I watched a bit of the pontifical Mass for the Epiphany. I just can't get used to it though. There in the solemn splendor of St. Peter's - to have different laity paraded up to read the first and second readings, and to offer petitions in the Prayer of the Church, while all the bishops, priests, cardinals and whatnot just sit there? And all in the different languages (seems like an advertisement: see we ARE the universal church, after all)? Well, to me at any rate, it just seemed weird. Maybe not to Roman Catholics (I wouldn't know) but to this Lutheran it seems utterly out of place. And I confess: I had HOPED to see one of those "extraordinary" Masses on Epiphany with the Bishop of Rome celebrating in the old Tridentine manner. Maybe someday?
Solemn splendor? maybe in Ravenna or Chartres perhaps. But St. Peter's tends to strike me as baroque gingerbread (not that there's anything wrong with that!) But those undulating columns and gigantic statues strikes me as overwhelming - even though I've never seen them in person. The Mass you describe seems to fit right in with all that mess.
ReplyDeleteFrederick,
ReplyDeleteLOL. Those twisted pillars have ALWAYS bothered me. I wonder who on earth dreamed that up. It definitely detracts from the rest of space. The statues never bothered me, although the infant Christ near where the Gospel reposed looked like he had spikes coming out of his poor head. Still the room's very proportions are stunning.
Another thing that I just can't get over. WHY does the Vatican permit (encourage?) the folks to flash cameras during a Divine Service??? Wouldn't a word from the Bishop of Rome put an end to that? Or does he not care?
Fr. Weedon,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. I went to Epiphany Vespers with Lessons and Carols at the Cathedral. The choir and handbells are great, the insense was splendid, the Bishop gave a good "reflection". Yet the readings were with exception of the Gospel were all done by laity (male and female) it grew real tiresome.
Fr. Matthew J. Uttenreither
Fr. Weedon,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Those twisted pillars have ALWAYS bothered me. I wonder who on earth dreamed that up."
Those columns were "dreamed up" by the great architect, sculptor and artist Bernini. I, personally, thinkt that they are ingenious and beautiful. Just mho.
BTW, I agree with many of your thoughts. It always seems that whenever a mass is broadcast from St. Peter's it is done so with more care for PR than for celebrating the Tridentine Rite with solemnity. I believe that whenever the Pope celebrates the Mass at St. John Lateran (where only he can do it), I think he does it more in line with what you (and I) were hoping for.
Why would one hope for anything from the pope?
ReplyDeleteThe Bernini collonades and baldachino are impressive indeed. At the time I saw them, 1969, it struck me what a contrast between the ageless faith it attempts to portray and the council recently concluded in the chirch, whose shifting sands had yet to come to-gether in the novus ordo (1970) but the hatchet jobs had been underway piecemeal for a few years.
In the end, it seemed to me simply of a piece with the buildings of earlier forms of Roman religion, the latter only differing in being older and in ruins.
There's a story of one of the Renaissance popes walking around the splendid Vatican with a reform minded person, to whom he said, Peter can no longer say Gold and silver have I none, and to which the person responded, Neither can he say Take up thy cot and walk.
The baldachino stands over the traditional tomb of St Peter as well as a supposed relic from his chair (cathedra). Can't remember if I heard a spinning sound or not.
The last time I watched any of these farces from Rome was the funeral of JPII and the coronation, well, they don't crown them any more, the installation of BXVI. What struck me more than anything was the utterly blank looks on those any younger than about 50 in the crowd, for whom the proceedings seemed to be as remote from their ordinary experience as Catholics as worship at a Hindu temple. This old altar boy joined right in, mostly to make sure I can still hack the chants, and having an enormous feeling of being grateful to be Lutheran and not having to hang on to telecasts like this. There's better stuff on Cartoon Network.
Pr. Will
ReplyDeleteI had HOPED to see one of those "extraordinary" Masses on Epiphany with the Bishop of Rome celebrating in the old Tridentine manner. Maybe someday?
You are beginning to be fascinated eyh?
Curiosity kills the cat. A little leavening here and there, I hope not.
I say that since you are dear to me.
LPC
Lito,
ReplyDeleteLOL. I am curious about the Tridentine Mass - but that is because it bears a closer kinship to the Lutheran Divine Service than the Novus Ordo. If you fear that I am headed to the Tiber for a swim, well, you don't know me very well! I have no interest in becoming Roman because, and I mean this as no insult to my Roman friends, I would have to abandon the catholicity of my own Confession to do so. Yes, there are those who have HAVE done that for what they think of as "the certainty" of Rome. Give me the certainty of the saving Gospel any day, and the conviction that the Gospel is what sustains the Church and not vice versa.
re: the flashbulb photography. I was in the Sistine Chapel in December 1998, where it seemed like there were almost continuous announcements over the speakers in multiple languages to take no flash photography, and yet the flashes continued.
ReplyDeleteAnd all in the different languages (seems like an advertisement: see we ARE the universal church, after all)?
