Before I was a Catholic, I thought the mass was in Latin. The only thing I knew of a mass was what I had been taught by Protestant theologians, and much of that had to do with debates from the 16th century, when of course it was very much in Latin. One that stands out is when I read a biography of Martin Luther. When he was a priest, he had an intense moment at the altar as he said the words of consecration, "hoc est enim corpus meum" or "this is my body". (incidentally this is where "hocus pocus" and the "hokey pokey" come from, which both mock the Catholic mass.)
I have quickly learned that the mass is a bit different than in Martin Luther's day. There are actually many different masses from outward appearance. I know, I know, there is only one mass if we are talking about the one sacrifice of Christ, true. But as for how the liturgy unfolds, there is an incredible diversity. And diversity is exactly what there shouldn't be.
Even IF we could limit the liturgy to the two current options of the "ordinary form" and the "extraordinary form" there would still be a problem. The Church should have one liturgy. I should be able to walk in and know what is going on in any mass around the world. Just the fact of having two different forms of the mass is itself a major problem and makes the Church look bad. Why have 2? Is it for personal taste of the "congregation"? It better not be. Does one form glorify God more than the other? Then dump the other one. See what I mean? Why is there two now when one is how things have always been before the 1960's.
The answer appears to be that Vatican II was misinterpreted and implemented in the worst cultural meltdown in human history, and the "Novus Ordo" mass became something it was not intended to be. This makes a ton of sense considering the revolution of the 60's/70's. So should the Novus Ordo be dumped? Apparently not, because the V2 council did make changes. So just going back to the old pre-V2 mass would appear to not be the way to go either.
This leaves us with a tertium quid: Combine them. This has been my gut instinct since becoming Catholic, and I was SO HAPPY to hear that this is very likely what will eventually happen. In and article on Fr. Z's blog, Cardinal Burke says that combining the two into a "new form of the Roman rite" would be the natural result of the current situation of having two forms intermixing with each other, and he would welcome it. Yea! By the way, Cardinal Burke has the most awesome title of anyone ever:
Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura
Isnt that intense? And his authority is intense also. Seriously, I am rooting for him to be the first American Pope.
Will this combining happen anytime soon? Unfortunately that is highly doubtful. I don't understand why the pope cant just make it happen. Snap his fingers and get it done. Who will say no to him? But apparently that is not how things work. Things go sloooow. That's ok, I will humbly submit to whatever happens whenever it happens. I am just glad to see that the guys in charge can see the problem. Perhaps my children will have a Church with a single mass.
Would it be safe to assume that Holy Family does the mass one way while the parish in Delano does it another way? Though I've spent many years as a Catholic, I have never experienced a mass like the one at Holy Family.
ReplyDeleteFather Z is elusive in the sense that I don't get responses for my numerous inquiries. I reach out mainly about where he'll be on Sundays when he's in the TC, because I'm interested in meeting him. But being the celebrity he is, it's hard for him to write back.
ReplyDeleteHoly Family has a very unique experience as far as I am concerned. The main difference is the fleet of altar BOYS. (emphasis on fleet, and boys) This enables there to be much more reverence through having candle bearers at the consecration and Gospel reading, and having the incensing of the people, (which I have not seen done anywhere else). It is still the Novus Ordo, but it is a quite reverent one.
ReplyDeleteMy 3 picky requests would be:
1. If Father Dufner were facing ad orientum (same direction as the people)
2. If the females would be completely removed from the altar, or at least never used for EMHC's.
3. No clapping for the choir, no singing from the altar, and no anouncments durring mass.
At most any other parish, there would be 30 things on this list instead of 3. But like I said, the mass is the mass... Jesus is still present at an ireverent mass. There is a difference between ireverent, illicit, and invalid. Most parishes are comfortable with irreverent, and may dabble now and then with illicit. I have never seen an invalid mass in person before.
Does Fr. Z come here or live here? I dont even know where he lives. I read that he has recieved threats before, so he probably does not like much personal contact with people he does not already know.