Dr Blosser,
Combined with Fr. Robinson's Mass and Modernity, Fr. Reid's Organic Development, and the articles by Lauren Pristas studying the collects Mosebach's argument here is quite substantial. My own study into the history and development of the liturgical rites would never have begun except that there is certainly something wrong with the liturgy of the average parish. Further the rubrics not only permit the use of latin, patens, bells and other wonderful things but they also permit liturgy to be celebrated in a way which is not in accord with traditional customs. It is true that the VII Council and other documents state that Gregorian Chant should have pride of place, yet I assure you that in all but one of the parishes I have been a member of that this is not the case. As long as pastoral sensitivity and active participation (often interpreted incorrectly) trumps all other considerations the norms that are in accord with traditon will continue to fall to the way side. And that's just what irritates me the most. I'll have to add this book to my reading list.
I had the same reaction to the title of your topic, and Mosebach makes a great point. It is laughable, isn't it, that we go back and forth with people, who fancy themselves quite conservative, and who insist that -- no, REALLY -- it IS possible to celebrate the NO reverently, when the very fact that the point is considered debatable by all sides reduces their mincing assertion to absurdity and high comedy.
One can imagine Bertie Wooster saying something similarly woozy.
One could also say, with no less tenuous a grasp of reality, that it is POSSIBLE that Madonna's proposed crucifixion on NBC COULD be tastefully done. Why not? In the pink bubble of abstract discourse, all ideologically-freighted notions float with equal weight. How odd, that in this best of all possible worlds, theoretical possibilities are but cold and bitter comfort.
I must get Mosebach's book, before the usual gang of recumbents declares him a de facto schismatic.
When I'm not curling into a fetal position over the state of the liturgy, I comfort myself in knowing that there's a new generation rising up...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q...h?
v=q2zvkF34evU
[From Believe 2006, a conference organized by the Alliance of the Two Hearts]
Yes, those are my friends. Ages 16-25. Chapel veils abound. Nothing can stop us. Take that, Cdl. Mahony.
"altar boys, bells, patens, communion rails where people may kneel if they choose, beautiful and noble vestments and sacred vessels," etc. "
"Something strikes me as askew here, as lacking integration"
Just as a guess (since I have not yet read his introductory essay, and am reacting to the quoted paragraph only), the way I would put it is that Fr Fessio is himself conflicted. Thus, his argument lacks conviction, and he lapses into the condescension of so many of his fellow priests, who would purchase the acquiesence of the faithful with boys and bells, in much the same way as the colonists purchased Manhattan.
I'm not sure the second point holds entirely. Very often I'm distracted by what could be better, what choices are being well or badly made, etc. However, all that "evaluation" quiets down entirely when I read the propers for the Mass. Instead of worrying about who is in the orans position, whether there's a pall, that altar girl's crazy ponytail ribbon, whatever, if I read the entrance antiphon and the Communion antiphon, I can pray the Mass throughout the Mass. In other words, I'm happy to have found a vehicle that takes me past thinking about the liturgy--a vehicle into the liturgy. Then I'm receptive.
I haven't read the book. But it seems that there might be a "noble lie" to the idea that the liturgy came down to us from God as a complete whole. That's a legend: people have always thought about the liturgy. Well, they largely didn't for several hundred years, but history goes back further than the 1600s. All liturgical writings have an origin. And they have all been evaluated. (Perhaps not so many at once.)
Receptivity is possible in the Missa Normativa. That's interior, not "how things are done." I'm relatively sure distraction is possible in the older rite?
Sorry, I'm so unclear. By "the second point" I meant Mosebach's
Perhaps the greatest damage done by Pope Paul VI's reform of the Mass (and by the ongoing process that has outstripped it), the greatest spiritual deficit, is this: we are now positively obliged to talk about the liturgy. Even those who want to preserve the liturgy or pray in the spirit of the liturgy, and even those who make great sacrifices to remain faithful to it -- all have lost something priceless, namely, the innocence that accepts it as something God-given, something that comes down to man as a gift from heaven.
What the World is Waiting For
Along other but similar lines, I have long said to friends what the world is waiting for is a community within the Church which makes the Tridentine Mass its presupposition, not its message. A community which makes the Gospel its message and life, with its preferential love for the poor (JPII), the engagement with (not surrender to) the world (Jn XXIII), the invitation to consider the claims, life and Saving deeds of the One who declared Himself to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
When the Tridentine Mass is seen to quietly but powerfully "fuel" such an 'Evangelical' movement, as its presupposition, not its focus, it will be a Kairos, a moment of grace. The Kerygma of the early Church was the Church's focus, fueled by the Mass, the Kerygma's very presupposition.
When the order is sadly reversed, one is not far away from upside down polemics, imbalance and the unseemly disfigurement of the Church's proclamation, confusing taste and externals with the substance and spirit of the Letter. Oxygen is the presupposition of Life, it does not swallow up all the spiritual and existential aspects of living itself.
Fr Fessio might be reminded that ad orientam means "toward east." When the priest faces the people at Mass, he is also facing the Lord.
Promoters of the 1962 Rite should be satisfied they have lost the mainstream of Catholicism and celebrate their Masses with an intentional minority. If they had what 1970 Rite parishes have: thousands of parishioners and a dozen or two weekly Masses, I think the rest of them might go into schism just to clear their heads.
It's about as good as it's going to get for traditionalism right now: an occasional chapel of parish, a limited number of Masses, one weekly focus for a choir instead of a handful.
Todd:
Why take such a gloomy view of things? I came to the Tridentine liturgy for a whole host of reasons, which I will attempt to condense here.
