This is not a political blog, nor do I wish to make it one. But I am greatly irritated by a recurring theme of commentary by putative intellectuals in the political blogosphere over the past nine months or so. If you just said to yourself, "Hey, that's about how long it's been since the U.S. Presidential election," and if you're guessing my irritation has to do with commentary about President Donald J. Trump, give yourself a gold star.
I am not here to defend or praise Donald Trump as a man or as President. I certainly have my own opinions about him and his actions and stated agenda, but those opinions are not the basis of my irritation. What galls me is the constant drumbeat of the pundit class to the effect that Mr. Trump is "unfit" for the office he holds. That this drumbeat comes from both sides of the standard political fence in the US matters not one iota. For the record, I was just as irritated when I heard or read claims that Barack Obama was unfit or unqualified to be President. He got elected, just like Trump, and that was all I needed to know. I didn't have to like it. The astute reader will see where this is going.
Keep in mind, it is a historically proven fact that the Left will hate and excoriate anyone who disagrees with them, even if he or she were a canonized Saint; in fact, perhaps especially if he or she were a canonized Saint, since the Left generally disdains anything resembling traditional faith and anyone who professes it. The Right is perhaps less inclined in general to engage in ad hominem attacks on its ideological opponents, but in the present case there is a cadre of self-proclaimed "Never Trumpers" in the conservative/neocon ranks who seem to have forgotten whatever they once may have known about civility and collegiality and respect for others. Right now, they all are acting like five-year-olds whose tricycles have been taken away. I wish with all my heart that everyone sitting in front of cameras or keyboards who is beating this drum about Trump's "unfitness" would simply stop. Shut up. Put a sock in it. ENOUGH, ALREADY!
To this complaining chorus of pundits, I answer that:
First, it doesn't matter one bit whether you, in your proclaimed wisdom, think Donald Trump is fit to be President. He meets the Constitutional requirements for the office. His name was legally on the ballot in every state and the District of Columbia, and he won the election in the manner prescribed in the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. Therefore, by definition, he is "fit" to be President of the United States, just as all of his predecessors were. Whatever may be your personal judgment of him, his past, his personality, his proclivities, his social media habits, his actions in office, or anything else, is completely irrelevant to this fact.
Second, if you're so all-knowing about what the qualities of a President should be, and since you obviously think you're so much smarter and more sophisticated than the umpty-ump million people who voted for the guy, why didn't you run and get elected yourself, or get someone else elected who meets your lofty standards? Until you do that, please be courteous enough to spare the rest of us your whining. Criticize the policies, argue about the appointments, the social media posts, whatever. But shut the heck up about "unfitness for office." You lost that argument last November.
There, I feel better now. My career as a political blogger is over.
Laudator Jesus Christus!
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Saturday, August 26, 2017
On Liturgical Reform and Papal Authority
So, as he has a habit of doing, Pope Francis has set off a blogosphere fireworks display with a speech he made this past week to a conference of Italian liturgists. As an aside, I note for the record the suggestion by one prominent Catholic blogger, who has spent a good deal of time in Italy, that his "mind reels in dread at the very notion of a room full of Italian liturgists." :)
Cutting to the heart of the matter, in the course of a typically verbose oration, the Pope declared that "we can affirm with surety and with magisterial authority that the reform of the liturgy is irreversible." He thus used words traditionally associated with dogmatic statements of faith and morals, although he was speaking about liturgical rubrics, which are, by definition, disciplinary in nature, not dogmatic.
For those who may not know, "discipline" and "dogma" (or "doctrine, if you prefer) are terms of art in the Catholic Church. Disciplines are rules made by men, not matters of Divine revelation, and thus are subject to change. Conversely, dogma is grounded in Divine revelation and, by definition, cannot be changed. Why is this? Because God's law, like God, is eternal and immutable. A good example of a Church discipline is the set of rules surrounding abstinence from eating meat during Lent, which has been modified numerous times over the centuries, while the mystery of the Holy Trinity, i.e., that we worship one God in three divine Persons, is a good example of a dogma. It has not been, and cannot be, changed in any way since its revelation to humanity through Jesus Christ, although our understanding of the mystery of the Trinity has developed over time, and likely will continue to do so. Contrary to some Modernist views, it is not possible for "development of doctrine" to effect a change in the essence of the doctrine. Rather, development can only broaden and deepen our understanding of that essence. Take a look at Blessed John Henry Newman's famous essay on the subject for more about doctrinal development.