ReplyDelete...
Well, to me at any rate, it just seemed weird. Maybe not to Roman Catholics
"Weird" ?? Speaking for myself, although I have lived in the U.S. for many years now a good part of my heart will always be European. It is the continent on which I was born and I don't see this as an "advertisement" at all. For those of us born outside of the U.S., as Catholics it is thrilling to see and hear the voices of our fellow believers from all parts of the world and I find it most fitting at an Epiphany liturgy commemorating Christ's revelation to the Gentiles. As a Lutheran I was always very much aware of her German/Scandinavian roots of the but not much beyond. To be sure the Lutheran church is worldwide, but here in the U.S. whenever I attend services at my sister's Lutheran congregation there is a definite dearth of the many nationalities I see at my parish. And yes, ethnicity in the Catholic and Orthodox world can be overbearing but be assured that for my European Lutheran mother to be Lutheran was to be German, or Swedish, or Norwegian. It's what she knew.
I have to agree that the Bernini collonades and baldachino are splendid indeed.
Yes, there are those who have HAVE done that for what they think of as "the certainty" of Rome.
Interesting how Lutherans seem to fall back on this one paradigm. Just as the Lutherans here see themselves as the bearers of true "catholicity" I became Catholic because I found just the opposite to be true. Much as I admire Benedict XVI, the Papacy was not the be-all and end-all of my conversion.
There's a beautiful video on EWTN of a Tridentine Mass recently celebrated by Father John Berg of the FSSP. More and more priests of that society are being invited by U.S. bishops into parishes around the country.
I'm confident that we'll be seeing more of it in Rome in the future.
For those of us born outside of the U.S., as Catholics it is thrilling to see and hear the voices of our fellow believers from all parts of the world and I find it most fitting at an Epiphany liturgy commemorating Christ's revelation to the Gentiles.
ReplyDeleteUnfortuately I can't comment on the use of multiple languages at this specific mass since I didn't see it...but I tend to agree with Christine regarding multiple voices in general.
In Europe muliple voices are everywhere...for example, at the airport it is not uncommon to hear messages in the language of the country and English and sometimes French or German depending up on the location (and you'll hear Brazilian Portuguese, English and Japanese on a flight to Sao Paulo). It's the nature of Europe to have so many different languages in such close proximity. I am just grateful so many Europeans and Brazilians condescend to speak English when I work with them.
In my Orthodox parish on Theophany we heard the Lord's Prayer in six different languages: English, Greek, Russian, Romanian, Serbian and Bulgarian. I loved that!
It could be that the way the mulitiple languages were used in the mass was distracting...don't know that...but I do understand the rationale and maybe even the desire to "sound like" the universal church.
Gee whiz, when I was Catholic, we got off on the idea that believers from all over everywhere and from all different times spoke ONE language, the language in which the authority for his death sentence was proclaimed now everywhere and everyplace the language of his resurrection -- Latin. Kind of like the gift of tongues to the whole body of Christ, one always and everywhere.
ReplyDeleteOh well. Another time, another church, another faith. A small example of the difference between it and the current one stealing the name.
I went to a mass a few months ago at which the Archbishop of Denver presided. They had a little praise band, the readers were laity, and some of the liturgy was also done by laity.
ReplyDeleteThe two priests loci and the archbishop watched the show. The archbishop lead the confiteor, preached the homily (which was a nice little treatise on moral theology), and consecrated (though the verba could easily have been lost in the canon).
It was a travesty on multiple levels. Never was I so happy to be a Lutheran.
In my Orthodox parish on Theophany we heard the Lord's Prayer in six different languages: English, Greek, Russian, Romanian, Serbian and Bulgarian. I loved that!
ReplyDeleteDixie, I knew you would understand.
Being a western rite Christian I have a deep appreciation for Latin but as a European I'm very glad that Catholics can now also hear their own native languages at Mass (and on all continents, not just Europe).
Pr. Lehmann, this certainly does exist in some parishes. Certainly not in mine.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the very same scenario takes place every week at the LCMS "Mission" congregation down the road from me, with the exception that that very deliberately downplay their LCMS identity (they're kinda in competition with the huge megachurch further down the road from them which is affiliated with the Southern Baptists -- the irony is that the megachurch also intentionally hides its denominational identity).
I am also fully aware that this "travesty" is not true of all LCMS congregations.
The Mass, in Catholic belief, is a sacrament, and for a sacrament to be valid it must be correct as to matter, form, and intent.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with services as described in Denver is not who prayed what or the music, it's that even if everything were right by the book, literally, in the novus ordo one can not be sure of validity.
Re intent, the reason for what some now see as legalism and formalism in the Mass is that it insures, against whatever may be in the priest's heart or on his lips on any given day, if the liturgy is spoken the intent will be expressed, as well as the form and content there too. The Latin typical texts simply do not do this. The Tridentine Rite does.
