Comments

1. Posted by David Gibson
   on April 26th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
   

   A spot-on post, Father Komonchak. Very informative and illuminating (and not necessarily a verdict for or against the old rite, I think.) Also worth noting, Father Ratzinger’s liturgical progressivism goes back even further. Someone earlier mentioned his great esteem for Guardini, who was something of a rebel in this regard. But as a child, as Cardinal Ratzinger relates in his memoir, “Milestones” (p. 19-20 in the 1998 Ignatius Press paperback) he describes collecting missals as a child, with the enthusiasm that other kids collect baseball cards or comic books. And these were the so-called Schott missals, which were translations into the vernacular German of the Latin he heard at Mass. So it was through the vernacular, thanks to an innovative (and not sanctioned) liturgical movement, that the future pope first began his love affair with the liturgy.

2. Posted by william collier
   on April 26th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
   

   I won’t pretend to understand the breadth of Peritus Ratzinger’s commentary on liturgical “accretions” and other matters, but the following statement jumped out at me:

   “If the Church’s worship was once again to become the worship of the Church in the fullest sense-i.e., of all the faithful-then it had to become something in movement again. The wall of Latinity had to be breached if the liturgy were again to function either as proclamation or as invitation to prayer… It was now clear that behind the protective skin of Latin lay hidden something that even Trent’s cutting away of late medieval ornamentations had failed to remove. The simplicity of the liturgy was still overgrown with superfluous accretions of purely historical value.”

   I’m not quite sure if he is saying that there is a liturgical cancer hiding behind “the wall of Latinity” that has to be excised, or if he is saying that the use of Latin itself was a barrier to the proper functioning of liturgy as “proclamation or as invitation to prayer.” He does decry the overgrowth of liturgy “with superfluous accretions of purely historical value.” Did he mean that the use of Latin in the liturgy, clearly a historical development from the time the Church became centered in Rome, was a “superfluous accretion”?

   Perhaps Fr. Komonchak, a recognized expert on VII, and others more knowledgeable than me can shed some light on what the future Pope might have meant in this passage.

3. Posted by Joseph A. Komonchak
   on April 26th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
   

   And something from Ratzinger Senior: In the Preface to “The Spirit of the Liturgy,” he has comments rather similar to those made during the Council:

   “We might say that in 1918, the year that Guardini published his book, the liturgy was rather like a fresco. It had been preserved from damage, but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations. In the Missal from which the priest celebrated, the form of the liturgy that had grown from its earliest beginnings was still present, but as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer” (7-8).

   That “later generations” phrase is interesting. “Later” by comparison to what, to whom?

   Mr. Collier: I think he meant that Latin was an obstacle to the proper functioning of liturgy.

4. Posted by Bob Nunz
   on April 26th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
   

   A terrific port, The issue I gather goes far beyond Latin to the role of the whole Church’s participation in the real Sacrifice of Christ.
   I wonder how Benedict now sees this impacting his view of the laity in the Chutch.

5. Posted by william collier
   on April 26th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
   

   Thank you, Fr. Komonchak.

   We’re all permitted to change our minds, of course, and the Pope is no exception, but if it is true that Latin was (is?) an obstacle to the proper functioning of liturgy, then that would seem to me to be a serious impediment to those who seek its return because of the aura of mystery and solemnity it creates. I admit to appreciating that aura myself, but aura IMO would have to give way in the face of a defect in function.

6. Posted by J. Peter Nixon
   on April 26th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
   

   Very helpful post and much appreciated, particularly since I suspect it took a fair amount of typing…:-)

7. Posted by Joseph Gannon
   on April 26th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
   

   I was amazed to read this post. We all owe you a debt of gratitude, Fr. Komonchak.

   I believe I followed the line of Ratzinger’s thought and I think I quite agree him. A brilliant analysis of the question of the liturgy! He was, as he is, a person of great taste and sensitivity, and remarkable acumen. Of course the really difficult task was to carry out these ideas in practice. Is it too late?

8. Posted by Morning’s Minion
   on April 26th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
   

   Fascinating!

   Of course, the real question is: did Ratzinger grow more conservative with passing years, or is this position fully compatible with his present position? It is possible to argue the latter, on the basis that Ratzinger could not possibly have foreseen how the principles of Sacrosacto Concilium could possibly have morphed into the dreadful Masses of the 1970s. Did the Council say anything about “ad orientem” a subject dear to his heart today?

   Still, I wonder. In the Spirit of the Liturgy, he wrote the following: ” As I see it, the problem with a large part of modern liturgiology is that it tends to recognize only antiquity as a source, and therefore normative, and to regard everything developed later, in the Middle Ages and through the Council of Trent, as decadent. And so one ends up with dubious reconstructions of the most ancient practice, fluctuating criteria, and never-ending suggestions for reform, which ultimately lead to the disintegration of the liturgy that has evolved in a living way” (p. 82, Ignatius Press ediction). Certainly sounds like a different view than the one of his youth…

9. Posted by Robert Imbelli
   on April 26th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
   

   Two points with regard to the conversation:

   1. Ratzinger senior’s estimate of the success or failure of the reform may be glimpsed by continuing the quotation from “The Spirit of the Liturgy” where JAK left off:

   “The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us. But since then the fresco has been endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various restorations and reconstructions. In fact it is threatened with destruction, if the necessary steps are not taken to stop these damaging influences. Of course, there must be no question about its being covered with whitewash again, bur what is imperative is a new reverence in the way we treat it, a new understanding of its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not become the first stage of irreparable loss.”

   2. The last sentence of the above quote resonates with a sentence from Ratzinger junior quoted in the original post:

   ” the necessary revamping could not take place simply through purely stylistic modifications, but also required a new theology of divine worship. Otherwise the renewal would be no more than superficial” (87).

   Too often, I suggest, the much quoted “participatio actuosa” of Sacrosanctum Concilium has supported “purely stylistic modifications” rather than the active participation in Christ’s paschal mystery which is the reality made present in the liturgy and the theological heart of true reform in the Church.

10. Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
    on April 26th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
    

    Fr. Komonchak, you’ve offered a most enlightening post. Thanks so much!

    (Amazon Marketplace seller has a copy @ $249.98 including shipping. That rules me out :)

11. Posted by Joseph A. Komonchak
    on April 26th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
    

    I did not include in my original post the quotation that Ratzinger Junior used in his discussion of liturgical language at the first session of the Council. He quoted what he called the “profound insights” of Melkite Patriarch Maximos Saigh:

    “It appears to me that the almost absolute value which is attributed to the Latin language in the liturgy, in instruction and in the administration of the Latin Church presents a kind of anomaly for the Eastern Church; for without doubt Christ spoke to his contemporaries in their own language. He used a language which was understandable to all his hearers, namely Aramaic, when he celbrated the first eucharistic sacrifice. The apostles and disciples acted likewise. It would never have occurred to them that the celebrant in a Christian assembly should read the passages of scripture, should sing the psalms, should preach or break the bread, usinig a different language that that of the congregation. Paul himself says explicitly:’If you bless with the spirit [i.e. in an unintelligible language], how is one who is present as an outsider to say AAmen” to your thanksgiving when he does not understand what you are saying? You may give thanks well enough, but the other is not edified…. In church I should prefer to speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in [unintelligible] tongues’ (I Cor 14:16-19). All the reasons one can bring forward in favor of the untouchability of Latin–a liturgical language but a dead one–must five way before this clear, unequivocal and precise reasoning of the Apostle. The Latin language is dead, but the Church remains alive. So, too, the language which mediates grace and the Holy Spirit must also be a living language since it is intended for men and not for angels. No language can be untouchable….” (17-18)

12. Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
    on April 26th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
    

    “The Latin language is dead, but the Church remains alive. So, too, the language which mediates grace and the Holy Spirit must also be a living language since it is intended for men [and women] and not for angels. No language can be untouchable….”

    BINGO!

    (Any chance of a reprint? My tentative answer: not a snowball’s chance in hell.)

13. Posted by Joseph Gannon
    on April 26th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
    

    Is this an instance of the development of doctrine?

14. Posted by John Polhamus
    on April 26th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
    

    Not terribly impressed. I think the future Benedict XVI has come to have a much more mature view of the nature of liturgy, the experience of liturgy in the lives of the faithful, of the limits to which participation in it can be productively (or usefully) prescribed or enforced, the differing qualities and means of understanding that can be brought to bear in that exeriencing, and the now generally admitted naievte (sp?) of the “bible-land” desire to cast off 1,900 years of cultural and liturgical development.

    True Catholic liturgy has a life and collective nature of its own, a fact which was grotesquely violated by the fundamentalist-inspired motivators of V II, like Bugnini and his crew, to the impoverishment of the rest of the faithful, who were busy experiencing their church in time and in their lives, rather than theorizing about it, and treating it with hubristic contempt for the generations who lovingly fostered it and held it in trust.

    For a confirmation of this dawning realization in the life of the future Benedict XVI, see the current interview of Archbishop Ranjith. It answers in a very current way many if not most of the assertions coined above by a brilliant, but idealistically academic youth. His view has become somewhat more balanced since the implementation.

    V(at) II, like the W.W. II missile that shares that monkier, since its explosion has become a rampant embarrassment to Christianity in general, and Roman Catholicism in particular. Hopefully, the Holy Father has realized that the only means of strengthing the central pillar of western civilization, namely orthodox Roman Catholic faith and practice (at a time when we need it more than we ever have), is to begin to redress the vandalism introduced in its name.

15. Posted by Maid of Kent
    on April 27th, 2007 at 8:32 am
    

    I appreciate reading this post. I recognize some of these thoughts in his later writings too. He is no reactionary.

