The Recovering Choir Director

Peace, all.

Michael’s third installment struck me. Especially his relating that “we were vastly outnumbered… and largely ignored.”

Liturgical traditionalists have become largely isolated from their fellow parishioners. This is not universal, but I’ve seen it in more cases than not. I find it discouraging, but not for the reasons Michael suggested.

Traditionalists, and those who lean that way tend to be very engaged by the liturgy and its issues. Is there a way more parishes — even progressive ones — can engage well-meaning people and utilize their viewpoints to make liturgy better — and I mean the Roman Missal currently in use. Do traditionalists have anything to offer their parishes outside of the rubrics? By this I mean an attitude to bring to Mass, a commitment to prayer and worship, willingness to take leadership on their own initiative based on parish need. Does everything have to spring from a tight interpretation of IGRM, SC, or the latest guru (and I would challenge my progressive friends on their gurus of choice, lest you think I’m zeroing in unfairly on one side). Does everything hinge on an absolutely faithful rendering according to (pick your favorite source) or is there enough work to be done to get people moving in a good (if not the right) direction?

I’m serious about these questions. My parish has many traditionalist-leaning Catholics and I would like to engage them to make the liturgy better. I don’t want to wait for the ideal pastor who can bring all things into unity. Hoping a new pastor (or new pope, or new document, etc.) is going to make it all okay seems to be a childish longing. What if those of us who want to get the work done now want to be more inclusive? What do you think?

Peace, Mike.

Neuhaus’ quote: “They are simply looking for the Mass to be celebrated in a way consonant with what the Church teaches and not disdainful of the liturgical and musical treasures of the Catholic tradition.” looks fine with me to a point. I don’t think it goes far enough. It doesn’t address the failing which has been endemic to Catholic liturgy in the US from the beginning: a lack of quality. The suggestion that parishes were mostly okay with liturgy in the 1950’s and that everything has unravelled from there is naive and generally untrue. The truth is that Americans have always had an uneasy relationship with European artistic traditions, for many, many reasons. Mostly all non-theological ones.

The openness to tradition is fine as far as it goes, but every individual Catholic has a slightly different take on that. Two examples:

1. The original essayist veered into the altar girl issue. And I don’t see its relevance to the bigger picture. A person questioning the place of girls serving with boys is probably far off the mainstream thinking of most American Catholics. They see no connection with vocations. They see it as an issue of “fairness,” an American sensibility if there ever was one.

2. The whole tabernacle placement issue. In Europe it is mostly easy. Tabernacles didn’t begin on altars way back when. They appeared in the US in small churches and chapels and were just copied onto the large scale models when cathedrals and big churches were later built. The tabernacle on high altar is an American (or Mission) phenomenon more than it is a Roman one. Whose tradition do we uphold?

Mike, you are right that the IGRM is not hard to understand. But since aspects of the 1969 and 1975 editions have yet to be implemented, one can assume possibilities other than willful disobedience, namely it is hard to implement, or that people are ignorant of the details of implementation. And as we see with clergy across the board, they are used to the way Mass was celebrated
when they were ordained, be it in 1947, 1967, or last year. We’re talking more habit than intellect.

And finally, I think Luse overstates his point in your quote, but I will check his essay at a later time. First, one must assume that disobedience is an “attack,” and I think this is extremely presumptuous. Second, the gospels equate the Person of Christ more with people than with acts of worship and/or following rules. Again here, when people “ignore” a vocal minority, or behave otherwise uncharitably or rudely, they are behaving this way toward Christ. And as much as I value good liturgy, I have to say that Christ was far more explicit about doing unto others, about doing to Him as we have done to others (Matthew 25) than he was about violating laws of worship. Liturgical law and rubrics are made not for the glory of God, but for the needs of the Christian community at prayer. Laws and rubrics can be changed. And when they become outdated, they should be.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that there remains much room for improvement in Catholic liturgy. My question is how to get everybody moving in the same direction, assuming ideology can be overcome.

Well, here it goes.

Mike, I would not characterize you as a traditionalist. Mindful of tradition, yes, but on the conservative side of the spectrum (rather than the traditionalist end) of liturgical expectations and preference.

