Inexorably Distancing: The Movie
Blogged by James Preece on 26th August 2009
I hadn't realised that video of the Catholic Herald interview with Archbishop Vincent Nichols was online. It's interesting to notice what emphasis he places on which words.
Perhaps I am reading too much in to his body language, but it seems to me that he is rather dismissive of people who "don't like some aspect of how the Mass is being celebrated or the music that's been chosen or something".
I also don't like his use of the words "don't like". It is not a question of "likes".
The Church teaches that "it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms." and that the Eucharist "is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim" and that when people do "they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage." (Redemptionis Sacramentum 11 & 12)
When you muck around with the Mass, you deprive people of what is "the right of all of Christ’s faithful" and "their patrimony and their heritage".
That is what people don't like.
Reader Comments
-1
Fr Patrick Brennan said...
How is the Archbishop mucking around with the Mass? I have listened to the interview and can't see it.
Perhaps it would be prudent to explore the role and function of the Bishops in each country?
Each bishop in the Catholic Church is a successor to the Apostles. Ordained by fellow bishops, who were themselves ordained by fellow bishops, each bishop can trace a direct, unbroken line of ordination back to the Apostles, a condition known as "apostolic succession."
Just as each of the Apostles went forth from Jerusalem to spread the Word of God by founding local churches, of which they became the head, so, too, the bishop today is the visible source of unity in his diocese, his local church. He is responsible for the spiritual and, to a certain extent, even the physical care of those in his diocese—first the Christians, but also anyone residing therein. He rules his diocese as a portion of the universal Church.
The first duty of the bishop is the spiritual welfare of those who reside in his diocese. That includes preaching the Gospel not only to the converted but, even more importantly, to the unconverted. In the day-to-day matters of life, the bishop guides his flock, to help them better understand the Christian faith and concretely translate it into action. He ordains priests and deacons to assist him in preaching the Gospel and celebrating the sacraments.
"The Eucharist," the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us, "is the centre of the life of the particular Church" or diocese. The bishop, as the supreme priest in his diocese, upon whose authority all other priests of the diocese must depend, holds the primary responsibility for ensuring that the sacraments are offered to the people. In the cases of the Sacrament of Confirmation, its celebration (in the Western Church) is normally reserved to the bishop, to emphasize his role as the steward of grace for his diocese.
The bishop does not lead simply by example and by safeguarding the grace of the sacraments, however. He is also called to exercise the authority of the Apostles, which mean governing his local church and correcting those who are in error. When he acts in communion with the whole Church (in other words, when he does not teach something contrary to the Christian faith), he has the power to bind the consciences of the faithful in his diocese. Moreover, when all of the bishops act together, and their action is confirmed by the pope, their teaching on faith and morals is infallible, or free from error.
+-
+2
Ches said...
With respect, Fr Brennan, I think the point James is making is not that Archbishop Nichols is mucking around with the liturgy. Rather, Archbishop Nichols seems not to appreciate that often, when people do not like some aspect of the New Mass, it is precisely because priests have been mucking about with the liturgy, depriving the faithful by not strictly adhering to the public law of the Church.
In this case, for the Archbishop not show any awareness of how bad this situation has become, and for him to start labelling those who are rightly unhappy (cf. James's quotation) looks like latent clericalism, not rightful episcopal authority.
+-
Fr Patrick Brennan said...
Ches, Many thanks for your response. I can see the frustration being expressed. Some priests (not all)do not follow guidelines well and in matters of liturgy this can be very unstatisfactory. I agree priests should stick to liturigcal norms as set down by the Vatican.... entrusted to the Bishops.... and so on.
Could you clarify... are you saying that The Archbishop of Westminster is not demonstrating rightful episcopal authority? If so what do you suggest be done?
+-
-1
Fr Patrick Brennan said...
After listening to the extract in the post again it appears to me that the Archbishop is talking about those who don't like Mass said in the Ordinary form. Nothing is said by the archbishop about priests mucking about with Mass. The archbishop is addressing those who want the EF Mass as the norm and won't go to Mass in the ordinary form. The ordinary form of Mass is not an abuse in itself.
+-
+1
James said...
Fr Brennan,
My point is about the offhand way in which the Archbishop appears to dismiss those who "don't like" something about "how the Mass is being celebrated" or "the music that's been chosen".
The fact that "Nothing is said by the archbishop about priests mucking about with Mass" is precisely the problem!
As you put it "Some priests (not all)do not follow guidelines well" One might hope to hear the Archbishop express a bit of sympathy for ordinary Catholics who have to endure such abuses, but instead we find he can barely conceal his contempt. As Ches puts it, it looks like clericalism... "these lay people should just shut up and be grateful for whatever gruel they can get" and those of us who dare to say "Please sir, can I have some more" are spat on.
After seeing that video, would you bother to write to him when you "don't like" something about "how the Mass is being celebrated"?
+-
-1
Fr Patrick Brennan said...
Hi James, love your blog it gets my grey matter in gear and i enjoy reading it very much. I did not detect from the archbishop's words the following sentiment you express.
"these lay people should just shut up and be grateful for whatever gruel they can get" and those of us who dare to say "Please sir, can I have some more"
I think he is talking about people who will not accept the ordinary form of the Mass. I am sure it is not his intention to hold laypeople in contempt.
+-
+1
James said...
Well, I did begin my blog entry with the words: "Perhaps I am reading too much in to his body language
+-
Aidan said...
When it comes to choosing music for Holy Mass, the options are very clear.
“In the dioceses of England and Wales the options for the Entrance Chant are: (1) the antiphon and psalm from the Graduale Romanum or the Graduale Simplex; or (2) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, the text of which has been approved by the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales.” (GIRM 48)
If the guidelines are followed then it is a case of likes and dislikes but if not then you do have a right, arguably even a duty, to complain. Unless I’m missing something of course, which is entirely possible…
+-
+2
Hestor said...
What we have here is a classic example of how those who want to defend the liturgical reforms to the death, will resort to using the "disobedeient/schismatic" argument in order to crush any debate that might shed light on the matter.
I suppose Arcbihsop Nichols thinks Msgr. Bartolucci, the former papal capella, is "inexorably distancing" (TM) himself from the church when he voiced his opinion on the ordinary form:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/08/bombshell-of-interview-mons-domenico.html
How dare these people point out the elephant in the room!
+-
+1
The Guild Master said...
"The ordinary form of Mass is not an abuse in itself."
No, but it sounds very much as though Archbp. Nichols' mindset is that the Extraordinary Form IS an abuse in itself, particularly if one attends it all or most of the time. Such people's loyalty to Holy Mother Church IS being called into question. That is offensive. Let us be quite clear about this, there is NO obligation to attend any particular form of the Roman Rite, simply to assist at a valid Catholic Mass to fulfil one's obligation. There are plenty of people I've spoken to who can't accept the Extraordinary Form ("I'd never go to that!" or some such). Are they "inexorably distancing themselves from the Church"? According to the Pope there are two forms within one Roman Rite of equal validity. Archbp. Nichols clearly doesn't accept that fully.
+-