A Look at the Mass: The Greeting of the People: Part 1

Due to the many options for this part of the Mass, and some of the complexities involved in its development, I've had to divide it into two sections for the sake of length. This won't be the standard for these posts. I try to keep them confined to one post.

Now when I refer to the greeting of the people I do not mean "Good morning." I can't stand that. It's one of the biggest buzz kills I know, but more on that below. Instead, I mean the, "The Lord be with you," or, "Peace be with you," or one of the alternatives.

We are all certainly familiar with this part of the Liturgy, since it is perhaps the most noticeable change since the recent re-translation of the Mass in 2012. In fact, it's still how we can tell you hasn't been going to a Catholic Mass in a while. At weddings, funerals, and such, they still respond with "And also with you," creating a disturbance in the normal harmonious response. Before we get into my thoughts and conclusions about this act, however, let us look at some of the historical details of this liturgical greeting, or more properly so called, "invitation," or even "introduction."

There are three options for the greeting of the people at this portion of the Mass - "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all," and, "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ," and the simple, "The Lord be with you." Additionally, a bishop uses the greeting, "Peace be with you." All of these are taken directly from Scripture. While the first two, and "Pax vobiscum," are taken from the New Testament, Dominus vobiscum, goes back into the Old Testament. In the Book of Ruth, Boaz greets his workers in this way. He says, "'The Lord be with you!' And they answered 'The Lord bless you (Ruth 2:4).'" This simple "Dominus vobiscum" became the standard greeting within the Mass, and even within the Church in general. Before any formal prayer led by a man in Holy Orders, or before a blessing, the Dominus vobiscum is always used as the greeting.

Within the Extraordinary Form, this greeting occurs eight times, within the standard Mass. However, in the Ordinary Form, that number has been cut in half. Withholding a commentary on my feelings in regards to this, I believe we can use this as an opportunity to see the many layers and the deep content of the Dominus vobiscum.

Jungmann asserts, "The Dominus vobiscum is then, in the first instance, an address to the people and, without over-stressing its content . . . it serves to arouse the attention and to denote, each time, an important moment in the course of the liturgy. Besides, the use of a greeting form enables the congregation to return the greeting, and so, through this religious setting of reciprocal salutation, the feeling of God's nearness is intensified (362-363)."  

At this point in the Liturgy, there seems to be much more of an aspect of greeting to the Dominus vobiscum. For support of this claim, I cite the other optional greetings for a priest, i.e. "The grace of our Lord...," and, "Grace to you...." The second greeting is directly taken from the beginning of all of Paul's letters found in the New Testament. It is his form of greeting to the various churches. We here are able to rejoice that the Lord has brought us together for the celebration of the mystery. I do not wish to overemphasize the aspect of community, for that's not what we primarily rejoice in. Nevertheless, there is an importance to the coming together of many people.

Allow me to elaborate with the idea of a birthday party. The idea of the party is to allow many to come together to celebrate the birth and continued life of the person. Everyone rejoices together, and joy is found in the coming together of many, even though the coming together is not the reason for rejoicing. Of course, the Mass is infinitely higher in dignity than a birthday party, but analogies always fall short.

Within the context of the Mass, the rejoicing is twofold. We rejoice that we have been brought together as priest and people to celebrate the Sacred Mysteries and to here be given the grace to go out and evangelize to the world. Our attention then shifts to the Lord. For this reason we respond with, "And with your spirit." We realize that the priest is the one who will perform the sacred actions through which we can be sanctified, and so like at a birthday party, the focus shifts from all of the people, to the one who is celebrated, or more properly speaking, to the action being made present.

The second cause for rejoicing derives from this. Although at the Crucifixion only a handful of women and St. John were present, at the Mass we have all come together, even though it has entailed a sacrifice. Now the sacrifice varies in intensity. Sometimes it is simply that we had to give part of our day to the Lord, and other times it is risking one's life. This should also help to focus our attention to what is about to begin. Our Lord is pleased that we have come to the Sacrifice and invites us to enter deeply into it.

Nevertheless there is an element of prayer to this part of the Mass as well. For, as I said above, whenever Dominus vobiscum is used, it can more properly be called an invitation. We have been invited by the Lord to participate in this most sacred action. Our minds should be focused to what is about to happen and pray that the Lord may be with us, for it is only by His grace that we will be able to acceptably offer ourselves in union with the Sacrifice of Calvary and to receive the graces offered to us. The invitation is that the Lord be with us, but our response is that the Lord may also be with the priest, for it is through him that the graces are made available to us. We depend upon him.

However, I also said Dominus vobiscum may properly be called an introduction. This is different than a greeting, for as Jungmann notes, the Dominus vobiscum is used anytime an important action is about to begin. The important action here is, of course, the Mass proper. We have invoked the Holy Trinity in the sign of the cross, and now we pray for the Trinity to be with us throughout the Mass.

All historical information taken from:
Rev. Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development. Volume 1. Part III: The Collect. The Inclusion of the Congregation Assembled, 359-372. Translated by Rev. Francis A. Brunner, C.SS.R. (Christian Classics: Notre Dame, Indiana, 1951).

The Necessary Existence of Inequality

It occurred to me the other day that I often use the word "hierarchy" in my posts and explanations of things. Since the French Revolution, by my estimation, this term has often carried a negative connotation to it. With the spread of democratic values across the world, especially equality, the idea of a lack of equality in anything has been vilified.

Equality is, of course, a good and necessary thing, in its proper context. In the realms of social life, there is still a lot of work to obtain a fair and equal treatment of all citizens, which is in keeping with their human dignity. The problem is that, this social term, has been forced into the realm of philosophy without a change in its conceptual meaning. The consequence of making equality the center of philosophy is, since philosophy is the study of truth, that truth must conform to the social definition of equality. 

The repercussions of this are fairly evident. Philosophically speaking, all things are not equal. Nothing has the exact same perfections as another. There are gradations of being within nature; St. Thomas Aquinas even uses this a proof for the existence of God (Summa Theologiae, I, Q. 2, Art. 3, Respondeo).  Now this sounds like a complicated thing, but it's really not; in fact, I believe its the most evident of Thomas' proofs (contrary to what Aquinas would say). 

