Catechesis on the New Missal Translation

[change is coming]

As of today there are 458 days until the implementation of the new translation of the Roman Missal. The first day of its official use will be November 27, 2011. Although that may seem like a lot, it really isn't, and something tells me that a lot of parishes are going to go about this process in a painful and harmful way for many faithful.

It isn't that I have a defeatists attitude, instead it is a recognition and observance of how this change has been handled up to this point, and we haven't even had anything tangible to sink our teeth into. Since the approval and implementation date have been finalized, the USCCB has started rolling out the game plan for how the change will occur. From their website:

5. What should be taking place with our catechetical efforts?
Dioceses should have a projected plan of what they intend to do to encourage preparation for implementation of the new translation in their dioceses. Parishes should, if they have not already done so, offer a basic catechesis about the text, especially about the changes in the people’s responses. The Newsletter of the Committee on Divine Worship has already highlighted various catechetical resources which will be valuable tools for the formation process. In September, 2010, the USCCB will offer the Parish Guide to Implementing the Roman Missal. This resource will offer a roadmap to implementing the new translation in the parish. Both the International Commission on English in the Liturgy and USCCB will offer a multi-media DVD resource entitled Become One Body, One Spirit in Christ, an excellent catechetical resource for examining the new translation in the broader context of the history and theology of liturgy. With the final text now available, other publishers will provide catechetical materials which, among other things, will begin to look at the historical and theological aspects of the text.

I know in the local parishes in my area, their has been a discussion about this topic a while back before anything was finalized, and nothing that I would call basic catechesis. What was most troubling was the way in which the priests tried to relate to the faithful by explaining how "hard and difficult change is" and that if "we all band together we can get through this." Not really glowing endorsements of the Missal if you ask me.

[the resistance...why?]

The goal of the new translation is to deepen the meaning of the Mass, not in way that changes the Mass but in a way that ties our prayer to the sacrifice and worship at Mass. The USCCB explains it this way:

The long-term goal of the new translation is to foster a deeper awareness and appreciation of the mysteries being celebrated in the Liturgy. The axiom lex orandi, lex credendi—“what we pray is what we believe”—suggests that there is a direct relationship between the content of our prayers and the substance of our faith. It is hoped that writers will start to provide materials reflecting on the rich content of the text. These contributions might encourage priests to use the content of the prayers as a basis for their homilies or to supplement their homilies on Sundays. Those giving retreats or days of recollection can use the new texts of the missal as a resource for their presentations. All can make use of the texts for deepening their prayer life.

So why the resistance? Well, because this is a sign of the "reform of the reform." Sure, people aren't good at change, and they resist it, that is understandable. In this situation though, the resistance to change is a smoke-screen as to the real resistance: reform. There are Bishops and Priests out there that will explain that the Missal Translation is cumbersome, sloppy, hard, etc... They will use intellectual sounding arguments in an effort to convince you that this is a plot but radical traditionalists to take us one step closer to using Latin. They will talk about how this was a hurried version, and it isn't very accessible or easy to digest.

How do I know what they are going to say? I don't. But I know the philosophy behind those that have already spoken out to oppose it, and it is easy to predict their arguments based on their philosophy. On top of that, they can't come right out and say what they really think, which is that this flies in the face of their philosophical base. Those that view the changes since Vatican II as a progressive change and a disruption to the continuity of the faith will be against this. Even if they don't say it as such, there are those that truly believe that Vatican II somehow mandated a lock-stock-and-barrel change to the faith; it was to be accomplished through changes in the Mass, prayers, and various substantive measures in our liturgical actions.

[What we many of us will see...]

Some of may get a true Catechesis on the changes. The rest of us may suffer. Many who resist the changes see this, although they won't admit it, as an indictment of the bastardization of the way the Mass has been celebrated over the last few decades. In some respects I would say that is exactly what it is, and rightfully so. For other places, that were more obedient to the Missal and the Church, these changes will be a refinement and a measure that will deepen the prayer and liturgical life of the Church.

For those of us that miss out on any substantive Catechesis on this matter, it is upon you to learn the changes... and to learn WHY they are occurring. At some point every parish will have to implement some sort of instruction on the new translation. The question will be to what extent. When the translation is brought up the complaints will start to fly. It is our job as defenders of the faith to address those complaints. We must be our brother's keeper we must practice Spiritual Works of Mercy.

The only way we can do this though, is if we truly understand what the changes are and why they have changed. If a priest complains, ask him individually why he is reluctant to change and whether his attitude towards the change will do anything more than confuse the faithful. Sure, they might like him more because he feels just like them but the role of a priest is much like that of a parent. He is not there to be our friend first and priest second, he is there to be our priest first and in doing so should become our friend.

So study. Prepare yourself. Pray. Read what you can about the changes, understand their purpose and meaning, and be ready to defend the changes. We may not agree with all of them in terms of how they feel... but this isn't about feelings. This is about the essence of our Mass.

lex orandi, lex credendi

~

“what we pray, is what we believe”

Resources:

USCCB Missal Translation Website - (Link)

Guides for Mass - (Link)

Changes to Major Responses - (Link)

Parish Guide for the New Missal Implementation [*Coming Soon*] - (Link)

Articles Explaining the Need and Importance of the New Translation - (Link)

A Reflection on the Vision of the Missal Translation - (Link)

Traditional liturgical vestments

Terry Nelson, from Abbey Roads, Part of the Minnesota Church Militant, posts in a particular way. If you have never read him, the subtlety of his references to past posts, other bloggers, and the point he is trying to make can easily be lost upon you.

His most recent post is an example. Terry, makes good and obvious points, but it is the FACT that he is making these points about this subject that drives home the message. That being said, I have ripped an excerpt from his post that can resonate with anyone, and should resonate whether you like it or not.

Therefore many of us no longer understand or conceive of our churches to be "the house of God and the gate of heaven" - which in turn may partly explain why the Dutch can play soccer at Mass, in a church, or why dancing and other forms of entertainment takes place during the liturgy elsewhere.
.
Losing an authentic sense of the dignity and majesty of God, we easily disregard the proper decorum and dignity and protocol (ritual) in His Presence - which is due to His Majesty. We have vulgarized worship; overstepping our bounds, and we have made ourselves too familiar within the Holy of Holies. Therefore, the restoration of reverent liturgy, along with the revival of traditional liturgical vestments and decorum, can seem foreign and strange, even excessive to many of us steeped in contemporary culture, where the degenerate and profane has become commonplace and the comfort and ease of our casual lifestyle discourages any type of formalism.
.
Nevertheless, whenever we are in church, and especially during the liturgy, we ought to be aware that we have "drawn near to Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, to myriads of angels in festal gathering, to the assembly of the first born enrolled in heaven, to God, the judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood which speaks more eloquently than that of Abel." [Heb. 12: 22-24]

Link: The Majesty of the Cappa Magna

We must remain resolute! - "Reform of the Reform"

Two days ago we celebrated the third anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio: Summorum Pontificum. Blogs all across the Cathologosphere were in a happy and celebratory mood, and for good cause. Since the promulgation of that decree many great blessings and fruits have sprung forth in the faith. Even in places like here in Alaska, there are a few regularly celebrated Masses according to the usus antiquor. Aside from the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, we have also seen a return to more ancient and orthodox practices across the devotional spectrum. Such things as chant, polyphony, chapel veils, and the Liturgy of the Hours has seen a resurgence amongst the lay faithful. Many of these fruits can be attributed to Summorum Pontificum and the overall direction and charism of Pope Benedict, which some call the "Reform of the Reform.

