I enjoy the lively and healthy debate that is often generated on this site, not merely amongst those who add comments to the posts but also amongst our regular bloggers. In recent months we have crossed friendly swords on issues as diverse as love, sex, film, art, Shakespeare, and the liturgy. With regard to the last of these, I’d like to cross a friendly sword with our regular blogger, Sophia, who posted something a few weeks ago, arguing for the superiority of the Novus Ordo over the Old Rite.
Let me lay my own liturgical cards on the table. I see the liturgy exactly as I believe that Pope Benedict sees it in The Spirit of the Liturgy. At any rate, I have always agreed with everything that I’ve heard or read from Ratzinger or Benedict on liturgical matters.
These are my liturgical preferences: I prefer to kneel for Communion and receive on the tongue; I believe that Mass should always be celebrated ad orientem; I prefer Latin to the vernacular; I prefer Gregorian Chant or polyphony to modern liturgical music; and, most controversially, I prefer the Old Rite to the Novus Ordo. That being said, we attend the Novus Ordo Mass on Sunday, even though we are blessed to have the Old Rite offered every Sunday in another church in our area. This indicates my contentment with the Novus Ordo when it’s celebrated with reverence, ad orientem, and with beauty. We go to the Old Rite about once a month or so in order to remain au fait and comfortable with the Extraordinary Form, as it is now called. I believe that most people (but I’m not including Sophia here) are uncomfortable with the Old Rite because they don’t know what’s happening on the altar and what their own responses should be. This is not a good or valid reason for shunning the Church’s Tradition. It is the duty of Catholics to be comfortable with the Church’s liturgical heritage and that must surely mean the desire to know the Old Rite better and the taking of practical steps to attain that knowledge, if it’s possible to do so in their area.
Although I prefer as much Latin as possible in the liturgy, I believe that the orientation of the Mass is more important than the language in which it is celebrated. I once stated this to Father Fessio, one of the most outspoken proponents of the Novus Ordo, and he agreed with me wholeheartedly and emphatically. Speaking of Father Fessio, I would say that the reverence with which he celebrates the Latin Novus Ordo is the positive benchmark by which I judge the liturgies of all other priests!
Such are my liturgical ramblings and my friendly contribution to a healthy debate. As a means of signing off, I’m appending a link to a newly-ordained priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter, speaking about his vocation and the importance of the liturgy. If the Church continues to attract young men of this calibre the future look rosy indeed. Here’s the link: http://en.gloria.tv/?media=301844
Dear Joseph,
The priest is In Persona Christi. At the Last Supper I am sure Christ faced the apostles. As depicted in renaissance painting.
Also, I think I am right in saying that in the early church the initial practice was to face the people.
“At the Last Supper I am sure Christ faced the apostles. As depicted in renaissance painting.”
Oh, were you there? Was Leonardo?
And should we therefore recline at table? Or eat some roast lamb and bitter herbs at Mass as well?
The early Church offered Mass wherever they could. When we return to having to receive the sacraments in inner rooms and holes in the ground, we can position people however they will fit in the space available. Until then, we might remember that those times are not these times, and that Tradition is not the same as antiquarianism.
Wasn’t the Last Supper Christ INSTITUTING the mass?
‘Until then, we might remember that those times are not these times’
But these times (since V2) we have had the practice of versus populum. Will you follow? will you obey? The Church has pronounced on this.
‘and that Tradition is not the same as antiquarianism’
So you allow for some practices in the Church to be ‘antiquated’? I don’t.
Mass is mass. Once you start to ‘prefer’ (a conscious act) one over the other you’re in difficulty. It’s a sin against charity to sit there begrudgingly, not partake.
I listen to the latin, I listen to English, both ok. I happily accept the priest ad orientem, the priest versus populum.
I am happy with both.
I don’t go to a rite, I go to mass.
What’s wrong with-“Lord of the Dance”?
Mathew 11:17: ‘We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced’
Sophia, Our family sings those wonderful old hymns every day during our evening prayers. We use the Adoremus Hymnal. I prefer chant and polyphony during the liturgy but there is a place for great hymns too. We agree!
Dear Mr. Pearce–
I think that if more people (re-)experienced Mass “ad orientem,” they would come to agree with you.
