More adventures with the Old Rite Mass

Today I attended my second Mass in the Extraordinary Form with the The Confraternity of the Holy Cross. Though I had intended to try and make attendance at these Masses a regular occurrence, for various reasons, I haven't actually managed to make one for almost a year. I include below how attendance at my second mass made me feel. It shows my gross lack of understanding of Mass in the Extraordinary form but I hope that it may prove useful in highlighting some of the difficulties devotees of the rite may come across in reintroducing it to Catholic practice.

In a previous post, I related how my first experience of Mass in the Old Rite left me feeling curious rather than spiritually enriched, especially as I perceived that there was a greater divide between the role of the priest and that of the laity. I felt this to be particularly evident during times of silence when the priest appeared to be performing his tasks for which the laity were irrelevant. [1] On this occasion, this impression was lessened by the fact that the Mass was accompanied by an organ and a choir. I was able to concentrate on the beautiful music and this drew me into the Mass to a degree I had not experienced on my first visit. I even chanced my arm and joined in for the Credo and Sanctus.

As I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be doing during the periods of silence so this time, I decided to say the Divine Mercy Chaplet as Mass started at 3pm. I was able to concentrate on the chaplet to a greater degree than was usual which was a pleasant surprise and spiritually gratifying.

Though I left Mass feeling slightly more comfortable than last time, I still have more questions than answers. I find it rather odd than the laity can be saying or singing prayers whilst the priest whispers his own at the same time. Likewise, the priest asks for the people's assent to his prayers at various times through out the Mass but for all we know, he could have been thinking about his shopping list or asking to win the lottery.

I definitely need to put some time and effort into understanding what is expected of the priest and the laity during Mass in the Extraordinary form if I am to address the frustrations I experience when I attend it!

[1] http://lucascambrensis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/attending-old-rite-latin-mass.html

Within 25 years, this Church will be a Carpetright

One of the parishes I attend from time-to-time has recently had a new parish priest. As I hadn't attended mass there since before Easter, I didn't know how he was settling in and what sort of man he was.

It just so happened that the priest had decided to give a "state of the nation" type homily at the mass I attended and it was very interesting to watch the reaction of the regular parishioners, especially as his last words were "Within 25 years, this church will be a Carpetright".

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

I should begin be stating that I do not believe the parish priest has a hidden Carpetright agenda. To the best of my knowledge, he doesn't hold any shares in the company nor is he related to any of the executive board of directors. Truth be told, I don't think even Carpetright would want the building as it is a stark and uninspiring edifice, typical of the penchant for liturgical iconoclasm present in the church architecture of the nineteen sixties. Think Liverpool Cathedral on a smaller scale. Thankfully, parish life does not mimic this structure as I have always found it to be a relatively active and welcoming community. 

In making this rather alarming statement, the parish priest was placing the potential fate of the parish in the context of declining mass attendance in Menevia which, according to his homily, has seen a 25% reduction since 1986.

And now for something completely different...

The homily which preceded the closing statement largely concerned the renewal of parish life and it brought up some interesting considerations regarding the nature of the relationship between the priest and the community.  These considerations were precipitated as it seems that since the old parish priest had left, the new parish priest had been inundated with requests to reverse previous policies which had probably been in effect for almost 10 years. Thus the parishioners asked for the reintroduction of the May Procession and the restoration of a statue of Our Lady of Fatima to a side chapel. The parish has a long memory.

In responding to these requests, the priest iterated that his primary role was to "preach the word of God" and that he would not let anything prevent him from doing so. He also intonated that he was averse to any model of parish life which prevented the "welling up of the Holy Spirit" in the faithful, especially as to do otherwise would leave the community at the disposition of "the skills, temperament, interests and energy of one man".

As an exemplar, he alluded to the first reading for the day from the Acts of the Apostles where the Hellenists made a complaint against the Hebrews, suggesting that their own widows were being overlooked in the distribution of alms. The Apostles responded

"It would not be right for us to neglect the word of God so as to give out food; you, brothers, must select from among yourselves seven men of good reputation, filled with the Spirit and with wisdom; we will hand over this duty to them, and continue to devote ourselves to prayer and to the service of the word." [1]

The priest therefore suggested that the parishioners form groups and get on with things themselves. He would be more than happy to attend each group from time-to-time when his involvement was necessary.

Opinion Poll

I'm not quite sure how the parishioners took this homily. As I looked around, there were a few quiet exchanges and furrowed brows. Interpretted in one light, the homily could be taken as a rather damning indictment of the previous parish priest who I know was greatly loved by many parishioners. From another, it could be considered to be a radical empowerment of the laity who were to act when "the spirit moved them". Knowing how fractious parish life can be with it's various power groups and invested interests, that might be a recipe for disaster. What if "the spirit" prompts some groups into hetrodoxy?

What also are we to make of the priest's desire to "restrict" himself to "preaching the word of God"? The examples he gave regarding the reinstitution of the May procession and statue of Our Lady of Fatima seem a little strange in this context as I would suggest that liturgy is one of the primary means in which the Word of God is expounded. Is it not the duty of the priest to foster Faith by making the sacraments freely available and by promoting devotion amongst his parishioners?

