My friend and former colleague, John Zmirak — the guy who friends of mine call their favorite writer, even now that I’m eligible for the honor — has written an an explosive article (at the excellent Inside Catholic) about the Mass.
He’s an Extraordinary Form guy — a 1962 Missal guy, a Tridentine Mass guy. He sets out to address the question he has heard: “Why do you people care so much about externals?” His piece is hilarious, copiously linked to supporting material, clever, and wrong.
Well, ultimately wrong. Three things I know:
1. I know that the Extraordinary Form Mass has been a giant blessing for the Church before the Council and continues to be for many people afterwards.
2. One of my best friends is a new devotee; his wife, also a dear friend, said if she were to write about her experience (moving from turned off by to definitely a fan of the Extraordinary Form) she would call her article “Surprised by Beauty.”
3. My own exposure to the Extraordinary Form has been very limited, so I am not speaking from a personal preference point of view.
Zmirak goes through a list of possible reasons he might care about externals (aesthetics, love for Latin, nostalgia) and eliminates them. He scores by comparing the Catholic Church and the U.S. Navy: “It’s a machine built by geniuses so it can be operated safely by idiots.” I’d answer (with help from Benedictine College’s theology department) that it’s a machine built by God, not saints. In the end, though, John avoids the theological debate in order to pin his argument on an analogy instead. So will I.
So, why does he insist that the externals are important?
Because he says the Mass form is like a flag: An inessential, but vitally important thing. Imagine a new administration changed the flag. “If people accepted the change,” writes Zmirak, “what else would they be likely to accept?”
Um, not to put too fine a point on it, but the form of the Mass is not at all a flag.
Furthermore, it seems to me that to think of the form of the Mass as a flag points to a, er, major problem. It in fact forces us, the Novus Ordo friends of John, to restate our question. “Okay, forget my question about why you care about externals. Let me ask you this: Why do you wave your Mass around and wear it like a badge?”
Let’s think about this for a second. The Church doesn’t have or need a flag, because it isn’t a nation. Its members are tied to each other by bonds far deeper than political ones.
What is the Church? It’s a communio. It isn’t just like a family, it is a family (we share a Father and mother), but it’s more expansive than that. Christ calls himself the bridegroom and us the bride. Corporately, we’re the bride of Christ, we are so united to him that we are his body — just as “a man is united to his wife and they become not two but one flesh.”
Where does this happen in the Church? At Mass. We receive his body and blood, as a community — in communion — and we are one. As the Council taught, the Eucharist is both the sign and the reality of the unity of the Church, a unity that starts in baptism.
Where does this happen in marriage? In the consummative act and in its conjugal reaffirmation. In other words, through marital intimacy: On night one and on subsequent nights. This conjugal act is the “source and summit” of the unitive and procreative dimensions of a couple’s marriage.
But of course spousal unity is about a lot more than sexual union. To have a proper relationship, a husband and wife have to, well, do stuff with their clothes on. In fact, their highest priorities will consist almost entirely of stuff that happens outside the bedroom.
As important as sex is as the “source and summit” of their marital relationship, their behavior and relationship will start to look warped if they make sex the “center and preoccupation” of their relationship. Their marital relationship will start to be tense and unhappy and the very unity the act is supposed to affirm will become tenuous and fragile.
It’s the same with the Mass.
Now, don’t get me wrong: Not only do I know it’s possible to prefer the Extraordinary Form without obsessing about it, but the two most faithful devotees of the old Mass I know don’t obsess about it.
But I know some people do, and I know Zmirak in this piece comes perilously close.
Mass is public; sex is private. But just as I wouldn’t wave my Mass like a flag, I wouldn’t go winking at my wife and pointing to the bed too much, either. Doing either, it seems, would tend to alienate and irritate.
To complete the analogy: the conjugal act ought to have a certain order of events and should be respectful and true to the nature of the relationship. If you’re going to play music, it ought to be appropriate to the occasion, and not disrespect or distract. And the same goes for Mass.
But if a husband got too focused on the externals of the conjugal act, about the kind of scented candle and the lighting, and started insisting that the details should match Sept. 17, 1987’s details, and that only the one Journey tape was appropriate, and furthermore started talking about little else but the importance of the act, and the perfection of that 1987 experience …
His good wife would probably want to reorder his priorities a little bit.
Ultimately, we want Mass to be our expression of a relationship of which it is a very small (but very important) part. That’s why most of us — in both the Ordinary and the Extraordinary camps — know the externals should be right, but don’t obsess too too much about them.
So, John, put down your flag, stop pointing to the bed, and let’s talk about us for a change.
UPDATE: Contra at least one blog’s inference, this post should in no way be taken to suggest that I have a predeliction for Journey at intimate moments or at any other time.
UPDATE 2: The article originally was subtitled “Wave Your Freak Flag High?” This was directed to John, but I apologized to him for it. Its unfortunate implication was that I think the Extraordinary Form freaky. I do not.
UPDATE 3: John Zmirak once developed this spousal analogy about Mass as well. Some who object to my words might prefer his:
“The priest acts in the person of Christ. Christ acts as high priest, and offers himself as victim to God the Father, in expiation for the sins of man. In the person of the priest, Christ weds himself to the congregation, which stands for the Church, Christ’s mystical Bride. Just as the priest’s sacrificial role in the New Testament theology is a direct outgrowth—down to many of the rituals and prayers used—of the High Priest’s Temple ritual in Judaism, so this matrimonial theology grows directly out of the Old Testament understanding of the Jewish people as wedded to Yahweh. (See the Song of Songs and Hosea for lovely, poetic meditations on this theme in the Hebrew Bible.) . . .
“This marriage between the priest and the congregation, between Christ and the Church, is at the very heart of Catholic theology. It connects to the sacredness of the sexual act, and expresses the very reason why (as we believe) God became a man—in order to unite the mass of fallen, weak humanity to himself, in a mystical sacrament of love. In pagan religions and ancient Judaism, the role of a priest—one who offers sacrifice—was distinctly and utterly masculine. This is true in all the traditional liturgies of the Church, East and West, along with the papal mass in Rome, which dramatically depict Christ’s manhood along with his transcendent Godhood, in the imperfect but sanctified masculine person of the priest.”
Comments
Post a Comment
I read your article. I read Mr. Zmirak’s article. I disagree with you. I think you may be missing the point that indeed - the “nonessentials” DO count because they set a tone that subconsciously determines relevance.
