Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Inculturation?
This little ditty keeps popping it's head up every so often. This time it was on facebook. I won't bore you with all of the details, but you'll certainly get the jist of what the conversation was. It centered around the idea that a poster is content with the fact that at least the Mass is valid, even if it be in another language, ie. Spanish. My point was that this is exactly what Vatican Council II DID NOT call for. This is an abuse and while it is valid, there is much more to the issue than validity.
There is more to this than validity. There is the matter of licitness. What one particular person cares for or does not care for has no bearing on the issue at hand. [which is the liturgical action] Right isn't just right, but wrong is always wrong. Doing the bare minimum is not enough. We are called to do more. That is akin to getting a D in school. It passes, but there is so much more that can be accomplished and can be given to the task at hand. Just getting by doesn't solve the problem. It's time we start doing what Vatican Council II actually called for, if we are to accept it at all. And to simply be valid isn't it.
Vatican Council II called for the faithful to know and understand Latin well enough that Catholics could make the responses. As it stands right now, the vast majority of Catholics in the world cannot do that, yet they are expected to be inculturated into Spanish Masses and other languages (I am speaking of the USA). Not only are they to be inculturated into these other languages, but they are expected to be able to respond, yet when it comes to knowing the language of the Church, Latin, the vast majority of Catholics cannot do this. So, where is the disconnect?
The white elephant in the room for liberals is this: Why should a Catholic submit to the particular, when the universal has not been met? Why should a Catholic stand by and expect that a valid Mass in Spanish is enough? Why should a Catholic stand by and just accept the inculturation of a particular (Spanish) when the universal (Latin) is ignored?
I daresay that there is not an answer to that. I daresay that unless the liberal admits that there is a change in theology with regard to the Mass and the Sacraments, there is not an answer to that. If Vatican Council II was simply pastoral and not doctrinal (as has been asserted by many who are higher up), then there was no change in liturgical theology and what was accurate before is accurate today. But is it?
I don't think that it is. I think that there has been a shift in liturgical theology and this shift is dangerous to the faithful. Dangerous, because it is another reason for people to simply look at the Mass as just a part of a greater whole. The Mass is not. The Mass is not on the same level as praying a rosary. The Mass is not on the same level as doing good works. The Mass is not the simply part of the whole.
THE MASS IS HOW WE WORSHIP!
If a Catholic has no more life in the Church than to simply assist at Mass and make his Easter duty, then he is being a dutiful Catholic. While he should strive for more and do what he can, he is doing what he ought. That is not merely getting by, that is doing what he ought. And that IS enough. For doing what we ought is doing what is right.
If the Mass is how we worship, shouldn't we worship according what the Church asks and not what man wants?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Mass of Paul VI is new. As a creation of the Church of today it is therefore licit, but it is by no means certain that it is good. Promulgated by the Pope and accepted by all the Bishops, its liceity is beyond dispute. It cannot be contended that the New Mass has not been promulgated by Apostolic Authority. To contend that its author Pope Paul VI is not the legitimate Authority is an evident act of schism.
ReplyDeleteWhether it is a matter of the centuries-old Mass, longstanding rites, or the New Mass, it is always the one Mass of Christ and of the Catholic Church, valid therefore and licit. God would not allow the appearances and the laws to be so deceptive, nor would He permit that a rite of divine institution codified by the ordinance of the Roman hierarchy should be neither valid nor licit. If that were the case, the Gates of Hell would have prevailed. There would be no more Church.
Every valid and licit Mass produces abundant fruits of propitiation, sanctification and fraternal communion. But the benefits are only received by those who have made themselves worthy of them, through their state of grace and their fervour, and also through the effect of the instruction and edification of the liturgical Action itself. And if there is no one worthy present, then the fruits pass to the treasury of the Communion of Saints.
Can the canonically licit Mass of Paul VI be said to give instruction on the truth of the Mystery of Faith and to dispose its participants to receive its fruits? Is it free from all error and exempt from all malice? Since Tradition has not yet wrought its work of assimilation and rejection, we cannot be certain about this. It remains a matter of human opinion based on the customary trust placed by the faithful and their Pastors in the Pope and the Church of Rome – a trust which could in exceptional circumstances be deceived…
It is for those well versed in liturgy and theology to judge the worth of the Novus Ordo. But the decision to adopt it, to prefer it to the old rite, or on the contrary to avoid it or flee it absolutely, depending on whether one considers it a means of edification or a snare, belongs to the judgement of each person’s conscience, duly formed and instructed.
Taken from, "The One Catholic Mass"
www.crc-internet.org
But is it licit, Steve? How do you know? Is the Mass in your town licit? Or is the Mass in my town licit? I can guarantee you 100% that there are differences. I can guarantee you 100% that there are substantial differences. Now apply that to every parish in the world? Which Novus Ordo Mass is licit? Validity and licitness are objective matters, while it is easy to determine the validity of most Masses, it is not so much with licitness.
ReplyDeleteSo, I think that I disagree. I think that I have to say that applying a subjective principle to an objective fact is not compatible. What I would say is this. With the TLM, no matter where one went, one knew what one was getting. The same cannot be said with the Novus Ordo.
So, I disagree with your position. It is not up to the individual. We do not have the freedom to choose that which is illicit over that which is not. We must choose the licit Mass over the illicit. If we have a rightly formed conscience, then the choice is clear. Faced with the Novus Ordo or the TLM, the rightly formed conscience must choose that which is known with as much certainty as possible; the licit Mass. That Mass, is the TLM. If the person has no other choice, but to assist at the Novus Ordo, because of extenuating circumstances, then yes, he should assist at the Novus Ordo, but if he can reasonably assist at the TLM, then he should do so, because there is a greater certainty of licitness.
If the reasoning in the article I quoted is flawed, I'm glad to know about it. I attend a TLM 100 percent of the time. Recently I went to a NO funeral and said my rosary instead of participating in the liturgy.
ReplyDeleteAh, but you did participate in the Liturgy. If you united your soul to the liturgical action, you were participating fully.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, the NO Mass is valid and licit because it was promulgated by PPVI who had the Apostolic authority at the time. Can an individual Mass be so wild that it is neither valid nor licit? I'm sure many qualify. The NO I attended was one of the more orthodox versions. There were no women on the altar and no altar girls, just the Priest and an adult male server. I attended reluctantly and said my rosary the whole time. I would be glad to say it was my last NO. If that adds up to full participation on my part, there is not a lot I can do about it now.
ReplyDeleteSteve, sorry I didn't get that last comment moderated in a timely manner.
ReplyDelete