Bp. Donald Hying of the Diocese of Madison is issuing brief daily videos. Today he talks about “minimalism and maximalism”.
This is really important for our individual lives and for the whole life of the Church, especially in these troubling times when a majority of Catholics, demonstrably, have lost the Faith and are leaving the life of the Church – the means Christ established for our salvation – by indifference or old age and death. We are at a critical fork in the road.
In the video, Bp. Hying speaks of minimalism and maximalism in turns of love. Love, or its lack, produces in the minimalist the attitude of, “What do I have to do?”, which it draws from the maximalist, “What can I do?”. “Do I have to do more?” or “I want to do more!”
I fully endorse what Bp. Hying says.
Moreover, in a practical view, I am reminded of the distinction we use in the confessional to identify the type of sorrow the penitent has for the sake of valid absolution. We can have attrition, which is fear of punishment and Hell. We can have contrition, which is sorrow for having offended God and His Love. Both qualify as adequate sorrow for sins, and therefore for valid absolution, but clearly the latter is more perfect.
When we love we want more and more, the better and better, not just the adequate or the minimum.
This brings me to today’s rant.
Bishops almost never talk in real terms, for any length of time or depth, about liturgy. Of course Bp. Hying had about two whole minutes to squeeze in his point. You cannot say much more than your basic point in a 2:00 video. His videos are not intended to be in-depth expositions, but rather starting points. Hence, Bp. Hying did not have the opportunity to speak to minimalism and maximalism in our sacred liturgical worship.
Allow me to take the baton and run.
Our sacred liturgical worship is exactly where we need to avoid minimalism and to foster maximalism.
The whole life of the Church, at every level, is at stake.
For confirmation of this, look to the Pew Research study about how many Catholics believe in the Real Presence. That’s not just from bad catechesis and preaching. That’s the direct result of bad liturgy. Mark my word.
To those who want to study the problem, issue new DVDs and videos, form committees, ponder and wring hands, I respond, “It’s the liturgy, stupid.”
The virtue of Religion orders what we owe to God and, as a direct result, how we order our loves and priorities. Religion requires us always to set what is due to the Trinity in the first place. We fulfill the duties of Religion, firstly, through sacred liturgical worship, as a whole Church, as smaller communities and families, and as individuals. If this aspect of our life (Church life, community life, family life, your and my life) is not properly fostered, then every other aspect of our lives will be disordered.
No effort we undertake in the Church – including renewal of any aspect of the life of the Church – will succeed if it does not start in worship and return to worship. Otherwise, it is the undertaking of an NGO or a committee or a functionary.
Sometimes questions come up about the “minimum” elements of Holy Mass we must be present for to fulfill our obligation. It’s a good question if – if – in a pinch you are forced to be late, etc. Of course if there are circumstances beyond your control, your obligation is lifted. It’s still good question. However, some people use the answer to justify coming late and leaving early. These minimalists are in serious trouble. More on that sort of minimalism HERE. Their love is loafing or limping or leaving. When you love, you want to be there.
When you truly love, you really want to be there.
Of course there is the sort of celebration of Holy Mass that is so painful, so cringe-worthy, so face-palm inducing that it is hard to blame people who want to come late and leave early.
This is due to priests and bishops who, when it comes to the critically important ars celebrandi, have turned minimalism and maximalism inside out. They, willful, want to increase themselves, while the true and authentic sacred liturgical worship is decreased. They think they are increasing worship by their ad libs and their antics and their additions. They think that they are increasing the role of the laity by dragging them into doing things that are really clerical roles. Instead they are making worship and laity smaller, minimalizing them.
Our sacred worship is it’s own theological locus and its own proper way to fulfill the virtue of Religion. Our lay people are their own dignified members of Christ’s High Priesthood without being clericalized. To violate either one is to make them smaller, not larger.
The principal way we know we are worshiping God properly is by using the proper liturgical worship set down by the Church. The approved rites of the different Churches are trustworthy.