Singing in a choir is often about looking for this cue or that cue, but losing the proper focus on Our Lord. Having been in parish music for 13 years (and a Catholic for 12), I knew I needed to have prayer time if I was to be effective in my work. First, I found the great hymns of St. Bernard, St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas -- so rich in theology and so insistent on our proper place before God --that this led me to ask "What was the liturgy which inspired such devotion and love?" The guitar-accompanied croon-fest which is so often the music at Mass is incapable of producing such fruit. If you want proof of this statement, pick up a missalette. Sure, some songs talk ABOUT God, but more talk FOR Him. Humility, the quality of recognizing our proper place before God, is utterly absent.
I managed an occasional Tridentine liturgy before we moved to Louisville, KY, but about a year ago, my family ceased attending the Mass in English as a family on Sunday altogether. My eldest serves Mass, and my 7 year old will make his first Communion this year at that same Mass, thanks to the cooperation of our pastor. Sure, the music is sometimes wonderful, prayerful, and sometimes execrable, but I'm no longer in a choir.
I can say with absolute certainty that of all the families with young children who regularly assist at the Holy Sacrifice according to this Rite, absolutely every one made a conscious choice to do so because the parents wished their children to grow up with a LOVE of God, and the fullness of the truth muscularly presented. God is not an academic theory, and we don't want our children to think of Him that way. God is real in our lives and deserves our utmost love, devotion and fidelity.
Dr. Blosser,
Perhaps someone could tell Father Fessio that we lay folk for the most part are not permitted, not given a choice, or allowed to do any of those things (at least as far as I know here in the Cleveland Diocese). He is speaking hypothetically, not from reality. Not a single one of the things that he mentioned that "could be done" are allowed here. I would sure like to know where the Masses he describes are allowed.
BTW~I showed my college-aged son a funeral Mass missal dating from 1953 that I found in a trash-to-treasure store that I purchased for 10 cents. He was amazed at the richness of the old Mass. He asked me how the Church could have ever thought to deprive him and his generation of the right to worship that way.
I also remember something that the Pastor at the parish that I grew up in telling us before we made our First Communion (1967) that the Mass and the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist were the most powerful weapons that God has given his church to combat Satan and sin. The way that the Mass has been watered down by our bishops has had the effect of disarming us.
I think that it was great that you and other scholars got to participate in such a conference and discuss these things, but what is the point of collectively lamenting over the past if we are not able to effectuate necessary change? How can we the "sheep" tell our "shepards" that they are taking us down to the wrong pasture?
Here is interesting background on a Vatican document I have often quoted (Fr B Byrne, Australian Ejournal of Theology):
If in this connection I might lapse back into autobiographical mode for a moment, my period of tenure as a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, beginning in 1990, was dominated by the preparation of the document, promulgated by Pope John Paul II in April 1993, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (10). On the whole, the sessions devoted to the composition of this document were a rewarding experience and, as most of you are probably aware, the document was by and large well received and praised for its basically positive tone and openness to new developments. It was interesting, however, to observe the currents running during its preparation. On the one hand, older scholars such as Joseph Fitzmyer were determined not to yield an inch of the hard-won high ground in regard to the primacy, almost the exclusivitiy, of the historical-critical method; on the other hand, there were those who felt it was time to recognise that the historical critical method had its limitations, that it had limited appeal in many pastoral and homiletic contexts, and needed to be supplemented by other approaches and methods of interpretation. At one stage, too, it had more or less been agreed upon to omit the virtually compulsory salute in church documents on Scripture to the “treasure-house” of Patristic interpretation. Then, not without some encouragement from the Cardinal President, back came a “patristic paragraph” (III, B, 2), albeit, to my mind, very well composed by one of the French members of the Commission. So the document emerged, with the historical-critical method still enjoying a certain primacy but having to make room on its perch for several other methods and approaches—literary and structuralist, canonical, social scientific, liberative (liberation theology and feminist theology)—all critically reviewed, to be sure, but none rejected or regarded as totally without merit. Needless to say, too, the document totally endorsed and urged still further the promotion of knowledge and use of the Bible in all aspects of Church’s life, as Vatican II had already commended.
Dr. Blosser,
I'm sure that the irony is not lost on you (and all of us), that Mosebach implicitly laments the necessity of a "sacramental hermeneutic of fittingness"! 
The latter is always a fascinating exercise -- yet wouldn't it be wonderful if we didn't feel compelled to undertake it!
I would repeat my point that no liturgy has ever dropped as a complete whole from the sky. We are not Mormons.
(Dang Haloscan.)
Note these words:
"the innocence that accepts [the Mass and its attendant graces] as something God-given, something that comes down to man as a gift from heaven"
Put in context, it is obvious that, in this passage, Mosebach emphasizes an innocent, unquestioning acceptance of the sacrifice of the Mass, and is not suggesting that the tridentine (or any) liturgy "dropped as a complete whole from the sky". Emphasis is on the attitude of the congregant, not the Mass itself.
However, the velocity at which one's digits are propelled to make the point that "no liturgy has ever dropped as a complete whole from the sky" suggests to me a penchant for novelty, and perhaps would be more forthrightly written as "no liturgy is beyond the jurisdiction of the innovative spirit of men" (and, uh, women).
Call it a declaration of territorial imperative. Used to be a male thang.
a penchant for novelty, etc.
How rude.
I'm against every lie, Ralph. Pretending that the liturgy comes out of the sky is a lie.
And back off the insults.
