random House, November 2009). The rise of the Southern Hemisphere, falling fertility rates for the white populations in Europe and the United States, the surge of evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist religions around the world are changing everything we thought we knew about the future.” What does this bishop’s action have to do with the future as described by John Allen.
Holy Cross Fr. Dan Groody, director of the Center for Latino Spirituality and Culture at Notre Dame University’s Institute for Latino Studies, addressed the urgent need for immigration reform in a time of economic stress and cultural polarization, while vast numbers of refugees worldwide, driven by complex forces in the global economy, cross borders to survive.
How does this bishop’s “ad orientam” decision impact the immigrant in his diocese?
So, if I may re-echo David Gibson’s concerns, I do not see this decision in isolation – it is a pattern and trend that has been going on for years. Is this really a pastoral decision?
I second Bob N.’s recommendation of the Brueggeman article. Here is the link:
http://ncronline.org/news/justice/biblical-narrative-economic-policy
In a diocese where 50% or more of the catholics are hispanic and many of those are illegal/legal immigrants, where is the pastoral and eucharistic communities ministry – could not this effort and time been better spent on the bishop learning how to say mass in spanish and supporting his Hispanic parishes in this way?
Perhaps I am missing something, but how do you deduce from the bishop’s support for celebrating Mass ad orientem that he is somehow not pro-immigrant? On at least one occasion, he has been very outspoken with his flock about hospitality to immigrant (and, it seems, already knows how to say Mass in Spanish:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0604230.htm
My favorite excerpt from the story:
[Slattery] agreed the U.S. immigration system is broken and said the U.S. bishops have endorsed a sound package of reforms. But what about the 11 million to 12 million people who already are here? he asked. Should they all — mothers and fathers and children — be sent back? he asked.
“Yes, and I’ll drive a bus,” one man replied.
This prompted an admonition from the bishop that some of the remarks “show a definite prejudice.”
“You have something to learn here,” he said. “You have something to learn here, and it’s the Gospel.”
When another parishioner said people have the right to their opinions, he replied, “No, they’re not entitled to their opinion unless it’s truth.”
A couple of last points from me in what will be the ongoing liturgy discssion.
I liked the way Bill D. zeroed in on the pastoral issues of Tulsa and how Eucharist is really about living in and with Christ in the struggles we and our neighbor (becoming more brown) face daily.
As David pointed out, the centrality of Eucharist is vital and hence the topic as well.
But for many moons the Eucharist was an odd (yearly) reception for many.
Over my lifetime, the Eucharistic fast essentially disappeared, frequent communion encouraged and regular participation by all in the their sacrifice with Christ emphasized.
Now we are hung up on:
“identity” -we , not those awful Protestants (like the past) believe in real presence;
-”reverence” -a subjective term for the most part to please some liturgical return to the past;(please don’ t say I’m pushing irreverence, but simply that the jusgement of how loving of the Lord is by a few outward and perhaps trivial signs is overblown.
As Barbara points out, “the past” -which. of course, loves looking and going backward.
I suggest all of these are really not much interested in a pastoral point of view, but the prediliection of individuals.
Mr. Bauerschmidt – thank you for adding the item from three years ago. It actually, IMHO, expands my point. He is the 3rd bishop of Tulsa and was relatively new when he confronted this issue. If he said parts of the mass in spanish, that is good.
But, my point is – have those divisions ceased? Would hazard a guess that the educational effort; the blending of a parish by adding masses in spanish; the emotional effort to keep your patience in the face of ignorance and bias is difficult; needs to be done consistently. So, why this “ad orientam” phase – he seems to know and has faced in the past one of the largest challenges in many dioceses in the southwestern states. Agree with your comments but it only makes this decision even more puzzling for me in light of what he must face throughout his diocese?
Hi, Bill D., let me just throw this out for discussion: if we can dream, let us suppose that there might be a way of doing “ad orientem” that would not be so off-putting.
For example, suppose, when it was time to pray the Collect, that the priest walked over and stood in the midst of the (largely Spanish-speaking) assembly, facing the same way as everyone. I believe the theology of the Collect is that there is silent prayer after the “Let us pray”, during which the priest, in a sense, gathers together the silent prayers of the assembly and then speaks on their behalf to the Father. A priest standing with his people, speaking their prayers, might be seen as demonstrating solidarity, rather than as “turning his back” on them.
I don’t think the rubrics would prohibit something like this, and it suggests, to me anyway, that “ad orientam” could be adapted in a pastoral way.
Bill, as you kindly pointed out the article is from 2006, Bishop Slattery has been dealing with more than just ad orientam or versus populum postures.
I also think it important to clarify your remark that “If he said parts of the mass in spanish, that is good.” by noting that in fact Bishop Slattery said MOST of the Mass in Spanish.
In fact his offering Mass in Spanish is what prompted the mini-controversy, which he handled quite well. In fact that is what the article was mainly about:
“Their discontent [of the parishioners] boiled over this spring when Bishop Slattery came to confirm young people from Sts. Peter and Paul and St. Thomas More parishes and celebrated the Mass mostly in Spanish. Some people walked out, and the family of at least one confirmant left the parish over the incident.
During his June 29 visit, Bishop Slattery said he knew that the parishioners had given much to the parish over the years and acknowledged the sense of disruption created by the increase in Hispanic ministry. But he said he cherishes the great diversity within the church and the diocese.
While the bishop was talking about the political turmoil over illegal immigration and the U.S. bishops’ response to it, parishioner Mary Ann Yarbrough stood up.
“You know the feelings that are in this room and what people are upset about,” she said, citing the Spanish-language confirmation Mass. . . .”
” . . . At one point, he asked if the parishioners believed there should be any Spanish Masses in the diocese. When a couple of people said “No,” the bishop appeared stunned.
“You cannot tell me that,” he said. “Let me tell you as a bishop, we are about the salvation of souls, not Spanish or English.””
I think it is best to understand what this bishop was up against, and how he has guided his flock.
I have personally, sadly witnessed a Polka Mass, complete with several Lawrence Welk style accordians (¡Dios Mio!) and so I still do not understand why some folks – the same folks by the way, who otherwise would probably not object even if we had a marching band or a drum troupe perform during mass – those who gladly tolerate any other number of far more drastic variations in the form of Mass, how they can possibly get so worked up over a priest or bishop facing ad orientam.
???
Pax and have a good weekend!
Ken – can not disagree with your comments and how you phrase them. My concerns are best expressed by the post above from David Gibson; the recent pattern of liturgical pronouncements, etc. when, IMHO, the focus needs to be on the gospel message especially at this time in US history. So, no big deal but it seems to dwell on the “accidents” rather than substance such as bilingual masses; needs of the legal/illegal Hispanic catholics, needs for education, jobs, healthcare, etc.
Jim – I have no problem with what you are attempting – for me, good liturgy is someone who invests time in the community, in education, and then implements a change based on what will build up the total community rather than what may divide the community. In fact, Gabe Huck (from your diocese) used to suggest to use that the proper place for the presider during the sacrament of matrimony was between the front pews with the families and friends facing the couple and the altar as he/they witnessed the couple sharing the sacrament. That is a form of “ad orientem”.
This is one of those times of stress and change when many in our hierarchy seem to fall back on the old ways:
When in wonder
When in doubt
Run in circles
Avoid and pout.
I think it’s time for the latin rite of the Catholic Church to think about breaking up into branches such as Orthodox and reform. The orthodox branch would be for those Catholics who want the Mass in Latin with the priest facing east, who hate altar girls, lay Eucharistic Ministers, liturgical dancers etc., etc., etc. and the reform branch would be for those Catholics such as myself who like the Liturgy the way it is now, but with a few minor revisions such as ignoring the new incoming Roman Missal, adding inclusive language, allowing qualified lay people to preach at the time reserved for the homily, allowing women deacons and priests…
I suspect the Episcopalians would say that they are exactly the “reformed” branch of Catholicism that you describe.
Mr Bauerschmidt. –
While I am progressive in some very fundamental ways, in no way can I be considered an Episcopalian because if anything ecclesiological is clear to me it is that Chhrist intended there to be a pope, and I accept that. Just what the popes are *for* has not yet been adequately articulated, I think. But No, we progressives are generally not Protestants. We know we’re stuck with Rone.
Sigh.
“…Christ intended there to be a pope”?
Ouch!
Actually, the divide in the Church is already real (and toxic -read the blogs). But I think it’s threefold, the Culture One and Two Catholics Davidson spoke about and the coming Catholic young who will be very Eucharist centered, less drawn to the religion wars, and a lot more tolerant on the hot button issues.
We’ll see what the future holds when the future arrives. Sociology is about what is now, or actually five minutes ago, not what is coming.
But here’s something new: http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/
Terry Maccarone:
Make room for me in the reform rite.