Which is why use of the Tridentine Rite under the Motu is absolute blasphemy since the Motu makes necessary recognition of the validity of the novus ordo. Which is why JPII created stooges like the FSSP, bogus "traditionalists" who exist by the most fatal of compromises that betray the very tradition they lyingly say they uphold.
Once you strip away ethnic culture, Sister Mary This or That back in school, musical preferences and other personal baggage, that is the single real issue: the novus ordo is not a liturgy faithful to the faith of the Roman Catholic Church and subversive of it. This is most certainly true, though not of great importance to Lutherans. Still it behooves us to understand this issue, since the form of contemporary worship derived from Vatican II for Lutherans is no less at odds with the catholic faith than that derived from Willow Creek.
My wife and I are leaving Friday for a vacation in Rome. We'll be there for two Sundays, and I hope to go to St. Peter's for at least one of those. So I should get a chance to see all this in person!
ReplyDeleteEric,
ReplyDeleteBlessings on the trip! I will be interested in your impressions when you get a chance to write about them.
Christine,
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge that such things happen in LCMS churches. On the other hand, the Archbishop was technically presiding at this service. Why did he not take it in hand and make sure that things were being done rightly (and ritely!)?
Archbishop Chaput apparently has a reputation for being fairly conservative, and in the way he browbeated his flock after the service during the Q&A period, I can certainly see that he is a loyal son of Rome and a bulldog on canon law.
Apparently, however, nothing that happened in this service is contrary to canon law.
Further, the liturgy itself, even if it would have been done entirely by the Archbishop, diminished the Gospel, particularly in the service of the sacrament. Even if Archbishop Chaput had presided over the whole thing, it would have still reaffirmed my commitment to Lutheranism.
Dixie and Christine,
ReplyDeleteYou may both be completely correct about it being a "European" thing. I've never been there, alas, and so my thought is that in Rome, in Italy, the Mass would be celebrated in Italian with the readings in Italian. But, I suppose, on that solemn occasion there were pilgrims gathered from across the world. And as I said, I really wouldn't have an ability to judge if it was weird from a Roman standpoint - just from my very parochial experience as a Lutheran.
Past Elder,
I think I begin to understand the point you've patiently driven home again and again. It's not the same liturgy, and that means its not the same Church you grew up in. It is truly odd that Lutherans who look into these things feel a much stronger kinship with the Tridentine Mass than the Novus Ordo. I can recognize the Tridentine Mass at a much more fundamental level - and especially the Eucharistia is whispered by the priest, you really notice a huge similarity in the rest of the liturgy with our Divine Service 3, the Common Service.
Oh and Dixie and Christine,
ReplyDeleteThe nearest we come is that on Christmas Eve we sing "Stille Nacht", the first verse, auf Deutsch!
Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace!!!
ReplyDeleteOK then -- I don't find it odd at all that Lutherans who look into these things feel more kinship with the Tridentine Rite. That rite is a codification of the same historic rite of the Western church we seek to preserve and defend, so while it may have its problems, as we see it, it nonetheless represents a version of the same thing we use.
The novus ordo is an entirely different story. It is entirely new. Of course, its framers and apologists love to point out the antiquity of some of the sources of its parts, which is true, but the whole is new, not a development of a previous whole, but a new entity with no tradition whatever other than in its pieces taken singly. Our DS I and II, Lutheraned over versions of the novus ordo, are not historic at all but participate in a "tradition" that dates to 1970 Rome with the promulgation of the novus ordo -- contemporary worship no less than a Willow Creek ordo. Likewise the calendar and lectionary designed to fit it.
Our DS III on the other hand represents a new version of an order of service that is the historic worship of the church and pre-Trent at that. I hope it pulls us out of a liturgical anarchy not unlike that of the time of the writing of the Common Service.
Now on the language thing, a Catholic once rejoiced that any Catholic from anywhere in the world could worship with any other Catholic from anywhere in the world, anywhere in the world! In worship we were no longer Irish, Italian, German, Vietnamese, Korean or whatever, even though parish life often relected those divisions, but in worship any Catholic was at home anywhere. Worship isn't an airport lounge. I speak three languages well enough to get along (I know I have a clear Puerto Rican accent in Spanish, but I was happy some years ago to have a German employee where I worked say my German was ALMOST unaccented, which of course means Bavarian, though I'm not sure if what little accent there is is me not being German or Stearns County "Dutch" from the Abbey). So it's hardly like I'm the "ugly American" who knows only English. The many languages in a single worship service are a tower of Babel replacing the once universal voice of the church that was all of ours. Hell, even at the last conclave they spoke Italian, not Latin!
You're quite right about the Common Service, and would that it would be our common service again -- especially with the wonderful version of it that is DS III.
I'm curious - is it not done by Lutherans to have lay readers at liturgy?
ReplyDelete(When able, I prefer to attend the Traditional Mass, where all the readings are done by clergy, but I'm a child of my age and am unsurprised to see laypeople reading at Mass in English.)