Yes, of course, I'm against all lies too. Doesn't have a thing to do with Mosebach's point, but it makes me feel good to say it.
"Why take such a gloomy view of things?"
Chris, I'm a realist, I suppose. I don't think I'm gloomy as much as pragmatic.
Fr. Fessio: "It is possible to make this profound reality visible by celebrating the Novus Ordo Mass in ways that make the continuity with tradition much more obvious."
Pertinacious Papist: "The other thing about this passage was that I just couldn't repel the feeling of some interior disconnectedness and an aspect of artificiality, if you will pardon the expression, in all of these references to "altar boys, bells, patens, communion rails where people may kneel if they choose, beautiful and noble vestments and sacred vessels," etc. Something strikes me as askew here, as lacking integration, if not integrity -- although I hasten to insist that I don't for a moment question the integrity of Fr. Fessio for whom I have the utmost respect."
Perhaps you feel that you are in the presence of a 'salesman' of sorts. What Father Fessio is doing, given our liturgical circumstances (nightmare), is trying his best to 'sell' a vision of what Catholic liturgy (Pauline Missal) could/should be. You are perhaps right not to question his integrity or honesty (I do not feel threatened or deceived), because Fessio is not saying anything false, at least not from a salesman’s sort of perspective (maybe I should use the term liturgical missionary, instead of salesman – but I am attempting to make a point). Is he selling an illusion?
He is selling a possibility at least, a 'legitimate option’ towards real improvement in the general celebration of the Mass. That is not dishonest, is it? I suspect he knows the facts concerning the near universal degradation, loss, suppression or absence of tradition and heritage plaguing us; the social, cultural and intellectual causes and mistakes behind this; and the present serious discontinuity in mainstream liturgics.
The fact that he does not trumpet the possible weaknesses of the product he is selling does not surprise me. He knows that Liberal Prog Catholics hate him, and think his ‘reforming’ or ‘restoration-oriented’ product is completely in opposition to their interests and agenda; and he knows that the Traditionalists are basically not interested in what he is selling in any case.
==
Mosebach's statement that: ". . . the innocence that accepts [the Mass and its attendant graces] as something God-given, something that comes down to man as a gift from heaven," seems to me only to be a clumsy restatement of the idea (in the Catechism and many other places) that the liturgy (praising God) is God's gift to humanity. This "innocence" is contrasted with the current practice of liturgists who design liturgies and talk about them as though it is humanity which is important, not the praising of God. Of course, Mosebach's statement that he "had" to become a liturgical "expert" refutes his own thesis (why wasn't he concentrating on praising God, in whatever venue, rather than critiquing liturgies?). However, the essential concept is that there is a perpetual heavenly liturgy of which our earthly liturgies are only an image.
Like everything having to do with grace, God is all in liturgy. He is author and end, motivation, and the only interlocutor.
Like everything having to do with grace, human beings cooperate with God in liturgical acts (by God's own design and will.) They do this by thinking and acting. They don't do it just by acting, but by thinking and acting.
Not only is the good old utopia of unconsidered liturgy an illusion, it is also undesirable from the standpoint of God's will, which is that human beings actively--thoughtfully--praise.
We are not Mormons, because we are not quietists.
This particular post does us the service of betraying a part of what is wrong with the whole conversation about the state of the Roman liturgy.
Since when does any document pertaining to the reformed Roman rite say that its proper celebration is POSSIBLE? In fact, it is required, and the good Father knows this as well as anyone. By the same token, it is POSSIBLE to celebrate the "Tridentine Mass" quite irreverently. Possible, yes, but rare.
This conversation (and I speak of Father Fessio's submission, as opposed to its mere mention here) suffers from a poor choice of words, as if one has to apologize for being right. Worse than that, it does little beyond inviting all the usual polemics. Take a good look at the combox. Right or wrong, you've heard it all before.
Mr. Alexander,
You're right about one thing: we have heard it all before. People have made up their minds and will not be dissuaded.
It's all too easy to take shots at the novus ordo, independent of any intrinsic merits it may have. The depredations of liturgists, priests, bishops, and people are there for all to see.
The more serious argument, however, lies with those who maintain that the 1570 Missal, as Mosebach seems to imply, "came down from heaven." Apart from its ahistoricity, the notion that one form of the Roman Rite, and a late one at that, is inherently privileged, is an assertion that these people have to justify and not just because "they want it."
Moreover, Mosebach's notion that now "people are obliged to talk about the liturgy," reveals his ignorance of patristics. The Fathers of the Church talked a good deal about the liturgy, IN CONJUNCTION WITH SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGY, not apart from them as people to today (on both sides of the issue).
"as Mosebach seems to imply"
No, as you assert, based on a careless reading of his excerpted paragraph. "Seems to imply" is a verbal platform of your construction to get you from Mosebach's disillusionment with NO to your marginalizing of the 1570 missal.
Again with "marginalizing." What's up with that?
We had to delve into questions of worship and liturgy -- something that is utterly foreign to the religious man.
Mosebach is unambiguously claiming that the Tridentine Missal was something we didn't have to think about. Which is silly. We did, when it was being put together. We were supposed to be thinking even as we experienced it as a gift.
Ralph,
Please. Why don't you respond to what I said instead of insulting me? I quoted Mosebach accurately. If you have trouble with what he said and what that implies, you will have to deal with that yourself.
Mosebach seems to be asserting that the 1570 Missal is privileged. It is not and I would doubt that Pius V was as "innocent" as Mosebach seems to imply. The 1570 Missal is one of the legacies of the Council of Trent (cf. the excellent survey of Hubert Jedin) and was "designed" in order to embody that Council's decisions, to revivify Catholicism in Europe. But there were varieties of the Roman Rite in use before the 1570 Missal, which it standardized, which were just as legitimate as that one.
