His Own Pope?
Below, Grant Gallicho links us to David Gibson’s op-ed in the today’s New York Times. Gibson—a former reporter at Vatican Radio, author of two books on Catholicism, and an occasional occupant of DotCommonweal’s comboxes—is generally a thoughtful commentator on church affairs.
But I have to say that I was somewhat disappointed in David’s op-ed. He marshals a lot of evidence to convince us that Benedict is a more conservative pope than his public image suggests. That’s probably true, but his treatment of the evidence is more superficial than I’m comfortable with.
Consider his comment that the Pope plans to allow “widespread use of the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass, in which the priest faces away from the congregation.” It’s unlikely that the motu proprio will lead to the “widespread use” of the pre-Vatican II rite. In the United States, at least, a large share of dioceses already have a parish or two that offers the older rite and there is unlikely to be a significant increase in demand for it. I’d also note that the issue of the appropriate direction of liturgical prayer is a complicated one and shouldn’t be reduced to slogans about the priest having his back to the people. Some explanation of the historical debates around celebration “versus populum” versus “ad orientem” would be helpful.
As to Benedict’s renewal of the stands against married clergy and re-married persons receiving communion, I would note that at the Synod on the Eucharist, Benedict seemed more willing than his predecessor to entertain serious discussion of these issues. The final positions taken in his Apostolic Exhortation appear to represent the position of a majority of bishops at the Synod, particularly on the issue of married clergy. Does David believe the pope should have overridden that majority by papal fiat? If you’re going to affirm collegiality, you have to be willing to live with the results.
I’m also mystified by David’s comment that Benedict has “reinforced the primacy of the pope — an issue his predecessor had opened for debate.” I’m assuming that David is referring to Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Ut Unum Sint, which called upon Christians of all denominations to help him think about how papal primacy should be exercised. That encyclical has sparked a good deal of helpful discussion, although concrete changes probably remain far in the future. But I fail to see how Benedict has done anything to undermine that work. Indeed, as far as I can tell Benedict seems more self-consciously collegial than his predecessor.
Finally, the coda to David’s op-ed seems to suggest that Benedict’s failure to implement the reforms he advocates is contributing to a “crisis of church” in the
If you’re reading David, feel free to rebut…:-)
It’s difficult to teach old dogs new tricks, and I think Ratzinger is a product of his time. We really should not expect too much in the way of progressive change in the church. I am not impressed with our pope. I certainly saw a disconnect between his “Deus caritas est” and his treatment of “dissident” theologians in his previous incarnation as head of the CDF. Recent Vatican pronouncements on homosexuality (and perhaps other stuff I can’t bring to the fore right now) do not give me room for optimism. Like Gibson, I don’t see so much a crisis of faith as I do a crisis of church.
Regarding the “ad orientam” issue, I had never heard of this phrase or meaning during all my years in parochial school, Catholic high school, and Catholic college — much less during most of the rest of my adulthood (I first saw this phrase less than two years ago and recently turned 59). When we Tridentine veterans picture this old, unvenerable rite, we automatically see the priest with back to congregation mumbo-jumbling unintelligible prayers softly to himself in his own little world. Indeed, the congregation could silently and gradually excuse itself from the church, and the “sayer” wouldn’t know until he was required to turn around and say “Dominus vobiscum.”
We have a pope and curial reactionary stalwarts trying their level best to preserve so-called tradition, one in which most Catholics understandably see no value and want no part of. Unfortunately, I myself see this preoccupation with the old among a percentage of younger Catholics who think it’s the greatest stuff since hot, sliced bread.
Like Gibson (I guess), I’ll take a pass.
Peter,
Excellent post. I had similar thoughts myself. I’m always struck by those who try to contrast the “open” John Paul with the “closed” Benedict. Upon closer inspection, this argument has little merit. John Paul’s most important encyclical was Veritatis Splendour, which made a very strong case against moral relativism. And Benedict’s sole encyclical is a meditation on God’s love.
There is certainly no theological differences between the two men. There are practical differences of course. Benedict is careful, methodical, while John Paul could be at times a little (dare I say it?) sloppy. Certainly, he was a terrible administrator (though a wonderful evangelizer). And then there are the rumors of John Paul wanting to declare certain things infallible (birth control, women priests) only to be cautioned by the more careful Ratzinger. Benedict is certainly more skeptical of the value of Assisi-like “common prayer” events, but is a reflection of his natural reticence that stands in contrast to John Paul’s sunny optimism. And remember, just as Benedict is more willing than John Paul to play down these inter-religious events, he is also more willing to address some dubious developments within Catholicism, such as the Maciel controversy (Ratzinger was ordered to stand down by John Paul, and only reopened the case when the latter was no longer running things) and the cult-like behavior of the Neocatechumantes.
As for the homosexual priests issue, Gibson should realize that when the Vatican refers to “homosexual”, it is typically referring to acts rather than orientation.
Peter (and others)–Thanks for the thoughtful critique.
As for the length of the piece–which seems to cause you discomfort–I see only two options: 1) complain to the Times editors or 2) read my book…But seriously, as neither option is viable, and as I explained in a response in the original thread below, I believe op-eds are windows into an argument, raher than the whole edifice, and this piece was longer than the average. Still, it is never long enough to cover the topic as everyone would like.
So as to your main points: On the restoration of the Latin Mass, on one level I’ve never been terribly exercised by it. Go ahead and have the Old Rite. How many will really go? How many priests can say it? How many people will understand it? I actually like a bit of Latin in my Mass. But that’s personal preference. And that’s not the issue.
My concerns are 1) that Benedict is (apparently) going ahead with this despite the opposition of bishops esp in France, where the impact is likely to be greatest and most divisive, and even opposition in Rome. 2) This is not (in my opinion) just another rite or vernacular; it represents a different ecclesiology, one which was altered by Vatican II. Sure we can argue (or more likely, agree) about all the bad post-conciliar liturgy. But this is about a different way of being the Church. Some would say what’s the big deal–let’s have pluralism. But I always thought Catholicism was about a unity at the heart–while done in different tongues and styles, the Novus Ordo is the same Mass everywhere. Now there will be two. And 3), deriving from that last point, there will now be a two-tiered, upstairs/downstairs liturgical divide. Ratzinger/Benedict has always seen the Old Rite as superior (with priest facing away) to the “fabricated” Novus Ordo rite. It is for him a truer form of the Mass. That in itself is deeply disturbing–to think that the Mass, in which he and we invest so much–is less of a Mass at my parish than it is in St. Peter’s.
It is all interesting and debatable. But Benedict’s assertion that ad orientam is preferable in part because it supposedly de-emphasizes the person of the celebrant seems to me the opposite–in the old Mass, esp if it is celebrated now, in all its wonderful strangeness, the form exalts the priest.
As for the reaffirmations of celibacy, bans on remarried Catholic at communion etc…I think you are being naive, Peter. A synod of hand-picked bishops all singing to the sheet music of a Pope who has made his views clear is not really collegiality. There were in fact a few courageuos voice among the bishops (courageous in that they would speak publicly about their differing views) but they were strongly discouraged from such actions. The synod reached conclusions that Benedict wanted. Bishops and cardinals have protested changes to the liturgy (the ICEL issue) and the coming motu proprio. But Benedict will do as he thinks best.
Regarding papal primacy, I will plagiarize myself (a mortal sin?) from the previous thread to say that JPII did call for a debate on it in Ut Unum Sint, and retired Archbishop John Quinn (of SF) especially took the opening. Interestingly, JPII made it as an ecumenical gesture, but Catholics were the ones who leapt at the opprtunity offered.
I don’t know that anything would really come of it, but JPII was that way.
As for Benedict, one of his first acts was to drop the title of “Patriarch of the West.” This was interpreted–and later confirmed by Vatican officials–as a sign that he did not see the bishop of Rome as a Patriarch because that would put in in potential “pares” with other patriarchs. The Pope is sui generis. And while I believe Benedict’s greatest ecumenical opportunity is with the Orthodox–his spirituality is almost more Eastern than Western–ironically it is himself, as Pope, who poses the greatest challenge because of his office. That is a structural obstacle. But Benedict has stressed, esp in his weekly catecheses, that the Bishop of Rome always, since the earliest days of the church, exercised primacy over the entire church, and that cannot change. He says it nicely, as always. But it doesn’t make the orthodox too happy. Still, it seems they are more interested in an ecumenism of the trenches, seeing Rome as an ally in a dangerous world.
As for the “crisis of church,” well, that is another long topic, and maybe another thread. I’ve tried your patience too long here already. But the reality is that Catholics in the United States and Latin America (above all) aren’t necessarily leaving a life of faith; they are leaving a church that has nothing for them, not even priests to say Mass. Esp for Catholics who were born into the church, it is difficult to relaize how un-evangelical Catholicism is. And for Catholics in Latin America, well, there are millions of Catholics and no priests to serve them. So they go elsewhere.
As for the Minion’s point on homosexuals, the Vatican actually refers to “tendencies,” its preferred term for what we would call orientation. It says homosexual acts are always sinful, of course. And homoesxuality is disordered, in its clinical parlance. But to say that homosexuals can’t be ordained was not only illogical on so many levels, but also condemns a group of human beings because of who they are.
Actually, the “heterosexualizing” of theology under Benedict is a whole other topic. His fixation on the priest (and Christ’s) sexual complementarity to the Church, which he sees as always and everywhere female, strikes me as odd. The Church is also Mother and lots of other images. Ouch.
Basta. I am putting the baby to bed and will check in later. Many thanks for the posts. David
Peter,
After David’s long defense, I’m almost afraid to say anything. But, anyway, I’m with you in detecting a definite slant to the piece. Maybe the limitations of space make that inevitable, but I get tired of the common trope when it comes to many things Church these days: “things seem OK, but don’t get too comfy, the other shoe is going to drop any minute now!”
Makes me even more anxious to see what Cathy’s discovered in this week’s episode of The Sopranos!!
“But I always thought Catholicism was about a unity at the heart–while done in different tongues and styles, the Novus Ordo is the same Mass everywhere. Now there will be two.”
Now there will be two? Am I missing something? Has someone proposed getting rid of the Armenian rite, the Maronite rite, the the Byzantine rite, etc., not to mention Anglican use parishes? How ever are we going to get down to just two?
A question and a couple of comments –
I have read that Romana Guardini, one of Benedict’s heroes, used to say mass before the Berlin University students before the second world war facing the assembly. Anyone know if this is true?
And not to berate Mr. Jaglowicz, especially since John L Allen and a lot of other people make the same mistake on a regular basis, “ad orientam” is not Latin, it’s the kind of superstitious pseudo-Latin that some people seem to think is cool. The actual Latin “ad orientem” is an interesting instance of untranslatabitity, since it means both “toward the East” and “toward the risen one.”
As for the “ad Orientem” notion (not “Orientam”) many churches do not have the proper orientation, including, I think, St. Peter’s in Vatican City. Our parish church faces north and our former parish church faces south. Mounting all these churches on swivels to move them around would be very expensive. I hope no one will say that where the presider faces, there is the East. As for the idea that God is in the East, I thought he was everywhere. There is also that saying to the effect that where two or three are gathered, Jesus is there. I don’t think there is anything about His standing to East of those who are gathered. It all seems to me more mystification than symbolism.
Not to be pedantic, but I beg to differ. “ad Orientem” means “toward the rising (sun)” and so “toward the East”. The verb is not use of the Risen Lord.
Apart from the “ad Orientem” question, there is that of the relation between priest and people. I remember the first time i said Mass facing the people. I looked out and thought, “Oh my God, they’re all looking at me!” And then I had to decide where did I put my eyes as I said the common prayer. On the one hand, it was not addressed to the people, so it would be odd to be looking at them. On the other hand, if my raised my eyes heavenward, I’d look like one of those holy cards of Blessed Dominic Savio!
There is something to be said, is there not, for the priest to be facing in the same direction as the people. He is leading them in prayer (all the common prayers are in the first person plural), which are addressed to God. One could think of it as like petitioners below a lord’s castle: all looking up to the lord, and one of them speaking in their name, all of them looking in the same direction. It seems more democfatic somehow.
Just to say that the other side is not without its logic….
Journalists too often seem to work from a narrative: That Cardinal Ratzinger was “God’s rottweiler,” and that he is somehow transformed as Pope Benedict. David Gibson doesn’t do that. Instead of working from a generally accepted narrative, he is looking closely at Benedict’s actions. I think he is ahead of the curve.
