Liturgy

Reports of the Anglican leader Rowan Williams’ liturgical celebration on Sunday in the Dominican Church of Santa Sabina in Rome seem to raise a number of issues. How can it be that an Anglican clergyman – with access to his own Anglican church building in Rome – can so publicly use a Catholic altar dressed in a chasuble and carrying a crosier? And what of the reportedly extraordinary participation of Catholic curial officials – “Canadian Fr Donald Bolen, an official at the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity with responsibility for the Reformed churches, proclaimed the Gospel at the Mass after having received Archbishop Williams’ blessing”? Rowan Williams is an erudite man and surely knows the significance of this. And no doubt so too do those Catholics responsible for the celebration. But we are not in communion with Anglicans and it seems somewhat disingenuous if not scandalous so to blur the line between, a line defended over the centuries by the blood of the martyrs of England and Wales.

Whoever thought that it was a good idea for the Anglican leader to "celebrate Mass" in a Dominican Church in Rome really needs to explain it. With Anglican orders being invalid this is really a case of dress-up and play-acting and for curial officials to be involved it certainly appears quite scandalous. This is almost an "Assisi" moment, though I doubt the Pope had anything to do with it and I certainly hope it comes to his attention.

*Photo is from Catholic Press Photos of the actual event.

Amy Welborn publishes an apology by the pastor of Christ the King parish in the Orange County diocese – the celebrant of the Halloween Mass in their bulletin. She comments on his apology.

It’s a start. Really, it is. Of course, the basic point is still not addressed, which is…and a Halloween Mass with anyone dressed up in costumes is consistent with the Christian liturgical tradition, even as diverse as it might be….how?

But. It’s a start. Things are moving in a different direction than they were in say, 1975, and we can pray, in good faith and hope and generosity, that they’ll just keep moving…

I agree with her critique since the pastor apologized for how the costumes some of the EMHMs were wearing and not whether they should be wearing costumes of any sort. I also wonder about his saying that many parishioners requested being able to wear costumes along with their children since the video of the even really shows only EMHMs and those in the choir wearing them. It certainly didn’t appear that this was a practice adopted by many of the parishioners themselves. Also not mentioned was their practice of decorating the sanctuary with pumpkins. Regardless his apology is a good first step.

Dom has a copy of the letter from Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, to the heads of all the national episcopal conferences regarding the pro multis translation. Quick take: "for all" is to be replaced by "for many" in translations as a more precise vernacular translation. Which is a good thing not only for being more exact, but that it takes off the table a complaint by many traditionalists. I never thought it was a great problem to become excised about in the first place, especially that it somehow invalidates the consecration, it is just much more precise to use a better translation of the Greek words used from Mark and Matthew.

Back on June 15th the Bishops did address this subject.

Bishop Trautman: Please recall that we did have a consultation on this. Overwhelmingly the American bishops favored the wording that we have now. And we do have some word from the Congregation that this is under active advisement right now. We expect the Holy Father and the Congregation to respond in the near future. So that’s what the response of the committee indicates. But we have declined, at this point, to change it.

Bishop Foley: Because pro multis is used quite extensively in the Scripture. And I look forward to hearing the Holy See, because I feel that it is an important point.

Bishop Trautman: At this point, though, the committee is saying we will stay with the wording that reflects the vast majority of bishops through the consultation. If the Holy See were to change then there will be a proper adjustment.

So I wonder how long the "proper adjustment" will take, though I would imagine it will be incorporated along with the other translation changes to the Mass.

A reader has a nice graphic for this on his blog.

Update: Father Z emphasizes that this change was done in request of the Holy Father since Cardinal Arinze’s letter says "At his direction,"

This is not the decision of either the CDWDS or the CDF. This was the Pope’s decision. As I have written elsewhere, the translations of sacramental forms are reserved to the Pope alone.

We find this in the Holy See’s official instrument of promulgation, Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 28 February 1974 (AAS 66 (1974) 98-99). Here we find a circular letter dated 25 October 1973 over the signature of then Secretary of State Jean Card. Villot, countersigned by Archbp. Annibale Bugnini (my translation from the Latin): “The Supreme Pontiff reserves to himself the power of approving directly all translations into vernacular languages of the formulas of sacraments.”

