At today’s Novus Ordo Mass we were reminded that Our Lord
did not come to abolish the Law but to complete it; to perfect it. Thus he
says, “You have heard it said ‘You shall not kill’, but I say this to you:
anyone who is angry with His brother will be subject to judgement”. He thus pushes
the law further; He does not demolish it.
It struck me that law got a
very bad write-up in the 1960’s and 70’s when it was commonly presented as
opposed to charity. Thus grew the idea that ‘laws are meant to be broken’ –but
God did not give us the Ten Commandments in order that we should break them; He
gave them to us so that we would be aware of when we were breaking them (breaking the natural law). Even in
family life, we don’t make family rules such as “stay out of your sister’s
bedroom” to be broken; we expect them to be kept. Law being ‘reason devoid of
passion’ (Aristotle) it seems to me we only abandon law when to give free reign
to our passions. Whether it is the Man in the Pew or the Pope, the breaking of
law is not to be encouraged since law protects justice, without which there is
no charity.
I am often asked why I am exacting
about liturgy. The answer is, when I go before God I cannot offer Him a perfect
life; I will stand before Him with my short temper, the criticisms I have made
of others, my laziness etc. But if I obey the rules of the liturgy then there may
be at least one area of my life I can offer to Him unsullied by my passions.
Why is it that people refuse to strike their break at the Confiteor, or to bow
during the Creed? Whatever their reason, it seems to me it stems from pride; a
pride that has made them lord and master of the liturgy rather than its
servant. And that is not good. and there are many liturgical norms that are frequently broken, such as allowing appeals to be made from the lectern and omitting the Communion plate, for example.
So when we hear law castigated
as contrary to the Christian life (be it castigated by the Pope, a Bishop, a Presbyter
or the Man in the Pew) we can know their humility is on the wane on that they
have become lord of the liturgy rather than its servant.
I hope to see a return to a healthy
respect for the Church’s laws and norms that we may retain our humility. To
break the law is to place oneself above the law of God and of Holy Mother
Church. And pride is a deadly sin. Surely we have enough sins to answer for
without adding to them what is simple and easy to do? There is nothing simpler
to do than follow the laws of Holy Mother Church in our worship of God.
This shows up regularly when celebrants in the OF 'mix & match' the manner in which they celebrate the Mass. No doubt some think that (because there are so many alternatives on offer) they can please themselves. Sadly this can make (certainly in my case) a decision often made to attend OF Mass (which, although a traditionalist I accept as totally valid) dependent on who the celebrant is. Happily we seem always in the EF Mass to have the rubrics followed fully & carefully as it should be (as you say Fr) because it is offered to God for the people.
ReplyDeleteIr is the mix and match attitude that sows the ordinary Form to be community-centred rather than God-centred, for we see celebrants choose the hymns and style in order to please the congregation and keep them attentive. If their faith is not enough to keep them attentive to the Mass, something is wrong.
DeleteGod Bless.
Your point is well-taken, Father but I wonder if the Ordinary Form doesn't lend itself to antinomianism? When there are a dozen options, how are we to tell what is or is not permitted? When things are solemnly laid down as obligatory but a loophole is opened the next moment, it's very hard for people to know what is truly binding and what is merely this celebrants' or parishes' preference. That preference might nor might not be licit but how are we to tell? I've read repeatedly that Eucharistic Prayer II is not to be used on Sundays, yet it is and frequently so. I bet if I went looking I could find a loophole that allows this too. Following the Church's liturgical law is an excellent thing and I give thanks for priests who do; it's only a start though. The laws themselves need fixing too...
ReplyDeleteThank you. Eamonn.
DeleteYes, the ordinary Form does lend itself to antinomianism by the use of the single phrase 'in these or similar words', which many seem to apply to every text of the Missal. To be fair, the GIRM says that Eucharistic Prayer II is 'more appropriate for weekdays', which would seem to say that the others are not so suitable for weekdays, rather than that EP II cannot be used on Sundays.
to mu mind, the only solution to the current state of liturgical dissonance is for Bishops to have all priests issued with a summation of Redemptionis Sacramentum and see that it is followed. To my mind, it should not be hard for a priest to submit to liturgical law since it reminds him in his undoubted humility that he is servant of the liturgy, not its lord and master.
God Bless.
Law, whether secular or Church is getting a bad press, today, not just in the the sixties
DeleteWithout law we have disorder, chaos, and that applies to the secular world as well as to the Church.
Yes, sometimes a quick decision has to be made, such as whether to dispose of the “Pope's nose “ crew. Anyone who has read the book will know what I am referring to. I know what I would have done!
But that is not the point. What is important is that clarity in Church teaching so that we all know where we are and can decide whether Confession is subsequently appropriate
As for the chaos resulting from the Pauline 1965 Mass with its descent into various shambolic national and language variations and its absence of young people, that is a result of ignoring the law as expressed in Quo Primum. Pope St. Pius V - July 14, 1570.
Thank you, Jacobi.
DeleteThe 1965 Missal wasn't too bad. It is the 1970 Missal with which we struggle today -it does indeed provide for chaos with so many options available to priests.
God Bless.
I see in your guidance that those who challenge the Magisterium are asked to do so respectfully. Surely for a Catholic to challenge the Magisterium is per se disrespectful?
ReplyDeleteThanks for a good question.
DeleteI don't think challenge is per se disrespectful. If the hierarchy are being unfaithful to previous magisterial teaching they are being unfaithful to the sacred deposit which to which the faithful have a right. Vatican II reminded us that the laity "are, by reason of the knowledge, competence or outstanding ability which they may enjoy, permitted and sometimes even obliged to express their opinion on those things which concern the good of the Church" (Lumen gentium 37).
God Bless.
Father, i know you are fond of the latin mass but you also celebrate the novus ordo. So i wanted to ask you something i have been asking other catholics and have not been able to get an answer. How is the new rite of the mass. The mass of paul vi reconciled to quo primum and the council of trent. Where it says the latin mass is to be celebrated henceforth now and forever. Maybe there is a valid explination i have not recieved one from other catholic laymen. Its not that i doubt the novus ordo's validity as that would call into question the protection of the church through Christ. But rather if the novus ordo is licit and indeed all of the new rites introduced after v2... not that they are invalid but are they licit?
ReplyDeleteDavid
Sorry for the late publishing/reply; Life is a bit stressful at the moment.
DeleteThe argument goes that Quo Primum is a law not a doctrinal statement, and laws made by man can be changed by man. There is a sense in which quo primum and Trent declared the Latin Mass perfect and that might have doctrinal imports, but a Pope cannot tie the hands of a future pope in mere positive law. All Popes are bound to Divine Law and the deposit of faith but the ceremonies of the Mass are not, in any form, of unchangeable nature. I hope that helps.
God Bless.