Let us turn back, then, to the Pope's assertion "with magisterial authority" that "liturgical reform," in this case the replacement of the Tridentine Mass with the Missal of Paul VI, commonly referred to as the "Novus Ordo" Mass, is "irreversible." As has so often been the case since the beginning of this pontificate, a flood of attempted explanations of this assertion has swept over the online Catholic world, with the usual division between those who attempt to justify it and those who criticize it. For my money, Father Z's review (linked above) is the most satisfactory, although the commentaries by canon law expert Edward Peters and blogger Phil Lawler are also good. Mr. Peters, as usual, analyzes the issue in great detail and with a canonist's eye. Lawler comments from the perspective of an intelligent layman. Both see, as I do, significant confusion arising from the attempt to apply "magisterial authority" to a discipline, rather than a doctrine. I will simplify: It just doesn't work. Magisterial authority, in the sense of infallibility, is not applicable to discipline, only to doctrine. Period.
The "irreversible" label is further belied by the history of the Liturgy itself. It has never been static, and with the sole exception of the huge changes imposed by Paul VI, has developed slowly, organically if you will, over the nearly two thousand-year history of the Church. The change to the Paul VI Missal was, I am told by many who lived through it, wrenching and disorienting to say the least, and resulted in many, perhaps millions, leaving the Church entirely; this obviously was not the intended result, but it is a fact, and remains a major source of internal disagreement in the Church to this day. It also was a matter of discipline rather than doctrine, fully within the authority of the Holy See, but by no means permanent, whatever the wishes of the Modernist/Progressive faction might be. I have no doubt that Francis, who has never been shy about his general disdain for people who prefer the traditional Mass, had them and the TLM in mind in saying what he said. But the point is, no discipline of the Church is irreversible. If that were the case, then Paul VI would have lacked the authority to impose the Novus Ordo over against the statements of Pope St. Pius V in his implementation of the Tridentine Mass, in the encyclical Quo Primum of July, 1570. For more detailed analysis of this issue, go here.
Thus, as I see it, many commenters have missed the boat on this one. The "progressives" who are chortling about Francis putting the "Trads" in their place by whacking them with his "magisterial authority" are wrong, because magisterial authority has no application to liturgical norms. But so are the Trads wrong, who claim that not only is Francis unable to render the "liturgical reform" irreversible, but also that Paul VI himself had no authority to enact the Novus Ordo Mass in the first place. Any Pope or Council has the authority to change Church discipline, and that includes liturgical norms. It's not the infallible Magisterium at work, so it can even be a mistake to do so, but it's licit and valid. That's the nature of things. So my advice is, take a deep breath, pray a Rosary, go to Mass (TLM or N.O., your choice), and chill. The Apocalypse hasn't arrived just yet.
Laudator Jesus Christus!
Cutting to the heart of the matter, in the course of a typically verbose oration, the Pope declared that "we can affirm with surety and with magisterial authority that the reform of the liturgy is irreversible." He thus used words traditionally associated with dogmatic statements of faith and morals, although he was speaking about liturgical rubrics, which are, by definition, disciplinary in nature, not dogmatic.
For those who may not know, "discipline" and "dogma" (or "doctrine, if you prefer) are terms of art in the Catholic Church. Disciplines are rules made by men, not matters of Divine revelation, and thus are subject to change. Conversely, dogma is grounded in Divine revelation and, by definition, cannot be changed. Why is this? Because God's law, like God, is eternal and immutable. A good example of a Church discipline is the set of rules surrounding abstinence from eating meat during Lent, which has been modified numerous times over the centuries, while the mystery of the Holy Trinity, i.e., that we worship one God in three divine Persons, is a good example of a dogma. It has not been, and cannot be, changed in any way since its revelation to humanity through Jesus Christ, although our understanding of the mystery of the Trinity has developed over time, and likely will continue to do so. Contrary to some Modernist views, it is not possible for "development of doctrine" to effect a change in the essence of the doctrine. Rather, development can only broaden and deepen our understanding of that essence. Take a look at Blessed John Henry Newman's famous essay on the subject for more about doctrinal development.