    The English version of this was published in 1966. Did anyone notice that these comments were written before the current missal was developed? This is another example of where the earlier 1965 RM implemented the decrees of SC and the younger Ratzinger’s insights. The 1965 RM preserved Latin for certain parts of the Mass and showed clear continuity with the earlier RM’s. There is nothing to suggest at this writing that the current 1969 RM was in Ratzinger’s mind.

    On Latin – recall that before 1965 the readings were read in Latin only to be repeated before the sermon in the vernacular. No one doubts that an expansion of an accurate vernacular was called for in Vatican II. There is nothing here suggesting a total abolition of Latin which would have violated Vatican II’s liturgical decrees anyway.

    On the decentralization of the liturgy – I cannot help but think of the lock ICEL has on its copyright even for the lectionary. Giving the liturgy over to Bishop’s conferences has not done much to decentralize things practically. Consider the establishments opposition to accurate vernaculars, the liberal use of the 1962 missal, and unending requests for indults and other liturgical innovations that are not popular with the people though the expert liturgists find them important in their agenda. In other words instead of one bureaucracy we’ve created hundreds that frequently place themselves between the people and the liturgy.

    The Maid

16. Posted by Joseph Gannon
    on April 27th, 2007 at 10:26 am
    

    Speaking of naivete, it is difficult to see how anyone, having read JR’s brilliant summation of “1,900 years of cultural and liturgical development”, could possibly believe that all was well, liturgically, before Vatican II and that nothing needed to be done.

17. Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
    on April 27th, 2007 at 10:32 am
    

    John Polhamus:

    a. “…the limits to which participation in [the Mass] can be productively (or usefully) prescribed or enforced…”

    I wasn’t aware that (in your words) “participation can be productively…prescribed or enforced.” No, we are invited to participate. No participation AT ALL in the Tridentine. Just a bunch of folks snoozing, looking at their watches, twiddling their thumbs, praying their rosaries, wondering what the heck is transpiring way up yonder on the altar. Your choice of words ‘prescribed’ and ‘enforced’ is interesting — suggests a legalistic mindset. Of course, we know what Jesus thought of teachers of the law, don’t we?

    2. “…1,900 years of…liturgical development.” How about 1,900 years of liturgical encrustation? The latter, as you know, covers something that started out as simple and austere. What’s wrong with returning to the beauty of simplicity?

    3. “…the fundamentalist-inspired motivators of Vatican II”? Fundamentalism, as commonly understood, began roughly 1800 years after Christ’s death and resurrection. Nothing “fundamental” about fundamenalism. Nothing Tridentine about the Last Supper. Nothing Tridentine about the worship practices of our earliest Christian communities (please note my use of the plural here).

    4. “…impoverishment of the rest of the faithful…” I agree. Those opposed to renewing our liturgy were, indeed, impoverished. Those of us who experienced the Tridentine look back on those days as a period of “impoverishment.”

    5. “…the generations who lovingly fostered [the Tridentine] and held it in trust.” Who are you trying to kid here? I think the widespread reception of the Novus Ordo (and I use the word ‘reception’ deliberately) gives the lie to this belief of yours. I also think the development of extra-liturgical devotions of one kind or other when your Tridentine was in vogue, so to speak, speaks tellingly of the distance between the ordained and the laity. It’s pretty sad when believers must resort to developing practices outside their liturgy because the latter is unintelligible and not within their experiential grasp.

    6. Benedict’s “view has become somewhat more balanced since the implementation.” Most Catholics, I dare say, would disagree with your assessment about Ratzinger’s liturgical thinking.

    7. Vatican II “has become a rampant embarrassment to Christianity in general, and Roman Catholicism in particular”? You’d sure as heck fool me and most other folks, Catholic and otherwise. Ecumenism. Interfaith outreach and dialogue. Common efforts to promote a better world.

    8. Orthodoxy. There’s that word. And it only confirms I am dealing with a reactionary. And THAT says it all.

18. Posted by Bob Nunz
    on April 27th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
    

    I knew someone would suggest BXVI’s view of liturhy had matured. I’d suggest it’s become more Romanized and curialized and that will shape how many perceive it.

19. Posted by Joseph A. Komonchak
    on April 27th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
    

    Could we dispense with the labels, please, especially if assigning one is considered to “say it all”? To respond in kind, one could say that only a Modernist would consider concern for othodoxy a sure sign of a Reactionary, and then after thy’ve both spit in each other’s direction, where have they gotten, what has been achieved? Is the Church being built up?

20. Posted by Maid of Kent
    on April 27th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
    

    Joseph J.

    Name calling does not seem to further dialogue. Our Supreme Pontiff, when a Cardinal, had already asked whether V2 will be deemed a failed council one day because it failed to meet its high objectives. Other councils have failed to reach their purposes: Sardica, Ephesus, Lyons 1 and 2 & Constance. Ecumenical councils can fail. One can be a solid and faith filled Catholic firmly in the bosom of the Church and question the effectiveness of V2 and even more so its implementation.

    Read Ken Jones’ “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators” and then discuss whether V2 , aspects of V2, and its aftermath have been an “embarrassment”. “Always Our Children” is one embarrassment proven by the fact that despite being supported by some bishops it had to be fixed later, how many other actions of the Bishops’ Conference or statements of committees have had to be pulled back and fixed? The ICEL mistake is now being fixed after forty years of “embarrassing” liturgical language in English – and it will be expensive to fix. Clerical discipline has sometimes been an embarrassment for the Church since the Council with many leaving the clerical state and more than one bishop also causing scandal in public. If, in the years since Vatican II, we had seen an increase in vocations, an increase in conversions, an increase in Mass attendance, or stronger belief in basic Catholic doctrines we could call it a success but that has not been the case generally. By no statistical measure can we show that Vatican II revitalized the Church and that was its goal.

    Remember that critics of the council do not necessarily see it as the cause of the Church’s present crisis but more likely as something used to facilitate the crisis or at least as something that failed to slow the spread of the crisis.

    Your criticism of traditional Catholic devotions surprises me because the post V2 Church continues to encourage them. Devotions often grew from the liturgy with Benediction, for example, growing out of the liturgy itself, Corpus Christi, Holy Thursday, etc.. and other devotions are related to specific holy days (Divine Mercy). The basic error in your thinking is the way extra-liturgical devotions continue to be fostered in the post V2 Church.

    You also may not be considering the way many devout laity, since the 1960’s, have flocked to apparitions, some of which are not approved because their devotional needs are not being met in the public liturgy. Historically the faithful often turn to apparitions when the liturgical life of the Church is weak. Many progressive Catholics, without a strong liturgical life, have made social action and environmentalism the high point of their religious life even to the point of supporting social causes opposed by the Church.

    The happy reception of the new liturgy in the Church is difficult to support considering the almost immediate collapse in regular religious practice among laity and religious following the reform. The nations & religious communities where religious practice remained strongest after the council are frequently the same places where the reform was carried out most carefully or at least without a sudden restriction on popular Catholicism. Poland is a good example as are parts of the Third World & certain diocese in the US.

    I think you underestimate the way Catholics “participate” in the older liturgy and overestimate the way Catholics participate in the newer liturgy. Carrying things around does not necessarily amount to actual participation since one’s thoughts can be totally unrelated to what one is doing at Mass. You also seem to totally fail to recall the downturn in religious practice by Catholics following the introduction of the Pauline missal including the way it destabilized the largest religious communities.

    Ken Jone’s work proves that we cannot explain away the downturn in religious practice after the council as nothing more than the post hoc fallacy. The increase in religious practice by Evangelicals during the same period and the greater decline among liberal mainline Protestants also shows that our decline cannot be due to our conservativeness.

    The Maid

21. Posted by Barbara
    on April 27th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
    

    You know, it would be very interesting to poll adult Catholics about changing attitudes. Maybe such a poll exists. But this is the second time that Maid has referred to the “immediate collapse” of regular religious practice in the wake of V2, and as the child (and sister and niece and grandchild and cousin) of people who definitely figured in that collapse (mom went from 16 years of Catholic school to no church participation whatsoever, to this day, between 1958 and 1968), I can say that it was never my sense that my family members ceased being faithful because of V2. More like V2 didn’t go far enough, or even more likely, because of other developments, perhaps Humanae Vitae. And it’s possible that they would have left no matter what, because there were so many cultural cross currents at work at the same time. Anyway, it would be interesting and worthwhile to sort out who left and why, really, they left.

    I really wonder whether liturgy is as important as some think it is, at least as it pertains to this issue. Because it always struck me that the real problem, at least with those I knew very closely like my parents, was that when they started confronting their faith in the vernacular, the questions were not only harder to ignore, but there was no particular pulse of interior belief that continued beating once the questions came to the fore. And so they withdrew, actually, pretty happily. I’ve always thought that was attributable to lack of something, but whatever it was, it wasn’t the fault of V2.

22. Posted by Bernard Dauenhauer
    on April 27th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
    

    Just two brief remarks. First, I can’t figure out what Fr. Imbelli means by his comment. Would he care to elaborate a bit?
    Second, granted that some liturgical chantes in the wake of Vatican II have been awful, I cannot for the life of me see that reversion to Latin is a remedy. Surely, whatever the remedy, it can be expressed in the vernacular.

23. Posted by Robert P. Imbelli
    on April 27th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
    

    Professor Dauenhauer,

    Thank you for your question. I’ll try to be clearer.

    First, let me say that though I love Latin and regret that it has been neglected, I believe that liturgy in the vernacular is a gift and that it may be celebrated with reverence.

    Second, though I have no great objection to the wider use of the venerable Tridentine rite, I am not clamoring to celebrate it myself, unless there is clear pastoral need.

    What I tried to indicate in my original comment was two-fold.

    First, then Cardinal Ratzinger’s assertion in “The Spirit of the Liturgy” regarding the need for reform of the Tridentine rite, was balanced in the very next sentence by concern that what had transpired after the Council in some (many?) respects failed to achieve that reform.