I was in high school when Vatican II changes were implemented. Twenty years later, when my children were attending Catholic school I was shocked and bewildered at the gradual secularization of Catholic education. Where all of our textbooks were infused with Catholic teaaching morals and values - as well as all the FACTS, btw- my children’s books were no different than any local public school and just as “politically correct” - facts mixed with social engineering dreams.
When I try to volunteer at my church I feel like an outsider because I do not have any difficulty deferring to the magisterium on all issues of fatih and morals. The good people running all of the ministries at church routinely label me and those like me: orthodox, traditionalists, JUDGMENTAL, rigid, inflexible, etc. We are supposed to live and let live, never hurt anyone by bringing up discrepancies between true Catholic doctrine and the practices going on, in case anyone has “trouble” with it. In other words, we cannot address any issues, even in the most carefully worded language, without being labeled judgmental - when in reality, we are the ones being judged.
You’re right. His description of that time period was very authentic to the experience. It was a nightmare. The point is, though, 40 years later, what’s the status of a Mass form?
And, yes, there are many places that remain rigid and opposed to the magisterium. But the nightmare is ending ... I know because I didn’t face it in the four dioceses I’ve lived in: Washington, D.C., Arlingon, Va., Hartford, Conn., and now Kansas City, Kan. ...
Weird how you run into things that are related to something you were thinking earlier in the day. Specifically, I was thinking about how, in the first or second grade, I was exposed to the Baltimore Catechism. I still remember the question, “Who is God?” and the answer, at least to the best of my recollection “God is the supreme being who made all things.”
Today it would almost seem the answer would be “Well, these are complex ideas and nobody knows if they’re true or not, so it hardly seems worth troubling your little minds… who wants popcorn!”
Point is, people don’t learn by never being challenged. Just like your faith cannot grow if it is never tested. The consequences of watered down faith and watered down teaching are painfully self-evident.
Regarding the form of the mass, the effort to make mass “accessible” failed at some level for the same reason making math more accessible by simply ignoring negative numbers would fail. You make complex beauty accessible by careful and complete education and catechesis. You don’t address misunderstandings about symbolism or rites by getting rid of them. You explain them. We have access to the divine through the material (the Word was made Flesh) and so the “trad” form can be an aid to deeper knowing of God in all his triune majesty. But, simply putting it out there and saying “It’s back!” doesn’t help those who never experienced it and know nothing about it. I’ll admit there’s a fine line between educating and “waving the flag” but this debate seems a little silly. The current and previous Pope have made strides in correcting error that came out of (deliberate?) misunderstandings in teaching after Vatican II. Let’s just learn and appreciate what we possibly have been missing!
FB
“...let’s talk about us for a change.” The Mass is about “us” and that is the problem - it used to be about Him.
Wow.
Just wow.
I mean, I like sex with my husband, and all that, a LOT, but sex as the source and summit of our married life?
Again, wow.
But if that’s the analogy you REALLY want to use, current celebration of the Liturgy has become less like one of the parties insists on the same candles and Journey tape (?) all the time, and more like one of the parties is insisting on constant novelty, obsessing on what she can do to make it “different” this time; as if it were… oh, I don’t know, the French maid’s outfit that made it all “meaningful.”
First, I think the analogy is pretty good, actually: “In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion,” says the Catechism. If it’s not experienced as a deep mystical experience every time, well then, neither is Mass.
And I agree 100% with you as you apply the analogy to goofy Masses. I think the pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II Church (which were composed of the same people, after all) shared the same problem: Whenever the Mass becomes the focus and preoccupation of your faith life, you’re going to have a weird faith life and probably a weird Mass, too.
Devotion to God, to me, should result in becoming His reflection to the world so as to lead others to Him. If Mass does not accomplish this by recharging and inspiring us then something is wrong. I will never forget the example of the Church in the West Indies. They came dressed in their best (as if to see the king) and joyful and ready to sing and worship. Everyone sang with joy (like David) and when the Priest started the consecration all fell silent and reverent, communion was solemn and prayerful and then the Church became joyful again as we all left to love and serve the Lord and one another. I think God is please when we go forth from Mass (from whatever form we prefer) full of joy and love, if this does not occur then we need to contemplate why not? God wants individual families and His communal family (the Church) to reflect His love to the world.
Therese, FB, Steve, very well put! In the NO priests are distracted by the people and the people talk about all (including the priest) “sharing” around the same table. The priest is only marginally distinct from everyone else. I read about prisoners of war keeping their sanity by reciting what they had memorized in school. Without the Baltimore Cat. what do our youth have to hang on to - popcorn? They are in a daily war against the church and need to have specifics to guide them.
Hilarious Hoops…BRAVO ZMIRAK….The Roman Catholic Mass is about our awe and reverence for our experience with Christ and not about the group. Less theology and more prayer needed Mr. Hoops.
The shallowness of this article compared to Zmirak’s is one indication of kind of shallow thought that Vatican II has bred. It’s good to see little support here (in the comboxes) for such desperate apologetics for the denuded Mass (the Novus Ordo).
By the way, friends, google for Dietrich von Hildebrand’s excellent essay, The Case for the Latin Mass.
Augustine, you haven’t finished your thought. What’s so shallow about this article compared to Zmirak’s?
Hoops, you just knocked the greatest aspect, and miracle of the Catholic church, that is what is so shallow.
Augustine, thank you, read that wonderful article, The Case for the Latin Mass.
My Friends;
Our Lady, as always, gives us a simple message, which, in its simplicity, hides a deep and profound meaning and a loving challenge. Let me share with you a personal story that might illustrate some of that loving challenge.
Some four or five years ago, the Spring before I came to my present assignment, I was visiting a friend in the Des Moines area, browsing through a beautiful little bookstore some of you might know, “Divine Treasures;” go there if you get a chance, the selections are great and the people are wonderful. In any event, I spied a book, rather an author, with whom I went to school. I was rather amazed, because when I knew the man, he was not a great fan of Tradition, or so I thought, but, all that had changed. In the book, he advocated in the strongest possible terms: Make the consecration to Our Lady in the form advocated by St. Louis Marie de Montfort-True Devotion to Our Lady. It can be purchased in any Catholic bookstore, both the original and in shortened versions. Since St.Louis’ original is somewhat daunting, both will, if you will pardon the expression, “do the trick!”!
It was just before Lent, and I was pondering,”What should I do?” Here was the obvious solution, since, for many years, I had thought, “You know, I should do this.” But, like so many of my good ideas, I just hadn’t gotten around to doing it. The author made a bold claim: “This will change your life.” I like bold claims. And I’m a sucker for TV infomercials. And I needed a bold change. So, I read his book. I read True Devotion and… I did it! And… as usual, Our Lady will not be outdone!