Let us turn back, then, to the Pope's assertion "with magisterial authority" that "liturgical reform," in this case the replacement of the Tridentine Mass with the Missal of Paul VI, commonly referred to as the "Novus Ordo" Mass, is "irreversible." As has so often been the case since the beginning of this pontificate, a flood of attempted explanations of this assertion has swept over the online Catholic world, with the usual division between those who attempt to justify it and those who criticize it. For my money, Father Z's review (linked above) is the most satisfactory, although the commentaries by canon law expert Edward Peters and blogger Phil Lawler are also good. Mr. Peters, as usual, analyzes the issue in great detail and with a canonist's eye. Lawler comments from the perspective of an intelligent layman. Both see, as I do, significant confusion arising from the attempt to apply "magisterial authority" to a discipline, rather than a doctrine. I will simplify: It just doesn't work. Magisterial authority, in the sense of infallibility, is not applicable to discipline, only to doctrine. Period.
The "irreversible" label is further belied by the history of the Liturgy itself. It has never been static, and with the sole exception of the huge changes imposed by Paul VI, has developed slowly, organically if you will, over the nearly two thousand-year history of the Church. The change to the Paul VI Missal was, I am told by many who lived through it, wrenching and disorienting to say the least, and resulted in many, perhaps millions, leaving the Church entirely; this obviously was not the intended result, but it is a fact, and remains a major source of internal disagreement in the Church to this day. It also was a matter of discipline rather than doctrine, fully within the authority of the Holy See, but by no means permanent, whatever the wishes of the Modernist/Progressive faction might be. I have no doubt that Francis, who has never been shy about his general disdain for people who prefer the traditional Mass, had them and the TLM in mind in saying what he said. But the point is, no discipline of the Church is irreversible. If that were the case, then Paul VI would have lacked the authority to impose the Novus Ordo over against the statements of Pope St. Pius V in his implementation of the Tridentine Mass, in the encyclical Quo Primum of July, 1570. For more detailed analysis of this issue, go here.
Thus, as I see it, many commenters have missed the boat on this one. The "progressives" who are chortling about Francis putting the "Trads" in their place by whacking them with his "magisterial authority" are wrong, because magisterial authority has no application to liturgical norms. But so are the Trads wrong, who claim that not only is Francis unable to render the "liturgical reform" irreversible, but also that Paul VI himself had no authority to enact the Novus Ordo Mass in the first place. Any Pope or Council has the authority to change Church discipline, and that includes liturgical norms. It's not the infallible Magisterium at work, so it can even be a mistake to do so, but it's licit and valid. That's the nature of things. So my advice is, take a deep breath, pray a Rosary, go to Mass (TLM or N.O., your choice), and chill. The Apocalypse hasn't arrived just yet.
Laudator Jesus Christus!
Monday, August 21, 2017
Questions For Catholics (Fun Post!)
Here's a non-serious post, for a change. Courtesy of Julie over at Connecticut Catholic Corner (see Blog Roll)...here are 34 fun questions to answer. Post your answers as a comment on this blog and also on Julie's so we can see your answers. Here are my answers:
1. Latin
2. Convert (2005)
3. 1954 (Presbyterian, in a church co-founded by my great-grandfather)
4. 2005, Easter Vigil
5. St. Thomas Aquinas
6. Blessed Virgin Mary!
7. Ordinary (But I wish it were otherwise--long story)
8. St. Joseph
9. RCIA team, KofC
10. The Rosary
11. The Rosary, Matins (1960 Divine Office) (I'm retired so I have LOTS of time!)
12. A Rosary
13. Lent (Yes, really. Forced spiritual growth!)
14. Other than Easter...Our Lady of Fatima
15. Holy Communion!
16. Yes
17. Nine days ago
18. Marriage
19. O Salutaris Hostia
20.
21. The Passion of the Christ
22. The Hail, Mary song they play after the Rosary on EWTN
23. Pascendi Domenici Gregis (St. Pius X on Modernism)
24. Deep blue (almost purple)
25. Ave Maria (J.S. Bach)
26. John 12:24 (The verse that triggered my conversion to the Catholic Church! Long story...maybe I'll blog on it someday.)