St. Thomas's idea of gradation of being stems from Aristotle's understanding of it. Aristotle begins his De Anima (A work "On the Soul") with the concept that some things have more to be known and understood about them (Book I, Part 1). This should be fairly evident to us. There is more to be known when studying humans than when studying a rock, since there are simply more qualities that a human possesses as opposed to a rock; a human does and can do many more things than a rock does.

There is, therefore, a hierarchy in nature. There are inanimate objects, such as rocks, and then there are living things. The living things have more to be known, and are therefore greater in dignity, for they bear the image of God, Who is Life, more perfectly. Even within animate things, we see a hierarchy. Man is at the top, who is able to think abstractly, meaning he bears the image of God more perfectly, since he is able to grasp concepts. This is something lacking in the animals, but an essential part of God, Who understands concepts and Himself perfectly. 

I would be negligent if I did not mention the angels, which are higher in the hierarchy of creation than man, for they, as purely spiritual beings, bear a more perfect resemblance to God. However, I say man is the highest of living things, since angels aren't physical, and therefore don't have life in the same manner as we do. Additionally, there are many other hierarchies we can reference as natural, but all of them will have the common component that God is the reference point for the highest part, since He is at the top of the hierarchy of existence, which contains all things that exist. 

We would be foolish then to see inequality in and of itself as a bad concept. It is a natural concept, for all things are not equal. Man will never be equal to God, nor will a rose be equal to man. As our Lord says of humans, "You are more valuable than many sparrows (Matthew 10:31)." We would hopefully not hesitate to protect a fellow human over a tree, if both were in danger. This is not to say the tree does not have a dignity, it simply acknowledges the fact humans have a greater dignity. God of course has the greatest dignity, which is why we must follow Him before anything else. 

Inequality can of course be evil, but only when it is used to attack the dignity of God's creation, meaning of course that God is attacked, for any dignity creation possesses is due to Him. To treat women as less than men is an attack against their dignity. A hierarchy must respect nature, not work against it. There is nothing in women, which makes them inferior to men, just as their is nothing in the color of skin making a person inferior. God made men and women equal in dignity. It is reasonable to establish hierarchies, but they must still respect the hierarchies established by God. 

From the foregoing, I hope I sufficiently explained the importance of recognizing and acknowledging inequalities. Once again, in the realm of social justice, we need to work to eliminate inequality, for its existence there is an assault on nature, but in the realm of philosophy, inequality is a simple truth. The problems arise based on where it is applied.

A Look at the Mass: The Sign of the Cross

"I bind unto myself today, the strong name of the Trinity, by invocation of the same, the Three in One and One in Three." - St. Patrick's Breastplate

How often the sign of the cross is present within the Liturgy! It is seen, not only at Mass, but in all of the Sacraments. In Baptism we are signed with it. In Confirmation we are sealed with it. It blesses those embarking on their vocations in Marriage and Holy Orders. For the spiritual sick, they are absolved from their sins through it. For the physically sick, they are anointed with it for strength. How appropriate then that it is through the sign of the cross that we begin the Mass, the greatest thing man can participate in on this earth! 

Historically speaking, the introduction f the sign of the cross at the beginning of Mass appeared quite late. It wasn't until the late Medieval Ages that it started to be used as a blessing formula at the beginning of Mass. 

This is how we must view the sign of the cross at the beginning of Mass - as a blessing formula. It is not a sacramental blessing, as the one at the end of Mass is, however, in the sense that it declares what we are about to do to be a holy act and beg the mercy and grace of God upon us, it is. Jungmann explains it as, "We begin the holy action in the power that comes from the triune God through the Cross of Christ (296)." The Trinity, the source of all grace and blessings, and the Cross are essential concepts for the Mass. The Mass is the offering of God the Son to God the Father in and through the power of the Holy Spirit on the Cross. 

This is what we are to recall when we begin the Celebration of Mass. It is both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice. The sign of the cross recalls this. Grace is offered to us, but there is also an offering on our part. This offering is the offering of our very selves, symbolized by the Cross. To crucify a man is to force him to give everything he has as a penalty, namely his life. However, as Jesus willingly mounted the Cross, so are we called to mount it, in offering our entire selves to God through the Mass. 

Jungmann also notes the connection to Baptism which can be taken from this formula and gesture (296). We were baptized, as Jesus commanded (Matthew 28:19-20), in the name of the Trinity, and received into the Church. This initiation is consummated whenever we receive our Lord in Holy Communion; we are made one with Him. It is well then to remember this at the beginning of Mass, that what was begun in us in Baptism is being brought to perfection through the Holy Mass.

The final point I wish to bring up is that this is a reminder of our final end. What we celebrate here on earth, veiled, is celebrated unveiled in the Heavenly Liturgy. As stated above, it is the offering of the Son to the Father in the power of the Holy Spirit. We are made one with this offering, and consequently with the Trinity through this action. The Trinity, as our final end, is accessed through the offering of the Mass. 

All historical information taken from:
Rev. Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development. Volume 1. Part III: The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar as a Unit, 290-298. Translated by Rev. Francis A. Brunner, C.SS.R. (Christian Classics: Notre Dame, Indiana, 1951).

Five Spiritual Tips

I want to start this post with a very clear statement. I am not claiming to be an expert in the spiritual life. I hope I have made that clear.

Now with that said, I thought it might share a few small things I've learned about growing in the spiritual life. Take them for what you will. They've helped me is all I can say. 

1. Follow a routine. I hate to use such a common analogy, but it's a good one, plus Jesus used it. Your spiritual life is like a plant. It needs to be taken care of, and part of that means it needs regularity. You can't decide to water the plant on a sporadic basis and expect it to thrive. Instead, you're going to kill it by over or under-watering. You can't just decide not to water it today. 

The spiritual life works the same way. It needs some routine. Not only does this make it easier to accomplish the tasks of the spiritual life, since they become habitual, but it will give a calmer life, because you won't have the anxiety of not knowing what to expect. 

