A Fantastic Article on the Liturgy

[Reader Antonius]

Christ is Risen!

Blessed Paschal octave to every Catholic who observed Pascha yesterday! (I know there are some Eastern Catholics on older calendars still preparing for the high holy days).

Given the "qurantine," I spent most of the Triduum following the Supreme Pontiff's liturgical celebrations in Rome. Naturally, they were scaled-back in many ways, but the basic form of the OF of the Roman Rite was, of course, observed. It was a great blessing, I must say, to be able to watch the Pope of Rome celebrate the ancient rites of Holy Week.

The experience though got me thinking about liturgy. This was not difficult to do for me, lol. It also reminded me of a truly remarkable and balanced article written by a former Dominican confrere of mine. He is a priest of the Order from Byzantine roots, and he is extremely well-read and knowledgeable. He is also a very good brother (he certainly was to me!) and a stellar priest with a heart for God's People.

His article, entitled The Form of the Liturgy, is published over at Homiletic and Pastoral Review. I cannot recommend it enough, and I hope it is widely read and shared. As you might imagine, my own opinions align rather closely to it. That said, it did get me thinking about some things that I thought might make for good conversation. I suspect there have been many threads on the liturgy since I've been absent from OBOB. Yet, I hope that this one will be helpful among them.

Some initial thoughts based on the article:

I should begin by being transparent: I am a devotee of the Ordinary Form (OF) of the Roman Rite. I have spent considerable time reading and studying about the liturgical reforms–and while I do have critiques of my own (many listed in Father's article)–I much prefer the current liturgical books of the Roman Rite to earlier ones. That said, while I am not a personal votary of the Extraordinary Form (EF), I believe the EF should be widely available to those who request it. Not only does this provide access for the faithful to reverent Masses (often a refuge for many facing the vapidity of poorly celebrated OF Masses), it also helps train priests in the ars celebrandi (art of celebrating) and liturgical continuity of the Roman liturgical tradition.

What I liked best about Father's treatment in the article though is that it was eminently balanced and helpful. In recent times, we have a number of conservative Catholic commentators all but reject the entire liturgical reform in favor of a restoration of the 1962 books (or pre-1955, or earlier). Several of these commentators have, in my opinion, done incalculable damage to any attempts to better the liturgical reforms (the so-called "reform of the reform" movement). At the same time, Father does not spare those radicals who would prefer to do away with any liturgical continuity in the liturgical books and celebrations of the Roman Rite. He laments (as I do, greatly) the poverty of most celebrations of the OF and the fact that such a state of affairs is sorely unnecessary. Instead, he strikes a middle-ground (virtue lies in the middle, after all!) much as Pope Benedict XVI did, and he shows the value of the newer rites without denigrating the older ones (and vice-versa).

In my humble opinion this is a way of thinking that must be returned to (insofar as it has been abandoned), rather than a radicalization on one end or the other. Additionally, Father notes the legitimacy of criticizing both older and newer forms of the Roman Rite in the Church, and, indeed, demonstrates in a few places how salutary such honesty and frank discussion can be. Again, in my humble opinion, such conversations must go forward in honesty and openness, with respect for all speakers. This, I feel, was done well by Father in his article.

Anyway, I'll leave it there for the moment. Hopefully what I have shared is helpful (and, dare I hope, agreeable). I know I might be stepping into a mine-field even talking about liturgy, but I sorely wish and believe that such a thing need not be. Iron sharpens iron, after all.

May the gentle light of Paschal glory shine on everyone!

 

[Shane R]

I read that a couple of days ago and enjoyed it.

 

[Reader Antonius]

I read that a couple of days ago and enjoyed it.

I know Fr. James Dominic would appreciate your comment. Blessed Paschaltide!

 

[Julian of Norwich]

I am a convert from Episcopalianism (about 20 years ago now) and the OF at every Roman Catholic Church I've ever been to (and I have lived/travelled quite a bit up and down the Pacific Coast) has been dry, without any awe. I honestly don't know what can be done. It is no better (and very, very similar to) a low-church Episcopalian service or a Methodist service or Lutheran service (without the good sermons). I just don't know. Changing some prayers isn't going to bring back that awe that worship of Him deserves. Some priests have extended silences, so people just make up their grocery lists in their minds (I even have a couple of times!). I just don't know what can be done.

 

[Julian of Norwich]

If the OF could be practiced ad orientum and majestically like the Anglican ordinariate does. That would help a lot, but I very sincerely doubt you'd get most priests to do that! Not on this coast anyway.