"Apart from its ahistoricity, the notion that one form of the Roman Rite, and a late one at that, is inherently privileged, is an assertion that these people have to justify and not just because "they want it.""
If I am not mistaken, the local SSPX use the 1962, NOT the 1570 Missal.
The proven externals of the old Mass, etc. helped make saints, the unproven unfinished new Mass seems to create organized chaos. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I really think it is true.
Some of the problems are in the rubrics. Problems also come from the liberal crowd.
"I quoted Mosebach accurately. If you have trouble with what he said and what that implies, you will have to deal with that yourself.
Mosebach seems to be asserting that the 1570 Missal is privileged. It is not and I would doubt that Pius V was as "innocent" as Mosebach seems to imply. The 1570 Missal is one of the legacies of the Council of Trent [...]".
I read nothing about the 1570 Missal.
==
Look, the impulse to worship and praise God is what comes down from heaven, not a particular rite. Many of the Fathers of the Church who discuss liturgy were Greek. They would not be celebrating a Latin rite of any kind. Others would use still different rites.
Mosebach alludes to an "innocence" that accepts liturgy as something that comes down from heaven, but which, having lost our innocence we are now obliged to talk about. That is simply untrue. Christians have always talked about worship, about rites, about rubrics. There has never been this "innocence" Mosebach refers to. You cannot even cite Scripture (Old or New Testament) in this respect. When we finally join the heavenly liturgy, then we shall have this innocence, but not before.
I like "marginalizing". It's a cool word. It is also descriptive of what some people are doing here. I could try "reductionism", or "trivialization", if you like those better. I prefer "marginalization", but I aim to please.
The tridentine liturgy had the advantages of 400 years of use. There was no question of its legitimacy, its majesty, its uniformity, its status as a gift from God. The fact that it was crystallized by the most dire crisis in the history of Christ's Church only enhanced its status. You can reduce simple faith to thoughtless boobishness [ooh, reductionism!] if you like, but what Mosebach says strikes me as obvious: the simple folk in the pew did not have to obsess over the legitimacy of the tridentine liturgy. They KNEW.
But then came Bugnini and his crew of liturgical interior decorators. Suddenly, nothing was simple, nothing was beyond question, nothing was beyond revision. The fact that Christ did not hand out 1570 missals to his apostles at the Last Supper meant to this group that any notion, no matter how zany or obscure, in the history of Eucharistic sacrifice, which might attract a sponsor among the gaggle of periti, priests and historians itching to weigh in, was ripe for inclusion in Bugnini's modernist makeover.
So now we have liturgy without rubric. People do what they want. And that resultant formlessness is what Mosebach deplores. Most of the folks on this blog have also deplored it at one time or another, but apparently that is not an option here.
"Mosebach seems to be asserting . . ."
Coming attractions:
Mosebach seems to be asserting by implication . . .
Mosebach implies with seeming assertiveness . . .
The apparent implication of Mosebach's seeming assertion . . .
The snitting back and forth here seems to miss the point. Vatican II introduced onto the American Church scene a liturgy banal in its linguistic cadences and deliberateely de-emphasing the sacrificial nature of the Mass. As such, it became a liturgy many of the faithful could not wholeheartedly embrace without a lingering suspicion that something important had been excised. By allowing such a doubt to emerge, the propogation of the new liturgy-- mandated in a full-throttle and without mercy manner similar to the very model of Old School authoritarianism the new players themselves bemoaned--was in itself a scandal.
All the debate points in the world cannot alter the fact that the Norvus Ordo is a willfully imposed and sub-standard liturgical effort. Especially given the sublime nature of what the liturgy is about, the fact we can even tentatively use the adjective 'sub-standard' in conjunction with it is a tragedy. But just like the New American Bible, it is a tragedy folks will go on stubbornly defending out of a wrong-headed 'The Modern Church is the Church That Had to Be!' mentality. I don't believe the Tridentine Mass is the End All, but I do believe the Norvus Ordo is a rite that does little to diminish the migration of so many to non-Catholic churches.
"Mosebach seems to be asserting . . ."
Coming attractions:
Mosebach seems to be asserting by implication . . .
Mosebach implies with seeming assertiveness . . .
The apparent implication of Mosebach's seeming assertion . . .
I'm sure Dr. Blosser would agree that a major blight and cause of postmodern relativism is the inability to admit that a text has any definite meaning, that no reading can be definitive. So if that's the club you want to join, best of luck with that, Ralph.
The other rare talent you are able to display is omniscience. Somehow you are able to go back 70 years, and 100 years, and again and again penetrate the thoughts and minds of all the people who were ever attending Mass. You are aware of their preoccupations, their lack thereof, and you know what it is they KNEW. So I can't help but admire your rare insight into the very heart of every single person who attended Mass between 1570 and 1971. Although I can't tell for sure from your comments if you're able to also read the minds of Ukrainians, Ruthenians, and Mozarabites.
Of interest ...
http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2006...nd-
liturgy.html
"Perhaps the greatest damage done by Pope Paul VI's reform of the Mass (and by the ongoing process that has outstripped it), the greatest spiritual deficit, is this: we are now positively obliged to talk about the liturgy."