Certainly it is very poor not to have the General Intercessions recited by a deacon, which should be the norm. And - tho' it's hardly ever done - strictly speaking instituted (male) lectors, in albs, should do the pre-Gospel readings.
Basically, lay readers became so popular that they have become de rigueur, and only the liturgically literate would even recognize their prevalence as a problem.
As for language(s) - is it no longer done by US Lutherans to have part or all of the service in German, etc.? Nowadays, are there no Spanish-speaking congregations? From what I understand of US Catholics, Mass is now often conducted partly or wholly in Spanish in areas where there is a large population thereof. In Australia, it is still common to find Mass said in Italian in the larger cities for the benefit of migrants.
Recall Luther's desire expressed somewhere to have Divine Service conducted not just in German or Latin, but in Greek and Hebrew!
Josh,
ReplyDeleteIn our parish usually only the pastors or seminarians are readers in the Divine Service, and, as you say, always vested. Likewise for the intercessions.
Luther himself was a hoot with the languages. When you read him, especially in Table-talk, he speaks a complete mixture of Latin and German, mixing them in the same sentences at times and at times running for a paragraph or two in one and then inexplicably changing to the other. Clearly he thought in either.
As I said, we do use German sometimes. I said Christmas Eve, but then I remembered that my wife sang a Bach motet in German for Advent IV and we had a Latin selection by her and another member the week following Christmas, so it's not really unheard of to mix, and certainly our hymnal has both Spanish, German, and English resources. But the way it was done for the Epiphany service is what struck me as odd. If I may say it so: more John Paul II-ish and not so Benedict XVI-ish.
That's interesting. Is that the norm?
ReplyDeleteIt explains something that seemed so unusual to me...
The only time I've ever been to a Lutheran service (I think it was at the suggestion of my lecturer when doing a course on church music) was to hear a Bach cantata sung at Vespers at St John's Lutheran Church, Southgate, Melbourne.
Frankly, I found the sublime music rather unconnected with the rest of the service, perhaps because the players and singers seemed to be there solely to give a concert and not as worshippers. (Not to blow my own horn, but when at church, be it in the congregation singing hymns, or as part of the choir singing the chant, I try to worship not perform, tho doubtlessly very distractedly and lukewarmly).
It also seemed strange that all the readings (there were three - at Vespers! - one after the other!!!) were done by the pastor, which struck me as very unliturgical at the time; only now do I begin to understand the background.
Regarding the Epiphany Mass...
So far as I understand it, the Mass would have been in Latin, modern form, but for (1) the readings, done in various of the common languages; (2) the intercessions, ditto; and (3) the homily, in Italian.
Josh,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if it's the norm or not. Around here, I suspect it is quite common to have the pastor do the readings. Out on the East coast of the US, where I grew up, the norm was lay readers for the first and second lessons. Sometimes vested, sometimes not. I'm not sure about the rest of the US and our parishes - as you must know, they can vary wildly.
Wishing you the joys of a blessed Epiphanytide!
Zum Teufel !Past Elder once again prattles on in true SSPX style (his comments pretty much mirror ll the SSPX books and literature I have at home, except even the SSPX wouldn't be so ungracious as to call priests of the FSSP stooges).
ReplyDeleteAnd .... WHILE we're at it, Terry, a couple of teeny weeny flaming arrows to your endless soliloquy of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches being vestiges of the state Roman and Byzantine "empire."
Balderdash.
The ancient Roman and Greek worlds scorned the monotheism of both Judaism and Christianity. The idea of a Messiah born in a backwater Middle Eastern village was laughable in their eyes (I'm sure we all remember the Roman graffiti of a donkey on a cross with the inscription "Alexamenos worships his god." The inscription is accepted by the vast majority of scholars to be a mocking depiction of a Christian. Both the portrayal of Jesus as having an ass's head and the depiction of him being crucified would have been considered insulting by contemporary Roman society.
What crept back into Christianity (I'm speaking here of Rome, I will not speak for the Orthodox who can speak quite nicely for themselves) was the temple Judaism that was always a perennial problem in the Church from early times on. With an illiterate population it was all too easy to fall back on a priesthood that did everything on behalf of the people who eventually became spectators.
The Catholic worship I encounter today reminds me much more of the description given by Justin -- the Scriptures are read and expounded upon, bread is blessed and broken and the Holy Eucharist is taken (by lay people!) to those who could not be present. A simplified description, of course, but the Church offering a spiritual sacrifice of praise in, through and with Jesus Christ who renews his one and all-sufficient sacrifice in the Mass is far more reminiscent to me of Biblical Christianity that the most elaborate ceremonies of the High Middle ages.
Oh, and thanks for the impetus -- since the FSSP seminary in the U.S. is growing very nicely you've inspired me to send them some bucks to help out.
The many languages in a single worship service are a tower of Babel replacing the once universal voice of the church that was all of ours. Hell, even at the last conclave they spoke Italian, not Latin!
