Carrying Our Cross
Posted by: tony on 04/25/2008 01:35 PM
Updated by: tony on 04/25/2008 01:35 PM
|
Expires: 05/26/2008 12:00 AM
|
Karen Hall has heard the question asked on the blogs:
What is it about "faithful orthodox Catholics" that makes so many of them talk as though despair and anger are the first and only characteristics of the Truly Christian life?
I have found it easier to put aside my "despair and anger" since our new pastor arrived. Sure, there are things about the liturgy I'd like to see. A little more Latin, maybe. But each and every week, the Mass is celebrated joyfully, reverently and correctly.
Why am I so concerned with correctness? Well, because an incorrect Mass is not The Mass™. Karen is on the same page with me with the following:
What exasperates and maddens me about liturgical abuses is that the Mass given to us by the Church is so supremely, eminently DOABLE. Almost any priest not in a concentration camp or on a battlefield can do what the Church asks him to do with perfect compliance. It's all there: wear this; say that; bow here; now elevate the host -- the dimmest clergyman in the poorest parish on earth can score 100% every time, and thereby offer a pleasing sacrifice to God.
There is a book on or near the altar called the GIRM, or "General Instruction for the Roman Missal". This is the "cook book" for the Mass that has the "Vatican Good Masskeep Seal of Approval". It has what you say, in black, and what you do in red. If you follow it, you will offer a correct sacrifice of the Mass each and every time.
The parts between "in the name of the Father..." and "... the Mass is ended, go in peace" are prescribed. You are only supposed to say what is written in black and do what is written in red in the order that it is written.
That means that the departures happen for a reason. The innovator wants to jack us around for motives of his own, which he does not "covenant" with us. We almost never hear complaints about inadvertent omissions by celebrants trying to do it right; it's the deliberate changes that infuriate.
I never complain about a mistake in the Mass. If a section is inadvertently missed during the consecration, it's not a problem for me, and I'm sure God understands.
If a female pronoun is used for God the Father to appease the feminists in the audience, I have a problem with that. If the priest throws in an extra Hail Mary after the prayer of the faithful, I have a problem with that. Mass occurs at the same moment, outside of time, as every other Mass that has ever or will ever be celebrated. It's important that it's done right.
I believe that the trend to celebrate Mass versus populum (toward the people) has been a major cause of these innovating priests. They have been taught that they ought to "engage" their congregations. Make the Mass "relevant" for them. As they face the people, they look out through the congregation, gauging the effect, and then go back to the rectory to "fine tune" the Mass for next week for greater appeal to the "audience".
During Mass at our church, with the exception of the homily (where you ought to be engaging the people) our priest's eyes are on the upper back of the church. He may be facing us, but he isn't watching us.
What if I told you that the creator of the universe will be appearing, in the flesh, to sign autographs at your local church this weekend? Would you worry about the "relevance" of the occasion, would you worry about how long the homily was, or what you were "getting out of it"? Or would you be the first in line to meet Him?
Well, He will be. And the autograph He'll be signing will be on your heart.
|
