Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
If all bishops and pastors thought this way we'd be in a much better place liturgically. I'd like to see an American bishop say something that sounds like this.
Ah, now, there's a bishop!
Ditto, Anthony, for the UK.
Mnay good points in need of correction or supression brought up by this bishop.
One of the priests in my parish thinks he is on stage to entertain us with his "down-home, warm and friendly" personality. To me it's just an excuse for abuses. He has nothing to offer, so He desides to put on a show to keep us entertained.
He strolls across the sactuary during his homily like a Baptist preacher rather than a priest.
He would do well to read this Bishop's observations, and make corrections in his presentation.
I wish this bishop had come out and banned things like Communion in the Hand, and Liturgical Dance in his diocese. I'm waiting for the Pope to do so.
Aw Shawn you made this up. I can't believe a bishop said this. I thought the spirit of Vatican Council Ii was to talk and relate with each other at mass. That's why the priest faces us and gives an unending commentary on what he's doing starting with the words after the greeting: "Hi folks! Today is Pentecost when everybody spoke in tongues. Lets see how many tongues all you speak. Come on! let's hear you." Of course the words after the greeting become more formal in papal masses. But the formula is there. And on and on it goes until the high point when everybody grabs each other for higs and kisses. Then there is a little token you take from the priest. You eat it. And then sing a couple of songs. Retire to the parish hall where the party continues. Isn't this the way it's suppose to be? Shawn you should not try to trick your reader by making up things like this. You'll put ideas in our heads.
There is a great discontinuity between the Mass as offered before the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo.
The only contiguous part is the Consecration, though in the NO version the form is flawed.
An crude analogy would be:
The Gregorian Mass is an impeccably cut and unflawed diamond set in an exquisite band of the finest platinum.
The Novus Ordo is that same impeccably cut and unflawed diamond set in a rubber band.
Kyrie Eleison
The Bishop of Patterson, New Jersey, has written some very good things on his diocesan web-site. He is currently chairman of the US Bishops' committee for divine worship.
Here is a link to one of the articles:
http://www.patersondiocese.org/p...cfm?
Web_ID=2224
*sigh* Those of us engaged in liturgical renewal on the Protestant side wish that someone, anyone in our tradition would stand up and say this. Thank you again, Shawn, for making things like this accessible to us.
We must give Thanks to God for the words of His Excellency the Archbishop.Actually , well said and very appropriate.
I wish that all the Bishops of the world follow him !
Jim, just out of curiosity, what Protestant tradition do you come out of? What is the state of liturgical renewal there?
As an aside, I was recently amused by the local Lutheran church, which had a sign outside its doors promoting its different services. The sign had the words "Contemporary Worship" & "Traditional Worship". Under "Contemporary Worship", there was a picture of a grungy praise band. Under "Traditional Worship" there was a picture of a woman minister with a rainbow sash around her neck! I always think to myself as I pass by, traditional to what, 1975? :)
Dan Hunter - That's wonderful that you are so happy and comfortable with the traditional latin mass, as is clearly your preference. But why go on the offensive with your comments about the Novus Ordo, which I dare say, a good chunk of the readership of this blog, choose to attend, myself included. We all know the history of the rite itself, and how it came to be - but it's a valid rite of the Church, by which the Lord also becomes present for the nourishment and salvation of the faithful. In many places it is celebrated horribly, but in some places it is celebrated majestically, as fortuntely it is in my parish. Your tone comes across not only as arrogant, but also not particularly constructive in any direction - and what does it have to do with this wonderfully optimistic thread?? I find this blog to be very inclusive not only about developments concerning the usus antiquior, but also of efforts to embellish and improve the ars celebrandi in the reformed missal, which for better or for worse is the reality of the Church of today.
Kudos to this Bishop. He gets it! This should be required reading for the American bishops, most in particular, Bishop Trautman and Cardinal Mahony. Tom
Anonymous, it is for worse believe me !
Think yourself lucky you have a 'choice'.
Anonymous,
Please read my posting again.
I was addressing the comment that His Excellency made and the moderator commented on, related to how there must be continuity betwixt the disciplines and texts of the Gregorian Mass and the Novus Ordo.