Unfortunately we cannot rest on these laurels, in fact the detraction and opposition have only intensified because of these events. If you don't believe me, I completely understand. At first, I thought this whole, "enemy within" talk was mostly rhetorical. The idea of the "Reform of the reform" to me was more about changing hearts and minds in a purely intellectual sense. To me, I didn't see the type of "heels dug in" opposition that so many blogs talked about. Sure I saw resistance, but I saw it in a priest here, or a bishop there. Something that time and age would surely eliminate in short order. That was until I happened to read two articles on the National Catholic Reporter, or as some refer to it as "The Fish Wrap." [NB: As someone that lives in Alaska, we would NEVER wrap a salmon in newspaper; salmon deserve better, such as a plastic bag.] Now, I don't recommend or CONDONE reading the NCR...ever, but I will link to them for their illustrative purposes, today only. I happened to stumble upon these two

The first article is: Catholic Social teaching finds Church leadership lacking. I was less concerned by the article, which was a talk given be: Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg, South Africa. It essentially attacks the leadership and hierarchy of the Church. Accusing them of straying from the ideas promulgated, or at least in his vision, from the Vatican II council documents. It doesn't concern me, because we see this all the time. Not only that, but it is logically bankrupt. He is essentially saying that Vatican II was a true and proper council of the Church, and because the Church in it's entirety drew up the documents it is correct, oh and by the way this is what it means, not what the hierarchy is saying that it means. He attacks self-interpretation through his own interpretation; therefore logically problematic. Rather than attacking the teachings and ideas that Pope Benedict and other strong Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests have been espousing, he attacks the people. In essence, this is an elaborate and sophisticated ad hominem attack on the Church hierarchy. So no, it doesn't bother me all that much... what got to me was the comments. People are GUSHING with support and thanks for this article. They are beside themselves and view the past 40 years since Vatican II as some wasteland of oppression and "conservatism." Kind of makes you wonder how they found a good orthodox church and you can't, doesn't it?

Now some might say, "But this is one Bishop, and one group of people." Well, the NCR themselves feel the same way, because in this very issue they printed an NCR Editorial (meaning it speaks for the paper) entitled: "A hierarchy deeply damaged from within." It essentially points the finger at a few people, but aside from one or two it is more general. It mentions Pope Benedict over and over, without explicitly accusing him as a cause, but the casual reader would get the sense that he is a problem, if not the problem. Again, gushing comments. People connected the dots on the two articles and declared that it was "Two home runs in one day" for the NCR. They have no problem denouncing Bishops and Popes out of one side of their mouth, but then supporting individual Bishops that agree with them, on the other.

These ideologues shook me a little. Not because I am afraid, but because I didn't know how many of them there were, and how widespread they existed. Call me naive, call me foolish, I really thought that we were rounding the corner on this and they were slowly going the way of the buffalo. I stand corrected. There is a mighty opposition, and they have only be antagonized by this Pope and this "reform of the reform." The distortion and perversion these folks were able to construct after Vatican II, through societal influence, pop culture, and a disaffected youth, have taken up roots in the Church. They surely may be a dying breed, but this doesn't mean that they aren't a force to be dealt with.

I recently wrote a priest, who is young and newer to the priesthood. He blogs, he celebrates the Mass in a huge suburban parish int he Novus Ordo, and also celebrates the Extraordinary form in Sacred and old churches within the inner city. He was telling me that he thinks about something when he gets excited at the strives we are taking as a Church, and then stumble on the the adversity, just like I have here. He told me that when he was in Europe looking at the very old Cathedrals, that are huge and beautiful he learned that many took decades and decades to build. Some took as long as 150 years to build. This was done at a time when people had very little means, but would give their entire "fortunes" to the Church to see such buildings built. They would work their entire lifetime and never see them finished, but knew that the job was important, because it was for God and it was for their family and the Church. He then gave me the cartoon on the left, that he said makes him think about this situation and realize that we are moving forward, but we have a long way to go.

So stay strong, stay resolute, and don't be dismayed by the adversity we may face. We will face adversity. We are the Church Militant, and we dont become the Church triumphant until the battles have been waged and the enemy is cast down. It will be hard and arduous, we will get dirty, tired, and worn, but don't give up. Our victory is assured, we know that, God tells us so. So remain resolute, we will one day be a part of the Church Triumphant.

5 Ways Your Parish Can Improve Its Sacred Space

Matt over at Shrine of the Holy Whapping has posted a "How-To" instructional on 5 easy ways (concepts) that any parish can follow to improve their Sacred Space. All of his advice is practical and can be implemented easily and best of all, over time. In other words, his advice takes into account the fact that most parishes don't have millions of dollars to renovate their parish "Extreme Home Makeover Style" and therefore his advice comes in a form that can be implemented at most parishes.

Why "Improve" your Sacred Space? Well unless you are fortunate enough to go to a BEAUTIFUL parish already, then you probably go to a church that in the last 40 years has undergone either renovation or is newly built in the modern-auditorium style. Lately, the faithful have been clamoring for a more Sacred and reverent place for God.

His post is worth reading, and is a very straightforward piece. I suggest that folks print out the post and send it in, or take it in to their local pastoral council, or Pastor. But remember, if you want change, you will have to get your hands dirty, so be willing to either do the work or write a check.

His post is here:

Five Things Any Parish Can Do To Improve Sacred Space

(Church: after simple changes)

Here is the quick list (with my commentary):

1. Rearrange Furniture:
• This is the easiest to do.  The point is to be intentional about what you do and liturgically sound. Most Sanctuaries are "random" at best. His advice is small changes to make the Sanctuary more focused on the important things: (for those keeping score at home) The Altar and the Tabernacle. Bringing the Tabernacle "in-line" with the Altar and the Crucifix is an easy start. The Sanctuary should be "useable" in the sense that people walk around in it throughout Mass, and do so in a pretty set pattern. The Altar, Tabernacle, Priests chairs, and altar servers seating should be placed in logical areas and directions.
2. Consider a New-Color Scheme:
• This is a simple change. Add some color and texture to the walls. The posters main point here is, because many parishes have white or grey walls running throughout the church, they have a very institutional and cold feeling. Whitewashed walls aren't very visually appealing. They also don't draw people to the Sacred. Use patterns, textures, and break-up for areas of large uninterrupted color.
3. Add New Paraments and Hangings:
• This is dangerous advice to give to churches, especially with the fondness for FELT that has be acquired in the last few decades. His point is to use hangings in a way that create a new visual look to the church at a low cost, and in some cases to cover other "problems." We aren't talking "liturgical" colors here necessarily; instead we are taking more semi-permanent hangings, therefore he suggests that colors should be used that are more harmonious to the overall look and feel in the church.
4. Put In a New Floor
• This is probably the most "expensive" piece of advice. Carpet is bad. It kills sound, it looks "domestic" and the pattern looks outdated the day that it is new. Not to mention the fact that it gets dirty, and for health reasons should be cleaned way more often than it is. I know in Alaska, carpet is used because there is this thought that it is "safe" in terms of slipping. (Because of all the snow and ice.) Yet, this doesn't have to be done, lock, stock and barrel. Start with the Sanctuary. Use "various" flooring in different parts. The main aisle, near or around statues, etc. The point is you are trying to make the church look more Sacred.
5. Re-Organize Well-Meaning Clutter 
• More is not More, and Less isn't always More. The advice here is: taking things away can make things look bland and bare, while adding things, such as statues, to bare areas might just look cluttered. The point is to use a logical relationship between art and structure to create a look and "feel" of Sacred space.