In my experience, the Eucharistic Prayer prayed to the Father while facing the people diminishes the “sacerdotal” identity of the priest and at the same time creates a contradictory connection to the assembly, such that it appears the priest is at certain points merely reciting the prayer to the assembly or telling them the “story” of the institution of the Eucharist. Mass “ad orientem” ensures a continued sense of prayer and focus of the priest, in Persona Christi, praying to the Father through the Holy Spirit.
God bless you,
Deacon Jim R
‘forward prayer’, ‘circular prayer’
I never knew such terms existed.
Forward prayers I take it are more efficacious than circular prayers?
I thought our prayers ascended.
You ALL should really take the time and read the Spirit of the Liturgy. It’s inaccurate that the apostles where facing each other. In that time it was very common to use a horse shoe style table. The other side was left empty for the servants. The Pope talks about this on page 78 in his book.
In the Old Mass, The Priest always faces East during prayer and especially during the Eucharistic Prayer. The understanding is that it’s a forward prayer not circular.
“ In this way we obey the ancient call to prayer: Conversi ad Dominum, Turn towards the Lord!” page 83.
We have lost this in the new Mass. Overall, I highly recommend reading the Spirit of the Liturgy.
To Joseph Pearce, See you @ GK Chesterton Conference in Reno.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi
Joseph, as you might expect, I agree with most of your preferences (except, obviously, the one about the Rites!).
Question though on the music: I grew up in a parish that mixed Gregorian chant (Mass parts) with polyphony (Communion and/or Offertory) AND with old hymns: e.g., “Praise My Soul the King of Heaven,” “Now Thank We All Our God,” “Godhead Here in Hiding” [which is really an anglicized chant!], “Jesus Christ is Risen Today,” etc. Now I’m quite as against “Lord of the Dance” as the next person, but what do we say about singing proper (i.e., dignified and theologically sound) hymns in the context of the Mass?
Oh I’m with Sophia. I do think the Mass should be in the vernacular. Why should it be in Latin? Christ spoke in Aramaic, as did the first Apostles, and the New Testament was written in Greek. The Mass was originally performed in either of those languages. Aramaic and Greek should both take priority over Latin. The only reason Latin took root in the western part of the Church was because it was the vernacular. So therefore, vernacualr is what’s really being called for.
Along with with Papa Ratzinger’s book “Spirit of the Liturgy” I would heartily recommend a book Papa Ratzinger heartily recommends:
“Reform of the Roman Liturgy” by Msgr. Klaus Gamber. You can get it here:
http://www.neumannpress.com/reofroli.html
Dear Sophia,
Rather disheartening, I think.
And I thought it was just a simple innocent song of Christian joy.
Now you’ve put me right. Now I see.
It is just another example of the malign forces that have been at work since V2.
Could I ask you-is there any new thing since V2 that you have approved of?
Brava, Sophia. Brava!
Sophia
You are right about you not endorsing vernacular. There was a time gap between when I read your post and when I read Joseph’s on which I commented. For some reason – perhaps by the way Joseph framed his position – I assumed you had endorsed the vernacular. I’m sorry; I did not intend to mischaracterize your position.
You make a great point that Christ would have worshiped in Hebrew. So Latin would actually be the fourth choice if we went by original languages.
I’m not against Latin mass. I do feel that the average church goer needs to understand fully what is being said. This is why we went through the trouble of updating the translation this year. Devout people might love the Latin, but not everyone is 100% devout. I’ve always felt that those people needed Mass more than the devout. Plus I think if Latin was the only choice, it might present a barrier from others to convert over. It would actually be nice if we could have a Latin mass once a month or so. It would be beneficial if they mixed it up, but had both available.
Dear Manny,
I don’t think going by the _original_ languages is quite what we should be doing. I DO think that having a “special” language for the liturgy (as Jews at the time of Christ did) is a good idea. And for the Catholic Church, that “special language” was Latin for over fifteen hundred years.
I agree that “the average church goer needs to understand fully what is being said.” But my experience is that with the Latin Novus Ordo, the “average church goer” and the visitor (not just the “devout”) CAN understand fully. The parts of the Mass that change are said in English. The parts that don’t change are said in Latin. The Latin is audible, and the Latin and English texts are provided side-by-side in the Mass books in the pews. If my siblings who don’t speak Latin and have just learned to read (including the two who are slightly dyslexic) can follow along under these circumstances, then I don’t think that Latin per se presents a barrier to comprehension or conversion.
Dear James Morris,
I am sensing a wee bit of sarcasm in your comment, but I’ll answer your question straight regardless.
