On the Installation
More company at the AIHouse this weekend, thus causing a delay in my post about Bishop Burbidge's installation Mass, which is coming to you right now. There are two other bloggers who have posted their thoughts on the installation, and I will deal with them later.
Overall, I'd give the Mass a C/C-. The ceremony itself wasn't terribly interesting and didn't take very long; it was of course augmented by a full Mass and so forth. It was nice to see such a large number of deacons, priests and bishops present (cardinals, too), but I must say there should have been a little better planning on their part because not all the priests had seats and there was some confusion over where people needed to be up on stage.
Perhaps my standards are a bit too high, but being an MC at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington has, apparently, spoiled me. Things run smoothly there, even when there are literally hundreds of bishops and thousands of priests present (March for Life Mass, anyone?). Why, then, is it so hard for smaller ceremonies to be run competently? I understand that the Basilica is a church and has a full-time priest in charge of liturgy, but priests ALL conduct liturgies every day, so I guess I don't have much sympathy for someone who can't put something together.
Monsignor O'Connor, in particular, needs a good thrashing. He was constantly running around, doing things. Now, while I understand that, as the MC, he was in charge of the whole deal, I also understand that an MC's job is not to DO everything, but rather to delegate and coordinate. Monsignor does not, apparently, share my understanding.
Other people in need of a thrashing: every single seminarian in the diocese. They were the altar servers for the installation Mass which is, of course, right and proper. Tragically, they were not in cassock and surplice (not their fault, I know- O'Connor deserves another thrashing for that one), but that's not my beef with them. I have a special irritation with seminarians who are clueless when it comes to Mass. I encounter them all the time at the Shrine and they never, ever cease to frustrate me. Why are seminarians so universally clueless when it comes to altar serving? If they didn't do it before seminary, why aren't they doing it there? And if they aren't doing it there, why aren't they taking the initiative to do it at their parish during the summer? People, it isn't hard. Swinging a thurible takes practice, so PRACTICE.
The music selection, though not atrocious, was not particularly good. There were some nice songs here and there, but the communion hymns were gross. I mean, honestly, if I hear Gift of Finest Wheat one more time, I might just throw up.
I have to take a little issue with the multi-lingual nature of the ceremony, too. While it's very nice to have this kind of display of universality, it CAN be taken a bit far. Throwing a bit of Latin into the mix would have appeased me, but, alas, there wasn't much, except for the Salve Regina at the end, which was nice.
So, overall, it was a bit disappointing. The bishop's homily was fine, if a bit formulaic, but that's not terribly surprising. He's a very nice man and has very nice handwriting (AI may or may not have waited in line for his autograph, but whatever) and, let's be frank here, can't possibly be worse than Bishop Gossman (about whom I repeat my "Goodbye and good riddance" intonation).
Chad was also at the Mass, apparently, and singing in the choir, to boot. You can read his thoughts on the Mass here. His comment about not ever having seen that many priests, bishops and cardinals together is worth noting and one that, before going to DC, I would have shared. Being at the Shrine has kind of jaded me to these sorts of displays of eccleastical, hm, hierarchy, I guess, since they're there all the time. I do hope his optimism will be rewarded.
There is a different sort of reaction over at the Catholic Caveman's blog who, apparently?, lives in the Raleigh diocese. I must admit some level of weariness with the reactions from ultra-conservative Traditionalists who would just as soon Vatican II hadn't happened. While the situation in Raleigh is certainly far from ideal (okay, it's pretty crazy), that doesn't mean the solution is to step in and totally revert to a pre-Vatican II type church. That sort of leadership style simply isn't going to work, especially in a diocese where liberality is so deeply ingrained and poor catechesis so widespread as Raleigh.
I'm not familiar with his reference to the two seminarians who were "booted" by the "Lavender Mafia" from their seminaries this past year. I would be curious to know to whom he is referring, because, while I'm aware of two seminarians who left, I'm familiar with why they left and, well, nothing I heard mentioned the "Lavender Mafia" (an unfortunate term, I think, anyway, but that's beside the point). Perhaps before immediately jumping to the conclusion that they were booted for their "open heterosexual[ity]," we might consider there were other, legitimate reasons.
