A 72-year-old priest of the Diocese of Belleville has resigned rather than accede to his bishops instruction that he cease from improvising prayers at Mass. It sounds as if this was an ongoing issue stretching back a number of years, but the stakes seem to have been raised with the new translation.

I suspect, however, that other issues were involved. Also, the article is not entirely clear, but it seems as if it is the priest himself who initiated the idea of his resigning, not the bishop.

I’m wondering: have people experienced less improvisation on the part of celebrants since the introduction of the new translation? This has certainly been my experience.

[Addendum: The is an article at BND.com that gives some more of the story. It is still unclear to me whether or not the bishop asked for the resignation.]

Nice cup chalice. Is the Pepsi logo a reflection or part of the design?

In the first — let’s call it the Catechetical Model — the RCIA is primarily a process of catechesis ordered toward the intellectual and/or spiritual development of the participants. In this model, significant developmental milestones are marked ritually by the various ceremonies: the Rite of Welcoming, Rite of Sending/Election, etc.

In the second — let’s call it the Ritual Model — the RCIA is primarily a series of rites leading to Baptism and the function of catechesis is to prepare the catechumens to participate meaningfully in those rites.

In my experience, those who adhere to the Catechetical Model are more likely to see no problem with candidates for full communion and catechumens participating in the same catechetical process and are more likely to favor using the combined rites for candidates and catechumens and even, in some cases, having candidates participate in the scrutinies. After all, if they are going through the same catechesis, they should have the same milestone markers. Those who adhere to the Ritual Model tend to make a sharper distinction between candidates and catechumens, even having separate catechetical tracks where the resources for this are available, and perhaps being a bit looser about the amount of catechetical preparation needed before a baptized Christian participates in the rather minor ritual of reception into full communion.

I don’t think these models are mutually exclusive. In fact, it is probably good for an RCIA “team” to have members who incline toward different models. My own bias is toward the Ritual Model, but for a number of years I co-directed an RCIA program with someone who was much more inclined toward the Catechetical Model. I think we collaborated well and since his sudden death a little over a year ago I feel our program has been impoverished. But I think that one thing that enabled our fruitful collaboration was our awareness that we approached the RCIA differently.

My general sense is that the Catechetical Model has been dominant for the past few decades, but that the Ritual Model has been recently gaining ground. My own diocese has been strongly urging parishes not to initiate baptized Christians at the Easter Vigil but to find another occasion for their reception into the Church. This, it seems to me, reflects a view that the rites have a certain primacy over the catechetical process, so that participation in a common catechetical process should not necessarily imply participation in a common set of rites. It might even entail the view that different rites call for different processes of catechesis.

The Olivetan Benedictines are planning to leave Cockfosters Parish of Christ the King, in north London, it was announced on Sunday.

Bishop John Arnold visited the parish to break the news. He said in a statement: “the Abbot General of the Olivetans, Don Diego, with his Council, has determined that, regrettably, there are no additional monks available to send to Cockfosters, to assist in the parish. They further determined that Cockfosters does not at this time form a viable monastic community, being only two resident monks. Don Diego has therefore decided that the Parish here at Cockfosters must be placed under the direct care of the Diocese, and the monks withdrawn.”

Bishop John said that no dates were fixed but it was likely that Dom Bernard Akoeso and Dom Bernard de Smet would leave during the summer. He explained that no decision has been made yet about the appointment of a new Parish Priest, or the future of the monastery and other premises.

Bishop John said: “Archbishop Vincent and the Archbishop’s Council thought it right that I come to give you this news at the earliest possible opportunity. We will, of course, keep you informed about further decisions.

“I am sure that such news will be very unwelcome to many. The Olivetan Benedictines have served you well for many years and this is a vibrant community.

“There will be other occasions to reflect on and evaluate the history of this parish and the presence of the monks, and to give thanks. For the present, let us remember that the coming months will be a time of considerable change for all, and change is never easy. It will be a time of particular change for Dom Bernard de Smet and Dom Bernard Akoeso. Between them they have shouldered the very considerable demands of a parish where there was, until quite recently, a community of several monks who assisted both at the liturgy and in parish duties. Dom Bernard Akoeso has borne this alone in recent months as Dom Bernard de Smet’s energies have declined.

“Let us pray in these coming months for a smooth transition, in thanksgiving for all that the Olivetans have done and with hope and determination that that legacy will continue to bear fruit in the future.”

No one from the parish was available to comment this evening. Founded in 1936, Cockfosters Parish of Christ the King is situated in Enfield Deanery. The church was built in 1940.

The Olivetans are a monastic order formally recognised in 1344. They have formed the Olivetan Congregation within the Benedictine Confederation since 1960.

The parish of Cockfosters, on the fringes of north London at the far end of the Piccadilly Line, has from the very beginning been well-known for the forward-looking nature of its liturgies. It was staffed predominantly by Dutch monks, who were not afraid to make use of the full potential provided by the Missal of Paul VI. Their folk Masses were famous in the 1970s, and people came from all over London to take part in them. Also notorious were the wooden chairs in the plain concrete church, with their dramatically sloping backs that provided an unnervingly uncomfortable posture.

But the history of these Benedictines as liturgical pioneers goes back much further than 1969. This is the parish where they celebrated a true Dialogue Mass in the years before the Second World War, long before any other English parish (others started in the late-1950s).

