"The Eucharist is not a free-floating entity but a distinctively sacramental, liturgical reality. We cannot be transformed eucharistically apart from being habituated to a life of meditation and contemplation by the sacred rites of the Church."
I found these words in the 4th paragraph to be especially poignant. This is a good way of describing the difference between "charismatic" Eucharistic Adoration (flailing arms, guitars, drums, speaking in "tongues", etc.) and traditional Benediction and Adoration. In both cases, the congregation is bowing down in worship, acknowledging the Holy Presence, but the second way does a better job of truly "transforming Eucharistically".
"In terms of ethos, atmosphere, density of prayer and symbolism, High Mass in the ancient Roman rite has f[a]r more in common with the Byzantine rite than it has with the Novus Ordo.[9]"
"9. Except when the Oratorians in England do it, but then they are the exception that proves the rule: the Novus Ordo has never been implemented in a way that makes it continuous with what came before, and the Holy See has not really lifted a finger to ensure that this should happen. The repeated warnings or regulations are no more than the feeble protest of a weak-willed parent against the tantrums of an unruly child."
This is great stuff, but sad. I sometimes ask Catholics my age and older, 'Where were you in 1974?', i.e. 'did your (our) good Bishop teach you (us) this, as asked by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI?'
http://www.adoremus.org/
Voluntat...iObsequens.html
So far, I always get the same answer.- No.
"True liturgical reform would require the realistic measures of a St. Pius X who, to stamp out modernism, sent Vatican representatives throughout the world to make sure the heretics were identified and snuffed out."
Very funny, even strange. Twisted, sad, but seemingly true.
==
"In presenting the Holy Father's gift to you, may I at the same time remind you of the desire which he has often expressed that the Conciliar constitution on the liturgy be increasingly better implemented."
We are still waiting.
==
I think that the fact none of these assembled religious fathers spoke to what you hanker after should give you pause. Perhaps you are just plain wrong about the Novus Ordo. Did you, would you, ever consider that? Or do you want to be like one of those old Johnny Rebs still bemoaning years later the loss of the War?
Mr. Tucker,
Yes, I've considered that possibility, and it still crosses my mind. It's hard not to consider that possibility when the the overwhelming majority of bishops seem to view the current liturgical status quo as basically okay, if only in need of a little fine tuning.
By the same token, the much more difficult question is the one which you, perhaps, have yet to consider -- and one which would gain plausibility for you only as you began to study the empirical record of what happened during Vatican II and during its aftermath, especially in the observations of the best and most faithful liturgical observers (esp. Louis Bouyer & Klaus Gamber) -- the question, namely, whether the vast majority of folks, including the bishops, could have their heads stuck in the sand, as during the Arian controversy in the 4th and 5th centuries.
Interesting question. If they did, why would that have been so?
Be careful of the schismatic spirit, folks. On Rorate Coeli there is some quite chilling stuff in that direction. One post asks if the new pontificate is one in which conservatives leave, liberals remain -- an abuse of the word "conservatives" to mean far right. Another poster, uncorrected, writes that Vatican II was a diabolical synod and that Lefebvre's biggest mistake was to take part in it. All of this may be intended as jokey hyperbole, but we know that many people take it with deadly seriousness and have no qualms whatever about ripping the seamless tunic of Christ to shreds. Before replying to this warming with your usual mocking irony, consider it seriously.
Bruce Duncan has written admirably on the real blind spot of the Synod -- the social justice dimension.
And here are a few words from the man who should be the next Pope:
"The new world order presented to us comes from the unification of markets to facilitate the circulation of money and goods. In short, only the logic of the financial markets has been globalised and the absolutism of this capital is creating havoc.
"We are not heading towards a more just system. There have been no substantial changes in the social structure. The world is becoming globalised to the rhythm and in the way the major economic powers want.
"Moreover, a savage capitalism is returning, which history has already judged harshly in view of the conditions to which it subjected the proletariat in the 18th and 19th centuries.
"The historical achievements of the welfare state are being dismantled and, as a result, the differences between the rich and the poor are growing. The consequences of transforming the world into one enormous market have to be faced, and for this a new world has to be built, a world in which there is room for all its people." Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, in today's Irish Times (subscribers only)
Alvin Kimel is very upbeat about the Catholic liturgy of today. No talk of a new "Arian" situation there.
The whole rhetoric about the alleged fall of the world's bishops into Arianism in the fourth century is wildly overblown in any case. It is based on Jerome's reaction to Rimini in 359 -- "the world awoke and discovered itself Arian". The problem was largely one of confusing terminology, and the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed put an end to it and was universally embraced, as would not have happened if the majority of bishops had really been Arian. (Chalcedon, 70 years later, was less successful in winning such universal reception, and the anti-Chalcedonian churches continue to this day.)
I would submit that the "flat world" of globalized hyper-capitalism (which Marx predicted with stunning foresight) and the flattened liturgy of the Novus Ordo are both generated by the same Modernist spirit. Is the time ripe for an unexpected alliance between social justice Catholics and Latin Rite traditionalists?
Some truth in that, Dave.
Global English is the depleted language of global capitalism.
'Global English is the depleted language of global capitalism.'
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus concurs. Here is an interesting except from On the Square (17 February 2006):
'I accepted an invitation to speak at Davos a few years ago and have been invited back several times, but have declined. There is no doubt that it is an impressive gathering of the world’s movers and shakers: CEOs of the biggest transnational corporations, presidents, prime ministers, treasury secretaries, stars of movies, music, and media, and on and on. ... My friend Rabbi Marc Gellman went this year. He said he had never felt so useless or irrelevant. The reigning ideology of Davos is that economic globalization is both inevitable and the remedy for humanity’s ills. ... Which is not to say that the appropriately named World Economic Forum is not a very useful occasion for the making of deals among those who Tom Wolfe called “the masters of the universe.” And, who knows, given their typically limited intellectual exposure, some of them may leave with the impression that they have engaged really big ideas.'
Is it possible that a similar ethos pervades the liturgical conferences whose aim is to enforce the inevitability of the Modernist "reforms" of Catholic liturgy?
Be careful of the schismatic spirit, folks. ... Before replying to this warming with your usual mocking irony, consider it seriously.
Indeed (laugh): with "Spirit" around, who needs the Magisterium!
"A new world has to be built, a world in which there is room for all its people." Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga
If he is the next Pope we will have lived to see a Tim LaHaye novel play out before our eyes.
PP- so why did the bishops stick their liturgical heads in the sand, as you said? WHy would that have been so? Or did they recognize that laypeople's participation at Mass was more in keeping with law, rather than spirit?
Did globalization create flat-English, or did ICEL beat the globalists at the UN to the punch?
Commenting by HaloScan