The only trouble with the term “reform” is that the wingnuts are monopolizing that word days. How about just calling it the Catholic rite and the allegedly “orthodox, ” the Ultramontanist rite?
How about the Vatican II rite and the Tridentine rite?
I’ve believed for awhile that there are, in fact, two separate churches under Rome and that each of these churches has “allies” (for lack of better word right now) outside formal communion with Rome, to wit, the “independents” and the “SSPXers.”
From the USCCB:
“New Words: A Deeper Meaning, but the Same Mass”
I seriously question the “deeper meaning” stuff.
Sadly, this thread will probably reach 100 or more, much of it just opinionated.
But my curmudgeonly ire is up again about folks shooting from the lip.
Sociology is not just about now, like all sciences it is predictive and that’s its function -to help us understand groups and classes to better understand them and see where we’re going.
I knew that well in criminal justice.
It’s vital to the coming (browning ) US Church with a whole major youth influence and a major group of oldr Catholics.So being propective and trying to think through what we ought to do instead of being apologetic for what might or might not be good policy is germane.
While still on my high horse, I’m tired of anecdotes on awful liturgy be it clown masses or Lawrence Welk polka masses, as if these were in any way representative of liturgy in this country.
I nevert see any data of their commonality (1/100 of 1% of the time? in a given period? over 40 years?) Instead we get an apologetic for rubrical purity as good liturgy – the kind of “by the book” thinking that inspires the “company man” that the some want as Church leaders.
GRR!!!!!!
How can sociology predict religious matters? Who could have predicted Mother Teresa? Who could have predicted St. Francis?
Who could have predicted Vatican II?
The Spirit blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit.
Joseph Jaglowicz:
“How about the Vatican II rite and the Tridentine rite?”
Good idea, except what happens if a Pope decides to convene Vatican III?
Why are people so opinionated in these liturgical discussions? Because the Eucharist is the “source and summit of our lives”. That’s why any change is potentially so threatening, especially when we extrapolate the trend!
Claire. –
Are the specifics of the ritual “the Echarist” ? I think not. As with all language, there must be specifics, but we can choose among different possibilities. If that weren’t true, there would never be any differences among Masses ever.
(Trying not to be curmudgeonly)
Of course the Spirtit blows when and where He will, but He(She) doesn’t compel or coerce.
Planning and good governance in the church should take advantage of insights from the behavorial sciiences. Unfortunately, in man yquarters that seems to be lacking.
We’re on another topic, Bob, but haven’t the behavioral sciences had their day in the sun? Instead of spirituality, psychology. Instead of theology, anthropology. And so all the churches close.
The earnest psychological wisdom of the 60s and 70s included a belief that psychotherapy could cure pedophilia. I’m pretty sure that prediction didn’t work out very well!
Terry Maccarone, you asked, “[W]hat happens if a Pope decides to convene Vatican III?”.
I think we could expect a return to “orthodoxy” defined as the pattern of beliefs and practices that prevailed in the Church of Rome before Vatican II. What’s interesting here is that the conciliar bishops — products of the old system, so to speak — were persuaded by scholarship to set the church on a paradigm shift, to wit, ecclesial renewal (as in “to make new again”). Unfortunately, JPII promoted to the bishopric men who subscribed to the more cultic, authoritarian model of priesthood. Such an understanding, as I’ve mentioned many times, effectively elevates the ordained and subordinates the laity. Recent revelations have shown us the “fruits” of this clerical culture — sexual abuse, financial wrongdoing, episcopal coverups and lies, etc.
This observation, I think, ties in with Bob Nunz’s concern about the behavioral effects of liturgical measures undertaken by self-described “orthodox” figures. The liturgy is the central action of the Catholic community. The Tridentine liturgy merely reinforces the cultic priesthood and all it entails to the detriment of the church. History can now repeat its ugly self.
Not good.
Terry,
Sorry. I really did not mean to imply that you were a crypto-protestant. I simply meant that many Episcopalians would say that they are exactly the sort of reformed Catholicism you describe (minus, of course, the papacy, which you subsequently added).
I would just to contribute a few bits of historical information (plus a considered opinion or two) here, to fill out the picture a bit.
First of all, the changing of direction of the celebrant at the altar did not begin at Vatican II. As early as the 1920s, some important figures in the liturgical movement experimented with this form, including Romano Guardini (a favorite inspiration to Pope Benedict, by the way) in Germany and Pius Parsch (an Augustinian) in Austria. It was a major success. It was perceived as profoundly moving and a kind of giant pastoral step forward toward the sort of active participation of the people which had been the desire of Pius X and indeed everyone in the movement. I honestly believe the move to versus populum was motivated by spiritual concerns and not a drive for historicization, or arguments about archaology.
Before the Council ended, the permission to celebrate in this way was extended officially by the First Instruction on the Right Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Inter Oecumenici, 1964. This document instructed that altars were to be freestanding so that the priest could walk around the altar (as when using incense) and face the people.
It’s worth noting that the documents never said you had to celebrate this way. But this change, like the move to the vernacular, won by a landslide. The Church wanted to do it. Not only the Catholic Church did it. Churches of the Reformation followed. Was versus populum some sort of imposition? I can’t honestly believe that. I’ve known hundreds of priests in my lifetime, and never known any to pine for ad orientem, or to be tired of versus populum.
Some obviously do want to go back. Joseph Fessio does. Bishop Slattery does.
“It was perceived as profoundly moving and a kind of giant pastoral step forward toward the sort of active participation of the people which had been the desire of Pius X and indeed everyone in the movement. I honestly believe the move to versus populum was motivated by spiritual concerns and not a drive for historicization, or arguments about archaology.”
This is a very valuable perspective.
It still, however, ignores the experience of the Eastern Catholic churches, which demonstrates beyond any doubt that ad orientem and “active participation” are not mutually exclusive. I think there is little doubt that the Eastern Catholic laity “own” their liturgies to a far greater extent that the Latin laity do (particularly where congregational–as opposed to choral–singing is the rule). They sing large portions of the liturgy (not extra-liturgical hymns, as are usually substituted into the Roman liturgy), typically while standing, for extended periods. (They also regularly bow, prostrate, and cross themselves–in fully somatic prayer.) And yet all that is done with the clergy celebrating ad orientem, in fact behind the iconostasis and the sanctuary veil.
Since Vatican II explicitly approved these practices, they too are the fruit and legacy of the Council. Indeed, since the Council expressly taught the equality of all rites within the Church, to attack these practices is, it seems to me, very much against the spirit of the Council.
Thanks, Rita for restoring some common sense and historical perspective. Anyone who has studied liturgical since the turn of the 20th century would have some strong feelings toward Slattery’s unilateral announcement – using Fr. K’s suggestion – it is at best misguided.
Nomilk – unfortunately, Vatican II began the attempt for both the East and West to learn from each other. Not dismissing what you say but we have had barely 50 years in the Latin Rite to implement the liturgical vision of Vatican II. Many earlier comments about the imargery, theological insights, etc. of “ad orientem” obviously come from the east. But, it is a liturgical, theological, sacramental, and ecclesiological decision to begin to make changes to the resourcement, development, and reaggiornamento of Vatican II’s liturgical directions (as outlined by Rita).
So, picking up on the recent post above about Jesus and humor, he would probably be amused by those who focus narrowly on raising your eyes to God (geez, re-read the instituiton narrative from all the gospels – is this the only line? Sacraments/Eucharist are actions – take bread, bless, break, feed; same with the cup. Yes, Jesus may look up but is that the only focus? Eucharist – it is a meal that involves multiple actions that are each symbolic and sacramental. Ad orientem is a minor point – I think Jesus would just laugh and move on.
Read this week’s homily by Bishop Gumbleton and how he relates the past four Sunday gospels from John to the current healthcare reform debate. Now, that is worthy of a bishop’s focus.
“Anyone who has studied liturgical since the turn of the 20th century would have some strong feelings toward Slattery’s unilateral announcement…”
Bill, I don’t think a better case could be made for the need for greater academic freedom in this field of study.
(Still trying – hard- not to be curmudgeonly, including a sweeping statement about the behavorial sciences having had their day in the sun. That probably doesn’t desrve to be graced with a reply.)
Yesterday at Mass, saw the furtue again.
Sermon on Modernism(and the oath against) and how those who are not in the camp of Orthodoixy only want to make people happy.
The Bulletin featured a piece on a major funrraiser : “golf with a priest “-sign up early so you can be sure to play with one of the priests. I guess this is an HT to the year of the priest.)
Announcement at the end of Mass -a Tridentine Mass next Saturday athe Pueblo Church down the road – be sure to get there early.
But then… though we’d been assured of our Catholic superiority, the Priest mentioned the death of Louis Rosen this week -a man not of our faith, but well known here as a genius in the development of particle accelaerator/quantum physics but also as man of deep humility and strong values, especially for family devotion.