27. The Gospel of St. John. Or the Confessions of St. Augustine, if Scripture doesn't count.
28. Frequent confession? :)
29. St. Pius X. Would that all Catholics would learn from him about the Synthesis of All Heresies...and take his Oath Against Modernism! Benedict XVI is second, since he became Pope one week after I entered the Church, and I was already hugely influenced by his writing, but I'm still so disappointed in his abdication. One day I hope we learn the full story, as what we've heard so far just doesn't make sense to me.
30. Oh, there are a lot of them...I won't be a smart aleck and name one of the Apostles, since they ALL were converts...I guess the most helpful one has been Dr. Scott Hahn, although Steve Ray, Father George Rutler and Blessed Cardinal Newman also deserve mention.
31. Mother Angelica
32. Carmelites
33. Catholics who act like they'd rather be Protestants. Just go, then! There are at least 20,000 "denominations" you can choose from...
34. The Sacraments! Amen!
Laudator Jesus Christus!
On Our Behavior At Mass
There is an old Catholic maxim that provides the basis of today's reflection, "Lex orandi, lex credendi." The Latin means, literally, "the law of prayer is the law of belief." More colloquially, it often is recited as "we believe as we pray", or perhaps "as we pray, so we believe." You get the picture. The maxim expresses a truth observed by fathers and doctors of the Church throughout her nearly two thousand years of existence. It bears frequent repetition and contemplation.
Liturgy, which includes both the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Divine Office (a/k/a Liturgy of the Hours), is the public prayer of the Church. As such, the manner in which we comport ourselves at Mass and while praying the Office (the latter being optional for the laity, but highly recommended!) not only reflects, but forms, the core of our beliefs as Christians. This is one of the more important reasons why the Church specifies rubrics, or rules, for the Liturgy.
Logically, it follows that the more reverent and focused we are at Mass on the Word of the Lord and the holy Eucharistic sacrifice, the stronger our faith will become in all that the Word and the Eucharist are and represent. The Word is, after all, God speaking directly to us through the instrument of the authors He inspired, and the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, given to us by God's boundless grace for our eternal redemption, and offered back to the Father by the whole Church in thanksgiving for this indescribably awesome gift. Since God does not need this offering, he accepts our prayers and remains on the altar, to be received and consumed by us, the faithful members of Christ's mystical body on Earth, as a channel of sanctifying grace, after which we are sent back into the world to carry Christ and his Gospel to all.
This is the essence of the Mass, which we accompany with prayers, chants (preferably) or songs, and with meaningful gestures, all according to the rubrics--standing, kneeling or sitting at appropriate times for appropriate reasons. As the priest or bishop leads the faithful in prayer, all should be participating not only externally but internally as well, praying from the heart all of the words of our audible responses as well as silently praying with the priest as he consecrates the Holy Eucharist. As stated in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal: (a/k/a "G.I.R.M., or the "rulebook" for the liturgy):
Now, a question: how many Catholics in the pews at any given U.S. parish understand any, much less all, of the foregoing? More importantly, how many act accordingly when they attend Mass? If you answered "hardly any", you're probably right. And that's sad.
A fellow blogger recently commented on this general topic, expressing her frustration and mystification with the way so many Catholics in the U.S. engage in extraneous gestures at Mass, such as raising hands in the priestly orans position, and/or holding hands (like Protestants!) during the Our Father, neither of which is prescribed by the faithful by the G.I.R.M. Here is a short excerpt from her post:
I think Julie makes a great point. And it's not confined to raising hands or holding hands during the Our Father. Look around you the next time you go to Mass on Sunday, and ask yourself these questions:
1. Before Mass, are people kneeling in prayer as they prepare to hear the Word of God and witness the miracle of the consecration of the Holy Eucharist? Or are they glad-handing and chattering as if they're attending a happy hour or a birthday party? I'll bet the latter greatly outnumber the former.
2. Are you and your fellow parishioners dressed as if you're preparing to meet the God who created the universe out of nothing? Or like you're going to a ballgame or to the beach? In my regular parish in the Great State of Texas, where summer lasts for the better part of the year, it's mostly the latter. Shorts, tank tops or t-shirts, jeans, and flip flops are everywhere. (I sometimes want to ask these people if they would dress that way for a personal meeting with the Governor or the President? And if so, why would they not show at least as much respect for Jesus in the Eucharist as to an elected politician?) The more "formally" dressed are likely wearing something appropriate for the golf course or "casual day" at the office. I confess falling into this category myself, since while I never wear shorts to Sunday Mass, I rarely even take the trouble to wear a sport coat and dress slacks, much less a suit and tie, which would be most appropriate to the occasion. Mea culpa!