 

[Gnarwhal]

If the OF could be practiced ad orientum and majestically like the Anglican ordinariate does. That would help a lot, but I very sincerely doubt you'd get most priests to do that! Not on this coast anyway.

That's been my thought, that the Ordinariate Mass is the realization of what (I imagine) Vatican II originally intended for a vernacular Mass. The rubrics are much the same as the Tridentine Mass, but they say it in English (and a more proper, less vulgar form of English at that).

 

[Shane R]

That's been my thought, that the Ordinariate Mass is the realization of what (I imagine) Vatican II originally intended for a vernacular Mass. The rubrics are much the same as the Tridentine Mass, but they say it in English (and a more proper, less vulgar form of English at that).

I know of an Eastern Rite deacon who sometimes advocates that the Ordinariate Missal should be the standard for the whole of English speaking Western Rite Catholicism.

 

[Reader Antonius]

I am a convert from Episcopalianism (about 20 years ago now) and the OF at every Roman Catholic Church I've ever been to (and I have lived/travelled quite a bit up and down the Pacific Coast) has been dry, without any awe. I honestly don't know what can be done.

I can definitely feel for you. I would say by way of encouragement that many good things can be done. Some of them are suggested or implied by Father's article, but there are many other things too.

One major problem reflected in your post that I want to zero in on however is this: Lack of liturgical formation. In the 70s, 80s, (and even into the 90s and the new millennium) most seminaries had abysmal liturgical formation programs. Part of this was paucity in the rubrical directions of the OF (we had become used, in the West, to very clear and rather minute directions on how to celebrate liturgy; without those we seem to have gotten confused and disoriented), but another part was simply poor formation. Seminarians were simply not taught how to offer Mass and other sacraments in continuity with the Roman liturgical tradition. As Father points out, it is not exceedingly difficult to offer the OF in that continuity, but it is something that must be learned and taught. Even the EF requires training and preparation. All liturgy does, in many ways.

Were there to be a general restoration of pre-Vatican II rites in the Latin Church as a whole, we would still have many of the same problems (along with new ones). The lack of formation would mean many priests would probably offer the older rites much as they were offered prior to Vatican II in some places: that is, sloppily and with many omissions and the like. Part of the reason why, happily, so many EF Masses are so reverent and well-celebrated is that the priests offering them are well-trained in the rubrics and liturgical traditions. The same can be done in the OF (in some cases, even more beauty can be brought to bear with greater chant and incense).

But training will be needed. Or so I believe.

 

[Reader Antonius]

If the OF could be practiced ad orientum and majestically like the Anglican ordinariate does. That would help a lot, but I very sincerely doubt you'd get most priests to do that! Not on this coast anyway.

The good news is it very well can be done! I have seen in done many times, and there are many more improvements that could be made in the prayers and rubrics. And even if such improvements were not made, great liturgists like Bishop Peter Elliot and others have shown that the new liturgical books not only can be celebrated in continuity, they are expected to be (i.e. they only work best when done in continuity). Father does a good job of discussing that briefly in the article.

But those improvements, in my humble opinion, should be made. And they, as Father says, can be made by the flick of a pen in Rome. This is why education, sharing experiences, and discussion among the various liturgical opinions in the Church is so crucial. We can't progress by retreating into non-viable and radicalized ends of the spectrum, as it were.

 

[Reader Antonius]

That's been my thought, that the Ordinariate Mass is the realization of what (I imagine) Vatican II originally intended for a vernacular Mass. The rubrics are much the same as the Tridentine Mass, but they say it in English (and a more proper, less vulgar form of English at that).

There is a good argument, in my opinion, that the Ordinariate Missal reflects much of what Vatican II sought to accomplish. But there are also good arguments that the restorative desires of Sacrosanctum Concilium (later reflected in the writings of Pope St. Paul VI and Pope St. John Paul the Great) also are reflected well (if imperfectly) in the OF as it exists on the books.

It is hard to judge what was "expected" or "desired" of the Council, in my mind. What I think really matters is what the conciliar documents say. To that end, comparing rites with Sacrosanctum Concilium (even the EF) and other documents is very helpful for the future. That said, it cannot be denied that the Ordinariate's liturgical books are in keeping with much of Vatican II envisioned, and, I would argue, they were received as such.