This doesn't mean you have to necessarily do everything at the exact same time everyday, or that there's never room for diversity, but it does mean that you are at least taking responsibility for your spiritual life. Plan ahead; you may not always accomplish what you want, but you'll find you accomplish a lot more of what you plan to accomplish than what you don't. 

2. Read spiritual works. No one can be their own guide in the spiritual life. The Holy Spirit needs to be that guide, and He works through other people. It's not possible for everyone to have a spiritual director, but it is possible for everyone to get spiritual advice from the experts, i.e. the Church and the saints. Numerous works have been written for the aid of the faithful. There are the messages of the pope, especially his encyclicals. 

I would also include any form of media in this category. You don't necessarily have to read a spiritual work, though I do think it's easier to meditate on the written word as opposed to the spoken. One of the great benefits of the modern world is the ease in many places to access the words of the Holy Father, or the works of the saints. 

There are four books which I would especially recommend, as they are the four basic works recommended by the Church for those looking to grow in the spiritual life. They are St. Francis de Sales Introduction to the Devout Life, which, while slightly old fashioned, remains the foremost treatise on the spiritual life of any member of the Church. I never leave home without it (it's on my phone). The second, is St. Therese of Lisieux's Story of a Soul. Many know of her simple spirituality known as, "The Little Way," and this is laid out in her autobiography. The third is Thomas A Kempis's Imitation of Christ, which provides many meditations on the titular idea, i.e. to purify oneself and become an image of Christ. The fourth and final work is St. Augustine's Confessions. His autobiography is proof that God can transform even the most hardened sinner into a great saint. Plus, like the Scriptures it is a simple read, yet filled with more to always be uncovered (the Scriptures are of course infinitely greater). 

3. Take care of yourself. Because men and women are beings composed of both body and soul, it is necessary for them to take care of both. And the soul depends on the body to actualize its greatest potential. If you're emotionally unstable, or excessively tired, hungry, etc. you'll find it much harder to pray and focus on God. This is not a bad thing. God designed us this way so that we are able to glorify Him to our fullest ability. While it is true that certain souls are called to special fasts, this is the exception not the norm, and those souls must discern it in accord with their spiritual directors. 

4. Find your own form of prayer. Every relationship is unique. Our relationship with God is no different. It will not be the same as anyone else's. One of the foremost rules in the spiritual life is not to compare yourself to anyone else. This does not mean you can't imitate another, but it does mean that you can't see the heart of their relationship. There are common necessities to every spiritual life, such as the Sacraments, but there are also unique forms of prayer, which, as long as in accord with the teachings of the Church, should be embraced by each individual as helps them. 

5. Don't neglect the small things. The most perfect prayer, the Lord's Prayer, is really a simple thing when you stop to think about it, yet it contains everything you need. Don't neglect to pray it often. We don't all need to do the Spiritual Exercises or pray all 20 mysteries of the Rosary everyday. Any guidebook for spiritual directors always cautions the spiritual director that some souls are simply called to the basic prayer life of simple written prayers and spending time with the Lord. You don't need to have visions of our Lord to have a healthy spiritual life. You need love for God and your neighbor, for at the Judgment, we will be judged in how we loved. 

Obviously, there is much more that can be advised to a person growing in their spiritual life, but I tried to choose things I don't hear that much. 

Living the Liturgy: Part 1

When I read of some of the ancient traditions of the faithful on feast days, my heart is always filled with warm feelings. Now this is not because I want to return to life in the Middle Ages, for I'm far too fond of air conditioning and daily hygiene for that, but there is one aspect of their lives which I love - the Liturgy penetrated their daily lives. There were customs and certain celebrations connected with different feasts, my favorite being rolling burning wheels down hills and roads on the Nativity of St. John the Baptist.

Today, unfortunately, I feel that we only have a minor remnant of the love of these traditions of the past. In many cases they are viewed as more of a burden to be fulfilled, since it's what is always done. Furthermore, the number of holidays, both civil and religious which are commemorated seems to be ever decreasing. It is becoming more common for businesses to remain open on holidays, which of course makes it impossible to commemorate the day. 

The other reason I cite for the lack of living the liturgical life in society is the destruction and breakup of the family. As Lumen Gentium pointed out, "The family is, so to speak, the domestic church (11)." It is dependent upon the family, then, to maintain the liturgical life of the faithful outside of the church building. 

The Church provides the Faithful with feast days and the celebration of the Sacraments. There are even certain devotions of popular piety which She will celebrate for all of Her children, many of which are laid out in the Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy: Principles and Guidelines. However, from what I can see, there also seems to be a hierarchy in customs and devotions. 

There are those traditions and customs, which the Church refers to as pious exercises (Directory, 7), often led by a priest and done in a full communal nature. While not expressly liturgical, they do bear a strong resemblance to the Liturgy, and are often done in conjunction with it. For examples, I would cite Marian and Saint Processions. These, not only has the Church approved, She has given directives for the performance of. I would say that, after the Liturgy itself, these should be participated in by the faithful, to the extent that prudence allows. 

The next in the hierarchy, seems to be what the Directory referred to as devotions (8). As just a small number of the many examples I give the Sacred Heart, the Divine Mercy, our Lady of Lourdes and our Lady of Fatima, and favorite saints. While the Church has condoned all of these devotions, many with a liturgical counterpart, they have not been given the same instructions as certain parts of popular piety, like the ones mentioned above. Additionally, they are proposed for the edification and to assist the Faithful in their growth in holiness, but none of these devotions are necessary for salvation. 

These devotions require no communal context for celebration, even though they are often done within one. Although, as I said, many have a Mass text attached with them, such as the Sacred Heart, there are also additional prayers with them. The important thing to remember with them is that there may be a cause for worry if a member of the Faithful has no fondness for any devotion, but there is no cause for worry if a specific devotion is absent in a person's life. A person's attractions depend on the various circumstances of a person's life and culture, and especially the movement of the Holy Spirit in their lives. 

