Priests are by default liturgists. This isn’t to say that they are by default good liturgists, but that every priest by virtue of his preparation and role in persona Christi capitis has an understanding, an appreciation, an attachment to the liturgy. I think that it would be fair to say that this is a reality that is more & more realized as the genuine fruits of Vatican II are re-discovered, practiced and properly placed within the greater context of the the Church’s tradition and doctrine.
I mention this because there seems to be a an idea prevalent in the United States – perhaps worldwide – that the interpretation and understanding of the liturgy stands apart from any Catholic practice prior to 1965 and only in iterations commonly agreed on by common opinion. In short, that the liturgy is defined by the modern age and its experts.
The evidence of this paradigm is evident in many parishes, possibly still the majority in the United States. Once-immutable words are changed according to the whims of what feels right, what seems ‘pastoral’, what appeals to the local assembly.
I remember when it finally hit home just how important the sacrament of penance truly was and that living – and dying – in a state of grace was not just something written in the Catechism, but a genuine necessity for salvation. The reception of absolution became real in a new way and one that could no longer be taken for granted. So you can imagine my shock, disillusionment and even anger when I began to realize that some priests did not offer absolution validly. Here I was, among fellow penitents looking for absolution from our sins – and these pastors saw fit to change the words of absolution away from the form given by the Church (CCC 1449). Nothing soured a good confession worse than reaching the end and realizing that my sins were not forgiven. There’s no ‘go in peace’ from that.
Similarly, it is not hard to look from Mass to Mass and sometimes hear not just ancillary prayers of the Mass being changed, but the words of consecration. There’s a terrible joke aimed at one of the more prominent religious communities of the Church that asks “What is the only thing that never changes when they celebrate the Mass?” and answers “the bread and the wine”. Its only funny until you realize that this is all too true of many Masses across religious and diocesan boundaries. Then its tragic on a monumental scale.
The post-modern mentality of subjective truth is one of the most destructive forces against Truth. Post-modernism essentially makes the claim that truth does not stand apart as something in and of itself but instead is defined by each person. We make our own realities according to our own experiences and opinions.
The many alternate versions of Lieutenant Worf.
If you’ve ever watch Star Trek: The Next Generation (incidentally, the best of the five iterations) – you might remember the episode titled ‘Parallels‘. In it, Worf travels through space-time fissure that causes him to jump between universes and ultimately begins to merge all of the universes into one. If the crew(s) of the Enterprise hadn’t figured out how to repair the breach (and of course they do), the result would have been the annihilation of all the universes, because they can’t all exist in the same place.
And this is the reality that current generations are beginning to realize: not everyone gets to be right about what they have chosen to put forward as true. And when it comes to liturgy, there can also only be one proper way to worship, not many.
The proposition that many fail to accept is that the liturgy is given meaning not by those who celebrate or participate in it, but by Him who it is directed towards. The liturgy revolves around God alone. Every word, gesture, posture and movement in the liturgy stems from this meaning.
Take the sacrament of Baptism, the core words of the liturgy: “N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” (CCC 1240). What changes if this formula is changed to something like “N., I baptize you in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier.”?
Well for one, those are dopey names for the individual Persons of the Trinity. More alarmingly, these new names imply isolated participation in each action named according to the Person indicated. So the Father is solely the creator – and not participating in redemption and sanctification. Likewise the Son and the Holy Spirit have been relegated to two-bit roles in the history of salvation rather than participating as one. Moreover, we’re no longer talking about Persons, but actions. And at the end of the day, an attempted baptism in these words – like changes made to the prayer of absolution or the words of institution at Mass – make the sacrament invalid.
The liturgy, like all things based on objective truth, stands apart from our interpretation of it. This isn’t to say that it can’t speak to us personally or individually, but that it has an objective meaning, purpose and form. Every word of the Mass – or any sacrament – intentionally expresses what we believe (Lex orandi, lex credendi). Our role isn’t to make meaning or to change the meaning to fit our own purposes. Its to find the meaning that is already there.
The next time you participate in Mass – or any celebration of a sacrament or rite, especially in the liturgy – pay attention to what is being said. Watch what is being done, both by the clergy and the laity. What does it mean, objectively? Ultimately, if properly celebrated, the work of the Church is not to draw our gaze back onto ourselves, but upwards toward God, who is Truth – and who is One.
- Fr. Maurer
PrintPrint
emailemail
Add to favoritesAdd to favorites
FacebookFacebook
TwitterTwitter
Well said Father, I’ve often fantasized of reciprocating the ad lib behavior while at Mass, or better yet getting 100 people to all ad lib as they see fit, just to make the point. Thankfully my own parish never has problems with the Liturgy being “personalized”, but I do attend Mass elsewhere from time to time in my travels and I know how blessed I am to have such a good parish.
I could never live out my fantasy but… it would sure make an interesting skit or Youtube video. In watching the video perhaps all those priests and liturgists who wrongly believe the Mass is “theirs” to adjust as they see fit would gain some insight in to why they are better off “saying the black, doing the red”.
Liturgical abuse is the most common form of clericalsim.
“The proposition that many fail to accept is that the liturgy is given meaning not by those who celebrate or participate in it, but by Him who it is directed towards. The liturgy revolves around God alone. Every word, gesture, posture and movement in the liturgy stems from this meaning.”
YES! So true! I work in a parish and it’s like pulling teeth (especially as we get closer to 1st Communion) to help people understand this fact they have never heard. After all…every week in nearly every song we’re singing about our incredible us-ness. Lex orandi…lex credendi indeed.
