The Sci Fi Catholic Yak Module
I'm sure I'm going to set my self up to get slammed but here goes...
During my mental prayer time early Sunday evening I was contemplating on a thought...
Why am I called to be a Eucharistic Minister (as a woman??) For me it was indeed a calling, yet there is much wrestling, especially among the more right-leaning conservatives, about reducing or eliminating women servers, women lectors, girl altar servers...
The fruit of my meditation was... there are not enough worthy men... plus as a Secular Carmelite I should led by example (but that is also part of my vocation, another story..)
So why is that?? Why is it so hard for modern-day men to live the Catholic faith in such a way that they CAN be servers, lectors, and EMs?? Yes--it DOES mean going a little bit more of the extra mile, as you are an example of holiness to the congregation. To me that almost seems a bit frightning if you can't answer the question "Where are all the good Catholic men?" And I'm not just asking that from the viewpoint of a single gal..although they DO seem to be as rare as hen's teeth...
To me there is no greater honor than to safeguard the Precious Blood. I would rather give my life than have it vilified in any way...I guess I will always have the heart of a soldier...
As a critical conservative, I take my own quota regularly. Mostly, though, I just throw 'em back. "Catch, smite, and release," that's me.
What's telling in the quote from Msgr Barr is that _both_ of the extremes he constructs operate from the "hermeneutic of rupture." His "liberals" separate the orthodoxy of the past from the supposed truth of today; his "radical conservatives" separate the meaningfulness of the past from the supposed relevance of today. But (sed contra, as my friend Thomas liked to say), "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and tomorrow." The true opposition is between both of these groups, on the one hand, and "hermeneutic of continuity" on the other. The need of the people of here and now for the truth, love, healing, and grace of Jesus Christ is in no way different from the need of any other people, of any other time or place, for Him. And the ability of the Church, as His Body and spotless Bride, to minister to that need is also identical to any other time and place: the Church brings Christ to the poor, first and foremost through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, when Christ consents to become for us "really, truly, and substantially present" in the consecrated species of bread and wine. From this transforming presence, we who are His disciples are called to bring Him out into the world by our conviction in faith and morals to be His Body, and hence to do His work as steadfast servants, transforming the world one heart at a time.
Precisely because the Church _is_ universal, the practical details of discipleship will respond to the predominant deficiencies of the culture of a particular time and place; but the essence of belonging to Christ, and not to the world, never changes.
If I had been more awake last night, I wouldn't have written "...to become for us "really, truly, and substantially present" _in_ the consecrated species of bread and wine..." but rather, _under the form of_ the species etc.
Gotta get those prepositions right, or the whole thing falls apart!
The liberals in our faith could care less about orthodoxy and the radical conservatives seem bent on a course to return the Church to a time and place that exists only in memory.
"Only in memory"?
That's it, I'm joining the Lefebvrists... 
"irrelevance"??? I'm not quite sure what he means by that, but if my life and a reverently celebrated Mass with doctrinal preaching are irrelevant to each other, which should change?
Sara--I'm not going to smite you, but suggest that you invite any worthy men you happen to know to prayerfully consider it. Some men really need an invitation.
I've been an EME off & on for about 20 yrs.--I ran to sign up at the first opportunity. I say off & on because I've moved a lot, and plenty of parishes haven't needed my help, 'though folks are often shocked at the idea that "my ministry" isn't just my schtick/participation but subject to the needs of the community. I think most parishes have a more dire need for good readers.
Sometimes I think we'd be less overrun with EME's if a pastor attached strings....like, if you want to be an EME, you have to be willing and able to assist with catechesis of the Mass/Eucharist with the kids or RCIA. Sign up to teach before getting your schedule; those visiting shut-ins and prisoners exempt.
The true opposition is between both of these groups, on the one hand, and "hermeneutic of continuity" on the other...
"irrelevance"??? I'm not quite sure what he means by that...
I wondered myself, but decided to quote him without comment.
Sometimes I think we'd be less overrun with EME's if a pastor attached strings...
I rather like the idea of the lay ministries like this having serious additional obligations.
One of my biggest issues with the Traditionalist is the insistence that Mass be said in Latin. It makes no sense to me that the most important words a person can hear should be said in a language very few understand. The Traditionalists are quick to point out liturgical abuses that have come in since Vatican II, but never mention the ones that were common before Vatican II, such as the tendency to treat the Mass as a private devotion and pay no attention except at the consecration. If they want to turn the altar back around and revise the liturgy, I'm fine with that, though I hope they at least leave the restored epiklesis, and while they're at it, I'd like them to revise the lectionary and put in some hard passages that were left out and remove the "shorter versions. " But I believe quite strongly that the Mass should be said in the vernacular.