Finally, he gives on last over-arching piece of advice:

Work with what you have, and don't work against it. You may not be able to turn your 1950s A-frame church into Chartres, but if you try to find art that harmonizes with its perhaps now rather quaint attempts at futurism, while at the same time seeking to reconnect it with tradition, the result may have a pleasing consistency to it. Simply dropping garish plaster statuary in a dull modern church results in a museum diorama of the history of American Catholic bad taste. Try instead to find common ground, while at the same time ennobling it in some fashion. Many of the examples of the "other modern" we have showcased on this website may give you ideas. While it may lack the grandeur of Rome or Florence, it can still become a beautiful, unified expression of the Faith.

My advice is to re-evaluate your parish every 3-5 years. This doesn't mean make BIG changes every 3-5 years, it just means re-evaluate. Think about how often you re-decorate your home. I don't mean new furniture and new carpet, I just mean a re-evaluation, and yes buying a new home counts. I would say most folks do it more frequently than 3-5 years. So, why wouldn't we do the same with our parish? Again, the point isn't to stay "modern" or in "fashion" it is to ensure that the space, the church, is Sacred. Little things help and can move toward the Sacred.

Lastly, change is hard for people to accept. My advice is the more regularly you change, add, or remove small things the more comfortable people will get with the idea. This doesn't mean to change for change's sake, it just means that there is no time like the present. Also, Catechesis on the "WHY" of the change is very important. It will explain to people WHY the change is being made, and settle in their hearts a bit the change. Again, change is difficult for many to accept, unless of course the change is POSITIVE and DESIRED. If you explain that the DESIRE comes from GOD, and the POSITIVE is that the new "look" creates a more Sacred and Worship-Worthy space, people will be much more likely to be on board. Remember, you can't please everyone... but we are only looking to please one person here: God.

Converts...

...make me smile. I love talking with them, especially once we are out of the Easter Season. Things have started to sink in, and many are in that, "I can't get enough of this" stage. Obviously, it is disappointing, when some feel as if they can never be fed enough... but it is still so cool to witness.

I learned something from a convert this weekend, well more precisely, I learned something by talking to one. The patience process that God puts us through, really does have a reason. Many times things occur more slowly than we would like, not only because of "timing" issues, but because formation is a process for humans. We are not always built to quickly change our minds and hearts, and a long process requiring patience, is often what we need.

I think for many of us reverts, converts, and cradle Catholics, that long for reform, change, or continuity... we need to be mindful that patience is part of this process, in fact it might even be an inherent part of it. So the next time we are praying for something, especially "big changes" let us be mindful of this patience. We need to realize that change is a process, and that there is a beauty and mystery in the process itself, and the results are often better, because of this process. As they say... Rome wasn't built in a day; and if we believe Fr. Z and others... the best way to build is BRICK BY BRICK, and it takes a long time to build things that way but they are done more precisely.

The New Liturgical Movement - A true Gem

The New Liturgical Movement, is a great website, it really is. Some may try and "discount" it as a "Traddy Site" but it is far from that. Everything they do is well researched, well written, and is very God Centered. On top of that, they are writing about a movement in the Church that has been well underfoot for a decade or so, that many places have yet to see. I know that while I was in Detroit, the New Litrugical Movement, as an actual MOVEMENT was well underway. Here in Alaska, there movement is in its infant stage, but it has begun.

That being said, I suggest you read the blog on a daily basis, if you don't already.

There are three posts that they have made recently that I think are very important, for very different reasons.  I don't usually like just regurgitating what other sites post, but I have to link these because I think what they say is very important.

• The Ciborium - by: Shawn Tribe
• When Sheep Attack - by: Jeffrey Tucker
• The 'Reform of the Reform?' Not yet. - By: Fr. Thomas Kocik

Mass becomes 'perverted' when 'community celebrates itself.'

A big Sword-dub (h/t) goes to: Christine at A Catholic View on this story:

Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, made some very important and powerful statements about the way in which Mass should and shouldn't be celebrated. It isn't as long as it seems... PLEASE, PLEASE read this... 

(My emphasis and comments):

The Cardinal expressed sadness over the fact that often, the Mass is “reduced to a mere banquet, a celebration of the community,” instead of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. He noted that “Worship becomes perverted when we have a celebration in which the community celebrates itself.” [This isn't a "feast" or celebration of us, it is the actual 'once for all' sacrifice that we, through the grace of God, participate IN.]

The prelate added that the primary focus of the Mass should be God.

...~~~...

Cardinal Canizares also underscored the centrality of the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, saying that oftentimes, the Mass is “reduced to a mere banquet, a celebration of the community, a commemoration, but not the very sacrifice of Christ who gives himself up for us on the Cross.” [It isn't simply a COMMEMORATION. It isn't a community celebration. It is the VERY SACRIFICE OF GOD... continual, but once for all.]


“Without this we can understand nothing about the Eucharist and we celebrate nothing more than ourselves,” he said. [In other words: if we as parishes - the Body of Christ - don't celebrate Mass in this way... we are simply celebrating ourselves. How would you answer the question: "Explain, specifically, how the WAY IN WHICH your parish celebrates the Mass, is focused on God?"]


“We have become secularized and convinced that everything has been the result of our own creativity,” [Read: Modernism in: Music, Dress, Church Design, Lack of Sacred Objects, the Abrogation of Incense, Bells, Chant, Statutes, Stain Glass, etc...] the prelate remarked. However, what truly matters is that “we recognize the mystery, that the mystery be celebrated. We must remember God’s right. God tells us how the mystery, how the celebration should be carried out.” [AMEN! But do we listen...]


After underscoring the spirit of renewal proposed by Vatican II, Cardinal Canizares noted that the council fathers placed a priority on liturgical renewal because “we cannot understand (the Vatican II document) Gaudium et Spes if our understanding is not based on the foundation for everything: the Eucharist.”


“There will not be a Gaudium et Spes Church if it is not a Sacrosantum Concilium Church,” he added. For this reason, the Pope has a great interest in the liturgy. For this reason, when renewal is understood merely in terms of changes to the rite, we do not understand anything that the Holy Father is telling us,” he added. [What he is saying is that renewal is not just about actions... it is about mindset. If we change the actions, and the mindset changes, a la moving away from a focus on God, we have lost the purpose of the renewal.]


“Renewal does not mean a different puppet show every day,” the cardinal underscored. [This is HUGELY IMPORTANT: As a Cardinal, he supports Holy Mother Church, Vatican II, and the teachings of the Faith. That does not mean that he supports what we necessarily HAVE in the Church, i.e. a "different puppet show every day."] “It means making it possible to celebrate the mystery of faith that occurs. This renewal must express the entire reality of the mystery. Worship becomes perverted when we have a celebration in which the community celebrates itself. The principle should be that God occupies the central place.”