I was glad because he understood what leadership and scholarship and openness and values meant to a community (and he was beloved here) – would we’d see more of that in our Church
Kathy, if you are suggesting that the academic study of liturgy is suffering from a lack of freedom, or is being compelled to reach certain conclusions, I don’t know what your sources are. Perhaps you’d better say who is lacking freedom, in what institutions and why, so we can understand your insinuation rather than leaving it as a vague indictment.
A more general comment: It seems to me that the study of liturgy is essential to the Church. That does not mean that scholarly consensus can be reached on every issue, or is arrived at infallibly, or will never change. Nor does it mean that the existence of scholarship leaves no place for the exercise of Church authority or pastoral leadership. I mention this nexus of issues because it seems that several times in this thread there has been a certain impatience with the fact that there are arguments that have not found clear resolution in theory or history and which yet press inexorably for a solution “on the ground” today. Whatever the status of Hippolytus, someone’s got to decide what’s going to happen in church on Sunday! This tension is inevitable, but it doesn’t mean that the longer and more patient enterprise of historical study, and the other disciplines which inform liturgics, don’t have any contribution to make. Nor does it mean that scholarship has not given us vast advantages and insights which uphold good and worthy practices today.
Consider the restoration of the catechumenate, the emerging ecumenical concensus on offering communion from the cup to the laity, the rediscovery of the richness of the Bible in the liturgy through the expanded lectionary, and numerous other benefits. Scholarship helped us get there. It would not have been sufficient without prayer and patience and pastoral guidance, but scholarship played a very positive and laudable role.
Fr. Komonchak, you’ve probably left this thread forever, but let me clarify my earlier comment in case you are still reading. Your response showed that you assumed the “pattern” I mention refers to a pattern of bishops implementing east-facing posture of the celebrant at the Eucharistic liturgy in their dioceses.
This is not what I meant. The pattern is, rather, liturgical restorationism as a whole. It is seen in the sustained call to repeal all of the most obvious features of the Vatican II liturgy and at the same time to promote Tridentine forms and reconcile with those who uphold them, and promote those who favor them. Thus the call for communion kneeling and taken on the tongue, the call for a return to Latin and Gregorian chant, the call for the ad orientem position of the celebrant, the imposition of awkward translations for the vernacular liturgy, taking liturgical translations out of the hands of the bishops, the restoration of the Tridentine Rite on a par with the rites which flowed from Vatican II, the concessions to the Lefebrvite schismatics, and so on. This says nothing about personnel decisions, which also give clear indications of restorationism.
This is what is happening. One may like one or another of these items, but we don’t get to shop. It’s part of a whole picture. This is what I meant by saying we must see not only the trees but the forest. I like some of the trees. It’s the forest that worries me.
Thanks, Rita, but I would prefer to leave things vague. I will say, not for the first time, that Fr. Komonchak is a refreshing professor for people like me who prefer to think independently of any gathering consensus. He can disagree without disdain and listen thoughtfully.
***
Here’s an unpopular idea. The expanded lectionary, though laudable for increasing the peoples’ contact with the riches of the word of God, nonetheless seems to have an unintended, unfortunate consequence. On some Sundays. the OT reading contrasts with the Gospel reading on the same subject. The difference, for example here http://www.usccb.org/nab/021509.shtml, can be so striking that unless the preacher is very careful, the people could, ironically, be left with a Marcion-like view of the mean-old-God-of-the-Old-Testament.
Obviously, fostering Marcionism was NEVER in the mind of the liturgical reformers. Neither, obviously, was fostering clericalism by turning the altars around. But it is just this kind of unintended consequence of reforms that the “reform of the reform” movement is trying to address.
(I should mention that my last comment was written before I saw the one immediately preceeding.)
Let’s take a couple of examples; generalize; and justify the “reform of the reform”. “Neither, obviously, was fostering clericalism by turning the altars around.”…..what a nonsensical statement….no fact or studies behind it; opinion that is misguided at best.
Clericalism – was the method prior to Vatican II. Turning the altars around did nothing to either hinder or encourage clericalism. Unintended consequence – actually, you could write a book about the “unintended consequences” of the Tridentine Rite; ad orientem; etc.
What you fail to focus on is one bishop’s announcement – at least, the liturgical changes of Vatican II were based on years of research and careful study; voted on by over 2300 bishops from around the world. Was it perfect? No. Were there unintended consequences – there are always unintended consequences. So, let folks constinue to study – I would not place this bishop’s decision in the realm of study; his explanation is confusing at best – he leaves out a whole host of areas such as sacramental theology, eucharist as sacrament of the community; reasons for why Vatican II did what it did. Since Vatican II, no one has restricted liturgical development – except possibly those who want to reform the reform.
Nice one, Bill.
The way I see the winds blowing, I would agree with those who worry that there’s a sea change underway. I support some of it but not all of it. I’m no monarchalist and I don’t want to wear no mantilla.
The way I figure, let’s all put down our koolaid cups and put our thinking caps on. Let’s THINK about the liturgy, and honestly, with as little partisanship as we can muster, think about what we’re doing at Mass and why.
Nomilk, I think that what one’s views are of ad orientem in the Latin rite does not need to prejudice one’s attitude toward the Eastern rite practice. It’s really not necessary to accomodate one to the other on this score, nor do I see the Council urging us to do so. These are genuinely different traditions in a number of ways, and a legitimate diversity exists between them. While there are some areas in which I would like to see more convergence as, for example, with the unity of the sacraments of initiation, it does not seem to me to undermine the respect for Eastern rite Catholicism to hold that versus populum is preferable in the Roman Rite. You’ve mentioned one of the elements that is experientially quite different, and that is the role of the iconostasis. Were the Eastern liturgy celebrated versus populum, no one would see it, hence the whole consideration of its experiential impact is completely different. In the West, a legitimate development took place which I think should be respected as proper to the liturgy and not a degradation of it.
Nomilk, I would like to know, however, how you know that the Eastern Rite Catholics “own” their liturgy more than the Latin Rite Catholics do, at this point in history. I suspect this is a projection, but perhaps you have some objective data?
“The pattern is, rather, liturgical restorationism as a whole. ”
Hi, Rita, I believe I’m more sanguine than you are (at least, from what I glean from your comments here) about the strength of the liturgical renewal as it has proceeded so far. My pastoral experience is that, when push comes to shove, very few people really want a radical restoration. The people who recoil the most at being asked to sing in Latin or to face the priest’s back are the ones who remember darned well what it was like in the ’50′s and really don’t want to go back to those days.
We’re in the midst of the reign of a pope whose sympathy for restorationism was well documented before his election. It’s not a surprise that the various things you’ve mentioned are happening on his watch. If it’s permitted to say this: for good or ill, the current papacy is not likely to be a lengthy one. Who knows what will happen thereafter? But in the long run, the will of the people – from whom all popes and bishops come – usually prevails.
When I hear/see reactionary Catholics. i.e., those who react against the renewal called for by the world’s bishops at Vatican II, use the word ‘restore’ in order to promote the Tridentine mass, I cannot help but think of the power of words and their inappropriate use here.
The word ‘restore’ means to return something to its original condition. What little information we have on the earliest Christian liturgies is admittedly limited, but we do have enough to conclude that the Tridentine liturgy is not at all a “restoration” of Catholic worship. It reflects essentially some reforms from Trent but is, nonetheless, a liturgy reflecting medieval constructs far from the practices of much more ancient Christian worship. The Tridentine liturgy promotes and sustains the clerical culture, that is, the elevation of the ordained and the subordination of the laity. From all indications canonical and otherwise, it does not at all reflect the communal worship of the primitive church.
For those of us who condemn Benedict’s attempts to bring back the Tridentine mass, we should challenge reactionaries’ use of ‘restore’ language. If there is a restorative liturgy, it is the Novus Ordo.
From Jim: “The people who recoil the most at being asked to sing in Latin or to face the priest’s back are the ones who remember darned well what it was like in the ’50’s and really don’t want to go back to those days.”
Well. I cannot imagine recoiling at the sound of music in any language. Please explain more Jim. I was not around then and so truly do not recall the awful things to which you refer and which you remember so well.
My parents were married in the mid 1950’s and while Dad was not then Catholic (he was Lutheran and converted in the late 1990’s) they applied for and received a dispensation from the bishop for what folks then called “mixed marriage”. While they of course could not have mass at the wedding, they were married by the priest in the local Catholic Church. I never heard either Mom or Dad mention or even hint at the sorts of things you apparently found to be so dreadful. Moreover, I often heard my grandparents talk of and about their various local parish priests, and they always spoke well of them.
And so for those like me who do not recall those apparently dark days, and who do not know what you referring to, please elaborate a bit.
