Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Welcome back, Archbishop Lefebvre!

B16 is poised to expand the indult that allows the celebration of the Tridentine liturgy, hoping to lure back the Society of St. Pius X, whose founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, was excommunicated in 1988 after he ordained four bishops without permission.

I have to admit, I just LOVE how the Vatican makes concessions to "ultraconservatives" but demands "liberals" toe the line. After all, Lefebvre didn't just reject the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, he rejected the documents on religious freedom and ecumenism, and pretty much everything else that came from the council.

Welcome back, Archbishop Lefebvre! We're sorry; you were right all along.

Of course, if they'd give conciliar liturgists like me the same freedom for liturgical diversity, I'd embrace the new permission for the Tridentine Rite, especially since I'm quite, quite sure that the new liturgy will win any head-to-head competition (if it came to that). Remember that the most recent restrictions on the liturgy in the U.S.--from when eucharistic ministers can receive communion to how many people the presider can offer peace to--were meant to standardize liturgical practice. The Trenties get a pass on that.

The conciliar reform has been welcomed throughout the world, and even the yes-men bishops we have today have nearly unanimously said that they don't want any backward movement on this count. Besides, what the Latin Mass folks seem to forget is that most Tridentine liturgies were "low" Masses for the dead--no music, no preaching, just Father charging through in about 20 minutes. How reverent. And wait til you hear a poorly trained parish choir try to get through some chanty masterpiece. Even George Weigel will be wishing for anything by Marty Haugen!


At 3:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, so you defend the right of radical feminists to put on the Vagina Monologues, which reduces the female person to her genitalia and depicts a lesbian rape, but you cry foul if the Holy Sacrifice of the mass is said in Latin.

Free speech???

At 4:16 PM, Blogger CtotheL said...

I hardly see what free speech has to do with it--I never said Latin should be forbidden, only that it seems conservative types get a free pass on liturgical matters, while liberals are muzzled on things like inclusive language. Free speech?

I think you are oversimplifying the Vagina Monologues, but since I haven't seen the play myself, I can't say. What I will say is that, whether it reduces women to their genitalia or not, many, many--not just your straw woman "radical" feminists--women find that their experiences resonate with those depicted in the play.

At 4:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vatican II stated the Latin Rite should be preserved, a directive that was reinforced by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. Personally, I prefer the Novos Ordo mass because I find it easier to pray in the vernacular, but I also appreciate the reverence of the Latin mass. The Tridentine rite is a licit form of worship, while many of the changes instituted by progressives are not. Wheather the monologues resonate with women or not, it does not belong on a Catholic Campus. A Catholic University is a sacred place, the Blessed Sacrament resides there. If the production were to be performed in the secular arena that would be different story, but a Catholic University, while embracing free speech, should still have some decency standards. It just throws me that a few "Aves" would throw you into a tizzy, when witnessing a depiction of a Lesbian rape on a campus dedicated to Our Lady does not.

At 9:51 AM, Blogger CtotheL said...

A few "aves" don't throw me in a tizzy, and I can sing Pange lingua and Salve regina with the best of them. My point is the double standard applied to right-wing versus left-wing deviancy. Most of what conciliar liturgists have promoted in the liturgy is indeed licit; celebration of the Tridentine liturgy, which many have done without permission, has not been, until now. Of course, liceity and validity are two different questions.

One point of clarification: The "Latin rite" you refer to is not the Tridentine liturgy but the liturgical family referred to as the Latin (or Roman) rite, of which the Novus Ordo is now the official liturgy. Technically, the Novus Ordo could always be celebrated in Latin, and, indeed, the Mass of Pius V was suppressed with the promulgation of the 1969 version of the Roman Missal, now in its third Latin edition (2002). As proof that the Mass of Pius V (Tridentine Mass) was indeed suppressed, note that its use requires an indult--a permission not to follow the current liturgy of the church.

I can tell you haven't seen the Vagina Monologues, which includes more than one discussion of sexual assault against women. Remember that one in four women is a victim of a sexual assault by the time she is an adult; I certainly think that is appropriate to a play about women, even on a Catholic campus.

Finally, though I wouldn't want to take anything away from the Blessed Sacrament, ND, like all places on earth, is holy because God's holy people are there. Chicago is full of churches in which the Blessed Sacrament--and note the proper term here--is reserved. Chicago, too, is a sacred place, so unless you want to ban the Monologues from all these places...

At 4:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Latin Mass and the Tridentine mass are sometimes used interchangably, still I should be more careful in my words. Just curious, what kind of concilliar liturgical changes would you like to see? When you cite inclusive language are you refering to the people of God, God, or Jesus? Do you support self-communion? Liturgical dance? Irish step dancing??? Seriously, it happened at my parish.

A Cathoic Campus is under the direction of the Church. Chicago is under the direction of the State. Big difference.