Believe me--you don't want me teaching...ever see Kindergarten Cop??
I don't think piling on more responsibilities to the few who volunteer is the answer. I think my musing is more along the line the spiritual health of the average Catholic..I remember growing up that ALL the Catholic boys I knew in school were altar servers--there was no negotiation, it was expected of you...just like it was EXPECTED to attended at least Sunday Mass, no excuses. Everyone didn't stay out TOO late Saturday night as EVERYONE attended 8 am Sunday Mass. Now it seems to be that so much stuff is "optional".
Like my "off the cuff" comment about "where are all the good Catholic single men"... You would think I was asking for a billion dollars..don't attend Mass regularly (and don't ASK him to go), can't remember the last time to Confession, gives you THAT LOOK when you say the grace before a meal, hasn't even ATTEMPTED to petition for anulment of the previous marriage, and especially the glazed look when I mention I'm a Secular Carmelite "So how much TIME does THAT take up?" The lukewarmness is repelling even to me, how much more so to Our Lord. I recall someone saying that the Catholic Church in America is mortally wounded...
I agree with Deej on the Latin part....I recall attending a German church when I was stationed in West Germany (I wasn't Catholic at the time). Even though I was familiar with the service--it was a Protestant church--I couldn't understand a THING that was going on--it was all in German, which then I only had a smattering of. I copied everyone else, stood up, sat down, knelt in prayer, and left at the conclusion thinking "This is a really pretty church". I didn't really have the impression that I was worshipping God (except by my silent prayers)--I couldn't understand the Scripture readings, couldn't sing the hymns, didn't understand the sermon. I was just THERE. And I don't want to be JUST THERE for a Mass, if the Mass is offered in Latin.
Well, having grown up with the Latin Mass and having gotten my first Latin-English missal when I was in the fourth grade, I've never found Latin to be a barrier to worship. (The readings were usually repeated in English before the sermon for those who didn't use a missal. And we sang English as well as Latin hymns.) Having worshiped in Latin certainly makes me feel less at sea when I attend Mass in some modern foreign language I don't happen to speak. I know what's going at Mass on based on what I see taking place.
That said, I agree that Mass in the vernacular is a great gift especially in our illiterate culture and for those of us who are too busy keeping toddlers and babies under control to be able to hold a missal. (Been there; done that!) Not to mention those who do better with aural input than than the written word. (Personally, I'm the sort of person who grasps things better when I can see them in print.)
I think that one of the things that attracts many people to the old Latin Mass is that in so many places the vernacular Novus Ordo is not celebrated with reverence and has been subject to much liturgical abuse -- especially priestly ad-libbing which sometimes veers into the celebrant's pet personal politics or even heresy. (I knew one pastor whose ad-libbed version of the Creed eventually morphed to include such things environmentalism which wasn't really one of the issues settled at Nicea.)
My current parish offers a weekly Latin Mass (Tridentine), but I seldom go to it. Partly because it's so crowded, but mostly because the English Masses are reverent ones where the priest follows the rubrics and says the words that are actually in the book.
Deej and Sara, I urge you not to dismiss the language issue so easily. I've always been suspicious of the argument made above:
"It makes no sense to me that the most important words a person can hear should be said in a language very few understand" (Deej); and the same again: "I couldn't understand the Scripture readings, couldn't sing the hymns, didn't understand the sermon. I was just THERE (Sara);"
because it seems to make it easier for me than for someone else to participate in the Mass, and even to possess the Mass ("_my_ Mass," as opposed to "their" Mass). That's clearly not how our faith is supposed to work, at any level.
I think one of the subtle issues here is what we mean and don't mean by "fully conscious and active participation." And I will absolutely insist that what we mean by that is not something different after 1965 than before. I will also insist that, in the intention of the Council Fathers, as expressed in Sacrosanctum Concilium (see #14, 28, 30, 36, etc.), it is clearly possible to participate, fully conscious and active, in the Mass when the entire Eucharistic Prayer is said in Latin. And so, before smiting anyone about Latinity, I want to ask this:
How do the parts of me that are not my mind contribute to my "fully conscious and active participation" in the Mass?
I've always been suspicious of the argument made above:
"It makes no sense to me that the most important words a person can hear should be said in a language very few understand" (Deej); and the same again: "I couldn't understand the Scripture readings, couldn't sing the hymns, didn't understand the sermon. I was just THERE (Sara);"
because it seems to make it easier for me than for someone else to participate in the Mass, and even to possess the Mass ("_my_ Mass," as opposed to "their" Mass). That's clearly not how our faith is supposed to work, at any level.
