www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology To change just ONE THING in American Catholic worship

Rome has addressed this time and time again. The problem is that the instructions are written something like this:

It is absolutely utterly extremely forbidden, unless there is a good reason for doing so.

In the Chicago Burbs, the use of EMOHC has become an ordinary event. Take my western parish for example. 400 people at mass, 10 EMOHCs. Break this down and it is roughly 40 per person. Doesn't take rocket science to understand that perhaps we are using too many of them.

As for lack of reverence.... A few months ago I overheard a conversation between two EMOHC at my western parish:

EMOHC #1 - Wanna go out to Lunch?
EMOHC #2 - Sure... but I got to go into the sacristy and do the dishes

What dishes was she talking about? The sacred vessels that hold our Lord's body and blood.

I don't think Vatican II was thinking of EMOHCs when they wrote "Full and active participation."

I think you have touched on something concerning full and active participation. I agree that the Council wanted to make the liturgy more accessible to to the people. But look at what happened in places. The priest, now facing the people, turned the mass into a performance. The meal aspect was overly stressed, when it is really of secondary importance to the sacrificial aspect. The old rinky-tink piano was brought in and lots of musicians (some were pretentious amateurs)- now moved to the front and visible - performed sacharine, feel good, waltzy tunes. At one time, the sanctuary was set apart as holy ground where something both divine in origin, and surrounded by mystery, was taking place. Now, many churches have what could best be described as a "stage" where folksy, touchy-feely, all-about-me, little acts take place. Where is the mystery, awe, wonder, and reverence in all that? I don't think the argument is about the lack of Latin. It's about the missing senses of decorum, dignity, awe, and mystery. Did the Council do this? No, I think too many people were allowed to do as they pleased, because the rubrics were so loosely written you could drive trucks through the loopholes. I do notice a trend developing where the bishops are demanding obedience to the directives of GIRM. It's long overdue, but I think in the long run it will correct many of the problems.

Charles,

if only we had the same devotion as the Chihuahua in looking for the Master. I think it a tribute to the pastor that his dog knew to look in the church (That should tell one where the pastor spends his time.) I guess the pastor could have remarked to the visitor, "that was the Hound of Heaven." (apologies to Francis Thompson)

Very true post ByzanTN,

Although it pains me when I attend my parish Church on Sunday, I find my self praying more intensly, and have found one priest who seems to be up to speed and preaches true reverence, he heard my confession at the start of Lent and I will be contacting him on my spiritual matters.

I am sure he will be very interested in my adoption of a eastern rule of prayer/prayers.

Maybe I can interest others in the other lung of the Church.

james

Good evening John. I don`t think that the EMOHCs were being irreverent. The term "doing the dishes" has been around for decades, well before the advent of EMOHCs. While I would not use that expression, I have heard it used by priests and deacons (equal opportunity, Father Deacon John) and I never had the impression that it was meant irreverently. Indeed, the chalice is a cup, the paten a plate = dishes, dishes consecrated to the service of God, but they are what they are: dishes. If you Google the expression along with the word sacristy, you`ll find references to it on several parochial websites. Nothing irreverent about them. BTW, did you ask the EMOHCs you overheard if they intended any irreverence? I`ll bet if you did, they would have replied in the negative. The overwhelming majority of the laity involved in ministry are reverent people who do what they do in service to their fellow parishioners.

You also mentioned using 10 EMOHCs at a Mass when 400 people were present. I agree with you that it seems a bit much, definitely liturgical overkill. If it is a regular occurence, why not speak with your pastor?

Have a good night.

Peace,

Charles

I realize, as many others do, that there is a need for EMOCs due to the shortage of priests. I can't help but associate, however,the use of EMOCs with the practice of receiving communion in the hand. I think both have contributed greatly to a lessening of belief in the Real Presence in the Roman Church. And while EMOCs may be necessary, communion in the hand is not.

There is considerable debate about how communion was received in the early church. While it is possible to find sources who seem to indicate communion in the hand was an early practice, one can also find sources that condemn the practice as early as 150AD. It any case, it was widely discouraged by the 7th century, and had been done away with around the 9th century. None of which has any bearing on why the practice reappeared in the US in 1977.

