Thank you Holy Father for the Summorum Pontificum, may all those priests, pastors and whoever else, stop being Disobedient, and stop giving a the people a hard time, or just plain excuses for not having the traditional Latin Mass in OUR Churches.

This comment is late in coming, and only tangentially related to the thread’s main topic, but I think you’re on to something when you say:

“I fear a certain gnosticism in the liturgy that I run into a lot these days. This gnosticism seems to forget that the whole point of sacramentality and the liturgy is to incorporate the body into worship. That is the point of the smells and bells.”

I think that liturgical gnosticism, or at least the dualism it imparts, may be something to fear. We in the West aim at the brain by adding brief explanations to the Mass (before each reading, in some parishes), smatterings of mini-homilies (“Father, please just begin the Penitential Rite; we’ll hear all three readings in a moment”), worship spaces that display fewer and fewer works of art/images, the virtual obsolescence of the sung Mass, etc.

Eastern Rite liturgies and churches, on the other hand, are full of movement, sung dialogue between priest/deacon/congregation, signs of the cross, incense, veneration of icons, bells, etc. The body and its senses are engaged in ways that we in the West often choose to omit. I say “omit” deliberately: structural differences between Eastern and Roman Rites aside, the options to widen the sensory appeal of the Roman Rite are at our disposal, even in the most standard and “post Conciliar” versions of the liturgy. Most parishes, however, choose not to take advantage of them: incense, kneeling, bowing at the mention of the Incarnation in the Creed, sung responses (and not just hymns), striking our breasts at the Confiteor and the Agnus Dei. I think this indicates a huge difference in priority between the Eastern and Western liturgical mindsets. (True story: A good friend of mine who grew up in the Eastern traditions walked into a Roman church recently and saw an icon that had been mounted on a wall. It had been made safe from all human contact by a sheet of plexiglass. He shook his head and said, “You all in the Roman Rite! An icon is meant to be approached and touched! It’s meant to be kissed!”)

Other choices involve church décor and devotional practice: images and devotional spaces teach and inspire, and can become part of young Catholics’ experience of going to church and growing up in the Faith. But undoubtedly newer churches in the States are intentionally more austere than their pre-Conciliar cousins, and their art is often too abstract or spare to be inspiring. The aim, I think, is to take away all “distractions” from the liturgy. The frequent result is a huge, bare space that has little sensory or imaginative appeal.

The formative power of images should not be overlooked: Why are people so tied to the Internet and TV? Why are trademarks protected by law? Congrats to McDonald’s and Apple for creating nostalgia, loyalty, and a sense of community by churning out looks, logos, jingles, apparel, and “feels” that capture the imaginations of generations of consumers (they’re not stupid: their primary targets are the young). Billions and billions happily indoctrinated. Why does the Catholic Church opt for worship spaces that barely reach the imagination, or liturgy that informs the brain… and little else?

And yes, I abhor this culture of “cult of personality” where the priests run their own parish like some talk/variety show. You were right on the mark there.

The church fathers constructed the liturgy for a reason and followed a very specific formula. Modernist tendencies towards deconstruction and “personalization” of the liturgy to conform with specific parishes who are deemed too ignorant to fully comphrehend the Universalal meaning without attaching novelties and innovations is a very VERY egregious trend. One which I might add, was dealt with very effectively at the council of Trent.

Can you hear yourself? I’m embarrassed for you.

I am not sure it is wise to assume that a person is *really really praying* if they are swaying back and forth, etc. While St. Philip Neri might have been very expressive when he prayed, the Little Flower apparently was not. Prayer is such an intimate thing and it’s external expression may or may not be an integral part of it. Yes, the body does pray at the Liturgy of the Eucharist (we stand, sit, kneel, etc.) but people don’t seem to realize that, so, catechesis is needed.

It has always been difficult to determine if spontaneity is an organic development or an ideological tool and so that’s probably why a *wait and see* attitude is wise. Of course, a wait and see attitude should not be an excuse to quench the action of the Spirit but to assume that anyone who thinks we should wait is opposing the Spirit is just plain wrong.

Lastly, I would modify your last sentence to read “let’s be careful about WHICH bans we impose on others” because bans are not necessarily bad. For example, if the entrance song is “Amazing Grace” and I feel like singing ‘How Great Though Art” I don’t think it would be wrong for me to follow the ban. In fact, I actually had this happen and when I asked the person to follow the leader of song he told me that I had no right to tell him how to praise God. Examples abound.

Thanks be to Christ that there are many rites in the Church and that we are free to attend anyone of them. I often attend an Eastern Rite Church when I am fed up with the games played in the Latin Rite. Thanks again for bringing up the topic.

Pax Christi,

Henry