Well said.
D.G.-the idea that the Mass "should be said in the vernacular" seems contrary to the "and" rather than "either/or" you address well at the end of the Camp Letter.
...because it seems to make it easier for me than for someone else to participate in the Mass, and even to possess the Mass ("_my_ Mass," as opposed to "their" Mass). That's clearly not how our faith is supposed to work, at any level.
I don't understand what you're getting at. I'm not talking about "my" Mass (I don't know what that means) vs. "their" Mass (I don't know who "they" are). I'm talking about having a Mass people can understand. I am not dismissing the language issue; it is a very important issue and I stand with those who think it best if the Mass is in the vernacular.
I would probably add too that I may be in disagreement with Sara: I think it best if Masses in Germany be said in German; the language, if I were assisting Mass in Germany, would be a minor barrier to me, but would not inhibit my worship.
As for the meaning of "active participation," I better add that I don't wish to be lumped with those who believe you can't actively participate if you never move out of the pew. I'm not a Progressive or Liberal. I don't like liturgical abuse or heresy any more than anyone else in this discussion so far. But I am eager that all those who assist Mass, in whatever capacity, be able to understand what is being said.
D.G.-the idea that the Mass "should be said in the vernacular" seems contrary to the "and" rather than "either/or" you address well at the end of the Camp Letter.
I take this statement seriously, but I admit I don't understand what you mean by it. I'm having trouble making the connection. Could you elaborate?
And before this discussion goes any further, I want to make sure I add that I mean no hostility toward those who prefer a Mass in Latin. This is an important issue to discuss, but not one to get angry over.
I'm not angry, and I've not yet been to a 1962 Mass. I was part of a parish with a Novus Ordo (vernacular) Mass done the way the Council planned: mostly in English, but with Gregorian chant & polyphony for the parts of the Mass that are the same for every Mass in Greek (Kyrie) or Latin (Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei). My wedding was like this (all our guests knew that much Latin, even the Jewish ones, because they were medievalists or classical musicians). And given a choice, probably this is the Mass I'd want to go regularly.
My point was that it's a fair presentation of Catholic generosity to say we've tried to say "And" rather than either/or about many things, and I think to apply this to liturgy means having more than one form of the Roman Rite available. To say Mass should be in the vernacular seems an unnecessary restriction for those of us who benefit from a mixed or entirely Latin Mass.
I didn't enjoy learning Latin, but never regretted it, because it made available to me an enormous wealth of sacred music. I'm sure there are folks for whom a Latin Mass would be an affectation, just as liking classical music or chant can be. Music isn't "merely" a matter of aesthetic taste--chant has been retained by the contemplatives for a very good reason, and it's a spiritual reason, not a matter of taste. People whose spiritual life is enhanced by that music are going to actively participate in Mass just as the Church teaches. Because the Latin music supports my prayer in the way it's supposed to, I would always choose a Mass with chant, whether that was a mixed English/Latin or all Latin Mass. A vernacular-only policy precludes the tradition that's proven by centuries of use to support a significant spiritual tradition.
What I meant by my experience in the German church was that--even though I was familiar with the service--I felt TOTALLY out of touch with what was going on. Yeah the local populace understood every word, but I didn't understand a thing..so my attention wandered, looking at the pretty stained glass windows.. So ok I WENT to church, but didn't come away with a whole lot. So for me attend a German church in the future I would have to learn enough German to understand..otherwise I am JUST THERE...
More on my JUST THERE thread, because I am having a hard time finding the right words.... there is nothing wrong with being JUST THERE at times....in fact that is what Eucharistic Adoration is about, being THERE with the Lord. But it may be due to my Protestant upbringing, but a big part of me attending church is BEING FED, spiritually, intellectually, emotionally, although not necesarily all the same day. (And face it--when was the last time you saw Adoration stuffed to the gills by folks just wanting to "be there".) We get fed by scripture readings, by teaching from the homily, by the hymns and music, by the prayers and meditations, or by celebrating a particular saint or feast. As a music minister I often get comments from folks on how a song hit home for them on that particular day. People nowadays are spiritually hungry, and they desire the Church to help fill that spiritual hunger. Thats' why it's important to have the liturgy in the common language of the locale. Otherwise if you attend a service (like I did in Germany) when you don't understand the language, flipping through the missel is distracting (and to be brutally honest, I don't go to church to read a book) and you can't "get into" the teaching, you leave with a real sense of loss. I agree with Xena, you can have a good reverent Novus Ordo Mass in the vernacular..I just get highly irritated with the folks who demand organ music and if it ain't in Latin it's not a Mass and the other RadTrad stuff.. and yes I do play guitar and do say "Amen" And no I'm not angry..