Just a note to Mark Mossa–I must admit to bristling at the word “slant” to describe my piece. “Slant,” I think, in common usage connotes a purposeful twisting of facts, something more sinister than a point of view. That I have a point of view to convey is clear–just as we all do. And just as Benedict does. Would you say that Benedict slants his theology/writings/speeches?
I always like to view any issue or phrase from the other side–it is good journalism, I think, and what Christianity would have us do.
That is also why I wrote the piece–because I think the “common trope,” has been to stress an understandable empathy for the new Pope, and a charitable wish that he would do well. Yet to that end, I think the predominant coverage of the Pope has been rather superficial, talking about how kind the Pope is, and how things are not as bad as we thought, and how he seems like such a nice fellow. But I also think it is important, for both charity and justice (but not the American way) to think of the rest of the church, of the people whose lives and lives of faith are affected by Rome and the Pope’s decisions. He can be a very sweet man–I know from personal experience. But he can cause grievous difficulty for many, many others.
In that sense, the shoe has been dropping for a long time now on people not fortunate enough to enjoy the power and privilege of Joseph Ratzinger. I guess I see my slant as explaining not just Benedict’s point of view, but that of everyone else as well.
To Stuart Buck, I mistakenly assumed everyone knew I was referring to Western-rite Roman Catholicism.
Ratzinger sometimes imposed on Karol’s papacy while he has no like figure distracting from his. Now that he has the forum Ratzinger can seem above the fray while acting the same.
I give Ratzinger big points for his action on Maciel. But was he motivated by the Legionnaires trumpeting their direct access to Karol?
Most people agree that autobiographies are narcissisistic. Is the papacy the same? Papal Blessing, Papal Audiences, Papal this Papal that. Will the local churches be puppets forever? Certainly we encourage the adoration.
I say it is time to make a statement especially before, during and after this huge bicentenial fund raiser. I love Peter’s statement that the solutions should not come from Rome.
Can you delineate, Peter? Or is it just one issue you are talking about?
David, thanks very much for the piece. I thought you weren’t painting Benedict as a hero or a villian, but were cautioning against too simplistic a reading on someone of his intellegence and power. You were combatting the extreme enthrallment with his niceness, after the extreme demonization of his ruthlessness. This seems to me to be appropriate 2 years into a papacy/
My question for you is what you menat by the ending, where you said the question is not whether to beleive, but whether be Catholic. If you addressed this earlier, I apologize. Bob Imbelli is right that I shouldn’t post before two cups of coffee!
“I mistakenly assumed everyone knew I was referring to Western-rite Roman Catholicism. ”
Fair enough, although once one acknowledges that there are Eastern rites, Anglican use parishes, etc. — including right here in America — the “keep to one rite” argument is quite a bit less convincing.
A lot going on here – but as to one point, whether the Old Rite de-emphasized the individual celebrant – I know exactly what the Holy Father is talking about. David says the Tridentine Mass “exalts” the priest, and in a way it does, but it does so in a way that is beneficial to worship. To the extent it exalts the priest it exalts him as a priest, as the celebrant, not as a personality. He is a leader, not the center of attention.
The Novus Ordo Mass is much more prone to emphasiszing individual personality. You can’t start a Tridentine Mass with – “Hi, I’m Father Bill! What a beautiful day it is today!” It gets even worse when the priest changes the Eucharistic Prayer – even sometimes the Creed (like skipping “the Father”) – to suit an ideological agenda. It ceases being about worship, and it starts being about him.
The Novus Ordo doesn’t have to be like this, but I think it is more prone to it. I don’t see the preservation, or even the expansion of the Old Rite as a threat to the new one, but making it more accessible may help us keep our bearings about proper worship, and bring back some of the rich tradition of the Church.
The elimination of the Tridentine Mass did more than change the Mass, it changed Catholic liturgical culture. My experience, I think, is typical of many American Catholics. I was born into a pre-V II world, but grew up in its wake. Got all my sacarments – guitar masses, colorful felt flags and banners, CCD on Saturday afternoons or Wednesday evenings, grace at meals the occasional Our Father and rarer Hail Mary, and children’s skits at the homily – went to Mass every week – a typical suburban Catholic childhood.
What did I miss? Until I was an adult, I never once did, or saw, or had, or participated in any of the following -
The Rosary
A processsion of any kind
Eucharistic Adoration
A feast day celebration of any kind
A novena
Lighting a votive candle
There are probably a lot more. The point is, we didn’t just throw out a Rite, we jettisoned an entire way of life.
On the Sobrino point, the article says this, among other things:
“Then, last month, the Vatican censured a renowned Jesuit proponent of liberation theology, the Rev. Jon Sobrino. A Spanish priest who has spent his life working with the poor in El Salvador, Father Sobrino narrowly escaped death in 1989 when six of his confreres were murdered by Salvadoran death squads. Such experiences helped hone the priest’s theology, which focuses on the poor as the primary recipients of Christ’s message.
“Despite that personal story, [HOLD ON -- "DESPITE" THE PERSONAL STORY? WHAT IS THIS SUPPOSED TO MEAN? IT SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT IF SOMEONE HAS A DIFFICULT PERSONAL STORY, THE VATICAN HAS A DIMINISHED RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH HIS THEOLOGY] Benedict went ahead with the rebuke of Father Sobrino, whom the Vatican, with minimal explanation [WOULD THE WORD "MINIMAL" CONVEY TO THE AVERAGE READER THAT THE VATICAN ISSUED 15 PAGES OF ANALYSIS? IF NOT, THIS WORD IS MISLEADING.], accused of not sufficiently emphasizing the divinity of Jesus. It was a questionable judgment theologically [SAYS WHO?], and smacked of piling on. Cardinal Ratzinger had fought a long and by all accounts successful campaign against liberation theology, and while Sobrino remains popular, Benedict, as pope, could well have sat back and enjoyed the pax Romana that he helped to secure. Although Rome did not directly silence the priest, it declared his teachings “not in keeping with the Catholic faith,” which invited bishops to act against him, as some have done. [HOW?]
This is me: Has anyone written a clear explanation of what is supposedly wrong with the notification to Sobrino? So far as I can tell, the discussion of that issue here on Commonweal has generally veered off onto tangents, such as analyzing Balthasar, complaining that such notifications occur at all, or picking a fight with the folks at Catholic World News over the initial reporting of the story. But if there’s been any substantive refutation of the Vatican’s notification, I have yet to see it.
Just on the “ad orientem”: Ratzinger makes a stroing defense of this practice in his “Spirit of the Liturgy”. He notes that it was the ancient custom of the Church, and followed directly from the Jewish tradition of turning toward the temple in Jerusalem, to the arc of the covenant. We instead turn toward the East, to face the risen Christ. Thus it is not about the priest with his back to the people, it is instead about a common direction of prayer. Of course, this only refers to the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
I believe Ratzinger also commented on St. Peters. If my memory is not faulty (and it may well be!), the position of St. Peter’s means that “ad orientem” implies facing the people. Hence people saw this example, and “faces the people” became the norm.
Personally, though, I remain unconvinced. I think the idea of facing the risen Christ is a beautiful one, but I fear that people will not be able to distinguish this from a form a clerical privilege. Still, there’s nothing inherently wrong with celebrating the Mass ad orientem.
Mornings Minion (http://www.reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/)
Fr. Komonchak , in trying to make a plausible case for the “ad orientem” position, imagines the priest as leader of the prayers of a people gathered under the castle wall to address their lord . Now think about that image. I don’t know how democratic is really is. Notice the distance from the unseen lord, the blank stone wall reaching up, the leader (chief vassal?) as an intermediary between the unseen, far away source of power and the humble rabble behind him, most of whom don’t even understand the language he is speaking. Such a way of thinking about things certainly is part of church history. But then, so were rood screens.
Much as I love ritual, incense, Gregorian chant, I prefer the Vatican II reforms that help us to think of the Lord’s Supper as a prayerful gathering of friends worshiping a Lord who is very close– in their midst, in fact.
Of course, those Oregon Press hymns could go….
One comment: As to the motu proprio being “unlikely” to lead to a “significant increase” in demand for the Latin Mass, I wouldn’t be so sure about that….
There are many people in the pews who pine for the Latin Mass–more specifically, the Tridentine Rite–but who do not live anywhere near a parish that offers it currently. A word from the Pope stating that the Mass should be universally offered is of course bound to move more than a few people to begin saying to their pastors, “Where’s our Latin Mass?”
And pity the already overworked priests, many of them covering more than one parish, who are now going to be responsible for a new Mass, configured differently, in a language many may not know, to a group of people who will probably feel “a people set apart” from the rest of hoi polloi.
As a priest born in the 1960s, and one who, not surprisingly, did not study Latin, should I be looking forward to celebrate Mass in a language I don’t understand? There are parts of the old rite that I find beautiful, but are priests exempt from “full, active and conscious” participation in the Mass, as the Second Vatican Council intended? I’ve yet to meet someone who can tell me how I can do any of those three in a foreign language. The interview in this month’s US Catholic with the liturgical scholar Keith Peckler, SJ, is also to the point. In it, he notes that restoring the Tridentine Mass, at least promulgating the universal indult, is a powerful symbol, and more than just restoring a bit of mystery to the Mass. It is, he contends, the ultimate negation of Vatican II.
If one sees the priest as the presider, and the indispensable presider, who leads a community of participants–community imples participation–then it seem to me quite in keeping with the communal character of the action to have the priest face the people as participants. The prayer says “meum ac vestrum sacrificium” does it not? Incidentally the rendering “my sacrifice and yours” which one hears these days is bad English. It is like saying “I and you” rather than “you and I”. Bad form! It is good Latin to say “ego et vos”, but the order is reversed in English.
Facing Jerusalem may have had a special significance for Judaism when the Temple was there and the Holy of Holies was in the Temple. There is nothing in Christianity that corresponds to the uniqueness of the Temple.
Some thoughts about David Gibson’s op ed.
I think Gibson fails to appreciate the traditional liturgical diversity in the Western Church. St. Pius V permitted liturgies older than 300 years to continue in the West and those liturgies did continue until Paul VI, in an exercise of sweeping papal authority that must have alarmed the Eastern Orthodox and surprising never seems to alarm progressives, replaced them all with the 1969 Roman Missal. The bishops of England & Wales appealed and did get the Agatha Christie indult there but for most Catholics their traditional liturgy disappeared.
Benedict XVI has already pointed out in “Salt of the Earth” (2000) that the pope is no absolute monarch but is at the service of tradition. He went on to highlight the limits of papal authority over the liturgy. The traditional discipline of the Roman rite and her liturgy is part of that tradition he must serve. Benedict’s actions in all the areas Gibson mentions actually must bring comfort to oriental Christians because Benedict accentuates his servant relationship to tradition.
Concerns about a “crisis in the Church” seem to always follow the popular complaint about clerical shortages and old-fashioned ecclesiastical discipline without addressing the pastoral failure of post conciliar pastoral practice to communicate the faith to two generations of Catholics and the way that pastoral failure itself contributed to fewer vocations. The old ICEL Mass translation was part of this pastoral disaster and the bishops admitted as much when they approved the new translation.
Gibson also failed to address the rigidity of post conciliar liturgists, bishops, and pastors in forbidding so many aspects of popular Catholic piety again for two generations. A sort of cultural revolution without conciliar mandate but amazingly uniform and rigid took place.
Re. Latin America: Perhaps a look at Campos in Brazil where the traditional liturgy is fostered by its bishop can be compared to a progressive Brazilian diocese of similar size to evaluate pastoral practices and success.
It seems to me that Gibson’s conjecture that there is a new ecclesiology in the Church that runs contrary to the 1962 RM is superficial because it fails to consider that the Byzantine rite and many other Catholic usages have not been seriously modified following the council, that the Eastern Catholics too have received Vatican II, and that V2 itself affirmed Florence, Trent, and Vatican I.
It is worth remembering that the council fathers were using the Pius V Mass throughout the council, and Gibson may fail to appreciate the way that the Paul VI Mass communicates the same ecclesiology that we have in the Pius V Mass. The more accurate ICEL translation will probably highlight the already existing continuity between the two rites currently veiled by the older English version.
I can understand how any Catholic’s individual understanding of Catholic ecclesiology can be misshaped by a repeated misapplication of the Pauline liturgy together with poorly chosen hymns and liturgical minimalism in a parish church over a period of years but if one is fortunate enough to be part of a parish where the liturgical ceremonies are celebrated carefully with respect for tradition and the existing rubrics there will be no change in a person’s ecclesiology.