Thanks
Hi, Ken, my parents married about the same time as yours did (actually a bit later), so it seems we’re roughly contemporary. I’m not old enough to have lived through those days, either.
As a music minister, I have had the opportunity at various times to teach modern congregations to chant in Latin (e.g .Sanctus, Agnus Dei). That’s when I’ve received the blowback (generally very polite, but vigorous nonetheless) I described above.
I think you misunderstood me, if you think I said anything was dreadful. I’ve spent the past thirty years or so trying to move the ball downfield in the truly wonderful and wacky world of liturgical music. The Council deemed a liturgical renewal necessary. I don’t know that we conclude that what came before were dark days, but presumably they hadn’t reached a permanent state of perfection, either. That’s the ocean I’ve been swimming in my entire life.
And so Jim, other than some polite but vigorous objections from some choir members you happen to know, who do not like to sing in Latin, apparently because they did not like the pre-Vatican II days, you can cite no real reason to uphold your general points.
Therefore after all – this particular thread now being quite long – I do not see where you or others who agree with you have cited any real reason why a Bishop in Oklahoma, operating well within his authority as Bishop, and well the bounds of established, post Vatican II Roman rubrics, should not be allowed – if he so chooses – to face ad orientam during parts of a Mass that is being offered in the Novus Ordo form.
Your pastoral experience aside, and regardless the sort of ocean in which you dwell, it seems to me (a post Vatican II Catholic), now that I have had a chance to actually look at the older forms, and hear the classical (Latin) Catholic church music, I am amazed how Catholics in those days almost threw the baby out with the bathwater. Classical Catholic forms of art and music and yes, even the classic Catholic forms or ritual and culture, are things we should treasure, not discard, neglect, or sneer at or about. Vatican II was not a break with the past; the Church is like (or on) a continuum.
For me, the best secular example I can come up with is the difference between art genres. Now, I am no artist aficionado, but I happen to like Dali (surrealism), the Impressionists, and the style of Diego Rivera. However I do not disregard or mock the Cubists, nor do I distain or disregard or sneer at the Classic painters like Raphael or Michelangelo. In fact I like most painted art styles and like most people I just happen to have my preferences. If I go somewhere where they display works from Picasso or Raphael, I admire them greatly, and I enjoy them a lot. If I go to someone’s house and they have art different than I usually think of, I enjoy that as well. I enjoy music in much the same way (with the exception of Rap); i.e., I enjoy and respect all styles while still having my personal preferences and favourites.
Jews have their own ancient and lovely music, and they are certainly entitled to, and correctly proud of their music and their heritage. Protestants have their classic musical treasures, and they are entitled to have them. Islam has both music and poetry it correctly and lovingly calls its own. The Eastern Catholic Church has its wonderful and unmistakeable musical and artistic treasures. Surely we Roman Catholics are entitled to have some Catholic art and culture in wide use, not locked up inside the walls of Saint Peters in Rome. More to my point; in fact we Roman Catholics do have musical and artistic culture of our own; treasures which, in addition to using them to praise God, we also ought to maintain and enjoy and share.
Obviously I am glad Pope Benedict has an artistic temperament, and by various means is trying to prevent our completely losing these ancient and lovely Catholic artistic and cultural treasures.
Ken, my parents were also in a “mixed marriage” except they had to get married in a rectory in 1947 since such marriages were not allowed in Catholic churches at the time.
I served the Tridentine mass until shortly before parochial school graduation in 1962. At Sunday high mass, the older girls in the school choir sang the hymns (Saturday high masses were handled by the newer choir girls since such liturgies were not well attended but gave the younger girls the opportunity to perfect their singing :)
I’ll admit I’m not much into art (I can’t remember the last time my figure graced our local art museum). That said, I see a difference between the “art” of the Tridentine liturgy, on the one hand, and the “art” of the Vatican et al, on the other. Because I’ve been Catholic all my 61+ years, I can’t speak for other faith traditions or Christian denominations. However, for reasons I’ve outlined above regarding (for lack of a better phrase) communal psychology, there is absolutely no way I can accept/sanction a return to the Tridentine liturgy. In itself, it may seem benign. However, from a historical/psychological point of view, it is dangerous, and I use this word deliberately. We’ve seen the “fruits” of this Tridentine/clerical culture, but we can’t even begin to guage the extent of what might be found under the iceberg of ecclesial history.
I once belonged to a cathedral parish whose pastor was largely instrumental in bringing it back to life. He believed in good preaching, good liturgy, and good music. There is no reason per se why classical Catholic hymns cannot — with proper instruction and practice — be used in the Novus Ordo. Unfortunately, I see Benedict and bishops like him (and JPII) becoming increasingly aggressive in trying to bring back a 16th century liturgy that sustained and maintained a culture that elevated the ordained and subordinated the laity.
Those who fail (or refuse) to learn the lessons of ecclesial history…
Been there, done it. No way I’d go back to those times.
Hi, Ken, actually the opinions I referred to were not from choir members – most choristers seem to enjoy singing in Latin, or any other language – but from members of the assembly.
The point is that, in my experience (which certainly is limited, and I don’t extrapolate it to make blanket characterizations of the entire People of God), the people who are older than us and who worship the way we worship now are, by and large, satsified with the status quo and don’t have an unrequited yearning to go back to 1955.
I know it’s difficult to keep track of who said what in these lengthy discussions, but I haven’t actually been too critical of the bishop.
I understand what you mean about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don’t dismiss what I sense lies behind it: a yearning for a depth of holiness that we don’t always achieve in our worship, week in and week out. I’d just comment – and this is my own opinion – liturgy is much more art than science; most of us truly don’t have the “knack” for it (I’m very comfortable with the fact that I’m not a liturgist and leave it to those who are); and relatively superficial changes like praying in Latin rather than the vernacular, or swinging the priest around to face the other way, aren’t sure paths to getting where we want to go – and bring a lot of baggage with them that also need to be taken into consideration.
Jim, well said. Thank you.
Of course Joe, “mixed-marriages” were not allowed in 1954 either; Mom and Dad had to apply for and obtain a special dispensation from the bishop in order get married by the priest. And to clarify, while they were married in the local Catholic Church, since Dad was not Catholic there could be no mass, no music, and as the wedding pictures indicate, they were married on the congregation-side of the altar rail, and the little altar rail gate was ceremonially (purposely) left closed. The priest did allow some decorative flowers. The preist told Mom and Dad that this wedding was not a cause for celebration, but the exception to the norm. All of that was fine with Mom and Dad; they knew the priest and liked him, and just wanted to get married. Mom went to mass that morning, and the wedding was in the afternoon. They had a nice reception afterwards and then Mom and Dad headed to Mexico City for their honeymoon. According to all accounts, it was a very nice and happy day.
Regarding your description of your serving Tridentine Mass, I do not see how anyone could have a problem with any of that. It sounds reasonable enough.
As for your statement about not being able to “sanction” returning to the older form; in the first place Bishop Slattery faced ad orientam during a Novus Ordo mass. Secondly, neither you nor I have the authority to “sanction” any particular form of Mass. I have not seen a Tridentine Mass, and generally I like the Novus Ordo, provided it is offered with some dignity and decorum.
As for this particular older form of mass being “dangerous” and fomenting the “fruits of clericalism”, I just do not see it.
I think it important to be open to many different styles of art and music and culture. I enjoy attending mass in Latin America; they routinely use the old form in the larger cathedrals, but in the smaller local parishes Novus Ordo is the norm. Regardless of the form however, Latin Americans have a style different than ours here in North America; one with which you may or may not be familiar; it is very nice.
As for your comment: “There is no reason per se why classical Catholic hymns cannot — with proper instruction and practice — be used in the Novus Ordo.” Why the special, almost cryptic qualifiers? Would you likewise say (if asked) that “There is no reason guitar and tambourine music cannot – with proper instruction and practice – be used in the Novus Ordo”?
As for liturgigal changes prompted by Benedict, the liturgy to which you refer, the one that apparently frightens you so, came into use in the 16th century, was slightly modified in the late 1950’s (and probably was previously otherwise modified earlier as well), and from what I know, was in common use until the mid to late 1960’s.
I summary, I cannot console you, mainly because I do not really understand your concern. I guess in my family i.e., from what I have heard about “those days”, I do not detect anything like the vicious sort of clericalism you keep referring to. I am not trying to be a smart alec; I just do not know what you refer to.
I know that when Mom was young (in the northern plains), their local priest was Irish and was from Boston, he liked to hunt pheasants, and would occasionally have a (social) beer, and every two years or so he would take a vacation trip (by train) back to Boston to visit family. He was not a good driver, and he once wrecked his car. His housekeeper was an old aunt of his who spoke German and was stern, but nice. Later they had an older priest who was very frail and actually died while offering Mass; he collapsed on the altar. The local doctor tended the dying priest, but since Father had not yet confected the eucharist, someone called the priest in a neighboring town, and everyone waited in the church while another priest drove over and finished saying mass.