    Thus one may criticize the actual implementation of the Council’s directives, as Ratzinger has done in several places, without being caricatured as “counter-reform.”

    In this regard may I recommend Father Jonathan Robinson’s “The Mass and Modernity.” Robinson who is a Canadian Oratorian and a philosopher reads the actual implementation of the reform as a capitulation to modernity and a betrayal of the spirit of the Roman rite. Whether one agrees with his assessment or not, it is a carefully argued book.

    Second, I tried to suggest that Ratzinger has been consistent in urging a return to the deep sources of the liturgy, in particular its wellspring which is the re-presentation of the paschal mystery of the Lord.

    This I claim is the true “participatio actuosa” desired by the Council, not surface cosmetic changes. Such active sharing in the paschal mystery can be often better achieved by silent attentiveness, then by activist hustle and bustle.

    To conclude an over-long comment (but you asked!): last week Cardinal Daneels of Belgium gave a presentation here at Boston College on the Liturgy. To my surprise he devoted much time to what he called “the shadow side” of the reform. He spoke of a number of issues, including the absence of silence. But at the root he suggested was the replacement of Christ as the “acting subject” of the liturgy by the community — a horizontalism that is self-regarding. A friend of mine calls it: “we, we, we, all the way home.”

    And Daneels is by no stretch of the imagination a “Curia Cardinal.”

    The challenge to us all is to recognize Christ as the Center, and we as (dare I say) “your servants for Christ’s sake.”

    If you have not read today’s posting of John Allen’s “All Things Catholic” on the Pope’s book on Jesus, I heartily recommend it. Allen sees clearly what the heart of Benedict’s pastoral service is.

24. Posted by Robert P. Imbelli
    on April 27th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
    

    Here is the link to the Allen column:

    http://ncrcafe.org/node/1056

25. Posted by Bill Mazzella
    on April 27th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
    

    Of course it is we, we we. This is proper theology. The pastor is the representative of the people, not their replacement. The people are the church, not the pastor. Check even the Latin, it is always we. Quasumus, per christum dominum, nostrum, pater noster, ut unim sint. Adjutorem nostum in nomini domini. Oremus. Miserere nobis. Ora pro nobis. It is always us. Love your neighbor as yourself. The commandment to love each other is as important as the one to love God. They are inseparable.

    “You are a royal nation a royal priesthood” Peter exhorted. Look at the letters of Paul and the gospels. It is and should always be we. Who prefers I?

    The “priesthood” had to be diminished. It became royalty instead of life, privilege instead of love. More people receive communion today than ever did prior to VII. It was just not the midnight fast. Someone told the people that our God is merciful. We did have some great bishops during and after Vatican II. Now we robots. And they are getting their reward.

    Sure it was a cyclone after VII, a necessary one. Now they want a new cyclone generated by guys like Edward Egan who say “We’s knows” meaning him and his wealthy status quo.

    Tell me about pre-VII. Spellman, Cody, O’connor of Boston and other power brokers. Nothing happened in the US without Spellman’s approval.

    The co-pontificate of Karol and Ratzinger polarized the church like no other time. They are traumatized by Europe and they reach out to other lands for solace. The Europeans perhaps know them better than we do.

    And did someone say Poland was a great example, where not one Jew was left standing?? Oh but the liturgy was proper.

    Ratzinger got scared. He is not consistent. He reverted to what is safe and he has divided the church. At least when he was at the cdf he spoke only from one side of his mouth.

26. Posted by Bill Mazzella
    on April 27th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
    

    As far as John Allen’s commentary of Ratzingers’s new book, it looks quite superficial at first look. The part which Allen seems to get right is when he appears to be translating from the italian. That part is fitting for a bishop where Benedict depicts the exploration of Africa for what it is; abuse by the powers of other countries.

    Other than that it is difficult to understand any criticism of Christology. I do understand the hellenistic part related by Allen. Here, I believe, Benedict is off. He repeats the old mantra that the incorporation of hellenism was a divine blessing. The comment about the Jews is fine and no one disagrees with.

    In general it sounds like there are more reverting to orthodoxy without any real attempt at scholarship. What is his point? To make those who obediently listen to him repeat what he says without giving them any reason to believe what he says.

    I hope the discussion will be better than this.

27. Posted by Bernard Dauenhauer
    on April 28th, 2007 at 8:51 am
    

    Thanks much, Fr. Imbelli, for your response and for the readings you recommend. By the way, I strongly agree that silence has an indispensable place in most, if not all, responsible liturgical acts.

28. Posted by Joseph Gannon
    on April 28th, 2007 at 10:19 am
    

    The hymns during communion and at the offertory, even when they are musically satisfactory, serve chiefly as a distraction. Also at weekday masses, in my view, there ought to be a decent interval of silence after communion time. And of course it would be wonderful if the participants would not regard the words “Go the mass is ended” as a signal that it is time to socialize. Unfortunately the presider often sets a bad example there.

    But I am not so sure about the desirability of the presider praying silently from time to time.

29. Posted by Bill Mazzella
    on April 28th, 2007 at 11:05 am
    

    Here is an opinion of the change in Ratzinger from Hans Kung who enthusiastically hired R as professor at Tubingen. http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=8d2fe79d-c1bc-4d00-8d3d-c58fa07baa74&k=21956

    Our lives turn on emotions more than we are willing to admit.

30. Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
    on April 28th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
    

    Sean, regarding your comments of April 26th, I offer the following in reply paragraph-by-paragraph:

    1. If you are not looking for a restoration of the Tridentine, i.e., understood as the pope giving every priest the right to say it without the ordinary’s permission, I must ask, “How does my opposition affect your opportunity (in your words) to “look at it like Beowolf or the Canterbury Tales”?

    In thinking how to respond, I immediately thought of the contributions by Professor Edgar Schein to the study of organizational culture. In his ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP (2nd Ed), Dr. Schein notes the three levels of culture:

    a. Artifacts, defined as visible organizational structures and processes. These can be easy to observe but hard to decipher in terms of their meaning to group members. Artifacts include “all the phenomena that one sees, hears, and feels.” They are “the visible products of the group such as the architecture of its physical environment, its language, its technology and products, its artistic creations, and its style as embodied in clothing, manners of address, emotional displays, myths and stories told about the organization, published lists of values, observable rituals and ceremonies,” etc. They also include “the visible behavior of the group and the organizational processes into which such behavior is made routine.”

    b. Espoused values/justifications revealed in a group’s/organization’s strategies, goals, and philosophies. Borrowing from Schein and a dictionary, we can see a value as a sense of what ought to be as distinct from what is; a principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable.

    c. Basic underlying assumptions, defined as unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs, perceptions, thoughts, and feelings of a group (or, as Schein points out, even a sub-group within a larger organization). “Basic assumptions…tend to be those we neither confront nor debate and hence are extremely difficult to change.” In scrutinizing values, we must be prepared “to resurrect, reexamine, and possibly change some of the more stable portions of our cognitive structure.” Schein notes that cultural formation is always a striving toward meeting the human need for cognitive stability, consistency, and meaning. Thus, to examine one’s values (as reflected in the group to which one belongs) “temporarily destabilizes our cognitive and interpersonal world, releasing [much] anxiety.”

    Culture, as defined by Schein, is a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.

    The movement from group-in-forming to a genuine group/organization begins when a collective is faced with a problem, task, or issue to be solved, accomplished, or resolved. The founder (or potential leader) espouses a value — or values — to deal with the challenge. If this contribution is effective, other (prospective) members acknowledge the fact, make the value(s) their own, and — over time — we see a genuine group/sub-group/organization that shares basic underlying assumptions that, by definition, are normally taken for granted and, thus, go unchallenged. I might add that when this phenomenon occurs, things can be cozy for those who continue to adhere to the group’s norms, etc. “Don’t rock the boat, or else…..” If the latter occurs, a person can leave or challenge the status quo. If a member leaves, that still leaves the group to deal with various internal and external threats. On the other hand, if a member challenges the status quo and offers a new value to help the group deal with a problem, etc., and if s/he is successful, then we see the beginning of a new cycle, new value(s), and new assumptions. Over time, new artifacts can arise.

    I am not (and have never wished to be) a theologian, liturgist, or church historian. However, I think organizational psychology, which grew out of social psychology, can help us look at the contributions of theology, liturgical studies, and history in a new light vis-a-vis our discussions about change in the church.

    Returning to your first paragraph, Sean, I would appreciate your describing in your words “how a [the?] story is supposed to look.” In this regard, please describe what you mean by the word ’story.’

    2. Regarding exercise of episcopal authority, I do not (again, your words) “want it both ways.” I did see genuine leadership during the Second Vatican Council. The world’s bishops had the benefit of scholarship made available to them in lectures, meetings, etc. They were convinced of the need to make important changes in the church. In Schein’s model of culture, we would see changes in artifacts and even in articulated values. Church scholars persuaded our bishops to reexamine underlying beliefs that had been taken for granted for centuries. As Schein notes, this process can be most uncomfortable. Indeed, it can be destabilizing, and, yet, every group/organization must be able to deal productively with internal and external challenges and threats if it wishes to survive. Life is change, and the Spirit is the source of true life. I doubt the Holy Spirit ever rests on its laurels. Many scholars have noted that 40 years is hardly enough time to gauge the success of major institutional change in an organization nearly 2,000 years old. We are so impatient today, and, of course, some folks will never accept change. Again, refer to Schein’s insights in this discussion.

