Search This Blog

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Mrs. Flubberback, Mr. Cummerbund, and Little Suzy Snodnose


My priest friend and I were continuing the conversation that we have been having for some time now and he posed the following:

The biggest complaint that modern liturgists lodge against the pre-Vatican II Mass is that the congregation was not in "full, conscious, active participation." This usually means that they came in late, left early, didn't understand Latin, sat in their pews like bumps on a log and did private devotions, such as the Rosary to occupy their time. Their body postures were not always uniform, some sat while others knelt and so on.  
After Vatican II with the emphasis on a narrow interpretation of what "full, conscious, active participation" meant, and the priest now facing the congregation which made it possible for him to see what was happening out there in front of him, the priest and deacons now acting as policemen would chastise the congregation if they weren't in lockstep with a narrow, sterile view of full conscious, active participation. And on top of that the priest introduced his own peculiarities into the liturgy, such as asking everyone to hold hands at the Lord's Prayer, turn and greet everyone at the beginning of Mass and the like.
Now, since I am more of a traditional minded priest, even when celebrating the OF Mass facing the Congregation, I do get disturbed by what I see happening in the congregation if I find it distracting or not in lockstep with what the books tell the people to do. I use to go ballistic when I saw people holding hands at the Lord's prayer, or the charismatics holding hands high at the singing of hymns or at the Gloria and Sanctus or the congregation motioning back to me when I extended my arms to greet them and they did the same when responding, "and also with you." 
[...]
 So should priests give a flip over what the congregation is or isn't doing, such as standing at the Eucharistic Prayer when everyone else is kneeling, or kneeling when the reading are read when everyone else is sitting, or raising their hands in ectasy like charismatics are prone to do which is clearly not prescribed by "read the black and do the red."
 


To me (being a trained liturgist), this is a very interesting post.  It really speaks to a couple of big misconceptions and I think shows the inaccuracy of the liberal mindset (read: I am not calling Father a liberal, but rather commenting on the point he is making).

It is said of the TLM, "This usually means that they came in late, left early, didn't understand Latin, sat in their pews like bumps on a log and did private devotions, such as the Rosary to occupy their time. Their body postures were not always uniform, some sat while others knelt and so on."

It is observed of the Novus Ordo, "Now, since I am more of a traditional minded priest, even when celebrating the OF Mass facing the Congregation, I do get disturbed by what I see happening in the congregation if I find it distracting or not in lockstep with what the books tell the people to do."

To me (after a cursory reading), this shows that things really haven't changed with the "aggiornamento."  To me, this shows that the liberal liturgist has failed in his re-imagined view of "full, conscious, and active participation."  The traditional liturgist holds the obverse view.  The authentic understanding of "full, conscious, and active participation" doesn't mean active participation, but rather it means actual participation.  Participatio actuosa, not participatio activa.

Father echoes what the traditional liturgist knows and promotes (read: what I have been advocating since day 1), "Their body postures were not always uniform, some sat while others knelt and so on."

My response to that statement is quite simply, "So what?"  Is it a sin to sit during the consecration (or in some places kneel)?  No.  There is usually a valid reason why, in the TLM someone is not kneeling, but that is of little consequence AND if it is a "willy nilly" reason, the faithful will usually take care of the faithful, in short, they will offer the fraternal correction (not so much in the Novus Ordo, though...curious).

What this comes down to is simple.  The traditional understanding of worship is a very personal one.  How one worships is never more important than WHY one worships.  So, if Mrs. Flubberback is in the back row praying her rosary and Mr. Cummerbund is halfway up the epistle side meditating on the stations, and little if Suzy Snodnose is following along in her hand missal intently, who is participating more?  The liberal would say that none of them, but the traditional liturgist would say that all of them are, because they are all uniting their minds, hearts and souls to the salvific action on the altar in an unbloody way to the life of Christ.  And isn't that what worship is?  To unite one's soul, mind and heart to God?

So, Mrs. Flubberback doesn't stand, but sits...why?  Did she just have a knee replaced?  Is she lazy?  Does she have back problems?  Who cares.  So, Mr. Cummerbund kneels through the whole Mass, is he pietistic?  Is he repenting for something?  Does he like to kneel?  Who cares?  Is little Suzy kneeling, and sitting, and standing?  Maybe, but that is because she's following along with her missal, but...who cares?

What the faithful should care about isn't what those persons are doing, but rather that they, themselves are uniting their whole mind, soul, and heart to God.

If the liturgist is more interested in making the faithful into little ersatz-clerics, through hand positions and uniform actions 100%, then the liturgist has missed the point of worship.  The faithful don't respond and "act" because everyone else is doing it, but because it is an ejaculation of love for God, the Father.  To do it for any other reason is quite simply, participatio activa.