And on and on; they also had a priest who was a veteran of WW2 and he stuttered. Still, that did not deter him from giving long (stuttering) sermons that of course were hard to listen to. I know these and many other interesting, but very run-of-the-mill stories about Catholic life in South Dakota in those “Pre-Vatican II days”, days which for you, were apparently so dreary and grim. Clericalism? Of course the local priest was in charge of the parish. Why would he not be?
Please give an example or two, of the sort of “Clericalism” that seems to weigh so heavily on your mind.
Thanks
Jim – I appreciate what you say, but I do not think anyone is claiming that, as you say, “swinging the priest around”, are sure paths to getting where we want to go.
Rather, the point at hand seems to be empowerment of the local bishop and/or local priest. If a bishop wants to incorporate ad orientam posture into the Novus Ordo mass, since he is well within the Roman Rubrics in doing so, why should he not be able to? If the local priest wants to offer the Eucharist only under one species, provided his bishop allows that, why should he (the local priest) not be able to do so?
Moreover, as a lay person, why would I think I should have a say in such matters? Are you saying the priest should run all such things past the local parish council for approval?
As for the older crowd not having an unrequited yearning to see the Tridentine form of Mass, via his motu proprio, Pope Benedict empowered local priest to offer mass in the Tridentine form, for the very reason that older Bishops were not giving the priests permission to use the form. In other words, Benedict gave the priests the right to decide because the bishops were not being liberal enough in granting permission for the Tridentine Mass. And now – naturally enough, it seems – given the hassle of learning the older form, rather than switching entirely to the Tridentine form, some priests are allowing the older form to influence the Novus Ordo.
In fact even today’s Tridentine Mass is not the same as it was in 1955. The readings follow the calendar we use now, and various references to the Jews have been toned down to meet with modern sensitivities. Also, I have heard where some priests (with approval of their bishop of course) have allowed women lectors to read during a Tridentine mass.
Ultimately, most likely both forms will influence one another somehow.
I do not see the problem with that.
In fact even today’s Tridentine Mass is not the same as it was in 1955. The readings follow the calendar we use now…
My understanding is that this is not true, and that in fact it’s one of the big standing issues with extended use of the Tridentine Rite. No?
“If a bishop wants to incorporate ad orientam posture into the Novus Ordo mass, since he is well within the Roman Rubrics in doing so, why should he not be able to? … Moreover, as a lay person, why would I think I should have a say in such matters? ”
I don’t think anybody here has said that the bishop can’t do what he’s doing – but some people are questioning the wisdom of it. Why should they not?
My view of the clergy is that they serve the people of God. When the clergy perform their assigned roles in liturgy, they are serving God’s people by enabling those people to offer thanks and praise, to receive sanctifying grace, and all of the other good things that happen when we gather to worship. That is the point of view from which I think the question should be asked, “should I (the bishop) celebrate ad orientam?” Is it serving the members of his flock by doing so? Surely the flock should have some voice in answering that question? (And for all I know, he did consult the people he served before he made the decision).
Hi, Mollie, regarding the readings – I don’t follow the the whole issue very closely, but it seems that Summorum Pontificum, the 2007 document that made it easier to celebrate the Tridentine, gave permission for the readings to be in the vernacular “using editions recognized by the Holy See”. But I take “editions” to refer to an approved translation of a particular reading from the Tridentine cycle, rather than approval to insert the entire current cycle of readings into the Tridentine form.
The readings most certainly do NOT follow the calendar we have now. Jim is correct about the lectionary. There is no vernacular edition of the old lectionary, but approved translations could be substituted, reading for reading. One simply can’t use the new lectionary with the old liturgy. The seasons don’t match.
BTW, it is not simply that “the bishop is doing this and he has a right to do it.” He is attacking versus populum as a “serious rupture.” It is he who is taking an aggressive stance, not those who defend the practice of versus populum. Let’s put the shoe on the proper foot here. The bishop also happens to be wrong in his assertion. It’s not a “serious rupture.” Also, this business of assigning a purely aesthetic value to one practice or another is grossly misleading. This isn’t an argument about art, or taste.
Hi, Rita, thanks for the confirmation. Great point about the seasons not lining up in the two calendars.
That a so-called traditionalist would want to use the current cycle of readings seems to me an implicit admission that the current cycle is superior (as indeed it is – a much richer selection of sacred scripture). I really am bothered by the present situation, in which the so-called Mass of John XXIII can be celebrated any time a group with a grievance finds a sympathetic priest.
The current mass would soothe quite a bit of of what vexes tradtionalists, if it were celebrated in a “traditionalist” way. It can be celebrated ad orientam. It can be celebrated in Latin. It can be chanted using the chants in the chant books. And at the same time, it would deliver the benefits of the renewed liturgy: the new Lectionary, the additional Eucharistic Prayers, the much greater participation of the people, and so on. I really wish that John Paul and Benedict had gone down this path to assuage tradtionalist gripes. This bifurcated set of practices is the true rupture, and it’s difficult to see how the two paths will ever rejoin.
Thanks again, Rita. I have repeatedly tried to inject reasons for why this bishop’s decision is imprudent – on theological, sacramental theology, ecclesiological, and community building reasons.
His decision and his explanation rewrites liturgical history (not just the last 45 years) and reflects an ecclesiology and sacrament of the eucharist understanding this is misguided at best; if not downright wrong. He picks and chooses and highlights elements that are not foundational to our community history nor our understanding of eucharistic theology.
Rita, given the fact that you study, write, and speak about eucharist and liturgy, this type of unilateral decision must be painful to see. In a talk released today, Bishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe comments about the Notre Dame controversy, a minority of “loud, outspoken” bishops, use of communion denial, threat of excommunication, etc. and how this interferes and damages the First Principle – to love, listen, teach via example, hearing the other, etc. He describes these methods as “hysterical”……in many ways, I find Slattery’s ad orientem decision to be a liturgical hysteria.
Thanks Bill, and Jim also, for your thoughts.
I recently became aware that Tulsa has another distinction in addition to the move to ad orientem by its bishop. It’s the only diocese in the US that is non-compliant with the USCCB child protection charter as of 2009 (see Article 12), according to the audit available on line.
Don’t know what to make of this, other than to say that it seems this bishop is going his own way on more than one front.
Ken, the church apparently changed policy sometime between 1947 and 1954 on where “mixed marriages” could take place. My folks likewise had a dispensation from the local ordinary for their marriage, which was officiated by one of my dad’s cousins, a priest.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand. I wish to reply to some of your questions and concerns about my earlier comments:
a. I mentioned that there is no way I could ever “sanction/approve” a return to the Tridentine liturgy. The problem here may be one of word meaning. The word ‘sanction’ can refer, inter alia, to authoritative permission or support/encouragement. I used the word in the latter sense.
b. You wrote, “As for [the Tridentine liturgy] being ‘dangerous’ and fomenting the ‘fruits of clericalism,’ I just do not see it.”
The heart of the Catholic faith and community is the sacred liturgy, the mass. Within our tradition, the liturgy is the flip side of the Catholic coin — the other side being the ordained priest. No duly ordained priest, no valid liturgy (or so we’ve been told over the years). This relationship is so important that Rome makes no allowance for conditional ordination to the priesthood. Under traditional Catholic belief, only the priest can “confect” the eucharist and hear confessions.
History demonstrates that liturgy strongly influences the church’s institutional/organizational culture. I think liturgy is, in fact, the strongest determinant of Catholic culture. Because of this reality and the intimate link of the priest to the Tridentine mass, the priest necessarily holds an elevated position in the pre-Vatican II picture. Rome holds that there is an “ontological” difference between ordained priest and the laity. Although lay men and women are priests by virtue of their baptism, they cannot have a “valid” liturgy without the ordained priest — even though the primitive Christian communities did not have “priests,” ordained or otherwise. (Keep in mind that the word ‘liturgy’ means “act/work/service of the people” and the word ‘eucharist’ means “act of thanksgiving.”) Although Jesus instructed his disciples to forgive indefinitely, and although the earliest Christian communities reconciled sinners under the leadership of the presider (presbyter or episkopos, depending on community title used), only a validly ordained priest may reconcile a penitent with the Christian community today. In short, there are certain “powers” reserved to the ordained priest and to no one else.
In his CLERICAL CULTURE: CONTRADICTION AND TRANSFORMATION, Michael Papesh describes this phenomenon:
“In the life of the Church, the Eucharist [verb or noun] is revered as the most perfect manifestation of the divine. Consequently, proximity to the Eucharist defines and gives value to the offices of bishop, priest, deacon, as well as other offices and roles. The relationship between priesthood and the Eucharist, the human touching the Divine as the priest offers the memorial of the supreme sacrifice of the cross, leads the Scholastics to conclude that ordination to priesthood conveys a permanent, indelible character that changes his very being, a change that is, in the teaching of some, eternal. By implication, this makes the priest and bishop ‘other than’ the laity, placing them above lay people.”