At 4:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If it was a rape, it was a good rape..." from V-Monologues.

Some liberals (hopefully not you) are trying to lower the age of consent to 12. This play definately has an agenda.

At 4:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think we view the Eucharist differently. I see the Blessed Sacrament as a noun, the actual person of Jesus resides in the tabernacle, while you view the Eucharist as a "verb" (i.e. we should be "Eucharist" to others). Am I correct?

At 4:38 PM, Blogger CtotheL said...

Well, even JPII supported liturgical dance, at least if his big papal liturgies are our guide. (I doubt B16 does.) I of course support the use of "horizontal" inclusive language--especially since the majority of those in the assembly are women. I fail to see why anyone is against saying "sisters and brothers" instead of "brethren" or "brothers." As for God language, I don't see a need to slavishly refer to God as "he," especially since our own Catholic teaching points out that God has no gender. "Father"--the linguistic symbol we use to designate the first person of the Trinity--does not connote biological gender. I grant that replacing every "he" with "God" is clumsy, but there are, after all, many other images of God we can employ.

I also think the assembly should have the option to stand during the eucharistic prayer, as was the custom in the ancient church; that the liturgy is best celebrated in the vernacular with appopriate adaptations to local culture (Sacrosanctum concilium, 37-40); that local conferences of bishops should prepare official translations without undue interference from Rome; that the assembly should take that "full, conscious, and active part" that is their right and duty by reason of their baptism; and that lay people should exercise as great a role as possible and appropriate in the liturgical assembly, including preaching when appropriate.

Incidentally, every single one of those comes directly from the conciliar and post-conciliar liturgical documents and canon law. So I'm hardly asking for much.

At 4:49 PM, Blogger CtotheL said...

I'd go with both verb and noun, though leading with the former--Jesus said, "DO this in memory of me"; "TAKE this all of you and EAT/DRINK it"; though he also said "THIS is my BODY." I think our objectification of the Eucharist would be a little foreign to Jesus' religious imagination, at least as a first-century Jew.

I'm not sure I agree that the teaching of the church is that "person" of Christ is in the tabernacle; I think it would say the "substantial presence" of Christ--body, soul, divinity--but to say "person" is to say something else theologically. I'd have to think about that one.

I guess I would say that the purpose of the Eucharist is that we become more fully the Body of Christ, and that happens most fully in the eucharistic act, although I'd say prayer before the reserved sacrament--any prayer really--continues that transformation.

At 4:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The appropriateness of liturgical dance depends greatly on the culture. In some cultures (in some African cultures for example), dance is a legitamate form of worship, in Western culures, it is a distraction, because it is usually viewed by the congregation as a performance. I have no problem using more inclusive terms to address the congregation (although I don't get upset if male-inclusive terms are used, there are more important issues to worry about, like the killing of innocent babies). It's true that God is pure spirit and has no set gender, but Jesus refered to God as Father, and I think we should follow His Lead.

At 5:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I go to the adoration, I believe I am in the physical presence of Christ, and I am just as close to Him (physically) as were the apostles, do you believe this also?

At 4:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well... I do not want to discourage your prayer and adoration of the Eucharist. Nor do I want to in anyway deny the real presence of Christ. There is a difference in the presence you are speaking of than the official faith of the Church. The presence of Christ is the 'resurrected' body. This means that Jesus is able to be present in each and every parish around the world. Were it his 'physical' as in actually all of Jesus as he were on Earth with the disciples then Eucharist would be cannibalism and there would be a limited supply of Jesus' Body. Since Eucharist is not cannibalisms nor is there a limit to the amount of host that can be consecrated Jesus is not physically present, strictly speaking. A better way of phrasing the presence of Christ would be to say that I believe in adoration that I am as close to Jesus as the disciples were on Easter morning, or Pentecost. Not before Good Friday: "unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it cannot bear fruit."

At 9:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Missing your posts, CtotheL.


At 8:26 AM, Blogger CtotheL said...

Thanks, Janet. I'll be back soon--been out of town the past two weeks and barely keeping my head above water!

At 8:40 AM, Blogger StBlog said...

I don't see this possibility as a "concession" to "ultraconservatives" so much as an attempt to bring the SSPX back from its heretical separation.

"Liberals", as you call them, are not, in the same sense, separated from the Church - at least not in the way that heresy tends to separate one.

In any event - it is now a month later and, as do most things with the Church, this too will take time. It seems I recall this very thing being mentioned immediately following the Holy Father's election.

I for one, while I prefer the "Novus Ordo Mass" to the Tridentine Mass (for the simple reason that it is easier to hear and contemplate the prayers) believe that a byproduct of this new Mass has been to push aside reverence - a sad thing and evident in many, many celebrations of the Holy Mass.


Post a Comment

<< Home