NCRegister interviewed Jeffrey Tucker in an article titled Singing the Mass (hat tip Fr Z).  The whole thing is worth reading, but I found this Q/A especially interesting.

What do you say to people who think that ”contemporary” or rock music is necessary to attract young people to Mass?

So far as I can tell, the only people who really argue this way are old people (I argued this point a little while back). It’s true that plenty of young people are not interested in true liturgical music, but those same people are not interested in Catholicism either. How do we draw people to the faith? By lying about it and substituting false teaching? I don’t think so. The faith draws people when it is not ashamed of itself and when it has the ring of truth.

It is the same with liturgical music. Church music uses free rhythm that always points upwards in the same way that incense is always rising. This assists our prayer. Secular styles of music, in contrast, use rhythms that elicit temporal thoughts and emotions. Rock music points to nothing outside of itself, so it does not belong anywhere near the liturgy.

We are living in times of transition, and young people seem to know this even more than older people. I don’t think there is any doubt where that transition is headed: People are discovering the sacred music tradition. If you look around at the Catholic music world, you quickly find that this is where the interest and energy is. This is the future.

As you finish your countdown tonight, don’t forget to say a prayer for Bishop Clark.

Say the Black – Do the Red

5…4…3…2..1..Hail Mary(for the solemnity of Mary, Mother of God)…May God guide and bless our shepherd Bishop Matthew Clark in 2011…Happy New Year!…pop the champagne, hug and kiss someone, print your Jan 2011 prayer requests for priests

http://www.mprp-roc.org/mprp01-11Jan.html

Have you been to a Mass where there is a sudden mad rush to the sanctuary, wherein 30 people rush to the bottle of Purell, are then all handed Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, whom they hold for a period of time (say, during the Ecce Agnus Dei) before consuming with the priest as if they are concelebrating Mass?  I know that in my boyhood parish,  this happened EVERY SINGLE MASS.

Did you know that the church has deemed such behaviors unacceptable?  In 1997, a document entitled Ecclesia de mysterio was signed by a whopping eight dicasteries of the Roman Curia, that addressed this very issue.  Fr. Z posted on this here.

The document states (with Fr. Z’s emphasis),

“§ 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)”

Clearly, the practice at St. Michael in Rochester does not fit this bill.  At this church, they feel the need to have both a priest and a deacon distribute the consecrated hosts, while the chalice is given by two laymen (or laywomen).   This is rather astounding when those at Mass number approximately 30.

The document continues, (emphasis, again, from Fr. Z)

To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminatedwhere such have emerged in particular Churches:

— extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;

— the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful”.

Now, this document focuses in on a number of things, not just EMHC’s.  For instance, it also states:

It is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as “pastor”, “chaplain”, “coordinator”, ” moderator” or other such similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or Priest.(58)

The Diocese of Rochester clearly has ignored this little segment.

It continues:

§ 1. The homily, being an eminent form of preaching, qua per anni liturgici cursum ex textu sacro fidei mysteria et normae vitae christianae exponuntia,(68) also forms part of the liturgy.

The homily, therefore, during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, must be reserved to the sacred minister, Priest or Deacon(69) to the exclusion of the non-ordained faithful, even if these should have responsibilities as “pastoral assistants” or catechists in whatever type of community or group. This exclusion is not based on the preaching ability of sacred ministers nor their theological preparation, but on that function which is reserved to them in virtue of having received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. For the same reason the diocesan Bishop cannot validly dispense from the canonical norm(70) since this is not merely a disciplinary law but one which touches upon the closely connected functions of teaching and sanctifying.

For the same reason, the practice, on some occasions, of entrusting the preaching of the homily to seminarians or theology students who are not clerics(71) is not permitted. Indeed, the homily should not be regarded as a training for some future ministry.

All previous norms which may have admitted the non-ordained faithful to preaching the homily during the Holy Eucharist are to be considered abrogated by canon 767, § 1.(72)

We are left to one of two conclusions:

1)  The ignorance of the Bishop (either of the document, or of the illicit practice)

2) The willful disobedience of the norms of the Church

Which sounds more likely?

But that’s not all!  In article 4 of the same document, there is a discussion of lay pastoral collaboration

The non-ordained faithful, as happens in many worthy cases, may collaborate effectively in the pastoral ministry of clerics…Provisions regulating such extraordinary form of collaboration are provided by Canon 517, § 2.

§ 1. The right understanding and application of this canon, according to which… requires that this exceptional provision be used only with strict adherence to conditions contained in it. These are:
ob sacerdotum penuriam and not for reasons of convenience or ambiguous “advancement of the laity”, etc.; (Are you reading this, Your Excellency?)

b) this is participatio in exercitio curae pastoralis and not directing, coordinating, moderating or governing the Parish; these competencies, according to the canon, are the competencies of a priest alone.

Because these are exceptional cases, before employing them, other possibilities should be availed of, such as using of the services of retired priests still capable of such service, or entrusting several parishes to one priest or to a coetus sacerdotum.(75)

In any event, the preference which this canon gives to deacons cannot be overlooked…(We’ve got more than enough of them to cover the jobs of the layfolk who are currently running parishes…)

…

The presentation of resignation at the age of 75 by a Parish Priest does not of itself (ipso iure) terminate his pastoral office. Such takes effect only when the diocesan Bishop, following prudent consideration of all the circumstances, shall have definitively accepted his resignation in accordance with Canon 538, § 3 and communicated such to him in writing.(79) In the light of those situations where scarcity of priests exists, the use of special prudence in this matter would be judicious. (Sound familiar?)