Elsewhere, the author describes clerical culture as “the constellation of relationships and the universe of ideas and material reality in which diocesan priests and bishops exercise their ministry and spend their lives.”
My professional background was in federal civilian staffing, job classification, and employee/mangement training (I retired just under ten years ago). I earned my MA in human resources development, and my graduate study included cousework in organizaional behavior and related fields. When I’ve expressed concerns about the culture of the Catholic Church and the clerical culture, in particular, I’ve been doing so through the lens of social/organizational psychology. One of my favorite experts in this field of study has been Edgar H. Schein, who wrote what many people consider one of the best books on the topic of organizational culture as well as a briefer work on the subject, THE CORPORATE CULTURE SURVIVAL GUIDE.
Schein offers some useful insights about organizational culture. Culture is the property of a group and is found at every hierarchical level. Culture matters because, as he notes, it is a powerful, latent, and ofen unconscious set of forces that determine both our individual and collective behavior, ways of perceiving, thought patterns, and values. Cultural elements determine strategy, goals, and modes of operating. Leaders and senior managers are influenced by their own cultural backgrounds and shared experience. Culture develops only in successful organizations [in light of recent revelations of rampant clerical sexual abuse of children and massive episcopal coverups of same, to name just two widespread realities in the church, one has to ask if the phrase "successful organizations" took on new meaning in the Church of Rome]. The original leaders attract and retain others who, upon seeing successful products/services, conclude that the beliefs, values, and assumptions of the leaders must, therefore, be “right.” Culture is so stable and difficult to change because it represents the accumulated learning of a group — the ways of thinking, feeling, and perceiving the world that have made the organization successful. It helps give predictability and meaning to daily life. Any prospective culture change launches massive amounts of anxiety and resistance to change [certainly true within the church since even before the close of Vatican II]. A culture is right or wrong, better or worse, only in relation to what the organization is trying to do and what its environment allows.
Schein believes there are three levels of culture:
+ Artifacts = what one sees, hears, and feels while hanging around;
+ Espoused values = examples include teamwork, integrity, customer orientation, product/service quality. Schein notes, however, that organizations with different artifacts (dress codes, manifest behaviors, structures, processes, etc.) can articulate the same values. What these inconsistencies reveal, therefore, is a deeper level of thought and perception that is driving overt behavior, namely
+ Shared tacit assumptions = the unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs, perceptions, thoughts, and feelings that are the ultimate source of values and actions. These account for “the way we do things around here.” Assumptions have proven successful over time.
These parts/levels of culture are basically invisible. Culture, says Schein, is to the person what water is to the fish!
For Schein, the bottom line about culture is that it is:
+ Deep. It “controls you more than you control [it]. You want it that way, because it is culture that gives predictability and meaning to…everyday life. As you learn what works, you develop beliefs and assumptions that eventually drop out of awareness and become tacit rules of how to do things, how to think about things, and how to feel.”
+ Broad. “As a group learns to survive in its environment, it learns about all aspects of its external and internal relationships,” e.g., with the boss, toward customers, the sacred cows, expectations for advancement and rewqrds, what kind of people to hire and promote.
+ Stable. People “do not like chaotic, unpredictable situations and work hard to stabilize and ‘normalize’ them. Any prospective culture change therefore launches massive amounts of anxiety and resistance to change.” Cultural elements are “some of the stablest parts of [the] organization.”
When I use the term ‘reactionary’ to refer to folks who prefer (or demand) the Tridentine liturgy and everything associated with it, I am referring to Catholics who reject most, if not all, of the renewal efforts called for by Vatican II. To renew means “to make new again.” For growing numbers of Catholics, I hope, renewal means looking back to the primitive church for inspiration about how to restructure the institutional church to promote organizational transparency and accountability and restore that “sense of church” mirrored in canonical and ancient non-canonical sources.
c. Ken, you mentioned that the Tridentine mass is commonly used in Latin American cathedrals while the Novus Ordo is typically found in smaller local parishes. I’m not surprised by this observation. Indeed, for centuries the Latin American hierarchy has carefully cultivated cozy and mutually beneficial relationships with political, social, and business elites, i.e., groups considered superior to the rest of the population. By and large, unfortunately, Latin American bishops have not paid serious attention to the needs of the “little guy.” Indeed, a notable example of this lack of attention (and understanding) occurred a few years ago when Pope Benedict himself during his trip to Brazil exclaimed, if I recall, how good it was for Catholic missionaries to spread the gospel to the indigenous peoples. The latter erupted in a firestorm of protest against the church for cooperating with governments that suppressed Indian culture and violated basic human rights. Some of the most ardent episcopal supporters of the Tridentine liturgy — and the culture it supports — have been notable supporters of rightwing dictatorships. The Latin American experience between church and state mirrors in many respects the cozy church-state relationship that emerged with Constantine’s legalization of Christianity in 313 AD. It was at this time, indeed, that the emperor gave many civil jurisdictional prerogatives to the bishops!
d. I stated, “There is no reason per se why classical Catholic hymns cannot — with proper instruction and practice — be used in the Novus Ordo.” My basis for this assertion was my experience as a parishioner at the Cathedral of the Assumption in Louisville, KY. A number of years ago, the choir won a national pastoral music competition in St. Louis. It has provided both classical and contemporary music for the noon Sunday liturgy. It has also performed overseas including, if I recall, at the Vatican. Based on my recollection, the congregation found it difficult to sing the more “classical” (best word I can think of now) music, and so the choir took on this task. The pastor, however, constantly encouraged good liturgy, good music, and good preaching, and his efforts showed: for exampe, the parish grew from perhaps a hundred households to several thousand members representing more than 40 zip codes in two states! It’s been said that Catholics cannot sing. If my experience at the cathedral is any indication, Catholics can sing contemporary hymns but would likely need solid practice with the more traditional/classical ones. How many ordinary folks would take the time to practice at the cathedral during the week or arrive early before Sunday mass to practice such singing? Darn few, I suspect :)
e. As you’ve noted, the Tridentine mass came into use in 1570. Although it did reflect various reforms, it still included the pomp and ceremony of imperial customs and practices dating back to the fourth century. The liturgy reflects episcopal (and ordained) privilege. The laity, contrary to the liturgy’s defenders/promoters, are consigned to a passive mode. It’s been said more than once that this liturgy is a sacred spectacle whereby the priest “leads the people to God.” For some background information on this royal liturgy, I can recommend Keith Pecklers’ WORSHIP: A PRIMER IN CHRISTIAN RITUAL, pp. 46-48, and Edward Foley’s FROM AGE TO AGE: HOW CHRISTIANS HAVE CELEBRATED THE EUCHARIST, pp. 79-93.
Clericalism is very much “vicious” (to use your word for my belief). It is ugly. It is dangerous. The Tridentine mass is dangerous because it promotes and sustains the clerical culture that elevates the ordained and subordinates the laity. (Please note that I believe this liturgy is “dangerous,” not per se sinful!)
You mentioned the episode where a frail priest had collapsed at the altar but had not yet “confected” the eucharist. Another priest came from a neighboring town to finish saying mass. As a point of information, we were told “back in the day” that if a priest had not yet said the words of consecration before collapsing at the altar, it was not necessary to bring in another priest to finish the service. I believe this still holds true?
It’s been said that Vatican II was a “pastoral” council, not a “dogmatic” one issuing anathemas and similar pronouncements. We need to remember, too, that life is change and such is true of the church, as well. I think the conciliar fathers not only issued various pastoral documents but also set a trajectory for the church. This trajectory will see the church continue its path of renewal. I myself believe Benedict may be fighting a losing battle to preserve the old way of doing things. I hope renewal efforts prevail.
In addition to books mentioned earlier, I can recommend the following:
a. Anne Wilson Schaef and Diane Fassel. THE ADDICTIVE ORGANIZATION.
b. Joseph F. O’Callaghan. ELECTING OUR BISHOPS.
c. George B. Wilson. CLERICALISM: THE DEATH OF PRIESTHOOD.
d. Paul Lakeland. CATHOLICISM AT THE CROSSROADS.
e. Geoffrey Robinson. CONFRONTING POWER AND SEX IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
f. Michael H. Crosby. THE DYSFUNCTIONAL CHURCH: ADDICTION AND CODEPENDENCY IN THE FAMILY OF CATHOLICISM.
Sorry for this lengthy reply, but the topic is quite serious. For the church to return to the pre-Vatican II modus operandi and mindset would be a disaster to its mission. It would also jeopardize if not destroy any remaining credibility of its ordained ministers. This would not be good.
