RCIA Sunday Dismissals

One of the traditions of the RCIA is that catechumens be dismissed from the Sunday assembly following the Liturgy of the Word. In my experience there has been a mixed response from the participants to these dismissals. Some people feel nourished by the Liturgy of the Eucharist (even though they do not receive the Eucharist). Other people feel isolated and excluded by the dismissals. In either case personal feelings run high and it is difficult to explain this adequately in such circumstances.

However, apart from the tradition, there are good reasons to continue these dismissals. At the end of their direct RCIA experience there remains a great need for these new Catholics to continue to grow and to reflect on their faith journey. The problem is that unfortunately there are few opportunities for adult faith formation. Consequently all members of the assembly (not just the new ones) need to be provided with better tools so that they can be nourished in their faith by the Liturgy of the Word - which is the primary place where faith formation is regularly offered in the life of the Church.

So how could RCIA dismissal provide these tools. Obviously we want to provide participants tools so that they can continue to find spiritual direction and growth in the Liturgy of the Word. Now, we are all supposed to find this in the Liturgy but it seems to me that our ability to do this is more or less assumed and as a result many of the faithful do not have a sense of being nourished or fed by the Word of God. Might this be one of the reasons why people have a tendency to abandon regular attendance at Mass?

Teaching RCIA participants the ancient practice of Lectio Divina might be one way of providing participants a way of being fed by the Word of God. Lectio has a number of steps, but these steps involve two basic movements. People first need to get into a mindset that they can (and should) read Scripture prayerfully - with a belief that the Word is speaking to each of them in a special way. Such a mindset is difficult to attain because we have been conditioned to read very differently than this. As well, people need to believe that the Word of God requires a response - our lives ought to be changed in some way or another by our Sunday encounter with the Word. People with these two attitudes toward the Word will have a better chance of finding the weekly Liturgy of the Word an occasion of blessing and growth.

Inclusive Language

The setting was a funeral for a fairly young man. The occasion was solemn. There were about 1000 people in the Church and four priests and a deacon at the altar. At the end of the Eucharistic Prayer (I don't remember which particular Eucharistic prayer it was) the celebrant (a visitor) intoned, "through whom and with whom and in whom ... ." At least that is what I heard. I had not heard this particular part of the liturgy subjected to inclusive language and the attempt sounded quite shocking.

The basic premise of inclusive language is that the use of masculine pronouns in the liturgy makes females feel excluded and therefore these masculine pronouns should be avoided. While I don't necessarily agree with the basic premise I think there are times when a masculine pronoun can be substituted with a more generic one. For example at morning prayer yesterday (Liturgy of the Hours, Friday, week III) one of the intercessions ends with: "pour forth your Spirit upon all men." In a case like this I would have no problem with the text simply saying all, or everyone, or all people, instead of men.

A basic problem however, comes when a masculine pronoun that refers specifically to Jesus is "neutered" in this way. So in the case of the mangled end to the Eucharistic prayer mentioned above the latin reflexive pronoun used here (per ipsum et cum ipso et in ipso) is clearly intended to point strongly to Jesus Christ mentioned in the previous sentence in all four Eucharist prayers. So I would say that to substitute "whom" for him in this particular part of the Eucharistic prayer should be unthinkable. If you were determined to avoid a masculine pronoun here the best you could do would be : through Jesus (himself) and with Jesus and in Jesus .... This would be the only way to preserve the basic meaning of the prayer. Basically I think that we all can agree that Jesus was male and I don't think that liturgical language should obscure or ignore that fact.

More Motu

On the weekend I had a chance to visit with an old friend and colleague. At one point the talk turned to the "extra ordinary" form of the mass as outlined by the recent motu proprio. The topic came up because a former student-athlete that we both knew is now attending Mass at a chapel of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in a town about two hours away. While driving two hours to attend Mass is evidence of amazing devotion I wondered if she and her family would return to the local parish if the parish began to offer Mass according to the 1962 missal.

I think that one of the motives behind the motu was to restore some of these people (like our former student) to their proper parishes. After some discussion I'm not sure that a simple "if you build it, they will come" approach to this is going to work. Many of the people that we know who attend the SSPX mass have complicated issues in the area of religion. On reflection the one explanation for this that makes partial sense to me comes from a book that I read when preparing for a master's degree project a few years back. In the book (What Prevents Christian Adults from Learning? by John Hull) the author describes several possible reactions to the increasing disconnect between religion and modern culture. He suggests that a common reaction is an attachment to something (or anything) that seems to provide certainty. So, people (even people like our student who was not alive in 1962) develop an attachment to the "old Mass" because it represents a time when things were more "black and white". I recall another example of this kind of attitude. Several years ago during a discussion on high school religious education I was told that we could solve a lot of the problems we were having with our young people if we only had more altar calls. This clearly is another example of someone seeing an overly simple solution to a complex problem. Still, my friend tells me that the SSPX chapel in his community in Southern Alberta has two Sunday Masses that attract 80 to 100 persons. That certainly represents a "stable number" referred to in the motu. If those numbers could be restored to the Church simply by instituting a regular "old Mass" in the parish it would be worth the time and effort. Still, its not certain that there are simple solutions to this situation (SSPX) as I've already said.