3. Are you one of the unfortunates whose parish forces a completely artificial "let's all greet our neighbor" ritual into the beginning of the Mass? The "Liturgy of the Greeting" that doesn't appear anywhere in the G.I.R.M. or Missal? If so, you have my sympathy. You should be getting ready to meet Christ in the Eucharist, instead. But I'm repeating myself.
4. After Mass starts, how many are really paying attention to the readings, vs. looking at their smartphones, or gazing around at just about anything except the lector or the deacon or priest? Again, the latter probably outnumber the former.
5. Back to Julie's comments quoted above--I'll almost guarantee you that most of the people are at least reciting the Our Father in the orans position, if not holding hands Protestant-style with total strangers. Amiright? Eeeuw.
6. Now comes my least favorite part of the Mass, the "sign of peace." Is it barely controlled chaos, not to mention a great way to spread cold and flu germs throughout the congregation? And if you have the temerity to refuse to shake hands with everyone around you, get ready for the hurt or even angry expressions on the faces of your pew neighbors, or even to be poked and prodded by someone who wants to insist that you hold hands with them. Sheesh. The more reverent parishes omit this optional exercise, and I wish mine would. Notice, you'll never see it done during the televised EWTN Mass celebrated at their chapel in Irondale, AL or at the Shrine in Hanceville. Never.
7. Aaaand....Holy Communion. Does your congregation unanimously shuffle down the aisle toward the priest or "Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion" as if walking up to the counter at Burger King, without even so much as a reverent bow of the head? Does anyone make a profound bow, or even maybe genuflect, before receiving the Blessed Sacrament? Very rare in most places, I would guess. The real question here, I think, is: how many folks act as if they are about to hold in their hands or receive on their tongue the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ? Do not most people treat the whole thing as nothing more than a symbol, a cultural exercise devoid of faith in the Real Presence? In other words, aren't most people acting like they don't really believe what the Church teaches about the Holy Eucharist? And do you ever wonder how many of those people heading down the aisle to receive the Eucharist have darkened the door of a confessional at any time in the recent past? Or even the not-so-recent past? Amazing how many people never commit a serious sin, isn't it? :)
All of the foregoing behaviors (excepting, I think, the ones in paragraph 7) might seem more or less innocuous by themselves, but added together they spell a significant lack of reverence for, and likely tenuous belief in, the truths of the Mass, and therefore the key truths of the Faith itself. And these are the behaviors of people who actually attend Mass! To paraphrase the Holy Apostle Paul, how much more lack of faith must there be in those who don't even bother to show up on Sundays?
Here's the thing: we didn't arrive at this state of affairs quickly. We are witnessing the cumulative effects of decades of neglect of proper instruction, both in homes of the faithful and in the parishes and dioceses. We are stuck with a whole generation or two, at least, of priests and bishops who were formed under Modernist seminary faculty, as a result of which they themselves often do not fully believe all that the Church teaches. Even if they do believe, so long as the money keeps rolling into the parish and diocesan coffers, they see no reason to "rock the boat" by admonishing the faithful as to proper behavior in the celebration of Holy Mass. The Novus Ordo liturgy itself also must share a large chunk of the blame, having stripped so many pious prayers from the Mass while it shifted the focus of the liturgy from Christ on the altar to the priest and other "ministers" milling around the sanctuary--a liturgy centered on Man instead of God.
One way to find more reverence at Mass it to attend a TLM parish, but most of us don't have that as a realistic option, at least not yet. Otherwise, there's not much any of us can do by ourselves, except resolve to provide a good example to our fellow parishioners, and spend time in prayer and adoration asking the Lord to help move the hearts and minds of all toward a more reverent and respectful attitude, in word, gesture and deed. And I suppose I should spend less time worrying about how other people behave and do a better job myself of imitating Christ. That's a full-time job for anyone. But it still makes my heart ache to see so many people essentially disrespecting Our Lord in his own house.
Laudator Jesus Christus!
Liturgy, which includes both the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Divine Office (a/k/a Liturgy of the Hours), is the public prayer of the Church. As such, the manner in which we comport ourselves at Mass and while praying the Office (the latter being optional for the laity, but highly recommended!) not only reflects, but forms, the core of our beliefs as Christians. This is one of the more important reasons why the Church specifies rubrics, or rules, for the Liturgy.