To make the Consecration is not to say that all one’s problems will go away. Indeed not. However, to make the Consecration is to say that you will experience, in a new way, your Divine Filiation, that is, that you are a child of God the Father (as St. Therese says, Papa le Bon Dieu, Daddy the Good God)and Mary our Mother.
How does this fit in with the Message we have received this month from our Good Mother? St. Louis de Montfort describes what our relationship should be towards Our Lady and hence towards Jesus, Who, in turn, gives us to the Father. These words are taken from another work of St. Louis,’ entitled The Love of Eternal Wisdom:
213. Note that Mary is not only the Mother of Jesus, Head of all the elect, but is also Mother of all His members. Hence She conceives them,
bears them in Her womb & brings them forth to the glory of Heaven through the graces of God which She imparts to them. This is the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, among them St. Augustine, who says that the elect are in the womb of Mary until She brings them forth into the glory of Heaven. Moreover, God has decreed that Mary should dwell in Jacob, make Israel Her inheritance and place Her roots in His elect and predestinate. (cf. Sir. 24. 13) (1)
This teaching can be understood most easily once we see it in a Trinitarian context, that is, Mary, Daughter of God the Father; Mother of God the Son; Spouse of God the Holy Spirit.
Thus, when we are consecrated wholly to Our Lady, being moulded in the image of Mary, Suffering and Immaculate, we cooperate with Mary and Her Spouse, the Holy Spirit in such a way, we call this way “True Devotion”, or in the language of Our Lady’s Message “opening our hearts to God to be transformed and moulded in His image”. The outcome will then be, in the words of de Montfort (who relies on St. Paul)“that Mary must beget us in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ in us, nurturing us towards the perfection and the fullness of His age (Eph. 4. 13), so that She may say more truthfully than St. Paul, ‘My dear children, I am in travail over you afresh until Jesus Christ My Son is perfectly formed in you.’” (Gal. 4. 19) (2)
How or what would this True Devotion or Transformation look like? St. Louis answers this question quite succinctly:
“If I were asked by someone seeking to honor Our Lady, ‘What does genuine devotion to Her involve?’ I would answer briefly that it consists in a
full appreciation of the privileges and dignity of Our Lady; in expressing our gratitude for Her goodness to us; in zealously promoting devotion to Her; in constantly appealing for Her help; in being completely dependent on Her; and in placing firm reliance and loving confidence in Her motherly goodness.” (3)
If one were to stop for just a moment and ask oneself the question, “What is one thing Our Lady has been asking us to do since She came to us at Medjugorje in 1981? One little thing?” She has asked us to say the Rosary. This, too, my friends, is the heart of the message of St. Louis de Montfort. So much so that his little book, The Secret of the Rosary, a spiritual and theological masterpiece, yet able to be read by anyone in junior high is probably more of the centerpiece of his theology and thinking than his more well-known work, the True Devotion. All of these works that I have mentioned of good St. Louis, his True Devotion, The Secret of the Rosary and The Love of Eternal Wisdom can be found at any good Catholic bookstore. If you are in the Des Moines area, go to Divine Treasures. If you are in the Iowa City, Iowa area, go to the Mustard Seed, 532 N. Dodge St. If you are in the Davenport, Iowa area, go to the Fait h Explained, 114 1/2 W. 3rd St. I can personally attest to the Catholicity of all three stores, especially the Mustard Seed and the Faith Explained because I am personally involved with those two. I am a member of
the Board of Directors for the Mustard Seed. For those of you who are computer savvy, St. Louis’ True Devotion and The Love of Eternal Wisdom can be found on Mother Angelica’s website (don’t forget to pray for her and all her work!): www.ewtn.com/library. Just plug in Montfort’s name and the document you wish to have.
In closing, let me remind you of the wonderful saying of St. Louis de Montfort” ad Jesum per Mariam- to Jesus through Mary”. St. Josemaria Escriva made a felicitous addition to that saying, which, in this age that so needs prayers for our dear Holy Father seems especially appropriate: “Omnes cum Petro ad Jesum per Mariam- All with Peter to Jesus through Mary!” With our Rosaries in our hearts and in our hands, with Mary moulding us in the image of Jesus, pointing towards the Father, praying for one another and our dear Holy Father, not only shall we attain Heaven at the last, won’t it be that we shall already have begun our Heaven… here and now?
God love you all.
Fr. Scott LeMaster
MY RESPONSE:
Augustine, thought so. It’s easy to be dismissive and insulting, harder to actually cite evidence and stand by an argument.
JR, it’s hard to take you seriously after you have been so insulting to Our Lady.
(NB: JR has never insulted Our Lady to my knowledge, but she announced that I “knocked the Mass,” a worse offense, with no evidence, so I’m just trying to show her how that feels. I may be shallow, but I don’t knock the Mass; and I won’t tolerate an anonymous flame thrower saying so.)
Lots of great feedback here, though. Please understand there are lots of aspects of Zmirak’s piece that I didn’t respond to, because they are true: The abuses after Vatican II were terrible.
There needs to be a frank acknowledgment of the failures before Vatican II, also. More on that later …
Mr. Hoops, you lost credibility when you referred to Mr. Zmirak as a “1964 missal” guy. Last I checked, the church never issued a missal in 1964. Are you referring to the 1962 missal (which would make sense, since the extradordinary form is celebrated using the this missal) or are you reffering to the 1965 missal (which would make Mr. Zmirak a true oddity and rarity; the 1965 missal was truely the mass as envisioned by the second vatican council; too bad they scrapped it for the 1970 missal; can the 1965 missal even be used today? Does anyone still use the 1965 missal today?)
The bottom line is you identify your own major mistake and downfall: “My own exposure to the Extraordinary Form has been very limited…”
Please attend an extraordinary form mass for 6 weeks straight and then please revisit your article. No doubt your article will improve considerably.
Hoops…you turn things around and make these statements from air. Comical really.
I think you ‘knocked’ the Latin Mass in your article, that is not insulting, that is my opinion. Why do you seem to take on an attitude of defense when someone tells you their opinion and you don’t like it?...why the ego?
JR: Whatever.
DM Reed: Thanks. I have now fixed the typo.