Motu Proprio

The letter of Pope Benedict expanding the use of the 1962 missal of John XXIII has finally been published. Basically the letter makes it easier to use the older pre-Vatican II forms of the liturgy. The expressed hope of the Holy Father is that this letter will facilitate the reconciliation of traditionalist groups with Rome. I hope that such a thing happens. However, my reading of some of the things written by the Society of Saint Pius X (the group founded by Lefebvre) suggests that their attachment to the old missal is simply a sign of their rejection of many of the documents of Vatican II. I am not sure if we will ever see a latin mass in our parish although some people from our parish apparently regularly make a two hour drive to attend the old mass at a SSPX chapel north of here. So, although the Pope has high hopes for his letter (to take effect in September) and some traditionalists have been feverishly writing about it for months I don't think that the letter will change much.

The "Old" Mass

In the blogs that I read regularly there is a great deal of discussion about so called "liturgical abuses" and about a declaration supposedly coming from the Pope (a motu proprio) that will permit celebration of the Mass as celebrated before Vatican II without expressed permission from the local bishop. This "restoration" of the older form of the Mass is of, I suspect, little interest for the vast majority of Catholics. It is apparently intensely interesting to about three smaller groups of Catholics.

The first of these groups are those who basically oppose the authority of the Popes who came after Pius XII. The most outstanding example of this group is the Society of Saint Pius X. This group was founded by Archbishop Lefebvre in Europe some years ago in defiance of Pope John Paul. What Lefebvre did was to ordain more Bishops without the consent of Rome. We have representatives of this group here in Alberta. Its main "raison d'etre" seems to be the preservation of the "old Mass" but in reality there seems to be a broader disagreement in ecclesiology. The leaders of SSPX claim to be loyal Catholics but do not wish to accept many of the initiatives of Vatican II. Some writers have suggested that Pope Benedict's interest in a motu proprio is primarily to bring the SSPX back into union with the Church. In addition to SSPX there are a number of smaller groups who cling to the "old Mass" and reject the authority of the Church. On the internet you can find groups who insist that Pope John XXIII excommunicated himself when he initiated Vatican II and that subsequent Popes included Benedict were improperly elected and that consequently there currently is no valid Pope. Google "Pius XIII" and you will find the site of an elderly priest who now claims to have been elected legitimate Pope as the successor to Pius XII. The anticipated motu proprio might have some appeal to this group, particularly the SSPX, but many of their writings suggest that their problems are with current ecclesiology as much as with liturgy.

A second group of people interested in this anticipated motu proprio, I would suggest, are simply deeply conservative people who were taken aback by the sudden change that seemed to take place in the Church (especially in the liturgy) during the 1970's. These are simply people who feel that "old ways are best" and who long for "the good old days" of Catholicism which were before Vatican II. I have to say that I can recall the days before Vatican II and I remember our Pastor telling us that only protestant churches changed and the Catholic church would never change. I have read the expressed opinion that the current malaise in the Church is the result of changes in the liturgy instituted following Vatican II. These people, while well intentioned seem to forget that there were many changes in the broader society that brought about the current state of affairs in the Church since Vatican II.

A final group of people interested in the motu proprio I would suggest are people who are interesting in a reformation of the liturgy. These are people who feel that there is an over emphasis on the Eucharist as the meal of the assembly in current liturgy. These people would like to see a greater emphasis on the sacred nature of the Mass. They see the "old Mass" as a vehicle to restore a balance which they feel has been lost in contemporary liturgy.

People who supposedly know these things write that the motu proprio in question has been written and signed and that its promulgation is imminent. I only hope that whatever is said the changes that might come will result in better liturgies and greater unity in the Church.

Easter Vigil

The Easter Vigil liturgy is of course the high point of the journey for participants in the RCIA. In our parish we had four catechumens baptized (one other catechumen had to be out of town and will be baptized later). We also had adults and children being received into the church as well as one young girl who was present for confirmation. This is one of the smallest groups in our parish for quite a while. Before the service some people were quite nervous. One young lady (a first year teacher in our Catholic school system) told me that if she fainted she would never come back to church again. I reminded her that as a first year teacher she had already survived the first week of school, unruly students, parent meetings, and administrators and so she would most likely survive this (she did). Still, some people do feel uncomfortable in front of a large group (Our church was about three quarters full, so 350 people or so).

