Monday, 18 June 2012
Bad language at the Eucharistic Congress?
Following on from the post by Fr Dickson, my impression of the I.E.C. was not good. To my mind the singing has been like little ditties. Friday’s Mass for example, gave us
“Come bring your burdens to God, Jesus will never say no”.
This sounds like the things I was singing in primary school twenty years ago –hasn’t anyone moved on? Actually, it strikes me that in fact, this is the congregation addressing itself, as do so many of today’s hymns. How ironic is that at Divine Worship?
Then came the Creed which was split up into several languages interrupted by “Credo...Credo, I believe!”. There were four lines I understood from the whole of the Credo. I could have been saying “I believe” to anything had I been there. How exclusive is that? This is the moment when we are to publicly profess our belief, but you have to trust that what is said is what you believe, since you cannot recognise the familiar Latin words such as ‘Credo in unum Deum...Deum de Deo...consubstantialem Patri....et incarnatus est...ex Maria Virgine...Et in Spiritum sanctum....Patre Filióque procédit....Et unam, Sanctam catholicam, et apostolicam ecclessiam... Et expecto resurrectionem . These are central words familiar to Catholics the world over -just listen to how they sing with gusto at Lourdes in the candlelight procession! I cannot help but think that use of many languages at international Masses is reminiscent of Babel when God confused their languages for the every purpose of stopping their attempt to reach Heaven...can we not learn from this and return to the use of the sacred language?
Then there are the altar girls. Universally, these are accommodated for reasons of political correctness and not, as far as I can tell, authentic theology. After all, the Lord was served at table by His Apostles; it was Peter and John whom He sent to make the preparations for their Last Supper (Luke 22:8); and though it might be assumed to be the case, the Gospels do not say the women who followed Our Lord were there.
Service at the altar has often attuned a boys mind to a priestly vocation, which women cannot undertake, so allowing females to serve at the altar only gives girls false hope and at the same time, provides a seedbed for grumbles against the Lord’s Church later in life when radical feminism gets to them. I know having girls to serve has been allowed, but isn’t that just something to do with a Latin word in Canon Law not being specifically male?
I can say that in my own experience, when we had girls serving (my sister included) the boys did not sign up –except in the school where it didn’t seem to matter who served “as long as it was one of the children”. There was no theological ideal being held to, only the ‘get the children involved by doing things’ ideal. As Father once put it, “it is as though the Mass were here as a setting for showcasing of our gifts and talents –no wonder applause is so common in such Masses”.
We have had several boys sign up for serving since the girls left and Father chose not to replace them with more girls. To me, allowing girls to serve is like allowing Extraordinary Ministers; it’s not the ideal, but can be permitted in exceptional circumstances (see Redemptionis sacramentum 47 & 156-160).