And on the Creator/Redeemer/Sanctifier business – that was the Sabellian heresy condemned in what, the 3rd Century? I know there was a parish locally that was doing this and they had to go contact a LOT of people to inquire as to whether they wanted to be baptized for REAL this time. I don’t think it’s happening anymore around here. I hope not.
Father,
Go git ‘em !! My husband and I are significantly older than you and so many of our newer priests. We were taught these truths you wrote about by the older, faithful, holy priests who kept what the Church taught as sacred through these last many years. To see you write this and to hear a recent homily by a visiting priest who is also young and so faithful is a huge grace and gift for those of us who truly thought we would not see the pendulum swing back until our children were our age……but it’s already happening!!!! Unbelievable!!! The youth (under 40) are bringing in that Springtime and it’s a joy.
Maybe as we age we will not have to be on guard like we have for the past 25 yrs, but be able to watch the flowers bloom in John Paul the Great’s New Springtime !!!.
Blessings on you with a thankful heart from us,
Lisa
The new springtime is a thing to behold – I am grateful for the ongoing shift that will help us all be relieved from guard duty!
(I admit to being surprised that you didn’t take my bait regarding the jab of which Star Trek iteration is the best – I wrote that with certain ‘significantly older’ folks in mind!)
I was gonna say something about your indiscretion against the orignal Star Trek but I felt it best to just let it go. But, since you bring it up again…. here is my take (as expressed by Mr. Spock)
I find that there is insufficient data to properly process this query. In order to determine which series is “better” I would require subsequent data including the standardized system of measurement you are utilizing to determine quality.
Absent the presence of a standardized system of measurement I would then have to infer that your question is asked in reference to the illogical Human emotion concerning “preference”. If preference is indeed the case, as I have inferred, many things must be taken into account in order to extrapolate an appropriate preferential response.
A most useful tool in terms of decision-making is the productivity construct reffered to as the “Pros and Cons List”. Such a list extended to both series might proceed as follows:
Star Trek: The Original Series:
==Pros==
–>Revolutionary
–>Unprecedented
–>Cerebral
–>Humorous yet thought-provoking
–>Memorable characters
–>Diversity in casting (unprecedented at the time)
–>Good story-telling
==Cons==
–>Poor technology hampered much of the story-telling capabilities
–>Poor funding
–>Short time within to work (The series only lasted 3 seasons)
–>Pioneers often are fated to failure only to be appreciated after many years
Star Trek: The Next Generation
==Pros==
–>Excellent funding and technology
–>Impressive costume design (starfleet and alien)
–>Able to explore many more stories due to technological capabilities
–>Lasted 7 seasons allowing characters to be much more familiar and explored in depth
==Cons==
–>Lacked the familiar feelings displayed in the Original Series
–>Became more adventure-oriented as opposed to thought provocation
–>Drier acting on the part of Captain Picard in comparison to that of Captain Kirk
–>The lack of a Vulcan crew member
Given this proposed listing of only a few of the myriad qualities of both extraordinary series it is possible to place perspective upon the feelings of preference. I would calculate my preference to lie more in favor of the Original Series, however I still enjoy The Next Generation. The Original may be overrated in your opinion depending on which series you viewed first. Therefore your judgement may be clouded by preconceived sentiments formed upon your earlier exposure to the Next Generation.
However Gene Roddenberry was the creator of each series, and, given enough time it can be surmised that story-telling would have increased had the Original Series been given more seasons with which to work. It is also statistically significant that technology played an important role in the story-telling of each series, the advantage lying with the improved technology of The Next Generation.
It would be unwise to forget that The Next Generation is only in existence as a direct result of the Original Series’ popularity.
Nevertheless the illogicality of this entire premise renders a correct response out of the question. There may be no correct response as this is a debate of preference without logical merit. In that regard, you would do well to keep a proverbial “open-mind” when considering the responses you receive. By so doing you may be able to overcome the illogical human vice of partiality based upon opinion.
Live Long and Prosper \\//
Source(s):
The inviolable tenets of Logic
Steve,
As McCoy said, “You can’t evaluate a man by logic alone.”! I’m afraid the same must be said for other things as well.
(And yes, the irony of using an original series quote to justify the superiority of the later series is not lost on me!
)
- Fr. Maurer
“Similarly, it is not hard to look from Mass to Mass and sometimes hear not just ancillary prayers of the Mass being changed, but the words of consecration. There’s a terrible joke aimed at one of the more prominent religious communities of the Church that asks “What is the only thing that never changes when they celebrate the Mass?” and answers “the bread and the wine”. Its only funny until you realize that this is all too true of many Masses across religious and diocesan boundaries. Then its tragic on a monumental scale.”
I have heard of this, but is it really that common? That is kind of scary. What are they saying instead? What, then, is the bare minimum for the consecration to be valid (meaning if I don’t hear at least “x” then it is still bread and wine and not Jesus)?
On the lighter side, Steve’s Spock post and Fr. Maurer’s reply made me smile.
Is it really common? I couldn’t speak for our archdiocese. I’m sorry to say that I think it does. Across the country, especially in certain more ‘progressive’ areas (southern California, for example), it happens far too often.
For consecration to be valid, the words of institution must not be altered, there must be valid matter (wine of the proper composition and unleaven wheat bread) and a priest, bishop, cardinal or the pope) Redemptionis Sacramentum expressly forbids this:
With regards to determining validity, pay attention to these words:
“Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.”
“Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”
The good news is that the more of the faithful that know how the liturgy should be celebrated, the more priests will be encouraged (and should be – charitably!) to do so!