Tag Archives: liturgy

Tongue Tied

William Oddie, in a Spectator
article
, tells the English-speaking world a little about the new mass translation
in the works.

“The effect of hundreds of such changes
– impossible to convey without more space – has had a massive cumulative effect
not merely on the accuracy of the translations, but on their beauty. They now have
a meditative quality that had been all but destroyed by the fanatical economy of
language – often leading to a sense of indecent haste – of the Seventies paraphrase.
The Latin text is allowed to breathe its full meaning into the new English version.
Ideological interferences have been dealt with: the Creed now begins ‘I believe’.”

Engaged Encounter Part I: House of God?

From the 10th through the 12th, my fiance and I participated in the Diocese of Pittsburgh‘s Catholic Engaged Encounter. We weren’t able to take the night classes downtown, so the retreat was our only option for satisfying the diocese requirements. I’d heard a range of appraisals of the experience, from "Eh – nothing special" to "hotbed for heterodoxy" to "a lot of fun".

Ultimately, I found the weekend to be a mixed bag. We learned some useful relationship lessons, but nothing substantial about what it means to enter the Sacrament of holy Matrimony. I also had issues with the site and masses held there. On the other hand, we made some friends. I didn’t want to lump everything together, so I’ve decided to post two entries. This one covers the site and the Masses. The second will cover the educational content.

The Kearns Spirituality Center is located on the campus of La Roche College in Allison Park, PA (about a half hour north of Pittsburgh). La Roche is founded and sponsored by the sisters of the Congregation of Divine Providence. In theory, it’s a Catholic school, but I couldn’t find anything besides the word "Catholic" in their mission statement to demonstrate it. The CDP mission statement also seems rather generic. Not only does it not seem particularly Catholic, it’s barely Christian. Jesus’ name could be replaced with Buddha without having much impact. The mission statement for the "spirituality center" leaves even more to be desired. I didn’t know all this before I went, by the way. I only had the vague feeling that the name "Spirituality Center" portended quasi-New Age, universalist, and "progressive" nuttiness.

It’s 8PM Friday and we’ve arrived a little late at the center. It’s a fairly attractive building – modern, but tasteful. We take our bags to our rooms and join everyone else in the conference room (The tables were removed and all the chairs were arranged to face the white board on one of the long walls). I’ll save the content of the first talk for Part 2.

After the talk, the priest asked if anyone wanted to help out with Saturday’s mass. I asked him if he needed/wanted someone to serve altar. He seemed nonplussed but accepted my offer. I asked if he or the center had cassocks and surplices. He laughed and said I needn’t worry about that. I said in reply that it wasn’t a worry; I wanted to wear them. He chuckled somewhat nervously and said I could "take the day off" and serve as-is. That exchange didn’t give me a comfortable feeling. I felt like a child who’d been assured that his tooth was placed adequately under the pillow and that the Tooth Fairy would indeed come. Perhaps that’s an odd analogy, but it captures the feeling that a genuine concern of mine was met with benevolent condescension.

I brushed off the bizarre exchange and went with my fiance to visit the chapel. The Visitation Chapel is shaped a bit like a magic wand. The hallway is the shaft. Before the hallway ends and the gathering space begins, there is a burbling font. I’m really not sure if Holy Water flowed through it or not, but I gave it benefit of the doubt. I’m really not fond of those things. They just don’t seem reverent or tasteful.

Anyhow, after blessing ourselves, we proceeded into the chapel proper, which, as a six-pointed star, serves as the head of the wand. As with the exterior, the architecture is tasteful and attractive, if a bit plain. It’s a comfortable room with large, clear windows dominating about half the walls. There’s an inoffensive wood cutout on the right that depicts the Visitation. On the left is a baby grand piano. The ceiling is high and comes to a flattened peak with small skylights.

There are no pews. Instead, there are individual chairs arranged around the room, facing inward to face the altar. There are no kneelers. That really annoyed me.

Looking past the chairs, we see the altar. No altar clothe adorns it’s wooden surface. It’s round. Put some bar stools around it and you’d have a fine table. Why make it round? It’s not like they want to incense the whole thing, assuming they even had the implements. It’s a monument to pointlessness. I thought "progressives" moved the altar away from the wall so the priest could face the people. How can he do that with people seated on every side of him?

[Stained-Glass-Crucifix.jpg] At this point, I’m quite irritated and my blood pressure is shooting up. It’s too bad the situation didn’t improve. Behind the altar, hanging from wires is one of the ugliest crucifixes I’ve ever seen. It’s a stained glass work of abstract "art". I call it "Jesus of the Crab Hands". Below it, on a small table that resembles a nightstand, resides what must be the tabernacle. I only know that because there is a lit candle next to it. Nothing about the box itself reveals its purpose – no obvious directionality or door. It’s about the size and shape of a very large shoebox. It’s black and the sides have vertical strips of hammered metal. It looks more like a rectangular hatbox than a tabernacle. At least it’s not hidden away in a corner. Then again, it might as well be if nobody recognizes it for what it is.