The part I am most interested in, however, and which this series will focus on, is what falls under popular piety (Directory, 9). These actions, while connected to the Liturgy are not particularly derived from it, nor do they have a liturgical counterpart. Rather, they stem more from the desires of the people, especially the laity. They may fall into the lowest place in the hierarchy of Catholic customs and traditions, but they are still an integral part of the Faith. It is through them that the Liturgy is kept alive in the daily lives of people. 

I like to see it this way. Through the Liturgy, God comes to meet us, especially through the Eucharist, and through popular piety we go to again meet the God we encounter in the Liturgy. I am not trying to promote popular piety above the Liturgy. One is created by man, the other is given by God. There's no question which has the higher dignity, but there are still many ways God acts in our daily life. The benefit of popular piety is that it connects us to "the source and summit of the Christan life (Lumen Gentium, 11)." 

This, then is what we need to reawaken in our spiritual lives - a connection to the Liturgy. It goes beyond "popular religiosity (Directory, 10)," but is a concrete and actual means to stay close to God at all times. As all relationships thrive only if imbued with their own personal and unique character, so our relation to God must be personal in that it has its own unique stamp. 

A Look at the Mass: The Reverencing and Incensation of the Altar

An occurrence which I'm most fascinated with occurs every Holy Thursday. After the Mass of the Lord's Supper, we watch the priest process to the altar of repose with the Blessed Sacrament. Then, after placing the Eucharist there, and leaving the main tabernacle door open, as all the people leave, they genuflect towards the main tabernacle. This amazes me, because I think to myself, "We just watched the priest put the Eucharist somewhere else. Why do you think the Eucharist is still there?"

I suppose part of it is simple habit, though I think another part of it is confusion over the difference between the altar, tabernacle, and the Blessed Sacrament. Before the reintroduction of free standing altars in parish churches, there wasn't particularly a great need to differentiate between those things in the minds of the people. However, with the movement of the tabernacle away from the altar, possibly in another room altogether, I believe the people were never taught the different ways both of those things are important. 

The tabernacle, of course, has a great importance since it is where the Blessed Sacrament is housed in churches. The faithful can come before it to pray in the presence of the Lord. Numerous documents have been written on the importance and great benefit of having the tabernacle in the center of the sanctuary of the church. However, a tabernacle is not necessary for a church. 

The altar is what makes a church, a church. It is the location from which all the Sacraments flow, since it is from the altar that the Blessed Sacrament, the source of all the other Sacraments, becomes present on our earth. The altar is the place where the greatest act man can participate in occurs. The altar of every church becomes the altar of Calvary. It has a dignity all its own, which does not diminish the dignity of the tabernacle, but the two rather enhance each other through their unique connections to the Holy Eucharist. 

It is for this reason then, that the altar is central focus of the Mass. At all times, the altar, which represents Christ, is paid the reverence of a profound bow. However, the order of hierarchy is always observed in the Church. Reverence is given to the greatest first, and then in diminishing order. Therefore, if the altar and tabernacle are within the same sanctuary, when the priest and ministers approach the altar for Mass, they first pay reverence to Jesus, truly present in the Eucharist, asking Him to bless the work they are about to undertake. From then, the altar becomes the focal point. 

I wish to now look specifically at the reverencing and incensation of the altar at the beginning of Mass. The priest kisses the altar, and a kiss has always been at the heart of greetings in the Roman Church. It is maintained today outside of the Liturgy in many cultures; when they greet each other, they do so with a kiss on the cheek. The kiss is a sign of peace and affection. Obviously also there are varying degrees of affection; the way you kiss your mother is not the way you kiss your spouse. 

Traditionally the pope would give a kiss to all the things representing Christ at the beginning of the Liturgy, the sacred ministers, the book of the Gospels, and the altar. In the Middle Ages, the crucifix for Mass was also reverenced, as having a profound connection to Mass, as it is a visible reminder of what is actually happening mystically. However, in order to lessen distractions from the essence of the Liturgy, all kisses were suppressed except for the original kissing of the altar. 

There are so many different symbolisms we can draw from this kiss, that I will limit myself to the four I feel best capture the heart of the rite. The first is that from ancient times, even in Pagan cultures, a temple or image of a god was greeted with a kiss, as the sign of spiritual affection. As often happened, this civic and pagan concept was Christianized, and thus, found its way into the Sacred Liturgy. However, there is a higher element than spiritual affection in the priest and deacon's kiss of the altar. As Scripture says, "What nation ever had their gods as near to them as our God is to us (Deuteronomy 4:7)?" We love the Lord in a real and true relationship. Our affection for Him is not just as a god, but as a friend, brother, and father. Therefore, the kiss holds so much more meaning, which leads me into my second reason.

A thought once related to me by a priest, is the intimacy of the Mass. Our God comes to us. We are made one with Him by partaking of the Holy Eucharist. As St. Athanasius said, "God became man, so that man might become God." There is never a time we are so close to God on this earth, than right after we have worthily received Him in Communion. The connection I wish to emphasize here, is how this union parallels the union of a couple in Holy Matrimony, and their union is shown in the marital act. And as the priest pointed out, he imagines that generally involves kissing. The kiss of the altar then, is also an intimate kiss of love for the union with our Lord about to be obtained. 

But there is an important aspect of the Mass I cannot overlook, and that is the aspect of reparation. The Sacrifice of the Cross was offered in reparation for the sins of men. The kiss of the altar also is one of reparation. The Passion of our Lord began with a kiss in the betrayal of Judas. The Mass, in which we recall the Passion and Death of the Lord, also begins with a kiss, though not one of betrayal, but of reparation. 

This kiss lastly is made to all of the Church Triumphant, as the Jungmann notes in his The Mass of the Roman Rite. Since it became common by the Middle Ages to have a martyr placed within or under the altar, the kissing of the altar was not only a tribute to Christ, but to the martyr and all the saints through him. Nowadays, the Church allows for any saint to be placed within the altar, not just martyrs, but I believe this even more strengthens the symbolism. There can even be the relics of multiple saints in the altar; I know of an altar with around 30. 

The altar, then, is not only the altar of Calvary, but it also becomes the altar in Heaven, spoken of in the Book of Revelation, from which the prayers of the saints ascend to God as incense (Revelation 8:3-4). It is evident that the incensation of the altar at the beginning of Mass is meant to symbolize this. 