ReplyDeleteFrom Acts:
And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
[3] And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them.
[4] And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
[5]
Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven.
[6] And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
[7] And they were amazed and wondered, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans?
[8] And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?
[9] Par'thians and Medes and E'lamites and residents of Mesopota'mia, Judea and Cappado'cia, Pontus and Asia,
[10] Phryg'ia and Pamphyl'ia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyre'ne, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
[11] Cretans and Arabians, we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God."
Gee -- guess the vernacular was good enough for the Holy Spirit.
Pastor Lehmann, your points are well taken. I would have chafed myself at that particular Mass.
Pastor Weedon, Martin Luther is why even as a Catholic I am strongly Augustinian in my spirituality and why it is still very cross-centered (although Benedictine in my prayer life!) Luther was very gifted in so many ways; your description of his mixing of Latin/German reminds me of one of my visits to Bavaria. My mom was friends with a German couple, the husband being a professor and oh how he could rattle off that Latin (interspersed with German, of course!)
In college I majored in Romance languages (German being my native tongue I didn't see any point in studying) and to my amazement when I became Catholic a lot of Latin texts came alive from me from the study of French and Spanish!
As for "Stille Nacht" -- I've rejoice to have heard it sung in just about every Lutheran congregation I've worshipped in!
At Advent EWTN often brings wonderful recitals of Bach chorales sung in German -- I enjoy them tremendously.
Oh, and when Past Elder finally becomes a gracious as the other Lutherans who post here (and Lutherans are very gracious) then I'll believe he really "gets it".
You know, it could've been the egg nog, but I'm fairly certain that the Midnight Mass at the Vatican I watched on Christmas had a chick in a miniskirt reading the Epistle in Amer-english.
ReplyDeleteI was at the Vatican at Epiphany 2001, when the "holy door" was closed by Pope John Paul II, marking the end of the Jubilee Indulgence. That indulgence was obtainable in Rome during 2000 if one visited a basilica or one of the catacombs, made confession, went to Mass/communed (or spent an hour in Eucharistic adoration), and made a "personal sacrifice." That sacrifice could be, among other options, a financial gift to the Church or a day without smoking.
Instructions for the Jubilee Indulgence were placarded all around the piazza, in every language. Inside St. Peter's, there were numerous additional confessionals set up to accommodate pilgrims, with the language of the confessor listed above.
That was the context in which I viewed the enormity of the place, the twisted Bernini baldachino (37 tons of bronze), the imposing dome of Michelangelo. On the central floor of the nave, you can see the initials of the "15 largest churches in the world," in succession. This is so you can realize that, for example, the whole of St. Paul's London would fit inside St. Peter's up to . . . here; or Hagia Sophia, up to . . . here.
The foundations of this building, on top of Constantine's church, were being financed by the sale of indulgences in Saxony, which fired up a certain someone.
When I was there last, the bones of St. John Chrysostom were still there, having been looted from Constantinople by Crusaders. Four years later, John Paul II returned them.
The Scavi tour, which takes you down to the Roman necropolis underneath Constantine's church, was remarkable; it concludes with the viewing of the Red Wall, the place where, in all likelihood, St. Peter was buried, which was, at the time, near the Circus of Nero on the Vatican Hill. The Egyptian obelisk that is now in the center of the Square had stood for 1600 years at a different place, marked in the Scavi tour, within Caligula's/Nero's Circus, and it was probably viewed by St. Peter from his cross.
But I think my favorite part of St. Peter's is the tomb of Pope St. Gregory the Great, servant of the servants of God. It is ornate, but is relatively simple when compared to the giant monuments to the Renaissance popes. It bears a tiny inscription, "Gregorius Maximus PM."
Joshua,
ReplyDeleteSt John's Lutheran, South Gate, Melbourne?
Mate, the pastor there is one of my favorite preachers! He is a superb exegete, Tom Pietsch.
I hope you come back and visit St. John and yes they still do Bach. The pipe organ is a work of art. I often go there when I miss my home church's service( sometimes I do not make it on time and I do not like coming to church late and coming in at the middle, I go to St John's 11 AM when I miss my 9:30AM Divine Service).
Cheers mate.
LPC
Thanks LPC,
ReplyDeleteBut unfortunately I'm no longer in Melbourne (am about to return to Perth from holidays).
No offence, but St John's is modernistically ugly enough to be a suburban Catholic church! ;-) What is it with the candles? It just seemed so bare and multifunctional; I don't agree with the idea of church as 'worship space', easily segueing into secular use...
I don't recall much of the preaching, unfortunately. The fact the pastor was an American surprised me, that and the way he himself did all the readings (vide supra).
Joshua,
ReplyDeleteWe do not look for the same things in church it seems. LC(Aust) churches are pretty low churches enough already in fact I bet the LC-MS who hang out here would not even consider them Lutheran even though Sasse and Marquart were their pastors/theologians -- they came from LC(Aust). I recall ex-PM Paul Keating saying -- the dogs might bark but the train keeps on moving. Sometimes that saying applies to running a church.