As to the 1965 missal, I know of no effort to use it again. There are major efforts underway to fix the liturgy, though:
2001 John Paul’s Novo Millennio Ineunte. Liturgiam Authenticam (Authentic Liturgy) by Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
2002 New General Instruction of the Roman Missal.
2003 Pope John Paul II encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia.
2004 Year of the Eucharist; Mane Nobiscum Domine. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments’ Redemptionis Sacramentum. Pope Benedict XVI elected. In his first message: “I ask everyone to intensify in coming months love and devotion to the Eucharistic Jesus ... above all through the solemnity and the correctness of the celebrations.”
2005 Synod on the Eucharist. Pope Benedict canonizes five Eucharistic saints.
2006 Vatican directive to liturgical translation officials and U.S. bishops; U.S. bishops on reception of communion.
2007 Sacramentum Caritatis (The Sacrament of Charity), Pope Benedict’s post-synodal apostolic exhortation.
2008 Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum; Latin Mass.
2009 Pope Benedict XVI celebrates certain Masses ad orientem.
Mr. Hoops, even though I have some disagreement with this particular article, I enjoy your work and following your articles in the NCRegister. Keep the articles coming, they are always timely, relevant, and orthodox (even if there are disagreements from time to time.) Kudos
Hoops said about Zmirak’s article -“His piece is hilarious, copiously linked to supporting material, clever, and wrong.”
Now that is insulting to a friend as you call Zmirak. Is it chairtable for me to say that I just don’t like your articles or would insult you?....because I wouldn’t want to insult you.
Oh come on, JR. I don’t think that was intended to be a personal slight against Zmirak and even if it was, two ad hominems don’t make a right.
“The Council”
This is the problem with the Legion and its supporters—they believe there was only one council and the Church pretty much began in 1969.
It’s also the reason the traditional Latin Mass movement is flourishing, while liturgically barely-right-of-center movements are struggling.
JPII is no longer pope, guys.
This is gonna be long and probably a bit rambly, but here goes.
-
Mr Hoops,
-
Several things: I think you have misinterpreted John’s analogy a bit. I don’t see that you have sufficiently proved Zmirak to have “come perilously close” to obsessing about the Extraordinary Form. Nor have you really presented us with what amounts to “too much” or why we shouldn’t try like hell to get the inessential traditions back into the life of the Church in America. You need to prove that the damage done by Vatican II (the implementation of it, that is) does not warrant John’s level of concern today. It is simply inadequate to just come up with a competing analogy and then put us on the wrong side of it with no real discussion. The faithful didn’t need more “go interpret and find your own mass,” they needed, “here’s a better way than what you had before, but you can only do things this way, not any way you please, and you get almost no leeway to interpret it for yourselves, because this is about God, not you.” I wouldn’t—and John probably doesn’t either—agree that the “nightmare” is entirely over (a local parish here had, and probably still has, liturgical dancing).
-
Things are not nearly as bad, yes, but that doesn’t mean we should suddenly just drop our advocacy. If essentials are as important as John says, should we not begin waving them around furiously and deck the halls with our banners and hold “mass” rallies? (I am being a bit facetious here just in case anyone thinks I’m advocating an EF Nuremberg Rally or something) I think this article needed to be a good deal longer to really be considered an “Answering” of Zmirak.
-
His article is also a good deal more balanced that you would seem to imply. Restoring and promoting the EF is not about showing off, but about restoring a fullness that was lost. Fullness comes from going beyond the bare essentials and using the inessentials to enrich the practice and life of the Faith. Fixing what went wrong and reasserting the traditional form are actions that have very positive externalities (econ lingo) which I’ll attempt to address later.
-
-
“My own exposure to the Extraordinary Form has been very limited, so I am not speaking from a personal preference point of view.”
-
Is this supposed to make you unbiased? One could say you are speaking from the preferring-not-to-expose-yourself-to-the-EF “personal preference point of view.”
-
-
“Um, not to put too fine a point on it, but the form of the Mass is not at all a flag.”
-
I think you are missing something here. Zmirak, I think, does not take the mass to be a flag. Rather, the inessentials of the old form and a general concern for inessentials as the flag. He is, obviously, aware that the mass itself is essential and, thus, not comparable to the inessential-ness of the flag. The inessentials of the mass are the flag. The flag is a signal and when it was changed it signaled a mass doctrinal abuse. That’s about as essential as an inessential can get, don’t you think?
-
Traditionalists are reacting, in part, against an excessively legalistic view of the mass and its implementation. We are called to do more than the bare minimum to qualify for sacramental validity and we can also do harm by just relying on that validity in judging the quality of a form. Catholicism is about a fullness, not about distilling to “essentials” or being satisfied with them when we can do better (it’s called EXTRA-ordinary for a reason). The EF and associated traditions, it is claimed, more completely embodies and promotes a respect and reverence consummate with the importance of the act. If this is true, then it also leads to a greater fullness of faith and participate in Catholic life. If the NO is really that bad, then we should have much less of it.
-
-
“The Church doesn’t have or need a flag, because it isn’t a nation. Its members are tied to each other by bonds far deeper than political ones.”
-
Simple fact of the matter: people rely heavily on symbols and traditions because they have real, practical power and effect and because ordinary people can;t be expected to always know, based on words on a paper, how to properly revere and respect the mass or the Church. This is the gift of our traditions, they’re short cuts, in a sense, that have been accumulating over the millennia. The flag, while ultimately unnecessary, is extremely important because people need more than just a law or a paper telling them they share a “bonds far deeper than political ones.” Just look at what liberalism—an anti-tradition ideology that is simply on the other end of the scale/side of the coin from communism—has done to our society. People have become untethered from their heritage, and consequently their faith, because they do not know or attach importance to the preferences of their ancestors. People have little respect for the authority of their parents and less so for that of their grand and great-grand parents. Breaking down this “democracy of the dead” (Chesterton, I think) allows the cabals to manipulate us and mold us, because we are stripped of our belief-buffer, if you will. We no longer inherit that “prejudice,” as Burke put it, that guides us in the absence of adequate understanding of or access to doctrine. Yes, in an ideal world we would all have a complete understanding of theology and whatnot, but life simply doesn’t work that way. We can’t all have the convert’s level of biblical and theological knowledge. The lay people have the Church to do much of that work for them, to practice a kind of religious specialization (more econ lingo there). It’s about what works best for bringing us to the Church and the salvation that She offers.
-
“’It’s a machine built by geniuses so it can be operated safely by idiots.’ I’d answer (with help from Benedictine College’s theology department) that it’s a machine built by God, not saints.”