There is no appeal against this decision.

Rev. Fr. John Trigilio, Jr., PhD, ThD has written an article in response to a recent editorial in Commonweal magazine. His response is excellent and truly a must read.

On Fr. Trigilio’s site he has a great picture of himself handing a copy of his book John Paul II for Dummies to Pope Benedict XVI.

The bishops assembled in Baltimore have just posted their major pronouncements on the Eucharist, contraception, and homosexuality, and I must say the first one leaves me downright gleeful.

"Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper" is the unwieldy title of a twenty-page document on the Eucharist. It is superb and, as one poster on Amy Welborn’s site remarked, ought to be mandatory reading for American Catholics. You won’t find Mick-like sophistry about "other presences," nor will you have need for bifocals to make your way through fuzzy doctrinal content. The bishops have written a measured, well-organized, and precise statement on the centrality of Holy Communion in the life of the Church.

…Its two flaws concern bars to worthiness (they should have mentioned contraception, given its prevalence) and the topic of scandal (everyone knows the bishops are talking about politicians who negotiate the "non negotiables," so why not say it?).

Regardless, I’d be tempted to high-five my pastor after Mass were he to review its contents in a forthcoming homily.

I totally agree with Rich Leonardi, except for the two flaws this is a very good document.

I do hate PDF formatted documents and this one was worse than usual since it is double spaced with plenty of footnotes in the text. I have converted it to html and formatted it to look nice and it is available here. I also moved the footnotes to the bottom of the document and hyper linked them. I spent much more time doing this than I had expected, but I do believe the results are worthwhile.

Nov. 08 (CWNews.com) – The president of the French bishops’ conference has said that discussions of a papal initiative to broaden use of the traditional Latin Mass has "taken on unreal proportions." But Cardinal Paul Ricard has repated that the rumored papal document is not ready for release.

Speaking to reporters after the conclusion of the French bishops’ meeting at Lourdes, Cardinal Ricard said that "various consultations" will be made by Vatican officials before the release of a new papal document on the traditional liturgy. "We can communicate our fears and hopes," he had already promised his fellow French bishops.

Cardinal Ricard told reporter that the Ecclesia Dei commission, of which he is a member, will have an opportunity to review the proposed motu proprio which which the Pope would free up use of the traditional liturgy. Consultations on that document will begin in Rome soon, he suggested.
[Via NLM]

Oh great, now the French find something not to surrender on.

Gerald Augustinus has the text of a memo sent out in the Diocese of L.A. regarding the revoking of the indult for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion from purification of the sacred vessels.

The memo is truly maddening. The diocesan version of "Carry on."

…notifying bishops of a change in the indult — or church permission — in effect since 2002 which allows extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to help cleanse cups and plates when there are not enough priests or deacons to do so.

Notice the reference to "cups and plates." Not sacred vessels or chalice and platen, but the most mundane terms possible. For just"cups and plates" they could install a dishwasher in the sanctuary.

But the kicker is the last paragraph.

Until Cardinal Mahony and the auxiliary bishops have the opportunity to discuss the new recommendations, both locally and at the general meeting of the USCCB in November, no changes will be made regarding the present policy for the distribution of Holy Communion and/or the purification of the sacred vessels.

Well at least they said sacred vessels here, but these are not "recommendations", but it seems that everything issued by the Vatican is considered in this diocese to be only a "recommendation." There are many items that the local ordinary does have the authority to issue a dispensation on. This is not one of them. The reason that this required an indult from the Vatican in the first place is because it is not within the authority of the bishop’s conference or the local ordinary to change. Just as Cardinal Mahony issued a dispensation which he had no authority to issue in regards to consecrating the Sacred Blood in a pitcher I would not be surprised to see the same thing happen again.

"Indult? We ain’t got no indult! We don’t need no indult. I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ indult!"

*Screen capture that Gerald got from the last South Park.

Update: The Diocese of Orange locksteps in dissent by issuing their own memo of which Gerald has a copy.