The Spanish prelate noted that in Communion, it is not we who assimilate Christ, “but rather He who assimilates us unto himself,” and consequently we are pulled out of our individuality. “Thus the Eucharist takes on a social nature.” [NB: This relates to my former posts about kneeling. While some argue that standing after Communion allows us to be united with our brothers and sisters, it seems the Cardinal is saying that WE do nothing to assimilate Christ. That our individuality does not and should not matter. Instead, the Eucharist itself is takes on a social nature outside of anything that we can do.]


“To celebrate the Eucharist is to bring about the renewal of society,” he said. “For this reason, renewing the sense of the Eucharist is what guarantees a future for the Church. This is the true danger for a humanity that does not acknowledge God.”

Source: CNA

I think this is very important article. This is why I have a problem with TEEN Masses, Children's Masses, and other "Production Style" Masses. It isn't that I don't think that configuring the Mass to be better understood by certain groups within a community is an appropriate goal, I think what happens is that the focus becomes THE GROUP, instead of GOD. The Mass needs not be relevant to anyone but GOD. Some may argue, "But how do we get them to understand and appreciate the Mass?" Not by turning it into a "puppet show," both figuratively and literally. Instead, we must expose them to the Truth, the teachings of the Church.

We must also examine how we as lay faithful, and even the clergy, prepare our hearts and minds for Mass. We must attend Mass and worship at Mass with the right mindset. We must also construct our Masses in a which celebrates the MYSTERY of the EUCHARIST in a God-centric way. We must restore the sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and feels of the faith, in an authentic way, that is centered on God and not ourselves. This is why I don't clap during a Mass... because then we are only celebrating ourselves; applause is a gesture of the celebration of Man, God doesn't require applause, he requires worship and devotion.

Kneeling - Redux

I made a post last week about Kneeling. As is the case with many posts, it was more of an attempt at thinking something out, as opposed to being an authoritative statement on a belief I hold. Mindyleigh, of The Devout Life added some great thoughts to the overall discussion.

So I decided to re-read the section on kneeling in The Spirit of the Liturgy - by then: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. One part really stuck out, and seems to sum up the way I think about kneeling. It might not specifically answer the "Why of kneeling" but it strikes at the core of its importance.

Pope Benedict, writing as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

"...for this culture has turned away from the faith and no longer knows the One before whom kneeling is the right, indeed the intrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe learns to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it has been lost, kneeling must be rediscovered, so that, in our prayer, we remain in fellowship with the apostles and martyrs, in fellowship with the whole cosmos, indeed in union with Jesus Christ Himself."

I think this passage is quite clear. This is not to say that standing is necessarily inappropriate, especially at the direction of the Bishop. Instead, it is a justification for those that do kneel. In fact, it comes in the form of a mandate that we DO kneel, when appropriate, and that if kneeling has been abandoned in total, it should be reclaimed.

I know in our Archdiocese, standing has been implemented after the reception of communion as a means to unify the community. This should not be reason for individuals or congregations to abandon kneeling altogether, and unfortunately, this is the casualty of this directive. I have only seen one other parish where the Bishop diverged from the GIRM in this manner, and the same result occurred. Folks would return to the pews and either sit immediately, or stand and then EVERYONE would sit.

This wouldn't be such a big deal except when one row sits, the row behind cannot easily kneel. As a kneeler, I dont mind it so much... but I cannot say the same for the people in front of me that make a face, noise, or action that displays their displeasure. As the Pope wrote, "we must seek to remain...in union with Jesus Christ." I can think of no other time more appropriate to posture ourselves in such a way to physically create such a union, then immediately following the reception of the Body and Blood of Angels, the Eucharistic True Presence of God.

Having said that... it is a difficult thing to kneel at the reception of communion, when the GIRM creates a different norm for the United States and when it allows for a Bishop to change the post-communion posture. Such allowances create an uncomfortable situation for many. Any change is difficult... but I can tell you this... there is an easy solution...

Bring back Altar Rails.
When folks approach, they kneel. If they cant kneel they stand. If they can't walk up - an EMHC will bring them the Precious Body and Blood.
What changes? Those that can... kneel.
When folks return to the pews... have the GIRM say, stand of kneel until all receive the Eucharist. Then... sit or kneel... problem solved. 

Until then where should we look for guidance? Rome would be a good place... 

The Holy Father's reasoning is simple: "We Christians kneel before the Blessed Sacrament because, therein, we know and believe to be the presence of the One True God." (May 22, 2008)


According to the pope the entire Church should kneel in adoration before God in the Eucharist. "Kneeling in adoration before the Eucharist is the most valid and radical remedy against the idolatries of yesterday and today" (May 22, 2008)

CNS STORY: Vatican: Receiving Eucharist kneeling will be norm

Pope Benedict to Catholics: Kneel For Communion

Clerical Whispers: Pope Benedict to Catholics: Kneel For Communion

Vatican Newspaper Article Says Catholics Should Receive Communion ...

YouTube - Communion Kneeling and on the Tongue is Preferred Form ...

etc...

A desire for the Sacred

One of the weakest arguments that I have heard from the anti-extraordinary form Mass camp is: that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, aka the Tridentine Mass, isn't the most ancient or even that "good" of a Mass and therefore folks that support it or desire it... are simply jumping on a bandwagon. They accuse devotees of the Extraordinary Form of being "Rad Trads" or Radical Traditionalists, meaning that they believe folks who desire this form of the Mass are simply being Catholic Elitists.

This is an unfair, uncharitable, and incorrect assumption on the behalf of these accusers. In fact, most folks that desire the Mass in the Usus Antiquior do so because they feel disconnected from the Sacred, while celebrating the Mass at their parish. Many who attend the EF Mass don't do so out of pride, an eclectic affinity for latin, a particular fondness for the theological meaning of the rubrics of that Mass, or anything complicated like that. Instead, many folks are simply desiring the Sacred.

Although the Mass isn't about us, our attendance and worship at Mass is our chance to encounter the Sacred. It is the source and summit of our Christian life, and is a small slice of "Heaven on Earth."  Therefore, many people simply want the experience to be as close to the Sacred as possible. In the modern American Catholic Church, one can find themselves in a church built less than a decade ago, lacking stained glass, statues, icons, tile, confessionals, pillars, incense, traditional music, or any other traditional features that once created the "setting" of the Mass. I would argue that Catholicism is the SINGLE christian "denomination" that can appeal to all of the human senses, and yet rarely do we find a Mass that partakes in the traditions that appeal to all the senses... except in the Usus Antiquior.

When the Motu Proprio in 2007 was published, many Bishops explained that it was not in fact a set of doors thrown open, signaling a resurgence in the celebration of the Extraordinary Form. Instead, they spoke of how "complicated" the rubrics were and how many parishes were not designed for "this type of Mass." They spoke in terms of complexity and a fear that many would seek to justify the means with an end. Ironically, this is in fact how many see the Ordinary Form nowadays in their parish. With liturgical abuse run rampant, theologically incorrect homilies, and protestant music run amok, it is no wonder that folks desire a form of the Mass that strives for the Sacred.

