The Recovering Choir Director

The article by Peter Miller on liturgical abuses has touched a very sensitive fiber on a personal level, and I am certain for a great many other faithful Catholics as well. Liturgical abuses, while they imply disregard for canons of received tradition of a musical or artistic kind, ultimately violate the most profound principle of religious sensibility, and that is faith itself. While my personal knowledge of music is limited and my interest in liturgy, while profound, is far from being anything more than an an amateurish delectation, I too dare to object to the pathetic state of affairs described by Miller. To be an amateur is literally to be a “lover”, and what one loves above all in liturgy is that, whether it is austere and understated, as the classical Roman rite actually is, or splendorous and polyphonic, it reflects the splendor of truth itself. Those familiar with the axiom, “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi” know that there is an intimate and inescapable relationship between the manner in which we worship and the truths our worship purports to uphold. We thus insist on the primacy of kneeling over standing at the canon of consecration because in our cultural context the posture of kneeling implies adoration of a transcendent, divine reality, which at that moment manifests itself to our senses. Our faith tells us that the bread and wine have become The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. And so our church instructs us to kneel in order to acknowledge that we are in the presence of the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ himself. If we were merely confronting bread and wine, whether to kneel or not would be a matter of no importance.
As I survey the landscape around me, it is the disregard for this principle of “lex orandi, lex credendi” that causes me profound dismay. If we accept the dogma of transubstantiation, we do so with the knowledge that the infallible authority of the teaching magisterium is behind it, and that we may safely abandon any questionning in the safe harbor of faith because we, likeSt. Thomas Aquinas, who proclaims “credo quidquid dixit dei filius, nil hoc verbo veritatis verius.”, have submitted our intellects to the authority of Our Lord speaking through his Church. We adore the Body of Christ because our Lord himself said “This is my Body.”
I respect Mr. Miller’s decision to avail himself of the privilege of attending the Tridentine Mass, but I fear that the act of fleeing the Novus Ortdo Mass does not answer the troubling questions posed by the reality that the vast majority of Roman Catholics worship under the Post-Vatican II liturgical regime. His citation of the apparent encroachment of pagan elements into Papal Masses and their seeming “endorsement” by the Holy Father also cuts to the heart of the problems we face. If litugical practices come into use which slowly corrode the elements of revealed faith we celebrate in our liturgy, such as transubtantiation, what other dogmas of faith are vulnerable to alteration? How are Catholics faithful to the magisterium, who in love and faith choose to embrace its authority and yes, even its rigors, supposed to react when the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass itself, “the source and summit of Christian life”, to which we turn for sustenance and for reinforcement of revealed truth, suddenly becomes posessed of elements that contradict that revealed truth? And what are we to do in the face of the implied assent of the Holy See to their existence and implementation? How are we to react when the truth of “This is my Body” is adulterated, and we fear the very foundations of our faith, the most important thing in our lives, are thus threatened?
For a long time, I have believed that the specific liturgical abuse of standing during the words of consecration is especially grave, insofar as it contradicts the truth of the Real Presence of our Lord’s Body and Blood. It has also been my belief that if the Holy Father were to personally witness this abuse, he would strongly object. But, I must admit to being confused and in need of illumination.
Long before the canonization of Juan Diego, I became troubled by developments occuring in my parish . When I learned of the existence of a new and flourishing movement called the “Neocatechumenal Way”, which has established communities in the parish, I also became aware that these communities were granted a Saturday evening Mass exclusively for themselves. This somewhat insular group seeks to replicate the itinerary of initiation existing in the early church for baptized Catholics distanced from their faith by creating a ” post-baptismal catechumenate”. I believe it has full ecclesiastical approval, and I assume this implies that the Holy See has knowledge of the particularities that exist in its special liturgies. Because this movement or “Way” is new, it posssible that it may be misunderstood, and many Catholics are oblivious to its existence. The special liturgy adopted by this group includes elements such as standing during the consecration and the alteration of liturgical texts, which at any other Mass would be validly seen as abuses. And yet, it has received papal approval, and I have seen images of the Holy Father celebrating Mass with them and in the manner accusted by them. They are particularly enamored of icons painted by their founder and their liturgies partake of the post-Vatican II tendency to make the liturgy more “horizontal” by placing the assembly in a circular manner around the altar. I was able to “peek” into a Mass of theirs celebrated (I imagine rather reluctantly) by the pastor of the church, in which the lectern from which the readings were proclaimed also served as the place from which a “monitor” pronounced a pre-reading “admonition” or commentary. It was placed directly in front of the priest, covering his face. I should mention that their special Mass is typically celebrated outside the church building in a place such as the cafeteria. If this group were a schismatic organization separated from magisterial authority, its actions would not bother me as much as they actually do. I try to view things in the best possible light and truly hope I may in some way be misinterpreting what I have seen and heard. I concern myself with this problem because this group is an integral part of the Universal Church, the Body of Christ, and therefore not alien to me. If the principle of “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi” holds sway in the entire church, we have reason to be concerned about the fact that members of the “Way” stand during the consecration, and to worry about the implications for the faith itself posed by the fact that they enjoy papal approval. I have been told that these postures are due to the initiatory nature of the organization, which requires that nothing be done until it is fully understood. In this
respect, “neocatechumens” would not be required to kneel before the Real Presence until they fully comprehend it and accede to the higher levels of initiation within the group. The group’s founder, Francisco “Kiko” Arguello, has admitted that misunderstandings would be inevitable, because the “Way” involves the resumption of practices not seen since the early church, making its actions seem new and alien, when in fact they are not. This may explain why it is apparently so inward-looking , given that wider knowledge of its practices might invite misunderstanding.
In my case, at least, I must admit it has. I sincerely hope that the fault lies in my perception and that there is something I have misunderstood in what my eyes have seen. The “Neocatechumenal Way” is widely respected within the Vatican hierarchy and much praised. However, the article by Peter Miller on whether the struggle for “liturgical purity” might actually be a quixotic endeavor brought to mind those unanswered questions associated with the “Way’s” liturgical practices. In seeking to find an answer, I accept that I may in some way be wrong, and hope that if this is indeed the case, there is someone out there who might be able to finally put my doubts to rest and clarify anything I may have misunderstood.