February 2, 2004
The Liturgy and the People
I'm currently reading a fascinating book, The Truth of Catholicism by George Weigel (Pope John Paul II's biographer). In it, Weigel discusses the Liturgy and some of the controversy surrounding the changes brought about through Vatican II. To understand his point of view, let me quote this:
Those controversies will be constructive rather than destructive – and the Liturgy will be more attractive to the curious and the skeptical – if Catholics can manage to agree on one crucial point: that the Liturgy is, in the deepest sense, God’s work, not ours.
I think he makes a great point that gets lost in much of the debate, the Liturgy comes from God rather than man. Weigel goes on to discuss the recent debates about the Liturgy:
Liturgy, like much else in Catholic life, has been bureaucratized in recent decades. Most parishes have liturgy committees, and in many instances Sunday worship is planned by a committee. There is nothing wrong with this in itself, but it helps to contribute to the notion that Liturgy is something we make rather than something of God’s making in which we participate. That self-conscious sense of creating the Liturgy is also reinforced by one of the unanticipated results of having the priest face the people during Mass: the priest-celebrant’s personality becomes the dominate factor in the liturgy.
What do you think? In my former life as a protestant, one of the oddities of life involved choosing a church based on the pastor. It just seemed odd for what should be a faith-based decision to become so emotional. As a Catholic, I have always simply attended the closest Catholic church, the priest’s personality never had any effect on my decision. However, I have a Catholic friend attending a church with a very liberal priest. What is the answer? Should you be willing to change churches based upon this issue? Let me know what you think.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Jay,
This is an excellent issue. "Parish shopping" is a little bit like church hopping for a Protestant... jump around and find the one that "feels" right.
On the one hand, the priest is decidely not the focus of Mass. Nor, for that matter, are the people sitting in the pews next to you. Rather, it is about worshipping God and partaking in His grace. These two aspects of the Mass are best practiced in full submission and community. Parish shopping is usually a product of a critical and indivudualistic mind rather than a submissive one... the priest isn't very kind, the homilies do not inspire me, the liturgy is too rigid, etc.
On the other hand it would be foolish to pretend that there are no wolves inhabiting the Church, even in the heirarchy. Heresy has been present from the very first century. We must remember that our bodies, hearts, and minds are temples of the Holy Spirit. To the extent a particular priest is actually polluting that temple, we should prayerfully consider attending Mass elsewhere.
I personally do not attend Mass at the nearest parish. And not necessarily for faith reasons. Rather, I prefer a smaller parish because I feel that it is easier to get to know other parishioners. There are also various stylistic differences about the parish as a whole, along with architectural differences in the building that are pleasing to me. And, if I am being quite honest, my family has a deep love for the Monsignor that would make attendance elsewhere less "comfortable". Are these considerations wrong? I do not think so, but it is tough to know. My own belief is that as long as we remember that Mass is primarily for God's benefit, there should be freedom to attend Mass where each family is the most prone to pursue that goal. That is after all why we use so much symbolism in the Church--to direct all of one's attention to the Lord.
Regarding your friend, some close friends of mine attended a conference in Chicago with some of the more influential leaders of the Church. Many of the priests suggested that if the leaders of the parish are not abiding by the teachings of the Magisterium, go to another parish. I would tend to agree with this. (So did they; they are now driving a half hour every Sunday to attend Mass). One's allegiance is to God alone, as revealed by Christ and the Church. Where a priest contradicts the Church's teaching, he lacks true authority and should be abandoned. I say this with the reservation that some may view this as an opportunity to become dissenters. Remember that it is the teaching of the Church that must be followed, not your own desires, interpretations, or teachings. I hope this helps, but I'm really sort of in the same boat.
In Christ,
Dave
One of great problem is that the Novus Ordo has permitted laity to take too great of a role in deciding its functions. In the holy Mass of Pius V (and the 1962 edition), people couldn'tcan't just decide what went/goes on. It's time for the bishops and prelates to put a stop to the "popular control" of the Church. It's time to move back to more traditional days.
Posted by: Ben at February 12, 2004 7:59 PMOne of great problem is that the Novus Ordo has permitted laity to take too great of a role in deciding its functions. In the holy Mass of Pius V (and the 1962 edition), people couldn't can't just decide what went/goes on. It's time for the bishops and prelates to put a stop to the "popular control" of the Church. It's time to move back to more traditional days.
Posted by: Ben at February 12, 2004 7:59 PMI believe Ben might be right to a certain extent, but it is up to the pastor to know what the appropriate rubrics of the Holy Mass are, and not allow anyone to suggest something that might violate dicsipline or even be heretical.
I have seen a case in a parish where the liturgy was designed by committee and the pastor seemed to be along for the ride.
Pastors are the shepherds of their parishes, they should act like shepherds, not sheep.
Posted by: Tony at January 14, 2005 12:57 PM