    Unfortunately, I do not see episcopal leadership today. JPII would see to it that his bishops remained appendages to the Vatican, and he would appoint (for the most part, perhaps?) reactionary types to vacant and newly established sees. Using Schein’s model, not only would these guys cling to obsolete artifacts and espouse values not at all in keeping with the spirit of Vatican II, they would also fail to examine basic assumptions/beliefs underlying such values. Close ranks, circle the wagons. Protect the status quo. Don’t let things get out of hand. Change, like life in general, can be downright messy and uncomfortable. Control is a reactionary response and, in this context, is fear-based. Add Vatican browbeating and pew spies to the mix, and it’s easily understandable why any of the moderate-progressive-liberal bishops today would find themselves in survival mode. Yes, indeed, the reactionary bishops are (my description) “fearful old men” or old before their time (Burke in St. Louis, for example, is younger than I, but fear knows no age limits).

    3. Certainly from the 4th century on, Sean, the Catholic Church would see the rise and maintenance of your and my “elite hierarchy [often] against…the people.” Bishops assumed the imperial trappings (artifacts) of Roman civil rule, and the (simple) Lord’s Supper (”I came not to be served, but to serve” “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” “I want mercy, not sacrifice” “Whoever wants to be first must be the servant of all” etc., etc., etc.) would — over centuries — become so encrusted and so far from ordinary human experience that the laity and church would develop various devotions — processions, novenas, rosaries, eucharistic adorations, etc. — to allow the laity some sense of identification with the institutional church. And the rest, as they say, is history — and not a pretty one, at that! A recent PBS program about development of the English-language Bible is a case in point: Catholic ecclesial leaders persecuted fellow Christians who wanted the Holy Scriptures in their vernacular. Why? Control. Read “fear” here. And fear, say many, is the root cause of most sin. Vatican II reminded us that all of us — from the pope down — constitute the People of God. Bishops have a duty to teach, but they can also learn from the rest of us. Borrowing from systems theory, the church de facto has a feedback loop, and Vatican II acknowledged this reality.

    4. While you may gravitate to the artifacts of incense, bells, monstrances, etc., I myself do not. Different expressions of piety. “Different strokes for different folks.” I would only caution you that we must be prepared to examine the espoused values and basic underlying assumptions that undergird such artifacts. Today, we have more tradition-bound Catholics who accept the teachings of Vatican II in greater or lesser degree and remain in communion with Rome. We also have Catholics (SSPXers being a good example) who not only prefer more traditional expressions of piety — fiddleback chasubles, etc. — but also reject the teachings of Vatican II. Professor Schein’s contributions to organizational psychology and the study of culture, in particular, can be quite helpful in looking at ecclesial disputes today. As he points out, it can be very unsettling to have to confront beliefs one has always taken for granted. Yet, this is part of life. If there is an undisputed standard to keep us on track, that rule would be the gospels. For me, post-scriptural tradition must not be overlooked, but it cannot replace the gospels as the most reliable expression of what the Lord asks of us.

31. Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
    on April 28th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
    

    Oops!

    My above comments were intended for inclusion in the “His Own Pope?” thread.

    Sorry.

32. Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
    on April 28th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
    

    Joseph Komonchak – “Could we dispense with the labels, please…?”

    Father Joe, I remind you — :) — that in a comment of yours in the “Limbo in Limbo?” thread, you mentioned “theological liberals” and “theological continuum.” I suspect you would agree that besides using labels to attack, one can also employ labels as a shorthand way of referring to a subgroup rather than using space and time to refer to all the commonly accepted attributes of said subgroup in addressing a matter under discussion. When it comes to specifying points on a continuum in descriptive (as opposed to numerical) form, we can encounter all kinds of problems. What do we mean by liberal? Or conservative? How does a conservative differ from a reactionary? A liberal from a progressive?

    My point? Simply that while we do not have any official definition of such terms, we nonetheless use them because they have come to acquire generally accepted meanings in popular as well as specialized discourse. Using labels saves time and effort.

    Bernard Dauenhauer – “I strongly agree that silence has an indispensable place in most, if not all, responsible liturgical acts.”

    Could this comment not betray ethnocentrism? Are you limiting your observation to certain cultures, or do you think the liturgies in all cultures should make some room for silence in order to be “responsible?”

    Robert Imbelli – “…activist hustle and bustle.”

    Does this characterization reflect your experience with the Novus Ordo? Is not “attentiveness” (as in “to attend to”) key to “participation” — even when there is no physical movement? When you think of the Tridentine service, does “attentiveness” on the part of the congregation come to mind — use of Latin, sotto voce, back to people, distance between priest and people, physical barrier (communion rail), worshipers praying the rosary or off in LaLa Land?

    Maid of Kent, you’re next — but not tonight :)

33. Posted by Peter Vanderschraaf
    on April 29th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
    

    Dear Maid of Kent,

    I’m sorry, one part of your recent response to Joseph simply has me mixed up.

    “The increase in religious practice by Evangelicals during the same period and the greater decline among liberal mainline Protestants also shows that our decline cannot be due to our conservativeness.”

    This claim simply does not support the rest of your argument, and I’m tempted (evidently wrongly) to think that it might work against your argument. For one might infer from the resurgence of evangelical churches and the decline of practice in mainline Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church that a great many people wish to participate in worship services that are far less traditional, not more traditional.

    Allow me to elaborate. Evangelical churches self consciously try to avoid ritual in their services, because their members believe that ritual tends to interfere with authentic prayer. They celebrate communion infrequently, and when they do their pastors do not distribute the elements. The members of the congregations pass the small crackers and the grape juice to each other as they remain seated. They have no hymnals, because they think that projecting the lyrics of their worship songs on a wide screen make it easier for all to sing. Their music is entirely contemporary, in the soft rock style of artists such as Amy Grant. They have no icons or statues in their chapels, but many of them do have monitor television screens so that all can see close up images of the pastors and the musicians. Pastors frequently invite anyone who wishes to come forward to the altar for a blessing and laying on of the hands.

    Do you understand my puzzlement?

    And interestingly, the term “evangelical” may soon be outdated. A number of evangelical churches have renamed themselves so that their new names no longer contain the word “evangelical”. They are doing so because they do not want visitors and outsiders to conclude that they endorse all of the political agendas of some prominent evangelical ministers, including for example Pat Robertson.

34. Posted by Peter Vanderschraaf
    on April 29th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
    

    Hello All,

    Just a quick follow up for clarification which most of you don’t need. In my previous post, I intended no normative judgment of the worship services in evangelical churches. Among my many friends who are evangelicals are my two brothers, who left the Roman Catholic Church many years ago and years later found a home in their evangelical church. My nieces and nephew are being raised in this church. And I love this church, which I occasionally visit when I can be with my family.

35. Posted by Maid of Kent
    on April 30th, 2007 at 9:19 am
    

    Peter V.,

    Thanks for your question. My comment about the simultaneous rise of conservative Evangelical Christianity amid the fee-fall among mainline Protestantism illustrates that our decline was not due to our conservative theology on moral issues.

    The fact that this increase in Catholic defections occurred after the imposition of the Pauline missal (not to be confused with Vatican II) and not before indicates to us that it was a defection not related to any unease with traditional Catholic worship, the Latin language at Mass, or chant. It it were then the decline would not have waited for the period following the council.

    The mainline Protestant denominations adjusted their moral theology to the dominant progressive intellectual culture and did not experience any renewal (TEC). Catholicism introduced the vernacular and folk music into her worship and did not experience any measurable revitalization to date (forty years). Following the principle’s of Gresham’s law our professional liturgists often continue to impose mediocrity and fight reform, nevertheless.

    Catholics have a different religious sensibility than Protestants but I agree that many may have fallen into Evangelical communities when they were turned away from their traditional religious identity by misdirected clerics and lay specialists who claimed to be implementing the mantle of V2.

    The Maid

36. Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
    on April 30th, 2007 at 10:19 am
    

    Maid of Kent,

    You state that “our [Catholic] decline was not due to our conservative theology on moral issues.” You then attribute our decline to the introduction of the Novus Ordo, use of vernacular, folk music, etc.

    Having lived through the changes since Vatican II (graduated from high school in 1966), I can assure you that any decline must be attributed to the overall cultural shifts in recent years. I know many Catholics who left the church not because of Vatican II but, rather, because they came to realize that up until the council, they had been shamboozled by their church — will go to hell if eat meat on Fridays, ad nauseum that was part of the Tridentine culture imposed on the laity (remember, we were not seen as THE People of God back then; it was just pray, pay, obey, and don’t question). These folks left the church as a way of (so to speak) “flipping the bird” at a church that finally admitted it had imposed a bunch of crap on them, their parents, grandparents, etc. over the years.

    Let’s not overlook press reports in recent years that the Catholic Church has been growing in numbers and remains the largest body in Christendom. This growth is occurring post-Vatican II. If one took all of our more traditional-minded Catholics in a given diocese and consolidated their numbers into a collective whole, any resulting Tridentine congregation(s) would be easily outnumbered by Novus Ordo parishes. My diocese, just for sake of example, has one parish authorized to provide a Sunday Tridentine service in the metro area. While attendance is apparently good, this one service meets these folks’ preference. I seriously doubt any of our more traditionalist-minded folks in outlying areas of our diocese would be large enough in numbers to establish such a weekly venue for them.

    I’ll try to get back to you on one of your earlier postings later today or this evening. “Irons in the fire.”

37. Posted by Maid of Kent
    on April 30th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
    

    Joseph,

    I realize that you grew up during the period and that gave you your own life experience but we cannot take too much from your anecdotal experience and equate it to the general population. I already noted that the conservative Evangelical denominations became even more conservative during the post-conciliar period when they went through their explosive growth. We cannot presume that so many people lost their interest in the Church because the Church remained too liturgical because the decline only appeared to this significant extent after the introduction of the Pauline ordo. The conservative Evangelicals continued their growth despite (or because of) their traditional theology and morality while the liberal mainliners went through a free-fall in membership. The introduction of the vernacular failed to revitalize our Church and we must have the courage to admit it.