My point relates to these in that I am stating that the only real external continuity is the Consecration.
If you read my comment you would see that I gave awesome praise to the Holy Sacrifice of Mass in both the Gregorian Form and the Novus Ordo.
They both have the confection of the Blessed Sacrament and in as much they both offer forth that,"Unflawed diamond" as I mentioned.
My point as related to what His Excellency said was that how we surround this most awesome of moments in the Mass is what is essential to the Sacrament to match its unparralled brilliance.
Two example's: Read the Roman Canon as in the Missal of 1962 and then read any of the Eucharistic Prayers from the Novus Ordo.
Read the Offertory Prayers of the Missal of 1962 and then read the Offertory prayers of the Novus Ordo.
Again my crude analogy:
The Gregorian Mass is likened to a flawless diamond set in the finest platinum band.
The Novus Ordo is a flawless diamond set in a rubber band.
There is so much discontinuity as to make the Novus Ordo a markedly different Rite and not worthy of the Awesome moment of Consecration.
God bless you.
Jim Olson:
It is impossible for people engaged in liturgical renewal on the Protestant side "to stand up and say this" because the Protestantism was the first manifestation of the refusal of Catholic Xtians to follow the injuncion of the psalmist: "Be still and know that I am God!"
The Australian Bishop is alluding to a silence lost to Catholics in the novus ordo. The protestants never had such silence. Hence, the extreme reaction of George Fox and his Quakers. Indeed the late Helen Peabody a member of the Cambridge Yearly Meeting of the Society of friends informed me of some of her relatives conversion to Roman Catholisicm at the Opus Dei house in that town and said: "But then I always regarded Quakerism as the silent side of Catholicism."
So dream on! As a Protestant you can have Quakerism's silence or the noise of the other sects. But you won't have the silence of the traditional Catholic low mass which to me is the best part of the Catholic church since it bears such strong witnesses to God's languageless nature with which one is able to commune in silence.
Don't forget that i certain Near Eastern narrations of the Flood say that is came about because God became tired of hearing the ceaseless chatter of humankind. Our traditional low mass is thus antediluvian. And viewed from the perspective of those narrations, this is good.
I would also take issue with Mr. Hunter's unfortunate choice of words, though I understand his sentiments. May I suggest the following alternate wording: The EF Mass "is likened to a flawless diamond set in the finest platinum band." The OF Mass "is likened to a flawless diamond set in the finest platinum band" but worn by a cheating bride (!) at a Las Vegas chapel (ugly architecture) at a wedding presided over by an Elvis impersonator (I'll leave that last part to your collective imaginations). Take heart, Mr. Hunter, a new translation of the OF is on the way, and with such a renewal (restoration) we can hope that the hippies and revolutionaries will finally be put in their place. By-the-way, the Bishop's letter should be tacked on to every parish bulletin - - with that minor emendation proposed by Mr. Tribe.
Mr Anderson,
My words reflect the great graces that the Almighty hath bestowed upon me and therefore they are fortunate, not unfortunate.
God love you.
"The music of the liturgy needs to rise from the silence of prayer and create a still deeper sense of that silence...
Some of the songs used in worship tend to replace or disrupt any sense of silence; they add to the sense that the liturgy is “noisy”."
Well put!
I agree with you Mr. Hunter, it is well put. I also agree with that the silence of the Low Mass surpasses all.
I am pleased the bishop emphasized the value of silence. This is one of the principle losses in church since Vatican II. Only an older generation will remember the silence of the past when you could hear a pin drop before and after Mass and when conversation, however urgent, was actively discouraged even when the church was not in use. In an age of noise and distraction such as the present I am not sure that it would be possible to restore it. But it made a wealth of difference to the congregation's, as well as the priest's, recollection. It is one of the most significant losses of the last forty years.
As for the vernacular. According to Cardinal Heenan's memoirs, no English or Welsh bishop at the Council had any desire, or intention, of changing Latin for the vernacular. They, and others, were persuaded otherwise by bishops from behind the Iron Curtain and in Communist countries who were banned by the state from preaching or giving catechesis. They said that the only doctrinal influence the people would have was from Mass celebrated in the vernacular which would convey, through rite and reading the Word, the framework of Catholic teaching, including the creed. The introduction of the vernacular was seen to be doctrinal as well as pastoral and the assembled bishops were, for the most part, persuaded by these arguments.