Once again, we have a case of a reform taking an unintended track. Pope Paul VI polled the Bishops in 1969 about communion in the hand, and only a third were in favor of allowing the practice. Pope Paul VI lifted the ban, however, to avoid a dispute with Belgian Cardinal Suenans, who had already begun communing in this fashion. The intent was to allow an indult where the practice already existed. Did it exist in the US? No!

Enter Joseph Cardinal Bernardin (then Archbishop), who was president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB). Although the practice could not be considered to be pre-existing in the US, he pushed the resolution twice at conferences and it failed. He was finally able to pass a resolution at a third conference in 1977 by polling absentee bishops (this hadn't been the practice before). With the use of smoke and mirrors it passed (barely). Rome signed off to avoid conflict, although the vote never should have occured because it wasn't a pre-existing practice!

Here is a plea that Cardinal Carberry of St. Louis sent to the laity as he prepared for the 1977 NCCB General Meeting: �We are facing again another struggle in our Bishops� Conference in May. It has been decided, for the third time now, that we have to talk about Communion in the hand�. So I would be grateful beyond words for any way that you could possibly help by prayer. I�m thinking, I know I can use a great deal of canonical reasons and law and the rest of it, but you don�t get very far with these. People don�t seem to want to listen to this kind of reasoning. But some kind of reasoning that would reach into the hearts of the Bishops, and to place it, I hope, on the basis of danger of irreverence to the Most Blessed Sacrament which is growing and growing and growing throughout our country. And if any of you have any reading matter on this, or any thoughts on how it could be presented; ways that it could be presented; ways that it could be presented before us, I would be so grateful to hear and receive any suggestions. And I pray most earnestly to our Most Blessed Mother that the beautiful prayer, �O Sacrament Most Holy, O Sacrament Divine� might be an ejaculation of all of us who want to preserve the reverence and devotion by the traditional way of receiving Communion, which has the blessing of our Holy Father, the Pope.� (Cardinal Carberry, St. Louis, Missouri, March 12, 1977)

Now correct me if I'm wrong, because I was only 13 at the time. But I certainly don't remember people clamoring for communion in the hand in 1977. The point I am making is that all of this has resulted in a lack of reverence, but no one asked for it!

Father George Rutler in a 1989 sermon quoted Mother Teresa on the subject:"Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her -- don't know why -- 'Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?' She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on.

"Without pausing a second she said, 'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.'"

I don't know her reasons, but she was devoted to the Blessed Sacrement, and lack of reverence in the very action of receiving in the hand would seem obvious.

Communion in the hand is a glaring example. It was not The Holy Father's intent, but he left just enough loophole for some of the NCCB to do what they wanted. And I think most of this was to encourage "active participation". As I indicated in another post, move the music director behind the people, get the lectors off the altar, reduce the "traffic" up there! Take a lesson from the East. All of the "traffic" is a distraction.

Mr. Charles Bransom, a question if you will, since we share a diocese. I am not happy with the war between tradionalists and modernists on the Liturgy. But you must agree it is rather one sided. Modernists control the agenda at present. I cite the following example, of a Pauline Mass done in a fashion I would like to see, but which is a rarity in the world.

Pauline Mass Done Well [adoremus.org]

As the article indicates, the turnout is quite large. The Mass done this way is quite popular, the Bishops cannot deny it. So why isn't this option more widely available? Some traditionalists, as indicated, won't accept the New Mass on any terms. But many of us would love to have this option available. I would like to hear of one church in the St. Pete Diocese (outside the indult Tridentine Mass) that has a bit of Latin in the Pauline Mass, a touch of Gregorian Chant, or, banish the thought, a priest celebrating ad orientum. The answer I believe is NONE, as in most diocese. (Some exceptions, as Dan Lauffer pointed out are St. John Cantius in Chicago, and I know of St. Mary's in Albany, NY).

If the establishment claim is lack of interest, the warm reception these Masses receive elsewhere would seem to indicate this is not the case. I think the modernists would rather not find out that change, and reform, work both ways.