    I think you may be on to something when you say after the council many people felt “shamboozled by their church” but not for the no meat on Friday example that you gave. Clericalism was running rampant at the time with priests literally tearing churches apart and many were tearing the traditional liturgy apart figuratively while the bewildered people continued to pray, pay, and obey their clergy for what we now know to be no legitimate reason. Within religious communities the effect was even more consequential. The faithful were scandalized and their faith naturally weakened in response to these pastoral errors that continue to be made in some places even today.

    The “pray, pay, and obey, axiom applies to the post-conciliar period where clergy took great liberties with the liturgy, the conciliar text, and the traditions of the Church irrespective of their own duty to protect that tradition and the wishes of the laity. Many parishes became and continue to be self-selecting with the “this is the way we do it here” mentality enforced with a total lack of justice and sensitivity for peoples’ piety and their right to their legitimate rite. This is true even in rural areas where the find a church you like advice is unrealistic. The drop off in Mass attendance after the introduction of the Pauline ordo illustrates the truism that the People of God never volunteered to trade the St. Gregory hymnal for OCP.

    Growth in the Church since the council has not kept pace with the statistics before the council. Ken Jones’ book “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators” cannot be easily dismissed because it is statistically based and is not a traditionalist polemic. US growth is due to immigration not conversions or natural increase. The number of baptisms, conversions, marriages, catholic school age population, vocations, etc… has continued to fall since the post-conciliar period indicating that the #70’s style renewal has not revitalized the Church. You cannot presume that today’s few “Tridentine” style parishes would not eventually surpass Pauline parishes because they do not compete on an equal footing. They operate under severe restrictions. Many dioceses continue to forbid the rite altogether and where they exist they are frequently offered in out-of-the-way locations and at inconvenient times. The possible M. P. may correct this difficulty. It would be interesting to compare the number of vocations produced by traditional parishes to Pauline parishes operating nearby.

    By the way – I attend a Pauline parish.

    Maid of Kent

38. Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
    on April 30th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
    

    Maid of Kent, I think you make very questionable judgments based on numbers alone. I did a cursory internet search on the book the mention, and while one should not ignore the numbers, one should also not ignore the context. This lawyer Ken Jones clearly has a bias, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. In one interview, he suggests that Vatican II was (partly?) intended to increase our numbers and that his results show the council’s failure in this respect. I am not at all aware of any pronouncement by the council that it was inter alia trying to beef up the church’s numbers. What I would find more interesting is the numbers of folks who left the Catholic Church both before and after Vatican II and their reasons for doing so. A friend of mine says he has heard anecdotally that a good number of Catholic converts eventually leave the church. I’d guess we have no reliable numbers about this possible exodus.

    Your attempt to juxtapose Evangelical traditional morality with Catholic liturgical vernacular is a good example of mixing apples and oranges to try to prove a point, in this case, growth vs. decline. It doesn’t work.
    Also, to imply (using context here) that revitalization is a “numbers game” misses the point. I remind you that even Jesus told his complaining disciples that the other guys (who were not part of their circle) were doing his Father’s work. Revitalization, by the way, can be messy, and forty years is hardly enough time to gauge the impact of a Vatican council. People aren’t patient today (likely never were :) Jury’s still out.

    “Clericalism was running rampant” after Vatican II. I’ve got news for you: it was running rampant before the council. Yes, there was generally poor implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. I would attribute this situation to the simple fact that Good Pope John called for opening the windows of our church because the inner environment had become quite stuffy — and the Church Fathers, taking this cue, forged renewed understandings of church, etc. — and because the rest of us were very much in step. Consider: the council — a notably pastoral one, by the way — shook things up, prompting cardinals like Ottaviani et al to do everything in their power to frustrate the worldwide bishops’ call for major change.

    “The faithful were scandalized.” Yes and no. Again, we don’t have numbers.

    You state the clergy after Vatican II had a “duty to protect that tradition and the wishes of the laity.” “Wishes of the laity?” Even I must question this assertion! As for “tradition,” did Vatican II overthrow it? I don’t think so. Renewal can only bring a new lustre to tradition.

    “Many parishes became and continue to be self-selecting with the ‘this is the way we do it here’ mentality enforced with a total lack of justice and sensitivity for people’s piety and their right to their legitimate rite.” As a student of group/organizational behavior, I can only say your observation is true of any such entity, churches included (perhaps especially places of worship — and not just Catholic ones!). As far as insensitivity is concerned, I think you have a legitimate gripe. Fact is, however, some formal leaders are good at dealing with conflict, others not so. Your concern about piety also rings a true. “Different strokes for different folks.” As for your reference to “their right to their legitimate rite,” I do not have enough information to reply. What is “legitimate” here?

    I do not share your belief that the much discussed motu proprio would somehow reinvigorate the Tridentine rite, thus giving rise to such parishes surpassing in number Novus Ordo parishes. I must remind you, of course, that revitalization/renewal is not a “numbers game.” Quality, not quantity.

39. Posted by Maid of Kent
    on May 1st, 2007 at 7:41 am
    

    Joseph,

    Thanks for your thoughts. I think it is important to remember that our Catholicity brings us together religiously in far more ways than we may seem to be apart. Our communion in the Church is real and profound. There is much legitimate diversity too and all must be respected.

    The stated goal of Vatican II included revitalizing the Church. That does include increasing her numbers.

    If you read Jones’ book you will probably not like the facts he presents but will have to produce a contrary study to argue with his results. He uses accepted measurable statistics to reveal certain things that we may wish were otherwise.

    Jones’ book does include the numbers of conversions, marriages, baptisms and vocations etc… both before and after the council. This is where his take is unique – he shows us the trends before, during, and after the council. Many years of steady increase in all the measurable areas suddenly reversed with the introduction of the Pauline missal (not to be confused with Vatican II itself).

    We have to have the courage to face the truth.

    I was not mixing apples and oranges when I mentioned our decline in regular Mass attendance after the introduction of the vernacular Mass and later when I mentioned that our presumed moral conservativeness cannot be the reason for our ecclesiastical decline in America. The latter fact was mentioned to address those who suggest “we have simply not changed enough” as their explanation for the decline in observance after the council. The mainline denominations like the Episcopal Church and the United Methodists also prove this point because their recent moral accommodation only increased their decline.

    The “quality not quantity” comment sounds similar to something TEC’s +++ K. J. Shiori said about her own denomination’s small numbers. I’ve heard similar observations from those who remain in certain progressive Catholic religious congregations. I guess the Shakers said as much. It ignores the sense of the faithful and seems to sustain a self-fulfilling prophecy of decline. It is probably more comforting than admitting we’ve made some serious pastoral errors. Think how frightening it might be for some progressive religious or liturgists to discover that they’ve committed their lives to a failed project. I think that explains some people’s reluctance in accepting something so logical as an accurate translation of the missal.

    I agree that non-Catholic churches are frequently self-selecting. We’ve always had self-selecting religious communities but most parishes are territorial. A self-selecting parish, however, violates our Catholic ecclesiology and the still existing concept of the territorial parish. The development of the self-selecting parish is clearly a negative kind of assimilation into the dominant Protestant religious culture where people frequently found a church to suit the tastes of a small group. National parishes are unique exceptions to facilitate immigration.
    The self-selecting parish is unworkable in authentic Catholicism in my opinion. It is terribly unjust too – especially in rural areas.

    For similar reasons rregular liturgy is unjust in religious congregations too because the unfortunate religious has no choice but to worship with his or her community. Religious order priests can at least celebrate a private Mass to sustain their religious needs when the community Mass is irregular but the poor nun or religious brother has no such option.

    To answer your question – Canon 214 (1983 code) refers to the peoples’ right to receive the legitimate rite of their Church. Canon 107 maintains the concept of the territorial parish. Vatican II’s SC identifies the authority that determines what is legitimate in the liturgy.

    The Maid

40. Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
    on May 2nd, 2007 at 12:26 am
    

    Maid of Kent, I respond to your comments (in the order presented) that were posted on April 27. My focus is on selected items that “jumped off the page,” so to speak. Therefore, I’ll not be addressing everything you shared. My not doing so should not be construed as agreement or disagreement. I simply want to deal with what I consider the more important views, etc. you posted.

    My references are:

    a. Giuseppe Alberigo. A Brief History of Vatican II.
    b. Kevin Eckstrom. “Reforming the Reform…” Commonweal, Dec. 2, 2005.
    c. Richard McBrien. Lives of the Popes.
    d. Keith Pecklers. Worship: A Primer in Christian Ritual.
    e. Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium, as posted on the official Vatican website.
    f. John Wilkins. “Lost in Translation…” Commonweal, Dec. 2, 2005.

    1. “No one doubts that an expansion of an accurate vernacular was called for in Vatican II. There is nothing here suggesting a total abolition of Latin which would have violated Vatican II’s liturgical decrees anyway.”

    What do you mean by “accurate vernacular?” I have combed through SC and found no specifications for accuracy in translation. Granted, there are “norms” of one kind or other in Articles 22 through 40, but there is nothing governing accuracy. Nothing. As I’ll note below, SC stipulated that once the pope approved a territorial episcopal decree announcing the decision to employ the vernacular in the liturgy (as Paul VI did), the bishops’ conference essentially had the “green light” to develop and approve translations — and without Vatican interference, I should point out.

    Pecklers notes that it was not until the papacy of Damasus I in the mid-4th century that Latin was authorized for use in the Mass in the city of Rome. This precedent, a vernacular concession, was an acknowledgement by the pope that Christians in Rome needed to understand, according to Pecklers, “what they were celebrating.” At this time, it’s possible (probable?) that had Damasus attempted to expand his approval to communities in other dioceses, other bishops might very well have told him to mind his own business. More on this below.

    2. “…[I]nstead of one bureaucracy [involved in translations of liturgical texts] we’ve created hundreds that frequently place themselves between the people and the liturgy.”