I agree with this to a point, but I think also that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, and the Bishops, even their opponents, have allowed the new Mass (the Vatican II and post-Vatican II liberal 'reforms') to cause/create a serious war in the Church. Too many options, too many liberals. They went too far. No vision, or only a liberal one. Chaos. Desacralization. Doubt. Not only are some of us "obliged to talk about the liturgy" due to the pain it causes us, but we must fight about it, if we care at all to remain in the Catholic Church. Sadly, war is necessary? I think so. Am I ungodly to say this? I am not even a Traditionalist, and I see and smell the liberal/prog decay.
"And finally, we have started to evaluate liturgy -- a monstrous act! We sit in the pews and ask ourselves, was that Holy Mass, or wasn't it? I go to church to see God and come away like a theatre critic."
We have perhaps eaten from a liturgical tree of knowledge of good and evil. Who gave us the apple?
==
Paul, that is exactly the point. At the peril of our souls we cannot allow ourselves to be exempted from thought, and since the Garden, our thought will always be bedeviled with the grossest, most distracting self-consciousness. It is not something we can avoid, and should not be something we try to escape by recapturing a past that never was, except in dreams.
But we can go through.
Kathy,
First you accuse me of saying that the text has no meaning, which I did not do, then you accuse me of being omniscient, which I do not claim to be.
What is really happening here, is that you and Janice are rather comically insisting that YOU understand Mosebach's text better than anyone else, even with your "seem to's", "implies", and "assumes", and you will not brook any opposition on the point. Nothing post-modern about that -- just good old-fashioned pedanticism.
I wish Mosebach were reading this cacophany of egos. We could ask him. No matter. I'll have the book soon enough.
Fine, Ralph, don't respond. Yes, you do claim to know what went through people's minds, back in the golden age of liturgy. A fictional time of your own devising, when the simple folk in the pew did not have to obsess over the legitimacy of the tridentine liturgy. They KNEW.
A quote from the book was there on the blog. We read it, understood it correctly, and commented on it. You took passionate offense at our ability to read, and to actually disagree with--what, a guy? A conservative guy?--for reasons I'm still not quite understanding.
Another, substantial quote was linked above by Anonymous. Anyone care to read and discuss it, or should we wait for Ralph to read his book and tell us what it means to him? (Before you answer, remember that this is a reader who finds sinister intentions in the word "seems.")
And besides, Ralph, you keep jumping all over Janice for reasons that apparently have to do with some argument from your own blog, but really sound strange here. I don't always agree with her, but she's not unreasonable in these discussions.
You, on the other hand...
Following the example of the recent Popes and their outdoor Masses where 1000s basically attended Mass via large screen TV's and as followup to my suggestions on how to improve the Catholic Church:
#7. Downsize the priesthood via use of closed circuit HDTV in all dioceses i.e. five priests saying five Sunday Masses which are broadcast to all parishes. These Masses should be varied to please both conservative, conventional and liberal followers of the Faith.
RfC, you may not realize it, but Christianity is not a very spiritual religion. It's intensely physical, you have to be physically present to the mysteries. You can't go to confession by email, and you can't go to Mass on tv. And when you die, your body waits in the ground until it is raised incorruptible.
Kathy,
The HDTV feeds would be sent to the parish churches not to homes thereby filling your need for physical contact although in flu season one might want to receive the Mass transmission at home.
By the way, Heaven is a Spirit State. No bodies allowed!!!!
And I believe face-to-face Reconciliation is not of the historic Jesus.
Okay, RfC, just to test the waters and find out how deep the divide is here: what about the resurrected body of Jesus Christ? Does your heaven have room for Him?
If face-to-face confession is not of the historic Jesus, do you think they did it using cell phones or the internet back in the first century A.D.?
"A quote from the book was there on the blog. We read it, understood it correctly, and commented on it."
No, actually you cariacatured it, reductively restated it, so that it would sound ridiculous. Then you got your back up over being challenged about it.
"Ralph, you keep jumping all over Janice for reasons that apparently have to do with some argument from your own blog, but really sound strange here."
(1) Janice has done little since she got here except try to discredit others. Sauce for the goose.
(2) I do not have my own blog. Rorate Caeli is New Catholic's blog. I occasionally contribute to it, as does Jacob Michael, Fr Lauren Demets FSSP, and other seedy, sinister figures. I have not contributed anything for several months, as you would know if you were omniscient like me.
(3) "sound really strange here" -- are you now the arbiter of the normal on PP's blog? Why, perhaps you are omniscient after all.
Some of you are being much to rigid and literalistic in your approach to Mosebach, treating the ipsissima verba of his text as though it contained words of scripture to be subjected to some sort of higher hermeneutic. You are missing the point.
Mosebach is an artist, not a theologian or a philosopher. Fessio published his book because of the pathos of his intuitions about what has gone wrong with things over the last forty years, not because of his theological theory. Yet there is a great deal of theological import to be inferred if we are not too blindsighted by the ipsissima verba, if you see what I mean.
Let me come at this from another angle. Before my conversion many years ago, a Presbyterian woman once asked me what sort of church I would like to "start" if I could design one according to my own wishes. This is the way many Protestants think, you see. Church isn't a 'given' sort of thing. It's objectified in the imagination as something almost infinitely malleable. And this includes not only things like church polity (forms of church government -- episcopal, presbyterial, congregational), but forms of worship, or what we would call "liturgy." Would I want a church that had contemporary music or traditional hymnody, one that had a lecturn front and center, or an alter, etc. Church, once one has begun to speak of it thus, is hardly something one can take as a "given" in any sense of the word.
Now let me turn C.S. Lewis to conclude my point. Lewis compares liturgy to a dance. He says that if the steps of the dance are constantly being changed, I would have to constantly be thinking about my feet, instead of concentrating on my Parter. Get the point?
