| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Saving the Roman Rite?
The Vatican issues updated liturgical legislation that clears up some controversies, leaves others untouched, and gives some observers the mistaken impression their innovations were correct all along.
By Rev. Jerry J. Pokorsky
Recently I asked a priest friend how he would size up the liturgical landscape after the Second Vatican Council. He is a man of the Church and a man of culture. Well, at least he is a man of television culture. He compared the state of the liturgy to the comedy series “The Munsters.” Remember Marilyn Munster? From the perspective of the audience, she was normal, indeed beautiful. But from the perspective of the comically grotesque family, she was abnormal because her beauty didn’t fit into the family of monsters. My priest friend wryly observed that since the Council, the grotesque has often become the norm in the liturgy. Consequently, from this perspective, the priests who strive to celebrate Mass according to the letter and spirit of liturgical legislation are considered “ultraconservative,” even freakish.
Revised liturgical legislation offers hope that the “Munster” analogy will some day be as outdated as the television series. On Holy Thursday, 2000, Pope John Paul II approved the revised Latin version of detailed instructions governing the celebration of the Mass. The revision, Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, commonly referred to in its English translation as the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), replaces the 1975 edition. In July 2000, the US bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy released an English language study edition and devoted the June-July issue of its newsletter to a commentary on it. Early reports suggest that the translation, in the main, accurately reflects the Latin.
It’s not clear when the new legislation takes effect because the GIRM is part of the revised Roman Missal, third edition in Latin, which has not yet been released. The Roman Missal contains the texts of prayers used by the priest at Mass. In an interview with the Zenit news service, Archbishop Francesco Pio Tamburrino, secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, said the revised Roman Missal should be ready for presentation toward the end of September 2000. Still, the English translation of the texts—including the translation of the revised GIRM—need Vatican confirmation. Presumably, the official promulgation of all of these texts depends upon the Vatican’s confirmation of the English translations. The liturgical legislation is binding upon promulgation.
To a significant extent, with the release of the draft English translation of the revised GIRM, there is evidence that the Church is struggling to reclaim the essential elements of the Roman Rite as the sacramental representation of the Cross and Resurrection of Christ. The revised GIRM approved by the Holy Father this year makes considerable progress in providing guidelines in stabilizing liturgical practices, in large measure, according to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. To those who are looking for liturgical stability and a recovery of the sacred, there are clear signs of hope. On the other hand, it will surely be disturbing to those who are accustomed to liturgical license.
But a good deal of post-conciliar practices—including some that are arguably alien to the Roman Rite—have been ratified by the revised legislation. There remain significant questions and ambiguities concerning the posture at Mass, in particular: kneeling after the Agnus Dei, the option to celebrate Mass ad orientem, female service at the altar, and certain liturgical nuances that are important to the fabric of the liturgy.
For example, the use of the chalice veil is optional in the revised GIRM, ratifying a common, albeit incorrect, practice. Additionally, the revised GIRM reverses the 1975 GIRM by instructing priests not to genuflect in front of the tabernacle during the celebration of the Mass. As a matter of liturgical movement, the genuflection can arguably be overdone, even disruptive. But to exclude it completely may have the tendency to violate Catholic sensibilities with respect to the proper reverence due to the reserved Sacrament.
The general historical context
The general historical context of the revised liturgical legislation is complicated. Over the last 30 years, at times, liturgical legislation was simply violated; at other times, liturgical legislation could not have possibly envisioned an “innovative” practice.
For example, the following common liturgical practices are clearly unauthorized under the 1975 GIRM currently in effect or clarified by other Vatican documents. In most cases, the revised GIRM reinforces the 1975 GIRM:
- Using improper vestments: no chasuble or stole over the chasuble (violating the 1975 GIRM, 299); no chalice veil (violating the 1975 GIRM, 80). The revised GIRM reiterates the traditional vesting practices, including the chasuble over the stole (337), but now only indicates that it is merely “very fitting that the chalice be covered with a veil” (118).
- Omitting the Penitential rite and the Gloria after the entrance (and brief introduction), and essentially beginning Mass with the Opening Prayer (violating the 1975 GIRM, 24-31). The revised GIRM legislates the same as the 1975 GIRM.