    Article 36.4 of SC stipulates, “Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above [i.e., reference found in Article 22.2 to "various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established"].” For the United States, this body was the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Article 36.3 restricted the Vatican’s role to approving/confirming a territorial authority’s decree reflecting its decision “whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used.” In other words, once a territorial decree was approved by Rome, it was up to (in this case) the bishops’ conference to “run with it” vis-a-vis translations.

    It’s possible that Article 54 came into play at some point (I don’t know). This section states, “And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution [i.e., Vatican approval] is to be observed.” Eckstrom notes, “It quickly became evident that, once begun, vernacular translations had to go the whole way [in order to achieve the "'full, conscious, and active participation' desired by the council"]….The Vatican Congregation for Rites…hesitated and made attempts at retreat, but in 1967 Paul VI gave the bishops’ conferences his permission to press ahead.”

    Before proceeding, it’s important to note that when Paul VI was presented SC for signature, he had to decide (per Alberigo) “the formula by which [he] would accept the Council’s decisions.” Vatican II’s “rules of order provided for the same formula…used in 1870 at Vatican Council I,” i.e., papal approval. “Paul VI was convinced that such a formula was untenable in the light of the new ecclesial mentality of communion that had been expressed by the great majority of the fathers.”

    As a result, according to Alberigo, “the pope affirmed that ‘the items that are found in this constitution, both individually and as a whole, have been found agreeable to the Council fathers. And We [the pope], with the apostolic authority granted to us by Christ, TOGETHER WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS, also approve, decree, and establish these in the Holy Spirit, and we ordain that what has been established thus by the Council should be promulgated for the glory of God” (emphases added).

    It’s important to understand that SC included conciliar as well as papal approval. Paul VI acknowledged conciliar power and authority. SC, a constitution of the church and not just another Vatican document, reflected co-approval, not just papal approval.

    Your apparent complaint that “we’ve created hundreds [of bureaucracies] that frequently place themselves between the people and the liturgy” is difficult to fathom in light of your apparent wish for “one bureaucracy.” I’d guess the “one bureaucracy” you have in mind is Rome. Even the church’s official teaching on its principle of subsidiarity acknowledges the inherent value in leaving decisionmaking to the lowest level able to exercise it. How can a centralized international bureaucracy effectively respond to the genuine needs of “the people?” In our country, for instance, we tend to complain about the federal government meddling in local affairs.

    Your dissatisfaction with “expert liturgists” making “liturgical innovations” based on “their agenda” overlooks the fact that the implementation of SC from day one has been marked by various agendas including, most noticeably, the one in Rome. Indeed, Cardinal Ottaviani tried from the outset to thwart forward movement by the world’s bishops.

    Richard McBrien notes, “Not until the pontificate of Leo the Great (440 – 66) was the claim of universal papal jurisdiction…first articulated and begun to be exercised in any really decisive manner.” Up till then, “the papacy’s [gradually] emerging tendency to claim pastoral authority over local churches outside of Rome [was checked by] the readiness of other bishops to confront and challenge the Bishop of Rome [ --- and prevail --- ] when they felt he was going too far in the enforcement of pastoral practice or discipline.”

    It was not my intention to engage in “name calling.” For more on this matter, please see my threads with Joseph Komonchak.

    3. “The ICEL mistake is now being fixed after forty years of ‘embarrassing’ liturgical language in English — and it will be expensive to fix.”

    On this point, I can only refer you to the Commonweal articles by Eckstrom and Wilkins. No one can dispute the facts therein. On your use of ‘embarrassing’ to describe the quality (or lack thereof) of liturgical translations, I suspect you are in a minority. While hindsight is 20/20 regarding process to date, the fact is that the translations being used today — as well as many proposed translations — have been quite good. Bishop Donald Troutman, in my opinion, has given quite persuasive reasons to question Vatican curial interference in the translation effort since the ascendancy of JPII, if, in fact, not before then. Indeed, this disruption caused by Rome is in direct conflict with the clear mandate in SC. I would go so far as to question the authority of Liturgiam Authenticam. In my view, it may not overrule or otherwise take precedence over SC. It’s one thing for a pope to abrogate a decree by a predecessor. It’s another thing altogether, however, for a pope effectively to annul the provisions of a church constitution approved not just by a predecessor but also by the world’s bishops. Such unilateral action can only be a travesty and undemine papal influence and credibility in the church.

    4. “Your criticism of traditional Catholic devotions surprises me because the post V2 Church continues to encourage them.”

    To clarify, I did not criticize such devotions. Instead, I criticized the development of extra-liturgical devotions in response to the growing distance between the laity and their liturgy. In a nutshell, the laity had no idea of what was taking place on the altar: priest with back to people, sotto voce, etc. In his work, Pecklers notes, for instance, the following: “[L]iturgy had become the property of the clergy so much so that liturgical books even failed to acknowledge the presence of the laity at public Masses. The normative way of celebrating Mass was essentially without a congregation, even when a congregation was present.” If the laity cannot participate in the liturgy, what are they to do? Various devotions were developed to respond to this deficiency.

    5. “Historically the faithful often turn to apparitions when the liturgical life of the Church is weak.”

    You may very well be right.

    Nonetheless, please reflect on your comment. Most apparitions likely/probably occurred well before the Second Vatican Council. Apparitions, real or otherwise, tend to draw people like flies to honey. This reasoning would suggest that the Tridentine liturgy and its antecedents were (to use your word) “weak.” When we throw in popular devotions such as novenas, processions, etc., one must seriously question your suggestion that pre-Vatican II was just dandy. History would suggest otherwise.

    Consider, too, that most Catholics — for better or worse — no longer participate in various extra-liturgical devotions. While the number of folks visiting apparition sites may be large, I dare say these people constitute but a bare fraction of the total makeup of the Catholic Church worldwide.

    Conceding the possibility of some grain of truth in your assertion, it would suggest that the Novus Ordo is not “weak” as you would like to believe. After all, if most Catholics are not participating in various devotions or visiting apparition sites, this reasoning would suggest that our liturgy meets with their approval.

    6. You challenge the widely held view that the Tridentine stifles liturgical participation by the laity. “Carrying things around does not necessarily amount to actual participation since one’s thoughts can be totally unrelated to what one is doing at Mass.”

    Have I got news for you!

    If there’s one observation that can be made about the Tridentine, this liturgy put distance between priest (the “sayer”) and people (”attendees”). This separation was physical, psychological, auditory, linguistic, etc. Indeed, the Tridentine puts people in the passive mode. There is no participation. The spectacle and mystery take place on the altar. The priest is the “star;” the congregation is the “audience.”

    Vatican II called for “full, conscious, and active participation.” Sacrosanctum Concilium called for “restoration” of the liturgy. One church historian has noted that this council used the term ‘renewal’ far more often than the word ‘reform.’ Not only that, but Vatican II used the word ‘renewal’ more often than any other general council of the church.

    To renew something is to make it new again. (By contrast, to reform something is to realign the existing parts in the hope of attaining some measure of improvement.) To restore something is to remove the layers of “stuff” that have been added over time in order to bring the item back to its original lustre and appearance.

    In conclusion, I myself cannot accept the so-called “new and improved” translations of the liturgy because:

    1. The whole process was in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. JPII usurped the authority of the world’s bishops assembled in an ecumenical council, an authority recognized by Paul VI as befitting such a gathering in modern times.

    2. The Council expressed its desire that the liturgy be revised “in the light of sound tradition” and that it “be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.” I see a difference between tradition and sound tradition. The latter denotes a tradition inspired and informed by the beliefs, practices, and liturgical life of the earliest Christians, not by the accretions built up during subsequent periods.

    3. Because I see this latest step by the Vatican as consistent with efforts over the years to frustrate the intent of the council fathers, I cannot accept what I see as deliberate attempts to reinstitute liturgical practices so much associated with the development and maintenance of the sinful clerical culture of our church. “Give ‘em an inch, and they’ll take a mile!”

41. Posted by Maid of Kent
    on May 2nd, 2007 at 9:18 am
    

    Joseph, Is anyone still reading this thread. You’ve written a well thought out note so I think I should reply.

    I have found some area of agreement between us.

    To your points: There is little value to an inaccurate vernacular Joseph and there is no evidence from the council that the Fathers there envisioned the use of a less than totally accurate translation of the vernacular in the various languages. The usages in other countries give further evidence of this. Your claim that the current liturgical reform and renewal betrays the council fails to realize that Vatican II did not create a new missal. The post conciliar missals (plural) were issued under papal auspices.

    Eckstom’s feeling that once begun a total vernacular was necessary to bring about the “full and active participation” of the people (despite betraying the literal directive in the conciliar text) may be his opinion but the experience of the Maronite rite, where liturgical Aramaic was preserved within a mostly vernacular liturgy, disproves his point because that axiom from SC about participation also applies to the Maronites. Any discussion on the requirements of SC per the western liturgy must keep the 1965 RM in mind. The “lived experience” of the Roman Church after the implementation of the full vernacular liturgy, at least in its current form, reinforces the position of those who disagree with Eckstrom.

    You overstate my opinion about Papal authority over the liturgy. I have become convinced, in part by Ratzinger’s writings but also by my own read on post-conciliar history, that no bureaucracy should govern the ancient liturgy to the point of simply ordering the abandonment of one ancient liturgy for another. Paul VI’s reform was pastorally damaging because it seemed to place the pope over & above venerable tradition instead of placing him at the service of tradition. Liturgy has to develop organically and should not give the impression of being a bureaucratic creation. Paul VI’s action in replacing one liturgy with another must have put the Eastern Orthodox ill at ease because it probably realized some of their worst concerns about papal hegemony.

