When Fr. Raymond Brown was challenged about some of his early works on Scripture he said not to judge him by those words, that they were written twenty years ago and he has evolved since then. Bear that in mind with what I am about to share with you. It is a though in process and I think I like it but have not thought it entirely through.
When I decided to offer myself to the priesthood there was a lengthy application process part of which was meeting with a veteran priest for an interview. This took place in the basement of a building on the campus of John Carol University. In a cramped office an older priest with mussed hair and wearing a sweater just a wee bit too tight around his expanding horizons asked me this question, “So (at the time) Mr. Valencheck, you want to serve God. Tell me about Him.”
Mind you I had an active relationship with God. I prayed daily, went to mass most days, discerned His action and calling in my daily life, had conversations with Him, believed in Him, was willing to go into full service to Him, but I had difficulty answering that question. Not, I believe, because I did not know Him, but because I knew Him in a way that is difficult to put into words. (I ask the same question of couples preparing for marriage now telling them that they will have smaller versions of themselves asking them, ‘Who is God,’ and that they need to develop a vocabulary to answer that question.)
Now I can tell you all kinds of things about God. He is a distinct mode of Being. “He is that about which nothing greater can be thought.” Trinity. Unity. Of divine simplicity yet three hypostases or persons – One is essence distinguished in persons by relation, and so forth and so on . . . But does knowing this lead me into a deeper relationship than the type of relationship that I had with Him before knowing these things? In some ways yes, but in many ways no.
In the pre-Vatican II mass there was a complaint that many people did not understand what was going on because it was said in Latin and the priest faced the same way as the people. But if they were thoroughly confused and absolutely lost why would any sane person go to mass? Why would anybody recommend it? SOMETHING must have been engaged. Perhaps it was a connection with the mystery that spoke in the depth of the heart: that which is exceedingly difficult to put into words but which is none-the-less there. It was a contact with that mystery that was perceivable though perhaps its inner mechanics was not.
But to this perceived alienation to the mass it was thought to make the mystery more accessible, a laudable thing to do. So the language was put into the vernacular, the priest turned to toward the people so that every action could be seen, and other innovations were sometimes added in an effort toward full disclosure such as using glass chalices so that people could see the wine turned blood.
Yet there was not the grand, “Aha!” moment in the Church. Granted, there are many factors for people seemingly understanding less about their faith and lack of die-hard adherents, but one might be led to think that if the meaning of the mass were indeed more apparent we would in turn be much more excited about it, understand it better, and be much more open to share it.
But perhaps we have over explained the unexplainable. We try too hard to show the un-showable. As a result instead of engaging the mass on a deeper level one might inclined to think, “I saw, I heard, I got it,” and fail to explore the mystery. Because of this I have always wished there was a way to have a hybrid mass that combined elements of both ways of celebrating the mass, but that won’t be and so it is not an answer to be much explored.
I am glad the older form or our mass is offered as I have always gained a tremendous amount from it. I’d like to think that way most people experience mass today could be celebrated in such a way that the mystery could be injected back in more suitably. While it was more difficult to pray the older mass rubrically, it is equally hard to pray the mass today with the same mystery. It requires silence, careful choices in music, delicacy in the way it is celebrated, and maybe (I believe more than maybe) at least some dabbling in Latin.
When I decided to offer myself to the priesthood there was a lengthy application process part of which was meeting with a veteran priest for an interview. This took place in the basement of a building on the campus of John Carol University. In a cramped office an older priest with mussed hair and wearing a sweater just a wee bit too tight around his expanding horizons asked me this question, “So (at the time) Mr. Valencheck, you want to serve God. Tell me about Him.”
Mind you I had an active relationship with God. I prayed daily, went to mass most days, discerned His action and calling in my daily life, had conversations with Him, believed in Him, was willing to go into full service to Him, but I had difficulty answering that question. Not, I believe, because I did not know Him, but because I knew Him in a way that is difficult to put into words. (I ask the same question of couples preparing for marriage now telling them that they will have smaller versions of themselves asking them, ‘Who is God,’ and that they need to develop a vocabulary to answer that question.)
Now I can tell you all kinds of things about God. He is a distinct mode of Being. “He is that about which nothing greater can be thought.” Trinity. Unity. Of divine simplicity yet three hypostases or persons – One is essence distinguished in persons by relation, and so forth and so on . . . But does knowing this lead me into a deeper relationship than the type of relationship that I had with Him before knowing these things? In some ways yes, but in many ways no.
In the pre-Vatican II mass there was a complaint that many people did not understand what was going on because it was said in Latin and the priest faced the same way as the people. But if they were thoroughly confused and absolutely lost why would any sane person go to mass? Why would anybody recommend it? SOMETHING must have been engaged. Perhaps it was a connection with the mystery that spoke in the depth of the heart: that which is exceedingly difficult to put into words but which is none-the-less there. It was a contact with that mystery that was perceivable though perhaps its inner mechanics was not.
But to this perceived alienation to the mass it was thought to make the mystery more accessible, a laudable thing to do. So the language was put into the vernacular, the priest turned to toward the people so that every action could be seen, and other innovations were sometimes added in an effort toward full disclosure such as using glass chalices so that people could see the wine turned blood.
Yet there was not the grand, “Aha!” moment in the Church. Granted, there are many factors for people seemingly understanding less about their faith and lack of die-hard adherents, but one might be led to think that if the meaning of the mass were indeed more apparent we would in turn be much more excited about it, understand it better, and be much more open to share it.
But perhaps we have over explained the unexplainable. We try too hard to show the un-showable. As a result instead of engaging the mass on a deeper level one might inclined to think, “I saw, I heard, I got it,” and fail to explore the mystery. Because of this I have always wished there was a way to have a hybrid mass that combined elements of both ways of celebrating the mass, but that won’t be and so it is not an answer to be much explored.
