Re: Priesthoods and Cosmologies
Beirdd

Fri Sep 25 18:42:48 1998
There has always been the natural desire to "Say the Mass" correctly and perfectly, word for word as given in the liturgical texts and their rubrics. For the most part, this was to ensure the clarity of reception on the part of the faithful attending the Mass. In point of fact, local "style" did determine significantly how "woodenly" the Mass was said. The most "conservative" style, up through today, has been that influenced by the Irish, here in America in particular. Indeed, Rome itself has always been more relaxed in liturgical style (in the city itself). The extremely relaxed style of American liturgy came only after the Second Vatican Council; prior to that, the Irish-inspired Catholic Church in America was always one of the most stylistically rigid in terms of liturgy.*p*In general, perfection has almost always been sought in Catholic liturgy, while human imperfection has just as frequently been excused. There are exceptions:*p*1. The Words of Institution, by which the host and wine are  consecrated and become the Body and Blood of Christ, are still slowly and carefully said in almost all cases. The reason for this is the ultimate sanctity of the moment, as well as the priest's own understanding that he is standing in Jesus' place and saying his words in a re-enactment of the original Eucharistic celebration that, in the Jewish manner, is re-called in such a way as to bring the original about "again, for the first time."*p*2. There have been cases, even in this century, of simple men becoming "simplex priests." This means that, because of an inability to say the Mass coherently, or without being so overcome as to spill and drop the consecrated elements, he may carry out all priestly functions except saying the Mass.  BTW: lot's of these cases end up with the particular priest eventually being recognized as a saint because of personal piety above and beyond the norm!*p*[One interesting note: most don't know about the "horror populi" canon in Catholic Church law. This states that a man who is very ugly or deformed (i.e. a "horror to the people") cannot become a candidate for priesthood, so as not to distract the faithful by his looks!]*p*Again, for the most part, and there have been localized exceptions at different times in history, the understanding of human imperfection combined with the idea that "the Church or God will provide" for the liturgical flaws of the priest, has tended to allow the avoidance of starting all over again if an error is made. I would bet, considering the orthodox conservatism and fervent awareness of personal sinfulness on the part of the early Celtic Christians, that their priests and monks would certainly have been candidates for this sort of rigidity, although that rigidity would also have been quickly corrected (or the attempt to do so made) by Church authorities, local and Roman.*p*--Beirdd*p*Searles wrote,*br*:  What do we know of *br*: specific instances of such practice among the early monks *br*: and priests of the Celts who had also embraced Christianity? *br*:  I wonder if they considered a working to be effective only *br*: if it was carefully crafted and faithfully repeated without *br*: mistake?  Echoes of this might exist within the prayers, *br*: creeds and catechisms of today's churches and religions.*p*
Priesthoods and Cosmologies
Searles
191
Fri Sep 25 15:04:58 1998