- Carving up the Gospel or the readings into parts to be read by a series of lectors (except for the Passion on Palm Sunday and Good Friday). The 1975 GIRM encourages the distribution of readings to more than one reader, if possible, but no mention is made of dissecting individual texts (see 71). The revised GIRM is even more explicit, directing “. . . it is not at all appropriate that several persons divide a single element of the celebration among themselves, e.g., that the same reading is divided into two parts for two readers, unless it is the Passion of the Lord” (109)
- Allowing the laity to preach at Mass (violating the 1975 GIRM, 42). The revised GIRM is even more forceful: “The homily must be given by the priest celebrant or is entrusted by him to a concelebrating priest, or, as circumstances dictate, may even be given by a deacon, but never by a lay person” (66).
- Omitting the lavabo rite (washing of the hands). This omission is common in some parts of the US, regardless of the clear instruction in the 1975 GIRM (106). The revised GIRM repeats the instruction (76).
- Using the Mass as a vehicle for other purposes, such as inserting a grade school “graduation ceremony” or some kind of video presentation for some purpose after Communion, instead of a lawful “brief announcement” (see 1975 GIRM, 123). The revised GIRM also does not envision using the Mass in this fashion but only allows for “[b]rief announcements as needed” after the Prayer After Communion (90).
- Inviting the Extraordinary ministers to the altar before the Ecce Agnus Dei and distributing Communion to them as if they were concelebrants (see 1975 GIRM, 22, 56 and 244). The revised GIRM anticipates this abuse and directs that extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist “do not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion, and always accept from the hands of the priest the vessel which contains either species of the Blessed Eucharist for distribution to the faithful” (162).
- Inviting the congregation—usually a small group—to gather around the altar in the sanctuary.
- Questionable “themes” for liturgical seasons or feasts. For example, in one Midwestern parish, the Lenten theme was entitled “A Hobo Homecoming,” and during each Sunday of Lent the people were introduced to a new “hobo symbol.”
- “Clown masses” where the priest (in all other ways, arguably “properly” vested) is depicted as a clown for “children’s liturgies.” Priests who process into Mass on Christmas as “Santa Claus” or on Easter dressed as the “Easter Bunny.”
- Miming or acting out the Gospel.
- New Age practices introduced into the Mass in the name of “multiculturalism,” such as the incensing of the four winds or of the four directions of the compass.
- Using the Mass as entertainment, e.g., “folk Masses” or, as is common in the Midwestern section of the US, “polka Masses.”
Still, it seems that an opportunity was lost in the revised GIRM to identify, in general terms, that bishops and priests have the obligation to avoid using the Mass as a motif for other purposes rather than as the “source and summit” of Christian life.
The feminization of ministries
Often there were ambiguities in the text of the 1975 GIRM and other liturgical legislation, resulting in genuine confusion and argumentation among priests and laity. Ambiguities in the law resulted in—as one wag put it—”GIRM warfare.” Those promoting agendas for liturgical change often exploited the ambiguities. The revised GIRM at times clarifies ambiguities, but at other times fails to do so.
There’s a distinct “unisex” flavor to the revised GIRM. The universal principle expressed in the 1975 GIRM that women “may be appointed to ministries that are performed outside the sanctuary” (1975 GIRM, 70) has been dropped in the revised GIRM. Hence, the traditional understanding of the sanctuary as the priestly “holy of holies” is obscured. In essence, the ambiguity ratifies the feminization of ministries that has occurred over the last 30 years.
When the new 1983 Code of Canon Law dropped the explicit reference to male altar servers, many priests and liturgists saw a new opportunity to promote female altar servers. When it apparently became necessary for the Holy See to deflect some episcopal pressure for female deacons, the ambiguity was at last “clarified” and permission for altar girls was made explicit.
The revised GIRM indicates that “[t]he function of altar servers is regulated by the norms established by the Bishop for his diocese” (107). The presumption is that girls continue to be permitted to serve at the altar in accordance with the permission granted by the Vatican in 1994. But this should not suggest that bishops have the power to mandate female altar servers. “Function” means what the servers do, not their sex. There is no indication at all that the present confused legislation has changed; bishops may approve but not require female altar servers.
Cardinal Jorge A. Medina Estévez of the Congregation of Divine Worship has recently reiterated in correspondence a long-standing liturgical principle that bishops do not have the authority “to exclude or mandate the use of a legitimate option” but are “competent to provide further guidance to priests in their choice of the various options of the Roman Rite.”