-
But I think you miss the point. You’re taking this too literally. Zmirak is trying to help the reader understand something about the Church by a comparison and is, I think, not referring to the “Church” in the strictest theological sense (though I’m no expert). The point is that it takes a lot of work by holy men to make the practice of the mass and of our faith “safe” or less susceptible to error. This is one of the most oft cited failings of the new form: it is too open to abuse. It is open to abuse because we humans, who staff God’s Church, screwed something up. The “machinery” now has faults and is not working as smoothly in bringing us to salvation.
-
The “saints” do, in a sense, build up the Church with their examples, their inessential contributions, their reverence and call to fullness. They contribute to the identity of the Church. Vatican City, all the great art, architecture, music, vestments, literature, etc, are all part of the identity of the Church. They communicate our commitment to fullness and identify what we hold to be important. They do this because of their beauty, reverence, and other special characteristics.
-
The mass is operated by “idiots,” i.e. imperfect beings and so we should make every attempt to accommodate them. Of course the Church is built by God, but it is staffed people and we have an amount of discretion, if you will, in the running of it. So, in a doctrinal-legal sense, we don’t NEED Vatican city or cathedrals or churches, NEED to sponsor the Sistine Chapel being painted, NEED the crucifix in our Churches, or NEED any of the amazing inessentials that communicate the sublime and raise our minds to the divine through reverent practices, beauty, aesthetics, etc… We don’t NEED to cling to the inessentials and traditions established by saints, but there are very good reasons to do so.
-
Simply having a legally “correct” doctrine in front of us does not, in the real, practical world, always (or even often) cut it. We really do NEED, in a practical sense, the inessentials, because they frame the discussion, steer us to the truth, and they show the non-theology majors what is important and how to act. Inessentials are, and have always been, the Poor Man’s Bible.
I feel the need to defend my friend Tom Hoopes from the charge of knocking the Extraordinary Form or championing a cavalier attitude towards liturgy in general. He explicitly grants that the EF is a blessing for the Church, that its beauty draws people, and that he has no objection to it.
This debate is not over the post-Vatican II crisis of faith in the Church. As Zmirak points out in his original article, our Orthodox brothers haven’t escaped that problem even though they didn’t change their liturgy: so Zmirak himself is not in the camp that lays all Church troubles at the feet of Vatican II.
Nor has Tom denied that the rich traditions of our liturgy—the “inessentials”—are important in themselves and worthy of preservation. His sole point is that it is possible to overdo one’s devotion to those traditions. To make an essential out of an inessential is a distortion.
By all means seek the form of the Mass that best helps you to worship. And we all hope that the “gravitational pull” of the EF properly celebrated will raise all Catholic liturgical boats, to use a salad of metaphors.
Still, something has gone wrong if we receive the most holy body and blood of the Lord, font of charity and mercy, and our chief reaction to that experience is anger that the celebrant tied his maniples on improperly (as the celebrant at our local EF once did to his sorrow)or some such thing.
Analogy Fail. The Mass is the one and true sacrifice that permeates all of time. Marital intercourse is… not.
But beyond that, you didn’t answer the main point he made in his article. ““If people accepted the change,” writes Zmirak, “what else would they be likely to accept?”” I have found that to, sadly, be true. The number of parents and teenagers I have dealt with say “I thought that went out with Latin” whenever I talk about something they don’t like. Not that they have any good reasoning for it, but because the most visible part of the Church for the lay person, the Mass, changed. So when they hear that something changes, even if it hasn’t, they believe it.
What is the response to that?
MY RESPONSE:
Andrew C: Thanks. You make excellent points. I want to wait to see what Zmirak files today (he told me he would answer in his column …) and try to answer him/you/all.
Rebecca: God bless you. April especially thanks you. She’s been reading the comments and urging me to answer (and telling me lots I didn’t say but should have said about the Mass) and she thanks you, too.
Baron Korf: Man, I bet you have huge trouble praying the Psalms, constantly thinking: “Hmmm… My Lord is the creator of all things. A random skuzzy shepherd is, ahem … not. The Lord dwarfs the entire cosmos. A rock, a shield, and a saving horn, excuse me … do not.”
But after John answers, I do want to address the “if they will change this, what else will they change?” question, and ask the question, “If they won’t accept this, what else won’t they accept?” But more on that later!
If you want to compare yourself to King David, go right ahead.
It is foolish to compare liturgical rubrics to foreplay. They do not even serve the same purpose. Unless polyphony is meant to get God in the mood to offer himself up for our salvation, or that sex is a public way of teaching the truths of marriage. Going farther, God is getting bored with the ‘same old thing’ and needs something to spice up the relationship. Or we could make the mistake of saying the music aimed at us, rather than at God.
Marriage and Mass are totally different contexts for learning about the same divine love.
“By all means seek the form of the Mass that best helps you to worship.”
Thus speaks the dictatorship of relativism. Reject it. Or do you accept this: “Mass with liturgical dance combined with juggling clowns best helps me to worship”?
The Mass is not about us. It’s about God. The traditional Mass provides the best means of taking our minds off of ourselves and thus ascending with Christ to Calvary and beyond. Again, google for Dietrich von Hildebrand’s The Case for the Latin Mass.
Notice that I didn’t say “Extraordinary Form.” I refuse to embrace this Orwellian twist. The Mass of the Ages is not extraordinary, but the ordinary Mass. The denuded Novus Ordo Mass - soaked as it is in Protestantism, and with doubtful validity to boot - is in truth the “Extraordinary Form.”
Thanks, Augustine.
Baron Korf, you could just as easily say, “The consummative act forms an idissoluble bond and the conjugal act is unitive and procreative of another human being of infinite dignity. It’s absurd to compare that with sitting in a church with a grumpy priest trying to ignore your toddler’s poopy diaper while you wait for the singing to stop.”
In fact, the analogy is between the bonding that comes from conjugal union to the bonding that comes from Eucharistic communion. The analogy isn’t mine; it’s old as the hills. It’s in the Song of Songs (pre-Eucharist, but about the espousal of God’s people); it’s in Ephesians; Bonaventure goes there; the Fathers go there; Pope John Paul II famously used the analogy, too.
You can make anything sound cheap — thus the problem with many modern Masses. Our job is to preserve the sacredness of what is sacred, including conjugal union.
Yes, the bonding found in the sacraments is an old analogy. The both speak to the infinite mystery of divine love. However, the temporal manifestations of the two actions are vastly different and it is imprudent to blend the two. If you want to keep a sense of the sacred, I’d advise against suggesting that using Journey for mood music is analogous to the Chants of the Church.