There is something to be said to the fact that whenever a parish offers the EF, families flock to it in droves. They flock to a Mass that isn't in our native language, that doesn't offer a "role" for throngs of the faithful, where the priest "doesn't face the people", and various other attacks that are often placed upon the EF. Its popularity comes from a desire for the Sacred. Bishops and priests would do well to learn from this, rather than fight against it. A perfect opportunity exists with the new missal translation. Things will change with its implementation. Bishops should seize that opportunity and reclaim the Sacred. Not for the people, not for popularity's sake, but for the fact that God is deserved of our attempt at creating the Sacred in our churches and he is deserved of sacred worship.

The Average Catholic Parish has become an Idiom.

The Modern Catholic Church/Parish saw Vatican II as a catalyst for modernization and reform. Instead of reawakening the Church here in America by "cutting away some of the old dead leaves" they have instead "thrown the baby out with the bath-water." Now this isn't true for every Parish, but for many this has been the case.

 

Both of the above phrases in red are IDIOMS. That is exactly what many American Catholic Parishes have become... Idioms. The definition of an idiom is:

1. an expression whose meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of its constituent elements, as kick the bucket or hang one's head, or from the general grammatical rules of a language, as the table round for the round table, and that is not a constituent of a larger expression of like characteristics.
2. a language, dialect, or style of speaking peculiar to a people.
3. a construction or expression of one language whose parts correspond to elements in another language but whose total structure or meaning is not matched in the same way in the second language.

It is a little more than a figure of speech. The words of an idiom form a collective unit, they fossilize themselves to a very distinct and specific meaning. The other major feature of an idiom, is that it is usually only understood by those who speak that language and understand the particular idiom, outside of its particular "literal" context. In other words, one cannot necessarily derive the meaning of the idiom, from the words used to construct it. It is meant to be illustrative or metaphoric, but to a specific group that is aware of its meaning.

 

So how is the average Catholic Parish an idiom? Well... what do you see and experience when you walk into many modern day Catholic churches? I mean the ones built post 1965ish. What do they look like? What do they resemble? What are the floors: marble, tile, carpet? What does the Altar look like? What is the experience at Mass like? The prayers, Music, the "full and active participation" of the faithful? What does it sound like, smell like, look like, feel like?

 

Think about how you would DESCRIBE a Mass to someone that has never been to Church before. The sights, the sounds, the feel. What would you tell them they should look for, expect to see, need to know? Imagine you are a "Religious Real Estate" agent, and you are "Selling" your Church, Mass included, to someone who is willing to join the church with the best "overall offer".... What would be your key selling points? (The answer here isn't location, location, location.) What makes a Catholic Parish - Authentic?

 

How would you explain the difference between a Catholic Church & Mass and a service at a Protestant Mega-church?  What are the benefits of your parish? How about a smaller evangelical church? A Lutheran or other main-line Protestant Church? Is it getting harder? Are the lines blurring? Try doing the same with a Church and Parish built in the '30s, '20s, or possibly even earlier? How do your answers change? What are the differences now? Is it easier to explain the differences?

 

I think for many of this... we don't have good answers. The lines between Catholic Parishes and Protestant Parishes have blurred horribly in many areas... and unfortunately, a lot of the time in those areas the Protestants do it better. The few areas that Catholics continue to outshine the Protestants in, doctrine, rubrics, and theology have unfortunately been "abandoned" as not important.

 

The Catholic church decided that the best way to modernize the Church, was to follow the protestant model. They saw the growth of many evangelical churches, that could pop-up, recruit new followers, and becomes models of success. So they decided to "speak" to Christians, and "seekers" of Christ in idioms. Rather than building on the solid foundation of tradition, community, and doctrine they went another route. This idiom route can only be described as gimmicks. We stopped seeing Cruciform churches and started seeing the Church-in-the-round. We went from marble floors,  to carpet. Pews and kneelers to upholstered seating. We went from hand carved altars that rose to the heavens, to video screens and flying banners and beams. Pillars were abandoned for long beams allowing for vaulted (not cathedral) ceilings. Organs were abandoned for guitars, keyboards, drums, and rain-sticks. Why these changes? They didn't have theological under-pinnings, in fact many of the changes required for an alteration or even complete abrogation of certain beliefs and practices, just to conform these new features to Catholic teaching.

 

Was this intentional? Yes, I believe it was. I believe that the "powers that be" in the American church were looking for a way to "spice up" the average American Parish that they chose this route, because it looked "new and exciting." Was it malicious? For the most part no, I don't think it was. I think that there was an element of Cultural depravity attached to it, but I don't think in large part that there was some malignant strain of theological belief that found some chink in the armor, and was trying to bring down the traditional theology and doctrine of Catholic belief. I do believe that there are some that have grown into this modernist-progressive mindset, but I think it was a slower process than some seem to forwarding.

 

So why do I say it is an idiom? Well.. because we have become a metaphor of protestantism. The Authentic nature of Catholicism can no longer be clearly seen in many aspects of the Average American Parish. Sure, we have something resembling the Mass most days, but is the Parish, the Church, and the community Authentically Catholic? Let me ask it this way, do you know that it is Catholic because of what it appears to be, or because of what it says it is? If I say I am a New York Yankees fan, but you catch me wearing a Red Sox hat, am I really a Yankees fan? I mean, deep down at the intrinsic "Absolute Truth" level a Yankees fan? This is where the idiom part comes in.

 

You see, the Catholic Church, and Parishes likewise, used to be an AXIOM. The definition is:

a self-evident truth that requires no proof. Universally accepted, as true. Unmistakable as to its meaning or truth.

Self-evident. Requires no proof. It is, what it appears to be. Isn't this what a Catholic Church should be? Self-evident? Shouldn't a person be able to go into a Catholic Church and sense that it is Catholic? Shouldn't it be authentic and true? Why then do we appeal to people in idioms, when we want them to speak in axioms? Why have parishes molded themselves in the image, of exactly that which they are opposite of? Why do they quest for Truth, yet do so in the mask of something else?

 

Think back to the thought experiment I proposed earlier. Should we not be able to talk about things such as statutes, icons, golden consecrated vessels, embroidered vestments, incense, the Mass, Sacredness, worship, chant, Authentic music, and a slew of other things that clearly set apart the Church from other Christian denominations? Shouldn't we seek to be less like them, as opposed to more like them? Isn't the Catholic Church supposed to be counter-cultural?

 

When will Catholic Parishes give up this gimmick and revert back to the Authentic teachings of the Church? When will we stop speaking in idioms and reclaim the AXIOM? When will we, the faithful demand this from our Parish? When will we step-up and commit ourselves to providing what we can to the Authentic nature of the Church.

 

• Go to Daily Mass.
• Go to Mass early - say the Rosary.
• Go to Adoration.
• Make your sons be Altar Servers.
• Start and apologetics apostolate in your Parish.
• Volunteer to host fellowship parties or bbq's at your house.
• Invite a priest to dinner, bring them dinner, have them out to a social event, or even just speak to them casually.
• Start a special collection to buy a statue for an empty alcove at your Parish.
• Find out what "needs" the priest or Parish have and start a collection amongst your friends for an "Authentic" version of those needs.
• Join your Pastoral/Parish council.
• Join the groups at your Parish.
• Take up your sword and fight for your faith and Christ!

I have always said we are in a BATTLE, a real WAR against evil. One of the strongest weapons the devil has is complacency and sloth. Do not let him win. It is so disheartening to hear from my protestant friends all the amazing things they do at their Church because their folks are on fire. All they have are four walls and the Word. We have centuries of tradition, custom, and the TRUTH of theological doctrine and we have to used protestant-esque idioms to "attract" our faithful....