Before the Chattering Id of Tradydom has a seizure, let’s make distinctions. Qui bene distinguit bene docet.
In the case of all of our rites these days, there are better options and lesser options.
Let’s say that we have, in macro terms (looking at the rites themselves) a maximalist and a minimalist approach. For this sake of this, think minimalism or maximalism in this Mass as the micro, while macro applies to the whole rite. By the way, Summorum Pontificum gave us a juridical solution when it comes to the Roman Rite, not a historical, liturgical, theological solution. The whole “two forms of one rite” thing is juridical. It is clear to anyone who has eyes and a brain that these two forms are two rites. Both of them are juridically legal options in the Roman Rite. If the priest has faculties to say Mass (a juridical reality), then he can choose this missal or or that missal.
However, some options (missals) are better than others.
Thinking micro, some options for this Mass are better than others. Yes, that applies to the TLM, too. Low Mass, Sung Mass, Solemn? Vestments? Music? Choice of votive? Sanctus candle? It really applies to the Novus Ordo, which has so many options that the defaults are often forgotten. But that’s also the macro problem for the Novus Ordo. So many options are built into the Novus Ordo that it is hard to know what to do. It comes down to personal taste and that never goes wrong these days, right? It’s a macro problem when it comes to, you know, things like ad orientem celebration which is the norm according to the rubrics and Latin, which the Council Fathers commanded be retained. After that, in this Mass (micro), what about this prayer option or that prayer option. It’s so laden with micro options that it becomes a macro problem. It hardly every ends. That’s absolutely the opposite with the Vetus Ordo. I will leave it to Easterners to have their discussion elsewhere about vernacular worship or retention of their rite’s language (e.g., Greek, Slavonic, Ukrainian, etc.).
The East respectfully apart, with both the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo minimalism and maximalism must be considered, both in this Mass (micro) and your overarching approach (macro).
At this point, those contentious liturgically conservative Catholics who embrace mostly the modern, post-Concilar Mass are saying, “Wait! Wait! There’s legitimate diversity! One is not better than the other and we can choose according to what makes our own socks roll up and down. For you it’s Latin and stuff. For us its… well.. Latin, too… but, mostly not, maybe a little, and traditional hymns with organ, and hopefully Communion rails and reverence. One way isn’t better. It’s not it’s not it’s NOT! They’re just two ways of doing the same thing!”
Yes, in a sense, they both are doing the same thing.
The Sacrifice of Calvary is renewed, we are sacramentally present in the Upper Room and Calvary and the Tomb and the Ascension of the Lord. Transubtantiation guarantees that we receive the Eucharistic Lord, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in each sacred Host. We hear the Word of God. We offer pleasing sacrifices. We pray and honor and petition and thank. Yes, all those things are possible at both the rites, the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo.
Pretty good! The Novus Ordo was what I experienced when I was brought into the Church.
In the Roman Church, however, I believe the traditional rites are superior. I stand on deep foundations and long experience, as a priest, of both, at home and in Rome (also home).
The Novus Ordo’s genesis and implementation and very bones are fraught with question marks. The rites are approved, but I think we can do better. It is a minimalism and maximalism question. We fulfill our obligations and give God what is due.
Can we do more? Because we love?
That’s why I sometimes use the analogy of food for children and food for grown ups: each have their moment according to what can be handled at the time.
Some people want to be offended by this analogy, but absolutely no offense is intended. It’s just an image that is so human, so much a part of everyone’s lived experience, that it’s quick and useful.
As I have written many times before, to be grown up Catholics we need a Mass for grown ups.
Our Mass should give us thick red steak and Cabernet, not pureed carrots and milk for baby teeth.
I want meat for you, not goop. That means I want some of you to grow up into something more than you have hitherto desired. I want more for you, not less. I don’t want you to languish in the livable. I want you to long for the lavish.
Goop is fine for babies. Babies need goop. If you love your baby, you give the best that your baby can accept at this age. But when baby grows up, when you grow up, you and baby need more. Baby’s can’t eat a T-Bone. Adults can survive on goop, but they won’t thrive.