When I am in church, I look for and listen for the Law/Gospel delivered to me, I have heard that from St John's pastor faithfully and I have been thankful to God for those times.
I do hear it from my pastor too - Pr. Brett at Thomastown, faithfully I add.
As Luther said, you can get all things right (including your rubrics I suppose) in theology, but if you get the Gospel wrong -- you are stuffed. I do think St John's pastor gets it right. In the 8-10 times I have been there, I think I do have evidence of that.
LPC
Ah, Die Christine geht!
ReplyDelete1. Nowhere in this thread did I state that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are vestiges of the Roman and Byzantine empires, nor is it relevant to this thread, so I see no point in pursuing discussion of it.
2. I have stated elsewhere that the Roman and Orthodox Churches as institutions are simply the state religions of the Western and Eastern Roman Empire long after the state they served left the stage of history, however, as the historical points you make are neither ones with which I would necessarily disagree nor ones that address the basis of my statement, I see no point in pursuing discussion of it.
3. My statement about Latin in the liturgy was not at all in opposition to using the vernacular in the liturgy, but rather a contrast in the piety which attended its use in pre Vatican II Catholicism from the situation now. However, as most of what was Catholicism is opaque to the post conciliar "Catholicism" I am not surprised that the point was missed, which, ironically, re-inforces my point.
4. As to the SSPX, I do cite their literature since it is the best I know for detailing how the documents and liturgy coming from the last council contain un-Catholic and even anti-Catholic things. However, from the standpoint of the faith the SSPX holds and I once held -- Catholicism -- I am a heretic and worse, an apostate, and if I were on their radar they would certainly find me absolutely at odds with them.
5. Related to that, the traditionalist movement, cleared of sentimentalism, custom and culture, does not consist in the idea that the Tridentine Rite is the only valid rite of the Church, but rather that the novus ordo is absolutely invalid as Catholic worship. The validity of the novus ordo is non-negotiable to the occupiers of Rome, since it exists by their authority and for it to be invalid so would they be. Two days after Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration of four bishops, JPII suddenly provided a framework for those who wished to maintain the old rites as a matter of preference, but would accept the validity of the new rites and not therefore challenge, above all, and it is always above all in Rome, authority. A few SSPX priests were duped by this duplicity, now extended by BXVI in his motu, so that they affirm both a thing and its opposite the same, calling it the same but in two forms, which denies then the entire rationale for the traditional movement and makes one a stooge for Roman power. On this matter too, the SSPX has material in great detail, and it does not call them stooges, but it does identify them as conciliar and not traditional Catholics and advises Catholics not attend their masses. I, not being one with the SSPX, don't attend their Masses either and find nothing ungracious about calling a stooge a stooge when they come with such preposterous pretensions even more lame than the claims of current Roman Church for its current worship.
Finally, while Conciliar Catholicism is demonstrably a new and false religion on Catholic grounds alone, this is really a Catholic issue for a Catholic forum, and I take it up in a Lutheran context only to make some points about the difference between our adherence to the historic Western church as opposed to the Vatican II adaptations that are now rife in all major liturgical church bodies.
And so the Roman Church retains itself as the chief brothel of the Whore of Babylon, headed by an office that bears the marks of Anti-Christ, and to those enchanted or enslaved by her lies and deceptions, among whom there are many Christian brothers and sisters and among whom the catholic church may be found, there is nothing more gracious than to say, Come out of her, my people.
Leaving aside certain classically Lutheran expressions at the end of the last post, I must say I find it bizarre to find such criticism of the Novus Ordo Missæ here, of all places!
ReplyDeleteIf I am correct in saying this, Luther's view was that "everything from the Offertory onwards stinks of oblation" and that the Verba Domini lie within the Canon "as the Ark in the temple of Dagon": in other words, the late medieval Mass with its various variant uses was to Luther "valid" - in that it truly consecrated the Body and Blood of Christ - but displeasing to God and deceiving to men, inasmuch as it contained language that described the Mass as a sacrifice, etc.
Now, clearly such a view applies exactly the same to the Traditional Latin Mass (as I for one attend).
But surely, since the modern form of the Catholic Mass likewise contains both the performative words of the Eucharist, and surrounding verbiage denoting this as a sacrifice, etc. (recall that the Canon of the Mass is still one of the 4 main Eucharistic Prayers, and the others certainly mention these concepts) then according to a Lutheran view it would be likewise (a) truly consecratory - I assume Lutherans think Catholics receive the Body and Blood "in, with and under", correct me if I'm wrong - but (b) likewise claiming erroneously to be a propitiatory oblation, etc.