The liturgy itself went well. We had gone over the liturgy so the candidates and the catechumens knew what to expect. The liturgy began outside just as the sun was setting so the entrance into the church was not in complete darkness. The exsultet was partly sung and partly proclaimed by the deacon and the presider. We had four priests and a deacon present (not a common blessing in most parts of this diocese). The proclaiming part of the exsultet was because since the previous pastor left (he has an amazing singing voice and is the archbishop now) people feel inadequate as singers in comparison. The liturgy of the readings went as expected. We had already reflected on the readings in a retreat context so it was possible to just listen to the proclamation (You could not follow in the missal since the church by now was completely dark). There was a small light at the ambo, another for the cantor, and a clip-on light on the sacramentary for the presider. I noticed that there were also lights on the step leading down from the ambo. This because of a history of lectors tripping in the dark while leaving the ambo. The readings were well proclaimed. The congregational refrain during the responsorial psalms was the same throughout. I thought that was a good idea. A number of cantors sung the responsorial psalms but it was difficult to make out the words to some of the psalms. This is a problems because the congregation can't just look at their missal since it is dark. The explosion of light and bells at the conclusion of the readings is always effective. The young girl in front of me was momentarily startled when the lights came on.

The actual liturgy of baptism, confirmation, and reception went well. People looked very serious and there were no mistakes. I was struck during the litany of saints how much support the church tries to provide to everyone, but especially to the neophytes, on their journey of faith. We had rehearsed the reception of the Eucharist ahead of time. I still am surprised by how much we "cradle Catholics" take for granted about the rituals and prayers of the Church. New people need to be reminded and assured about some very basic things. Sometimes its hard to remember this when you are concerned about "covering" a certain amount of knowledge as well.

So, we have had our sacramental experience. The challenge of course is to continue living that experience. How do we continue to journey in our spiritual lives? How do we continue to be open to the meaning of the Paschal mystery in our lives? This is the challenge of Mystagogia not just for the neophytes but for all the Church.

Liturgical Translations

First of all here is some background. We are told that a new translation from Latin into English of the Mass is coming soon. Latin, of course is the official language of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. This means that the official version of all documents and prayers is the Latin version. When it was decided that the Mass was to be celebrated in the language of the people committees were set up to translate the various parts of the Mass from Latin into English. In the early 1970’s the translation that we are now familiar with has been used while the translation committee (known as ICEL) worked on an improved version. While the committee was working the Vatican made a number of pronouncements mainly to the effect that the main mandate of the committee was to produce a translation that was more faithful to the official Latin text than the current version is. Just one example of this is found in the dialogue between the priest and the congregation that leads to the Preface. The initial greeting and response in Latin is: “Dominus Vobiscum” with the congregation responding, “Et cum Spiritu tuo.” Everyone accepts the greeting of the priest as “The Lord be with you.” The ICEL translation of the response however is: “And also with you.” This translation ignores the Spiritu (Spirit) part of the response in Latin. “And with your Spirit”, is a response that is faithful to the Latin text and is used in the French, Spanish, and Italian translations.
Now the on-line edition of the Tablet magazine for the week of Feb. 5, 2007 has an article by US Bishop Donald Trautman regarding this issue. In the article Trautman, a liturgist by training, laments the new direction that is being taken in producing this translation. Trautman recognizes that our God is both transcendent and immanent and that good liturgy should recognize both aspects of God. He contends, however, that in the new translation there is an excessive emphasis on the transcendent nature of God. He also spends some time on the “pro vobis et pro multis” translation controversy where he argues that the new translation of pro multis as “for many” instead of “for all” is simply bad theology. This is in spite of the reality that the literal translation of “pro multis” is simply “for many” or possibly “for the many.”
This controversy seems to have its origins, as Trautman points out, in two different points of emphasis regarding the Eucharist. Some people feel that the Eucharistic liturgy should emphasize the reality of the heavenly liturgy, the sense of participation in a sacred event, and the transcendent nature of God. Generally these people, if they are old enough, remember the nature of the Latin Mass in the 1960’s and wish for a liturgy with more Latin and more Gregorian Chant. They loudly criticize the current liturgy and argue that the “folksy” feel of the current liturgy has been the cause of the decrease in attendance at Mass over the past 30 years or so. On the other hand people who emphasize the Eucharist as having the nature of a community banquet would prefer the liturgy to use the common language of the people, use contemporary music, and generally be more “easy going” than formal. These people would prefer a guitar to a pipe organ for liturgical music and want to emphasize the immanence of God in their liturgy.
As with many questions in Catholicism the correct answer here is not either transcendence or immanence but rather a balance of both as Trautman does actually point out. For the “conservatives” here I would like to point out that going back to a Latin liturgy is not likely going to restore the “good old days” of the 1950’s Catholic church (if those days were indeed good). It is true that the changes to the liturgy that came after Vatican II came before the long decline in attendance at Sunday Mass but the first thing did not necessarily cause the other. Many other things changed in modern culture during the same time period and they also had an impact on people’s attitudes about religion.
At the same time I have hopes for the new translation. I think that a more elegant language in the liturgy will have a positive effect. I think that we have been missing the old sense of encountering something sacred in the liturgy of the Eucharist and I hope that we can find a “ritual” language that does not sound like the English of the old King James Bible. I hope that this can be accomplished with little confusion and that the changes will bring us a more prayerful atmosphere in our liturgies.