Zmirak’s point was one of consistency in communication. Communication is important in family unity and in teaching and handing down things. If you change you last name, you break with an identifying marker of your ancestors. Also, that’s what flags are for, communicating who you are and who you belong to. Nations have flags, so too do noble families.
If you want to talk about old metaphors for the Catholic Family we could bring up the Church Militant, the New Jerusalem, the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Father’s House. Each of these things would have a flag, and the vassals would have their own flags too, proclaiming who they were and noting them as members of the larger whole.
For the record: We now agree on my analogy and we’re trying to shore up John’s. Which is fine.
Also for the record: In marriage, about half the parties change their names (historically in America) as a sign of a new unity ....
I still disagree that rubrics:Mass::foreplay:Marriage, but I never denied that both are images, albiet very different ones, of divine love.
And in the divine family, we are the adopted children and the Church is the Bride of Christ, so we as individuals subordinate our names to take His.
Mr Hoops,
I don’t much take issue with your analogy save that it is pretty much used to knock down a straw man. Zmirak’s point was never that the Mass is a flag, but that the externals of the Mass are the flag. Nowhere does he make the analogy that you claim he does.
“...Inessential things have power, which is why we bother with them in the first place. In every revolution, the first thing you change is the flag.”
Here is his analogy and he goes on to give more examples of flag changing. The inessentials-as-flag analogy is pretty explicit. The flag is not a law and is not the substance of the Mass, but it still has de facto power and should be preserved because of that power.
“So, John, put down your flag, stop pointing to the bed, and let’s talk about us for a change.”
If the claim about the EF being superior and the NO contributing to the decline of faith in the Church is true, then last thing we should do is just be satisfied and shut up. Not quite sure what the “us” is really referring to. I kind of read this as an implication that there is some kind of egotism inherent in the promotion of the EF.
Thanks for your reply. I had actually read this blog post you are referring to, and found some of it a bit far fetched, and I appreciated your thoughtful replies.
I guess I was also bothered by the flag analogy, precisely because the Tridentine Rite introduced a novelty into the Church, Liturgical Imperialism. namely, that the Latin Church insisted on conformity of Latin Rite, whereas the Eastern Churches have always allowed localization of liturgical practice. the Liturgical Imperialism I am referring to is precisely one of the problems that caused an explosion of perversions of the Liturgy, since all veering from the conformed rubrics was considered blasphemous. It was also a way of one-upping all Protestants during Missionary expansion.
Mr. Hoopes,
Zmirak said the Mass was like a flag (which you seem to note). He didn’t say it WAS a flag. It’s an analogy. Of course the Mass is not a flag. No one said it was. But saying it’s not a flag is the point of departure for your critique. The article just goes downhill from there. Your article would have probably been a lot better if you had actually argued against someone instead of your imagination.
There is further discussion on this at What Does the Prayer Really Say?
http://tinyurl.com/ydpkuy9
and my reply is now up at Insidecatholic:
http://tinyurl.com/yan9m9p
Mr. Hoopes, this line sealed it for me:
“Ultimately, we want Mass to be our expression of a relationship of which it is a very small (but very important) part.”
No wonder you completely misses the relevance of the flag analogy. This isn’t about whether or not the Church is some kind of Catholic nation state, but instead about her need for a single, identifiable, and stable locus of inspiriation, which, like a flag, ought to rally the hearts of the faithful whilst striking fear into all who would stand against her. It is our central focus not a “small expression”.
Zmirak has responded to this article. Here:
http://tinyurl.com/yan9m9p
Prudence demands that Hoopes now seriously consider withdrawing this article.
Mr. Hoopes, please show respect for those who love Jesus Christ through the Extraordinary Form of the Holy Mass. Please do not discuss these important matters so flippantly.
Father! Re-read what I wrote. I don’t think it’s exactly “flippant.”
I loved the analogy you posted about confession being like bathing, for instance. Imagine if, in a twist of fate, a bunch of commenters took strong exception and showed how confession wasn’t like bathing in many important respects.
Then imagine a priest you admired came on and asked you to not be so “flippant” about confession.
OF COURSE you’re not being flippant, just applying an analogy in a specific context. And a good one.
It would seem Mr Hoops has been reading a little too much Christopher West…do we really have to bring it to the level of human sexuality? This article is absurd on so many levels and only reaffirms my decision to attend the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass. God bless you Mr Hoops. And you might try actually attending a Tridentine Mass, before you take on the topic - it’s clearly beyond your scope of expertise.
Well, let’s see, sex and the Mass, hmmmmm—-the foreplay leading up to Holy Communion with Jesus and the foreplay leading up to the act of sexual release….great analogy Hoppes! I pray I never think about this analogy while I receive Holy Communion tomorrow….because if I do, it will ultimately be a prayer for your soul in regards to this article.
Bravo to the posts below- my thoughts exactly….
Posted by Augustine - The Mass of the Ages is not extraordinary, but the ordinary Mass. The denuded Novus Ordo Mass - soaked as it is in Protestantism, and with doubtful validity to boot - is in truth the “Extraordinary Form.”
Posted by Douglas Naaden—
Mr. Hoopes, Zmirak said the Mass was like a flag (which you seem to note). He didn’t say it WAS a flag. It’s an analogy. Of course the Mass is not a flag. No one said it was. But saying it’s not a flag is the point of departure for your critique. The article just goes downhill from there. Your article would have probably been a lot better if you had actually argued against someone instead of your imagination.
Posted by Fr. Hoisington—Mr. Hoopes, please show respect for those who love Jesus Christ through the Extraordinary Form of the Holy Mass. Please do not discuss these important matters so flippantly.
http://www.zenit.org/article-28599?l=english
ZENIT.ORG - MARCH 10
We know, in fact, how after the Second Vatican Council, some were convinced that everything should be new, that there should be another Church, that the pre-conciliar Church was finished and that we would have another, totally “other” Church. An anarchic utopianism! And thanks be to God, the wise helmsmen of Peter’s Barque, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, on one hand defended the novelty of the council and on the other, at the same time, defended the uniqueness and continuity of the Church, which is always a Church of sinners and always a place of grace.
At this point perhaps it is useful to say that also today there are views according to which the whole history of the Church in the second millennium is a permanent decline; some see the decline already immediately after the New Testament. In reality, “opera Christi non deficiunt, sed proficiunt,” the works of Christ do not go backward, but progress. What would the Church be without the new spirituality of the Cistercians, of the Franciscans and Dominicans, of the spirituality of St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross, and so on? This affirmation is also valid today: “Opera Christi non deficiunt, sed proficiunt,” they go forward.