 

When will our Parishes give up these idiomatic gimmicks... and return the Axiom of Authentic Catholicism?

 

 

_

Adoration on the Kenai

Received some really great news last night!

Someone that knows that I blog, contacted me to let me know that Our Lady of Angels in Kenai had Eucharistic Adoration last night for the first time in many, many years.

Now, being new to the area I can't confirm on how long it has actually been, but it does seem that it has been a while since Adoration was a regular occurrence. I did talk to someone else and learned that occasionally in the past certain periods of Adoration would occur when someone was ill, or for a special intention [I won't get into the theological concept of this now] but aside from that the practice was absent. In  fact, it was even absent on Holy Thursday, much to our surprise when we tried to visit there, as is custom on Holy Thursday. [The tradition of visiting 7 parishes, or in our case, 1 other parish that didn't have Adoration.]

This is great news! From my understanding it was only for an hour, but as they say in the "Reform of the Reform" world: "Brick by brick." This now puts the number of Churches on the Kenai at 2, that have Adoration. Hopefully OLA will continue this practice, as it really does produce many spiritual fruits throughout the parish.

If anyone has more info about how this came about, the future, or their experience please let me know.

The Importance of the Tabernacle, Rubrics and other Rituals - Bp. Jenky of Peoria

I must give a sword-tip to Father Z. on this story:

The following is a story from the Catholic Post which is the Catholic newspaper from the Diocese of Peoria, Illinois. The story explains a recent directive from Bishop Jenky regarding the placement of the Tabernacle in all Churches in the Diocese.

The following is the article from the Post [Emphasis and Comments]:

Saying that placing the Blessed Sacrament at the physical center of the church puts Christ at the center of our spiritual lives as well, Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, CSC, is asking that the tabernacle be located “in the direct center at the back of the sanctuary” in all churches and chapels in the Diocese of Peoria.
The bishop’s letter was issued on Holy Thursday, the day when Catholics around the world gather for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper and celebrate the institution of the Eucharist.
"A gift in the bishop’s letter is that he is giving people five years,” said Msgr. Stanley Deptula, director of the diocesan Office of Divine Worship. “Some of those parishes, for architectural, financial and catechetical reasons, will need to take some time to revisit the Eucharist. . . . They have five years to pray over this moment of renewal.”
Following is the full text of Bishop Jenky's directive:
------
April 1, 2010
+Holy Thursday
Dear Priests, Deacons, Religious and Faithful of the Diocese of Peoria,
The Mass, of course, is our most important act of worship -- the very source and summit of all we do as a Church. A profound reverence for the Reserved Sacrament is also intrinsically related to the Eucharistic liturgy.
The Reserved Sacrament must therefore be treated with the greatest possible respect, because at all times the Blessed Sacrament within that tabernacle, as in the Eucharistic Liturgy, is to be given that worship called latria, which is the adoration given to Almighty God. This intentional honor is incomparably greater than the reverence we give to sacramentals, sacred images, the Baptistry, the Holy Oils, or the Paschal Candle. The Sacrament is reserved not only so that the Eucharist can be brought to the dying and to those unable to attend Mass, but also as the heart and locus of a parish’s prayer and devotion. [The reservation of the Eucharist isn't a "garage" for "leftover" Host. It is the "heart and locus" of the Parish's prayer and devotion... in other words the essence or purpose of the Parish.]
There is a kind of bundle of rituals in our Catholic tradition with which we surround the Tabernacle. As we enter or leave the church, we bless ourselves with holy water, we genuflect towards the Tabernacle [This is important... we must know why we do what we do... when and if we do it.], we prepare for Mass or give thanks after Mass, consciously in the presence of the Most Blessed Sacrament. At prayers and devotions, during the Liturgy of the Hours, in any private prayer which takes place in a Catholic Church, we truly pray before the Risen Christ substantially and really present in the Sacrament reserved in the Tabernacle.
These core Catholic convictions and their architectural ramifications have recently been reaffirmed by many Bishops in the United States. As bishop of this Diocese, I am also convinced that where we place the Tabernacle -- and how we ritually reverence the Reserved Sacrament -- is as important for the continuing Eucharistic catechesis as is all our preaching and teaching. [What he means here is: the placement of the Tabernacle and how we treat it says something about us as individuals, a parish, and what we believe in teach in relation to the True Presence in the Eucharist. Actions speak louder than words.] With Jesus truly present in the Blessed Sacrament at the physical center of our places of worship, how can He not also more firmly become the center of our spiritual lives as well?
After consultation with my Presbyteral Council, [In other words this isn't simply the Charism or Catechsis of one man and his idea.] I am therefore asking that those few parish churches and chapels where the tabernacle is not in the direct center at the back of the sanctuary, that these spaces be redesigned in such a way that the Reserved Sacrament would be placed at the center. In some cases, this change can be easily achieved, but given financial and design restraints, plans for redesign may be submitted to the Office of Divine Worship at any time during the next five years. Monastic communities whose chapels are open to the faithful as
semi-public oratories may also request a dispensation from this general regulation according to the norms of their particular liturgical tradition. There may also be some very tiny chapels where a change could be impossible. These requests should be submitted in writing to my office.
I would also like to remind everyone in our Diocese that at Mass, in accord with the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, the Tabernacle should only be reverenced at the beginning and end of the liturgy or when the Sacrament is being taken from or returned to the Tabernacle. At all other moments and movements in the liturgy it is the Altar of Sacrifice that is to be reverenced.
It is my conviction that Eucharistic Liturgy and Eucharistic devotion are never in competition but rather inform and strengthen our shared worship and reverence. May all in our Diocese grow in greater love and appreciation of the gift of the Eucharist.


Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Daniel R. Jenky, C.S.C.
BISHOP OF PEORIA

This concept, this letter, this idea is very important to think about. Where else should the Tabernacle be? What does it matter where it is or how we treat it?

Let me explain my theory of the "House of Cards" as it relates to customs/traditions/rituals/beliefs/rubrics in our faith and the importance of following them. I will do this by showing how ignoring a small thing in one area can lead to big implications somewhere else.

What is the  first thing you see when you walk into a Church where the Tabernacle is not in the center? Maybe the Crucifix. So then where do you genuflect? Towards the Crucifix or towards the Tabernacle? Why do you genuflect? Let's say the Tabernacle is off to the side, and you genuflect anyways towards the Cross or the Altar? What does this say about your belief in the True Presence and the Eucharist? Now, what do you do before the reception of Communion? Do you bow or kneel? Why do you do this? What about AT reception? Do you take in your hand or mouth? Kneeling or standing? Again, why do you do what you do?

So you see, our posture in one instance bleeds into another. Sure moving the Tabernacle towards the center of the Church doesn't fix this automatically but it offers the opportunity at proper Catechesis. It allows the priest to explain WHY we do what we do, and what our focus should be - The True Presence of Christ.

This is true for other things as well. There MUST be a CONTINUITY in what we do in relation to the Rubrics of the Mass and the Catechism of our Liturgical Faith. We cannot pick and choose what we believe or do, simply because some appeal to us while others don't. On top of that, we must be INTENTIONAL  about why and what we do in relation to the important rituals and functions of our Faith. Bishop Jenky calls these things "Architectural Ramifications."

Father Cory Sticha: 'We are Church? No!'

