Some parishioners feel their local Sunday Masses have lost some of their reverence, and the source of their dissatisfaction may stem back to changes implemented in the late 1980s. In our local parish in Oak Ridge, TN, the pastor announced in 1988 that the (American) National Conference of Catholic Bishops had voted to require changes in the liturgy, which he was going to impose on us — like it or not. For example, this priest got rid of all the missalettes in our church pews, so that the congregation could not follow along in text what was being said from the altar and read from the lectern. Imagine how our deaf and hard of hearing brethren felt when the missalettes were removed. But you don’t have to be deaf to benefit from reading along with the scripture while it is being spoken. The scripture sinks in and penetrates the conscience better when we absorb it with two senses — hearing and reading — than with hearing it alone.

It turns out our congregation in Oak Ridge was duped. Many of us have believed for the past twenty years that the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1988 tolerated, or even encouraged, numerous distractions in our liturgies: multiple lectors coming out of the pews and processing up to the altar during mass, lectors sitting at various spots in the church so that the congregation faces a guessing game as to who will stand up next and from which pew, lectors failing to “proclaim” the scripture and just reading it, choirs moved up to the front of the church where their smiles and private conversations divert attention away from the altar, priests taking an abundance of time with their homilies and then racing through with the shortest Eucharastic Prayer, some priests “doing their own thing” with the Eucharistic Prayer and making up the introduction as they go, etc.

The National Conference never voted on or approved any of these changes. A subcommittee of the bishops looking into the liturgy approved some of those changes, but no one appears to have approved, e.g., letting priests do their own thing with the Eucharistic Prayer. Our local pastor at the time apparently read the subcommittee report, overreacted, and went off cockeyed saying imminent changes were mandated in the liturgy. In short order, he removed the communion rail and even joked that the congregation was spreading rumors he would replace the altar with a card table. But the structural changes to the church building did not create distractions for prayer; the changes in the human performance of liturgical functions did.

The great Twentieth Century theologian Thomas Merton observed, "Certainly one thing the monk does not, or cannot, realize is the effect which these liturgical functions, performed by a group as such, have upon those who see them. The lessons, the truths, the incidents and values portrayed are simply overwhelming. For this effect to be achieved, it is necessary that each monk as an individual performer be absolutely lost, ignored, and overlooked. And yet, what a strange admission! To say that men were admirable, worthy of honor, perfect, in proportion as they disappeared into a crowd and made themselves unnoticed, by even ceasing to be aware of their own existence and their own acts. Excellence, here, was in proportion to obscurity: the one who was best was the one who was least observed, least distinguished. Only faults and mistakes drew attention to the individual.”

In contrast, Catholic churches all across America are filled with lectors who prance up to the altar and perform their readings, not because they are making any attempt to proclaim the Word of God so that electrical energy flows from them to the various members of the congregation, but instead because they like being seen — along with their husband and wives — as the center of attention in church — if only for a few minutes. Similarly, you have priests who repeatedly received feedback that their homilies are too long, and they simply continue to meander as if the most important part of the Mass was for everyone to listen and hear what they had to preach. In both cases, the sin or pride creates a self-centered attitude in which the individual and his antics stand out to the congregation, rather than have him or her fade into obscurity as just a part of a greater whole.

In principle, virtuous Catholics could offer up these distractions and annoyances with the American Catholic liturgy as a form of penance: suffer through the Mass and offer it up to God. But it does seem strange that the faithful should consider attending Mass as penance: instead of a celebration, the mass becomes something to endure. Redisovering faith and rekindling faith requires effort and determination, and the liturgical changes ushered in the late 1980s by some the Catholic bishops in America may have the unintended consequence of snuffing out what little desire to practice their faith that existed in struggling members of the laity. It is no wonder then that 66% of baptized Roman Catholics in the USA quit practicing their faith by attending weekly mass.

With these liturgical changes, our headstrong pastor alienated more than a few people in the congregation. The laity who feel hurt and betrayed by these changes to the liturgy may have more reverence and devotion than that infamous subcommittee of bishops and local clergy charged with leading them.

Dear Michael,

May God give you peace.

I am not aware that the Bishops forbid missalettes. Many parishes still use them. Most, if they don’t have them in the pew, have them in the back for those who wish. Many parishes also have special hearing equipment for the hearing impaired. The word is meant to be proclaimed.

Have you ever had the experience of a really good reader? You put down the paper and listen, because you are so caught up in the reading. That is the way it should be.

There are reasons for liturgical practices. Bishops do nhot make changtes just to annoy people. You may not like them, but there are reasons beind every liturgical practice. Paper throw away missalettes could be seen as irreverent to the Word of God. Have you ever seen how unsightly a church can look between Masses? It is work to get it ready for the next congregation. And sometimes it is not done.

Readers should be members of the congregation. The reader comes forth from the congregation. Choirs are meant to be leaders of sung prayer.

I surely understand that some do not like the liturgical changes you mentioned. I would hope people would look in to the reasons why and try to understand. And surely you must understand that there are those for whom these changes have kept them in the church, not driven them away.

My most recent experiences of liturgy over this past weekend were filled with reverence.

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web michaelguth.com