Your point about having the wedding outside the church building is interesting. I can only say that the fact that (at my Mom and Dad’s wedding) the altar rail was pointedly, ceremoniously closed, maybe was a way to signify that they were not “in” the church proper.
I understand now what you meant by sanctioning things – thanks for clarifying. First of all Jim, thank you for your thoughtful reply; I appreciate it.
You indicated that; “No duly ordained priest, no valid liturgy (or so we’ve been told over the years).”
I want to be sure I understand you correctly Jim. You seem to doubt the notion of “no duly ordained priest, no valid mass”. You also seem to doubt that only the priest can confect the Eucharist and hear confessions. Is this really your view?
Regarding primitive Christianity, the primitive Christian communities you describe probably had the original Apostles or their immediate descendants. Ultimately the Pope in those days (Constantine legalized Christianity in the late 300’s I think) had to establish an organization structure for the Church. In any organization, there are different roles, and different levels of responsibility. I see no problem with that. The Pope (of any age) is Vicar of Christ and of course the Church on earth needed to have some visible organization. I do not see why that would bother anyone.
I enjoyed reading the piece on corporate culture – very interesting. It is of course a reasonable reference that describes corporate cultures in general, however because the Catholic Church is far more important, and involves the Divine, I think trying to fit corporate sociology over top of the Church is a wasted effort. Please pardon my hopelessly Midwestern analogy, but trying to fit that sort of corporate sociology onto the Catholic Church, is like trying to fit a saddle on a sow.
Regarding your thoughts on Latin America, wow – you need to travel more. Latin America is not a depressing as you think. Most of the countries down there are representative democracies now. Hugo Chavez is the closest thing they have to a dictator nowadays, but in any case the Venezuelans seem to like him a lot. I recommend Chile and Argentina – son bonitas!
As for music, I do not agree with your conclusion. In fact in following Catholic music since the early 1980’s, I have noted the opposite of what you claim. I have noticed that most people – the general congregation, not the choir – most people can more easily follow the more classical or folkloric styles of music than they can follow stuff written in the 1980’s and 1990’s. The older songs have easier, more predictable melodies, and the beat (or rhythm) is regular and basic. The newer music has the more odd melodies and rhythms, and often the newer music has lyrics that are sung en persona Christi. Many people frankly, are not comfortable singing something like “I am the Light of the world”, or “I am the Glory” or “I am your God” or whatever, every single Sunday. I understand the artistic license involved; a little bit of en persona Christi lyrics is Ok, but every week? That seems a bit too proud or haughty for my taste. Along with most folks, I do not consider myself any sort of god, and (along with most people) I am not comfortable talking or singing in the place of one.
And so I disagree with your contention that people find older music harder to sing than the newer stuff. On the contrary, we have a wealth of older European, African, and other Mediterranean music that most congregations can readily sing without much practice. As for American church music, we thankfully have the wonderful Negro Spirituals that are sometimes nice to sing. But again, in the group of newer tunes, written since the 1970’s, one is hard pressed to find songs that have easy or natural melodies (i.e. easy for the congregation to pick up and follow), and far too many of the newer songs use en persona Christi lyrics.
Jim, you have referred to the ugliness and viciousness of “clericalism” over and over, and over again, but you have not yet given me any sort of specific example of what it is that you so fear. Please give me one or two examples of what you are talking about. I really am struggling to understand what it is, exactly, that you are referring to.
Regarding Vatican II, as one who does not personally, directly recall anything pre-Vatican II, I can say that since Vatican II;
- There was heavy pressure to blend in more with American secular society; to not be “so Catholic” all the time.
- Mass attendance greatly declined
- Vocations took a nose-dive; men will offer themselves for a Divine mystery, but not for endless parish council meetings and parochial / diocesan politics and bickering
- Nuns abandoned the convents in droves; there are now very few American nuns
- Catholic music suffered greatly, general decorum at Mass declined noticably, and Catholic group morale has suffered as well.
Add to all this, the ordination back in the 1970’s of some gay clergy (not a lot thankfully, but some), and the subsequent terrible abuse scandal, and the more terrible cover up of same, and to me, it is no wonder Pope Benedict is putting his traditional foot down.
I can imagine him sitting over there in Rome; he looks to the west, at America and thinks, “Ya, now is da time to straighten things up over there.” I know things are not like that, but it is sometimes fun to imagine what he does on a typical day : )
Seriously though, I have read that statistically, we American Catholics get divorced at the same rates as non-Catholic Americans, we (American Catholics) have the same rates of drug abuse and violence in the home as non-Catholic Americans, and we (American Catholics) use artificial contraception and abort our babies (i.e. murder our children) at about the same rates as non-Catholic Americans.
And so for all intents and purposes then, we American Catholics are not perceptibly or demonstrably different that our no-Catholic neighbors.
What then, is a Pope to do?
Oops – In that last post, I was answering Joseph, not Jim.
Sorry about that – Ken
Thanks Joseph, for the considerate and thoughful reply.
Again: this is not the place to rehearse all our liturgical grievances (new vs. old music is a debate for another day). Is there anything more to say about Bishop Slattery’s decision, and his announcement/defense of same? If not maybe we should bring this thread to a close.
Mollie, I do wish to post a response to Ken tomorrow. Thanks.
Ken, I am responding to some of the concerns/questions you raised:
a. “You seem to doubt the notion of ‘no duly ordained priest, no valid mass’. You also seem to doubt that only the priest can confect the Eucharist and hear confessions. Is this really your view?”
It is increasingly my view as I continue to study church and liturgical history.
The mass is “eucharist,” understood as the act of communal thanksgiving presided/chaired by the presbyter/episkopos (if you will, priest and bishop today), through Jesus the High Priest, to God the Father. It is toward the end of the liturgy that the faithful receive “the eucharist,” i.e., the consecrated bread and wine we believe to be the Body and Blood of Christ. I do not believe that ordination confers an “ontological” status on priest/bishop; this term is a medieval construct that, in retrospect, only helped to cement the ordained into an elevated plane in ecclesial organization and culture.
Organizational theory tells us that what begins small and simple in time becomes large and complex. We should remember that the Catholic Church is not only divine but also human. Therefore, this institution is no exception to the forces of human organization. Vatican II called for ecclesial renewal, that is, to make new again. For growing numbers of concerned Catholics, this means examining our primitive roots and appropriating, to the extent practicable, liturgical beliefs, understandings, and practices closest to Jesus in time and place. It means getting rid of unnecessary and, yes, dangerous beliefs and practices that — if recent history is any indication — have only harmed the Body of Christ and hindered the credible proclamation of the gospel message. We need to prune the accretions not only in the liturgy but also in church processes and structures. The church needs cultural change.
Based on both liturgical history and various Pauline passages, we (male and female) are “priests” in the truest sense of the word. While gathered together at the liturgy (“work/service/duty of the people”), we together “confect the eucharist.” The primitive presider (presbyter or episkopos, depending on particular community title) was a layman. Ordination as we understand it today did not enter the picture until roughly 200 years after the resurrection. Ordained ministry was a historical development. If the primitive presider was not an ordained priest but was, instead, an unordained priest like everybody else at the assembly, can we hold today that their primitive liturgies were somehow “invalid”? Was “the eucharist” back then not “real”? Was it not the body and blood of Christ?
Here are a couple of links to more information I’ve shared on the subject of priesthood:
+ http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3876
See, especially, my comments of July 30, August 2, and August 5.
+ http://www.ncronline.org/blogs/young-voices/church-outside-walls
There are too many comments to list here, but several include links to other sources about
priesthood, women’s ordination, and the doctrine of reception (the latter likely something
that Rome would just as soon have us ignore).
The matter of priest hearing confessions is, I think, ultimately an administrative rather than theological issue. As Michael Crosby (THE DYSFUNCTIONAL CHURCH) and others have pointed out, institutional leaders have emphasized Matthew 16:19 to the exclusion of Matthew 18:18. In the primitive churches, it was the community itself, chaired by the presider, that reconciled errant/wayward persons. I’m not prepared to confess my sins (not the serious ones, anyway:) in open assembly. Hence, I prefer confessing to a priest as the community’s designated representative. Reconciliation has evolved over the years. This is natural development to meet the needs of a changing church.
I have shared information about the sacrament of reconciliation at http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org . Use the site’s SEARCH function to access (no quotation marks) “Changes in the Liturgy (OF) – All Sacramental Formulae in Latin?” that was posted July 3, 2008. My comments on reconciliation were posted August 9.
