Exterior worship, finally, reveals and emphasizes the unity of the mystical Body, feeds new fuel to its holy zeal, fortifies its energy, intensifies its action day by day: “for although the ceremonies themselves can claim no perfection or sanctity in their won right, they are, nevertheless, the outward acts of religion, designed to rouse the heart, like signals of a sort, to veneration of the sacred realities, and to raise the mind to meditation on the supernatural. They serve to foster piety, to kindle the flame of charity, to increase our faith and deepen our devotion. They provide instruction for simple folk, decoration for divine worship, continuity of religious practice. They make it possible to tell genuine Christians from their false or heretical counterparts. (Pope Pius XII: Mediator Dei)
Archives
Pages
Links
- *Catholic Pictures
- Abbey Roads
- Ad Orientem
- Aeternus
- Against Heresies
- Air Maria
- Alcazar
- Andrew Cusack
- Apostles Of Jesus Christ
- Argent
- Argent: Lions
- Aufer A Nobis
- Bible
- Black Biretta
- Black Cordelias
- Blosser
- Carmelite Monks
- Carmelite Spirituality
- Carthusian Monks
- Cath Family Vignettes
- CathCon
- Cathlete
- Catholic Blog List
- Catholic Cavemen
- Catholic Eye
- Catholic Library
- Catholic Life
- Catholic ProdDaughter
- Catholicism
- Catholics Come Home
- Causa Laetitiae
- Chiesa
- Christendom Awake
- Christus Rex
- Church Fathers
- Clear Creek Monks
- Companion of Jesus
- CRC
- Crescat
- Curt Jester
- Daniel Mitsui
- Dominican Nuns (NJ)
- Dust of the Time
- Dympha Road
- Dysep Mutterings
- Ecce Ego..
- Ecclesia Dei
- Emitte Lucem Tuam
- Ewtn
- Far Sight
- Fisheaters
- Forest Murmurs
- Foto Statues (Spain)
- Fr. Bailey CSSR
- Fr. Hardon
- FSSP
- Gabriella’s Blog
- Gates of Vienna
- GK Chesterton
- Gloria Tibi Domine
- Gloria TV
- Hallowedground
- Hanc Aquam
- Haydock Bible Commentary
- Heartland Catholic
- Hermeneutic Continuity
- Holy Card Blog
- Holy Cards
- Holy See
- Holy Whapping
- Idle Speculations
- Ignatius Insight
- Imitation of Christ
- Institute of Christ the King
- Keep the Faith
- Krist Konung
- Lacrimarum Valle
- Latin Mass Network
- Latin Mass Society UK
- Leonius
- Maronite Monks
- Mary Magdelen Parish
- Mater Ecclesiae (NJ)
- New Advent
- New Liturgical Movement
- Norbertine Vocations
- Opinionated Catholic
- Orbis Catholicus (New)
- Our Lady’s Tears
- Overheard in Sacristy
- Papa Stronsay Monks
- Paramedic Girl
- Patch O Dirtfarm
- Per Christum
- Phat Catholic
- Philokalia Blog
- Real Clear Religion
- Recta Ratio
- Remnant Newspaper
- Roamin Cath in Philly
- Roman Forum
- Roman Miscellany
- Rome Cath Homilies
- Rorate Caeli
- Sacrificium Laudis
- Serge
- St. Anthony Chapel (NJ)
- St. Catherine (NJ)
- St. Louis Catholic
- St. Michael (NY)
- Summa
- Tea at Trianon
- Tertullian
- Totus Tuus
- Trad Catholicism
- Una Voce
- Unam Sanctum
- Ut Pupillam..
- Valle Adurni
- Verbum
- Vultus Christi
- Wdtprs
- Zodack the Roman
Mediator Dei was a bit of a two edge sword in many ways. Like Sacrosanctum Concilium, it has many provisions to preserve the liturgy as it is, but also many invitations to innovation. (Dialogue Masses, etc.) Also, with the 1954 Holy Week and the increased dimuntition of rubrics, Pius XII, like Pius X before him, were in many ways setting the groundwork for the liturgy of the Second Vatican Council.
Liturgy must be a reflection of a traditional Christian life. It can help preserve that life, but it cannot create it ex nihilo. Also, to put too much theological significance on various liturgical texts can be highly gratuitous; more often than not, the reason one text is written in one way and not in another is due to entirely arbitrary circumstances. In other words, to try to acheive a vision of life and a theological perspective from the liturgy for a mind formed by scholastic (or to be more accurate, positivist) principles and Counter-Reformation visions of authority is a dubiously successful endeavor. You cannot expect too much from liturgy.