Now, whatever of the sad decline of some Catholic piety, and the general spread of bad teaching, etc. (IMHO a sign of the coming of Antichrist, tho' who knows when he will finally appear, now or 50,000 years hence), it seems to me ridiculous to claim on Lutheran grounds, or on grounds of pre-Conciliar Catholic piety, that the current form of Eucharistic liturgy of the Roman Rite is invalid (it may well be considered far from ideal, but that's a different question): quite simply, a duly called and ordained minister who consecrates according to the words Our Lord gave at the Last Supper truly does so, and with differences of opinion as to sacramental ordination this view would be common to Lutherans and Catholics, surely?
Trying to understand here!
it seems to me ridiculous to claim on Lutheran grounds, or on grounds of pre-Conciliar Catholic piety, that the current form of Eucharistic liturgy of the Roman Rite is invalid (it may well be considered far from ideal, but that's a different question): quite simply, a duly called and ordained minister who consecrates according to the words Our Lord gave at the Last Supper truly does so, and with differences of opinion as to sacramental ordination this view would be common to Lutherans and Catholics, surely?
ReplyDeleteOf course it is common to Lutherans and Catholics, Joshua. I've been Catholic for ten years formally (although through my Catholic father's side of the family have dipped my toes in it for most of my life) and even now when I worship with the Lutheran relatives I can still belt out "This is the Feast" (which we've begun to hear at Mass during the Easter season, alleluia!) with as much gusto as when I sing at my parish.
Luther himself said he would not hesitate to receive Communion from the Pope himself because the Church of Rome still contained true sacraments.
Medieval Catholicism needed some purging, there's no doubt about that. But as a European (American is still a very young country) it's not surprising at all that, as I mentioned earlier, in an illiterate population often beset by wars, pestilence and famine the idea of an angry God rooted in popular piety, which led to an extreme clericalism in which the priesthood of all believers was hidden for too long.
Too, the emergence of mass printing at the time of the Reformation was a great advantage in disseminating Biblical knowledge yet Luther contended on several fronts, not only with Rome but with the Reformed and extreme wing of the Reformation such as the anabaptists.
I see much more common ground between Catholics and Lutherans today and I rejoice in it heartily.
Hi Joshua! I think we may have crossed paths before. Anyway, let's get down to business.
ReplyDeleteYou ask: a duly called and ordained minister who consecrates according to the words Our Lord gave at the Last Supper truly does so, and with differences of opinion as to sacramental ordination this view would be common to Lutherans and Catholics, surely?
No, not at all is this a common view to Lutherans and Catholics, and that twice over, though I am not surprised a conciliar "Catholic" would think so.
One. Differences of opinion as to sacramental ordination are not secondary matters which can in charity be de-emphasised for the common view, but rather are crucial to the whole thing, resulting in wholly different and mutually exclusive views of what it is to be duly called and ordained, and to wax ecstatic over a common expression that in reality means entirely different things to different parties is a pseudo-ecumenism on a par with thinking homonyms mean the same thing because they sound alike.
A Lutheran may indeed find a Catholic Eucharist of any time valid, or as you say, consecratory, though overlaid with much that is displeasing to God. For a Catholic it is not the same. In that belief system, what Christ has given his church for the valid call and ordination of ministers is the Sacrament of Holy Orders, something the Lutheran Church does not believe exists, but it does, and therefore, a person called and ordained by Lutheran understanding remains a layman, having no valid Orders whatever, and he may vest to the teeth and say the Tridentine Rite itself, but after the verba what he has in, with, and under the bread and wine is -- bread and wine. It is fine that he believes in the Real Presence, but his heretical doctrine on other points denies and makes impossible that which Christ gave his church to make it possible. While one need not go so far as to say Christ is entirely absent from such services, there is no Eucharist, and no Catholic may participate in them.
Two. Being validly called and ordained and consecrating according to the Verba is not an adequate expression of validity from a Catholic point of view. For a sacrament to be valid, in this mindset, three things must be correct -- matter, form and intent. Lutheran masses are invalid on defect of form, and, lacking understanding of the propitiatory aspect of the Mass, intent too. But, a Catholic Mass said by a Catholic Priest may be invalid too. This is the problem with the novus ordo. It is insuffiently clear regarding certain aspects of the Mass and suppresses much in the former liturgy that made it clear, so the the guarantee of intent that a valid rite brings is not there and consequently one can not know for sure if a novus ordo Mass is valid or not.
A couple of other points. I did not say and do not say that the novus ordo is invalid on Lutheran grounds. I did not say and do not say that the novus ordo is invalid on grounds of pre-conciliar Catholic piety.
I do say that a Lutheran may find either the Tridentine or the Paul VI Mass valid in the Lutheran sense, and, that as the latter is not the historic worship of the Western church but a new version designed by a heterodox entity at best, nearly 500 years on in the Reformation, it betrays our stated desire to defend and uphold the historic and true mass to fall in line with it. I do say that the novus ordo is invalid on Catholic doctrinal grounds, not just piety, retreating from Catholic expression so seriously as to compromise sacramental intent and therefore the Mass itself, so that for a Catholic to assist in such a travesty knowingly (knowingly being the key term here, without which the full animadversion necessary to be guilty of the sinful act one commits will not be present) is a venial sin at the least.