Father Cory Sticha recently blogged about the Chrism Mass in his local Archdiocese. He was a little surprised at the songs that were chosen for the Mass. The words seemed to send a confusing, if not improper, message to those at the Mass. (You can read his entire post here: "We are 'Church?' NO!").

What really struck me about his post though was the conclusion. The majority of the post was about music and its relation to Mass. He talks about how the focus of the music, and really everything, at Mass should be on God and not on us as people or the congregation. Here are his concluding paragraphs:

When we do place our focus on ourselves, the most important thing about the Mass becomes what I “get out of it”. If I’m not affirmed, uplifted, interested, etc., then something needs to change in order to fulfill me. This is why there’s so much concern about making the Mass “relevant”. Priests change the words and actions of the Mass to what they feel makes it more “relevant” to the people. Music is written in popular styles so that it will be “relevant” to youth. The Mass becomes religious entertainment seeking to help people find something that they will “get out of it”.

Conversely, when the focus is on Christ, the Mass becomes more about each one of us individually, and the congregation as a whole, gathering to worship and adore God, and what we “get out of it” is receiving Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. A properly celebrated Mass with chant will lift our minds and hearts to God, helping us to worship our Creator and Father who loves us and gave His Son so that we might love Him in return.

(N.B.: This is why I will never ad-lib the Mass. The role of the priest is to lead the congregation to Christ, not himself.)

To solve this problem, both priests and laity need to actively work at redirecting our focus back on Our Lord and off of ourselves. If chant is not an option due to lack of training or materials, hymns need to be chosen carefully that center on God. Priests need to stop making up their own words and actions, and start following the principle “Say the Black, Do the Red“. All of us who gather for the celebration of the Mass need to remember that the honor and glory needs to go to Christ, not to ourselves.

This is an important way to look at not only the music at Mass, but our mentality in general. We must redirect our focus at Mass back on to Our Lord. Why else are we there?


-Posted by: Joe

Pope Benedict XVI - The Hermeneutic of Continuity

Recently the Pope made a pretty clear statement about Vatican II:

“Following Vatican Council II some people were convinced that all was new, that a new Church existed, that the pre-conciliar Church had come to an end and that there would be another, completely different Church, an anarchic utopia. Yet thanks to God the wise helmsmen of the ship of Christ, Paul VI and John Paul II, defended on the one hand the novelty of the Church and, at the same time, the uniqueness and continuity of the Church, which is always a Church of sinners, and always a place of grace”.

The rest can be read here:
The Church - Post Vatican II


-Posted by: Joe

Body v. Bread

So Brian's post below made me think about the idea of the Real Presence of Christ, or TRUE PRESENCE as it is rightly called. It is a topic that I have posted about before, and one that I think needs more focus in Catholic circles outside of the Blog-world.

If you confine your reading and learning about the faith to solely Catholic blogs, you will find most traditional or orthodox Catholics truly believe in the True Presence. Outside of such cirlces the story is quite different. You may encounter many that SAY they believe in it, but like most things in life actions speak louder than words.

Now before I go on I must state that this is not a post about the way in which one MUST act, or some sort of test to determine a persons belief, it is instead a series of observations to illustrate a point. The point is that many Catholics do not act in a manner consistent with the belief in the True Presence. [I cannot judge what they truly believe, I can only make statements in regards to their actions.]

Much of the problem comes from the little things. Things like Brian mentioned, that when viewed in isolation aren't that big of a "problem" but when taken as a whole, are all bricks in a wall placed between us the people and the True Presence and the true belief in that presence. Again, certain things taken on their own really can be equivocated, explained, or rationalized, but taken in combination with other things it is difficult to know exactly who believes what about the True Presence.

Now, like many other posts, this one can easily come off as a 'Holier than thou' post. It isn't meant to be, in fact much of what I now believe and do in relation to the Eucharist comes from others and teachings that caused me pause and contemplation on what and how I believed in relation to the Eucharist. So, in that same same light I hope to help others examine their idea of the True Presence. [Again, there aren't "right" answers to many of these questions... and if there are, there may be more than one; it is meant as an exercise in contemplation not and indictment.]

One problem is simply the words we use to explain and describe certain things. Do we call them Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, or for brevity, do we shorten it to the improper: "Euchrastic Minister?" Even Wikipedia gets this right (Eucharistic Minister) yet most church bulletins get it wrong.

Here is the teachings of the Church on this issue, taken from Redemptionis Sacramentum: On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist:

The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.[254] Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,[255] to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law,[256] for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.[257]

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.[258]

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.[259] This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

[159.] It is never allowed for the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion to delegate anyone else to administer the Eucharist, as for example a parent or spouse or child of the sick person who is the communicant.

[160.] Let the diocesan Bishop give renewed consideration to the practice in recent years regarding this matter, and if circumstances call for it, let him correct it or define it more precisely. Where such extraordinary ministers are appointed in a widespread manner out of true necessity, the diocesan Bishop should issue special norms by which he determines the manner in which this function is to be carried out in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the tradition of the Church.

Now I know this is a lot of technical liturgical speak, but it is important. In fact, later in that same document, the gravity of importance placed on the Eucharist is explained as such:

Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

So it would appear that it is our duty individually and collectively to ensure proper reverence of the Eucharist. Does this answer Brian's question below? I think it does, but why then do we pause? The answer might be charity, it might be fear, and it might be the worry of spirtual pride or liturgical legalsim of which so many of us fear that we descend into. Yet, if we aren't looking out for the reverence and integrity of the Eucharist, are we not looking out for the integrity and reverence of the same Christ, our Lord? [Think about the qualifier word there: SAME].

If we are unwilling to change the words we use and the actions we take concerning the Eucharist, are we not negating the the belief of the True Presence? If the Eucharist is truly Christ, in our hearts and in our minds, should we not do everything in our power to respectfully honor and worship our Lord? There is a protocol for queens, kings, Popes, and presidents that we all administer reverence to, why not the Christ?

***UPDATE***:
Dan over at Gun Lovin' Alaskan Catholic Club has linked back to this post and offers up some of his own thoughts that further drive this message home! Plus... he has a post title that perfectly addresses the problem:
"Sorry kids, it isn't candy!"


-Posted by: Joe

The Spirit of Liturgical Reform - Part II: Spirit of the Liturgy

This post is Part II of a series of posts that I am doing about a talk Msgr. Marini gave at the Clergy Conference in Rome. Read part one here. The original talk was posted on the New Liturgical Movement which you can read here. Some of the other parts of the talk were handled much more adeptly by Father Z. which you can read here - Liturgical Form and here - Active Participation. I decided to tackle the more basic aspects of the talk.

This particular portion of the talk focused on then Cardinal Ratzinger's book: The Spirit of the Liturgy. It is the overview of the Liturgy itself. In my original post I discussed how both the Holy Father and Msgr. Marini stress the importance of CONTINUITY. This begins to dive deeper into how the Liturgy exists in time and place and the importance of the Liturgy as it is intended to exist. 

My emphasis will be bold-underlined and my comments will be in red:

1. The Sacred Liturgy, God’s great gift to the Church.


We are all well aware how the second Vatican Council dedicated the entirety of its first document to the liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium. It was labeled as the Constitution on the sacred liturgy.