It is worth noting that the Archbishop has already started on this programme of reform - he is currently renovating his cathdral to do what can be done to make it a little less ugly! He faces a fairly uphill battle given some of the liturgical practices in the diocese however.
Does anyone know whether or not the USCCB has petitioned Rome for 'options' for use in the US Church, regarding 'more elevated and sacral language'? Based on recent history, I can't imagine our American bishops allowing ANY revisions beyond a 6th grade reading level.
These are ambiguous statements that could be interpreted in diverse ways. All priests and biships make these types of statements.
Dan,
Fortunately, the Holy Father does not share your dim view of the ordinary form of the Mass. He desires that both forms be embraced. Between the old and the new "there is no rupture." Both forms are good and holy when said properly.
"Our worship generally has become very chatty,....Where once our churches were places of silence for the sake of prayer in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, the custom has arisen in more recent years for people to talk freely in the churches, certainly before and after Mass."
Ah yes, and don't forget - talking during Mass. It has become a great distraction.
All I can note is that After a 20 year "vacation" I have returned to the Church and discovered my faith in direct consequence of the Tridentine Mass becoming available again....I went through the motions of the NO for many years but it never could keep me...True that some things were hard to bear...The more I learn, the more I feel I was cheated out of my history and tradition....I feel I have found something now, something lacking in the NO that many of my generation feel...Perhaps that discipline of having to go to Church in the early years (up til 1970, part of the philosophical makeup of the Church) would have kept me long enough to appreciate my faith through those turbulent years of youth until things settle... I will never know... Nothing against the NO during the formative years, but nothing to keep me or many others.......The TLM may not be perfect either but simply it "glimmers"...It has something, that pushes you to read, opposite the Latin, what is going on .....I never did that in the NO, even when I could understand the words...They passed through one ear and out the other...
One final thought...At 14 years old nothing terrified me more that making confession face to face with my priest.The anxiety was awful....How I wish I got to use the confessional booth to help shelter my face while I made that almighty confession...I confessed less as I was afraid of his reaction and not God's....All in the name of change, modern times....Was it worth it???????? Are we better off???
"Lord, I thank thee that I am not like those Novus Ordo-worshipping riff-raff..."
[david andrew rifles through his files, looking for his copy of Card. Rodger's "pastoral letter" on the liturgy. Finding it, he carefully (and with "green" intentions) places it in the recycle bin, thus making room in his files for this truly pastoral letter on the liturgy!]
Patrick,
Thank you for the lowbrow insult of my beliefs.
I shall include your needs in my Office of Compline this evening.
Deo Gratias.
Cardinal Mahony should retract that "Gather Faithfully together" and replace it with this.
Dear Anthony Symondson it is not only the older generation who remember the silence in Mass. I am a convert and therefor have no prior experience that you talk about. Through the grace of God and a few very holy Priests I found my way to the TLM. We have enjoyed that silence before, during and after Mass at our parish for the last 19 years,and I would imagine it is the same at other traditional parishes.
What is very important to note is that 1. His Grace Archbishop Coleridge is involved in the New Translation of the missal.
2. He is/was a charismatic.
Education actually makes a difference.
I remember, when he was an Auxiliary of Melbourne, that I mentioned how good ad orientem was to a friend and the bishop was nearby.
He turned and stared at me in what seemed abolute horror.
(to be fair, he may have been wanting to silence me in front of all the other Australian Bishops that were there!- I don't know) they wouldn't be inclined towards the East.
Anon;
I am a United Church of Christ pastor. In New England, you might know us as Congregationalists, where there was once a lot of silence in our worship. In other parts of the US, we were German Reformed or Evangeliche Kirchgevein, also German pietists.
There are whispers of attempts to seek more spiritual, less self-centered service. Someone said that worship had become 'chatty'...that is so true.