While incense was forbidden in the early Church, due to its use by the pagans, it quickly made its way back into the Liturgy, even before the end of Paganism, due to its presence in Holy Scripture, and the way it lends itself to liturgical functions. Incense itself has often been a representation of divinity. It is the reason frankincense was given to Jesus by the Magi; "Incense doth a god disclose (Prudentius, "Earth Has Many A Noble City")." 

Within the Extraordinary Form, there are no prayers accompanying the incensation of the altar at this point, besides the blessing of the incense - "Be blessed by him in whose honor thou art burnt." For this then, I would hold the incensing of the altar is meant, not only to add solemnity, but is the final preparation for the Mass proper to begin. As the incense envelopes the altar in a mystical cloud, so we are drawn into the Mystery, and as the incense ascends upwards, our particular prayers ascend united with all the prayers of the Church. 

All historical information taken from:
Rev. Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development. Volume 1. Part III: Greetings. Kissing the Altar, 311-317, and The Incensing of the Altar, 317-320. Translated by Rev. Francis A. Brunner, C.SS.R. (Christian Classics: Notre Dame, Indiana, 1951).

Will they sing? Will they sing?: Part 2

In the previous post, I discussed the concept of the congregation singing within the Liturgy. While I said that I don't believe there is any need to force the people to sing, I hold the exact opposite for the priest and deacons. I believe there are occasions, more often than not, where they certainly should sing. 

The reason for this is that, as Musicam Sacram (The Instruction on Music in the Sacred Liturgy) states, "Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when it is celebrated in song, with the ministers of each degree fulfilling their ministry and the people participating in it (Paragraph 5)." As discussed in the previous post on this, I have described my interpretation of the people's participation. However, I do wish to clarify that while I don't believe the people necessarily need to sing everything, they should have some vocal participation. This would be primarily in the responses to the Priest's Prayers and the simple responses, as Musicam Sacram says (Paragraph 16). 

There is another important principle, which Musicam Sacram defines - the hierarchy of the parts which can be sung. The document states:

"29. The following belong to the first degree: / (a) In the entrance rites: the greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people; the prayer. / (b) In the Liturgy of the Word: the acclamations at the Gospel. / (c) In the Eucharistic Liturgy: the prayer over the offerings; the preface with its dialogue and the Sanctus; the final doxology of the Canon, the Lord's prayer with its introduction and embolism; the Pax Domini; the prayer after the Communion; the formulas of dismissal.

"30. The following belong to the second degree: / (a) the Kyrie, Gloria and Agnus Dei; / (b) the Creed; / (c) the prayer of the faithful.

"31. The following belong to the third degree: / (a) the songs at the Entrance and Communion processions; / (b) the songs after the Lesson or Epistle; / (c) the Alleluia before the Gospel; / (d) the song at the Offertory; / (e) the readings of Sacred Scripture, unless it seems more suitable to proclaim them without singing." 

I feel it also necessary to note that the "songs" the doucument speaks of aren't hymns, but the chants found in the Graduale. Though it also states, "The custom legitimately in use in certain places and widely confirmed by indults, of substituting other songs for the songs given in the Graduale for the Entrance, Offertory and Communion, can be retained according to the judgment of the competent territorial authority (Paragraph 32)." So, hymns are of course fine, though I would give preference to the chants of the Graduale. 

The part I find striking about this, and which has been often pointed out to me, is that we seem to have gotten the entire order backwards, at least in the States. In most places, at least in my experience, the four hymns are given the most precedence, followed by the Alleluia, the Mysterium Fidei and final doxology of the Canon, the Sanctus and Agnus Dei, the Gloria, the Responsorial Psalm, the three proper prayers, the preface, the Lord's Prayer, and then everything else (all in that order). 

The reason for this, I believe, is that melodies are more readily available for the parts more commonly sung, and the people are more easily able to participate in them by the lack of musical knowledge they may possess. While I admit, as does Musicam Sacram in Paragraph 9, that the ability of the people must be taken into account, I still hold that we should respect the hierarchy of the parts of the Mass as well as possible. 

Now, I do believe there is some leeway and practical application needs to be taken into consideration. In my opinion, nothing sounds worse than the Gloria and Alleluia being spoken. Their nature as songs just demands they be sung. Thus, it seems that the argument could be made their dignity is lost if they are not sung, whereas the Collect will still maintain dignity when recited clearly and devoutly. 

The problem that I'm more interested in addressing is, as stated above, that the priests and deacons don't sing. An essential part of training in the seminary should be, and often is, trying to give them enough musical knowledge to at least give a basic chant. Not only is it good for the prayers to be chanted for the reasons mentioned by Musciam Sacram, but I would also hold that a practical and necessary reason is that it decreases the possiblity of rushing through the Liturgy. It's much harder to rush through chant than through speaking. 

I wish to elaborate futher though on why singing carries a certain dignity. First and foremost I would hold that music is a way of embodying the feelings of the heart, a main reason in why we love to listen to certain forms of music for various activities. Many have a workout CD, which evokes emotions of determination and perseverance, as just one example. Chant, however, is a way of embodying those emotions in a way which lifts up the mind to Heaven. This is not because chant is necessarily the music of Heaven, but because it is a higher form of speaking, in a sense. 

Even when not chanted, the prayers and parts of the Mass, should be spoken clearly and distinctly. Chant accomplishes this, because it's rather hard to mumble, and as I said plainchant is very much a higher form of speaking. It also carries a certain dignity of its own. 

This is the reason I often say that even when the priest struggles to chant, it carries a certain dignity that speaking doesn't, simply because by its nature it says, "This is of importance." And this brings me to the ultimate reason for the priest and deacon chanting. Their parts of the Mass are the most important. The priest is the one who makes the Mass happen or not happen. While the participation of the faithful is of the utmost importance, their lack of participation will not invalidate the Mass. 