Logically, it follows that the more reverent and focused we are at Mass on the Word of the Lord and the holy Eucharistic sacrifice, the stronger our faith will become in all that the Word and the Eucharist are and represent. The Word is, after all, God speaking directly to us through the instrument of the authors He inspired, and the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, given to us by God's boundless grace for our eternal redemption, and offered back to the Father by the whole Church in thanksgiving for this indescribably awesome gift. Since God does not need this offering, he accepts our prayers and remains on the altar, to be received and consumed by us, the faithful members of Christ's mystical body on Earth, as a channel of sanctifying grace, after which we are sent back into the world to carry Christ and his Gospel to all.
This is the essence of the Mass, which we accompany with prayers, chants (preferably) or songs, and with meaningful gestures, all according to the rubrics--standing, kneeling or sitting at appropriate times for appropriate reasons. As the priest or bishop leads the faithful in prayer, all should be participating not only externally but internally as well, praying from the heart all of the words of our audible responses as well as silently praying with the priest as he consecrates the Holy Eucharist. As stated in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal: (a/k/a "G.I.R.M., or the "rulebook" for the liturgy):
17. It is, therefore, of the greatest importance that the celebration of the Mass or the Lord’s Supper be so ordered that the sacred ministers and the faithful taking part in it, according to the state proper to each, may draw from it more abundantly[26] those fruits, to obtain which, Christ the Lord instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood and entrusted it as the memorial of his Passion and Resurrection to the Church, his beloved Bride.[27]
18. This will fittingly come about if, with due regard for the nature and other circumstances of each liturgical assembly, the entire celebration is arranged in such a way that it leads to a conscious, active, and full participation of the faithful, namely in body and in mind, a participation fervent with faith, hope, and charity, of the sort which is desired by the Church and which is required by the very nature of the celebration and to which the Christian people have a right and duty in virtue of their Baptism.[28]
[26] Cf. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, nos. 14, 19, 26, 28, 30.
[27]Cf. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 47.
[28]Cf. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 14.
Now, a question: how many Catholics in the pews at any given U.S. parish understand any, much less all, of the foregoing? More importantly, how many act accordingly when they attend Mass? If you answered "hardly any", you're probably right. And that's sad.
A fellow blogger recently commented on this general topic, expressing her frustration and mystification with the way so many Catholics in the U.S. engage in extraneous gestures at Mass, such as raising hands in the priestly orans position, and/or holding hands (like Protestants!) during the Our Father, neither of which is prescribed by the faithful by the G.I.R.M. Here is a short excerpt from her post:
I know why I used to lift my hands in the air when I was a Protestant during services. It is a verse from the New Testament (there are several other verses as well, some in the Old Testament) and encouraged by the ministers to join them in raising our hands (the only 'priesthood' is among all the believers). This was done to show the congregation was the same as the minister- mere believers. Ministers were nothing special.Read the rest of her post here.
1 Timothy 2:8 "I will therefore that men pray in every place, lifting up pure hands, without anger and contention."But that isn't how a Catholic Mass works...or so I thought when I first became Catholic a decade ago. The missal said "stand" and I stood, the missal said "sit" and I sat, the missal said "kneel" and I knelt. The missal never said "hold hands" or "raise your hands in the air" etc., so I didn't, but others do. I don't get that.
I think Julie makes a great point. And it's not confined to raising hands or holding hands during the Our Father. Look around you the next time you go to Mass on Sunday, and ask yourself these questions:
1. Before Mass, are people kneeling in prayer as they prepare to hear the Word of God and witness the miracle of the consecration of the Holy Eucharist? Or are they glad-handing and chattering as if they're attending a happy hour or a birthday party? I'll bet the latter greatly outnumber the former.
2. Are you and your fellow parishioners dressed as if you're preparing to meet the God who created the universe out of nothing? Or like you're going to a ballgame or to the beach? In my regular parish in the Great State of Texas, where summer lasts for the better part of the year, it's mostly the latter. Shorts, tank tops or t-shirts, jeans, and flip flops are everywhere. (I sometimes want to ask these people if they would dress that way for a personal meeting with the Governor or the President? And if so, why would they not show at least as much respect for Jesus in the Eucharist as to an elected politician?) The more "formally" dressed are likely wearing something appropriate for the golf course or "casual day" at the office. I confess falling into this category myself, since while I never wear shorts to Sunday Mass, I rarely even take the trouble to wear a sport coat and dress slacks, much less a suit and tie, which would be most appropriate to the occasion. Mea culpa!
