Posted on 05/11/2009 1:53:32 PM PDT by Pyro7480
After more than a year of assisting exclusively at Extraordinary Form Masses on Sundays, a Mass I have come to love, I had two occasions last summer to revisit the Roman Rite in its Ordinary Form in a large suburban Catholic parish—the same parish on both occasions. The following are my observations.
I begin with the positive. The church operates a Catholic school. Together they form a large, sprawling physical plant. The Masses are well attended. When you walk into the church, you are greeted by holy water fonts at the entrance, a prominently displayed crucifix above the altar, candles, an identifiable Tabernacle, baptismal font, and pews with kneelers....
I proceed, next, not to the negative, but to the ambiguous. One question that keeps recurring to me is this: What about this religious rite and ritual would be recognizably Catholic to someone who didn’t know what it was beforehand?...
I proceed, finally, to the negative. If nothing else identified this place and this event as recognizably Catholic to someone already familiar with contemporary American Catholicism, all doubt would be banished by the withering ugliness of the architecture, the sloppiness of dress, the sheer shabbiness of the half-improvised liturgical form, the hideous banality of hymns, the utter lack of decorum and unmistakable note of tawdry casual chumminess struck throughout the event. For better or worse, this is what the vast majority of contemporary Catholics call home....
...Throughout the Mass I find that my focus is constantly diverted....I just want to "see God." I want to witness the Sacrifice of Christ, and to receive Him. Yet in countless ways, the elements of the Mass conspire to divert my attention away from Him, and towards incidentals....
(Excerpt) Read more at pblosser.blogspot.com ...
Catholic ping!
Why is this a problem? Isn't it right to object to abuses?
Of course abuses should be objected to.
It's a problem because:
THE ABUSES AREN'T THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS
The abuses are a departure from the Ordinary Form of the Mass.
Clean up the abuses (we'll know that has occurred when the last guitar has been smashed over the head of the last liturgist, and the Priest is reading word for word from the Sacramentary) ... and then we'll talk.
Apart from the un-self-consciously refreshing, grown-up manner in which racial strife is dealt with, the other thing that jumped out at me was that the priest in the desert parish said Mass facing the altar.
I was born in 1962, and so seeing Hollywood's portrayal of Catholic culture as it was then was interesting -- exhilirating, actually.
You make an interesting point. Does the OF invite the abuses, and why is it futile objecting to them. The abuses are rarely corrected, and usually if you object you are considered a crazy person.
True, but the Ordinary Form, and especially the way the Vatican II reforms were rolled out haphazardly, were just crying out "abuse me", and sure enough, that's just what happened. The Tridentine Form does not invite abuse or indeed, any local interpretation of liturgy.
1) The OF has 'way too many options. That invites abuse, as it implies that the Liturgy is almost infinitely plastic.
2) The abuses are not corrected because our priests and bishops aren't doing their jobs. Part of a Father's job is discipline.
3) The abuses continue to be committed because there's a large industry of "liturgists" and "ministers of music" dedicated to committing them.
If you try complaining about most of these, don’t expect a positive response.
1) That is utterly and completely false. Widespread? Perhaps. Univeral? Wrong, wrong, wrong. (Hint: even one example of a Parish in which the OFoRR is offered correctly disproves your assertion. I can offer more than one example.)
2) The specific abuses committed are not "universal" either ... each diocese, even each parish that commits liturgical abuse has its own personality.
3) Once again, the abuses aren't the Mass. They're departures from the Mass. Whatever you may think of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite ... It's written down, somewhere. It is what it is. Anything not in that book is not the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It's a departure therefrom.
;'}
Hence why some people would choose to go to a Traditional Latin Mass, or an Eastern Rite Mass and not have to worry about it.
1) Nowhere on this forum, in my entire history of posting, have I ever objected to the offering of the Mass according to what is now called the Extraordinary Form.
2) I was among the many participants in this forum who rejoiced to hear that HHB16 had ordered more widespread availability of the Extraordinary Form.
I wasn’t trying to imply you were. That’s just the way it is.
>>I will give several answers:
1) The OF has ‘way too many options. That invites abuse, as it implies that the Liturgy is almost infinitely plastic.
2) The abuses are not corrected because our priests and bishops aren’t doing their jobs. Part of a Father’s job is discipline.
3) The abuses continue to be committed because there’s a large industry of “liturgists” and “ministers of music” dedicated to committing them. <<
Part of the problem is that not every innovation is an abuse. For example, Doritoes as matter in the Eucharist is an abuse, holding hands at the Our Father is an innovation.
Once one begins to argue against something (i.e. Orans for the Laity) you really get into the finer points of the GIRM and the Redemptionis Sacramentum.
When one points out that we are never instructed to use the “Hands Extended” position (orans) we get the “but we were never told not to”. When it’s explained that one is never told “not” to do something but told what to do, they bring up “we’re never told to cross head, lips and heart at the Gospel”.
State then that this is a tradition brought from Pre-VII and they say “Well Orans for the laity has gone on since 1965”
So it falls to “We are never told not to BBQ in the choir loft.” and the traditionalist is told that he/she is ridiculous.
It’s hard to fight the good fight when people are resolved that each is right. I had that exact argument on Catholic Answers Forum many a time.
OK ... no beef there.
My point on this thread, which I hope I have made clear, is that those who object to the current condition of the Church should take care to distinguish between The Mass, and the abuses of The Mass.
Note my first point in No. 8 above ... that the Ordinary Form is too easily abused.
Whatever minor disagreements I may have with the author, I am always glad to see seminary professors with an interest in authentic liturgy.
We had a guest priest this weekend at Mass because our Monsignor has had some health issues. We had a wonderful compliment from him at the end of Mass. It boiled down to what a gem we have at our parish. Everyone dresses up. The choir, in the loft, is so amazing it brings tears to my eyes. Many of the prayers are said in Latin. We use the Adoremus Hymnal so there are no issues with banal music. He said he wished every priest in our diocese would have the opportunity to participate in Mass at our church to give them an idea of the beauty they are missing. We searched long and hard to find this church. I wouldn’t move away for the world. I count my blessings every time I’m there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.