Comments on: Welcome to “Pray Tell”!

By: Ray Marshall

Ray Marshall — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:36:09 +0000

I’m six year younger than Mr. Ciavolino and I never saw a Latin Mass like he describes. And I don’t recall anybody saying the Rosary during Mass either.

The fastest I ever saw was the 6:00 a.m. “hunters’ Mass” done in about 22 minutes with no homily. And nothing was rushed.

I would say that the issue is not a “return to the past” but a “return to reverence”, in both Latin and English.

I have never heard one person say all Masses must be in Latin? I attend Latin sung Masses maybe four times a year.

By: Trish Johnston

Trish Johnston — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:55:07 +0000

I am grateful for this site and will follow it as often as I can. I have only two comments. The first is that, instead of arguing and “labeling” those we disagree with, all of us–and I start with myself–ought to really listen to each other. In the 43 years since I became a Catholic I have learned the most from those who challenged my thinking, not those I agreed with most often. The second point is that some of us appear to overlook the good Catholic principle of both/and rather than either/or. As far as I understand things liturgical, the Mass is both a sacrifice and a meal.

By: David Fagerberg

David Fagerberg — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:04:33 +0000

I salute Fr Anthony’s attempt to make a place for conversation between left and right. Based on the trajectory by which I came into the Catholic Church, I would have identified myself as a liberal (including a master’s from St John’s). Until one day, at a professional society meeting populated by more conservative types, I was asked if I supported liberal liturgy. I had the presence of mind to do something I had rarely done up to that point: I asked what the speaker had in mind. And he said, “You know, like when they put goldfish in the font for ‘ecology Sunday.’” Ah, by that definition, I will disqualify myself. (And so, also, would most of the liturgists who self-identify as liberal, making me wonder whether the two sides have a common point, after all.l) I have since gained benefit from listening to a group on the other side of center which my pride had prevented me from conversing with. And ever since that encounter, I’ve been more interested in knowing *what* needs liberating and *what* needs conserving, than in applying the labels.

By: N. Depew

N. Depew — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:46:17 +0000

Already the sparks are flying in these first responses to a first post.

I am a civilian in these wars–a Catholic convert who mainly sits in the pews, getting up once every few weeks to perform as a lector. I am, however, very interested in liturgy simply because I am a Catholic (a “devout Catholic,” I like to think, as the old phrase goes), and especially so since I am an amateur historian of sorts and also an icon-maker (by vocation or avocation, I am not sure yet).

I have a particular interest in liturgy as evangelism. If it doesn’t bring ‘em in and keep ‘em glued to their seats as art and drama, liturgy may be fulfilling its main function and yet also falling short in a big way.

I will be reading what all you smart folks have to say, and maybe adding a comment now and then.

And may God bless this new adventure in faith!

By: Jeffrey Herbert

Jeffrey Herbert — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:20:33 +0000

If there has ever been a brief summary of the modern liturgical reform, I think Mr. Ciavolino has nailed it. Once again, I am hearing hints of the pendulum swinging. The only point I would make is that the swing towards orthodoxy and a more “conservative” liturgy does not necessarily have to be a “return to the past”. Would a more orthodox interpretation of the liturgy as described in Vatican II documents (Ordinary in Latin, use of Chant, Sung dialogues, Ad Orientem) really be a return to the past? Which past would that be? A visit to John Cantius in Chicago will quickly make the difference between a 1955 low Mass and an orthodox interpretation of the NO quite obvious. The “return to the past” argument seems trite at best.

Of course, maybe Mr. Ciavolino is right…but as he so eloquently noted, whose fault is it? Traditionalists can’t really be blamed for the current situation.