    Your seeming disapproval of over-reaching papal prerogative is precisely where we may find some middle ground. Paul VI’s imposition of a new missal in poor English translation & the conferences role in that process is precisely what we are attempting to recover from. Don’t misinterpret me to be suggesting that we must return to the 1962 missal – that is not what I’m suggesting. I am pointing out that Paul VI’s action, one you seem to support, is exactly what you oppose in later papacies. You seemingly bemoan “Vatican (the Holy See’s) curial interference” in the current translation reform while failing to recognize the broad exercise of that “interference” in the creation and implementation of the 1970 Roman Missal after the already existing, post Vatican II, 1965 Missal. It appears to me that exercises of papal power that you like, no matter how extreme (Pope Paul’s abrogation of previous missals), are legitimate in your eyes, but even more restrained exercises of Roman authority, as in the new ICEL work, are unjust to you seemingly only because you disagree with them. By the way, the first part of SC reserves final authority over the liturgy to the Holy See (the Vatican) or Pope Paul would never have been able to implement his missal by restricting its predecessors.

    I don’t agree that the majority of English speaking Catholics would second your defense of the current English translation of the Mass. The way people “voted with their feet” after the unilateral imposition of this missal to replace the post-conciliar 1965 Roman Missal, gives evidence to the general dissatisfaction. The exodus from the religious communities, the drop in vocations, the general malaise that fell over the Church gives evidence that you have little basis from which to claim any general satisfaction with the current text. Evidently, despite Bishop Trautman’s displeasure, the bishops are also dissatisfied with the current text.

    There has been an explosion of apparitions since the council. The majority of approved apparitions do date from before the council but many unapproved ones date from the conciliar and post-conciliar period and continue to provide the nucleus of many devout Catholic’s religious lives. This reality, in my opinion, gives further evidence to the general failure of the liturgical reform along with the absence of any evidence of Catholic revitalization in traditionally Catholic areas after the council. Another example of Catholic piety moving away from the liturgy since the council is the charismatic movement.

    Joseph, you continue to claim that the situation in the Church was generally negative or at least no worse before the council than it is today. The statistics prove otherwise. It does appear to give evidence to Gresham’s law when that assertion is made – always without statistical evidence.

    You claim the Pauline missal must be working because “most baptized Catholics do not participate in (extra-liturgical) devotions or visit apparition sites” failing to note that this is largely true because so many baptized Catholics have abandoned the regular practice of their faith altogether since the vernacular missal was introduced. Ken Jones’ work, which I encourage you to read, shows that this abrupt decline occurred after many years of sustained increase in every measurable area.

    On your comment about the clerical ‘star’ in the older liturgy and the congregation acting as ‘attendees’ I can only respond that forming a clique of volunteer lay ministers simply increases the number of “stars” while still leaving the majority as “attendees” and more importantly – the formation of a liturgical clique in a parish simply creates another more formidable” wall” between the people and the liturgy than any (still permitted) altar rail could ever be. The participation the Council Fathers called for is “actual participation” and does not limit itself to public roles or performance. Also, the rubrics of the current missal continue to foresee an ‘ad orientatem” possibility proving the point that Mass facing the people is not a required component for “full, active (or actual) participation” in the Mass.

    The usual performance of the current liturgy is far more dependent on the celebrant than the former liturgy was because the rubrics of the older liturgy prevented the celebrant’s personality from getting in the way of the celebration.

    I cannot appreciate your opposition to the new and improved liturgical translation that you give in your conclusion because the imposition of the current translation used exactly the same authority and structures that are being used today for its reform. In fact, the current process seems more collegial to me and Benedict XVI has already given more authority to the Synod process than Paul VI did. To be consistent you would have to object to the 1970 missal altogether and the 1974 (I think) translation currently in use. Recall that the US Bishops have already approved the reform.

    In some principle points we agree but we disagree on its application. This is a beginning to reaching common ground.

42. Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
    on May 2nd, 2007 at 9:28 am
    

    In my above post, I mentioned that Vatican II used the term ‘renewal’ far more often than any other general council of the church.

    This information is from church historian Christopher Bellitto’s RENEWING CHRISTIANITY. In his work, the author points out that a review of conciliar documents from the 21 general/ecumenical councils to date shows that:

    a. Reform language was reflected in 113 examples,
    b. Renewal language was found in 86 examples, of which 63 were reflected in the documents of Vatican II (i.e., more than 70%).

    To quote Bellitto, “Vatican II strongly favored renewal over reform language, choosing forms of ‘renovatio/renovare’ seven times more frequently than ‘reformatio/reformare.’”

43. Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
    on May 2nd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
    

    Maid of Kent, I must add a fourth reason for rejecting the latest liturgical translations mandated by Liturgiam Authenticam, which, as you know, I consider invalid in light of the relevant constitution of our church, i.e., SC. As I’ve mentioned earlier, I consider JPII’s document to be an unconstitutional usurpation of authority. That said:

    4. A basic principle governing conduct of human affairs is that coercion to compel agreement/approval/endorsement/consent by the other party is an illegitimate act, thus rendering any acquiesence invalid.

    Even the Catholic Church, for example, acknowledges this basic truth in its Code of Canon Law. Canon 1103, which deals with marriage, states: “A marriage is invalid if entered into because of force or grave fear from without, EVEN IF UNINTENTIONALLY INFLICTED, so that a person is compelled to choose marriage in order to be free of it” (emphases added). Consent is an act of the will. It must be free.

    As Michael Smith Foster points out in his ANNULMENT: THE WEDDING THAT WAS, “If [consent] is forced, or there is an inordinate amount of fear influencing the will of the party(ies),…the marriage was invalid from its beginning. Force refers to an external physical or moral impulse that cannot be resisted.”

    He continues:

    “Fear is intimidation. It results from an impending danger or evil. Consent issued under fear may be invalid if the conditions set down in [canon] law are met. The fear must be grave, extrinsic to the person and the cause of the wedding. First, the fear must be grave — for example, threats of…disinheritance. Second, the fear must be extrinsic to the person, that is, it must be imposed from outside the person….Third, the grave fear must also be the cause of the marriage. A person marries in order to free himself or herself from the fear. Put simply, the marriage in question is invalid if it was contracted BECAUSE of fear….[emphasis added]

    “There are two types of fear distinguished in [canon] law: common fear and reverential fear. Common fear is derived from threats made by a hostile person. Reverential fear arises out of an expectation of harm by causing displeasure to someone to whom special reverence is owed, such as a…superior.”

    Substitute “bishop” for “bride/groom,” focus on the behavioral and other characteristics identified above, and one can easily conclude — given the history of controversy surrounding implementation of SC — that not a few bishops felt so browbeaten/fearful that they simply gave up “the good fight” to get the Vatican off their backs and try to restore peace in the family.

44. Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
    on May 2nd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
    

    CONTINUATION

    Suffice it to say the record of Vatican bullying and episcopal kowtowing over the past 40+ years is replete with behaviors that amptly illustrate the lack of any genuine episcopal consent. The Vatican — popes and curial officials — was determined to get its way. Never mind they were effectively usurping the authority given national bishops’ conferences by no less than a conciliar constitution to prepare AND APPROVE liturgical translations without interference from Rome. Indeed, this sorry record would make for an interesting case study on organizational behavior including misuse of power and abuse of authority.

    Speaking of behavior, one cannot overlook the belief of many observers, professional and otherwise, that the Catholic Church — as a system — exhibits all the characteristics of a dysfunctional organization or family. Overt power comes from the top down. Subordinates find themselves needing to placate the boss or calm the addict (drugs, alcohol, etc.) in order to keep peace and order in the family or workplace. Although the superior needs to have a sense of control, the other “family” members jealously guard their opportunity to control their environment in order to try to maintain their sanity and otherwise escape harm from above. Disagreements are forbidden. Harmony is stressed. And, yet, “crazy times” prevail. From addiction studies, we know that people don’t function very well or for long in this kind of setting. People get sick, thus hindering the family or organization’s ability to deal productively with internal problems and external threats and challenges.

    Two books I can immediately recommend are psychologist Anne Wilson Schaef’s THE ADDICTIVE ORGANIZATION and WHEN SOCIETY BECOMES AN ADDICT. No doubt there are other references in addiction studies and perhaps in group/organizational behavior that describe the dynamics of unhealthy sick systems.

    Time permitting, Maid of Kent, I shall try to address your earlier comments.

45. Posted by Maid of Kent
    on May 3rd, 2007 at 8:12 am
    

    Joseph,

    Most of what you’ve written above applies more readily to many religious orders & pious associations than to the Church generally considering the wide latitude given diocesan bishops, the sui iuris Churches, and naturally the bishop’s conferences. I’m thinking of the way Mother Humiliata abruptly reconfigured the IHM nuns in California in the 1960′/70’s despite a hemorrhaging membership and vocal discontent from within and without the community.

    When stating your concerns you’ve not addressed the reorganization the current Holy Father has implemented to the Synod of Bishops.
    I think our Pope is developing a Synod process of governance albeit with a specific role granted to the Pope per the directives of Vatican II.

    I cannot help but wonder why given your stated discomfort with broad exercises of papal prerogative you do not look forward to Pope Ratzinger’s correction of Pope Paul’s restriction of a longstanding liturgical rite including its calendar. Legitimate diversity seems to be something we should all appreciate. Pope Paul’s suppression of an ancient rite is something that even Pius V did not do. It is difficult to imagine a broader application of papal power than the abolition of a millennial old liturgical usage and you should recall that Vatican II, itself, did not develop a new missal and that a post-conciliar missal already existed when Pope Paul issued his 1969 edition.

46. Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
    on May 5th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
    

    Maid of Kent, I am responding to your comments of May 1.

    My references are:

    a. Giuseppe Alberigo. A Brief History of Vatican II.
    b. Thomas Bokenkotter. A Concise History of the Catholic Church.
    c. James Coriden. The Parish In Catholic Tradition: History, Theology, and Canon Law.
    d. Keith Pecklers. Worship: A Primer in Christian Ritual.