Maid of Kent
I totally agree with Sean’s points regarding “ad orientem” vs. facing the people. Not a few times, when I have seen goofy/affected speech or gestures from the priest, I have wondered what would happen were he rotated 180 degrees. (Maybe nothing, who knows?)
Having come along well after Vatican II, my only Tridentine experience is the occasional indult-mass in the last decade or so. Okay, a couple lefebvrite masses, too (interestingly, the only open criticism I’ve heard about the war happened in one!).
But I can’t say what the norm was in the old days, and will guess that sloppiness is rare among old liturgy movement enthusiasts. But, too, sloppiness is a rarity among novus ordo diocesan priests. It could very well be that I just haven’t been to many tridentine masses.
I really love the old liturgy. What creeps me out is what often comes along with it: impatience with children (incl. the “dope slap”), preoccupation with dress codes (esp. ladies in trousers), culture warrior stuff (diogenes in the bulletin), homilies on why the new mass is inferior, etc. Not to mention the goofy literature distributed and sold on the premises.
I’ve been to just one tridentine mass that was devoid of the nutty stuff, and was attended by “just folks” and it was glorious. I wish it could have been stretched out a few more hours. A shame that all too often the nutty gets thrown in, too.
Some bishops have been stingy with the indults of 1984 and 1988. It seems like, in many places, the only way to get an indult mass is for the SSPX to come to town first. If this “universal indult” we keep hearing about cures this problem, then good. Aside from that, I think, both the hopes and fears surrounding this alleged development are overblown.
I find James Martin, SJ unconvincing when he repeats Keith Peckler SJ’s assertion that the St. Pius V Mass “is the ultimate negation of Vatican II.”
Nothing could be further from the truth IMO. When I read comments like that I wonder how much the objection may be really based in a reaction to a seemingly papal disregard for one’s pet projects.
Perhaps the distributors of the St. Gregory hymnal felt the same way in the early 1970s.
Again, the Eastern Church also received Vatican II and has implemented the conciliar teachings. They have not significantly changed their liturgies and certainly the Society of Jesus knows this.
We already have several religious congregations and many monasteries in the Western Church that use only the St. Pius V liturgy and they too have received Vatican II. The Jesuits must know this.
Perhaps some don’t like the way both the above groups read Vatican II but that is an entirely different matter than “negating” Vatican II.
Additionally, as has been mentioned, there are diocesan parishes all over the world using the liturgy of St. Pius V and they too have received Vatican II.
In terms of a priest being asked to celebrate the traditional liturgy we are really examining how pastoral a given priest wishes to be to the people he is being called to minister to. Certainly it will take effort on his part and a willingness to change existing habits but that is something lay people are asked to do in their duties on a regular basis. It is ironic to read this concern after all these years in which priests have been told when visiting a parish (or convent) “this is how we do it here Father” and the priest would adjust.
This rolling back from Vatican II canard seems to be without serious foundation to me.
Maid of Kent
I think the popularity of the tridentine rite reflects not a nostalgia for the past, but a yearning for good liturgy. In other words, if the Novus Ordo was celebrated with greater reverance and solemnity than is typically the case today, the demands for the Old Mass would dwindle.
On Latin in the liturgy –
I remember becoming an altar boy in the fifth grade and learning the Latin responses. I believe we had to learn everything by heart. The “suscipiat” was the major challenge – there were contests (on the side, not sponsored by the nuns or priests doing the training) to see who could recite it most rapidly with the winner being duly admired.
There were many comic episodes involved in the training, of course, but at the same time we were also taught the meaning of the strange words and we always had the English translation on a facing page. I know many differ on this point but for me it added a note of solemnity that is not easily found elsewhere. If fifth graders could make some limited but useful sense of Latin I believe it’s worth a try on the part of younger priests (actually it’s probably not the younger but the middle-aged priests who will most resist).
James Martin, SJ, and any other priest who does not know the Traditional Latin Mass well enough to fully, actively and consciously participate in celebrating that Mass can now learn it at no cost (other than his time), if he is interested.
Una Voce America and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter are holding three separate one-week priest training sessions this June.
For more information, visit:
http://www.unavoce.org/news/2007/priest_training.html
I follow these discussions with a lot of interest, but it does seem that as Catholics we are unduly focused on the form of mass. Just for instance, whatever “ad orientam” means, one would face East to face the Risen Lord only in selected parts of Europe and the Americas . . .
But the larger issue, I believe, is one sentence in Mr. Gibson’s response:
“And for Catholics in Latin America, well, there are millions of Catholics and no priests to serve them.”
These are not people who are failing to connect to the Church because their pastors failed to instruct them for two generations or the liturgy is insufficiently solemn (In my experience, Latinos and Brazilians don’t exactly yearn for “solemnity” in any kind of celebration save, perhaps, Good Friday processions.) Indeed, one interpretation is that their pastors tried to serve them too well (like Sobrino) and were told, more or less, that their efforts failed sufficiently to adhere to the Church’s European focus — to wit, acting as if the most important thing for the health of the Church was the defeat of European Communism and the Cold War. In short, their particular suffering in the world was viewed through the lens of defeating “Godless Communists” and considered a subsidiary problem. Does the Pope have any idea about the daily challenges of people living in developing nations? When has it ever risen to the surface of his priorities? These, it seems to me, are much more important issues for the future of Catholicism.
This “ad orientem” stuff is pure crap in light of the teaching of Vatican II calling for full, conscious, and active participation in the Mass. In this respect, the Tridentine fails the test. It just doesn’t “cut the mustard,” so to speak.
Anyone with a training/facilitation/event planning background knows the following:
1. To promote passivity, have everyone face the presenter. Set chairs up theatre-style.
2. To promote maximum participation, set chairs up “in the round” so that everyone sees everyone else. (This arrangement does not preclude leaving a wee bit of open space for the presenter and flipchart.)
3. An arc can also be used to promote participation and give more prominence to the presenter.
If one thinks about it, the Tridentine outdoes number 1 in that the priest, like the attendees, faces the same direction they do. He prays in a dead foreign language and sotto voce, to boot. Please note I used the word ‘attendees’ because they physically occupy space but do not participate (there is nothing “participatory” about occupying space and twiddling one’s thumbs, praying the rosary during Mass, dozing off, ad nauseum — all things I remember from my days “attending” and serving the Tridentine).
The Tridentine definitely negates Vatican II’s liturgical spirit.
Many points made in this excellent thread, and I would have to agree very much with Barbara’s last post. That gets at the question Cathy Kaveny asked regarding the challenge not being so much “why believe?” as “why be Catholic?”
My point in saying that is to reiterate that most people in this supposedly secularizing world, esp in North America, have a belief, a faith, or a desire for belief. But the Catholic Church is not open or available to them. This is not simply about accomodating to the latest trends–I can’t stand that. But it is about having priests to say mass with a fluency of language (whatever language it may be) so that the people can understand; having good homilies, perhaps the greatest problem for those visiting Mass; it is about having the church be a place where dialogue can take place and answers can be forthcoming with some certainty that they will reflect reason as well as faith (“Gay men don’t like women, so they can’t be the bridegroom of the Church” doesn’t cut it); where those who air questions everone is asking aren’t shoved from the editorship of a magazine; where young Catholics who often have such a great experience of the church in college don’t find themselves adrift in a parochial wasteland upon graduation…Well, on and on. These are among the many difficult but solvable problems that all the sermons in the world, however beautiful, don’t address. Indeed, simply focusing on the supposed loss of faith among us lay folk is too often a way to avoid the introspection the church needs, I think. Not everyone looks a the church with the scrutiny (and love) that I (we?) do. But I do think that when there is so often such a great gap between what the leadership preaches and what the church does, then you get a loss of credibility and appeal–not mention scandals. There is a real problem of leadership. Again, I am Catholic through and through, and I believe that America needs a strong Catholic presence to counteract the superficial “Sheilaism” and the Joel Osteens of our religious culture, as well as an antidote to the rest of our societal woes. In Latin America, caholics are leaving the Catholic Church in droves, but mainly for other churches.
Anyway, this is too much on a broad topic.
Re Stuart Buck’s parsing of my Sobrino passage. I simply think that the Vatican should treat people with the knd of caritas that Benedict preaches. I don’t believe that Sobrino, who is ill and semi-retired, deserves this (or that it was necessary to “protect the simply faithful”) treatment. Jon Sobrino knows more about faith on the ground than anyone who pronounced against him. That should count for something. And we do not know who his judges were. Nor was his full response to the CDF made public, nor his briefer response (though it was leaked). Also, the archbishop of San Salvador–successor plus one to the see of Oscar Romero, an Opus Dei prelate and political conservative who was chaplain to the armed forces who slaughtered so many Salvadorans, and priests, and religious–said that Sobrino was “not a Catholic” and he would take action against him, as have many other right-wing Latin American prelates. Like the ban on gay seminarians, what even the most peaceable-seeming nitifications do (nothing personal, it’s just business) is to provide a green light for nastier folk to attack. As for the substance of the critique, I think the many many many theologians who know far more than I do who have critiqued the Vatican notification have confirmed my doubts about the authortitaiveness (a word?) of the censure. But again, that is in the end my opinion.
One last point (phew): I won’t enter the choppy liturgical waters, except to note that much of the desire for the Old Latin Mass seems to originate with a personal desire for a style of liturgy that appeals to that particular person. This is very true of Benedict. The best summation I ever read about him was a curialist who protested that “He is not conservative–he’s old-fashioned!” The problem comes, I think, when we conflate our personal preference with Truth and The One True Tradition.
But above all, I think it is vital to think more “catholically,” and to realize how terribly Western are all of these discussions. Sure, we may like the Latin Mass (or not). But it is often an alien import and as unappealing to Catholics in Latin America, Africa and Asia as it would be to us were Swahili to be made the standard liturgical language with bare-breasted women as lectors before a procession of the gifts lasting a half hour (yes, it happens, and at papal masses). If the old rite Mass is the real source and summit of the Catholic faith, how is it that the church in the Southern Hemisphere (now two-thirds of the world RC population and growing) has been doing so well without it? Indeed, using what we would deride as terrible post-conciliar liturgies?
If we are all about Latin liturgy and Gregorian chant, I fear the Roman Catholic Church could eseentially come to resemble an Eastern Orthodox, national language patriarchate, with the Vatican as isolated as the Phanar is today.
Cheers, gang! The Sopranos is much more interesting! David.
Craig,
When you say “I love the old liturgy” is it because you agree with Mornings Minion that “the popularity of the tridentine rite reflects not a nostalgia for the past, but a yearning for good liturgy.” or is it that you positively like something about it. Can you explain? All that I have heard said is that it is more traditional (as if that makes it better?) and it is good liturgy (but that works only for people who understand Latin). So I have really wanted to know whether there is something more that makes people like it.
Having said that I want to comment on Sean’s remark “What did I miss? Until I was an adult, I never once did, or saw, or had, or participated in any of the following -
The Rosary
A processsion of any kind
Eucharistic Adoration
A feast day celebration of any kind
A novena
Lighting a votive candle”
I live in India, and even after Vatican II, there has been no let up in any of these practices. I have participated / done all these often enough in these past 40 odd years after V II. So may be it is a peculiarly American (Eurpopean/ Western ?) problem!
Sunil
I think it is. I began to “rediscover” my faith when I lived in Italy. Strangely enough, they had about the same level of Mass attendance as many places in the US, but they did retain many of the old practices.
We are seeing a resurgence of things like feast day processions, eucharistic adoration, Marian devotions etc. in the States. My experience is that these have been reintroduced, by and large, by the (much maligned here) JPII generation of priests.
David,
I don’t think there is any sort of serious move to return to a full pre VII liturgy, just a desire to get back that baby we threw out with the proverbial bath water.
We could become like the Eastern Orthodox – or we could become like the Episcopal and other mainline Protestant churches – bickering, dividing, political, and increasingly devoid of any substance at all.
“But above all, I think it is vital to think more “catholically,” and to realize how terribly Western are all of these discussions. Sure, we may like the Latin Mass (or not). But it is often an alien import and as unappealing to Catholics in Latin America, Africa and Asia as it would be to us were Swahili to be made the standard liturgical language with bare-breasted women as lectors before a procession of the gifts lasting a half hour (yes, it happens, and at papal masses).”