I'm not angry...
No, I didn't think anybody was, but the discussion looks to me like a good opportunity for plenty of misunderstandings and talkings past, so I thought I might try to head that off.
To say Mass should be in the vernacular seems an unnecessary restriction for those of us who benefit from a mixed or entirely Latin Mass.
Yes, this is true. What I should have said is that I believe Mass should be available in the vernacular. I do worry, however, about ending up with a fractured community, some going to one kind of Mass and some to another. Actually, we have that already.
My man thoughts on the subject are drawn from 1 Corinthians, particularly the part where St. Paul talks about the importance of edification of both mind and spirit in prayer. Also, I am concerned with universality: the Mass is not just for people from the West, or for the highly educated, or for the literate. Only the highly educated know Latin, if even them, and only the literate can read missals.
Also, let's not forget that the Vatican's insistence on Latin in the Mass helped destroy much of the Jesuit missionary work in China, India, and Africa in the 18th century, which is hardly surprising: Latin is not part of their cultural heritage. To the average modern American, Latin doesn't feel like a big part of his cultural heritage, either. This is probably what Msgr. Barr means when he says Traditionalists render Catholicism "irrelevant"; he does not mean that they have nothing good to say, but that they have so enclosed themselves in their own subculture that they cannot say it to anyone else.
One of the big debates among Orthodox parishes in America is how much English to use. The more old-country-ish people want to use Greek or Slavonic or Arabic. Some people want to use a mix. Some people -- including my priest and choir director -- avoid anything other than English for virtually everything, with, in our case, three exceptions, two of which are just for Easter ("Christ is Risen! Khristos Voskrese!" and one hymn we sing thrice, English-Slavonic-English) and the other, well, my priest just hasn't heard an English version that doesn't make him wince (it's pretty short, and thus hard to make the syllables fit).
But our problem is that the Orthodox Church in the West is a diaspora church, rather than a missionary church, except in Alaska. In a way, this can be helpful -- due to the mix of ethnicities, which to a significant extent, maintain their distinctiveness, it's hard for any bad ideas to spread very far very fast. (It's also hard for good ideas to do so, but novelties are more often bad.)
An interesting note is that at traditionalist parishes, the Epiclesis is said quietly by the priest, while the choir is singing. So the big varying part that people actually hear, that they need to understand, is the Epistle and Gospel, their associated psalm verses, and the hymn verses of the day. The rest of the Liturgy is pretty invariant; though it's still frustrating to not have it in English.
Now, when it comes to Matins, and to a lesser extent, Vespers, there's quite a bit of doctrinal content that is chanted; it's rather unedifying to hear ~45 minutes of someone chanting Slavonic on a monotone, no matter how profound the words. That, and I'm told no one can understand most of the Slavonic chanters in our nearby cathedral in the first place.
I think we're substantially in agreement, D.G. I'd quibble that liturgical Latin need not be the domain of the highly educated, but I think what's within the context of language education in this country. (Latin in Asia is a whole other topic.) There's surely divisive potential in having more than one liturgy available & that's already an issue with Spanish, Vietnamese, etc. There are ways to counter that in the life of a parish outside Mass.
I haven't seen any conservative blog willing to say so, but I think the division among our priests over language is an issue. Yes, there are priests of a certain generation who don't want to learn enough Latin to offer a Mass for the people who want it for ideological reasons. But similar trouble has been with us in some dioceses for years with priests who don't want to learn Spanish or something else & bishops unwilling to require it. In Texas it's been clear for decades: all priests will be bilingual, not just to read Mass, but hear confessions and talk. It's been my experience that biligual priests go a long way toward preventing divisions Spanish/English, Vietnamese/English, and it seems like that could work with Latin, too. And priests and deacons could preach unity once in a while, too....
There are ways to counter that in the life of a parish outside Mass.
That's a really good point. As a Protestant, I have witnessed a church with one service become divided into two communities by the introduction of two services, and that even happens to an extent without the "Worship Wars" that are now splitting church communities. Avoiding divisiveness takes some forethought.
I haven't seen any conservative blog willing to say so, but I think the division among our priests over language is an issue.
Well, then we'll say it right here!
Commenting by HaloScan
