Turning Their Back on the Church's Ordinary Pattern of Prayer
Blogged by James Preece on 31st July 2009
In this weeks Catholic Herald there is an interview with Archbishop Vincent Nichols. One of the questions asked was "Does it really matter therefore whether we receive him in a Mass celebrated in the ordinary form or in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite?" to which the Archbishop rightly responded that "frankly the form of the Mass doesn't matter in comparison to that mystery which it provides."
He then went on to say this...
...most troubling of all to my mind is the mindset that somebody might get caught into, because perhaps they don't like some aspect of how the Mass is being celebrated or the music that's been chosen or something, that they begin to turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer, the ordinary form of the Mass and say: "I can't accept that."
That's really quite serious, because if they can't accept that then they are inexorably distancing themselves from the Church.
Here's what's "really quite serious"...
In every diocese, in hundreds of parishes across the country, every Sunday there are priests who "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer".
They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they change the words of the prayers at Mass to conform with their own personal interpretation and ideology. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they actively encourage laypeople to take part in those parts of the Mass normally reserved for the priest like the Per Ipsum. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they allow it to become the norm that the propers of the Mass are something most people barely even know exists let alone something actually heard and sung. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they discourage use of the sacrament of confession. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they break the bread at the line "he broke the bread" instead of waiting for the proper time. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" each and every time they choose to modify the liturgy according to their own whim and fancy.
More seriously than that though are the Bishops who "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they turn a blind eye to the priests they know to be doing the above. When they respond to letters from laypeople with words of assurance but do absolutely nothing of substance and leave such priests in place for years and years to wreak untold harm on their congregations. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they take part in the abuses themselves!
But the biggest kick in the teeth?
The Archbishop who after years of silent assent with the above turns around now and has a go at laypeople who quite understandably after years of being treated like turds say something like "to hell with it, let's just go to a traditional Church where they do things properly"
I am definitely most at home with the ordinary form of the Mass but there are many things in the Masses as celebrated in our Diocese to which I have to say "I can't accept that" or to use the official language: "the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease" (RS 4)
It is not that I "don't like some aspect of how the Mass is being celebrated or the music that's been chosen or something" as though this is a matter of personal preference. It is not a matter of personal preference, "The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim. (RS 11)
Who is turning their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer?
Look no further than our very own Bishops.
Reader Comments
+5
Fr Patrick Brennan said...
Interesting and valid points raised.
To be fair to the archbishop I think he was perhaps answering a specific question with regards to the form of the Mass ie: Ef Form or Ordinary Form. He may have been thinking about St Paul looking at what divides, such as saying I am for Paul or I am for Cephas and so on (The Sacrifice of the Mass in which ever form celebrated is the important thing).
You steer the post in an alternate direction and one which has merit and substance. You move away from arguing one form or another, towards liturgical abuses which are not covered in the answer of the bishop because he was responding to a question.
Interesting too that you use the words "They turn their backs" Provocative? Perhaps meant to be so. Is it quite as clear cut as wilful disobedience on the part of the priest who does his own thing at Mass or does ignorance come into play or even sheer fear...perhaps being faced with a hostile lay person pointing out and telling him what he is doing wrong backs him into a corner and makes him entrenched in the liturgical abuse he is showing. I don't know I am only speculating maybe every case is slightly different in the sense the priest may be unaware he is doing wrong or deliberately doing so. There is a missal and it lays down the rubrics but alas it is open to interpretation. I don't know how I would deal with priests who change words and the like, maybe a more gentle approach, a fatherly telling off, an encouragement to stick to the rubrics laid down...I think you are are right in saying that you are coming to a Mass that allows you to pray, to raise your mind and heart to God in prayer is very important. Attending a Mass and seeing all that the priest does wrong liturgically would be quite off putting and extremely distracting!
What would you suggest a bishop does to a priest who exhibits liturgical abuse? Unfortunately liturgy is interpretive and some laity feel the opposite to you and want, God forbid, more personality more creative license in the priest when he celebrates the Mass!
All I know is that when I pray the words of the consecration at Mass, heaven and earth are mingling in a mystery so profound that it is beyond my comprehension and I feel a profound sense of unworthiness and yet at the same time a understanding of the sacrifice I am making present.
+-
Agellius said...
It's interesting that the Archbishop only addressed people who reject the Ordinary Form as "turning their backs" on the Church. But how many people would protest or refuse to come if instead of four Ordinary Form masses and one Extraordinary Form, a parish changed and had four Extraordinary Forms and one Ordinary Form, and the latter at 6:30 a.m. or some such odd time?
(I know, before someone corrects me, that in actual fact more than one EF mass on a Sunday is verboten. But that fact alone says something.)
James writes, 'It is not that I "don't like some aspect of how the Mass is being celebrated or the music that's been chosen or something" as though this is a matter of personal preference.'
With me it is exactly that. I won't refuse to attend an OF mass with bad music if I must do so in order to fulfill my obligation. But if there is any other option I will avoid it like the plague.
+-
+2
S Murphy said...
Fr Brennan,
Couldn't the bishop hold professional workshops for his priests, to make sure everybody IS on the same sheet of music as far as interpreting the rubrics goes? Make sure they know what the manual says, and why, and why it's important that they do it right, and not their own way, or the 70s way, or whatever? Some of the laity (like those of us who grew up in the 70s-80s, at least over here in the US) might not have a strong sense of what's normal - there was the way my home parish did things, the way the parish near my undergrad school did things, the way the Catholic center at my undergrad school did things, and the way the Catholic center at my grad school did things... and then I joined the Marine Corps and stumbled across some more orthodox priests, or maybe it was just that times had changed. But I swear, I was 36 years old before I had ever heard that you were supposed to bow before receiving the Eucharist. Other lay persons know exactly what the rubrics say, and are ready to pull Padre off-stage with a great big vaudeville shepherd's crook if he screws it up -- or drive to a parish 30 miles away. But if that priest is my age (40) or maybe 10-15 years older, who knows what he learned in seminary? Give him a chance to learn the right way.
+-