It is the priest who leads us and speaks on our behalf, in persona Christi, to the Father in Heaven. We join with the hosts of Heaven in praising God, but it is given to the priest to, "daily go from men to God to offer Him their homage and petitions; to return from God to men to bring them His pardon and hope (Jean-Baptiste Henri Lacordaire, O.P., Thou Art A Priest Forever). 

A Look at the Mass: The Entrance Procession

The Church recognizes two types of sacred places, the church building and cemeteries. This is because they are both consecrated for a sacred use, which at its center consists of prayer. It is appropriate then, that sacred functions in both places begin with a procession.

For the most part, we understand the importance of the funeral procession; we are accompanying the body to its resting place before the Resurrection of the Dead and to give it our final farewell. There's even an order to it - the body and clergy and family immediately following it. Plus, if you're in Omaha, Nebraska you get the most amazing police cars to clear traffic for the procession. Go to a funeral in Omaha to see that, it was one of the most amazing experiences of my life. 

Why don't we attach the same importance to the Entrance Procession at Mass? Why don't we ever say seeing it was one of the most amazing experiences of our lives? 

I think the main reason for this is that, unfortunately, it is often unimpressive and, far too often, poorly done. Additionally, I believe there is a mentality that as long as you arrive at Mass around the time the priest reaches the altar, you're all good. 

I hold that both of those reasons are destructive to a proper liturgical spirit. Processions were an important part of the ancient world. We maintain a remnant of the grand processions of the ancient world in our concept of parades. Ancient civilizations, especially Rome, would hold military processions in order to show off their nation's power. North Korea and China continue this today. The emperor of Rome would travel in procession in order to highlight his importance to the people. And, as stated above, the funeral procession highlights the importance of the person we are saying our final farewell to. 

This idea then, of importance, is essential to the procession. Those who have watched the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York City know the importance of seeing Santa at the end of it, but you don't just go to see Santa, you go to see all of the floats. Both of these ideas need to be transferred to our concept of the entrance procession at Mass. 

The procession ends with the priest in order to highlight his importance. True, he is a human, but he is also endowed with an indelible seal which configures him to Christ, and what he is about to do is the highest dignity man has been given, to act in persona Christi. We pay him the honor of a procession, because he is necessary for the sanctification of our souls. 

Nevertheless, we also need to pay the other parts of the procession their due. A cross, candle/torch bearers, and incense all add to the dignity of ceremony in their inclusion. Think of it in terms of a wedding; people want their wedding in a beautiful location with fancy lights a nice theme. The same should go for the Wedding Feast of the Lamb; all the "smells and bells" add dignity to the ceremony. When you see a full fledged procession at the start of Mass, you know what is about to happen is important. Hardly anyone would go to the Macy's Parade if it was only Santa walking down Sixth Avenue. 

The same, in a sense, holds true for Mass. When the procession is unimpressive and doesn't include anyone but the celebrant, people see the priest as the only important person, and will start out unimpressed by the Mass. Of course, there are instances where a full procession is impractical, but this should be the exception, not the norm. Instead, including the lector and others highlights their importance.

There is, additionally, another idea I wish to propose. The entrance procession is important because it also symbolizes the procession of our souls to the altar of God. We join in the Sacrifice of the Cross at Mass, and the procession is a chance to gather our thoughts and affections and direct them toward God. 

When the servers and priest "run" down the aisle, this ability to gather oneself is lost. You blink, and the procession is over! Rather, a reverent procession, accompanied by a hymn or the Entrance Antiphon, with an appropriate amount of people, reminds the faithful what is about to happen and gather themselves. 

To highlight this, I think of two of my favorite events of the year, the Chrism Mass and Ordinations. To see all of the priests of the Diocese processing into the Cathedral to celebrate Mass awakens in me feelings of affection for all they have done, both for the Church and me specifically, but it also makes me thankful to God for the great gift of the Priesthood.

Let us then work, to encourage boys to serve at Mass, so that we can see a full procession. Not only is this good for vocations, it is good because it allows us a chance to enter more meditatively into the Mass.  

Most importantly, though, let us remember the opening words to the Extraordinary Form in the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar: "I will go unto the altar of God, to God who giveth joy to my youth (Psalm 42:4)." 

Will they sing? Will they sing?: Part 1

Many have heard the ancient saying, "He who sings, prays twice." Well I had a friend who had a better quote, "My singing is so bad it only counts as a third of prayer. My singing actually lessens my prayer."

There have been numerous books and articles published on the importance of singing at Mass, and most everyone has at least been to one Mass where the cantor invites everyone to join in the sung parts. Well I'm here to argue a different point. We don't need the congregation singing everything.

I realize this may make me unpopular in many circles, but I'm okay with that. However, first let me preface my points by saying that I'm not saying singing is bad. On the contrary, I think singing is a good thing. Nevertheless, I'd propose, as a solution to the problem, "How can we get the people at church to sing more?" let's give up on that.

Instead, let's differentiate the above question into two questions:

1. How can we get the people to chant more?
2. What do we have the ability to let the people listen to?

I think these two questions better capture the heart of the original question, which seems to be more of an argument between getting people to participate at Mass and having singing. The simple truth is, if people aren't confident in their ability to sing, they won't, and some who are confident, shouldn't be.  

I would be negligent though if I didn't quote the General Instruction of the Roman Missal in pointing out the importance of singing:

"The Christian faithful who come together as one in expectation of the Lord’s coming are instructed by the Apostle Paul to sing together Psalms, hymns, and spiritual canticles (cf. Col 3:16). Singing is the sign of the heart’s joy (cf. Acts 2:46). Thus St. Augustine says rightly, 'Singing is for one who loves,' and there is also an ancient proverb: 'Whoever sings well prays twice over.'

"Great importance should therefore be attached to the use of singing in the celebration of the Mass, with due consideration for the culture of peoples and abilities of each liturgical assembly. Although it is not always necessary (e.g., in weekday Masses) to sing all the texts that are in principle meant to be sung, every care should be taken that singing by the ministers and the people not be absent in celebrations that occur on Sundays and on Holydays of Obligation.

"However, in the choosing of the parts actually to be sung, preference is to be given to those that are of greater importance and especially to those which are to be sung by the Priest or the Deacon or a reader, with the people replying, or by the Priest and people together.