With Prayers for His Church,
Doug

Dear Doug, CHRIST IS RISEN---AND IS IN OUR VERY MIDST! I personally think that the problem has its roots in seminaries. When I was in seminary in Baltimore in the late 60's-early 70's, we had 'hard-rock-Masses' regularly...and the music was often so loud that the celebrant had to ask the guitarists to turn down the amps a bit. There were, 'Godspell Masses' (complete with clowns) and all sorts of other horrors, and when anyone complained, their 'end of the year evaluations' contained phrases like: "has a rigid spirituality" or "is stuck in a pre-Vatican II mindset" (a couple that appeared on MY evaluations)...and things of this sort. When one is trained in THAT sort of atmosphere...it is little wonder that parish liturgies are so horrid. Recently I attended a Mass where the religious order priest who was the celebrant simply vested with a chasuble over his monastic habit (withOUT an alb or stole!)...and sort of 'made up the canon' as he went along. In spite of this, it was celebrated fairly reverently and prayerfully...so I ignored the attire and concentrated on the prayerful part. Of course in Orthodoxy, we sometimes concentrate completely on ritual to an almost pharisaic degree...and that seems to have its problems too. Seminaries attached to monasteries seem to fair so much better. There they have a full-cycle of services and very awesome Liturgies...and solid theology (either Eastern or Western depending on the tradition). I've found myself, that wherever there is Marian devotion and reverence for the Eucharist...there seems to be an authentic piety that feeds seminarians and future priests...and that means liturgy in the parish will reflect the training.

May the Lord and His Most Holy Mother help us!

In the Risen Lord,
+Fr. Gregory

I have read and heard various causes for the lack of reverence towards the Eucharist: being too Eastern or Orthodox, being too Western or Latin Rite, Vatican II, misapplying Vatican II, receiving Communion in the hand, the presence of Eucharistic Ministers at Mass, et cetera, ad nauseam. We might as well as toss in the phases of the moon.

Frankly, I see *zero* correlation between one set of rituals and genuine holiness. Adherents to either can be like the Pharisees: thinking that by doing things exactly *so* they will be holy. I've seen this in conservatives and in liberals, in some Latin Rite Catholics and in some Eastern Rite / Orthodox, et cetera. Likewise, I have seen people who have profound devotion and genuine humility when approaching the Mysteries, especially the Eucharist. Again, I have seen this reverence among Westerners and Easterners, among conservatives and liberals, and so on, and even including those who receive Communion in the hand.

(As one of those people of those people who receives --and gives-- Communion in the hand, I can also say that I do not feel like I am disrespecting our Lord by doing so; I feel like I am receiving Him and presenting Him in His most vulnerable and trusting form, almost as the Christ Child.)

In short, yes there must be a basic minimum of requirements to our religious rituals. However, I think what matters much more than externals are 1) faith, 2) keeping the commandments, 3) love for God and neighbor that altogether produce 4) reverence.

I also agree very much with what Fr. Gregory wrote:

Well said.

--John

Good morning Doug,

I am a bit bemused by how you addressed me. I am not used to such formality on this Forum, other than in regard to our esteemed priests and deacons.

Since you asked me a direct question, you shall have a direct answer. You wrote: "I am not happy with the war between tradionalists and modernists on the Liturgy. But you must agree it is rather one sided. Modernists control the agenda at present." In short, no, I disagree. There is a lot of give and take on liturgical matters. Cardinal Pell, who runs Vox Clara, can hardly be accused of being a modernist. I share your unhappiness with the liturgy wars. However, people on both sides of the divide continue to use inflammatory rhetoric. Since I cannot control either side, I simply pray for them and for God`s Church.

You also wrote: "I can't help but associate, however,the use of EMOCs with the practice of receiving communion in the hand. I think both have contributed greatly to a lessening of belief in the Real Presence in the Roman Church." Do you have any hard evidence to support your belief?

You wrote: "Pope Paul VI lifted the ban, however, to avoid a dispute with Belgian Cardinal Suenans, who had already begun communing in this fashion." On what evidence do you base your claim that Paul VI lifted the ban to avoid a dispute with Cardinal Suenens?

Concerning the vote by the then NCCB to permit the practice of communion in the hand you wrote: "With the use of smoke and mirrors it passed (barely). Rome signed off to avoid conflict, although the vote never should have occured because it wasn't a pre-existing practice!"

Please advise how you know the Holy See`s motives in this case. The term "smoke and mirrors" is a loaded term and you are using it in reference to a very holy man who is no longer here to defend himself.

