Music and Silence at Mass

I went to the Extraordinary Form Mass at Lancaster Cathedral this morning, and was struck by the music, and the silence - and particularly the way the two interacted.

The Mass starts with the chanting of the Asperges and the priest sprinkling us with Holy Water in preparation for celebrating the Sacred Mysteries.

Then there is the Introit, proper to the day, followed almost immediately by the penitential Kyrie and the joyful Gloria.

After a brief pause (for the duration of the Epistle) there are then the Gradual and Alleluia, both typically quite long and elaborate pieces of chant.

The Gospel (and possibly homily) follow and then there is the Credo and the Offertory verse.

That's a huge amount of very varied music in the opening part of the Mass. And suddenly it slows right down. After the Offertory there is nothing till the Sanctus, and then silence.

And more silence.

And then, with only the bells to hear, the consecration.

And then more silence. And a bit more.

Then the conclusion of the Canon and the Pater.

Then a bit more silence, before the Agnus Dei and the Communion verse. There may also be a communion motet (there wasn't today). But there is far more time for reflection and quiet prayer around the reception of Holy Communion and beyond, until the Last Gospel is proclaimed.

After that we had the prayer for the queen, and then the Salve Regina, followed by a stirring voluntary. We were re-entering the world of the here and know.

The wisdom of ages...

Male and female he created them...

This post is a continued reflection on a comment I made when discussing the inappropriateness of women on the sanctuary during Catholic liturgy with Part time Pilgrim (see here and here for the discussion).

I mentioned that I did not know why women should not be on the sanctuary: in these rationalist days, a damaging admission to make in any argument; however, it is the truth.

I could also add that I don’t know why women can’t be priests.

But Ben, you are completely undermining your own positions! you gasp in horror.

Not so.

For though I do not know the reasons, I know the second as a simple fact, guaranteed by the teaching authority of the Church, following the example of Our Lord Himself. And the first I am pretty sure of due to the constant practice of the Church through the centuries (and see the previous discussion for further reasons).

So are we called to blind obedience?

No. But there are times when we are called to obedience first, and to seek understanding second; and I think this area may be one of those.

Let’s take the issue of women’s inability to be Catholic priests. If we are Catholics in the traditional sense of that word, we accept the teaching of the Church (by constant practice, Papal teaching, successive Catechisms etc) that women cannot be priests.

We may then seek to understand why that may be the case. In the first instance, it is clearly because of the example of Christ, and the constant tradition of the Church. But that only gives us the reason for the teaching and the obedience. We may legitimately wonder why Christ instituted a male priesthood. And then we are in the realm of speculation.

But if we read the Bible with a Catholic intellect, we will notice right at the start: male and female he created them. There is a difference there. And this difference is clearly of sacramental importance: matrimony is the way by which the race is to be propagated.

Anna and I have been discussing the male-only and wondering if there is any link with the damage due to Original Sin. Immediately after the Fall, Eve is told that she must submit to Adam, and Adam that he must work.

Is there a sense in which the damage to women and the damage to men is different? Is it that women need to learn obedience and men to learn to be industrious? I notice that Our Lady is particularly honoured for her unquestioning fiat: obedience. And that until political correctness put the boot in, women were required to obey their husband in marriage.

Of course, one can easily think of men who are extremely industrious - workaholics, even - and women who are so obedient as to be too passive: but maybe both of those are simply the other end of the same damaged stick.

And I love the idea that woman is the higher in the order of creation, and that Christ became Man so as to enter the race in its lowest condition...

As I say, that is all speculation: I am thinking out loud and have reached no conclusions.

But that man and woman are different - and not merely biologically as some would have us believe, seems to me to be a clear and observable fact.

Phoenix turns back the tide on 'both kinds'

The diocese of Phoenix, Arizona, under the leadership (and I use the word advisedly) of Bishop Olmsted, is really moving!

Recently, they announced the restoration of a male-only sanctuary for the celebration of Mass in the Cathedral.

Now, they are implementing the norms on the reception of Holy Communion under both kinds.

This is from their excellent Q&A on the diocesan www site:

12. What are the conditions that must be met when both forms are offered?

The conditions are:

1. The faithful have been well instructed (especially on the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist), and
2. There is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants, or for some other reason.

As highlighted in the GIRM, the practical need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary (or lay) ministers might in some circumstances constitute a reason for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species. This is explained in the GIRM, paragraph 24.

For example, let's say a pastor deemed it appropriate to have Holy Communion under both species on the feast of Corpus Christi, but his particular situation would necessitate a dozen extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. While he and a deacon would be the only ordinary ministers, it is common sense that he would not be able to judge the necessary conditions as met.

13. You say this is a "relaxing of restrictions," but my parish "has the chalice" at every Mass, and under these conditions, we won't. It seems more restrictive, even extremely restrictive. Is there some sleight of hand happening here?