Finally, the classical Lutheran expressions at the end of my last post can be left aside at the same expense as one may relegate differences as to sacramental ordination to a secondary status -- to do so is to miss the complete point. They are classical Lutheran expressions because they express classical Lutheran teaching, and I subscribe to these expressions 100%. They, and the rest of the BOC, allowed me to regain Christian faith at all having once been part of and now continuing to see the descent of the Roman Church into a theatre of the absurd putting Beckett and Genet to shame.
Now, some dessert! I see in our local paper that the Archdiocese of Omaha, as parishes and schools close one by one, has paid 389K cash for a house for their soon to retire bishop. Apparently not only Peter need no longer say Gold and silver have I none.
I hope this isn't getting too off topic or appearing where it is unwelcome!
ReplyDeleteIn case you hadn't realized - I was trying to be polite. I know full well what you presumed to explain to me, and was not leaving aside terms and definitions out of false irenicism, but to focus the discussion down onto a certain element of it, realizing that we disagree on the others and making the prudential judgement to leave those aside hic et nunc without in any way assenting to dangerous ambiguities.
It seems presumptuous to claim to know Catholic doctrinal grounds that supposedly prove the Novus Ordo an invalid rite, since "to do what the Church does [in obedience to Christ, of course]" is all the intent necessary, and the various modern Eucharistic Prayers jointly and severally, among which remains the ancient Canon of the Mass, all specify quite plainly what is intended, as a reading of them shews.
Making "forming the right intention" into some dreadfully difficult act is a wrong understanding of what intent is, leading to agonizing scrupulosity and loss of one's faith...
I strongly reject the notion that "the guarantee of intent that a valid rite brings is not there and consequently one can not know for sure if a novus ordo Mass is valid or not"; the medieval Offertory prayers, the Placeat, etc., while certainly making clear the sacrificial intent, are hardly necessary for rectitude of intent, since Gregory the Great didn't have them, yet his view on the Mass (vide the end of his Dialogues) is clear: leaving aside all else, the Canon of the Mass surely conveys the Catholic concept of what Mass is even without any other prayers, Q.E.D.
At base, all contain words to the effect "This is my Body... This is my Blood... remembering... we offer...": I should think it obvious that this describes a consecration and oblation, and unless the priest were play-acting or simply going through the motions with intent to deceive, God forbid, this would suffice.
I cannot help but notice in your comments a tone rather different to the pleasant discourse others engage in.
Well, Joshua, you are certainly welcome to come over and have at on my blog all you want! I would agree that a discussion of the rectitude of Catholic liturgy on Catholic grounds may be well off topic here. It's well off topic on my blog too, but you are quite welcome. So I'll leave it at this:
ReplyDeleteThere is on my blog's sidebar items one titled "The Tiber, for Swimmers et al" with links to detailed studies on the non Catholic nature of the current catechism and liturgy. Re the latter, I would suggest the Ottaviani Intervention as a precise study in how the novus ordo, including the hatchet job done on the Roman canon, fails. The case is made far better than my abilities and the limitations of a combox allow, which is another reason for me not to continue it here.
As to tone, I suppose one must construe as one will. My dissertation adviser always complained that my English prose read like a literal translation from nineteenth century German, a surprise to me since I think in English or Spanish most of the time, not German! Maybe it's from Nietzsche, the only philosopher worth reading, and Wagner.
Dessert: do you like Teilhard? (Not a trick question -- I love Teilhard.)
With apologies to Pr Weedon et al...
ReplyDeleteI long ago read the Ottaviani Intervention: it contains food for thought, but betrays no liturgical awareness of anything beyond the Roman Rite circa 1950, and I can see where it fails.
My supervisor told me my style was pompous and 19th C., so I suppose we're even. ;-)
Nietzsche?! Me genoito!
Why can't people just read Thomas and be satisfied?
And surely, please no, you can't be serious... Teilhard?!
I don't know whether his 'science' or his 'theology' is worse, speaking as one with a degree in both; a friend similarly qualified wrote a book dragging into the light such gems as letters of Teilhard apparently favouring certain views of the Nazis, so I don't have much time for that old fake: I can't see how his ideas could fit with the Magisterium, past or present, let alone with the BOC.
God bless.
Now we're talking!
ReplyDeleteI always throw in that I like Teilhard when I sense that I have come off like a crypto SSPXer -- it's that last guy one would fit with such an image. Saying I like him, btw, doesn't mean I buy a thing he says or find it congruent with the BOC, and as you might guess congruency with the Magisterium is irrelevant to me now.
I like Thomas, certainly better than I like Thomists, though I think he would be the first to-day to extend the range of moderate realism.
As to Nietzsche, if Christianity is not true, I think he is then the one philosopher who faced life with courage and without illusion of some other kind. Well, one of two, the other being Lao Tsu.