Fr. Longenecker som er avbildet på bilde over (til venstre, med sin biretta foran brystet) etter årets palmesøndagsmesse, skrev for noen dager siden om hvordan den amerikanske holdningen til livet generelt (bokstavelig, praktisk etc.) også fikk betydning for liturgien etter vatikankonsilet:
In 1979 I left America to study and live in England. I stayed there for twenty five years. … I do love my home country and I’m glad to be back. However, there is a certain aspect to America that I still find difficult. It is a vague and uncertain quality; something I have never heard defined before, but I think I can give it a name: literal-ness. …
… So, when the windows were opened to the modern world after the second Vatican Council the true Americanized version of the Catholic faith, which was waiting in the wings, suddenly sprang into life. Almost instantly a new verson of Catholicism burst on to the scene.
It was a version of Catholicism which is literal. It is bottom line. It is practical. So modern American churches are not beautifully transcendent temples where God himself dwells in the Holy of Holies. They are utilitarian auditoria with padded seats, a good sound system, a cry room, a bride’s room and toilets that are clean and comfortable. In an attempt to make the liturgy understood and relevant everything had to be explained. Liturgists and homilists now talk and explain everything. Before Mass–a long explanation of what is going to happen. Before the readings a little summary. During the Prayers of the Faithful another explanation of what they are about. After Mass more announcements and explanations. The music became people centered–lots of songs that were ‘accessible’ about God comforting us, and how we are going to gather together to change the world. Homilies became homely fireside chats about social relevance, self esteem and political action. The way priests celebrated the liturgy focussed on the people gathered around the table.
The literal people were suspicious of ‘mystery’ and ‘transcendence’ and ‘hierarchy’ and ‘beauty’. These things were somehow hifalutin, irrelevant, impractical and most of all–expensive. The money should be spent on other more practical things like schools and hospitals and soup kitchens. Ideas about ‘sacrifice’ were quietly dropped as ‘difficult’ or ‘unnecessarily archaic’ or ‘primitive’. Concepts like ‘the precious blood’ or ‘Jesus dying to save your from your sins’ were deemed ‘inaccessible’ or ‘impossible for modern people to understand’. The sacrifice of the Mass was replaced with the ‘sacrifice of our time, treasure and talents.’ I could go on.
My words will be read as a condemnation of all this. In fact, I am not condemning it. I’m simply recognizing it and analyzing it for what it is. I actually think that what transpired in America in the wake of the second Vatican Council was, in many ways, a good thing. It really was an attempt to help many Catholics relate to their faith and understand their faith more. It really did accomplish this goal in many ways.
However, it was imbalanced. Too much that was good in the sacred tradition was thrown out. Too much of the effort to modernize was iconoclastic and revolutionary. This is why I am in favor of what is called ‘the reform of the reform’. …..