You don’t show love to your baby by shoving a T-Bone into it’s toothless mouth. You don’t love your grown ups by giving them baby goop… unless, as Jacques points out, they’ve come to that age of life when we may be “sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.”
I want you to thrive through our Mass not just survive. I want more for you. I want you to want to have more.
Let me explain more about T-Bone and Goop in the TLM and Novus Ordo. Remember, I’m using an image that is beautiful and normal and human and tender: feeding children. Paul did the same. 1 Cor 3: ” But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready…”.
In the revisions and recreation of new prayers for the Novus Ordo we lost most of what could be characterized as “negative” concepts: sin, guilt, penance, propitiation, etc. But these are vital nutrients for Catholics. Grown up Catholics, that is. Catholics who understand that we are sinners, and that one day we are going to die and meet our Maker, who is our Savior and our Judge. When we deal with very young children we don’t, mustn’t drum on and on about the Four Last Things. They shouldn’t be ignorant of them, but we shouldn’t hammer them, either. Let children be children. But we must not infantilize adults by denying them the sustenance of TRUTH.
“Goo goo ga ga” is not enough for adults. To preach “goo goo” to them is precisely the opposite of charity, which seeks to serve the good of others.
Alas, the Novus Ordo has a lot of “goo goo” built right into now, because the experts who cobbled it together stripped the rites and prayers of many essential nutrients.
The deficiencies can be partly made up for by a good ars celebrandi and good preaching, just as in the TLM some of the optimistic eschatology stressed in the Novus Ordo can be brought in. Mutual enrichment is not an option!
But it is far easier to do that with the later than to evolve the former.
Bottom line…
Mass must be succulent, not insipid.
People fulfill their duty to worship with the Novus Ordo, and can do so well and with benefits. But, over time, I hope they begin to long for something better, something more.
I want so much more for you. I want you to want more.
Minimum and maximum. Micro and macro. Maybe these categories will help you to sort out your life of Religion.
Loading ...
Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap…Rant on Fr. Z, rant on. The disturbing issue at hand is that so many of us want there to be liturgical reform with a return of reverence, yet our Bishops only want to feed us the goop. It’s cheap and easy, doesn’t require any serious investment in time, or resources and obviously they are still getting enough money in the offertory to sustain the charade. What a beautiful, rich history of tradition we have in the palm of our hand, yet it sits there out of the reach of our fingertips. I can’t wait to forward this post. One of the best ones, imho, you have written.
Bishop Hying’s final remark “…to fall in love with God and that’s really the point of our existence here on earth”. Beautifully stated and that sentence alone is material for meditation, especially during Holy Hour.
The good news is that even a tiny bit of reverence and devotion is contagious, to those who have hearts and minds that are open to it. A layperson in the pews can be a center of quiet and attention. The choir can sing reverently. The servers can serve reverently. Even little kids can be devout enough to prick the conscience of adults.
Of course, not everyone is ready to be reverent. But little things really can make a big difference — sometimes quickly, and sometimes like water wearing away stone. Felt on the bottom of kneelers made a huge difference at my church! There really are things we can do.
Speaking of maximalism, there is a great art post today on Ace of Spades, showcasing the scroll painting “One Hundred Horses” by Br. Giuseppe Castiglione, S.J., from back in the day. It is such a long painting that you have to click through to get to an image of the whole painting. He used all the Chinese techniques of ink painting, but also all of his Western art knowledge.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/382892.php
Nope, not sold … yet.
“I want so much more for you. I want you to want more.”
I want more too! I want is someone who knows how to make progress in the spiritual life. Someone who has made authentic progress in the 9 levels of prayer for example, and demonstrates it by his gentleness, patience, love, wisdom, understanding, etc, AND has the desire to help other souls make that progress too. (Note: Someone who says that they are a master at prayer, and yet is self-absorbed, impatient and hot-tempered makes me highly dubious.) And, don’t just give me a list of books to read. There’s a difference between reading about being in love, and actually falling in love.