If the English Novus Ordo were export to those place, it would presumably be just as alien. No one wants to put a lockdown on the Novus Ordo for this reason. Whether or not Catholics from the global south would opt to pray at the Traditional Latin Mass doesn’t prove or disprove whether it should be an option to Catholics generally.
“If we are all about Latin liturgy and Gregorian chant, I fear the Roman Catholic Church could eseentially come to resemble an Eastern Orthodox, national language patriarchate, with the Vatican as isolated as the Phanar is today.”
In no event will Benedict XVI make the Traditional Latin Mass the only option available to the faithful of the Roman Rite.
Thus, we will only end up being “all about Latin liturgy and Gregorian chant” if the vast majority of the western world opts into the Traditional Latin Mass.
Do you think that will happen?
(If you don’t think that will happen, isn’t your comparison to Phanar really quite ridiculous?)
Ms. Gannon:
Of course, you can paint the picture of the people below the balcony of the lord in the way you do, but it need not be. The democracy was between spokesman and people, all directed in identical posture toward the lord. I don’t think we have a democratic relationship with God himself. And my little comment said nothing about language. I was only talking about posture.
What would you advise with regard to where the priest should look as he addresses the common prayer to God?
I simply wanted to make the point that there is a certain logic to the argument. I’m not particularly in favor of it. But it really doesn’t help anything to pretend that the people with whom one may disagree have no arguments in their favor, much less that what they maintain is, as another participant so elegantly put it, “crap.”
At the risk of violating my own self-imposed rule that the law of diminishing returns kicks in whenever a thread reaches 30 posts, I add the following to this interesting thread:
1. Like Patrick Malloy, I learned the Latin responses as an altar server, and though I don’t have a strong objection to more widespread use of the Latin Mass, my fear is that it will become a litmus test for identifying “real” Catholics from their at least partially fallen brethren. I’ve seen this personally already on a small scale.
2. If it’s mystery that we’re hoping to recapture by making the Latin Mass more available, then maybe we should go all the way back to the night of the Last Supper, when Christ likely spoke to the Apostles in Aramaic. (Any websites out there for training in Aramaic?)
3. As to Sunil’s comments about the availability of many devotional services and practices in India, I have to second his comments based on my travels and extended residence in non-Western countries. I never attended any Latin Masses during those times, but I participated in Masses that were said in many different languages, and I can’t imagine that the incredible devotion and respect I experienced would have been possible without the Masses having been said in the vernacular. I’ll relate just one story. I lived for two years on a remote island in the South Pacific, about 150 miles from the main island, and we were visited by a priest, an Irish Columban missionary, about once every three weeks. (He flew a seaplane to make his rounds, an activity that you can no doubt imagine made him the coolest guy in the world to the children.) We tend to take the availability of Mass for granted. There are many churches available in the U.S. and multiple times for Mass. Where I was, Mass was an event. Hundreds of people walked up to 10 to 12 miles to reach the church. There were no pews in the church; people sat cross-legged on mats on the floor, and Mass lasted about 2 hours. Mass was followed by a picnic that lasted the rest of the day. People attended Mass in the best clothes they had, and their unself-conscious displays of faith were always powerful lessons to me. Many local activities were respectfully incorporated into the Mass, from the use of wooden drums to dancing to the absolutely most beautiful a cappella singing one could hope to hear. Time and time again, I marveled at how extremely important Mass was to the local people, and how eager they were to participate and add touches that made it their own. I could be wrong, but I have to think that any imposition of a language other than the vernacular would likely be viewed as a form of colonialism by the people I lived among. I don’t know about anyone else, but some of the indelible images I have of JPII were in his robust days as a world traveler when he would have a look of utter delight as local customs and liturgical practices were incorporated into the Masses he was saying.
Sunil,
I think I was first attracted to the tridentine mass because it seemed tamper-proof, a place where, for example, one need not be assaulted with “Lord of the Dance” used as a communion hymn (to be fair, that’s not typical). Also, at the time, I bought into the simplistic argument that all the church’s ills could be cured by simply (un)changing the liturgy.
Now, I feel like it connects me to the past and to the church triumphant, and that there is something to be said for a missal which developed more or less organically. Also, the old music and books still work, whereas, for example, even the new Graduale is unusable in the new mass. There’s also less talking.
Of course, like I said, I realize now the old rite isn’t even tamper-proof. E.g., Dialog masses can be overdone, esp. given that we know everyone’s faking their Latin. And homilies can still be terrible. And all the surrounding cultural and political baggage can get heavy(!).
But hey, that’s just my take. No doubt I’d likely feel differently if I were older and had lived through the Council. I honestly don’t understand either of the hard-line positions on this. But neither do I think a tridentine come-back will, or even should, happen.
I beleive it is alright to allow people to attend either rite. If one feels comfortable with a certain rite, why not. It is when we place absolutes on any rite that problems arise.
Having said that I am amazed by the tolerance of Ann Arbor who represents the una voce segment. As far as I know una voce was for one rite and one language-Latin- only.
Sean, I am in wonderment that you recovered your faith in Italy. Italy has been, for the longest time, the most irreligious of countries. Notwithstanding its political dealings with the papacy. Which indicates that you may be going more for superficiality than substance.
The devotions you mention have always been part of a small segment of the population.
Nevertheless, I have learned from Robert Orsi that when people revert to cults and superstition it is an indication that the clergy and other leaders are not supplying the hope and the comfort that we all need in our journey to God.
It may not be good news to Rome. But perhaps we need much more diversity for faith to flourish.
Finally, I am amazed at the lack of a liturgical sense. The Lord’s Supper is essential the celebration of God’s People joining together in a recommittment to celebrate the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, in which we renew our love for each other and God. We offer to God all that we are in thanksgiving for the abundant life in the Spirit which God has given us.
Families do this every day. When the leaders of the church can insist that all of us do
this, we will have something.
A few stray comments –
Interestingly enough, like Sean H I too rediscovered significant elements of my faith in my year in Italy, although I would be hard pressed to define exactly what it was.
And I vivdly recall the lecture I once received from the mother of one of my daughter’s oldest friends, a practicing Hindu educated in a Catholic school, about how the rosary was an ideal devotion and source of meditation and I (and other Catholics) ought to get back to it.
As to Sean H’s list of observances he had missed (and I value most of them, with the determined exception of the novena, but that may be just my inadequacies), I wonder how much their disappearance is “Vatican II” and how much it is suburban American Catholicism. Certainly in various ethnic circles they never left.
And while my experience is California Hispanic rather than “real” Latin America, I doubt David Gibson’s assertion that the Latin mass, etc., is a foreign import and unappealing to Catholics (and others in Latin America). I suspect that in a significant way Latin America is the last refuge of baroque Catholicism.
I’m willing to grant that “oriens” is never used of the risen Lord, but I’m curious about how we would know that. I may be importing the English poetic sun/son pun into Latin, but I certainly have the impression from the chapter in Ratzinger’s Spirit of the Liturgy (for me his most disappointing book) that he sees some sun/son/second person of the trinity analogies — and he does indeed make the point about Saint Peter’s referenced above.
Anyhow, my expectations of Benedict on election were
Park the corporate jet
Appoint better bishops
Cool the canonization frenzy
Invite Hans Kung to lunch
Reform the papal electrion process
So for me he’s batting .800; I suspect if I were in the Southern Hemisphere I would be less happy.
I reask my Guardini question — according my volume called The Essential Guardini (not necessarily the ideal source, but it’s available and in English) Guardini said Masses that sound a lot like the 1970′s in the versus populum position in the 1930′s. How unheard was that, and is Benedict XVI specifically reacting against Guardini, who is after all the source of the title of his book on the liturgy?
About Italy and rebirth of faith…
It’s been a while since I read it, but doesn’t Thomas Merton, in his autobiography “The Seven Storey Mountain,” relate that while he had been dabbling in learning more about Catholicism for some time, it was in Rome, while he was visiting various churches to take in their architectural and visual splendor, that he experienced a discernible feeling of peace and transformation that he interpreted as the discovery of his faith.
There must be something in the Italian air. ;)
Aside from my criticism of the Tridentine based on liturgical reasons, I do not like it because, as I’ve noted elsewhere, it was simply the culmination of a long process of (my word here) “monarchizing” the Catholic Mass. Bishop at the top. Clergy in the middle. Rest of us (dumb) laity down below.
Things got so bad at one point that the church developed extra-liturgical devotions so that we (dumb) laity could have some way of relating to the institutional life of our church. We didn’t know what was transpiring at Mass, but, by golly, we could follow the bishops and priests down the street in a religious procession. We could pray the rosary (no clergy needed here). Ad nauseum.
My criticism here reminds us of the crap that was able to fester (no doubt for centuries) in a church with a cultic priesthood/bishopric that was able to take undue advantage of its lofty organizational and social status in the larger society. So much for community in the spirit of the gospels! Pray, pay, obey, and — I might add — don’t even think of complaining.
As the reactionaries like to remind us, lex orandi, lex credendi. I can only add that how one prays and believes relates not only to one’s piety but also to one’s understanding of one’s place in the church.
Those who think a papal motu proprio in this instance won’t have any major impact on the wider church are, in my opinion, playing with fire. The Tridentine lends itself to promotion and maintenance of a cultic model that, no doubt, brought devastation to the lives of millions of people (read ‘laity’) because this kind of worship reinforced their belief that the priest was somehow superhuman: Father knows best, and he always has our best interests at heart.
Those who ignore the socio-religious lessons of history do so at someone’s peril — all in the name of preserving tradition.
I, for one, will take safety, the gospels, transparency and accountability any day (and twice on Sundays) over this superficially beautiful but underlying corrupt tradition.
Count me out.
Gene:
You say: “I’m willing to grant that “oriens” is never used of the risen Lord, but I’m curious about how we would know that.”
I was thinking above all of the Vulgate. In any case “ad orientem” would mean “to the rising (one)” not :”to the risen (one)”.
What started out as an interesting provocation to talk about BXVI moved off into a lengthy set of postings on personal liturgical predilections. I’m with Bill Mazella on this: that’s our worship and prayer to God, not just the rep speaking it and it’s impoirtant we understand and join in.
But I think David and Cathy had the question about how the Church under BXVI is communicating and strengthening faith and, as David suggests, it’s a mixed bag.
Fr. Komonchak:
The last line of your post made it clear that you were trying, generously, to make a case for a position you weren’t necessarily keen on. Looking at things that way is always a useful and worthwhile exercise, and it’s especially important in situations where all parties to a discussion clearly are well-meaning. What I meant to make clear, though I guess I didn’t, was that even though you were trying to be fair to that position by creating a plausible case for it, the image you suggested didn’t work for me, but seemed to undercut the position you were defending. Of course our relationship with God is not democratic. Like you, I was referring to the one between the people and the leader who was doing all the talking for them. I guess I saw more than posture as an issue since he was out front there as their spokesman and the lord he was addressing did not seem very accessible to those for whom he was speaking. I understand the logic of the case you were presenting, as it is very much the way I saw the situation—without a bit of objection– when I was growing up in pre-Vatican II days. I just don’t see it that way any more.
Being a shy person myself, I can well imagine the impact of suddenly having to turn around and decide where to look when you address the common prayer to God, especially since you might have become accustomed to a certain privacy that you were losing. Most celebrants find a certain register and manner that conveys that they are speaking to God in prayer and looking at the assembled group as a whole. It’s different from the tone and manner, and the kind of “eye contact” they might make when teaching or preaching. But I guess everyone has to work that one out for himself. No doubt some people never feel quite comfortable in that situation, and who could blame them?
I’m sorry if my first posting above came off as flippant or dismissive. I didn’t mean it that way.
Peace.
Quite frankly, I think a very strong argument can be made for ad orientum- the priest is not abstractly praying to God in an abstract location- as in the novus ordo. He is offering the prayer to our Eucharistic Lord present in the tabernacle.
I would say that us young people who have discovered the Classical Roman Rite do not bring with us our parents’ baggage.
As to the Latin Mass question- for many of who want this- there has not been the wide and generous distribution of the indult that JPII called for.
Don’t you think it a big over the top the way in which access to this Rite is restricted? How would you like it if you had to drive an hour and a half every week at strange times to attend the Novus Ordo?
As to the hierarchical nature of the Latin Mass- God up top makes sense and clearly the priest is leading the congregation on the pilgrimage towards God through the liturgy. That’s so American- everyone wants to be a leader and no one ever wants to be a follower.