Let us be aware that for the vast majority of Christian liturgical tradition, liturgy was the domain of monastics and clerics. Lowly laymen like us never were never really aware of what was really going on on the altar, and it is increasingly becoming more likely to me that this was a good thing.
“Let us be aware that for the vast majority of Christian liturgical tradition, liturgy was the domain of monastics and clerics. Lowly laymen like us never were never really aware of what was really going on on the altar, and it is increasingly becoming more likely to me that this was a good thing.”
Amen. Liturgy now has become an intellectual practice instead of worship, with devastating effects on the life of catholics.
Vasquez,
Can you be a little more precise in what you are trying to say?
I would have to agree with the laity having an overly-intellectual approach to many thing in the Church (Liturgy,. Canon Law, etc.). The segment of Mediator Dei that I chose for the post is pretty much in accord with that. Religion should indeed be kept simple. However, it has to be assumed to the Hierarchy protects what they received. That way the burden is taken off of the layman who struggles just to put food on his plate. Nowadays, that transmission and gaurding of Tradition is not always guaranted, and layman like us end up yammering about things are anscestors would have not known, or at least found overly-esoteric.
To clarify a bit, I think it is very artificial to treat the liturgy as something that it historically wasn’t. That is, liturgy for a very long time has NOT been an instrument of catechesis. The liturgy as it had evolved before the Second Vatican Council was a clerical and monastic exercise which the laity either ignored or deformed in their own minds by paraliturgical practices. The actual “cultus”, the cycle of worship, was performed by consecrated people. So this whole business of following along in the Mass with your missal (also commended by Pius XII) is a very odd practice indeed when taken in this perspective. Was not the Canon, for example, supposed to be “arcanum”, that is, a secret that should not be defiled by the unholy (hence its silent recitation, which was by no means universal in history)?
It is the attitude that laity must LEARN something from the liturgy that directly led to the Novus Ordo Missae, and this was prepared by the Liturgical Movement. Once the liturgy is conceived of as something that must be understood, then you have the things we have today. And to tell the truth, I am quite neutral on most of the reforms now. I think there has to be something above all of it. In the end, a lot of traditionalism might just be a postmodern distortion of what the Church was before the Council. Maybe Catholics should be more obsessed at being the light for the world and not just a small flickering flame that burns over the minutiae of Church issues.
“Maybe Catholics should be more obsessed at being the light for the world and not just a small flickering flame that burns over the minutiae of Church issues.”
Very much in agreeance, we have become way too introspective, and just ending up preaching to the choir.
““Maybe Catholics should be more obsessed at being the light for the world and not just a small flickering flame that burns over the minutiae of Church issues.”
Very much in agreeance, we have become way too introspective, and just ending up preaching to the choir.”
Unfortunately one the worst fruits of the liturgical reform since the II Vatican Council, is that the church has clossed up in herself. I don’t know when was the last time that the clergy were so focused in themselves and have left the preaching of the gospel as a second mission.
Bishops and the Holy See fritter so much time in internal matters, that all of that energy is taken away from the real purpose of the clergy.
This is clearly a “structure of sin” that has fallen on the Catholic Church.
Let’s take advice on the Gospel of Matthew who says: Matthew 5, 13-:
“13 You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. 14 You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.
16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. 17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Let’s pray that the Pope remembers this, instead of savoring in worthless theology.
The Liturgy is and has always been an instrument of catechesis. The fact that Our Lord commanded that It be done in “commemoration” of Him had the purpose to instruct the faithful on what His Passion means. Otherwise, why “repeat it”? He also told the Apostles to teach what He had taught them and the Liturgy became the best way to do that.
In the first centuries of the Church, Christians were under persecution and, as a result, they were limited as to how elaborate they could be with regards to rubrics. Nevertheless, even during these and later times, the Church (universally) developed and established “rituals” (that would eventually evolve into what we had way before and after Trent.
Making the rubrics and rituals of the Liturgy a way by which the laity can learn something has nothing to do with Vat II. Vat. II had to do with the modern man and changes in the modern world – teaching the laity was just an excuse! Otherwise, Vat II would have happened way before the 1960’s. The fact that Catholics before knew more than Catholics know now shows that it can be done that way (the laity can learn from the Liturgy – if they want, of course), but there is a way to do it properly. The oldest relic of this (that the Laity were to learn from the Liturgy and everything related to it) is the Sign of the Cross. [Read Mgr. Gaume’s The Sign of the Cross]. The way the Rosary came to be was also a way the people used to learn the Psalms (which were used in the Liturgy, especially during the very early centuries of the Church). The same can be said about the Stations of the Cross, hymns, etc. These devotions, instead of being seen as para-liturgical, can and *should* be seen as a way in which the laity can be a part of the Liturgy while it is going on. (Playing cards during Mass would be another thing!).