The memo speaks of the present norm of purification of the sacred vessels. The funny thing is that you do no need an indult from a norm. Having an EMHC purifying the sacred vessels was never classified as a norm. The indult was a temporary dispensation from the norm. As with the L.A. memo they once again talk about Communion under both kinds as if this has anything to do with the indult. Surely if you have a priest in the first place to celebrate Mass then he can do the purifying.

Now the question is why is this such an important indult for some diocese? The problem for them of course is that so much of the Sacred Blood is consecrated that one person cannot really consume the Sacred Blood not given in Communion. Thus having extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion helping out is considered essential.

Redemptionis Sacramentum addressed these circumstances.

[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants[189]that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.[190] The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

So essentially they need this to help with a situation that is illicit in the first place. The same diocese that wants to crack down on kneeling has zero problems with liturgical dissent when it suits them. That these diocese are willing to do delaying tactics on something that there is no room to quibble about is just plain shameful.

L.A. Catholic’s latest post on a The Tidings article reports on the "Missa Gaia"

The print edition of the October 27 issue of The Tidings (the online edition is not posted on that paper’s site, but you can click on this post’s title tomorrow and presumably it will be) carries an article, "LMU Forum draws prominent environmentalists."

The article is about this year’s Bellarmine Forum, Oct. 29-Nov. 3, at Loyola Marymount U. in L.A. The theme is, "Earth to You: Do Something Now." The invitees include Bobby Kennedy Jr., Jean-Michel Cousteau and Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard.

St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), for whom the Forum is named, would want his name withdrawn this year. Listen to this Tidings paragraph:

"The Oct. 29 kick-off event is a Missa Gaia (Earth Mass), 8 p.m. at the Sacred Heart Chapel with Jesuit Father John Coleman presiding. The contemporary liturgy celebrates the whole earth as a sacred space by integrating recorded sounds such as the calls of wolves, whales, eagles and seals."

The "Missa Gaia" debuted at an Episcopalian cathedral, and Unitarian Universalists like it.

"Missa Gaia" composer Jim Scott has written, "When we began neither Paul [Winter] or I had ever been to a Mass…We took the name of the Greek goddess Gaia after the writings of James Lovelock, whose ‘Gaia hypothesis’ is that all of life on earth and the earth itself comprises a single living entity that is self-sustaining and, of course, evolving."

"Missa Gaia" writer Paul Winter has written, "The idea of writing a Mass seemed far-flung. I had never even been to a Mass!…Could a Mass celebrate a vision of the entire Earth as a cathedral? Dean Morton assured me it could. Could Mass music be based on themes from whales and wolves? ‘You can write a Mass on anything’, the Dean said. I did have a fine melody from a wolf that fit perfectly with the words ‘Kyrie Eleison.’"

I had at first assumed that the use of a term "Missa Gaia" was Quintero’s sharp-witted criticism of an environmental Mass only to be surprised to find it was the term they were actualy using. Instead of the New Order of Mass we get the New Age Order of Mass. Or would that be Novus Aevum Ordo? Though I am sure my that my Latin translation is way off and would appreciate a better translation from my readers.

Amy Welborn has been doing some substantial posts recently and part of one today caught my eye.

2) Too many Catholic liturgists have done their work over the past thirty years, happily, with no reference to the past at all. They have been quite busy dreaming up new pardigms of liturgy for a new people in a new spirit, and they need to be reigned in. To put it bluntly: I am not interested in the new paradigm someone dreamed up in graduate school, I am not interested in your individual stylings and creations and I am especially not interested in your recreation of the liturgy every week. I am really not interested. Sorry about that. The focus needs to be redirected, the reference points shifted. "Freeing" the Tridentine Mass, sends a message. This way…not that.

Her comments on liturgist kind of reminds me of G.K. Chesterton critique of education in "What’s wrong with the world." The educator would flock to the new theory that is younger than the child they are teaching.

Obviously, it ought to be the oldest things that are taught to the youngest people; the assured and experienced truths that are put first to the baby. But in a school to-day the baby has to submit to a system that is younger than himself. The flopping infant of four actually has more experience, and has weathered the world longer,
than the dogma to which he is made to submit. Many a school boasts of having the last ideas in education, when it has not even the first idea; for the first idea is that even innocence, divine as it is, may learn something from experience. But this, as I say, is all due to the mere fact that we are managed by a little oligarchy; my system presupposes that men who govern themselves will govern their children. To-day we all use Popular Education as meaning education of the people.I wish I could use it as meaning education by the people.