Now as to the Sobrino issue- it is important to note that the Sobrino decree was not accompanied by the discipline that was concurrent in the past. I actually met Sobrino in the fall. Yes he’s in retirement, but he’s hardy enough to handle this- give the priest some credit. Benedict has a duty to teach the truth and charitably did so without unnecessarily disciplining Sobrino.
As a Fordham College student, I have never experienced a Latin rites Mass and I am hopeful that its use would not become widespread. I read Mr. Gibson’s Op-Ed in the Times today and I am grateful that many of my questions/concerns have been addressed directly by the author through posts on this blog. I’m impressed at the level of debate within this discussion. I am especially appreciative of Fr. Martin’s input, and I am hopeful that he visits Fordham again before I graduate this May.
Fr. Komonchak: As a person who has taken a moderate amount of training in public speaking, it was suggested to me that the best way to deal with the issue of “eye contact” is to address yourself to the back wall. That way, my coach insisted, it makes it seem to everyone in the room that you are looking directly at them but it avoids any actual, discomiting, eye contact. I try to remember this when I have to speak in front of a large group (not too frequently, but occasionally).
Mr. Bailey:
The priest is not addressing the common prayers to the eucharistic Lord present in the tabernacle. He is addressing them to that Lord’s Father, per Christum Dominum nostrum.
In all of the basilicas in Rome and in most of the ancient churches there, the tabernacle is not on or behind the main altar, but in a side chapel. (This includes St. Peter’s.)
Barbara: The problem is not the same as in public speaking, or indeed in preaching. (I don’t quite agree with your speech-coach’s advice. I’ve seen too many preachers, and teachers, talking off into space and not the audience in front of them.)
The difficulty is that the prayer is addressed to God, not to the congregation.
I can (and have) often agree with some of the criticism leveled at the Novus Ordo, particularly the tendency of some priests to take creative license with it.
However, these criticisms are so often followed up with statements like this one that it starts my teeth grinding….
“What did I miss? Until I was an adult, I never once did, or saw, or had, or participated in any of the following ”
The Rosary
A processsion of any kind
Eucharistic Adoration
A feast day celebration of any kind
A novena
Lighting a votive candle
I also dispute that those who have lacked experiencing these rituals are the victims of a pecularliarly Western phenomenon.
I have never lived outside of the US. I grew up in the mid-60′s and early 70′s. I can recall (faintly) being at a Tridentine Rite Mass with my mother and her parents.
I can recall (more clearly) my older siblings being coached in the new Mass. I have been to masses that included all kinds of novelties. I have even had the serious misfortune of being handed a “Good News for Modern Man” complete with stick figure drawings when I was in high school.
However, I have always had, seen, practiced, participated in, and been exposed to all of the following:
The Rosary
A procession of many kinds
Eucharistic Adoration
A feast day celebration of any kind
A novena
Lighting a votive candle
I don’t deny that too many people have not had the benefit of these things while they were growing up, but I resent the blanket statements that suggest with the Novus Ordo came a wholesale abandonment of all things reverent, ritualistic, and Catholic.
I agree with Donna: it’s too easy to extrapolate from one’s own post-Vatican II experience. Mine, for example, included instruction–some formal, some not–in all of the items in the list. This was in Chicago. In many cases, I suspect regional differences play a role that often goes unmentioned.
I hope everyone realizes that when speaking of an “ad orientem” celebration of the Mass we are not necessarily speaking only of a Pian Mass and that:
a. They are mainly speaking of the Eucharistic Prayer and those other prayers addressed to the Father not the readings,
b. The Pauline Missal and the St. Pius V Missal are both “Latin rite”
c. the current V2 missal actually presumes an “ad oreintem” posture in some of its rubrics,
I don’t think regional differences explain variations in the effective suppression of popular Catholicism in dioceses or parishes except to the extent that proponents of that suppression came to power in any given chancery. That is why a more traditional diocese can sit beside a liberal one while both are in the same ecclesiastical province.
Those who posit that post-conciliar pastoral practices empowered the laity must fail to realize the degree of clerical authority necessary to implement disciplinary and liturgical reform in the “60′s and “70′s and how dissatisfying the post-conciliar reforms have been for the laity and religious. This is revealed in the almost immediate downturn in regular religious practice by laity and religious, a downturn in conversions and the resulting weakening of religious knowledge and Christian identity.
The Maid
“I don’t think regional differences explain variations in the effective suppression of popular Catholicism in dioceses or parishes except to the extent that proponents of that suppression came to power in any given chancery. That is why a more traditional diocese can sit beside a liberal one while both are in the same ecclesiastical province.”
If I read that correctly, you’re saying that regional differences matter only insofar as people do. My point wasn’t that regional differences completely explain why some Catholics have little or no experience of the practices Sean H. listed, but only that they are often left out of the picture. Chicago is often described as a liberal or even progressive archdiocese, but many “popular devotions” are still practiced widely, and have been for decades. There are many reasons for this, one of which has to do with the ethnic makeup of the city, which must be taken into account at least as much as “those who came to power” in the chancery.
While finishing up some chores at the senior center this morning, we were kiddingand laughing about the old days in the Church and some of the non-essentials imposed upon us as ” the faith’. like ransoming captive babies.
In reading some of this thread over, I could nothelp but think of the early Christians sharing the Eucharistic meal and not worrying about where they faced or whether they looked up or at each other – just as we still do as we join hands and pray (I think with real fervor) the prayer Our Saviour taught us.
I was hoping we’d focus on BXVi. I noted last Sunday’s Times Magazine selected 4 letters to the Editor or Shorto”s piece on Benedict, the anti-Secularist.
The brunt of most was an (unfortunate oversimplificxation) that Western secular states model Christian values better than the Church. There was also a letter from ex-Governor Mcgreevey of New Jersey which, while tiping his hat to Benedict, lays down the challenge of how can the Church expect to be included in the European cultural debate when it squashes internal dialogue on vital matters among its members.
It strikes me that the liturgical changes forthcoming as well as the motu proprio will be a source of consternation to some (as it has been already) inside the Church but seen as more enclavism outside.
Meanwhile, I’d submit we have a long way to go in evangelization and presenting the “positive ” image
Benedict says is at the heart of our faith – an image he may well send mixed messages on.
Maybe the new thread on Cardinal Levada (rumored as a posible successor to the “collosal success” at New York) will show the road to the hope we’ll need for that trek.
Mr. Bailey,
You say “As to the hierarchical nature of the Latin Mass- God up top makes sense and clearly the priest is leading the congregation on the pilgrimage towards God through the liturgy.”
I have often wondered what was going on at mass. It is kind of you to have provided the answer.
If I might defend my “list.” I think my experience is probably most typical of those who grew up in suburbia, and in particular, as is my case, in the West and the South as those places grew tremendously in the 70′s. I agree, when I visted my Grandmother in the older part of a large New England city, her church had all the traditional adornments, and her house had a Sacred Heart switchplate on the staircase light, a crucifix over all the bedroom doors and a big picture of Pope Paul in the dining room.
My western suburban church, however, had a modernistic cross and a statue of a touchdown Jesus. No other statues, icons, stations of the cross at all. It was a church in the round with nondescript multicolor stained glass windows. (It became a Korean Baptist Church a week after the parish moved to a bigger church building) The first time I saw a procession in the Mexican neighborhood on the westside, it was as alien to me as if I had been a Southern Baptist. Although I think many churches have begun to reintroduce more traditional elements, if you look at most Catholic churches buit from 1965 to 1985 in the suburbs of Denver, or Atlanta, or Houston, or Las Vagas, or Southern California, without a sign they are often indistinguishable from the medical office park next door.
My experience was that many Catholics, including some priests and religious, were running away from anything that made them look Catholic.
Two things strike me as odd about this exchange. First, is the frequent mention of heirarchy or power relationships. I think the Holy Father looks at some of his liturgical comments and goals as aimed at preserving something, a beautiful something. that may be lost. That’s how I see it. Second is an unspoken fear about the possible motu proprio. Isn’t it just permission to do the Old Rite more generally? Are we afraid that too many people will want to celebrate mass this way? Is the concern that if too many people prefer the old liturgy it undermines the supposed popular changes in the litrugy of the 60′s and 70′s?
Sean, it’s quite possible that, rather than being afraid of being thought “too Catholic” the church architecture of which you speak was intended not to be too “ethnic.” There’s a great deal of sociological interest in post-WWII architecture, and why, for the most part it is so bland, and while there are multiple reasons for that, one reason that Catholic churches, in particular, are so willfully non-descript can be attributed to the desire of those in the pews to be seen as American rather than Italian-American, Irish-American and so on. Thus, to some extent, post-war church architecture consciously rejected the ethnic models that many people find beautiful, meaningful and comforting. It was also cheaper. But in all seriousness, I don’t think it had much if anything to do with changes in theology or liturgical practice, though one effect of the loss of symbols and statues might have been to lessen the perceived importance of traditional practices.
Barbara,
I think you are mistaken if you are suggesting that cost savings and rejecting ethnic models were the primary reasons for constructing minimalist buildings. There was a certain theology of rupture at work in these buildings evidenced in the seemingly flawed “Env. and Art in Catholic Worship” which though never an official product of the bishop’s conference was treated as the official post V2 blueprint for new and renovated church buildings and was introduced to parishioners in the name of their bishops. It has now been replaced by “Built of Living Stones” but much damage has already been done.
The Maid
I went to the same kind of church Sean describes and it was built decidedly prior to VII. Architectural trends were clearly changing prior to theological trends.
Sean, regarding your questions in your last post, I myself do not want to see a universal indult because it would promote a style of worship that inherently played an important role in preserving a clerical, paternalistic organizational culture that subordinated the laity to a privileged few, namely, bishops and clergy. I have no doubt we can trace the roots of much of the financial, sexual, and other ecclesial corruption today to the mindset prevalent in the church prior to Vatican II. Forty years (since the last council) is not much time in the history of a nearly 2,000-year-old institution. And yet we see some folks — my generation, of all things — clamoring for a restoration!
The eucharist is the center of our ecclesial life, and we celebrate this eucharist at our coming together in community. From an organizational perspective, we must ask what kind of community we want that preserves and promotes not only the Lord’s gospel teachings but also a communal life in harmony with these teachings. If one examines Jesus’ teachings and the practices of the earliest Christians, one finds a simplicity of community woefully lacking in our church today. One historian notes that Vatican II used the word ‘renewal’ far more often than the word ‘reform.’ To me, the former suggests getting rid of a lot of excess baggage piled one atop the other over the years in order to find the original. The latter word, on the other hand, suggests simply rearranging the baggage to make something somehow look better.
As I mentioned in a previous post, how someone prays and believes (communally) reflects how one sees one’s place in the church (community). Certainly from the 4th century forward, history shows us growing imperialistic practices by a hierarchy bent on preserving their privileged status quo in the organizational pecking order (not to mention in the larger society). It doesn’t take much imagination to conclude that such an environment would lend itself to ecclesial corruption tolerated by a subservient and docile laity. Recent “excesses” and wrongdoing by church authorities are not a product of Vatican II. They are, instead, the sinful legacy of an ecclesial mindset that continues largely unchallenged — and unchecked — by a docile laity (we really need more than 40+ years to reverse course here).
Maid of Kent, I agree with your comment that there was a theology of rupture at work in constructing minimalist church buildings. I must disagree with your suggestion, however, that this simplistic architecture somehow damaged anything. If anything, minimalist architecture continues to serve the vital function of promoting the community’s participation in its central act of coming together, to wit, the liturgy. The gospels, for instance, portay a Jesus who was a “minimalist” in his dealings with those around him. Nothing fancy for this Lord. “I came to serve, not to be served.” Again, history shows a church that would soon enough grow further and further from the basic communities of the earliest Christians.
“Lex orandi, lex credendi.” Yep, and how one prays communally reflects one’s sense of one’s worth in the community. More than liturgy, theology, architecture, and history is involved here. We must not overlook psychology, sociology, politics and decision-making, transparency, and accountability. This Tridentine stuff is a Trojan horse.
james Bailey,
Choosing to be a follower can be an abnegation of conscience. Bishops would still be assigning pedophile priests to abuse children and professors would be given the catechism to teach theology.
Being a Christian is more a matter of who is our neighbor than who is our leader.
Hmm…
Since the days of Bernadin, Chicago has been widely seen as having a “liberal” presbyterate. It is interesting to note however, that Chicago is bordered by the Rockford diocese, in which the tone is very different.
Now in Chicago, I don’t think that the “liberalism” manifested itself in the liturgy, so much as it did in the areas of ecclesiology and Catholic social teaching.