I wish to underline the term sacred in its application to the liturgy, because of its importance. As a matter of fact, the council Fathers intended in this way to reinforce the sacred character of the liturgy. [Sacred is important here. Obviously Msgr. Marini wants to call to our attention how important the council Fathers felt that calling the Liturgy Sacred was.]


What, then, do we mean by the sacred liturgy? The East would in this case speak of the divine dimension in the Liturgy, or, to be more precise, of that dimension which is not left to the arbitrary will of man, because it is a gift which comes from on high. [In other words the East views the Liturgy stemming FROM GOD TO man.] It refers, in other words, to the mystery of salvation in Christ, entrusted to the Church in order to make it available in every moment and in every place by means of the objective nature of the liturgical and sacramental rites. [Objective here means unalterable or truth. If Christ is Truth, then the Liturgy is an objective expression of the Mystery of Salvation that Truth gives to man.] This is a reality surpassing us, which is to be received as gift, and which must be allowed to transform us.[Here nothing is said of us giving to God, but instead we are to receive.] Indeed, the second Vatican Council affirms: “...every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others...” (Sacrosanctum concilium, n.7)


From this perspective it is not difficult to realise how far distant some modes of conduct are from the authentic spirit of the liturgy. [This statement expresses the idea that there are some modes of conduct which are in fact incompatible with the Liturgy. To use a term from my last post, there is NO CONTINUITY.] In fact, some individuals have managed to upset the liturgy of the church in various ways under the pretext of a wrongly devised creativity.  [Although in my last post I argued for continuity and understanding that both the new and old form of the Mass are valid and beautiful this sentence explains that not "anything" goes. There are in fact certain things which so disrupt the continuity of the Liturgy as to be wrong. This is usually done through creativity.] This was done on the grounds of adapting to the local situation and the needs of the community, thus appropriating the right to remove from, add to, or modify the liturgical rite in pursuit of subjective and emotional ends. For this, we priests are largely responsible. [Although he places blame on the priests, many congregations are to blame as well. Many times when reform to the proper liturgical practices were proposed in "creative" dioceses the people fought against the reform in an effort to retain their "emotionally comfortable" forms of worship.]


For this reason, already back in 2001, the former Cardinal Ratzinger asserted: “There is need of, at the very least, of a new liturgical awareness that might put a stop to the tendency to treat the liturgy as if it were an object open to manipulation. [READ: The Liturgy is NOT OPEN TO MANIPULATION.] We have reached the point where liturgical groups stitch together the Sunday liturgy on their own authority. The result is certainly the imaginative product of a group of able and skilled individuals. [This is important, especially for the Rad-Trads out there: the people who make these creative decisions are NOT bad people or even unskilled in what they do. It is their product which is wrong, not necessarily their hearts.] But in this way the space where one may encounter the “totally other” is reduced, in which the holy offers Himself as gift; what I come upon is only the skill of a group of people. It is then that we realise that we are looking for something else. It is too little, and at the same time, something different. The most important thing today is to acquire anew a respect for the liturgy, and an awareness that it is not open to manipulation. [Simply put, CONTINUITY.] To learn once again to recognise in its nature a living creation that grows and has been given as gift, through which we participate in the heavenly liturgy. To renounce seeking in it our own self-realisation in order to see a gift instead. [The Liturgy is ABOUT GOD, not about us.] This, I believe, is of primary importance: to overcome the temptation of a despotic behaviour, which conceives the liturgy as an object, the property of man, and to re-awaken the interior sense of the holy.” [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] (from ‘God and the World’; translation from the Italian)


To affirm, therefore, that the liturgy is sacred presupposes the fact that the liturgy does not exist subject to the sporadic modifications and arbitrary inventions of one individual or group. [Our job as individuals and lay people is to attend Liturgy and accept the gift, not to CREATE with the Liturgy.] The liturgy is not a closed circle in which we decide to meet, perhaps to encourage one another, to feel we are the protagonists of some feast. The liturgy is God’s summons to his people to be in His presence; it is the advent of God among us; it is God encountering us in this world.


A certain adaptation to particular local situations is foreseen and rightly so. The Missal itself indicates where adaptations may be made in some of its sections, yet only in these and not arbitrarily in others. [Local customs and adaptations are allowed and EVEN ENCOURAGE but in their RIGHTFUL PLACE.] The reason for this is important and it is good to reassert it: the liturgy is a gift which precedes us, a precious treasure which has been delivered by the age-old prayer of the Church, the place in which the faith has found its form in time and its expression in prayer. [GOD knows what he wants and what we need better than we do. We should accept this graciously and humbly.] It is not made available to us in order to be subjected to our personal interpretation; [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] rather, the liturgy is made available so as to be fully at the disposal of all, yesterday just as today and also tomorrow. “Our time, too,” wrote Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, “calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist.” (n. 52) [Continuity of the past, present, and future. Pope Benedict uses the term: "Once-FOR-All"]


In the brilliant Encyclical Mediator Dei, which is so often quoted in the constitution on the sacred Liturgy, Pope Pius XII defines the liturgy as “...the public worship... the worship rendered by the Mystical Body of Christ in the entirety of its Head and members.” (n. 20) As if to say, among other things, that in the liturgy, the Church “officially” identifies herself in the mystery of her union with Christ as spouse, and where she “officially” reveals herself. What casual folly it is indeed, to claim for ourselves the right to change in a subjective way the holy signs which time has sifted, through which the Church speaks about herself, her identity and her faith! [The Mass is not OUR expression to God. We must realize this. IT IS NOT OURS! The Mass is a gift and revelation to us.]


The people of God has a right that can never be ignored, in virtue of which, all must be allowed to approach what is not merely the poor fruit of human effort, but the work of God, and precisely because it is God’s work, a saving font of new life. [The Mass could not and cannot act in its Mystery if it were ours to manipulate. Instead, Salvation form in the Mass exists because it is wholly God.]


I wish to prolong my reflection a moment longer on this point, which, I can testify, is very dear to the Holy Father, by sharing with you a passage from Sacramentum Caritatis, the Apostolic Exhortation of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, written after the Synod on the Holy Eucharist. “Emphasising the importance of the ars celebrandi,” the Holy Father writes, “also leads to an appreciation of the value of the liturgical norms... The eucharistic celebration is enhanced when priests and liturgical leaders are committed to making known the current liturgical texts and norms... Perhaps we take it for granted that our ecclesial communities already know and appreciate these resources, but this is not always the case. These texts contain riches which have preserved and expressed the faith and experience of the People of God over its two-thousand-year history.” (n. 40) [Continuity and norms ENHANCE the Liturgy. It is the Continuity which creates the sharing and unification of the Body of Christ through time. Continuity leads to universality which is the essence of our faith. Universality can only be achieved through texts and forms.]

It is sometimes argued that the usus antiquior or Tridentine Rite is archaic and not relevant to modern people. Yet, this argue can not hold water when viewed from the proper perspective from which we should look at the Liturgy. There is little that I need to say that hasn't been said by Msgr. Marini. The Liturgy must be understood as a GIFT from GOD which should exist in its SACRED form. We as people should not take it upon ourselves to try and interpret or manipulate it to appease our desires or emotions. Instead we should accept the Mass as God's gift to His bride as a pure expression of His love and desire for the Salvation of man. It is a "once-for-all" Mystery that was given to us in order to grant us everlasting life with Him.

-Posted by: Joe