This debate BEGAN because I was saying how much I liked the (Latin) Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo is a product of Vatican II. Behold Exhibit #1 in Things That I Like (I won’t say “approve of” since that would be awfully cheeky of me) That Came After Vatican II.
Additional exhibits, off the top of my head, include but are certainly not limited to: Theology of the Body, Mulieris Dignitatem, Centissimus Annus, the Regensburg Address, the Anglican Ordinariate, and generally most of the things that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have written.
Are those all “new” enough for you?
“Ever-ancient, ever-new …” (Augustine)
Dear Sophia,
No, I meant to the mass. The changes to the mass since V2. You say you don’t like communion in the hand. What about the Sign of peace? What about receiving Christ under both species?
You say don’t like the vernacular. I am still unsure which you perfer-the priest versus populam, or ad orientem.
Hymns. Is there a popular new hymn you like? What do you think of ‘Here I am, Lord’ ?
I’ve just been reading the words to ‘The Lord of the Dance’
I danced in the morning when the world was young
I danced in the moon and the stars and the sun
I came down from heaven and I danced on the earth
At Bethlehem I had my birth
Dance, dance, wherever you may be
I am the lord of the dance, said he
And I lead you all, wherever you may be
And I lead you all in the dance, said he
I danced for the scribes and the Pharisees
They wouldn’t dance, they wouldn’t follow me
I danced for the fishermen James and John
They came with me so the dance went on
Dance, dance, wherever you may be
I am the lord of the dance, said he
And I lead you all, wherever you may be
And I lead you all in the dance, said he
I danced on the Sabbath and I cured the lame
The holy people said it was a shame
They ripped, they stripped, they hung me high
Left me there on the cross to die
Dance, dance, wherever you may be
I am the lord of the dance, said he
And I lead you all, wherever you may be
And I lead you all in the dance, said he
I danced on a Friday when the world turned black
It’s hard to dance with the devil on your back
They buried my body, they thought I was gone
But I am the dance, and the dance goes on
Dance, dance, wherever you may be
I am the lord of the dance, said he
And I lead you all, wherever you may be
And I lead you all in the dance, said he
They cut me down and I leapt up high
I am the life that will never, never die
I’ll live in you if you’ll live in me
I am the Lord of the dance, said he
Dance, dance, wherever you may be
I am the lord of the dance, said he
And I lead you all, wherever you may be
And I lead you all in the dance, said he
Doesn’t seem so subversive to me.
Dear James Morris,
The devil can quote Scripture to his aid! (And by “the devil” I mean, not you, but the author of “Lord of the Dance”!)
My father once pointed out that the quote in that song (if it is indeed a quote from Scripture) gets the context all wrong. Jesus is comparing “this generation” to “children sitting in the market place” who blame Him and John the Baptist for not going along with their moods. They are, in Jesus’ analogy, annoyed at Jesus because He WON’T dance.
Besides, all this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/2012/04/just-because-theyre-kids-doesnt-mean-they-are-incapable-of-singing-ave-maria.html
Rather enlightening, I thought.
Dear Manny,
What gave you the idea I was pro-vernacular?! My two posts (see here for the second: https://staustinreview.org/ink_desk/archives/saying_the_black/) and my comments on this have been pro LATIN Novus Ordo.
We’re so reactionary on this blog. I think my position on the liturgy is probably the most liberal *cough cough* to date (unless we count Dena’s: https://staustinreview.org/ink_desk/archives/liturgyand_strong_opinions_about_it/).
But we can certainly have a Latin debate!
For starters, it’s fairly normal for religions to use an older language for their liturgy. Jesus spoke Aramaic, but he would have worshiped in Hebrew. So why shouldn’t we speak English but worship in Latin? (Or, if you insist, Greek. Kyrie Eleison, and all that.)
Dear James Morris,
Ah, comprendo. I shall give you a two comment answer, first on the Mass and then on the music.
To your general question: Again, I like the Novus Ordo itself. I think it is a more streamlined, accessible liturgy than the Tridentine, and–when it is said with reverence–no less beautiful and elevating. I like Fr. Z’s maxim on the Mass: “Say the black, do the red, and nobody gets hurt.” (Hence my post titles–a little homage to him.)
Regarding the changes to which you refer …
(1) Communion in the hand. It’s not a bad thing (I have plenty of friends, very good people, who receive in the hand). But for my part, since the host is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, I don’t feel competent to touch it. (I know priests and Eucharistic ministers hold it all the time–but that’s them, and this is me.)