From one perspective, you're correct — for the Catholic Church in the United States. We have had special permission to experiment with Holy Communion under both forms for 25 years. The practice of both forms became very common in certain parts of this country, including parishes in Arizona. However, the vast majority of the parishes throughout the world have not had Communion under both forms. From the broadest, most inclusive perspective, the new norms are a great expansion of the practice. But it is true, from the more narrow perspective of a very small segment of the Catholic population, the norms could seem like a restriction. You can see, then, how the new norms will promote unity of practice around the world, even as it challenges almost every parish in the world to update its normal liturgical life. The norms invite us as U.S. Catholics to a more global and inclusive perspective, especially with those poor countries which cannot afford large amounts of wine for frequent usage.

Not only good praxis, but good catechesis (or 'communications' as I should say, doubtless...)

The good bishops of England and Wales will surely be equally diligent in applying the current liturgical norms in this country...

H/t @DeaconsBench on Twitter

Interesting (relatively) new blog

I have just come across New to the Extraordinary Form - a blog which explains the EF to interested or perplexed Catholics.

I've only had time to glance at it, but it looks helpful, well laid out, visually interesting (photos, video clips etc) and so on.

It is clearly written by an intelligent and discriminating man, as it includes a link to this blog.

On further reading, I find that he is just off to start as a seminarian with the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter, at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, Nebraska: remember him in your prayers, and if you have any spare cash, drop over and support him in that way too (he has to pay some of the costs of his formation, as the Fraternity receive no diocesan support).

Support Good Counsel Network and this intrepid walker....

David Aron wrote to me:

I am doing a solo long distance walk to raise money for the Good Counsel Network. I am walking the Thames Path Way (184 miles) in eight days (Fri 07 Oct 11 - Fri 14 Oct 11), carrying all my own kit and provisions.

As David says, the walk is to raise money for the Guild of Our Lady of Good Counsel, and any money you were thinking of giving to CAFOD would be used by GCN in ways that fully accord with Catholic teaching... Here's what they say:

The Guild reaches out to help expectant Mothers and new Mothers in difficult circumstances, through a helpline, a free advisory service, practical help, friendship and moral support. It also promotes the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on the sanctity of human life and love through education.

The web link is: www.justgiving.com/davidaron

You don't have to support David: the full range of options is:

• David Aron
  £556.00
  raised so far
• Conor Carroll
  £200.00
  raised so far
• Johanna Hendrickx
  £192.88
  raised so far
• Gaelle Hendrickx
  £72.15
  raised so far
• Mike Marshall
  £40.00
  raised so far
  
  

Fruits of feminism?

Independence - frees men from responsibility - leads to abused and abandoned women

Contraception - frees men from responsibility - leads to...

Financial independence - frees men from responsibility...

Sexual ‘liberation’ - frees men...

Easy divorce - frees men...

(is there a trend here?)

And... careers as the primary way for women to find meaning and value in their lives- leads to abortion as a perceived necessity so that careers are not disrupted - leads to abortion as a perceived universal right to justify women who have had abortions - leads to aborting of girls because they are girls (what a tragic own goal!) and the inability to comment on that because abortion is every woman's right for whatever reason she chooses..., and also leads to the incidental corruption of medics and medicine (which used to be at the service of life), leads to ...

Careers focus also leads to the abandonment of children by their parents to professional child rearers, contributing to the fragmentation of family life and disaffected and damaged youth.

The whole project - springs from and reinforces a human-centred view of reality that excludes God and even in Catholics makes it unlikely they will accept and follow Church teaching.

Have I missed anything?

You Can Believe Anything You Want

In the recent debate between me and Part-time Pilgrim over the presence of women in the sanctuary, I was reminded of Blessed John Henry Newman's words:

We can believe what we choose. We are answerable for what we choose to believe.

Part-time Pilgrim had a particular belief about the issue. I had a different one. Each of us was able to interpret history, tradition, praxis and so on in the light of our existing belief - and do so in good faith.

C S Lewis makes the same point: It is therefore useless to appeal to experience before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical question.

What I mean is this: any intelligent person can construct an interpretation of anything he encounters that fits with his pre-existing beliefs. More often than not, we do this without even noticing: we interpret reality through the lenses of our beliefs and assumptions about the world.

Sometimes we have to work harder to do so: faced with great pain or distress, we may have consciously to call to mind the image of our Crucified Saviour having trod this path before us.

Which raises the interesting question of how do we know what to believe? I find it very hard to imagine the way an atheist makes sense of the world - but that is not evidence, merely habit of thought. He finds my God-bathed view of reality equally incomprehensible.

Finally, for me, it comes down to a question of trust: in whom do I choose to place my trust? And the answer is, immediately, in my parents but ultimately in the Church.

Of course I can construct all sorts of rational reasons for this - but rationality only goes so far...

Or to put it another way, you can get nowhere by relying on evidence alone, because that reliance on evidence already assumes a philosophical position, and even more fundamental than that, a belief that evidence is really out there, and not merely a figment of our own insane imaginings.