It's not that one doesn't want to be "thinking" about what he's doing during Mass. Of course we do. That's what "participation" should mean: being recollected sufficiently to concentrate on our Partner. However, that is not what Mosebach is talking about. Mosebach says: "I go to church to see God and come away like a theatre critic." What Mosebach means here is what C.S. Lewis means when he says that our attention has been deflected from our Partner to our feet.
There are some Novus Ordo Masses where I can go in without hardly any awareness of getting my guard up or having my "theatre critic" radar activated. There was none of this, for example, at the Brompton Oratory when I was teaching in England, or at Westminster Cathedral at their Sung High Masses -- all Novus Ordo. In this respect, these experience approximated the sense of relaxation I experience when assisting at a traditional Latin Mass, where I don't have to worry about anything goofy happening and can, instead, concentrate on recollecting myself and participating in the corporate worship of our Lord. The problem since V-II with what is somewhat ironically called the Missa Normitiva is that nearly anything seems possible. Just review mentally the approved changes since V-II (removed altar rails, free-standing altars, versus populum, communion in the hand, standing, altar girls), not to mention the unapproved changes (eucharistic ministers as a matter of course when priests and deacons are available and circumstances ordinary, eucharistic ministers blessing children, altar girls when boys are available, liturgical dancing, bongo Masses, etc.). The problem isn't that scholars shouldn't be thinking and writing about the liturgy. The problem is that people at Mass shouldn't be actively participating and recollected about what they're doing. The problem is that people at Mass are being forced to ask what in the Blazes is going on and where is Christ in all this anyway? To repeat C.S. Lewis' point: we're being forced to look at our feet. It's time we be permitted by a liturgy of UNRUPTURED continuity with tradition to lift up our heads and behold in uninterrupted adoration our Savior. More than that, the liturgy should facilitate not hinder, that.
Our attention has always been both on our feet and on the Partner. That is the way to dance.
On the contrary, Ralph, Janice has very often offered cogent points. And then you flip out at her and say something about Rorate Coeli.
Elegantly stated, PP. Are you sure about the C. S. Lewis attribution? I think the liturgy-dance analogy comes from Mariah Carey. I will have to recheck my collection of Oprah tapes.
Our attention has always been both on our feet and on the Partner. That is the way to dance.
Kathy, do you dance? My experience -- which is limited pretty much to Argentine tango -- is that when you reach a certain level of proficiency, you can stop attending to your feet in the same way that you did when you were learning your steps. That's my point, and, I think, Lewis's. In effect, you can forget about your 'steps' altogether as your movements become one with your partner. You focus on your partner.
Another experiment to illustrate what I mean: Try running down a flight of stairs while looking at your feet. Only be careful. You may trip. One ordinarily doesn't think about his feet when flying down flights of stairs, because his consciousness is focused straightforwardly on the forward momentum and destined objective. The moment his attention is short-circuted by being forced to attend to his feet, he thus finds himself in danger of tripping all over himself. This is a precise image of what has been happening in our new Mass for the last forty years: we've been tripping all over ourselves. Mosebach is observing this and asking, "Why can't I simply come to church to see God? That's all I ask. To see God. I don't even want anything more than to stand in a corner on the sidelines and watch Jesus walk by in procession. That would be enough. Just let me see Jesus."
Kathy, do you dance? Not just now, thanks, Dr. Blosser. How about when I've finished fighting with Ralph?
You make an important distinction between two different types of thinking. I understand what you're saying. There is a priest whose Mass I avoid, because I know he will do some frivolous non-rubrical things and I will have to take that extra step, several times during the Mass, in order to recollect myself. I know what you mean.
What I would hesitate to go along with is the likelihood that this experience belongs to only the new Rite. I don't have any real memory of the old Rite, as it was experienced pre-Vatican II. So I can't really say whether I would have had a super-easy time recollecting myself then. Maybe, I don't know.
Mr. Miole, great choir. I envy you the simple majesty of this community.
Mr. Hoffer, what can be done? The first thing, unfortunately, is discussing the matter with sympathetic Catholics. Mosebach says the liturgy has been made an object of conversation and reflection in this unfortunate way. We now find ourselves in this unenviable position. This is inescapable. We must therefore discuss it and contend for it as responsibly as we can. Kathy is right about this, certainly.
But that doesn't change our lamentable situation in our parishes, does it? What can we do? We must beging to make our voices heard in our parishes and dioceses, to our priests and our bishops. We need to respectfully and persistently petition in behalf of the "reform of the reform" and in behalf of the restoration of the traditional Latin rite. I'm convinced that both petitions are utterly necessary to the future health of the Latin Church, and what is utterly unacceptable is the status quo with respect to the Novsu Ordo. It cannot be good for the spiritual health of ourselves or our children (See Chris Garton-Zavesky's comment earlier in this Combox).
Paul Borealis, Yes, I suppose Fr. Fessio may have been acting as a sort of "salesman" to the disinterested. This might help to explain his disposition in that quote. Thanks for the comment. I always appreciate your insights.
Thanks, Kathy. That's helpful.
Pertinacious Papist:
Do you think people were "tripping over their feet" 40 years after the Missal of 1570 was published? Or did their sensibilities and eye-hand-foot coordination just come together? If we could do some "annales" type research, it would be interesting to find out what the people in the pews thought of the 1570 Missal and its implications.