If the TLM was really the fountainhead of grace that people say it is, we wouldn’t have to sell it at all. We wouldn’t be able to keep people away. Are TLM priests amazing spiritual directors? Does all that grace from the TLM make them wise, patient, generous, loving? Why is it that we always need more; we need more beautiful Churches, we need more beautiful vestments, we need more beautiful statues; send me a check! Ugh! After awhile I just feel used. I’m not sure we can inspire Saintliness with beautiful “stuff” no matter how beautiful it is. In my ridiculously inconsequential opinion, I wish priests would love their flocks, not their liturgies. I know you would say that liturgy is how a priest shows his love to the people. I’m just not sure I believe it.
[I read this last night and decided to sit on it. Then I re-read it this morning. Then I shared it with a priest friend. Then I thought about it. It seems that you are not looking for a priest. You’ve channeled all your thought into spiritual direction, and then tangle up in a vague “love”, all of which you’ve described in terms suggesting that you are confusing priests with gurus or soulmates. And, frankly, this is not all that uncommon. It isn’t, however, reality. Jesus didn’t establish a cadre of spiritual directors or gurus.]
I like the phrase “with due reverence” in regard to the sacrifice of the Mass. What degree of reverence is due Jesus in the celebration of His sacrifice? We can’t achieve it but we should do our best. To me the TLM is our best effort.
I like Bishop Hying’s point here. I think about this quite a bit but rarely do anything about it. When one mentally thinks about what we actually give to God, it certainly seems minimal.
Woof. That WAS a rant. Thank you!
Ms. M-S, you are totally correct re:TLM!!!!
A very nutritious ‘rantificate’ if i’ve ever heard one.
“It seems that you are not looking for a priest. You’ve channeled all your thought into spiritual direction, and then tangle up in a vague “love”, all of which you’ve described in terms suggesting that you are confusing priests with gurus or soulmates. And, frankly, this is not all that uncommon. It isn’t, however, reality. Jesus didn’t establish a cadre of spiritual directors or gurus.”
Hmm, pretty harsh. [Not harsh. Just forthright.] It seems I’ve indeed invoke the wrath of Fr. Z again! [No wrath at all. Over the years I’ve see this phenomenon many times.] Forgive me, I realize that I am too hard on you. [Not in the least. After nearly 30 years I know it when I see it.] Please know that I’m not attacking you personally. I was just trying to share an idea, perhaps, about why you’re efforts aren’t reaching people, despite your hard work. [LOL! You think I’m not reaching people?]
You said you wanted us to want more, but when we even inquire about access to the treasures of the Church, treasures like those that St. Theresa of Avila found, and about which we are so often instructed to read, we receive responses like yours. You’re fanatical … [Fanatical? Look up the meaning of that word.] you’re looking for a guru etc. Never mind an ashram, even if I went to a used car lot, they would pretend to be concerned about me – to give a little of their time, to ask what I needed, to help me solve my problem. Many of the Saints helped others achieve Sainthood did they not? [Yes. And they didn’t do it by stroking their hair and cooing that everything is alright.] In the past, priests served as spiritual directors, right? Why is it so wrong to want that? Why would you not want me to want that? [No. Spiritual direction is fine. But some people blow spiritual direction up into something that is unrealistic… and, frankly, a substitution.] If all that we should expect from the Catholic Church, is the reception of the Sacraments, and the hope that after death we will have avoided going to hell, why in the world should the great Catholic mystics be ever spoken of, or even remembered? Is it only to squeeze another dollar from those as “confused” (your word, and the condescension in it is well noted) as myself?
Thank you, sincerely, for taking the time to think over my comment. May God reward you for your generosity, and your willingness to have this frank exchange with me. Perhaps there was something that convicted you. If there was anything in what I said that could make you a better priest, may God bring it about for you. Please thank your friend for reading it as well, and give him my best wishes.