Of these his writings, which are the soul of his government and show the way to follow either as an individual or a community, I would like to mention only one, his masterwork, the “Itinerarium mentis in Deum,” which is a “manual” of mystical contemplation. This book was conceived in a place of profound spirituality: the hill of La Verna, where St. Francis had received the stigmata. In the introduction, the author illustrates the circumstances that gave origin to his writing: “While I meditated on the possibility of the soul ascending to God, presented to me, among others, was that wondrous event that occurred in that place to Blessed Francis, namely, the vision of the winged seraphim in the form of a crucifix. And meditating on this, immediately I realized that such a vision offered me the contemplative ecstasy of Father Francis himself and at the same time the way that leads to it” (Journey of the Mind in God, Prologue, 2, in Opere di San Bonaventura. Opuscoli Teologici / 1, Rome, 1993, p. 499).
The six wings of the seraphim thus became the symbol of six stages that lead man progressively to the knowledge of God through observation of the world and of creatures and through the exploration of the soul itself with its faculties, up to the satisfying union with the Trinity through Christ, in imitation of St. Francis of Assisi. The last words of St. Bonaventure’s “Itinerarium,” which respond to the question of how one can reach this mystical communion with God, would make one descend to the depth of the heart: “If you now yearn to know how that happens (mystical communion with God), ask grace, not doctrine; desire, not the intellect; the groaning of prayer, not the study of the letter; the spouse, not the teacher; God, not man; darkness not clarity; not light but the fire that inflames everything and transport to God with strong unctions and ardent affections. ... We enter therefore into darkness, we silence worries, the passions and illusions; we pass with Christ Crucified from this world to the Father, so that, after having seen him, we say with Philip: that is enough for me” (Ibid., VII, 6).
It’s really strange to see people defending a fabrication; that is, the Novus Ordo.
“What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”
-Joseph Ratzinger, Preface to the French edition of Klaus Gamber’s The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background
Leo-what the Pope wrote yesterday is the latest. hmmmmm
As Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his letter which accompanied Summorum Pontificum: “In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.” The Gregorian Rite is today a living liturgical rite which will continue its progress without losing any of its riches handed on in tradition. For as the Holy Father continued, “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behoves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”
Tom, before you write something else about a subject on which you said up front you have limited knowledge, and almost no experience, may I make a fraternal suggestion? Seriously. Let’s leave egos aside here. Before you write another piece on how Traditionalists are, in the main, obsessive pharisees focused on externals when they really SHOULD be hunkering down and paying attention to their spiritual lives—and let’s face it, that was the direct intent of your piece here, since you don’t engage the arguments—I urge you to do three things:
1) Get a 1962 Missal. Study it for a few hours. Locate and attend at least FOUR “high” or sung Sunday Masses in the Extraordinary Form, and one “low” Mass, following along with the book.
2) After you’ve done this, talk to your friends who attend the EF.
3) Read one, just ONE book that raises the serious historical and theological questions Trads have about the liturgical changes. Either Gamber’s “The Reform of the Roman Rite” or Michael Davies’ “Pope Paul’s New Mass.”
After you’ve done that, you might still not be convinced. But you could make your arguments in a way that both showed respect to Traditional Catholics, and that won you respect from them.
As it is, you might as well be attacking people for being “obsessed” with the Rosary, while admitting that you’ve pretty much never said the Rosary or read anything about it.
Thanks, John ...
Yikes ... Where did I write: “Traditionalists are, in the main, obsessive pharisees focused on externals when they really SHOULD be hunkering down and paying attention to their spiritual lives” ???
And where did I “attack” someone?
Do let me know!
Okay. First there’s the display copy “Wave Your Freak Flag High.” When somebody’s arguments are weak, but he happens to be in the numerical majority, the easiest bit of cheap rhetoric to hand is to suggest that because his opponents numbers are smaller, they must be oddballs and eccentrics—or else they’d be thundering right along with the rest of the herd.
Then there’s this fine phrase: “Why do you wave your Mass around and wear it like a badge?” Nothing in my piece suggested that Trads should wear the Traditional liturgy as a “badge.” That’s your word, not mine, and it clearly suggests that people who advocate the EF are using their liturgical convictions to aggrandize themselves, to feel superior to their fellow Catholics, to attract attention (like… wearing a badge—maybe a fake sheriff’s badge). Now, some Trads do this, just as some “Novus Ordo conservatives” aggrandize themselves by… I dunno, by sneering at the “freaks”? It had nothing to do with the substance of my article, which concerned the governance of the Church and the pastoral effects of radical liturgical change at a time of theological uncertainty—and the wisdom of reversing the most egregious and theologically confusing changes, MOST OF WHICH WERE ACCOMPLISHED BY DISOBEDIENCE. The only changes I suggest we reverse that in fact initiated with papal action were the new Eucharistic prayers and the orientation of the altar. If you disagree, engage me on the substance of the issues.
THEN there’s your introduction of a frankly disgusting comparison, coyly suggesting that Catholics who take a deep interest in preserving the traditional forms of the liturgy BECAUSE THEY MORE ADEQUATELY REPRESENT AND CONVEY THE ESSENCE OF THE SACRAMENT AND THE MYSTERIES ENTAILED are comparable to pervy husbands who make constant, immodest references to private sexual activities, embarrassing their wives.
My girlfriend (not a Trad) read your piece and said, “God, what an a***le. He’s calling you a pervert.”
I didn’t take it personally. I attributed it to the Bridey Effect.
Well, I repent of the subhead, which was done for effect but in retrospect is unfair.
I guess you don’t remember the conversation we had where we used that analogy (I think you even mentioned your Weakland piece) and you even helped develop it.
My thinking here wasn’t: Attack. It was: Hey, John did this piece, I can bring up that analogy and we once had some fun with, and we can have that interesting discussion again. Yes, we disagree on the subject and I wanted to take the opportunity for that reason, too. But, no, I have no reason to attack anyone over it!
I hate to be the one to break it to you, by the way, but I’m hearing from people who read this and see an attack, but not by me.
The hostility is truly mystifying. (I know, that’s a cue to point out how clueless I am and maybe even make up another fun name! I’m such a bully.)