I am not advocating abolishment of ordained ministry in its manifestations of bishop, priest, and deacon. I do think, though, that we need to reexamine these offices/services in light of primitive Christian practice and understanding of their roles in the local churches. We need to see the presider’s role as that of community leader who, by virtue of this responsibility, also chairs the liturgical assembly, i.e., maintaining order and calling forth the gifts of the people. Times change, the church changes. It resists change to its detriment. While Truth does not change, our understanding, articulation/expression, and application of it most certainly have changed.
b. Constantine legalized Christianity ca. 312/313 AD. I am not against organizational structure and staffing, ecclesial or otherwise. I am not against a Vatican bureaucracy per se — except to the extent that it unjustifiably interferes with the rightful prerogatives of local bishops and national episcopal conferences (e.g., liturgical translation). Rome has unduly interfered in matters over which it has no legitimate business! (At the same time, Rome has failed to intervene, e.g., in matters such as rampant sexual abuse of children, when it should have done so.) At the very least, the church needs transparency, accountability, collegiality, and subsidiarity. Without them (which is now the status quo), we can be assured of continuing ecclesial dysfunction.
Regarding the papacy, I like Richard McBrien’s LIVES OF THE POPES in which he notes, “…[T]he popes of the first four centuries — that is, until the watershed papacy of Leo I in the middle of the fifth century — functioned with relatively limited authority beyond Rome and its immediate environs.”
c. “[H]owever because the Catholic Church is far more important, and involves the Divine, I think trying to fit corporate sociology over top of the Church is a wasted effort….[I]t is like trying to fit a saddle on a sow.”
While we understand “the church” to be the People of God, it also has organizational structure and all that comes with it, good and bad. I agree with your assertion, however, about the sow. Peope, including hierarchs, come up with all kinds of excuses (not reasons) to resist corporate change. Bishops and priests and religious (and layfolk) can get stuck in their “comfort zones.” Which brings me to my second point: the church is not only divine, it is human, as well. So much so, in fact, that we have to dismiss the idea that the primitive church was ever “pristine.” The Christian Church has had controversy from Day One. Corporate change can be difficult to “swallow.” I know: I worked in HR during my career in the federal civil service!
I cannot agree, however, with the idea that “trying to fit corporate sociology [or psychology] ove top of the Church is a wasted effort.” People do resist change, and most change efforts, I understand, ultimately fail. However, a “fortress church” cannot by definition successfully carry out its mission, anymore than a commercial enterprise can ignore its internal and external operating environments. Ken, we cannot ignore the human element even if we were to try to do so — except, of course, at our institutional/corporate peril. While Jesus has promised to be with us always, he does not want us to sit on our laurels — or on our collective butts!
d. I’ve never been to Latin America. As a college junior, I took a two-semester course in Latin American history. “God, Glory, and Gold” — except, as our professor observed, the reality was just the opposite. Since the days of Constantine, the bishops have cultivated relationships (some would describe them as “cozy”) with political and other leaders in the civic arena, and this has been most certainly the case with hierarchs in Latin America, regrettably and too often to the detriment of poor and indigenous peoples. I’ve read the newspapers including the National Catholic Reporter. While Catholic prelates often remained silent, various elites took advantage of the poor and helpless and killed/tortured/maimed/raped anybody who got in the way — like, for instance, courageous bishops, priests, brothers, sisters, and lay workers. “By their fruits you shall know them.”
Do “[m]ost of the countries down there [have] representative democracies now”? I don’t keep up with Latin America, but if recent history is any indication, this may be an issue for debate (I was a political science major so, please, let’s not get “technical” here).
As far as the hierarchy’s remoteness from the needs of “the masses” is concerned, Pope Benedict is a good example. If I remember, this pope exclaimed during his trip to Brazil how much good had been accomplished by the early missionaries. What was the response? The phrase “angry uproar” would be a mild understatement. “Gold, Glory, and God” in that order, to which one could add “cultural subjugation.” Catholic hierarchs, with comparatively few exceptions, have been distant from their peoples who lack the economic and political “capital” that assures entree to the ecclesial chanceries. Let’s hope this picture has been changing for the better, but old habits (and bad reputations) die hard.
You wrote, “Latin America is not as depressing as you think.” I never said it was, and I apologize if I gave this impression. That said, have you seen the films ROMERO or CITY OF GOD, or any of the television episodes of CITY OF MEN? Just as we have rampant poverty, alcohol and drug abuse, and resulting crime on many of our Indian reservations, likewise,
various Latin American countries have rampant squalor just outside their major tourist destinations — like Rio, for instance!
A related observation: the Vatican has repeatedly gone out of its way to curry the favor of so-called “restorationist” groups pining for return of the Tridentine liturgy (we’ve seen no such fawning toward progressive elements either within or outside the institutional church). These groups are noted for their authoritarian orientation. Opus Dei, for example, has been associated with rightwing regimes in Latin America. Marcel Lefebvre, founder of SSPX, was the son (per Wikipedia) of an “outspoken monarch.” There is no question that the Tridentine liturgy with its medieval pomp and ceremony appeals to folks who are drawn to authority figures (not to mention the folks who are the authority figures:). I have a hypothesis: there is a general correlation between one’s preferred liturgical style (Tridentine vs. Novus Ordo) and one’s political orientation (conservative vs. liberal). Just a hypothesis, but anecdotal evidence suggests as much.
e. As for music, we apparently have different experiences. My former parish was the local cathedral, which likely had access to greater resources (read: money+talent) than the typical neighborhood church. The choir has “cut” CDs and traveled fairly extensively. I could be mistaken here, but I suspect the cathedral choir’s repertoire was generally of greater complexity than what many folks might consider “classical.” However, even the folks at the cathedral’s “contemporary” liturgies were presented with a wide range of music to sing. The cathedral, if I recall, had a full-time music director as well as professional musicians who were members of the parish community.
f. “[Y]ou have referred to the ugliness and viciousness of ‘clericalism’ over and over, and over again, but you have not yet given me any sort of specific example of what it is that you so fear.”
Ken, let me give you one specific example: a friend was victimized by a future bishop of the church. Would anybody have paid attention to my friend had he complained about what had occurred? Good quesion. I don’t know, but the priest was eventually promoted to the episcopacy.
With all due respect, Ken, just where have you been these last few years? Abuse of children (and getting away with it). Episcopal denials/threats/secret payoffs with binding confidentiality agreements (and getting away with it). Bishops’ refusals to release documents except, maybe, in reaction to threats of court action. Financial wrongdoing by pastors (and getting away with it). Bishops refusing to be accountable to, and transparent with, their “flocks” (as if the people were a bunch of dumbass sheep). Bishops denying communion to politicians with whom they disagree.
Here are two more links:
+ “What is Clericalism”
http://www.catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2008/07/14
+ “Narcissism and the Church”
http://www.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/05/narcissism-and-the-church.html
Don’t be gullible.
Be careful when reading your diocesan newspaper. Peruse other sources (especially, perhaps, the liberal/progressive ones with the “bad news”) to learn what your bishop may not be allowing his editor to include in your church paper. Note whether your diocesan newspaper has an ongoing “Letters to the Editor” feature that publishes reader input — especially relating to critical and controversial issues facing the church such as women’s ordination, gay/lesbian marriage, optional celibacy, etc. If possible, look at the paper’s editorial archives over the years to see if they contain comment on such issues. Unless I’ve missed anything, the editorials in our archdiocesan newspaper, for example, have dealt only with “soft” subject matter, and it is only very seldom that THE RECORD publishes a letter from a reader. Invariably, such reader input deals likewise with “soft” subject matter.
Be skeptical.
g. What is a pope to do, you ask?
For starters, support ecclesial renewal for a change. Lead. Don’t confuse leadership with giving orders and threats. Just as important, support Vatican II’s clear trajectory, its progression in the spirit of aggiornamento. Jettison the “fortress mentality.” Recognize and respond (but not react) to “the signs of the times” as Good Pope John encouraged us to do.
Regarding the latter suggestion, the pope may want to take cognizance of the findings of sociologists James Davidson and Dean Hoge about the direction of the laity, on the one hand, and the direction of his JPII priests and bishops, on the other:
“Laypeople in the post-Vatican II and millenial generations are going in one direction while ‘John Paul II priests’ are going in another. The full effect of this division is not yet felt or discernible, but that will change in coming years. In a decade or two, today’s older generation of priests and laypeople will be gone, leaving all the decisions to today’s younger priests and laity, PRECISELY WHERE THE EXPECTATION GAP IS WIDEST” (emphases added).
See http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2069&var_recherche=dean+hoge
The National Catholic Reporter has an article about a survey conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University that states in relevant part, “Younger generations — those born between 1961 and 1981, who came of age after the Second Vatican Council, and those born since 1982, who are considered the millenial generation — had the lowest level of support for the Tridentine Mass being made more widely available, at 21 percent and 16 percent, respectively.”
See http://www.ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/most-us-catholics-ambivalent-about-latin-mass
As much as I hate to say it, I have absolutely no confidence in Benedict’s supposed leadership. Nada.
Thanks, everyone, for your contributions. I’m closing comments now.