"The main place should be given, all things being equal, to Gregorian chant, as being proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other kinds of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful.

"Since the faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is desirable that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Profession of Faith and the Lord’s Prayer, according to the simpler settings (Paragraphs 39-41)."

Right now, there are two points I wish to draw from that passage from the GIRM. The first goes with my first question of how can we get people to chant? The GIRM mentioned, at the very end, the desire that all people be able to sing the Creed and Our Father in Latin with a simple setting. The thing is that chant, in and of itself, is a fairly simple setting. It is natural to the human voice, and therefore, blends in a sense when everyone does it. 

I'll admit that a bit of practice is necessary to get chant down, but once done, most people can handle the basics without even thinking. This is positive for two reasons. It gets the people to participate, and it allows them to meditate. 

The second point I wish to draw from the GIRM's passage is how it states that other kinds of sacred music, e.g. polyphony, are not excluded as possible music choices, as long as "they foster the participation of the faithful." Now it will be readily admitted by most that you can't expect a congregation to have the skill or knowledge to sing polyphony on a Sunday. So what does the GIRM mean by, "foster the participation of the faithful"? Well, my opinion goes back to my second question above, what do we have the ability to give the people to listen to? 

It is my opinion that we've developed the concept that "active participation" means we have to be saying/singing the words. I believe this couldn't be further from the truth. Rather, it makes more sense that active participation means we are actually involved in what is happening at Mass, not physically, but spiritually. Many either remember or have heard of the times when people went to Mass and prayed their rosaries during it. I'm not saying the rosary is bad, but I don't think praying a rosary during Mass is necessarily participating in Mass. Rather, to meditate upon the words and what is happening, to pray in union with the priest, to be drawn up by the music, and especially to offer oneself with the Sacrifice of Christ, that is what I would call active participation. 

From that idea, we can conclude that we don't need the people to necessarily sing at Mass. Instead, we need singing that will foster their spiritual participation. 

Now that certainly may mean that people sing hymns and the psalms. If the chant is simple, they should respond and perhaps chant with some of the Ordinary of the Mass. However, when there is a choir, I don't think people need to feel obligated to sing. Perhaps they will pray better simply by listening and being drawn up in the music. 

The question that must be asked in regards to the cantor/choir and their relation to the people is not "How can we get the people to sing more?", but rather, "How can the cantor/choir lead the people in prayerful song to the Lord?"  

Nevertheless, we must not elevate the singing of hymns and the other parts which the people may participate in above the texts of the Mass, particularly those reserved to the sacred ministers, which is what the next post will focus on. 

A Look at the Mass: The Entrance Antiphon

We finally see green on a Sunday again! I almost forgot it was a liturgical color.

I said awhile back that I was going to go through each part of the Mass in more detail, and now that Lent and Easter, and all the major feasts immediately following them, are over, I can finally begin it. When I did the Mass meditations, that was a brief meditation on each part. I now intend to dedicate a more in-depth meditation to each part. We'll begin with the Entrance Antiphon this Sunday going through the Liturgy of the Word on the following Sundays, which should take us up to Advent.

Historical information will be taken from The Mass of the Roman Rite by Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J., unless otherwise noted.

So let's begin.

Daily Mass attendees may be familiar with the Entrance Antiphon, but rarely is it done on a Sunday. Generally, it is replaced by a hymn. While this is perfectly acceptable, I feel that something is missing when the Entrance Antiphon is altogether omitted. This is because the Entrance Antiphon works well for setting the tone of the particular mysteries brought before us in the Mass.

Before I get into that, though, let me just give a brief history of the Entrance Antiphon's place in the Mass. It finds its origin in the Introit of the Extraordinary Form. Both are generally taken from one of the psalms, with some exceptions. However, the Introit in the Extraordinary Form has much more of a prescribed text, whereas the Entrance Antiphon of the Ordinary Form can be combined with any psalm. In fact, when used, it is commonly used as the refrain of a psalm, similar to the manner of the Responsorial Psalm at Mass.

In history, its practical function was to provide something to accompany the procession of the clergy to the altar, as episcopal processions were often lengthy. The psalms were used due to the fact they could easily be sung to chant, as the use of instruments was forbidden in the early Church. Additionally, the heresy of Arianism used hymns to spread, so the Roman Church forbid the use of hymns at Mass, except the ones taken from Scripture, i.e. the psalms and canticles.

Now, it is interesting to note that although the schola were the principal singers for the Introit, the people often had a part to sing as well. Here I would like to insert my opinion that the use of the Entrance Antiphon with a psalm would work well to accomplish two things. First, as there would only be an antiphon to sing, the people would find it easier to watch the procession to the altar, as processions are kind of meant to be watched. It's like a parade! But more on that idea next week.

Secondly, the Faithful may find it easier to meditate upon the Entrance Antiphon if they aren't super focused on the words coming next, a common problem with singing hymns. Since you need to stay focused on the text, you aren't able to watch the procession or meditate as easily. This brings up the question of participating in the singing, but once again, that topic is scheduled for Wednesday, so back to the Entrance Antiphon. 

Understand that I'm not trying to bash hymns in any way. I love hymns, but they have their place. They are written by men. The psalms are written by God through men. Thus, in the highest form of worship, it seems appropriate to use the highest texts.

However, my main reason for advocating the use of the Entrance Antiphon is, as Jungmann phrases it, "the antiphon established the tone [for the Mass] in a double sense, the musical note, the psychological mood (p. 329)."

As I said, hymns are good, but they don't carry the same melody as chant in itself does, which isn't necessarily problematic, but as Jungmann noted it can set the stage for all the chant of the Mass. In my opinion, this is best because it shows unity. The Mass, like the body, although it is composed of different parts, is in itself an organic unity.

Like our bodies we can add external things to it, such as clothing, and it is even appropriate to do so. However, as any parent (or at least mother, considering I probably won't do this) will attempt to teach their child, you want your clothes to match. The same thing goes with the Mass. Singing and/or chanting is not necessary to have a valid Mass, but it is appropriate to do so on Feasts and Solemnities. When we do this, though, we want the hymns and melodies to match, both the occasion and each other.