The fact that Mosebach is an artist does little for his relevance to this discussion. Artistic sensibilities are part of the problem with the novus ordo. I really don't think I want them coming to me from the other side. What I want is theological and liturgical relevance, substantively discussed and objectively demonstrated. Moreover, artistic does not equal Beauty or the Good (as in Plato's, Plotinus' or Augustine's categories). In other words, Mosebach is just offering his opinion and I think I want more than just one artist's opinion.
There's something else as well. I don't think you're going to get what you want in any case. While Pope Benedict may grant a universal indult, he has said previously in his writings that he would like to retrieve the old Mass, to go back as it were, in order to go forward. This is ressourcement theology in a nutshell. Even with Pope Benedict, the Tridentine Mass will not be the last word, but will be a basis upon which future changes can be made. As ressourcement theology maintains, one does not go back to the sources (ad fontes) solely for anachronistic or archaeological purposes, but to draw insights from them that speak to the modern world. So, Pope Benedict may well go back to the Tridentine Mass, but not in stasis. He wants to use it as a foundation upon which to build for the future. It will not be a museum piece.
And it would have to change anyway. I repeat what I said about the very unhappy references to the Jews, which the old Mass and other liturgical documents associated with it still contain. Those would have to be excised at the very least.
I have a nascent theory, that attending the Tridentine Mass now is much different than attending it in 1950. The community is tighter, for one thing: a group within and over against a larger group. Also, the attendees tend to be intelligent and educated enough to peaceably bear with the process of learning a (very) foreign language. There is a certain seriousness about the religiosity of the people who take the trouble to seek it out (on the 3rd Sunday of the month, at the mausoleum, as in some cases); this seriousness could be somewhat simplistically ascribed to the Rite, rather than to the dedication of the people. Lastly, and this is the most tenuous suggestion I would make, there could be a sense of participating in something that is lent a certain charm by its, well, archaeological character. We have left the mundane and have entered into a world that we thought had disappeared. It's not a Latin vernacular anymore--it's a language and a ritual that most people thought was dead. But here we are living it. So I can imagine becoming recollected for reasons that are peripheral to the religious, analogous to doing the tango onboard a luxury liner off the coast of Argentina, rather than in the local dance club. One gets rather swept up.
Well, there is that. My grandparents hated to see the end of the Latin Mass. My mother grew up in the 50s and she remembers it somewhat. What I remember comes from her and it does have the tinge of the mememto mori as those lovely Italian Baroque paintings show so well. It's a passport to better days when everthing wasn't a fight.
These days, as scary as they are, however, have a lot in common with early Christianity (my field). It's exciting to witness to your faith against the backdrop of an uncaring or hostile culture and try to make your points. I never believed the hype that pre-Vatican II spirituality was as deep and broad as was said. There were probably many minimal Catholics then, too. It's just that it all looks so lovely from where we are now.
"I repeat what I said about the very unhappy references to the Jews, which the old Mass and other liturgical documents associated with it still contain. Those would have to be excised at the very least."
Perhaps not excised, but at least reworded or supplemented or balanced. But the Church had already begin to take measures to deal with those problematic liturgical passages even before Vatican II, so that is only right and proper.
Janice,
It's doubtful that the changes in the Missal of 1570 were all that noticeable, since it was still an organic development of what had come before. In fact, some of the things which never appeared in the liturgical books until the 1570 Missal, such as the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Offertory Prayers, were actually in use long before this. See A. Fortescue's The Mass of the Roman Rite.
The orders to crucify Jesus, Peter and Paul were given in Latin. Countries and regions were overrun by Roman legions exalting the Caesars in Latin. Killing, torturing, buying and selling slaves were done in Latin, and the Romans of Rome laughed and screamed in Latin as Christians were slaughtered and thrown to the lions. We "pew peasants" have overcome and we speak to God in our own languages.
Any history buffs care to provide a catalog of English-language atrocities for Realist, whose arguments for whatever it is precisely he believes are scraping bottom?
Kathy,
Whatever happened to Jesus' body, it apparently soon changed to a spirit/soul state if you believe in the many apparitions/sightings that required movement through walls/closed doors/restricted time and in some cases the appearance as a ghost. Then we have the Holy Ghost/Spirit as equivalent to Jesus in Heaven.
Or was it simply Paul et al raising Jesus'soul and life via gospels and epistles to compete with the Roman and Greek Gods??????
It was (and is) a body that could be sensed and handled, that cooked a meal on the beach, spoke, and even ate a piece of fish. He breathed, He walked. We'll see Him.
As for the greek god nonsense: I've always thought it's interesting that Christianity is in some sense "falsifiable"--one of the requirements for a truly scientific hypothesis. It could be proved untrue, not by experiment, but by discovery. Let's say somebody found Jesus' bones, and could prove it through DNA. That's the end of it, we're done, there is no more Christianity.
In I Cor 15, Paul doesn't only claim that Christ was raised from the dead. He goes on to say that if not, our faith is worthless. Not just weak but worthless.
To the "Realist", whoever you are, I would say as one anonymous commentator to another, your faith is worthless. Too bad for you.
"The orders to crucify Jesus, Peter and Paul were given in Latin. Countries and regions were overrun by Roman legions exalting the Caesars in Latin. Killing, torturing, buying and selling slaves were done in Latin, and the Romans of Rome laughed and screamed in Latin as Christians were slaughtered and thrown to the lions."
Not just Latin, RfC. More often it was in Greek. It's Greek that is the language of the Antichrist, not Latin. You need to go find some Greek Orthodox to wag your finger, and leave us poor Latins alone for a while.