It is also true that we do not have the beauty and history of the Mass, but there are a few of us that believe that there were serious mistakes made in the 16th century in throwing out all that we did. We are working quietly to encourage weekly communion (we even use the word Eucharist..!), reclaiming the practice of the Daily Office, and a dignity in presiding at services that removes the focus on the personality of the minister, and focuses the people's attention on the worship of God.
The Archbishop in Australia made some great points at the end of his letter that should speak to all Christian worship. I will be paraphrasing his thoughts in a presentation I am making to a worship committee at a church nearby next week.
Again, thank you all for making me think about my own tradition, and for the depth and intelligence of the conversation here.
Dan,
How eaxctly did Patrick insult your beliefs? By siding with the Holy Father on the matter?
Pax et bonum.
MPod
Jim Olson,
I assume you know the work of the great German Congregationalist Mercersburg theologian John Williamson Nevin? Esp. his "Mystical Presence." Probably the best summary of Calvin (as opposed to Zwingli) on the Eucharist that has been written. Catholics can read it with profit.
You can get cheap paper copies of his major works. Mystical here: http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-P...10832454&sr=1-
1
Othere works here: http://www.amazon.com/Anxious-Be...0832524&sr=1-
12
I am mixed about his liturgical work, however. That is another matter, and more complex.
Dan & Patrick,
I think the problem lay in a mis-interpretation of the phrase "your dim view", which was undoubtedly intended to signify disaproval rather than stupidity. Isn't the English language wonderfully flexible?
Regards,
Ian.
Evelyn, friend of mine did the same thing to him (in fact coleridge was listening in on the conversation) at the age of 16 at WYD.
I think he's a fake - but liked by many of the trad seminarians.
IS,
Calling someone a fake in a comment box isn't very helpful, to you or anyone else. I'd say it's without Shawn's boundaries (see the top of the box).
Regards,
ian.
From what I have heard from when I lived in Melbourne, when Abp Coleridge was first a priest - before my time - he was thought by liberals to be on their side in some sense (no disrespect to the good prelate intended), but he then went off to work in the curia in Rome, and returned very much better off for his experience, to the horror of those same liberals, for he certainly was straight about stating his agreement with the Magisterium and the late Pope; many of the conservatives and orthodox were wary of his bona fides at first, but seemed persuaded at length, and he proved a good auxiliary in Melbourne (being raised to the purple), and appears to be a good archbishop in Canberra. I have seen him offer Mass, ordain, and preach, and have spoken with him, and he seemed a good true-believing man. It does not surprise me that his trajectory continues toward all that is true and good.
Fr. Augustine,
Indeed, I am well versed in Mercersburg Theology, and indeed, it forms the core of my own theology. I do belong to the Mercersburg Society, and I was once a member of the Order of Corpus Christi, a religious society within the United Church of Christ dedicated to liturgical renewal. Unfortunately, I have had to leave the Order for a number of reasons. You may find it online if you Google it.
Jim,
How do manage to survive the UCC, knowing the ultra liberal strain within it? This seems to be the usual state of affairs within Protestantism. I don't mean to be confrontational, just trying to figure out what make you folks theologically tick. Orthodoxy and Catholicism have their problems, but when push comes to shove their is higher authority who stop the nonsense by at least making clear statements.
Are you enroute to either the Tiber or the Bosphorus?
Hieromonk
I honestly don't know what makes the UCC tick anymore, except that it focusses on itself. It will probably blink out of existence in the next few years, because the local congregations don't know what it does for them anymore either.
I don't know what road I am on. Canterbury, maybe, for a variety of reasons. But, that's problematic too. I may be in the process of starting an independent congregation. It is a period of wandering and discernment for me.
Fr. Augustine, one small correction I might suggest as I was reviewing and thinking about our conversation. John Williamson Nevin was first a Presbyterian, and then became A German Reformed pastor. In those days, Presbyterian and Congregational were close, but still held to slightly different interpretations of Calvin, and had somewhat more significant different understandings of polity.
Jim,
IMHO the only salvific choices in reality are Rome or Orthodoxy. Study them both. I have you in my prayers.
Thanks, Hieromonk. I continue to study, pray and reflect. My most humble prayer is a prayer for unity...John 17:21
Commenting by HaloScan