I am glad the older form or our mass is offered as I have always gained a tremendous amount from it. I’d like to think that way most people experience mass today could be celebrated in such a way that the mystery could be injected back in more suitably. While it was more difficult to pray the older mass rubrically, it is equally hard to pray the mass today with the same mystery. It requires silence, careful choices in music, delicacy in the way it is celebrated, and maybe (I believe more than maybe) at least some dabbling in Latin.
It probably can’t be done over night or exclusively. It takes a long time to be weaned off a sugary diet to something more substantial to the point where you like it. (I’m trying to do that with my coffee at the present.) But once you develop that taste you rarely want to go back.
8 comments:
-But perhaps we have over explained the unexplainable.-
I've reached the conclusion that the greatest problem we have now in catechesis, whether it is a "liberal" or "conservative" catechesis, is that we have become too didactic.
We think it is necessary to directly teach everything. This is seen in society as well. I see people in schools trying to teach ridiculous things. It is not necessary to sit down and explain, directly into someone's face, everything that we do. Many things are learned simply by doing them. I think people did the same with the mass and with God. Our ancestors didn't need "qualified" RE teachers. There was no need. The liturgy taught, in a somatic, non-verbal fashion, everything you needed to know about God. The liturgy still tells us about God, but I think it tells us less, because it tries to tell us more.
And that's my cryptic statement for the day!
"And that's my cryptic statement for the day!"
And that's why we love you.
Fr. V. ~ I know you only quoted Raymond Brown, but please don't tell me that his idea of exegesis was inflicted upon you at the seminary? One of the things I learned this weekend is what an illogical hack he is and now I can finally name the person responsible for the bad theology I had in college. Because what I learned there wasn't Catholic or Christian (of any denom), as he is not actually Catholic. And of course, I can't think of the name of the guy who came before him who was his biggest influence.
We have more in common with conservative Evangelicals than we do with self-proclaimed "Catholic" scripture scholars in the modern church. How sad. I need to go through my house todya and make sure I have no Raymond Brown or Fitzmyer leavings.
And that's my rant for the day. If Rob can have cryptic statements, can I have the occasional rant? I don't do cryptic well and he fulfills that role just wonderfully. :-)
Love what you say about the hybrid Mass, but I disagree in that it won't happen...I do think it will, and I think the hybrid Mass was what was actually intended by the Vatican II authors. The only elements that should have changed were the use of the vernacular in the readings and homily, maybe in some of the prayers, but Latin was supposed to be retained elsewhere. And we were to have more scripture readings (this happened just fine), etc. Repetetive elements were to be eliminated, which happened. But the altar was never to be turned around/seperated, the tabernacle was not to be moved, etc. People often cite V2 for these things, as you know, but it was actually some other writings that made more severe changes. I'm not certain but I think those documents were written in response to things that were already occurring?
See...I'm still learning. This semester is going to be heavy on philosophy and other foundations things along with NT scripture heavy on responding to Christological claims as written by a modern "theologian" who got his degree out of a cracker jack box.
What is WITH the state of this plague of modern theologians who claim to be "Catholic" and take every chance they can get to discredit the Truths that have stood from the beginning of the Church?
I need more coffee. Maybe I'm really ranting about not having coffee.
What’s with the apologetic tone with the blogs these days? Are you gun shy because you got burned railing against altar girls? (Ha! Altar railer!) You’re right about the position of the tabernacle and you’re right that the mass needs more reverence. From what I’ve read, Rome is asking for what you want in documents like Redemptionis Sacramentum and Musicam Sacram and that the Pope hopes the TLM will influence the Novus Ordo and that Latin is appropriate for BOTH forms.
You don’t have to wait for the hippies to die before you effect change. Their time is over. It’s our time now. I used to think that the vow of obedience was a deterrent to getting things done, but from what I’ve read Christ uses it to accomplish his will. Your obedience up to now hasn’t been wasted. Mother Theresa and Bishop Sheen had to put up with walls in the way of what they wanted done, and they conquered the world. The effort was theirs, but the success was God’s. Just keep trudging along. You’re going to get what you want.
-But the altar was never to be turned around/seperated-
Actually, I bet, if the altar had not been pulled out from the wall, and the priest turned round, we might never have even begun this argument. Not that this constitutes the only difference between the liturgies, but it was, IMO, the one that set "trads" against the Church. The mass had been through little changes, every few years or decades, for centuries. But that was an abrupt manifestation of a suddenly obvious "agenda".
rob, I agree.
sparky ~ Fr. V. got burned railing against altar girls? What happened? How did that occurr? Did I miss something?
And Fr. V., I'm with sparky...you're completely right in what you're saying and you don't have to apologize for being right. Sorry you got burned...it's all the cost of martyrdome... :-)
Rob - I agree 100%
Adoro, I'm just going from memory of one of Fr's blogs that he explained to someone why altar girls can't happen but then, oops, they were approved.
I just know that whenever I have seen the words "Novus Ordo" online, I can expect a spewing of what deliberately seeks to cause separation to follow. Same for the words "anathema" and "heresy." It all just puts me in mind of Christ's prayer for unity on that horrible night, and how disappointed He'd be these days--and how satan must chuckle over all of it. Fortunately, I only encounter such exclusivism online, never in person, but may not one more of us ever mistake Traditionalism for orthodoxy. Christ, heralded by the Baptist's first sifting, brought the sword--He is the only one qualified to do so, as Peter (and first, the Boanerges) found out; we're supposed to bring the invitation!
Carol
Post a Comment