Every prayer, every pious devotion (rosary, meditative prayers) require and lead (when done properly) to meditation and contemplation. This is what we have to do at Mass and most of the prayers are about Our Lord, Our Lady, Mysteries of the Faith, etc., which is what the Mass is about. The fact that we read from a Missal does not take from the fact that we are also praying and especially it does not mean that we cannot pray *in union with* the priest just because they are not the exact same prayers or because we are not the ones pouring the wine (and the water) that will become the Blood of Christ. I mean, all the Liturgies in the East and the West are not exactly the same, including the words of institution, yet they are the same Sacrifice.
Conituation –
The reason why the people in charge of the ceremonies and the Liturgy were priests was because they had *solemnly* and ontologically consecrated their lives to this: the Liturgy, the Sacraments, etc. Also, they were the ones who were going to perform these ceremonies and actions every day of their lives. If these ceremonies were to focus on a certain group at all, it *had* to be priests. This concerns particularly the second part of the Mass – the Mass of the Faithful – at which the Catechumens and non-Catholics were not allowed in the primitive times of the Church. The laity have a different call in life and we will have our own “ceremonies and rituals” to be in charge of in our lives. We have and will have duties and worries of our own that will keep us busy.
We also have to remember that many of the rituals and rubrics were not introduced into the Liturgy *just* to teach the Laity but to give greater honor to God. Take genuflections as an example. The main reason why they became a custom in the Church was not to teach the laity about Transubstantiation, but to adore God in the Blessed Sacrament – the teaching part was a consequence of that. Other practices were just “remnants” of older rituals that had a more practical meaning. However, the Church did not just get rid of them because, even though they would not seem to have any valuable meaning anymore, they still were a sort of “link” to the past – An example of this would be the Subdeacon holding the paten at Solemn Mass. Now, this “link” to the past was not something nostalgic, but just a visible symbol of the Church’s and the Liturgy’s antiquity – that it is not something that can just be created and done away with on a whim.
Para-liturgical practices: Every prayer, every pious devotion (rosary, meditative prayers) require and lead (when done properly) to meditation and contemplation. This is what we have to do at Mass and most of the prayers are about Our Lord, Our Lady, Mysteries of the Faith, etc., which is what the Mass is about. The fact that we read from a Missal does not take from the fact that we are also praying and it does not mean that we cannot pray *in union with* the priest just because they are not the exact same prayers. I mean, all the Liturgies in the East and the West are not exactly the same, including the words of institution, yet they are the same Sacrifice.
Continuation –
The Canon: The Canon was not the only part of the Mass that was said silently. As someone pointed out to me, the length of the music had something to do (somewhat) on which parts were said silently. The Sanctus seems to have been sung for a very long time and the priest’s voice was not heard at all. However, this is not the only reason for the “disciplina arcani.” What you mentioned is also true, but that came as a consequence of the greater reverence that the Church wanted to show to the most solemn part of the Mass. The custom of not saying the Canon aloud started in the East and then it came to the West. The “disciplina arcani” was mainly (at first) to prevent *non-Catholics* from knowing the Mysteries of the Faith. But this “disciplina arcani” did not include just the Canon – it also included the Our Father (not part of the Canon) and other prayers. This is why in the recitation of the Divine Office the Our Father was also said silently. And this “disciplina” did not only deal with “saying or singing” something, but also writing about it (Canon, words of Institution, the Our Father – which was taught to the catechumens a few days (or weeks) before they were going to be baptized.
Going back to the Novus Ordo Missæ, if the goal would have really been to teach the laity, the Order of the Mass would *not* have gone through so many (and I add, disastrous) changes. I have never read Archbishop’s Bugnini’s biography and what he wrote on the period of the liturgical changes, but from what I hear, what you say about the New Order does not seem the be the real reasons behind the changes made to the Liturgy.
Gosh, you guys are writing books in here 🙂 Please no more though, as I think we are all in agreeance in essentials, with some variation in implementation. (I should have been a politician, heh?). 🙂
Unfortunately the secondary has take the place of the primary reason.
To me the liturgy, particularly the Mass, is not a place of instruction but of adoration, which is just and necessary and which is part of the essence of man, as worship is a natural disposition of any healthy person.
Modern man is person who is sick in soul and mind. Unfortunately the Church at Vatican II was so out of touch with the world, that it made a council for a man that exists only in cliques or elites. The vast majority of human beings are not modern. So Vatican II did not come to fulfill an aspiration of conterporary man, but only of the smal elite of modern man.
Unfortunately these wretched men “modern”, are the ones that hold the power now in the Church, even at the top.
Also the mass as the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is necessary to make available to us his body and his blood which are necesary to obtain eternal salvation.
The rest is tripe.