I suspect the answer to these questions lies in the partnership between the parishioners and the parish priest, each using the charisms appropriate to their role. The priest is delegated authority by the bishop and is charged with guiding his flock, preserving them from error and nourishing them in Faith. He is also the servant of the parish, called to respond to the unique needs of people under his care. The laity are called to "seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God's will". [2] Together, as a parish, both priest and laity are initiated into "the ordinary expression of the liturgical life: it gathers them together in this celebration; it teaches Christ's saving doctrine; it practices the charity of the Lord in good works and brotherly love." [3]

I look forward to my next visit to the parish to see how things have progressed.

[1] Acts 6:1-7
[2] Catechism of the Catholic Church, §898

[3] Ibid, §2179

Bishop Burns' NGO

It has recently been brought to my attention that the bishop of my diocese, Bishop Burns, had something to say about Pope Benedict and the Church following his resignation in the Bitter Pill. "Conservatism has had its day. It doesn't work. Despite all Benedict's efforts, the Church is losing its place in society – yet the search for God and meaning remain high."He added: "It's time to reopen the doors and windows for a new blowing of the Spirit, a freedom of speech to search for ways ahead that will address key issues like remarriage after divorce; re-examining ethical issues; developing a simpler and humbler Church stripped of status and elitism."

Pope Francis says no to church as NGO

Bishops Burn' vision of the church is exactly that warned aganist by Pope Francis, "a pitiful NGO" [http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1301190.htm] I welcome calls for a reform of the curia in the spirit of simplicity and humility but the Church's mission is to preach Christ crucified and resurrected, not to make compromises with the world. The "popular church" Bishop Burns wants is available in a myriad forms accross the globe where Christ and Christian virtue is an optional extra. Bishop Burns' church is meaningless and will soon be washed away in the tide of secularism, materialism and nihilism until it reaches it's final entropy where it is as bland, inconsequential and insubstantial as any other belief system which places ones own fallen nature and desires at its core. Truth and compassion are not mutually exclusive. I say to Bishop Burns "Liberalism has had its day. It doesn't work".

A reponse to Fr Ceirion Gilbert: a war of words that obscures the Church's message

In a recent Blog Post for the Tablet, Fr Ceirion Gilbert, the director of youth services in my diocese (Menevia)  expressed his ire regarding Cardinal O'Brien's recent letter on marriage.

Though I believe that Fr Ceirion was right to express his concern regarding the language used in the Cardinal's letter (it could certainly have been more qualified and perhaps fitting for what was essentially a pastoral letter), I was a little concerned about some of the other comments he had to make.  

I too am riled when I hear people who profess to share my Faith use inflamitory and derogatory words towards others which are incompatible with that Faith. I can also attest however that when I was a young person of the Diocese of Menevia, I felt that my Faith was at odds with my generation and I was glad for it - materialism, nihilism and hedonism have nothing to offer us.

When entering a debate, the type of language used is crucial as it is quite easy to fail to reach an intended audience either because the language used is inaccessible to the recipients (e.g. too theological nuanced) , aggressive or inappropriate.

I see this as a particular problem on Twtter where the 140 character limit leaves little more for expression and manoeuvre. I feel that some Catholic commentators are basically bringing the Faith into disrepute as their exchanges with each other are often full of bile and vitriol. It's Starkey Syndrome - any good they may actually do or truth they speak is lost in the manner of their language and behaviour.

You cannot however play language games with theology. Revisionists can debate what the word "marriage" means in a modern context until The Second Comming or Maximum Entropy - what they cannot do is change God's plan of creation from Genesis to the Marriage of the Lamb.

Fr Ceirion fears that the Church offers "an interpretation of society and humanity at odds with that of younger generations and almost incomprehensible to them". We therefore need to make the message of the church more accessible to them, perhaps through an examination of the language we use to express that message (and through other forms of communication like liturgy, art, creation etc) but certainly not at the expense of the message. It is often all too easy to blame a non-personal entity such as the Magisterium for our own failures in our mission to evangelise, particularly when our best efforts result in failure. Introducing an “us and them” attitude to the hierarchy of the Church is also extremely counter-productive.

  

The "sensus fidelium" has always been an important part of Church teaching and sacred Tradition is kept alive by its waters. One only has to think of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to see that. The Church however is not a democracy - we have Christ as our Head, the Pope as his Vicar and the Holy Spirit as our guide. It has a care of duty for all souls - sinners and saints, all should feel "welcomed and loved". This however cannot be at the expense of Truth - as the Black Eyed Peas suggest, “If you never know truth, then you never know love”.

Jesus was not a stranger to the disappointing effects his own teachings could have on followers or potential followers. Of His own words many of them said "'This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?'” Indeed, “After this, many of his disciples went away and accompanied him no more". If they would not follow Christ, many of this generation will not follow us.

The Church now exists in a time when its teachings are increasingly labelled as "intolerable".  Jesus asks us "What about you, do you want to go away too?" Can we answer with Peter "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe; we have come to know that you are the Holy One of God"?