Of course, Kathy is right that English-speakers have committed far worse atrocities than most Latin-speakers (if you leave out the Crucifixion, in which the entire human race symbolically participated). By RfC's logic, the Church ought to ban the use of English in the liturgy.
Well, in a real sense the Church hasn't actually permitted the use of English in the liturgy. The current ICEL "translation" can only be called "English" in the loosest of senses. But God willing in a few years that will finally be remedied, and we might actually have an English-language Mass for the first time in human history.
Jordan and Kathy,
We "pew peasants" also sin in our own languages. We don't need to translate our sins into the foreign languages of "slaughterers" and slave owners.
And what is the basis of the comment "Well, in a real sense the Church hasn't actually permitted the use of English in the liturgy" ??
Kathy,
As per my good friend who teaches theology at a large Catholic university:
"1. Yes, Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions.
2. Yes, Christ 's and Mary's bodies are not in Heaven (based on #1). For
one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term. Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an
embodied person."
I recommend talking to your pastor about these conclusions.
Just by the way, is this university located in Japan, perchance?
My dear, darling "Realist" (how I love the ironic aptness of that pseudonym),
I am infinitely amused by you silly, modernist Christians, and how you so tenaciously cling to the rotted remains (pun quite intended) of a dead and worthless Faith. My "spiritual" appetite is quite aroused. You already have your reward.
It's not the "self" that's transformed, it's a physical body that is raised (not "transformed," egads) a spiritual body.
Enough with the bilgewater already. It's just silly.
'It's not the "self" that's transformed, it's a physical body that is raised (not "transformed," egads) a spiritual body.'
What is that smell? I think it is clarity of thought in service of the Enemy! Gad, I am choking!!! Quick, more bildgewater!
Do not lead our "Realist" astray with your scholastic theology. And what is with the unfair use of clear and unambiguous terms from the Enemy's Book? How dare you? "Realist" is ours, OURS!
Thanks for the lefthand insult, er, righthand compliment, well, go to hell, Wormwood, but thanks!!
Actually, I keep thinking of Lewis' The Great Divorce, and that bishop-theologian who walks straight out of heaven because they won't let him start a theological society.
Kathy,
My friend teaches at a large Catholic university in the USA.
I find the disconnect between the US Hierarchy and Catholic university theologians very disturbing. They are in two different worlds. Our Catholic "newspaper" never publishes articles written by said professors even though there are ten Catholic universities in the diocese. The diocese acts like these professors and universities don't even exist.
For a realist you aren't being entirely realistic! If I may be so bold. Diocesan newspapers are whatever the bishop and the editor (hired by the bishop) say they are. Mostly they are newsletters for the bishop to say what he thinks is important.
But another thing: once when I was doing campus ministry a theology professor volunteered to give some talks that we were planning to have. I interviewed him to find out what he thought teaching young people was all about, and after hearing what he had to say about the "process" of coming to something called "adult faith," as gently as possible I turned him down for the little volunteer job. Not just that I had somebody else in mind, but I could tell that I did not want to collaborate with this particular professor (a priest) in catechesis. I did not think his attitude, theology, theory of "faith development," etc., was good for my, well, my sheep.
But why are we talking about this on this thread? Is it just me or have we drifted somewhat off-topic?
Kathy,
Actually, I believe this thread involves issues like diocesan "newspapers". These papers should serve as conduits for Catholics to communicate with the hierarchy via letters-to-the-editor, polls, op-ed pieces and theological reviews. You would then have a large forum to discuss/debate items such as the details of Vatican II vs. pre-Vatican II liturgy .
Unfortunately, my archbishop and his staff do not read Dr. Blosser's blog and the associcated discussions. Dr. Blosser's blog also has unfortunately a very small following. It would be great if these "bishop-view pulp pulpits" would reference the blogs of Dr. Blosser, Amy Welborn, Jimmy Akin et al but they don't and won't any time soon.
RfC, I disagree.
Hey, that sounds like a song.
I disagree. This thread is about a much narrower topic than communication between bishops and "pew peasants." It's about the changes in the liturgy and how they affect people. Meanwhile we've wandered over half the known disputes of mankind. I'm not the arbiter here (small favors) but my sense is that we should rein it in a bit.
I've been thinking about some of the comments earlier in this thread, which talked about Fr. Fessio's "salesmanship". The irony is that what Fr. Fessio is literally "selling" is Martin Mosebach's book, which advances a view that is substantially at odds with his own, and on a subject that is close to his heart. I'm actually quite impressed with Fr. Fessio's integrity and open-mindedness here.
"And what is the basis of the comment 'Well, in a real sense the Church hasn't actually permitted the use of English in the liturgy' ??"
The explanation of my comment is found in the very next words:
The current ICEL "translation" can only be called "English" in the loosest of senses. But God willing in a few years that will finally be remedied, and we might actually have an English-language Mass for the first time in human history.
If you think the current English vernacular Mass is a translation of the original Latin into English, you're sadly mistaken. It's only a loose approximation of the original Latin. And if you think the insipid style of the current English vernacular Mass is good English, then perhaps you haven't read many things written in good English.
And it's not just literary quality that has been lost. If Cranmer himself took the ICEL translation and rewrote it, it would still be missing the theological precision of the Latin.
Yup. That's one of the reasons why I love Fr. John Zuhldorf's ongoing "What Does the Prayer Really Say" project. The current mistranslation suppressed and excises so much of the Catholic faith that is expressed in the Latin liturgy. I hope the new translation being prepared will bring it all back.
Yup. Fr. Z has taken care of the first layer of the problem.
Next up, Dr. Lauren Pristas!
Commenting by HaloScan