The monastery also at one time included a community of Olivetan Benedictine sisters, who moved to Turvey Abbey in 1981: http://www.turveyabbey.org.uk/

The termination of the link with the Olivetans is the end of an era.

H/T to Independent Catholic News: http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=19742

Here is the handout to help you follow along.

For the most part, the comments are depressing.

In Koch’s view, the readmission of the celebration of Mass in the preconciliar form is “only the first step,” but “the time is not yet ripe” for further steps. Rome can take further actions only when there is readiness among Catholics to consider new forms of liturgy “in service of the Church.”

According to Koch, “the pope suffers from accusations” that he wishes to go back on the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). On the contrary, the pope wishes to take up statements of the Council on liturgy which have not yet been implemented.

Koch maintains that not everything in today’s liturgical praxis can be justified by the texts of the Council. He named as an example the priest facing the people during the celebration of the Eucharist, about which the Council said  nothing.

In Koch’s opinion, further development of liturgical forms is necessary for an inner renewal of the church. “If the crisis of church life today is above all a crisis of liturgy, then the renewal of the church must begin with a renewal of the liturgy,” he said.

The cardinal’s remarks provoke several reflections.

It is not the case that the Second Vatican Council exhaustively defined the parameters of liturgical reform. Much of this was left to the Consilium to carry out after the Council closed. The Council never mandated versus populum (priest facing the people), nor has any Church document since the Council, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that the practice an illegitimate development. Scholars such as Fr. John O’Malley have demonstrated that there is a “spirit of Vatican II” opening up new vistas for the Church. It is to be expected that responsible and creative implementation of the Council would lead to possibilities not yet foreseen at the Council itself. Whether versus populum is one of these can remain an open question. Which is to say, the fact that it isn’t mentioned by the Council doesn’t really answer the question.

I suppose it’s inevitable that any interpretation of Vatican II will emphasize some passages more than others. Ratzinger and Koch and others can point to a few statements of the liturgy constitution (Gregorian chant is to have pride of place, Latin is to be retained) to buttress the claim that they wish to implement the Council’s statement that have been ignored up until now. Fair enough – but specific directives of the Council have to be ever reevaluated in within the broader context of ongoing liturgical development. Within this context, it is difficult indeed to see how the Council fathers ever intended that an unreformed rite of Mass would remain in use alongside a reformed rite. And there is no denying that Liturgiam authenticam, the 2001 Roman document on translation, introduced centralism and thereby undoes the explicit directive of the liturgy constitution that translations are to be prepared and approved by bishops (not Rome).

Finally, I would be very interested in the cardinal’s thoughts on liturgy and ecumenism, not least because he is the head of the Holy See’s ecumenism department. How does he understand his liturgical proposals to contribute to the work for church unity? Some theologians believe that Roman decisions in recent years have been a setback for the cause. What would Cardinal Koch say?

awr

• Requiem æternam and Lux æterna are out; Amazing Grace, On Eagle’s Wings and How Great Thou Art are in. Indeed, these three songs are so ubiquitous at funeral and memorial Masses (at least two of them have been sung at 90% of the Masses for the dead that I have attended) that they almost seem to constitute a new “proper.”
• Black or purple vestments are out; white vestments are in.
• Eulogies after communion are typically in, despite efforts to stamp them out. People expect them today the way they expected the Dies iræ in former times.
• Bodies are, increasingly, out. It’s been several years since I’ve attended a funeral in my parish that featured a body rather than “cremains” or sometimes just a photo of the deceased.
• In terms of overall tone (readings chosen, homilies given, etc.), intercession for the deceased is out; celebration of the life of the deceased is in.

These developments all seem to me to be “organic,” in the sense that they are the result not of legislation but of what the pips (people-in-the-pews) are asking for. Of course, their desire for these things is shaped by larger cultural forces, some of which may be benign and other malign. But hasn’t this always been the case with “organic development”?

But someone will ask, ‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?’ Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for human beings, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory.
So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven.
(1 Corinthians 35-49)

     Last semester, I received a great gift from my Liturgical Celebration class: a moment in which I perceived the heavenly Body in the earthly Body. As is my calling, I will try to return it today.

On All Saints’ Day,
   I walked out of the Abbey Church towards the lake,
      into the grounds.
I heard a community of prayer moving around me,
   and sensed that it extended
       beyond the living,
          up the hill
       to the graveyard where I was headed.

The wind that day spoke of winter coming,
   a winter now here.

It called my attention to the trees
   arching overhead like rafters.

“Out of a church into a larger church,” I thought.

Out of the earthly church,
   with its glory of concrete and flesh,
      into a larger church
   whose glory is yet unknown.

I am called to be a life-giving spirit, but what I know is death and failure.

Any vocation is a being sown,
   not always distinguishable from death.
Some days it seems all too likely to me
   that the Word of God has come
     only to die again in my dishonorable flesh.

But the Word, as Julian of Norwich puts it,
   came among us
      to suffer on the cross
         from two great thirsts:
   the physical thirst of his bleeding, dying flesh,
   and his spiritual thirst,
       his “love-longing
          to possess all his people
             together
          wholly within himself,”
       united in love with him and with one another.

Until we are raised,
   until we bear Christ’s image, wholly,
      in the image of human flesh,
         the work of the crucifixion is not yet finished.

Until then,
may we make this place a fertile ground from which every seed may spring up in renewed life,

and may we be sown.