His criticism of the bishop over His Grace's references to Vatican II are also, I think, unfounded. Vatican II did happen and for many of the faithful it is, for all intents and purposes, the only council the Church has ever had. This is due, of course, to poor catechesis, but his desire to steer the diocese in a direction according to the documents of Vatican II, rather than simply saying "in the spirit of Vatican II" is, I think, promising. Cautious optimism is warranted, yes, but levelling all this criticism at the bishop before he's even done anything, really, seems to me both uncharitable and impolite, not to mention something that is, frankly, simply symptomatic and totally reactionary from the extreme right Traditionalists. We saw the same thing with Benedict XVI- unadulterated jubilation followed by immediate criticism.
Time will tell, of course, but for now I think we should be supportive, eh?
~
Our Lady of the South, pray for us.
Overall, I'd give the Mass a C/C-. The ceremony itself wasn't terribly interesting and didn't take very long; it was of course augmented by a full Mass and so forth. It was nice to see such a large number of deacons, priests and bishops present (cardinals, too), but I must say there should have been a little better planning on their part because not all the priests had seats and there was some confusion over where people needed to be up on stage.
Perhaps my standards are a bit too high, but being an MC at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington has, apparently, spoiled me. Things run smoothly there, even when there are literally hundreds of bishops and thousands of priests present (March for Life Mass, anyone?). Why, then, is it so hard for smaller ceremonies to be run competently? I understand that the Basilica is a church and has a full-time priest in charge of liturgy, but priests ALL conduct liturgies every day, so I guess I don't have much sympathy for someone who can't put something together.
Monsignor O'Connor, in particular, needs a good thrashing. He was constantly running around, doing things. Now, while I understand that, as the MC, he was in charge of the whole deal, I also understand that an MC's job is not to DO everything, but rather to delegate and coordinate. Monsignor does not, apparently, share my understanding.
Other people in need of a thrashing: every single seminarian in the diocese. They were the altar servers for the installation Mass which is, of course, right and proper. Tragically, they were not in cassock and surplice (not their fault, I know- O'Connor deserves another thrashing for that one), but that's not my beef with them. I have a special irritation with seminarians who are clueless when it comes to Mass. I encounter them all the time at the Shrine and they never, ever cease to frustrate me. Why are seminarians so universally clueless when it comes to altar serving? If they didn't do it before seminary, why aren't they doing it there? And if they aren't doing it there, why aren't they taking the initiative to do it at their parish during the summer? People, it isn't hard. Swinging a thurible takes practice, so PRACTICE.
The music selection, though not atrocious, was not particularly good. There were some nice songs here and there, but the communion hymns were gross. I mean, honestly, if I hear Gift of Finest Wheat one more time, I might just throw up.
I have to take a little issue with the multi-lingual nature of the ceremony, too. While it's very nice to have this kind of display of universality, it CAN be taken a bit far. Throwing a bit of Latin into the mix would have appeased me, but, alas, there wasn't much, except for the Salve Regina at the end, which was nice.
So, overall, it was a bit disappointing. The bishop's homily was fine, if a bit formulaic, but that's not terribly surprising. He's a very nice man and has very nice handwriting (AI may or may not have waited in line for his autograph, but whatever) and, let's be frank here, can't possibly be worse than Bishop Gossman (about whom I repeat my "Goodbye and good riddance" intonation).
Chad was also at the Mass, apparently, and singing in the choir, to boot. You can read his thoughts on the Mass here. His comment about not ever having seen that many priests, bishops and cardinals together is worth noting and one that, before going to DC, I would have shared. Being at the Shrine has kind of jaded me to these sorts of displays of eccleastical, hm, hierarchy, I guess, since they're there all the time. I do hope his optimism will be rewarded.
There is a different sort of reaction over at the Catholic Caveman's blog who, apparently?, lives in the Raleigh diocese. I must admit some level of weariness with the reactions from ultra-conservative Traditionalists who would just as soon Vatican II hadn't happened. While the situation in Raleigh is certainly far from ideal (okay, it's pretty crazy), that doesn't mean the solution is to step in and totally revert to a pre-Vatican II type church. That sort of leadership style simply isn't going to work, especially in a diocese where liberality is so deeply ingrained and poor catechesis so widespread as Raleigh.