In addition, think about the symbolism of receiving in the hand versus on the tongue. We are handed things by our superiors, sure, but also by friends, equals, and inferiors. The only time we are FED is by our parents when we are very small. Since we are receiving God in the Eucharist, there’s something very appropriate about that childlike posture–the _being fed_ posture of receiving on the tongue. It’s like being kissed. It’s vulnerable. It’s beautiful.
Finally, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI preferred to give Communion on the tongue. (Check out videos of their public Masses.)
(2) The Sign of Peace. I’m not against it, or for it, particularly. If it brings one closer to God, hurrah for that! If one finds that it turns into an extended gossiping session between oneself and Charlene the Big Hat Lady that intrudes halfway into “Lamb of God” (I exaggerate not), then maybe it’s not such a hot idea (for oneself).
(3) Receiving Christ under both species. (A) Medical reasons. I have friends who are allergic to gluten, and so cannot receive Communion under the species of bread. For them, obviously they should be able to drink from the Chalice (or be allowed to supply their own gluten-free wafers–which route they go depends on what parish they’re at, and what arrangements they make with the priest). (B) Tincture. I know priests who give Communion under both species by dipping the Body in the Blood and placing it on the tongue. Usually this is only done on feast days like Corpus Christi. No problem; whatever. (C) Separate Chalice. I don’t have liturgical issues with this, but as a practical matter I find it a little … yeugh, for sanitary reasons. The idea of putting my mouth on a cup where Sweet-and-Snotty Seven-Year-Old Sarah just put hers is rather off-putting, to say the least.
One final note on the species question: In a Protestant communion service, it is important to receive both the bread and the wine because they are SYMBOLS of two separate things–the bread of the body and the wine of the blood. For Catholics, Christ is fully present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in each and every particle of the host and each and every drop of the consecrated wine. There is therefore no compelling reason to receive under both species, any more than there is a compelling reason to receive a certain quantity of either species. It’s all Christ, and all of Christ, however and however much you receive. So while I’ve got nothing against receiving under both species (except that personal sanitary squeamishness mentioned above) I do think it’s rather pointless to insist on receiving under both.
(4) I prefer ad orientem. I’m with Joseph on this, as I mentioned elsewhere. Nowhere in the rubrics of the Novus Ordo is the priest instructed to face the people. Technically, versus populam falls into the same category as Communion in the hand and receiving under both species: the Vatican never mandated any of these practices, but priests and bishops just started doing them on their own.
OK, comment #2 for Mr. Morris.
New hymns. No, I can’t think of any new hymns that I like. Problem #1: The music. I am a musician. Most new music stinks. It is saccharine. It’s not even good as a pop or Broadway melody–and even a GOOD pop or Broadway melody would be inappropriate at Mass. Problem #2: The words. I’m not saying they’re evil or “subversive” (YOUR word, my friend). But they aren’t exactly awe-inspiring.
Look at some older hymns:
Be thou my vision, oh Lord of my heart,
All else be naught to me save that thou art,
Thou my best thought, by day or by night,
Waking and sleeping, thy presence my light.
****
Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore,
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more:
Come to do thee service, lo lies here a heart,
Lost, all lost in wonder, at the God thou art.
****
Praise God from whom all blessings flow.
Praise Him all creatures here below.
Praise Him above ye heavenly host.
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
****
Alleluia, sing to Jesus, His the scepter, His the throne;
Alleluia, His the triumph; His the victory alone.
Hark, the songs of peaceful Zion thunder like a mighty flood;
Jesus out of every nation hath redeemed us by His blood.
****
Crown Him with many crowns, the Lamb upon his throne,
Hark how the heavenly anthem drowns all music but its own,
Awake, my soul and sing, of Him who died for thee,
And hail him as thy matchless King through all eternity.
****
Let all mortal flesh keep silence, and with fear and trembling stand.
Ponder nothing earthly minded, for with blessing in His hand,
Christ our God to earth descendeth, our full homage to demand.
****
Maiden yet a mother, daughter of thy Son,
High beyond all other, lowlier is none;
Thou the consummation planned by God’s decree
When our lost creation nobler rose in thee.
****
Sing of Mary, pure and lowly, Virgin Mother undefiled,
Sing of God’s own Son most holy, who became her little child.