You also wrote: "The point I am making is that all of this has resulted in a lack of reverence, but no one asked for it!" Please provide hard evidence that the above-noted actions resulted in a lack of reverence and that "no one asked for it." I recall that there was a lot of talk about communion in the hand during the late 60s and 70s and there were arguments for and against it.

Later on your wrote: "As I indicated in another post, move the music director behind the people, get the lectors off the altar, reduce the "traffic" up there! Take a lesson from the East. All of the "traffic" is a distraction."

First, the term "lector" refers to a specific ministry which is reserved to men. The correct term for those laypersons who proclaim the readings is "reader."

Second, the GIRM is very specific on the location from which the readings are to be roclaimed: "58. In the celebration of the Mass with a congregation, the readings are always proclaimed from the ambo." (GIRM). The GIRM is a document for use throughout the Roman Church which has adaptations for different episcopal conferences noted at the end. Paragraph 58 is not specific to the United States.

Whether the "traffic", as you call it, is distracting is a personal opinion which I do not share. Cellphones distract me, conversations between other worshippers distract me, but the entry of EMOHCs into the sanctuary does not distract me.

I do know of parishes in the diocese which use Latin hymns on occasion. If you wish to have them in your parish, ask your pastor. You might be pleasantly surprised.

I must tell you that if some "modernist" (your term) made claims that the Pian liturgy caused this or that problem, I would ask that person, too, to provide evidence. I have no grudge against the Pian liturgy. I was an altar server for many years and I still remember the prayers in Latin and understand them. I like hymns such as the Pange Lingua and Veni Creator Spiritus and I have no problem with some use of them and other Latin hymns.

It is late and I need some sleep. I wish you God`s peace.

Charles

It's not a "lack of Latin", as though there was
a simple translation from Latin to the vernacular.
Rather, virtually every word of every prayer was
changed, and most of what was distinctly Catholic
doctrine was removed.

Good morning Antonius,

Please point to what "distinctly Catholic doctrine" was removed.

I dispute your contention that "...virtually every word of every prayer was changed...." That simply is not the case.

Peace,

Charles

I think there are extremes in some of the arguments for lay ministries and following ritual. In defending lay ministries, it is important to not get so involved in one's role in those ministries, that one becomes a part of the problem, not the solution. We can all find instances where those ministers are properly used, and others where abuses take place - and probably within the same diocese. As for what is in one's heart as being more important than following ritual, one could appear nearly naked and chewing gum in the communion line, and have wonderful intentions in one's heart. I think what we do and how we appear matters, if not always to our own interior disposition, to the example we present to others. Perhaps some of the ritual and rules exist to take the edges off our fallen, and self-centered, human nature.

I don't think there is even a question as to those ICEL translations being inaccurate. Even the bishops agree on that one. That is why they are being re-written. Start with the infamous "we believe" instead of "I believe" for the Creed. Those little things do change the focus a bit in translations. Those ICEL translations from the early 70s are often idiomatic instead of literal. I don't attribute bad intentions to the translators, since they were attempting to make some clumsy literal translations more like natural language. If those translations were that great, the bishops and Rome would not be calling for their replacement. And really, I don't think that was ever so much of a problem in the rest of the world, just in the American English translations.

Good morning Charles,

Yes, there were some inaccuracies and there were some idiotmatic expressions used, but to state, as Antonius did, that "virtually every word of every prayer was changed" is simply not correct.

The ICEL translations are used not only in the U.S., but in all other English-speaking countries and therein lies one of the problems: trying to come up with a "one size fits all" translation which takes into account the linguistic differences between the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, and several other English-speaking nations.

One should also remember that there are expressions in Latin which do not translate well into non-romance languages and translators must take into account whether using a less literal, but theologically correct translation versus a literal, but barely intelligible or convoluted & theologically correct translation, is in the best pastoral interests of the faithful. People do need to know what it is that they (or the priest on their behalf) are praying.

Having said that, I agree that we need better translations and the translation process needed to be de-politicized as much as is possible. The current liturgy wars make it difficult to de-politicize this issue. Ultimately, no translation will ever please everyone.

Have a good day.

Peace,

Charles

"Start with the infamous "we believe" instead of "I believe" for the Creed."

The Syriac Churches have always used "We" rather than "I" So while it may be untraditional for the Latin Church to use "We" there can be no theological challenge unless one wants to challenge the orthodoxy of the Syriac Churches.

Fr. Deacon Lance