Another means to involve women in the action of the Mass has been the widespread promotion of “liturgical dance.” There are countless examples in Catholic periodicals where priests and even bishops promote liturgical dance. Some have assumed that dance, either as part of the entrance or during the Mass itself, is permitted. In a 1975 document issued by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, the Congregation admits to the possible propriety of dance within the liturgy in some cultures. But in “western culture,” the Congregation argues, “dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: such dancing, in general, is not pure” (Notitiae 11 (1975) 202-205). The revised GIRM, like the 1975 GIRM, does not directly address the practice.
The revised GIRM, however, points out that the “gestures and posture of the priest, deacon, and the ministers, as well as of the people, should allow the whole celebration to shine with dignity and noble simplicity, demonstrating the full and true meaning of each of their diverse parts, while fostering the participation of all. Therefore, greater attention needs to be paid to what is laid down by liturgical law and by the traditional practice of the Roman Rite, for the sake of the common spiritual good of the people of God rather than to personal inclination or arbitrary choice” (42, emphasis added).
The location of the tabernacle
A good deal of liturgical turmoil does not center around what is unauthorized, but what the Church actually authorizes. Perhaps the single most important clarification in the revised GIRM involves the placement of the tabernacle in the church.
The 1975 GIRM favored a separate chapel for the reserved Sacrament: “Every encouragement should be given to the practice of eucharistic reservation in a chapel suited to the faithful’s private adoration and prayer. If this is impossible because of the structure of the church, the sacrament should be reserved at an altar or elsewhere, in keeping with local custom, and in a part of the church that is worthy and properly adorned” (276).
However, the revised GIRM levels the playing field. The revised legislation indicates that “the tabernacle should be placed, according to the judgment of the diocesan Bishop: a) either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in the most suitable form and place, not excluding on an old altar which is no longer used for celebration; b) or even in another chapel suitable for adoration and the private prayer of the faithful, and which is integrally connected with the church and is conspicuous to the faithful.” But the tabernacle should “not be on the altar on which Mass is celebrated” (315).
Hence, it can no longer be argued that the Church necessarily “favors” a separate chapel for the reserved Sacrament over reservation in the sanctuary.
Genuflections and kneeling during Mass
The renewed emphasis on a prominent location of the reserved Blessed Sacrament in the church, particularly in the sanctuary, apparently caused a change in the number of times the celebrant genuflects during Mass. In the 1975 GIRM, the priest was instructed to genuflect three times during Mass, “after the showing of the eucharistic bread, after the showing of the chalice, and before communion” (233). The Instruction then adds, “If there is a tabernacle with the blessed sacrament in the sanctuary, a genuflection is made before and after Mass and whenever anyone passes in front of the blessed sacrament” (233, emphasis added).
But in the revised GIRM, the priest, deacon and other ministers are instructed to “genuflect to [the tabernacle] when they approach or leave the altar, but not during the celebration of Mass itself “(274, emphasis added). It would seem the intention here is to keep the focus of attention on the action of the Mass, rather than on the reserved Sacrament. If this is indeed the intention, it is arguable that the new legislation would not exclude the devotional genuflection in front of the tabernacle when the Blessed Sacrament is reposed by the priest, deacon or acolyte after Communion.
The question of posture during the Eucharistic prayer has proven to be one of the most controversial questions of liturgy in recent times. Recently across the US, many priests and bishops have instructed the faithful to stand during the Eucharistic prayer. But this violates the directives of the 1969 US Appendix to the GIRM directing the “people [to] kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic prayer, that is, before the Lord’s Prayer.”
During the American bishops’ debate on the “American adaptations” to the revised translation of the Roman Missal in June, 1995, Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania, then chairman of the liturgy committee, said his committee had accepted Cardinal Joseph Bernardin’s amendment to allow for standing during the Eucharistic prayer as an option at the discretion of individual bishops. During the meeting, Cardinal Bernard F. Law of Boston objected to the option as a serious breakdown in uniformity in the celebration of the Mass across the country. When a large minority of bishops, including several cardinal archbishops, became clearly alarmed over this proposal, the liturgy committee withdrew the Bernardin motion.