Fairest child of fairest mother! God the Lord who came to earth!
Word made flesh, our very brother, took our nature at His birth.
Again, I’m not saying that newer hymns are BAD. But they’re not this good! The image of God that we get from older hymns is–well, rather transcendent. Yes, he is “Lord of our heart” and “our very brother”; but he’s also someone to approach with “fear and trembling,” a King, a Redeemer to a people that NEEDS redemption.
Regarding the two specific songs that you mentioned:
“Here I Am, Lord.” I’m not keen on hymns that require us to sing Jesus’ words–sometimes there’s a danger that we’ll start identifying with Him a little too much. (Every time “I the Lord of sea and sky” comes out of my mouth I do a double take. “Really? Wait, I’m not the Lord of–oh, oh I get it. We’re quoting Jesus. They just forgot to put in the quotation marks.”) In addition, I just don’t see that the music matches what’s going on. I mean, “I will break their hearts of stone” is a pretty tough, awesome line. But the music sounds like the guy saying it is … well, swooning or something. If you’re going to make me sing Jesus, can’t I sing He-Man Jesus and not Buddy Jeshua?
“Lord of the Dance.” OK, I’ll bite. This IS SO subversive. Whatever dancing may be in other cultures, in our western culture it is a super-romantically-charged medium, one linked to marriage and courtship at best and to things I won’t mention on a family blog at worst. Making Jesus a DANCER is like dressing him up as Mr. Darcy (best case scenario) or Elvis (not worst case scenario, but as far as I’ll take my imagination). Yeah, it’s subversive.
Making our protagonist dance at creation, on Good Friday, etc., but never mentioning Creation or Redemption explicitely also seems a little weird. Likewise, why don’t the lyrics ever call him “Jesus” or “God”? Why be so elliptical about it?
Finally, in the longstanding tradition of Catholicism, dance does indeed have a symbolic or metaphorical place. But in that tradition Dance =/= Jesus. In that tradition, the “dance” is a dance of the planets and the blessed (see, for example, Dante’s “Paradisio”) around Jesus, who is “the Love that turns” them. Making Jesus a part of the dance, instead of its center, is a mighty big demotion, if you ask me. Subversive, you might even call such a move. Subtly subversive, perhaps, but subversive nonetheless.
Dear Sophia,
Thanks for the detailed reply.
Does this sound harsh…? Probably.
You paint a picture of yourself, sitting in the pew week after week judging a performance; and week after week it must be such a disappointment to you.
You seem not to care for communion in the hand, you seem not care for the sign of peace, you don’t care for the modern hymns, you don’t care for the new orientation of the priest, and, of course, you don’t care for the vernacular.
Really, it occurs to me, instead of concerning yourself with the orientation of the priest, you should concern yourself with your own orientation TO THE MASS. I mean your mental orientation, your mental attitude.
The mass is not a performance that you judge. You are not there to sit detached judging what is right and fitting here, how well this part is being performed. It is the wrong attitude, the wrong disposition.
What is the right disposition? HUMBLE ADORATION , SUPPLICATION,
THANKFULLNESS .
A lot of this must come from you believing that there has been a liberal conspiracy to since V2. You are suspicious of the changes when you should be embracing them like Mother Church has asked you to do.
A bigger point-I would like to say is the danger of people like us falling into INTELLECTUAL PRIDE. People like us who are interested in High Catholic culture; great literature, classical religious music, in general and we see a ‘dumbing down’ everywhere and we think this pertains to the church as well. But it doesn’t, not really. There has been a purification, a simplification maybe a better word.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear James Morris,
The only reason I gave a critique , was because you asked for my opinions. I gave them. I gave them, perhaps, with a certain habitual joie de guerre. But getting from that to a “picture of [me], sitting in the pew week after week judging a performance” is a bit of a long shot. I DON’T sit in the pew and judge. I sit there and pray. If the Mass is such as to make prayer easy, I’m grateful for it. (And indeed, in giving my critique I did look back and consider what things do and do not make prayer easy.) But my thoughts on the Mass while IN the Mass go no further than that gratitude.
I don’t believe that “there has been a liberal conspiracy since V2.” I think the culture as a whole was trending liberal, and it showed up in the liturgy as it did in fashion, education, and everywhere else.
As for dumbing down versus purification or simplification–well. That is a whole ‘nother question, but I don’t think there’s any point in getting into a debate on that fraught topic here and now.