By: Ronald Ciavolino

Ronald Ciavolino — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:23:31 +0000

Quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, I must admit that they would have to drag me kicking and screaming back to the Latin Rite. I’m old enough (73) to remember it well and to have lived through its worst features. I remember one priest (very nice man and devout) who said weekday Mass in eleven minutes. He claimed that he could do it even faster if the altar boys would only cooperate! Of course there was never a homily in the old days. Now was he deficient in faith? Lax? So worn-down by routine that he was totally unaware of what he was doing – well no. Actually he was very devout and quite charming; he did it for reasons that seem never to be discussed and, I fear, are returning – he did it because the only thing that mattered was the Consecration: reciting the words slowly and clearly, scripture, preaching – these were totally unnecessary. All one needed was the magic word, which, by the way, was repeated several times. I looked forward to the reforms inspired by Vatican II with great anticipation; and what did I get? Well I got black leotards, clown suits, “Where have all the flowers gone?”, sanctuaries denuded to such an extent that they resembled conventicles in Edinburgh (of course without the art of preaching and knowledge of scripture that are usually associated with them), and a pack of clergy who dressed like rag pickers and were never home. Actually what went on for forty years would have raised eyebrows even in Edinburgh. What could you all at Collegeville and “Worship” possibly have been thinking of? The only thing you appear to have accomplished, after all that scribbling and all those conventions, is the deliberate creation of a disgruntled constituency that now dreams of past ages that never existed. Fr. Benedict Groeschel is quit right: this movement back to the Latin rite has nothing to do with a love of Latin on the part of the laity; it represents of vote of no confidence delivered against what you all dished out to them. And you know, now that the fun and games are coming to an ignominious end, it will serve you right if you all end up with your faces once again plastered up against the tabernacle muttering “Te igitur.” And I sincerely hope that while you’re up there, dressed in the “eat at Joe’s billboards,” muttering away and listening to the sound of the rosary beads rattling against the pews, you all reflect on your shocking lack of responsibility while you had the time, and on what you might have achieved after such a long struggle if you had only possessed an ounce of maturity, class, poetry and concern for your fellow Christians. My only regret is that you’re going to drag me along with you back to the past. I sincerely hope I don’t live long enough to witness all this; indeed I’m thinking of taking up smoking (unfiltered Camels) just to hasten the process along.

By: Jack Regan

Jack Regan — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:02:12 +0000

Excellent stuff, Father…

It’s nice to see a blog on liturgy which lets people think for themselves and have dangerous things like minds and opinions…

You are opening up a fascinating world to us all. I will check back often!

By: Robert Burns

Robert Burns — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:02:38 +0000

It’s good to find a blog about reforming Catholic liturgy so close to its genesis and I wish you Godspeed in building a readership with a lot of humble, honest and hearty discussion. My first reaction was also “God help the poor souls who have to moderate its comboxes.” Because how we worship determines how we believe “lex orandi, lex credendi”, it can’t help but get heated. The early church fathers came to blows as they discerned the essential matters of belief, so when it comes to liturgical worship, it’s probably a good thing that the blogosphere has some space between fist and jaw.

First thoughts upon perusing the home page – The preponderance of professional liturgist sites makes me a little squeamish. These are the same people who got us into this mess and we’ve all heard the jokes about the difference between liturgists and terrorists (can negotiate with terrorists). This is hauntingly similar to the Obama administration’s reliance on avante-garde establishment economists – the very people whose training makes them unable to understand the remedies needed to avert catastrophe. Nevertheless, I subscribed and will try to keep an open mind.
——————————————-

So far, after reading all the posts, I have to say I’m at least encouraged by much of the wisdom in the comment discussions. The patronizing tone in both Richard Giles and John Baldovin’s pieces, though not unexpected, was disappointing. Call me an idiot if you want – I don’t mind a good fight. But sneering condescension is despicable, especially when it’s thought out before the heat of battle.

By: Roger Petrich

Roger Petrich — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:28:31 +0000

Those nickle and dime tracts from the Liturgical press printed my childhood in the 1950s; my music degree dates 1961; times have changed certainly, but good to see that the monks of St John’s are still involved where the academic and the actual intersect. I look forward to future visits.

By: Linda Reid

Linda Reid — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:39:24 +0000

I am so pleased to see this initiative – my frustration level reaches
unnatural highs when I see the vitriol that liturgical discussion can produce. I have put this on my home page. Thank you for making this available!