What is nice about the antiphon is that the Church has already matched it to the Mass for us. Therefore, choir directors don't have to try and work with the priest/liturgist/whoever to try and match their hymn to the day. Secondly, chant already matches the melodies of the rest of the Mass, because it is purely the human voice, without the organ or any other instrument (albeit another instrument may accompany it if necessary).

Additionally, as I began with, the Entrance Antiphon can set the "psychological mood" for the Mass. For example, the Entrance Antiphon for Laetare Sunday, the Fourth Sunday of Lent, is, "Rejoice, Jerusalem, and all who lover her. Be joyful, all who were in mourning; exult and be satisfied at her consoling breast (Roman Missal, Third Edition)." These first words of the Mass tell us that although we are in the period of Lent, we should rejoice, for Christ will console us in the coming Easter feasts, and it sets the mood of the whole Mass of that Sunday, which is one of rejoicing.

Once again, I'm not calling for throwing out hymns, instead what I'm calling for is the restoration of the Entrance Antiphon to the Mass, at least on the more festive occasions. Personally, I can think of no better way to "go to the altar of God (Psalm 42:4)" to praise Him and enter into the Sacred Mysteries, than with the words given us by God.    

All historical information taken from:
Rev. Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development. Volume 1. Part III: The Introit Chant, 320-333. Translated by Rev. Francis A. Brunner, C.SS.R. (Christian Classics: Notre Dame, Indiana, 1951).

He Preached Love

I do not represent the Catholic Church in the following comments nor her position on these issues. I am explaining them as I understand them, and providing my opinions about how they apply to the Supreme Court decision. They are published without imprimatur or nihil obstat.
 
Happy Independence Day! I've spent this week considering the Supreme Court's decision on Monday in regards to Hobby Lobby. For those unaware of what I'm talking about, you can read the Newsweek article at: http://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-rules-hobby-lobby-doesnt-have-cover-birth-control-256662

Since this decision I've heard and read many different opinions in regards to this decision of the Supreme Court, both in favor and against it. The most troubling thing I've seen, however, is the thing I often see in regards to issues that touch upon religion - "The Catholic Church is trying to shove its religion down our throats."

Perhaps this is true. There have been instances in history where the Church has been overly zealous in the proclamation of the Gospel. Is this one of them? 

Well, based on continued publications by bishops it seems to me that the Church has said, "No it's not," and I agree. But I agree not because the Church says it, but because it makes sense, for two reasons, the first of which is the complicity argument. 

The complicity argument seems to have received the most ire in this controversy, and it is certainly at the heart of the Court's decision. It has been called an expressly Catholic Church teaching, and it is true the Church holds to it. However, it is not as a theological truth, but as a philosophical one. 

At its heart the complicity argument basically runs thus: if I give you something that I believe is potentially harmful to you, I become responsible when you harm yourself. Therefore, I cannot comply with you by giving you the means for your action. 

Let me use an example to clarify. Would you give a child a loaded gun if he asked for it? Why not? Because he might harm himself. If he does, you would feel responsible. But why? You didn't pull the trigger. Well, because you knew the danger and he didn't. That's why you would say, "It's my fault! He didn't know the danger!" Or maybe he did know the danger to an extent but thought he could handle it. If you truly disagreed that he was likely to harm himself, you still wouldn't give him the gun!

This, in my opinion, is the Church's stance. The Church acknowledges that many disagree with the teaching, but that's irrelevant. I still truly believe it will harm you spiritually, and I don't want to be responsible for that. 

Now my opponents might reply with something like, "Why are you concerned with my soul?" 

My response is simple, "Because I love you." 

"If you love me, why are you trying to force me to do something that I don't believe will make me happy?"

"First, I'm not forcing you to do anything; I'm refusing to help you do something. That's an important distinction. Secondly, I'm most concerned with your eternal happiness."

This brings up my second reason for agreeing with the Church's stance. To not get involved with politics or to let people do whatever they want, even if they're not Catholic, is contrary to the central message of Jesus. 

He preached love. True and authentic love. It's true He also preached on adultery and divorce. He preached on the Mosaic Law. He preached compassion for the poor, and many other things. But the heart of His message and central theme was love. 

Now, I say true and authentic love, because its meaning has been so distorted. True love doesn't focus on what will make you happy right now, or even over the course of your life, but what will make make you happy for eternity, because it is only because of the One Who is eternal, that you can be eternally happy.

Love for another, then, is going to focus on their soul, as well as their body. It will consider their eternal life along with their earthly life. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in God, I am still called to consider your relationship with Him. If asked why, there are numerous reasons. Your happiness will increase mine, since it's easier to be happy when others are happy. I see the image of God in you, and I want to see that perfected. I want you to have the truth. These are just a few, like I said, there are numerous reasons. 

This, then is why I would say the Church cannot neglect being involved in this issue. Like any mother, She is solicitous in instilling values in Her children. She watches out for them and puts their happiness first. The Church must follow the example of Jesus, Who came for the salvation of all and preached to all.

Now I'm not condoning coercion or forced religion. That wouldn't be a real relationship with Jesus Christ. However, forcing someone to act contrary to their conscience is essentially the same thing. 

There are two final things I feel should be brought up. Firstly, the issue with Hobby Lobby has been presented as the decision being specifically "burdensome" against women, as it still allows for vasectomies for men. I have no problem in agreeing that women are the ones affected by this decision. Nevertheless, being denied contraception is not a burden, as it harms them. And I do have a problem with vasectomies still being covered, but this brings up the second point. Hobby Lobby's owners aren't Catholic. They are Protestant Christians. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church has still been a focal point of this debate and is being blamed for it. 

I admit there is still much to be said in regards to this issue. I have not explained why contraception is wrong, that will come though. Instead I wanted to emphasize the reason I feel the Church is so vocal in this regard. I welcome your thoughts, both opposing and supportive, along with your anxieties. 

Understand, though, the Catholic Church and myself oppose this not because we are anti-woman, or because we are bigots, or because we are religious fanatics. Rather we do it because we love.