Everything about this place screams of inclusiveness overriding tradition and orthodoxy. The tyranny of PC church building apparently eschews the inclusion of traditional forms of reverence. A Quaker might feel at home there, but I didn’t. It’s not that most of its aspects are overtly illicit, but rather that the room doesn’t feel like a sanctuary. It’s more like a lobby, waiting room, or perhaps a small food court. I can imagine plants and sculptures adorning it. It’d be a delightful place in which to read and sip a coffee, but not worship.

[chapel.jpg]

[labaryinth.gif] That night and over the course of the weekend, I looked around the building and grounds for signs of authentic Catholicism. I didn’t find many. The bookshelves held more zen how-tos than Catholic, or even Protestant spiritual works. The only author whose name jumped out at me was Thomas Merton, who I’ve been told wandered a bit off the orthodox path in his later years. There were few genuine crucifixes to be seen. Most were resurrexifixes or plain crosses. At least one of the crucifixes was mounted next to door and was obscured by opening it. Two bright spots were the meditation walk and outdoor labyrinth. What the facility tour site doesn’t show or tell is that the meditation connects with a path lined with statues depicting the stations of the cross. I guess mentioning it would be un-inclusive.

Mass on Saturday wasn’t really noteworthy. I was the only extraordinary minister of the Eucharist. We didn’t sing. The homily was forgettable and harmless. The only thing that bothered me was that nobody knelt for the consecration. I realize it’s only optional in the absence of kneelers, but that doesn’t stop people at Heinz Chapel. Rather than draw attention to myself, I decided to "do as the Romans" and remain standing. All the while, I was thinking to myself, "Kneeling, aside from showing proper reverence for the Real Presence, is the norm in this diocese".

"In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise." – General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 43

Sunday was a different matter. I chose not to serve so I could sit next to my fiance. Before mass started, copies of the Gather songbook were handed out. As a convert who goes to mass with the Oratorian Fathers 95%, I was unaware of what lay in store for me. The priest asked if anyone could play piano. Silence answered him, so he informed us that we’d be singing a capella. Our opening hymn? "Canticle of the Sun" by Marty Haugen. I refused to sing. That’s not dignified mass music. It’d be fine for a praise and worship sing, but not the Sacred Liturgy. I’m a proud member of SMMMHDH, the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of Marty Haugen and David Haas. I’d like to ban Ernie Sands, too, but I’ll get to that in a moment.

At the offertory, there wasn’t a collection. We’d paid a lot of money for the weekend already. Also, donations were solicited earlier in the day. When a couple went to a table in the back to get the gifts, the priest instructed them to bring the donation box. He proceeded to place it on the altar! If you don’t know why that’s wrong, read Redemptionis Sacramentum [70]. One good act of disobedience and sacrilege deserves another. For the consecration, we were asked to make a circle around altar. This, too, is a reprobated practice. My fiance and I joined the circle but remained on the side opposite the priest.

The homily was again forgettable and harmless. On a side note, I don’t like when priests leave the pulpit to pace back and forth. It’s distracting and reminds me of televangelists. To close this reverent experience, an irritating 5/4 time piece by Ernie Sands called "Sing of the Lord’s Goodness" was sung. Again, I refrained. Who the heck told him 5/4 is a good signature for church music?!? The timing and the melody strongly reminded me of several songs in "Jesus Christ Superstar". Don’t get me wrong – I love that musical (it’s one of the few I can tolerate). It’s just woefully inappropriate for the liturgy. I’d call the songs hippy music, but most of the hippies I’ve met have far better taste. Give me "In the Garden of Eden" ("Inna Gadda Da Vida"), ala "The Simpsons", any day. 😉

So that’s it. Most of my gripes are of an aesthetic nature, but some aren’t. If I were the bishop, I’d disband the CDP, renovate Kearns, and censure the CEE priest. Why doesn’t Bishop Wuerl have a spine? I know he’s an orthodox guy, but I’ve yet to hear of him keeping rogue progressives in check. I’ll be posting soon about a scandal involving St. Agnes Church, which belongs to Carlow University, another CINO school.

[A small quote from the GIRM, regarding kneeling, was added September 28. – Funky]

Read part 2 here.

It’s Called Vibrate Mode

Cell phones ringing during Mass is a major pet peeve. Worse yet is when someone
either lets it ring without turning it off or actually answers it and proceeds to
talk and not leave the room. Mexican churches are disregarding
law to avoid these problems
. I’m not sure two wrongs make a right here, but
I can’t help but cheer the churches on.