I’m glad people see my attack—on weak arguments and rhetorical evasions, not on the person of Tom Hoopes. (Hence the sobriquet “Bridey.”) I don’t take particular pride in writing this piece, since I had the easy side of the argument… defending the Catholic liturgical Tradition against someone who admits he doesn’t know or care much about it.
The hostility isn’t to you, Tom, and it shouldn’t be mystifying. You tried using easy scorn and bad analogies to suggest that many of your thousands of fellow Catholics who care deeply about the dignity and reverence of how they worship God are deeply misguided—and you used an inflammatory metaphor with unsavory connotations. I’m surprised (and gratified) that the responses are mostly so temperate.
Really Mr. Hoopes, you are funny. So funny in fact I almost felt guilty with it being Lent and all. Zmirak is correct, your arguments are weak, and that’s putting it nicely. You almost make it too easy for him. So easy, I wondered for a split second if it wasn’t on purpose? You know, some good old friendly banter. Nope says I, nobody can be THAT dense. Although, your previous response to one of the commenters valid points was, “whatever” that really does make one wonder…
No, I don’t think you are puposely trying to bait Zmirak, unfortunately I really think you are sincere in your “deeply misguided” ideas.
Please take Zmirak up on his offer, he has some valid points. Then maybe you can come back with some ideas and arguments that are not so painfully ignorant. Us freaky Rad-Trads flying our flags still love you though even if you are a bit dense.
JR, what’s confusing is that Benedict speaks of giving the traditional Mass its “proper place,” but then turns around and calls it the “Extraordinary Form,” as if the traditional Mass is the deviation from the norm while the fabricated Mass - the Novus Ordo - is not. This is entirely Orwellian. Or is he saying that the proper place of the traditional Mass is on the fringe? But it isn’t! The proper place of the traditional Mass is not on the fringe, not “extraordinary,” but at the center of the Church’s life! This kind of ambiguity from Benedict is characteristic of Vatican II itself. Very disappointing.
I wonder whether Mr. Hoopes will see the hand of God working in this episode with Mr. Zmirak. He should. But will pride blind him?
“Anyone who goes to Mary and prays the Rosary cannot be touched by Satan. “Is it any wonder that anyone who prays the Rosary from the heart is so blessed and protected and powerful in their prayers for others?
And yet, like St. Thérèse, I wouldn’t give up the Rosary for anything.
A shame it is that too often we’re religious but not spiritual. It’s the lack of spirituality —the absence of a supernatural sensibility—that has emptied our pews. CATHOLIC LIBERALISM OR LIBERAL CATHOLICISM—
IS THE Denial of the supernatural..
In conformance with Christ, in watching for Him always, in keeping our eyes in the supernatural (not the natural), we prosper spiritually.
He will guide you (especially during Mass) and however dark your hour, remember this: His expertise is to make something from nothing.
I’ve read Zmirak’s original post, this - your post, and Zmirak’s response. Your position is very poorly polished.
You need to expose yourself to the Extraordinary Form then you can think about writing another piece.
Stop calling the traditional Mass the “Extraordinary Form.” Refuse to consent to this Orwellian language! The Mass of the Ages is not the deviation from the norm!
Hoopes:
You’ll be forever thought of as Bridey.
“Bridey!”
Hilarious!!!
“As a matter of self-preservation, a man needs good friends or ardent enemies, for the former instruct him and the latter take him to task.”
“Ultimately, we want Mass to be our expression of a relationship of which it is a very small (but very important) part.”
Yes, this is the tragedy of the post-conciliar liturgy. The liturgical movement of the century preceding the Council sought to make the liturgy the summit and focus of Christian life. To that end, the post-conciliar movement deprecated everything that seemed counter to that spirit—nonliturgical devotions, private masses, etc. And yet at the same time, the post-conciliar reforms and, more directly, their poor and abusive implementation so debased the liturgy that there was little left to feed Christian spiritual life. But to defend the new status quo of the debased liturgy, its guardians must now ironically minimize the importance of the liturgy as “a very small part” of the Christian life. O tempora, o mores.
Very well put, William.
At the dawn of the modern age, Shakespeare wrote its epitaph:
O age, thou art shamed.*
O shame, where is thy blush?**
-Julius Caesar,* Hamlet**
I do appreciate Mr. Hoopes for allowing and providing the opportunity for this exchange to occur between him and Mr. Zmirak.
In my view, the big T traditions, such as dogma, are transmitted primarily through small t traditions such as the liturgy, catechesis, art, architecture, etc. If the small t traditions are lacking or absent there is going to be a big problem in transmitting the faith to the vast majority of Catholics.
The liturgy I would say is where the rubber meets the road. It is where most Catholics are going to be formed (for better or worse) in the Faith. Thus the liturgy and its form are just as important, if not even more so, than the form and content of catechesis.
Thus I wonder if Mr. Hoopes could have written the same article in regards to catechesis?
Sorry if I posted twice—something happened and my post disappeared. But Mr. Hoopes, when you say “Whenever the Mass becomes the focus and preoccupation of your faith life, you’re going to have a weird faith life and probably a weird Mass, too,”—do you perhaps want to rethink this? The Mass is the source an summit of the Christian life. Everything we do flows from Christ’s saving action, which is the Mass. The *source and summit*. I’m not talking about one form versus the other. I’m talking about the *Mass*. It absolutely should be the focus and preoccupation of every Catholic’s life. Maybe you didn’t mean to sound this way, but if you did, really—shame on you.
Thanks. I will clarify this, since people seemed to not understand what I was saying when I called Mass a very small but very important part of our Christian life.
I meant precisely that it is the source and summit of our Christian life … if it’s the source of our Christian life, not the other way around. We don’t have a Christian life so that we can have the Mass; we have the Mass so that we can have a Christian life. Makes sense: Mass is, what, half an hour a day, and an hour on Sundays – or, just an hour a week. (This will change in heaven, and the Mass is meant to give us the grace to start that life here, but we’re here, for now.)
It’s the summit – the mountaintop of our Christian life. We don’t spend our time on the mountaintop, but down below.
The Catechism says that’s why the Mass has the name it has:
“1332 [It is called] Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God’s will in their daily lives.”
The Church is trying to be obvious by essentially calling the Mass “go forth.” Think of what happens in Mass: We unite ourselves with Christ in the offering of the Eucharist, we literally receive him into our bodies, then we’re told to “go forth.”
The meaning: Go and take Christ with you to the world.
That’s the sense I mean of the Mass not being the focus and preoccupation but the source and summit. It’s absolutely crucial … to our Christian life, which happens almost entirely out in the world.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.