The answer is simple, Father.  Turn around, celebrate Mass ad orientem and don't worry about things that you cannot control.  You can't control Mrs. Flubberback, Mr. Cummerbund or little Suzy Snodnose, but you can control the "black and the red."  Your role is clear.  You are the mediator between the worship and God, the Father.  You are Christ at Calvary, in an unbloody way.  Your action (not acting, please note the very important difference) is precise and it is calculated.  The red is there for a reason, it isn't a suggestion, it isn't a guide, it is a rule (or law).  The black is there for a reason, it isn't a suggestion, it isn't a guide, it is a rule (or law).  I can guarantee you 100% (with the exception of perhaps your childhood bully) that no one is making faces toward your back and I can certainly guarantee that nobody is going to stab you in the back (unless you have a liberal liturgist).

To answer your last paragraph...NO.  Priests should not give a flip as to what the congregation is doing.

7 comments:

  1. Soooo it shouldn't matter if they kneel for communion? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. No Esther, it matters greatly, because the act of kneeling shows proper adoration and worship to Him Who Is; as He is presented to you. The most proper way to do this is by kneeling. However, if there is a valid reason why one cannot, then who cares. That is what I am getting at. Notice in my response to Father, I said, "There is usually a valid reason why, in the TLM someone is not kneeling, but that is of little consequence AND if it is a "willy nilly" reason, the faithful will usually take care of the faithful, in short, they will offer the fraternal correction (not so much in the Novus Ordo, though...curious)."

    So, if the reasoning is valid, then yes one should not kneel, but if the reasoning is not valid, the no. One should kneel. Fraternal correction, Esther; and validity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was meaning that more in jest. I do believe in kneeling and I do kneel at the times I am supposed to. I also believe the priest should be focused on the Mass and not the congregation.

    I take a little issue with the "fraternal correction"- fraternal correction or being judgmental. This is one of the main reasons for me staying away from the TLM now. I don't "get" the responses, proper stances at the proper time... and oh mercy some of the looks and snark comments. And I was going at it alone, it wasn't like I had someone to explain it to me and I certainly don't know Latin. The books were of little help. I spent too much time flipping to find where we were at. It just became a stresser that wasn't worth it, as God the Father is still worshiped in the Ordinary Form and Calvary is just as much present. I know you think it is deficient and all, but I still don't think Calvary ever is. Then with a few encounters with various clergy, I just threw the whole TLM on the back burner. You may remember, I really tried for a bit. I thought with my love of the liturgy I would love it. But it was this attitude of "fraternal correction" as you put that put such a sour taste in my mouth.

    I still love reverent liturgies. But there are reverent liturgy in the OF.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perhaps that is a difference in attitude, perhaps that is a change in mentality. Fraternal correction is not judgment, but it is a help in avoiding a bad last judgment. Man is set to help man. It is a matter of perspective. If you see it as being judgment, you should turn back inward and ask yourself why am I upset with those helping me who know more than I?

    With regard to the TLM, here is what I would say, stop trying to be so precise. The precision belongs to the ministers. The worship is your own. Don't worry about the books, don't worry about the responses. Don't worry about what others think, until they offer to help you. The Mass isn't about how you participate, Esther, but why. If you adore and worship with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole mind.

    Worship is about giving proper worship to God the Father. If something is deficient, then it is not proper. So, put the TLM on the backburner.

    What is the stresser? The Mass or those who assist at the Mass? If the Mass is worth it in the OF, then it certainly is worth it in the TLM.

    As a point of theology, it isn't that Calvary is present, but that Calvary is re-presented.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I know what fraternal correction should be- snarky comments and dirty looks are not included in that. Yeah I made a bit of noise. I was trying to find where we were at in the Mass. If they really wanted to help me that would not be the way to go about. You know I am too sensitive, but some of that was uncalled for. As I reflect on this I realize a couple bad experiences don't justify writing something off. But I really knew I needed a nurturing place then what I found in the TLM community, even in the clergy. There is more I could say on the subject but perhaps I will save that for an email then to post this on a public blog.

    Maybe I do get to caught up in the precision of it all. I do try and worship God properly, but I fall short often, as we all do.

    As for deficient thing, I know you think it is, I do not. Calvary represented is never deficient.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Esther,

    Deficiency falls with the discipline, not the validity. You are arguing as if I am speaking of deficiency as a matter of validity, I am not; dUSt made the same mistake too, but was too proud to hear it out. I don't doubt the validity of the Novus Ordo, but it is not all that the Mass can be. That is in the TLM. If a Mass is illicit, then it is deficient. It is that simple. The same holds true for the TLM as much as the Novus Ordo, don't be mistaken.

    But...

    Those who adhere to the TLM are more precise and they value the licitness of the Mass almost as much as the validity. The letter of validity is found in the licitness of the Mass. Much the same as the "spirit of the Council" is found in the "letter of the Council." And that is a problem isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hmm, well Andy I don't want to be in the same boat and be too proud to hear you and understand. I don't think you think the OF is invalid. I remember our last looonnngg discussion about this. Perhaps I should go back and read it over again. Maybe it would make more sense to me now. I just don't see how Calvary represented could ever lack anything. Maybe I need to have a better understanding of the vocabulary you are using.

    I am going to think on it a bit and reply back later. I am making my rounds in town, hopefully tonight or tomorrow I will be able to write out a bit more. I would be curious your take on it as I do respect your opinion.

    ReplyDelete