Signs and Ceremonies: The Redemption

The following is from Teaching Truths by Signs and Ceremonies or The Church, Its Rites and Services Explained for the People by Rev. Jas. L. Meagher (1882, New York: Russel Brothers).

“[T]he Redemption was really and truly of infinite value, an infinite price,
not like the Pelagians and Socinians said, for these taught that Christ redeemed
us, not by paying the debt of our sins, but by resisting the temptations of the
evil one in the desert, or by being obedient to his Father; but the Catholic truth
teaches that Christ redeemed us from sin by wiping it completely out, pleasing God
in our place, and restoring us to heaven lost in Adam” (Ch. 7, pp. 117-118)

“He gave an equal return for the honor and respect and reverence due to God,
for sin is infinite because it is an injury done to an infinite God. But the reparation,
the satisfaction returned to God for that sin was infinite, for it was the prayers,
offerings, and the suffering and death of an infinite Person, Jesus Christ, the
Second Person of the Trinity; therefore his satisfaction was equal to the sin and
injury done to God.” (Ch. 7, p. 119)

“But he did not deliver us from the evils of temptation, of death, of sickness,
of suffering, or return to us the perfect and easy control which Adam and Eve had
before their fall, over the lower powers of our soul, or deliver us from all the
evils which fell on the human race from the sin of Adam, but only sanctifying grace,
which gives the right to enter heaven.” (Ch. 7, p. 120)

“And to say that Christ died for us all and that nothing more is required,
is to put the saint and the murderer, the good and the bad all on the same level,
all going to heaven, no matter what they do in this world. Our salvation then depends
on our own actions, the loss or the salvation of each one depends on their sins
or their good works; by these good works gaining the merits and graces of Christ
ready to be showered down upon us when we merit them. By His death he gained all
these, and these are to be given us when we show ourselves worthy by our good lives.”
(Ch. 7, pp. 120-121)

“Such then is the Mass; it is the applying of these merits of Christ to our
souls – the showering down of these graces into our hearts and the continuation
of the sacrifice of Calvary. A sacrifice is the great act of man offered to the
Divinity; here in the Mass we have the Victim only worthy of the Deity, the sacrifice
of the Son of God, there immolated to the God-head, the Offering only worthy of
the Deity of the Second Person of the Trinity is present there, and as the sublime
tragedy of Calvary is continued, there continued in remembrance of Him, the Victim
and the Sacrificer, as all is offered to the God-head, the face of the celebrant
is turned from the people toward God. The people are bowed down in prayer; it is
not necessary that they understand the words, for they are said not for them to
hear but for the ear of God. All may be in silence, still it is a sacrifice offered
to the Lord; not one besides the celebrant may understand these rites and ceremonies,
still they are for the eye of God and not of man
, and God accepts them from
the hands of the priest, for how can he reject the offering of His only begotten
Son?” (Ch. 7, pp. 121-122)

Signs and Ceremonies

I just finished reading Teaching Truths by Signs and Ceremonies or The
Church, Its Rites and Services Explained for the People
by Rev. Jas. L. Meagher
(1882, New York: Russel Brothers). I acquired a second edition copy from my grandfather’s
estate in 1998. He was one of the very few Catholics in my family. It’s too bad
I didn’t convert until two years after his death. I’d love to have a family member
to fully share my faith with.

This book is full of nuggets of wisdom and I’ll be posting some of them for the
next few days. Some of them are eternal Truths, others are sad reminders of the
damage done by “progress”.

“In this Ritual [of the Mass], every sign recalls a doctrine, every movement has its meaning,
and every action breathes of mystery.” (Preface)

“Thus all in the Church, the plan, the foundation, the music, the ornaments,
the style, all point to the altar, telling of the unchanging faith, the belief of
past ages in the Real Presence, of God in the Sacrament of the altar.” (Ch.
1, p. 9)

“[S]how me a religion without rites and ceremonies, and I will show you a people
drifting rapidly toward infidelity and the denial of all religion.” (Ch. 1,
p.14)

“Sometimes you will see the Church as a great building on a rock in the sea.
That is the true Church built by Christ on the rock, that is on the Papacy, in the
sea, in the midst of the changing governments and institutions and peoples of this
world, who are ever fluctuating like the waves of the sea, but the Church is on
an impregnable rock, for the Church never changes. You see the waves dashing against
the rock-bound shores, but beaten back. Thus the Church built on Peter and his successors
stands alone in the world; it never changes; it remains the same; it is attacked
on all sides by the waves of error, the storms of persecution, the roar of the elements
of passion, of governments, of politics around it; it is attacked by these, but
they are driven back; they go down. Governments may change, nations may rise and
fall, people may change their forms of laws, their idea, their manners, but the
Church alone, as an institution founded by Jesus Christ, stands to-day and ever
will, a thing that can never be destroyed. “And the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it.” (Ch. 3, p. 51, quote from Matthew
16:18
)