In each diocese, there is a sense in which the bishop and his curia set the tone. Perhaps a better example of liturgical liberalism is Mahony’s LA- where they still use glass chalices contra Redemtionis Sacramentum. (Rather obvious reasons why this is wrong.) I know this becuase I saw it on TV, most prominently one of the JPII memorial Masses.
Joseph Jaglowicz,
I must ask you in all honesty, for all your talk of minimalist architecture bringing the community forever and emphasis on horizontal relationships in the church, I must point out that it doesn’t entirely comport with my own experience here in New England. I have returned after a long hiatus elsewhere.
My local parish is a 60s structure that uses the Pauline Rite. I must point out in charity and fairness that I do not get a sense of community there at all. There’a a group of senior citizens who have gone to daily Mass there for years and they aren’t particularly welcoming towards me. It’s the kind of deal where folks will say nary a hello, let alone introduce themselves before or after the liturgy. Perhaps this is because it is New England and folks here are mistrustful. I don’t know.
Either way, I also ask why the Pian Rite must always be twinned with the sins of the past in the accusatory way you describe. I wasn’t around for that- what should persons such as myself, and our respect for a particular liturgical rite be punished in the way it has been?
Isn’t it presumptive to accuse the Pian Rite of being a Trojan horse? What evidence do you have for this beyond speculation? Regardless, I don’t see the Pauline Rite being abrogated any time soon- what harm does the Pian Rite do?
I am delighted to discover this blog and its famous participants. I have just written a review of the Pope’s book on Christ (see josephsoleary@typepad.com), which I read with very mixed feelings. Yes, we all want Christ to be what John portrays, one who brings us God and brings us to God. But the brunt of Benedict’s book is a deeply repressive vision of biblical scholarship (not to mention theological work like Sobrino’s of Schillebeeckx’s that has learned from that scholarship). If the faithful take this book to heart, almost all scriptural scholars will be seen as rejecting the teaching of Scripture and the presence of Christ. It is not that the Pope is fundamentalist, exactly, but he has forged very clever arguments that the Gospels as they stand, including John, are more of less direct representations of the historical Jesus. Another disheartening aspect of the book is the discrediting of the “Gospel of Justice and Peace” emphasis of Vatican II in favor of a massive stress on “the Primacy of God” — a Primacy conveyed in very abstract devotional terms which leave it compatible with right wing political choices.
Sorry, blog address is http://josephsoleary.typepad.com. Of course the Pope’s book reinforces the vision of Dominus Iesus that we already have the fullness of revelation in the New Testament Christ, of which other religions can offer only the dimmest and most distant shadows. Here is a third flank on which the Pope is opposed to what is regarded as creative and critical theology.
Joseph,
I hope you appreciate the irony in your comments. You say – “I myself do not want to see a universal indult because it would promote a style of worship that inherently played an important role in preserving a clerical, paternalistic organizational culture that subordinated the laity to a privileged few, namely, bishops and clergy.” and then, “And yet we see some folks — my generation, of all things — clamoring for a restoration!”
In other words, I am all for popular lay influence in the Church, so long as they agree with me.
Again, I am fascinated, and confused, by the obsession with power that pervades these discussions. Of course I look to the priests and bishops for leadership – that’s what they are there for. In almost every aspect of life we look to people who have dedicated themselves to that aspect for guidance and leadership, but for issues of religion and morality we are suddenly do-it-yourself.
I’ve read more complete articles on this subject, but I can’t put my finger on them right now, so here is a nice summary of post-war architectural trends in churches:
http://www.adoremus.org/1097-Stroik.html
I think it’s clear that V2 accepted/reinforced the trend towards modernism, but the trend was well underway by the early 60s.
Mr. Gibson says of the Sobrino case:
“As for the substance of the critique, I think the many many many theologians who know far more than I do who have critiqued the Vatican notification have confirmed my doubts about the authortitaiveness (a word?) of the censure.”
Can anyone offer any clues as to the identities of these “many many many theologians” and where their critiques can be found? Thanks.
Barabara–
An interesting article, especially for someone like me who knows next to nothing about architecture, and who had never given any thought before now to the Modernist movement in church architecture. The quote from Sacrosanctum Concilium at the beginning of the article seems to say it all for me:
“The Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her own…. The art of our own times from every race and country shall also be given free scope in the Church, provided it bring to the task the reverence and honor due to the sacred buildings and rites.”
Art, including architecture, will always have infinite expression, and it’s great the Church recognizes and values such expression so long as the intent of the artist is “reverence and honor.” Though some of the Modernist churches are not to my liking, that’s more a reflection on the sensibilities I developed as a child attending more traditionally-designed churches than it is on the reverence and honor that no doubt motivated the designers of Modernist churches.
It’s probably no surprise that disagreements over church design, and the interaction of design with theological symbols and motifs, go many centuries. R.A. Scotti, in her book “Basilica,” relates the architectural battles over the design and construction of the present St. Peter’s Basilica in the early 16th century. (For those who don’t know why Pope Julius II decided to tear down the original St. Peter’s, which had been on the site for about 1,200 years and was a beloved edifice, Scotti does a great job telling the story, and I won’t spoil the surprise. Suffice it to say that the Church scandals of the time make the present-day administrative state of the Church look very good in comparison.) Some architects of the day wanted the new basilica to be Gothic, with the upward sweep that transports the church and those in it towards heaven. Pope Julius chose Bramante for the chief architect, however, and Bramante insisted that the basilica should be primarily Romanesque with internal design features of spaciousness, especially in the area of the main altar and dome, that would create the feeling that a piece of heaven had been set down on earth. Despite the often personal and bitter disagreements about what shape the basilica should take, both architectural camps were motivated by reverence and honor.
Sorry, Barbara, for misspelling your name. “Barabara” is the Australian pronounciation for “Bora Bora.” ;)
Jesus was obsessed with telling us how not to seek power. He emphasized seeking the lowest spot. We are to wash the feet of others if we want to serve.
The reality is that the bishops and the Vatican are lovers of power and all the accoutrements that go with it. Can you picture Jesus telling Peter and Paul to demand that others call them Your Excellency, Your Grace, Eminence, most reverend, rt reverend etc?
Basilicas are edifice building or the result of an edifice complex. The are like autobiographies. Narcissistic reflections. I say that even for the great theologian, Hans Kung. It is a great temptation.
Not that we don’t cultivate this vainglorius culture. We seek the favor of the clergy and brag about knowing them. Unfortunately, most of us have been to Rome more than we have been to Kentucky or Darfur.
We are a triumphant church and have lost our way.
In response to a contribution to this thread (many entries ago) that objected to the characterization of the anticipated motu propio as an abandonment of the Council: For the vast majority of Catholics, Vatican II was primarily about liturgical change and a reinstatement of the Tridentine Rite on a large scale would be seen by that majority as a repudiation of the Council. As in, “they are backing away from the liturgical stuff, so maybe the other actions of the Council as just as questionable.”
As most folks know, liturgical reform (renewal, whatever) was “in the air” and even under way before the Council. Academics, possibly sparked by Pius X’s encouragement of frequent Holy Communion and antiquarian efforts (Solesmes, etc.) began to study how the Roman Rite came to take the form codified by Pius V. This sort of research showed that vast portions of the Tridentine Mass were accretions based on sacramental theology and ecclesiology that were, by the 1940’s, seen to be questionable at best (for those really interested, read Jungmann’s Mass of the Roman Rite or back issues of Orate Fratres/Worship published by the Benedictines from Collegeville—Virgil Michel, Godfrey Diekmann, et. al.)
Also “in the air” prior to the Council were developments in ecclesiology and sacramental theology that dovetailed with the liturgical scholarship—the notions were linked in the pre-Council atmosphere. There was a naïveté on the part of the “liturgists” that a liturgical renewal would be so powerful that the underlying notions of the Church and the sacraments would be absorbed by the Church at large, almost by osmosis, and would be the spark of a true, fundamental renewal of the Church.
I was at the first (official) English Mass in the U.S. (North American Liturgical Conference in St. Louis, August, 1964) and found it thrilling—not just because of the language, but because of the promise it offered of a Church truly willing to renew itself and enter the modern world. Needless to say, liturgical change has not been the engine of renewal some folks envisioned—for lots of reasons. That doesn’t change the fact that the liturgy celebrated in parishes, circa 1959, was, for the most part, awful. And it just wasn’t the language, it was the notions of Church and sacrament exemplified in that liturgy that were just wrong and which the Council later essentially repudiated in its various documents.
Progressives (liberals, whatever) are frequently accused of cafeteria Catholicism, but to say that restoring the Tridentine Rite is not a rejection of the Council is a cafeteria Catholicism of another type.
Bill–
A couple of comments:
1. I agree with you that “service” should be the motivating force for everyone in the Church, including the hierarchy. But don’t you think you are painting with a broad brush in criticizing “the bishops and the Vatican” as a homogenous group that lacks any individual redeeming qualities among its members? It’s just my opinion, but I think your argument loses some force when it generalizes the actions and motivations of the Church hierarchy.
2. I’ve never heard priest, monsignor, or bishop “demand” to be called by a title such as “Your Excellency.” Many of the titles do seem somewhat archaic, but I do agree with you that respect has to be earned. In the Acts of the Apostles, and the writings of the early Church fathers, it’s clear that the Apostles, whether they liked it or not, were treated with great deference and respect. They no doubt earned it, as have many clergy over two millenia.
3. I, like you, believe that a Church much poorer in physical possessions wiould be a more effective evangelizing force in the world (it’s fiction, but remember the memorable scene and reaction in “The Shoes of the Fisherman” when Pope Anthony Quinn (can’t remember his screen name…Cyril I?) announces that the Church’s treasures will be sold off and distributed to the poor), but I think basilicas do have a purpose in bringing people to God, not only as reminders of the faith of their builders, but as tangible expressions to Catholics and non-Catholics alike that there special gathering points in the world for honoring God. In addition to St. Peter’s, the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC, and the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico come quickly to mind. They can never be more important than people, but I think they do serve a useful purpose.
4. Finally, I may be one of the few who has been in Kentucky more than I’ve been in Rome.
Bill,
Is it that the Vatican loves power or that dissenters hate authority?
To: Robert Imbelli and Joseph O’Leary:
You’ve both referred to Pope Benedict’s book, Jesus of Nazareth. But given what you’ve said, it’s hard to believe you’re talking about the same book. I can’t check this out for myself, because I live outside the U.S. and don’t have access to the book.
Father Imbelli, your earlier post (Meier Magister) says that the Pope “points out ‘some of the most important recent books about Jesus,’ including those of Joachim Gnilka, Klaus Berger, Heinz Schürmann, Thomas Söding, Rudolf Schnackenburg, and John P. Meier.” The post later quotes the Pope as saying that Meier’s book is “in many ways a model of historical-critical exegesis.”
That doesn’t seem to fit at all with what you, Mr. O’Leary, wrote: “the brunt of Benedict’s book is a deeply repressive vision of biblical scholarship …. If the faithful take this book to heart, almost all scriptural scholars will be seen as rejecting the teaching of Scripture and the presence of Christ.”
Can these positions be reconciled? Or is it simply that the two of you see the book very differently?
Thanks.
Sean, I can understand your perception of an irony in my comments although such was not intended and, in fact, is not the case.
In addressing your observation, I am going to rely on my professional training that included study in organizational development and change. Quite simply, different people respond to change in different ways. Most folks, of course, find change a difficult thing to accept. And, yet, life is change. It can be imposed either by a natural event such as a death in the family or by a man-made event such as an ecumenical council. In responding, the survivor can pretend that nothing has changed by, for example, keeping every artifact of the deceased in place and untouched — or by insisting on using (or continuing to use) a liturgy that the overwhelming majority of the world’s bishops recognized was in need of renewal (if I recall, more than 400 bishops favored change and only four bishops opposed it). For a church hierarchy known for its rigidity and conservatism, this vote for renewal was nothing to sneeze at! As Gerald Brazier notes above, many in the church recognized a need for reform/renewal long before Vatican II. In Peckler’s book, WORSHIP: A Primer in Christian Ritual, the author points out how this acknowledgement for reform/renewal can be traced back (at least, I suppose) to the 19th century in Europe. And we should not overlook the Chinese Rites Controversy that would pit the Jesuits against the Dominicans — with the former trying to adapt the Latin Mass to local culture and the latter adamantly opposed (and ultimately prevailing at the Vatican). Many historians believe, quite simply, that the church “lost it” as a result of this failure to enculturate in China.