The revised GIRM takes a firm stand in favor of the American rules.
-
[The faithful] . . . .should kneel at the consecration, except when prevented by reasons of health, lack of space, the number of people present, or some other good reason. However, those who do not kneel at the consecration ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. But it is up to the Conference of Bishops to adapt the gestures and posture in the Order of the Mass to the customs and reasonable traditions of the people according to the norm of law. The conference, however, must make sure that such adaptations correspond to the meaning and character of each part of the celebration. Where it is the custom that the people remain kneeling from the end of the Sanctus until the end of the Eucharistic prayer, this is laudably retained (43).
An emerging liturgical interest is the rediscovery of celebrating Mass ad orientem. The legitimacy of the interest has been bolstered in the writings of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the present prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who has referred to the practice as “essential” to the proper understanding of celebrations of the liturgy.
On a popular level, it is commonly thought that the Second Vatican Council mandated that the priest “face the people” when celebrating Mass. This is incorrect. The Council makes no mention of the practice. However, shortly after the Council, the new liturgical legislation merely permitted priests to face the people when celebrating Mass, and it became a common, almost normative, practice. But in fact, bishops and chancery officials have no authority to insist that the priest face the people during Mass. The celebration of Mass ad orientem continues to be a lawful option.
Some say that the revised GIRM as written strongly suggests that Mass should be celebrated with the priest facing the people during the Liturgy of the Eucharist rather than ad orientem, that is, facing east (priest and people facing the same direction). The construction of the sentence is a bit convoluted:
-
In every church there should ordinarily be a fixed, dedicated altar, which should be freestanding to allow the ministers to walk around it easily and Mass to be celebrated facing the people, which is desirable whenever [ubicumque] possible (299).
Filteau may have been hasty in his judgment. In private conversation, a high ranking Vatican official said that the revised GIRM did not intend to change existing legislation on the question of facing east. Some observers have also pointed out that the instruction, “desirable whenever possible,” does not refer to the celebration of Mass “facing the people,” but that the altar be “freestanding, whenever possible.” The suggested reference to the altar is even stronger if ubicumque is translated “wherever.”
Lending credibility to this view is the revised GIRM’s repeated instruction to “face the people” (or more accurately “turn toward the people”) for a particular gesture or prayer. If it is necessary to direct the priest to “face the people,” then it is obvious that he may lawfully be facing another direction. For example, during the Communion Rite, the revised GIRM directs that “. . . the priest genuflects, takes the Eucharistic bread, and, holding it slightly above the paten or above the chalice, while facing the people, says: This is the Lamb of God” (157).
In any case, it would seem that an official Vatican clarification may be necessary.
Latin or the vernacular?
Another popular misconception is that the Second Vatican Council excluded the celebration of Mass in Latin. In fact, while the Council permitted the vernacular, the Fathers insisted that “[t]he use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (SC 36).
The revised GIRM echoes the Council. While the revised legislation directs that “[t]he use of the vernacular in the liturgy may certainly be considered an important means for presenting more clearly the catechesis on the mystery that is part of the celebration itself” (13), it also insists that “the Roman Missal is to be published whole and entire” in Latin or in vernacular languages (389).
The revised GIRM also retains the 1975 GIRM directive promoting the use of Latin even within the context of a Mass in the vernacular: “Since the faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is desirable that they know how to sing at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the profession of faith and the Lord’s Prayer, set to simple melodies” (41).
Garden variety liturgical abuses
When nature biologically closes in on itself, it degenerates. So too with liturgy. When the Mass becomes a mere “celebration of community” or a means of communal “self-expression,” inattentive to the universal liturgical guidelines, it closes in upon itself, degenerates, and threatens the very nature of the Mass as the representation of the one Sacrifice of Christ. This is the reason liturgical legislation must take into account practices that are harmful to the universal character of the liturgy.
The revised GIRM frequently recognizes that certain liberties have been taken with the Mass since the Council. Consequently, it points out that “the celebration of the Eucharist is the action of the whole Church; in it all should do only, but all of, those parts that belong to them in virtue of their place within the people of God. In this way greater attention will be given to some aspects of the Eucharistic celebration that have sometimes been neglected in the course of time” (5).