In view of the right of every cleric to exercise the ministry proper to him, and in the absence of any grave health or disciplinary reasons, it should be noted that having reached the age of 75 does not constitute a binding reason for the diocesan Bishop to accept a Parish Priest’s resignation. (Note that the retirement age for priests in Rochester is a full 5 years before the general, non-binding retirement age.  The priest shortage is what Bishop Clark WANTS!) This also serves to avoid a functional concept of the Sacred Ministry.(80)

This is getting long, I know…but it’s all incredibly clear, and incredibly AGAINST what we are seeing here in Rochester.   The real reason this document is hugely important at this time comes later in article 6. (See this post to understand the reference.)

§ 2. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers — e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology (Fr. Brian Cool is infamous for asking his congregation to pray the final doxology together.) — or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. (Hey!  LOOK!) It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.
It would appear that the situation at St Monica’s on Christmas Eve constitutes a “GRAVE ABUSE!”  Our own Dr. K correctly noted that this falls into the “more serious” category of abuses.  EIGHT dicasteries of the Curia agreed on that!Finally, this document notes:

Should it become necessary to provide for “supplementary” assistance in any of the cases mentioned above, the competent Authority is bound to select lay faithful of sound doctrine and exemplary moral life.  (I have to ask how, precisely, women’s ordination advocates are “of sound doctrine.”)

Theologian RR Reno, contributor to First Things, remarks in this short post:

…
Call me an insufficiently Catholicized Protestant, but I tend to cringe when I see people reading the assigned passages from the Old Testament and Epistles from loose sheets of paper—or whatever. Why is it that lectors in Catholic parishes always seem to be reading from a flimsy booklet or a bulky binder, as if the Word of God were a temporary memo fittingly reproduced in throwaway forms.

I’ve wondered sometimes: Is there something in canon law that prohibits the permanent presence of a big, fat Bible at the lectern? I doubt it. And so I find myself baffled. A hefty Bible conveys visually the fact that the Word of God contains weighty truths. So why neglect the symbolism?

Some might say that it’s awkward for the lectors to have to find the passages. All those minor prophets get confusing, and perhaps most Catholics don’t know where to find Ezra and Nehemiah. I don’t buy it, and in any event, I’ve always liked it when the lector has to flip a bunch of big pages to find the right place—it adds drama.

So, I have a suggestion that might add a bit of solemnity to the proclamation of the Word of God. Catholic Churches should put a royal folio-sized Bibles on their lecterns, the kind that makes a gratifyingly audible swishing noise when the pages arch and then cascade like a breaking wave when they are turned.

Oh, and will our dear bishops please release us from dreary New American Bible, a translation that goes out of its way to make the holy scriptures sound banal and stupid.

This site has been up for a while and I’ve yet to hear a decent argument against us. The only thing that somewhat resembles a contender is the typical expression of “you’re too [by the rules/idealistic/lofty/black & white/etc] and not [practical/real world/down to earth/grey/etc]“. One of my favorite’s has a thing or two to say about that:

When the business man rebukes the idealism of his office-boy, it is commonly in some such speech as this: “Ah, yes, when one is young, one has these ideals in the abstract and these castles in the air; but in middle age they all break up like clouds, and one comes down to a belief in practical politics, to using the machinery one has and getting on with the world as it is.” Thus, at least, venerable and philanthropic old men now in their honoured graves used to talk to me when I was a boy. But since then I have grown up and have discovered that these philanthropic old men were telling lies. What has really happened is exactly the opposite of what they said would happen. They said that I should lose my ideals and begin to believe in the methods of practical politicians. Now, I have not lost my ideals in the least; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was. What I have lost is my old childlike faith in practical politics. I am still as much concerned as ever about the Battle of Armageddon; but I am not so much concerned about the General Election. As a babe I leapt up on my mother’s knee at the mere mention of it. No; the vision is always solid and reliable. The vision is always a fact. It is the reality that is often a fraud. As much as I ever did, more than I ever did, I believe in Liberalism. But there was a rosy time of innocence when I believed in Liberals.

Merry Christmas, everyone!  In the past few days, I have run into good things and bad things.  None of these are quite enough to make their own post, so I’m putting them all into one here.

Deplorable:

“Lessons and Carols” at Aquinas on the 23rd had a line (which was repeated at least once) about “some peoples’ belief in Santa is like other peoples’ belief in God.”  I think they tossed in there “except it’s better to believe in God because He’s real” but even with the addition, my eyebrows have risen quite a bit.  Watering down belief in God in this manner is part of the reason so few people believe in the True Presence!

Commendable:

At the end of midnight Mass at Mother of Sorrows, Fr. Bradshaw made an announcement to the whole church that with the new liturgical translations, Mother of Sorrows as a parish will be focusing more upon the beauty and majesty of the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Finally!

A blessed Christmas season to all!  Have fun with your families. ^_^