From the above, I hope you can see your misunderstanding evidenced in your comment, “In other words, [Joseph is] all for popular lay influence in the Church, so long as they agree with [him].” In this case, it is anything but. On the other hand, we see a minority (including my generation) in our church — supported by reactionary stalwarts in Rome and elsewhere (again, some my generation) — doing their level best to supposedly “reform the reform.” We are not talking “reform” here; we are focused on “renewal” as overwhelmingly called for by the bishops 40+ years ago.
As a retired commissioned officer in the U.S. armed forces, you should not (using your words here) be “confused by the obsession with power that pervades these discussions.” You know like the rest of us that power is a fact of life in any organization, especially a large worldwide organization such as the Catholic Church. Indeed, without it, no organization could endure for very long. It is HOW power is used and FOR WHAT PURPOSE it is used that are my concerns in this thread. For good discussions of power and influence, simply refer to any standard management text.
You also seem to confuse power with leadership. Again, as a former commissioned officer, you surely know they are not one and the same. A person with power is not necessarily a leader. Again, any basic management text should cover this distinction.
You state, “I look to the priests and bishops for leadership…” In light of all the problems in our church, can you honestly believe that our priests and bishops — collectively here and allowing for individual exceptions — demonstrate leadership? Given your military background as an officer (a lawyer, at that :) and previously as a “brat,” do you equate “giving orders” with leadership? If you say you do not, I must remind you that we have plenty of hierarchs — generally appointed by JPII — who, in fact, do equate leadership with “giving orders.” Examples: Burke in St. Louis, Rigali in Philadelphia (and his predecessor), Chaput in Denver, Bruskewitz in Lincoln, to name a few. These guys are not leaders. They are fearful old men (some before their time) doing their best to preserve the old way of doing things.
In looking at any organization including our church, we must look at literally everything about the institution to understand what keeps it in a state of stasis. This equilibrium (used in Force Field Analysis, by the way) is maintained by forces opposing change and other forces pushing for change. We also look at various practices, etc. that maintain the status quo, etc. The Tridentine in this respect can be seen as one such influence that is “pushing back” against change. For more information in this area, I can only suggest references on organizational change and organizational development.
Finally, Sean, you note that “we look to people who have dedicated themselves” to providing guidance and leadership. Ideally, yes. In the real world, maybe, maybe not, depending on the person doing (or not doing) the looking. With perhaps a comparatively few exceptions, how many bishops, for example, demonstrate leadership today? I would suggest a very few. Organizational culture, of course, comes into play here, and I can only suggest any basic management/organizational behavior text as a good place to begin for more information on this aspect of organizational life.
J. Bailey, I’m sorry that your experience in your “minimalist architecture” church has been a negative one as far as your experience of community (or lack thereof) is concerned. However, do you really ascribe your feeling of not being welcomed to the structure’s architecture and use of the Novus Ordo? With all due respect, I find that a “stretch.” Apparently, you do, as well, since you state, “Perhaps this is because it is New England and folks here are mistrustful. I don’t know.” I don’t know, either (regarding your regional note).
As far as the questions/assertions in your last two paragraphs, I can only say that I base my observations on my experience in the church since before Vatican II and on my study of, and experience in, large organizations. If you feel you are being “punished” because of your preference for the Tridentine, it is not because it was the intention of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council. Their intent was renewal, i.e., to make new again. I would only add that to “make new” necessarily entails getting rid of a lot of the man-made accretions in our church — including our liturgy — over the past nearly 1,900 years or so.
“Isn’t it presumptive to accuse the Pian Rite of being a Trojan horse? What evidence do you have beyond speculation?” In reply to your first question, my answer is “No.” There is no presumption, much less assumption, here. And why do I say this? Because — in reply to your second question — the best predictor of future performance is past performance. Our church, from an organizational perspective, has at least 1,800 years of development and maintenance of an imperial, paternalistic, clerical culture that elevated the ordained (esp. the hierarchy) and subordinated the laity. The “mechanics” of the Tridentine only served to reinforce this culture: pray, pay, obey, and don’t question!!! We inherited a cultic model of priesthood, and we’ve seen most recently the residue of this ecclesial culture — financial crimes, sexual abuse, ad nauseum. In short, we must use a “systems” approach in looking at our church. That means looking at literally everything. And when I do, I see a dysfunctional organization and a sick community.
For Sean and Joseph (and anyone else), just a quote from long before the current crises:
“… the transformation of the Church into a power structure is not a confirmation of authority, but a perversion of authority. The power of the Church … is the power of love. Authoritarian power is foreign to every line of the New Testament in which authority is mentioned. The Church has experienced corruption in many forms; it has known simony, nepotism, concubinage, and other vices. But these forms of corruption are possibly more tolerable and less harmful to the mission of the Church than that corruption by which the Church is made a means for men to wield power over other men. The use of power in the vulgar sense of the imposition of one’s will on another is in direct opposition to the sayings of Jesus in which this form of self-assertion is forbidden formally and explicitly. Power is not a substitute for apostolic leadership. Power is not even an inferior way of achieving that end. But men adopt the way of power because they feel that true leadership is beyond their capacity. Apart from the possibility of graceful resignation when this incapacity is recognized—a course of action not often enough considered—there is the other possibility of growth to the stature of true leadership. This growth is the work of the Spirit, not of human talent and industry.”
Authority in the Church
John L. McKenzie, S.J.
Sheed and Ward, New York 1966
pp. 97-98
Stuart: an upcoming issue of Commonweal will contain two theologians’ views of the notification on Sobrino. I can report that several theologians I know found the document wanting, especially the section on Jesus’ self-consciousness.
Gerald–
You’re quoting a Jesuit!?
That will likely not go over well with some.
(No problem with me, however. I went to a Jesuit high school and college.)
Actually, this has been a remarkable thread IMO. It’s veered off course (several times)and then back on, and it would have been naive to think that some consensus would be reached, but a wide breadth of considered opinions have been put forth, though I’m still scratching my head about what “ad orientem” means. :) But my confusion must pale in comparison to what a non-Catholic reading this thread must think about all these Papists having a wrestling match about a “motu proprio” regarding Latin Masses. :):)
William, I went to a Carmelite high school, and even I appreciate Gerald’s contribution(s)!!!
Joseph,
First of all, I am not, and I don’t think many others like me are, looking for the restoration of the Tridentine Rite. But neither should it be treated as anethema as you would like. I look at it like Beowolf or the Canterbury Tales – unusual, unfamiliar, but tells me a lot about how a story is supposed to look.
Again, on the authority of the Church and the bishops, you seem to want it both ways. Their authority and leadership was beyond question when they acted in the 1950′s and 60′s to renew the Church, but now that you don’t like what they are doing they are “fearful old men.” I guess they are inspired by the Holy Spirit when they agree with you, and power hungry reactionaries when they don’t.
The other thing I love is that in discussing this and issues like it, there is an underlying theme of the elite hierarchy against the spirit of the people. It’s just that in the discussion, the positions are always backward.
It’s not the PhD priests and oh so sophisticated professional and amateur Catholic theologians who crave monstrances, and incense, and stained glass and churches that look like churches and not airplane hangars, it’s housewives, and electricians, and soldiers, and middle class office workers. People for whom the tangible beauty of the smells and sounds and colors and light and shadows is part of an experience of the Holy. The high-minded and sophisticated see this a a crutch or something that gets between man and God. It’s schomes like me that dig the candles.
Those poor Jesuits. Having almost joined them myself, I fear the next thing you all will be telling me is that the singing variety from St. Louis are not still on the cutting edge of music for worship!
Here is my short review of Benedict’s book:
This book is elegantly written, rich in original argument and edifying reflection. It is also a provocative book that will elicit strong disagreement from many theologians and exegetes.
What will make many uneasy is Benedict’s treatment of justice and peace. He repeatedly insists that the Kingdom of God is an interior matter, and that Christ is the Kingdom in person. The ‘primacy of God’ is profiled in terms of obedience rather than of struggles for justice and liberation. Isaiah’s utopian vision of peace is seen as surpassed in Jesus’s message of a kingdom not of this world. ‘What did Jesus then really bring, since he did not bring world peace, or good conditions for all, or a better world? The answer is quite simple: God. He brought God’ (73). Consistently, Benedict, with a Midas-touch, makes God and the divinity of Christ the central issue in every part of the Gospel.
It is in the perspective of a polemic against recent theological emphasis on the Kingdom that Benedict first refers to the themes of justice and peace: ‘Who can really say what justice is, or what really serves justice in the concrete situation, or how peace is to be created? On closer inspection all this shows itself to be utopian chatter without real content, unless one silently presupposes party doctrines’ (p. 84). This does scant justice to the efforts of Vatican II, of Paul VI, of Schillebeeckx and of Liberation Theology to spell out concretely how the Gospel of justice and peace is to be concretized in relation to the signs of the times,
A second provocative feature is the way Benedict closes all perceived gaps between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. The tensions that Rudolf Schnackenburg found between history and faith, which are very mild ones compared to that which other exegetes detect, are evoked by Benedict only to signal the limits of the historical-critical method and the need to fill it out by a more integrated theological vision. Schnackenburg suffers ‘a certain dividedness’ because ‘the constraints of the method, which he regards as both obligatory and unsatisfactory’ (p. 12). But this situation is basic to exegesis as such. The ‘dividedness’ cannot be wished away. It brings the blessing of a plurality of perspectives on Jesus, whereas Benedict’s own account imposes a single perspective, which though sublime is incomplete. Theological reflection can supplement exegesis, but it cannot intrude on it to simplify or streamline its work.
Although this book, fortunately, eschews magisterial status, its publication coincides with the Notification rebuking Jon Sobrino, who is faulted for failing to find the divinity of Christ explicitly taught in the New Testament. Perhaps Catholic exegetes will in future be rebuked for not seeing the Fourth Gospel as historical, as Benedict does: the Johannine discourses faithfully reproduce the content of Jesus’s controversies with the Jewish. He really used the expression ‘I am,’ to reveal his divinity, and it was for this that he was crucified. Martin Hengel is found to be ‘amazingly negative’ about the historicity of the Fourth Gospel (p. 270). These are the objections of a theologian trained in patristics rather than exegesis and who wants the exegetes to provide results more amenable to his purposes. Talk of the Gospel as a literary work reflecting the later revelations of the Spirit makes Benedict nervous: ‘How can it strengthen faith, when it presents itself as a historical witness – and this with great emphasis – and yet is not narrating historically?’ (p. 270).
On a third front, I note a connection between this book and Dominus Iesus (2000). As Benedict closes, one by one, possible leaks through which a ‘Christology from below’ might gain entrance, he insists that Christ is from the start the fullness of divine revelation; there is no space for ‘theocentric’ or ‘regnocentric’ readings of his mission that would be in tension with this. Even to argue on a Johannine basis that the Logos incarnate in Christ goes in search of itself in the other great religious traditions of humanity would be seen as implying a too low Christology. The Logos is so fully manifested in Jesus – in the historical Jesus – that there is nothing more to be added from outside, and that any radiance found in other religions is very dim indeed in comparison with the glory of God revealed in Christ.
If Benedict is right, a whole century of New Testament scholarship will have to be radically corrected and largely jettisoned. For most readers of Benedict’s book this will be received as an immense liberation, a recovery of the fullness of Christ in every page of Scripture, but for critical exegetes and theologians it is more likely to induce gnashing of teeth and the sense of doors being locked.
Yes, Benedict likes exegetes, but he is always reminding them of the limits of their discipline. He is quite censorious toward Hengel and Schnackenburg, even though they are among his favorite exegetes. They are still not conservative enough for him.
What Benedict does not like is theologians who allow the limits of exegesis to affect their theology. Schillebeeckx would be a case in point. Nor does he like theologians who dig out some radical pre-Synoptic Jesus focused on the Kingdom of Justice and Peace — or who find such a Jesus in the Synoptics — Sobrino would be a case in point.
The Notification against Sobrino, which exactly reflects the Pope’s idea that the divinity of Christ is clearly taught in every part of the Gospels. All theologians who refuse to retroject John back into the synoptics or to accept the full historicity of John are thus brought under suspicion.
In fact, even exegetes may find themselves under fire if they are perceived as overstepping the limits. Fr Paul Mankowski SJ of the Biblicum accused Francis Moloney of heterodoxy for denying the historicity of the miracle of Cana.
But thanks for correcting the over-statement in my concluding sentence.
But thanks for correcting the over-statement in my concluding sentence.