I'm not familiar with his reference to the two seminarians who were "booted" by the "Lavender Mafia" from their seminaries this past year. I would be curious to know to whom he is referring, because, while I'm aware of two seminarians who left, I'm familiar with why they left and, well, nothing I heard mentioned the "Lavender Mafia" (an unfortunate term, I think, anyway, but that's beside the point). Perhaps before immediately jumping to the conclusion that they were booted for their "open heterosexual[ity]," we might consider there were other, legitimate reasons.
His criticism of the bishop over His Grace's references to Vatican II are also, I think, unfounded. Vatican II did happen and for many of the faithful it is, for all intents and purposes, the only council the Church has ever had. This is due, of course, to poor catechesis, but his desire to steer the diocese in a direction according to the documents of Vatican II, rather than simply saying "in the spirit of Vatican II" is, I think, promising. Cautious optimism is warranted, yes, but levelling all this criticism at the bishop before he's even done anything, really, seems to me both uncharitable and impolite, not to mention something that is, frankly, simply symptomatic and totally reactionary from the extreme right Traditionalists. We saw the same thing with Benedict XVI- unadulterated jubilation followed by immediate criticism.
Time will tell, of course, but for now I think we should be supportive, eh?
~
Our Lady of the South, pray for us.
posted by Jason | Monday, August 07, 2006
12 Comments:
Fair assessment, AI...
I agree wholeheartedly; my brain was so fried from heat exhaustion in the choir loft as to be totally unable to recall that level of detail unprompted. I did notice the deficient use of the thurible...
I also heard that there was wine distributed to some chalices in places around the hall before the consecration, and that at least one priest was seen refusing the cup as a result. Another big black mark for Msgr. O'Connor.
As for the two seminarians who left, one of them is an acquaintance of mine, and the other one is a good friend of some good friends of mine, and our friend the Caveman is way off base. So far off base, in fact, that I am even more inclined than I was before to dismiss radical traditionalists.
Did you write the letter to which the Bishop referred in his homily?
I can't imagine AI writing that letter to the bishop, in which the author was optimistic and exuberant about the untapped potential for the priesthood in college-age Raleigh men.
AI, thanks, for the summary!
No, I didn't write the letter.
There were some strange things going on with communion. A large number of chalices and ciboria were distributed to deacons (why deacons? why not priests? but whatever) before the consecration, actually. Either they were already consecrated, in which case such an action was gravely incorrect, or they simply did not get consecrated, in which case distribution like that was, well, just plain wrong (I am inclined to believe the former). At any rate, yes, there were large irregularities with regard to communion. Ah, alas.
How right you are... I do have a problem with a bishop who specifies a certain council as if it were THE defining council, instead of it just being one of many councils throughout the 2,000 year history of the Church.
Do you not find especially those found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church somewhat suspect?
What if the good bishop stated especially those found in the documents of the Council of Hippo (or Carthage or Milan, or Trent or Rome... take your pick) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
V2 is a council... not the council.
And speaking of jumping to conclusions... what makes you think thatthe two seminarians I was reff'ing to are the same exact ones that you know. Possibly you should ask first before accusing... ya think?
Ah, well, I think you missed the point I was attempting to make, which may have been my fault.
The primary reason I don't have a large problem with bishops speaking quite exclusively about the Second Vatican Council is because so many of the faithful all over the world (and especially here in Raleigh) are simply so poorly catechized that, for all intensive purposes, Vatican II is the only Church council that affects them at all.
It would certainly have been odd of Bishop Burbidge to state, as you said, something to the effect of only those documents in the Council of Hippo, yes. However, I think that's ignoring the fact that he simply wouldn't have said that because people just aren't familiar with those other councils. Given the pervasive (and pervasively incorrect) attitudes that permeate the Church- again, especially here in Raleigh- about what Vatican II was (namely, erroneous assumptions), it seems not only correct but quite pastorally responsible of him to place special emphasis on understanding the Church in light of what the documents of Vatican II actually said.