And still yet, I cannot foresee any situation in which the Patriarchate of Rome would adopt a heavily Anglicized variation of the Roman Rite as its own Ordinary Form. That also said, there is so much that the Ordinariate books and experience can teach us. It is similar to the historical development of the Roman Rite wherein the Gallinicanized Roman Rite used in northern Europe became the rite of Rome itself. So this is not liturgically unprecedented. I go back and forth, obviously lol.

 

[Julian of Norwich]

We can't progress by retreating into non-viable and radicalized ends of the spectrum, as it were.

I agree, however it seems that no-one, on this coast anyway, cares about the liturgy except the radicals. One, not the only reason by any means, reason I converted was the expectation/hope for liturgy that would be awesome enough for true worship of Him. There were other very important reasons, but that was certainly one. When going to the mass to the church that I entered through, I just thought there would be numerous other churches that had a better liturgy than what I was used to. Didn't happen although when I saw, on the web, churches that used the liturgy of the Anglican Ordinariate I had hope. Nope. Not to be (and no Anglican Ordinariate anywhere I have lived on this coast). Rubrics, except for in a few parishes, were mostly right on. You're right about the liturgical training and I've certainly heard of the bad masses in the EF pre-OF. What do you suggest? It seems that you're right about the liturgical training (and the bishops of the various dioceses would need it, too). Numerous workshops? I am a proponent of masses done ad orientum, but a majority of bishops won't allow that (maybe too EF for them). Incense use is very infrequent and unless it's modern "church music" that's all that's done at mass. Generally, people here say the lack of beauty is due to the parish not having the money, but it's true of every OF I've been to. Liturgy is not a priority!

 

[Reader Antonius]

What do you suggest? It seems that you're right about the liturgical training (and the bishops of the various dioceses would need it, too). Numerous workshops? I am a proponent of masses done ad orientum, but a majority of bishops won't allow that (maybe too EF for them). Incense use is very infrequent and unless it's modern "church music" that's all that's done at mass. Generally, people here say the lack of beauty is due to the parish not having the money, but it's true of every OF I've been to. Liturgy is not a priority!

That is a more difficult question as I do not have insight into the general working of curias and higher echelons of ecclesiastical life.

However it seems to me (and take it with a grain of salt) that the best procedure in moving forward is having both a "top-down" and "bottom-up" approach. What do I mean by this? Well, it is longstanding tradition that each local Bishop is in charge of the health of the liturgy in his diocese. In that sense, it should be up to him and his presbyterate to ensure that liturgical standards are enforced. But that's not the only solution, nor a very good one (I think). Firstly, there are some bishops who are...lax in liturgical issues. Secondly, trying to enforce a totally top-down regimen of liturgical standards is not likely to be easily accepted among many parishes (particularly of a more, for lack of a better term, "liberal" bent). That said, I think dioceses should encourage improved liturgical training in seminaries (something already happening, actually) and even parish workshops on liturgy and liturgical formation.

Yet, there needs to be a bottom-up approach too. That will come from the laity and priests on the front-line of ecclesial life. We are already seeing this phenomenon in many dioceses around the world, notably in the developing nations. Laity and parish clergy alike need to be well-informed and formed in general in the teachings and traditions of Catholic life. In my opinion, a good formation in Catholic doctrine and ethos will inspire a desire for reverence and fidelity in liturgical expression as well.

Additionally, it is somewhat mythic to think that good liturgy necessarily requires lots of funding or expensive trappings. Actually, the reality is that any priest who is well-trained in the art of celebration is likely to have the biggest impact in the way the liturgy is celebrated (and that goes, in many ways, for any liturgical rite we use in the Church). I have seen personally how one priest can totally change the entire atmosphere of an OF Mass simply because he is trained in offering liturgy in a beautiful and traditional fashion. And this particular priest wasn't even that traditional! He simply did what was in the books, informed by the larger liturgical tradition of the West. That's it. No special vestments, books, chalices, or anything (although granted, we had "regulation materials" too), although those do help.

There is great power in properly formed priests and deacons when offering the liturgy. Similarly, great harm can be done by a priest who is poorly trained or ideologically motivated against liturgical continuity. Hence the importance of training and formation during seminary and early priestly ministry.

Lastly, we should take a lesson from the other lung of the Church. This is not to say that we should abandon our own Western and Latin traditions in favor of the East (just as we do not expect them to do likewise with their traditions), but we should take a lesson in priorities. Our weekly, even daily, liturgical celebrations should be seen as just as important in our spiritual and parochial lives as catechesis, canon law, and administrative issues. As you imply, we must prioritize liturgy. That, actually, is part of what Vatican II wanted so desperately for the Latin Church, I believe.