Mr. O’Leary:
You have greatly aroused my curiosity and of course I will get a hold of the book. But one question. Is there any indication why Benedict starts with the baptism of Jesus by John?
“He is offering the prayer to our Eucharistic Lord present in the tabernacle. ”
This statement by Mr. Bailey is indicative of the problems posed by Tridentine rite advocates. As I the various posts and comments of “traditionalists,” it becomes more and more apparent to me that the motu proprio poses a danger to parish communities. Some believe the Tridentine rite is a magical antidoe to everything that they thinks is wrong with the Church; only bring it back and the seminaries will be full, every parish will have impeccable High Masses with Gregorian Chant, all the faithful will be fully catechized, dissent will disappear, every church will be beautiful, and on and on.
Yet even as they rail against those not of their clan, they demonstrate their lack of understanding of the liturgy, as Mr. Bailey’s comment indicates (not the first time I’ve heard that, by the way). My favorite was one commenter on another blog who angrily denounced Bishop Trautmann for wanting to retain the language of “one in being with the Father” in the Nicene Creed. The commenter was in a dander because he felt the bishop had insinuated he was stupid. “I’m not stupid,” he wrote, “I understand what consubstantiation is!”
Similarly, they pretend there was no bad music or ugly churches before the Council. Due to family obligations, I have had to attend Tridentine liturgies in Lefebvrite churches, and I’ve heard awful music and seen ugly, ugly churches. Many of the restorationist sites have recently posted a video of the transformation of an altar for the Tridentine rite when the Priestly Fraternity did a one-time liturgy in a parish: the video showed gradines, flowers, a false frontal and a little fake tabernacle being added to the altar. The commenters were ecstatic that “beauty” had been restored to the church. Having a little fake empty tabernacle on the altar for a single Mass was seen as a good and proper addition by the commenters.
Now if the motu proprio comes about, we should not be surprised when pastors will find ways to avoid having the Tridentine Mass in their parishes. Why? Because these people will come with their arguments for “facing Jesus in the tabernacle,” adding frou-frou to the church, insist on praying rosaries during Mass, etc. They will prove they don’t know what they’re talking about, and the pastor will quite justifiably turn down their requests, even if he has no problem with Latin or ad orientem in principle. Of course, they will then pillory him as a heretic who ignores the pope.
Those who want the Tridentine Mass offered in a parish setting will still have to adopt the reforms of Sacrosanctum Concilium about active participation (no, that does not just mean reading along, as the “traditionalists” are now maintaining). They must not denigrate those who do not choose to attend the Tridentine Mass. If they say thay are seeking proper liturgical diversity, they must not insist that the church be re-arranged to fit their tastes. And they must understand that a Tridentine rite celebration in a parish setting must attract similar numbers of people as a regular celebration, or it will be discontinued. No parish can give up a slot in a packed Sunday schedule for a dozen people.
Of course, no one knows what will happen. But one thing’s for sure; there will be instances where it will get ugly and confrontational. Tridentine afficionadoes will be well-served to learn more about theology, the liturgy and the Council and not just think the clock will be turned back for them.
Joseph Gannon asked: “Is there any indication why Benedict starts with the baptism of Jesus by John?”
Good question. I don’t find any such indication. The main body of the book simply begins: ‘The public activity of Jesus begins with his baptism in the Jordan… ‘
It might signal a tacit recognition that the Infancy Narratives do not have anything like the same claim to historicity as the Baptism narratives. Anyway, he will deal with the Infancy Narratives in the second volume.
A leading Irish theologian, of orthodox repute, had this to say: “I don’t expect much from Ratzinger’s book on Jesus. We know already from exchanges in NY with Ray Brown about 12 years ago that he does not accept historical research into the Gospels. ”
Mr. O’Leary
Thanks. I am curious about his exchanges with Raymond Brown. Can you supply a reference? Since JR apparently puts much emphasis on John, I would imagine he would have to confront Brown’s magisterial–if I may say so–work in that area.
It would be great if Jesus of Nazareth could hav ea post of its own ( even better by an exegte of some standing.) iIt strikes me there’s much there to be said beyond the liturgical discussions here that could be continued under “Ratzinger Junior…”
BXVI’s book sounds like it’s going to be the mixed bag one might expect of a dogmatist struggling to confront all the biblical advances of more than a century:
-healthy emphases on the divinity of Christ and Jesus being a historic person,
-as opposed to an overemphasis on the historical makeup of the Gospels, particularly Johnm, and an underemphasis on the human works of Jesus as he went about and what they mean today.
PS a note of gratitude to Mr. Stolz for his fine contribution
Sean, I must apologize here. I mistakingly posted my response to your April 26th comments on the “Ratzinger Junior” thread. Please refer to it. Thanks.
Sorry.
I think the Brown-Ratzinger debate must be the speech Ratzinger gave in 1988, whcih is well worth reading: http://www.tcrnews2.com/RatzingerExegesis88.html. Stephen Hand reports: ‘Surrounded by both friends and foes (including the American exegete Raymond Brown) the Cardinal delivered the most trenchant critique of the erring philosophical and theological presuppositions which lay behind the historical-critical method since the early days of the Pontifical Biblical Institute founded by Pope Leo XIII.” (http://tcrnews2.com/RatzingerBible.html). Raymond Brown was not a foe of Ratzinger, who declared that he would be ‘would be very happy if we had many exegetes like Father Brown’ (Origins, February 11, 1988, p. 595).
“Stuart: an upcoming issue of Commonweal will contain two theologians’ views of the notification on Sobrino. I can report that several theologians I know found the document wanting, especially the section on Jesus’ self-consciousness.”
Wanting in what way? Did the notification supposedly misinterpret Sobrino’s thoughts? Did the notification fail to represent orthodox teaching accurately? Or do they find it wanting precisely because they disagree with orthodox theology and wish that the Church tried a bit harder to keep up with the latest trends?
Stuart: I am just checking in on this very long thread again and see I did not respond to your question on this point earlier.
There have been a number of thoughtful critiques of the CDF notification, and many good (in my view, natch) letters in The Tablet, in particular, by the likes of Nicholas Lash and Tina Beattie (representing European theologians) and others.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the letters are accessible online, but here is an article that I believe is open:
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/9539/
Also worth reading–though it is in Spanish only–is Sobrino’s response to Kolvenbach about the notification, in which he cites prominent theologians who defend his work.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=127601
I have also spoken to many other theologians, off the record, who see the notification as problematic, in certain theological aspects. I think even a layman like myself would easily see potential problem’s in the implicit Docetism, as well as the oddness of critiquing a theologian for not emphasizing something enough. Clearly, Pope Benedict doesn’t make that mistake in his book on Jesus. But this blog has gone down that road a good bit already.
I hope this is fruitful reading, and I expect the upcoming Commonweal pieces will elucidate the issue further. Cheers.
Unfortunately I can’t read Spanish. As for the Tablet article, it’s a good summary of various reactions to the notification, but I don’t see anything substantive therein — it’s all reactionary whining, or defensive ad hominems (i.e., he works with the poor; ergo, his books don’t err.) No doubt the forthcoming issue of Commonweal will present a more substantive discussion.
Ratzinger’s talk and Raymond Brown’s response at the NYC Conference, along with a summary of the symposium that followed, can be found in “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and the Church,” ed. Richard J.Neuhaus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989).
I attended the lectures and took part in the symposium. All relationships and contributions were courteous and cordial. Ratzinger said his main question was how the same method could lead to such contrasting results as those claimed by Rudolf Bultimann on the one hand, and by Raymond Brown on the other.
Some of those who attended the press conference Ratzinger gave were hoping that he would severely criticize Fr. Brown; instead Ratzinger said he wished the Church had more scholars like Brown. When a reporter for “The Wanderer” worried that Catholic scholars were ignoring Pius X’s anti-modernist encyclical “Pascendi” and the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Ratzinger replied that Vatican II’s Constitution on Divine Revelation was the authoritative guide for biblical research.
Let’s not forget that since then the Pontifical Biblical Commission, under Ratzinger’s tenure at the CDF, published a magnificent review of contemporary methods in biblical research and their relevance for the Church, “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.”
No doubt, the Pope’s new book will lead to another go-round in the debate on the so-called Christ of Faith and the so-called Historical Jesus. That has already been flourishing (again) for the last fifteen years or so, and the lines of division do not neatly divide between liberals and conservatives, the enlightened and troglodytes.
“…the lines of division do not neatly divide between liberals and conservatives, the enlightened and troglodytes.”
“Could we dispense with the labels, please?”
:)
This is precisely why we ought to dispense with the labels.
I KNEW :) you’d come up with this response.
I’ll concede that “troglodytes” is a bit much (and “enlightened,” too).
However, I’m going to hold my ground on terms such as liberal, conservative, progressive, and reactionary. Although lacking precise definition, they do convey a general sense of meaning. There is, though, one word I’ve learned not to use: orthodox. That’ll get one in trouble every single time!
Stuart, see Mark 15:34 for one example of what complicates claims about Jesus’ self-consciousness.
It occurred that maybe we could try to come up with somewhat more precision in labels for various constituencies in the larger Catholic fold (because there is no way folks are going to stop using labels).
For starters, I propose the following continuum, reading from left to right:
1 – Radical
2 – Liberal
3 – Moderate Liberal
4 – Moderate
5 – Moderate Conservative
6 – Conservative
7 – Fundamentalist/Reactionary
I shall not propose any definitions/descriptions for now. However, it would be interesting to see if any fellow bloggers would “fine tune” or otherwise change the above labels.
Keep in mind the focus on matters of church (Catholic, that is), not of the state.
My original comment was prompted by your not only having illegitimately moved instantly from concern for orthodoxy to the label “reactionary,’ but that you concluded that this was all that needed to be said. As if the labelling sufficed.
I suppose people will always try to draw a map of various views, perhaps even to figure out where they themselves are located. They may have some descriptive usefulness, but they shouldn’t be taken too seriously as analysis, and shouldn’t be used to dismiss the views of others out of hand. Maybe the key is not to use them in the second-person–you labeller you!!! That sort of thing….
Correction: On April 26 @ 2:19 pm, I noted that more than 400 bishops favored liturgical change. I have no idea where I got this number. In fact, when all was said and done, a total of 2,147 bishops approved the liturgical document Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4 were opposed, and 1 abstained. I thank Giuseppe Alberigo (A BRIEF HISTORY OF VATICAN II) for this info. For anyone not aware, Alberigo and Joseph Komonchak edited the 5-volume History of Vatican II published by Orbis Books, the publishing arm of Maryknoll Missions.
Father Komonchak, if my comments were construed as dismissing the views of others out of hand, I apologize. The liturgy is a controversial topic, and I confess I am much concerned over how Rome has intruded in the matter since Vatican II. To say it’s a sensitive issue for me would be an understatement. Indeed, the more I learn about events after the council, the “madder” I get.
I agree that labels should not be construed as analysis, and I appreciate your acknowledgement that they might have some descriptive usefulness.
Anyway, I’ll try to minimize stating anything that might be seen as a personal attack on a person with opposing views.
Thanks.
Don’t equate a bishop approving SC at Vatican II as meaning some kind of revolutionary approach to liturgy or even a support for an all vernacular celebration of Mass. Archbishop Lefebvre, the founder of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, signed on to SC as well.
The Maid
This thread goes on and on…my hand hurts from scrolling down.
While the bulk is about liturgical matters and prediliections, the topic ,I maintain, is still Benedict.
Perhaps we could get a new thread by Commonweal Blog’s latest entrant.
The opening of CELAM at Aperecida next week and what the Holy Father will bring is already the subject of today’s lengthy John Allen post at NCR and a very optimistic article by Bishop Ramirez of Las Cruces in the new America, appearing on line today. The latter offers an interesting take on the hopes of US Latinos from the conference and is worth a look for that alone.
It will be interesting to see how Benedict brings his mainly European view to the table.
One last footnote: Allen points out that ecumenism hardly is mentioned in the preliminary text and then to refer to “sects” (i.e. other proseltyzing Christian groups.
Yes, Maid of Kent, Lefebvre reportedly did vote in favor of SC.
But we all know what would occur during the following years. SSPX, of course, is a schismatic group because they do not accept Vatican II and what stems from it.
We’ll never know definitively what the Novus Ordo liturgical translations might have looked like today because the Vatican soon enough would hijack the process in violation of SC. And this is a conclusion based on (a) the text of SC and (b) JPII and his curia’s actions.