3. Are you one of the unfortunates whose parish forces a completely artificial "let's all greet our neighbor" ritual into the beginning of the Mass? The "Liturgy of the Greeting" that doesn't appear anywhere in the G.I.R.M. or Missal? If so, you have my sympathy. You should be getting ready to meet Christ in the Eucharist, instead. But I'm repeating myself.
4. After Mass starts, how many are really paying attention to the readings, vs. looking at their smartphones, or gazing around at just about anything except the lector or the deacon or priest? Again, the latter probably outnumber the former.
5. Back to Julie's comments quoted above--I'll almost guarantee you that most of the people are at least reciting the Our Father in the orans position, if not holding hands Protestant-style with total strangers. Amiright? Eeeuw.
6. Now comes my least favorite part of the Mass, the "sign of peace." Is it barely controlled chaos, not to mention a great way to spread cold and flu germs throughout the congregation? And if you have the temerity to refuse to shake hands with everyone around you, get ready for the hurt or even angry expressions on the faces of your pew neighbors, or even to be poked and prodded by someone who wants to insist that you hold hands with them. Sheesh. The more reverent parishes omit this optional exercise, and I wish mine would. Notice, you'll never see it done during the televised EWTN Mass celebrated at their chapel in Irondale, AL or at the Shrine in Hanceville. Never.
7. Aaaand....Holy Communion. Does your congregation unanimously shuffle down the aisle toward the priest or "Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion" as if walking up to the counter at Burger King, without even so much as a reverent bow of the head? Does anyone make a profound bow, or even maybe genuflect, before receiving the Blessed Sacrament? Very rare in most places, I would guess. The real question here, I think, is: how many folks act as if they are about to hold in their hands or receive on their tongue the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ? Do not most people treat the whole thing as nothing more than a symbol, a cultural exercise devoid of faith in the Real Presence? In other words, aren't most people acting like they don't really believe what the Church teaches about the Holy Eucharist? And do you ever wonder how many of those people heading down the aisle to receive the Eucharist have darkened the door of a confessional at any time in the recent past? Or even the not-so-recent past? Amazing how many people never commit a serious sin, isn't it? :)
All of the foregoing behaviors (excepting, I think, the ones in paragraph 7) might seem more or less innocuous by themselves, but added together they spell a significant lack of reverence for, and likely tenuous belief in, the truths of the Mass, and therefore the key truths of the Faith itself. And these are the behaviors of people who actually attend Mass! To paraphrase the Holy Apostle Paul, how much more lack of faith must there be in those who don't even bother to show up on Sundays?
Here's the thing: we didn't arrive at this state of affairs quickly. We are witnessing the cumulative effects of decades of neglect of proper instruction, both in homes of the faithful and in the parishes and dioceses. We are stuck with a whole generation or two, at least, of priests and bishops who were formed under Modernist seminary faculty, as a result of which they themselves often do not fully believe all that the Church teaches. Even if they do believe, so long as the money keeps rolling into the parish and diocesan coffers, they see no reason to "rock the boat" by admonishing the faithful as to proper behavior in the celebration of Holy Mass. The Novus Ordo liturgy itself also must share a large chunk of the blame, having stripped so many pious prayers from the Mass while it shifted the focus of the liturgy from Christ on the altar to the priest and other "ministers" milling around the sanctuary--a liturgy centered on Man instead of God.
One way to find more reverence at Mass it to attend a TLM parish, but most of us don't have that as a realistic option, at least not yet. Otherwise, there's not much any of us can do by ourselves, except resolve to provide a good example to our fellow parishioners, and spend time in prayer and adoration asking the Lord to help move the hearts and minds of all toward a more reverent and respectful attitude, in word, gesture and deed. And I suppose I should spend less time worrying about how other people behave and do a better job myself of imitating Christ. That's a full-time job for anyone. But it still makes my heart ache to see so many people essentially disrespecting Our Lord in his own house.
Laudator Jesus Christus!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)