That being said, I will offer a bit of unsoliticed advice. While, as Todd rightly notes, it can be good to be passionate about liturgy, an excess of such a good can become an undesirable burden. I speak from experience in this regard.

It may seem impossible, but it is actually quite possible to maintain a healthy level of passion about matters liturgical while also maintaining a healthy degree of detachment over what does or does not transpire at a given liturgy. This detachment can best be achieved by passionately embracing the *objective* reality of God’s action in the liturgy.

I have seen too many people passionate about liturgy burn themselves out for lack of this detachment. When I read about people fleeing places, then I get concerned about this issue.

It might also help to know that the Roman way is precisely built on this sense of detachment. Liturgy in Italy — in the major basilicas in Rome itself — is not infrequently not exactly in strict conformity with rubrics. Romans have their laws, and follow them more or less as the need presents itself. However, they also do not recharacterize their noncompliance as a norm or as a virtue, etc. They are just more comfortable with some tension between law and life than Americans are. And there are deep cultural reasons for that. But, in a Catholic church, it often is a practical help to think more like a Roman than like an American.

Todd,

You ask some good questions - would that every “progressively leaning” (or whatever) Catholic had your attitude. I think that more traditionally minded Catholics (like myself) are tired of going to mass and putting up with all the claptrap that’s not part of the rite. If every parish made a good faith effort to follow the rubrics (no unauthorized improvisations, made-up prayers, tiresome side comments, etc.) that would be a start (and I would almost stop complaining!). For instance, a pastor at a parish I used to attend said his own Eucharistic prayer - not original really - but cobbled from the various official prayers. And he said this every week, without ever saying the official one all the way through. I wouldn’t say he was “attacking” the liturgy, but he was either clueless and ignorant, or more likely, didn’t really *care* what the prayers were. He figured he understood the mass better than the Church - or at least that what was communicated by what he did - and he didn’t see the necessity or value of just giving the people the words of the liturgy without interpolation, commentary, and revision. The people have a right to that!

Now following the rubrics does not constitute good liturgy all by itself, but it’s the necessary starting point. But in too many places we’re far away even from that, and that’s a basic reason (in my opinion) why “traditionalists” continue to be frustrated and alienated, and sometimes seem all caught up in the rubrics.

Also, the basic orientation that is being conveyed in many masses is toward us, as if we have to do all the work, that the liturgy is our action, and God takes part in it. Of course it’s the other way around: it’s not primarily our action - it’s the action of Christ offering himself to the Father, which we participate in. So often the emphasis is just the other way, where it’s our party and God’s invited. We’re so busy “actively participating” that God can barely get a word in edgewise. I understand that there may be a little disagreement in theory on this, but in practice, this is what is implied. Some symptoms of this - lack of silence, a general “efficiency” or even rushing, everything is too loud and overwrought (esp. music), an over- emphasis on activity by people, esp. in the sanctuary, a casual atmosphere before and after mass. There’s little value given to reflection, silence, interiority, time. Basically, there seems to be little trust in the liturgy just to “do its thing” without a lot of tampering and fuss.

There’s many other things, but perhaps these could be some basic topics of the conversation.

There is a point that many parish’ experience where people with traditional leaning views simpily pick up and leave, and go to a parish that will feed them spiritually. This has been a increasing trend in the last few years, and it is tolerated, mainly because it is traditional leaning Catholics in many cases who are keeping the old inner city parish’ alive. The parish I attend, and its not a indult/tridentine parish, is such a example, the local parish that I should attend does not even factor in anymore.

As for “American values”, I would say “American” values have no place in the running of a parish or any place in the liturgy, even a American flag within the nave of a parish is not appropriate, and the author is correct, altar girls were originally used because of dissent and the Vatican caved in, and still it is up to the pastor to choose if altar girls are needed or not, in most cases they are not, but that aside, altar girls in most parish’ were introduced not because of the laity wanting them, but the clergy pushing them.

If there is no sanctuary of liturgical sanity in a diocese, then that is a enviroment that the SSPX, and various others schismatics would thrive in, but so often clergy and their Bishops just do not care about meeting the needs of traditional Catholics.