It seems that same types of things that have happened in education happened to people working with the liturgy. That new liturgical practices came about not because they understood the older practices and wanted to reform parts of them, but as something divorced from them and the only thing to recommend them was that they were new or different. We always have a temptation when something is passed down to us to improve upon it, and to improve upon it in such a manner that the improvement is directly attributed to us. Professors publish to make their mark and modern liturgists create new liturgies to make theirs. A liturgist that only passed on accurately the liturgy would never make a name for themselves or receive any acclaim in their circles. When liturgists became wedded to modern academia they brought all of the errors of their thinking into the liturgy.

John Allen Jr. posts more As speculation mounts on pre-Vatican II Mass, so do question marks. In it he lists seven questions that Viatorian Fr. Mark Francis, superior general of the Clerics of St. Viator sees as difficulties in the universal indult. In general there are a lot of interesting questions about a universal indult, canon law, and norms published by the Bishop’s conference. Some of Fr. Francis the questions are valid, but some just seem to me to be odd.

What about church architecture? “It’s difficult to celebrate the Tridentine rite in a Vatican II space,” Francis said. “Will we have to move the altars back and forth? Will we have to install altar rails?”

First off there is not such thing as a Vatican II space since the council never spoke about changing the arrangement of the sanctuary in the first place. My parish celebrates both the indult Mass and the new Mass without any difficulties at all. Altar rails are of course not required. You could still have people receive kneeling without having an altar rail in place. Just as not having kneelers does not mean that you can’t kneel. Though the idea of folding altar rails strikes me as rather funny. The very idea of movable altars is laughable as if you can change the sanctuary like you would the set of a television show. Besides Canon law requires that the altar be unmovable in the first place.

Finally, if the church allows traditionalists attached to the old Mass to hold onto their customs despite official changes in policy, what would prevent more liberal Catholics, for example, who oppose the new, more “Roman” English translation of the post-Vatican II Mass from requesting permission to use the previous English version? “Are we creating a procedural monster?”

This is just plain ridiculous to compare the normative Mass for over 500 years to a bad English translation. Apples and Oranges are much closer in comparison than this widely disparate comparison.

Though the idea does spark in me some funny thoughts. This would be great fun to turn the tables on progressives preferring the less accurate translation. Now instead of calling a use of the poor ICEL translation an indult Mass, how about instead calling it an insult Mass? The language surely insults anybody that looks at the Latin it is suppose to be based on. That they would have to apply to their Bishop for the insult. Thinking twice insult should never be associated with the Mass, so I will just call it the ICEL Mass. I can see Bishop Bruskewitz having great fun granting to ICEL Mass to those "attached" to it or for those who "nostalgic" for it. I really enjoy using the words "attached" and "nostalgic" in this circumstance considering how many times it is used in connection with those who love the Tridentine Rite Mass. Getting back to Bishop Bruskewitz and like-minded bishops they could grant permission for the ICEL Mass in a small church in need of repairs in a parish inconvenient to the majority in the diocese. That the ICEL Mass could be celebrated once or twice a month. And as soon as the priest who says the ICEL Mass retires or gets transferred permission for it will immediately end.

I would just love to see the faces on progressives when they get treated exactly as so many advocates of the Tridentine Rite. Maybe their face will become an about-face when put into the same circumstances.

Coming back to Fr. Mark Francis I find it ironic that a liturgical writer such as he who writes much about multicultural liturgy and who has taught at the infamous L.A. Religious Ed Conference has a problem with Latin culture. That somehow we can have Hawaiian dancers and every permutations for multiple cultures for the purpose of inculturation yet throwing into the mix the Pian Rite and all of a sudden this would cause serious consequences. Though I can’t say I am much surprised since he actually wrote an article once called There’s more to the Real Presence than the Eucharist. One of those pieces so popular by liturgists to downplay the Body, Soul, Blood and Divinity of Christ and place at almost the same level of the presence of Christ in the congregation and other forms of presences.