And I don't find his emphasis on the Catechism suspect in the least, since it is essentially just a compendium of the teachings of the Church, but I assume you're primarily concerned with his emphasis on Vatican II anyway.
I wasn't accusing you, merely pointing out that, while I don't know to whom you were referring, I don't think we should jump to conclusions about why this or that particular person was dismissed from seminary. And, while it may in fact be true that we are thinking of entirely different people, there simply aren't that many seminarians IN the diocese of Raleigh, period, so that possibility, though it had occurred to me, seems a remote one, especially since I know or know of most of them. *shrug* Like I said, I'm willing to concede that I'm wrong, but it's been my experience that a great number of far-right Catholics have a tendency to automatically assume that a conservative booted from seminary was booted simply for being conservative or was booted by the so-called Lavender Mafia, a tendency which is both erroneous and frequently incorrect.
I must admit some level of weariness with the reactions from ultra-conservative Traditionalists who would just as soon Vatican II hadn't happened.
I'm not suppose to take that as insulting? Obviously, you read my post. You could have easily left a combox comment, but instead, I find comments such as the above by accident?
What I'm asking is quite simple... if you or anyone else is going to say anything about me that even resembles a disparaging remark, have the decency to say it to me.
all I can say is barf. While I agree with you that things like installations should have my thought and prayer put into them. In the end, God is not angered by the details of our worship, however I believe God is angered by the time wasted on trival issues such as this. You really need to move on, the average parishioner doesn't give a damn about the trival issues...nor should they. Maybe a hobby would do you well to occupy your time.
Anonymous (how appropriate)
In the end, God is not angered by the details of our worship...
Matin Luther thought the same way...
...however I believe God is angered by the time wasted on trival issues such as this.
"trivial issues"? Like The Real Presence"?
Maybe a hobby would do you well to occupy your time.
Perhaps defending Catholicism, and not being a covert Prot, would do well to occupy yout time
Vir-
Whenever people publish things, others who do not agree with them will disagree with them. It's really very simple. I don't feel obligated to e-mail Peggy Noonan or Ann Coulter every time I disagree with them.
Also, perhaps anonymous IS a Protestant? *shrug* Just a thought.
At any rate, the best comments always seem to come from my anonymous commenters...
Anon.-
Your language is unnecessarily coarse and rude, for which you should be duly chastised. However, you make an interesting point. While it may seem, outwardly, trivial to focus on issues like this, the paramount importance of the liturgy in Catholicism should not be underestimated. If you believe, as we do, in the things that the Mass actually entails, then it becomes an issue of vital importance.
I can sympathize whole-heartedly with your desire to serve and love God through paying attention to the details of liturgy...this is what I myself am employed to do.
You might consider, however, that when speaking of these matters we are servants of the Lord and of each other. No justice is done to the argument for loving the Lord and the Eucharist through the details, however, when you do not exhibit a patient and charitable with your neighbor.
Mother Teresa and Pope Benedict are both profound examples of how to change the world by not saying anything with the lack of charity exhibited above.
Effecting liturgical change requires calling people to a change of heart. Name-calling and impatient ranting does not call people and in fact hinders them.
For the sake of all those working for liturgical reform, please reconsider the way in which you speak.
I meant to say "when you do not exhibit a patient and charitable discussion with your neighbor.
Mea culpa.
Anonymous-
I've re-read my post and, though your point is well taken, I don't entirely agree with your evaluation. It is certainly true that discussions should exhibit such characteristics and I agree with you there. However, I don't see any name calling or impatient ranting in my post, with the exception of the bit about throttling Msgr. (which was not entirely serious at any rate and is due to his tendency to attempt to make everything center on him, not with the details of the liturgy he conducted).
At any rate, I can't see a blogpost, of all things, like mine to serve as any sort of hindrance to liturgical reform. I do my best to be more fair and balanced when I am discussing an issue at length (cf gay marriage, etc), but this post was simply my opinion about the installation Mass itself.
Post a Comment
<< Home