The revised GIRM also paraphrases the Second Vatican Council (SC 22), directing that “the priest must remember that he is the servant of the sacred Liturgy, and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass” (24). Consequently, the revised GIRM directly addresses several historical liturgical abuses. Here are some examples [emphases added]:
- “The Gloria is the ancient and venerable hymn in which the Church, assembled in the Holy Spirit, praises and entreats God the Father and the Lamb. The text of this hymn is not to be replaced by any other” (53).
- “The intentions [for the Prayers of the Faithful] announced should be sober, with a discrete freedom and composed of few words, expressing the needs of the whole community” (71).
- “. . . he [the priest] alone makes the doxology: Through him” (151). “The concluding doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer is said solely by the principal priest celebrant together with the other concelebrants, but not by the faithful” (236).
- “The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers, always remaining within the sanctuary, lest the celebration be disrupted” (154).
- “. . . it is suitable that each person offer the sign of peace only to those nearby and in a dignified manner” (82).
- “The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less hand them on to one another” (160).
- Each type of sacred vessel intended for liturgical use should be “clearly distinguished from those designed for every day use” (332).
- The revised GIRM ensures that the term “cross” includes the figure of Christ crucified (cf. 117, 122, 308).
- “At the funeral Mass there should as a rule be a short homily, but never a eulogy of any kind. The homily is also recommended at other Masses for the dead celebrated with a congregation” (382). This is a reiteration of the 1975 GIRM.
The details of the celebration of Mass sharpen the focus of the Mass as a sacrifice and sacred meal. A rather pleasant emphasis in the revised GIRM is the use of the sacral vocabulary. The revised GIRM accentuates the sacral vocabulary by a repeated use of “sacred” as in sacred rites, sacred liturgy, sacred ministers, sacred place, etc. Traditional descriptions are also used to describe vestments and sacred vessels: sacristy, chalice, vestments, albs, cincture, censer, thurifer, etc. As a matter of rhetoric, the use of the sacral vocabulary is a refreshing foil to the efforts of many liturgists to emphasize the “table fellowship” of the Mass rather than the Mass as sacrifice.
Another change favoring traditional practices involves the Communion Rite. The priest can once again hold the host above the chalice—which is the more traditional form accenting both the Body and Blood of Christ—for the Ecce Agnus Dei, “This is the Lamb of God”: “The priest then shows the Eucharistic bread above the paten or above the chalice to the faithful and invites them to the banquet of Christ” (84). In the 1975 GIRM, the priest was instructed to hold the host “slightly above the paten” (1975 GIRM, 115).
The reception of Communion—in the hand or on the tongue—has been another point of contention. There have been innumerable reports of priests insisting that the people receive Communion in the hand. There have been occasional reports of priests insisting that people receive Communion only on the tongue. The revised GIRM continues to indicate that Communion on the tongue is the norm, with Communion in the hand where permitted by law: “If Communion is given only under the form of bread, the priest raises the Eucharistic bread slightly and shows it to each one, saying: The body of Christ. The communicants reply: Amen, and receive the Sacrament as they choose, either on the tongue, or in the hand, where this is allowed” (161).
The revised GIRM also recommends “that the priest celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice even daily, whenever possible” (19). Again, the insertion of this directive is a foil against many priests and liturgists who argue that weekday Masses somehow distract the faithful from the centrality of the Sunday Eucharist.
As every priest knows, it has become almost impossible to silently prepare for Mass, especially on Sundays. Many liturgists, again excessively promoting “table fellowship,” consider a noisy gathering before Mass as a sign of good “community” and not as a threat to worship. So it is significant that the revised GIRM promotes the value of silence, even before Mass begins: “Sacred silence should be observed at the designated times as part of the celebration. . . . Even before the celebration itself, it is praiseworthy for silence to be observed in church, in the sacristy, and adjacent areas, so that all may dispose themselves for the sacred rites which are to be enacted in a devout and fitting manner” (45).
The revised legislation failed to clarify the question of kneeling after the Agnus Dei as well as after Communion. This is particularly unfortunate in view of the confusion caused by certain bishops who have recently outlawed the practice. Kneeling in this fashion has been for decades—and probably much longer—a spontaneous act of worship. It was so traditional that, despite the fact that the 1975 GIRM made no mention of kneeling for the Ecce Agnus Dei and after Communion, it remained an unchallenged liturgical practice until relatively recently.