[Make BRIEF, CONCISE, confessions. Don’t ramble. Fast. Be good. Keep some distance for a while from the priests where you are.]
The preference argument suggests that there should be preferences for each side of, shall we say, the Ordo divide; yet the preference argument itself is made predominantly by one side.
Then again it’s also odd when someone makes the preference argument who in any other matter would be careful to avoid relativism or subjectivism. Granted some matters really are nothing more than preference; but something as crucial as sacred worship?
A priest, no matter his faults, or personality deficits, has been ordained to administer the sacraments. By doing that, in a holy manner, is love personified. He was not ordained for us to sit on his lap to be soothed, or to be slapped on the back like a hail fellow well met. He needs to create an atmosphere that is conducive for us to get to heaven. For friendship and heartiness join the Elks.
In my opinion the Traditional Mass is an unhindered trail to spiritual happiness. Looking at the harvest of the Spirit of Vatican II, makes me wonder why we have abandoned a centuries old, and proven way of leading people to Our Lord.
MB,
Minimalism and maximalism also applies to the relationship of liturgy, morality and spirituality. Contrast expecting the Mass alone to be enough with thinking the Mass is the central point around which to pursue more prayer and virtue.
I wouldn’t dream of passing myself off as advanced in the spiritual life, but I have gotten far enough to understand how to tell what’s what, and all the solid stuff I’ve gotten has come from the same wellspring of tradition – and the priests I know who are good at leading people in it are mostly traditional, not just liturgically but philosophically and praxeologically; I’m not saying any of them are without sin (kinda the point of our religion) but I am saying that not only is it a both-and rather than either-or, but my experience suggests that the two are indeed related.
On the other hand it should be clear that genuinely holy people don’t necessarily bring about guaranteed success at anything more than being holy themselves: that’s why they get martyred.
MB: While ordination enables a priest to hear confessions and offer the sacrifice of the Mass for the rest of us, it doesn’t confer on him the ability to speak the truth charismatically (though it’s his calling to speak it accurately). Some people are given the gift of teaching brilliantly and lighting a candle in someone’s darkness, but if it were necessary for that to be every priest in every homily or confessional then these gifts would be automatically conferred at ordination. They aren’t, at least not always. But the great thinkers, teachers, and mystics—sometimes canonized—are accessible to the faithful in their written legacy along with sacred scripture and all the documents of the Church. Nothing stops us except ourselves from seeking direction from these sources. It seems best to stay with the sure source of grace, and the TLM has been so throughout the ages of faith and remains so for the faithful who assist at it, and trust in God that a person such as yourself will be guided and rewarded for your sincere desire to reach Him.
Looking for a particular individual to mediate your spiritual journey (sorry, one can’t help picking up some of this lingo) may more likely than not sidetrack you or lead to disappointment. Saint Paul had something to say about belonging to this guide or that one, not excepting himself from the warning. We may any of us encounter a teacher who particularly encourages or inspires us, but mostly we just have to bring the offering of our day to God at its offset and take care that it’s the best we can do.
Thank you so, so much Cobbler, Ms. M-S, for your thoughts. I am very grateful for them. And, Fr. Z, for the sound advice. I will work hard to put it into practice.