The revised GIRM adds to the confusion. Vatican officials must have been aware of the controversy and could have explicitly instructed the faithful not to kneel if the gesture was (contrary to fact) truly alien to the practice of the Roman Rite. Instead, the revised GIRM reads, “[The faithful] should sit during the readings before the gospel reading and during the responsorial psalm, for the homily and the preparation of the gifts, and, if this seems helpful, during the period of religious silence after Communion” (43, emphasis added). In view of the traditional practice, it’s probable that the revised GIRM simply takes the kneeling gesture for granted. The phrase “seems helpful” suggests that, because the faithful could be kneeling for an extended time, they may need a break. The revised GIRM hence gives them permission to sit. It would seem that the traditional practice of kneeling at Communion time can continue as a matter of sound tradition.
A beloved traditional practice is the ringing of bells during the Consecration. Actually, it may be one of the most important symbolic actions in an era of disbelief in the Real Presence. The 1975 GIRM indicates that bells may be used “depending on local custom” (109). This ambiguous instruction was used without basis by many chancery officials to outlaw bells during Mass. The instruction remains unchanged in the revised GIRM (150). An opportunity to underscore belief in the Real Presence by favoring the use of bells at the Consecration has been missed.
Another ambiguity that will be resolved with the revised legislation involves whether the deacon or lector—when a deacon was present—should normally read the Prayers of the Faithful. Again, the ambiguity was resolved in favor of contemporary practice. The 1975 GIRM at first seems to make it optional, indicating that “it is desirable that a deacon, cantor, or other person announce the intentions” (47). But later, the same Instruction indicates that it is the deacon who “leads the general intercessions” (61). The revised GIRM clearly spells out the options: “As a rule, the intentions are announced from the ambo or another suitable place, either by the deacon or cantor, or even by the reader or a member of the lay faithful” (71).
Not all liturgical ambiguity resolved by the revised GIRM favored common practice. For example, priests often argue among themselves as to whether the deacon should stand or kneel for the Consecration. The common practice is for the deacon to stand. The 1975 GIRM is silent; the Ceremonial of Bishops, the book of prayers used by bishops during the celebration of major celebrations, directs that he kneel. The revised GIRM clarifies the practice by directing, “As a general rule, from the epiclesis until the elevation of the chalice the deacon remains kneeling” (179).
Conclusion
Several years ago, I had a conversation with an old man whose wife was dying in the hospital. Over coffee in the hospital cafeteria, we discussed some of the events of his life. During the Second World War, he was a member of the Dutch resistance. He told me that it didn’t take them long to realize that the Jews that were being rounded up and taken away in rail cattle cars were likely coming to an unhappy end. So they decided to do what they could to save as many of their Jewish neighbors as possible. He said his family “adopted” a Jewish family and insisted that they attend Mass on Sundays to deflect the attention of the Nazis. The plan worked. By the grace of God, the family attended Mass every Sunday and survived the war.
But in a couple of years, my Dutch friend would be overjoyed to receive an unexpected letter in the mail. He and his wife were invited to celebrate the entry of the entire Jewish family into the Catholic Church. Such can be the appeal of the majestic Roman Rite and the celebration of the Mass. The Liturgy can transform lives even in the violence of world war.
In view of the cultural maelstrom within the Church, some have suggested that attention to the details of the Liturgy amounts to “rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.” But the new liturgical legislation for the universal Church is important because it provides a certain objectivity to the Liturgy. The celebration of the Mass according to the relatively stable norms of the Roman Rite will continue to provide modern man with a lifeboat in the turbulent waters of cultural upheaval.
Maybe “Munster” liturgy, in this fallen world, will be with us always. Despite perhaps inevitable deficiencies, the revised GIRM offers guidelines that more or less guard against individualistic and introspective liturgical practices. But a recovery of a sense of the sacred—as well as a rediscovery of the normal —ultimately depends upon the resolve of priests and bishops to take the new Vatican guidelines as binding and normative.
Father Jerry J. Pokorsky is a priest of the Diocese of Arlington. He is also the co-founder of CREDO and a member of the executive committee of Adoremus.
Back to Catholic World Report - October 2000 - Table of Contents
Back to Catholic Information Center on Internet's Main Periodical Page