One more thought before I close the door here. Imagine, just imagine for a moment, that my claim to wanting spiritual direction is more that just run-of-the-mill fanaticism that is “not uncommon” … let’s say that I was the victim of a terrible crime … or something like that. The kind of thing that divides your life into before x happened, and after x happened. The kind of thing that creates a wound in your soul that becomes a devils playground, and most days all you can do is sit by and watch them make a mess. Imagine that when you work up the nerve to tell someone what has happened, only in a confessional of course, because that’s the only time you can get someone to listen, they usually get very quiet for long while … and then they say something like … “I’m just surprised you made it this far,” and then, “I’m not equipped to help you with something like this; you’ll have to find someone else, but don’t stop searching for someone else. You’re not going to be able to handle something like this on your own …”
I’m not saying that I expect every priest to be a charismatic, or to be a great spiritual director. It just scares when it appears that none of them are. [This simply stretches credulity. I know a lot of priests who are interested in traditional liturgy and they are nearly to a man also pretty darn good guys who would want genuinely to be of help… if asked. However, we also know the tell tale signs of of those who have complicated reasons for focusing on “spiritual direction”. They can be many and varied. But priests develop insight, especially after years.] No one who knows about the nine levels of prayer? I mean, no on at all? What I hear you saying in this blog, over and over, is that the Latin Mass is powerful. It just seems to me that if the cause is powerful, the effect should be powerful too. [You run the risk of turning liturgy into theurgy. This is not magic. Also, one receives things in their own manner of reception. If someone doesn’t immediately get something, that’s not always the fault of the giver.] It seems like such a vast wealth of grace should flow out and create mystics, and spiritual directors. When it doesn’t … well that scares me. [When, in the Church, was that time? Genuine mystics have always been in the small minority.] Sure, any ordained man can say those words, but how many can demonstrate that it is powerful through observable effects, in their life, in the lives of other people, in spiritual gifts – healing, prophecy, discernment of spirits, deliverance? The gifts of the Holy Spirit? The fruits? Powerful cause=powerful effect. If the above effects are absent, does that say something about the cause? [Hang on here! This abounds with rash judgment.] I hope not! I hope it’s all just as you say it is, and that the effects are just hidden, or that it’s just that I can’t see them due to my own shortcomings … but, it still scares me … that’s all. [I have never said what you are saying: that Mass is a kind of theurgical magic act.]
I know you’re reaching people Fr. Z! You reached me, and that is not easy to do. I thank you very much for leading me to the Latin Mass; I still have hope that I will find what I’m looking for. However, I see now that places with comm boxes are probably not good places for me to hang out. Since pain is what is within, it is pain that comes out. So, I think this is where I should say good-bye. God bless you, Fr. Z. I hope to see you on the other side.
[Not every TLM group is identical. Priests remain individuals. I cannot speak to the details of your individual circumstances, but don’t paint all priests who say the TLM with same brush based on your limited experience. And don’t expect every priest to have precisely the identikit that you think he ought to have. I am reminded of the old chestnut about a chain letter circulated because people didn’t think Father was living up to their expectations:]
I’ve been reading the exchange, particularly the part about spiritual direction. I have had a long term interest in matters concerning contemplative prayer and mystical theology. The works of the Holy Spirit include both the charismatic and the contemplative life. I’ve read that contemplative prayer is not an elitist way of prayer. It is open to all the members of the faithful. It is said that the Holy Spirit is the true spiritual director of the contemplative life. But a flesh and blood spiritual director can play a valuable role in being a spiritual mentor and sounding board. A good one can give the beginning contemplative a spiritual reality check. Expecting people to simply read the mystical works and understand it all is the mystical equivalent of asserting Sola Scriptura. I have read in more than a few places where the saints in their writings direct their readers to consult with their spiritual directors. I have also read where it is stated that a bad spiritual director can greatly harm and hinder a person’s progress in the spiritual life.
*
From reading comments on Catholic websites the greatest problem that people have is finding a good spiritual director. From what I’ve seen and read good spiritual directors are few and far between. In today’s Church people who want to get serious about their spiritual life are pretty much spiritual orphans. There has been much written on this website about defective members of the Church hierarchy and their deficient presentations of the faith. This also can be found in books about the spiritual life. I’ve come across spiritual writing that I had to put down because it was so unsound. There is a lot of rubbish out in circulation, much of it that would be right at home with the presentations that are rightly denounced on this website. People can end up getting attached to these unsound spiritual gurus, and become resistant to well founded attempts at correction.
*
In the sad, sorry shape that much of the Church and its hierarchy is in the Church is in no condition to respond faithfully to a New Pentecost. Too much fruit is already rotting on the vine.