    1. “There is much legitimate diversity…[in the Church] and all must be respected.”

    Construing your reference to “legitimate diversity” as referring to acceptance of the Tridentine and its underlying theological, ecclesiological, and other frames of reference, I cannot share your viewpoint. It is true that the Roman Rite experienced various experimentation and adaptation, officially approved and otherwise, not only during the Liturgical Movement of the 20th century but also during the several centuries before then. More information can be found in Pecklers’ book.

    Vatican II, however, acknowledged and proclaimed the need for a worldwide renewal in the Church. Instead of prescribing the minutiae of rubric and translation, Sacrosanctum Concilium employed the use of “principles” and “practical norms” to steer liturgical renewal.

    To quote SC:

    “For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it. In this RESTORATION, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community” (emphasis added).

    My dictionary defines ‘restore’ as “to bring back to an original condition: [as in] restore a building.” In bringing back our liturgy to its “original condition,” we must use the gospels — the gold standard — as well as the known practices of the earliest Christian communities. In this light, the Tridentine fails the call for “restoration.” Indeed, it is the formal culmination of centuries of “intrusion” by cultural elements that robbed the eucharist of its original humble beauty and simplicity. If we are — in SC’s words — “a community,” i.e., the Roman Rite, then we must have a worship service appropriate to “community,” not (in this context) to the “diversity” that characterizes the numerous and varied “communities” that make up the worldwide Catholic communion of churches.

    We need to remember that this liturgical restoration must be in keeping with the desires of Vatican II, not of Trent. In his book, Alberigo offers a critical insight. When John XXIII announced in July 1959 that the official name of this general council would be Vatican II, “[he] thus affirmed unequivocally that this would be a new council, not a completion of Vatican I, WHICH HAD BEEN LEFT UNFINISHED IN 1870 [emphases added]. And because the Council would be new, its agenda would be entirely free and open. It would not be the continuation of a council convened and then interrupted in a historical context of conflict and pessimism (the pope as a prisoner in the Vatican). It would be a blank page in the centuries-old history of the councils.” Times change. In numerous meetings, seminars, and other encounters with scholars in various fields, the understandably conservative hierarchs would come to be persuaded of the need for church restoration. They would see the pope’s wisdom in addressing “‘the signs of the times.’”

    Say what one will about the confusion and abuses, both real and perceived, in SC’s implementation, there is now a standard way of celebrating the liturgy in the Roman Rite, and there are standard translations that, while not perfect, do not lend themselves to the archaic literality and the control-oriented and fear-induced requirements imposed by JPII in Liturgiam Authenticam, a directive I contend is unconstitutional and, thus, lacking any foundation for consideration of compliance. It is, quite simply, a piece of paper and nothing more.

    Sacrosanctum Concilium, if you recall, is a church constitution adopted and promulgated not only by the pope but also by the conciliar fathers. My dictionary defines ‘constitution’ as “the system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribe the nature, functions, and limits of a government or other institution.” While SC was never intended to be seen in a pre-Vatican II legalistic light, it is one of the four essential documents of Vatican II. The word ‘essential’ is synonymous with words such as ‘inherent,’ ‘indispensable,’ ‘basic,’ ‘necessary,’ and ‘fundamental.’ A constitution must not be violated or ignored. Those in positions of authority are expected to carry out their duties and responsibilities in accordance with it. To do otherwise is betrayal, which hurts credibility and risks harm to the organization be it a church, a charitable entity, a business, or a civil government.

    I think JPII’s decision to grant an indult in 1984 allowing bishops to authorize the Tridentine Mass in their respective sees was unwise. While this act may be seen by some as a charitable concession to Catholics more comfortable with the Tridentine, we must also admit that this decision undermined SC’s implementation. If we are a Roman Rite community, then we must share a “common” liturgy. Our understanding of church is both informed by, and reflected in, how we come together (or fail to come together) in worship. Further, how one prays and worships reveals one’s understanding of God, of others (especially those different from us), and of oneself — including one’s role and place in the ecclesial community. The Tridentine and the Novus Ordo, given the controversy and schisms over the past forty years, are as different as night and day — and not just in terms of language and rubric.

    2. “The stated goal of Vatican II included revitalizing the Church. That does include increasing her numbers.”

    Maid of Kent, I think you oversimplify.

    Although Good Pope John wanted to pursue church unity, it is doubtful that his notion of unity would have corresponded with yours. Alberigo points out that during the preparatory periods leading up to the council, Protestant and Orthodox bodies expressed interest and curiosity — but also displayed understandable caution.

    Alberigo continues:

    “It was thought crucial that any excessively easy agreement be avoided, because in the enthusiastic climate of a revived emphasis on harmony at all costs, this might leave unresolved the problems that needed to be faced with sincerity and realism….[In addition, there were Catholics themselves who] feared that the pope’s initiative concealed intentions of domination and pointed toward the absorption of other Christians into the Roman Church.”

    Regarding the significance of the Decree on Ecumenism, Alberigo writes, “The old outlook according to which unity would be realized through the ‘return’ of the ‘heretics’ and ’schismatics’ to the Roman Church was finally left behind. It was particularly significant that a model of unity had been created, not on the basis of uniformity and absorption, but on the variety of charisms and the complementarity of the different traditions.” According to Bokenkotter, “The ultimate goal of ecumenism [as reflected in the conciliar decree] was no longer viewed as the return of individual Protestants to the Catholic Church; the objective now was rather the reunion of all the separated brethren, whose status as true ecclesial communities was recognized.”

    When we consider the above, not to mention the council’s declarations on religious liberty and on the relationship of the Catholic Church to non-Christian religions, I think it is inaccurate to suggest that in “revitalizing the Church,” the council fathers were looking to “[increase] her numbers.” Bokenkotter notes that even when JPII himself invited other Christians to join him in the search for unity, the pope gave “credit to the ‘churches of the reformation’ for beginning the ecumenical movement.” In Ut Unum Sint, the pope goes so far as to invite “a re-examination of the role of Peter.”

    Revitalizing the church, then, refers to quality, not quantity, and this extends to restoring our liturgy to one of simplicity. There is no room for the ostentatious encrustation that began in the 4th century — at least, not if we are truly desirous of genuine restoration.

    Unity, on the other hand, is not a matter of increasing our numbers. On this point, I am reminded of the passage in Luke 9: 49 – 50: “John spoke up, ‘Master, we saw a man driving out demons in your name, and we told him to stop, because he doesn’t belong to our group.’ ‘Do not try to stop him,’ Jesus said to him and to the other disciples, ‘because whoever is not against you is for you.’”

    Could it be that the Lord’s picture of unity is different from that prevailing before Vatican II and that our conciliar fathers were persuaded to accept this understanding?

    3. Regarding Ken Jones’ book, I do not question his numbers. Having not seen it, I can only surmise he obtained his figures from the annual Catholic Directory published by P.J. Kennedy & Sons for the past 100+ years. This standard reference should be available in any chancery or Catholic college/university library.

    What I do challenge, though, is your view that “the introduction of the vernacular Mass [accounts] for our ecclesiastical decline in America.” I think any decline can be attributed, instead, to other factors including what many see as the church’s obsolete understanding of human sexuality (Humanae Vitae, homosexuality), the paternalistic and autocratic character of JPII’s papacy, and the Vatican’s efforts (more precisely, curial efforts) to reverse course with respect to conciliar goals and initiatives.

    As far as your contention about the Mass is concerned, I offer a case in point: Our community has a megachurch, one of the ten or so largest congregations in the U.S. Its worship services are anything but reflective of the solemnity and passivity characteristic of the Tridentine. They are quite lively. Yet, this same community is often described as the largest unofficial Catholic parishes in the diocese. Perhaps the Novus Ordo is not lively enough? It the “sense of the faithful” is at work here, it is certainly not calling for a return to the Tridentine.

    4. “A self-selecting parish…violates our Catholic ecclesiology and the still existing concept of the territorial parish….The self-selecting parish is unworkable in authentic Catholicism.”

    I remind you of Catholic university churches hundreds of years old in Europe. Likewise, monastery churches also serve as de facto parishes for laity residing nearby. These places of worship are not territorial parishes, but they meet the needs of the faithful. The same can be said of military bases with chapels used week-in and week-out by retired military personnel and their families. And, of course, we should not overlook those Catholics who rely regularly on shrine churches or oratories to meet their religious and spiritual needs.

    James Coriden, a professor of canon law, states that earlier church law stipulated the “elements” of a parish to be “a territorial section of the diocese, a church building, an assigned Catholic population and a pastor who was responsible for the care of souls.”

    The above is no longer the case. The revised Code of Canon Law (515.1) defines a parish as “a definite community of the Christian faithful established on a stable basis within a particular church [i.e., diocese]; the pastoral care of the parish is entrusted to a pastor as its own shepherd under authority of the diocesan bishop.” The word ‘community’ is significant. According to Coriden, it “means a group of individuals and families who know each other, share common values and relate with one another. They live near each other in a neighborhood or part of town. Or, in the case of personal, nonterritorial parishes, they are united by language, ethnic origin or some other common interest.” From what I recall, my former cathedral parish has members representing more than forty zip codes in two separate dioceses in two different states! And a vibrant community it is!

    5. “Vatican II’s SC identifies the authority that determines what is legitimate in the liturgy.”

    If you are referring to liturgical translations, I can only reiterate that SC stipulates in Article 36.4 that “[t]ranslations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority,” i.e., bishops’ conferences. By interfering, the Vatican, steered by curial officials with staff functions rather than with line authority, is acting contrary to the mandate of SC. This is a fact-based conclusion, not an opinion.

    It is axiomatic that one must not obey an illegal order. The underlying presumption here is that the person giving the order is otherwise vested with legal authority to give orders to subordinates. Curial officials, properly speaking, have no authority to give orders to bishops of active sees. The curia’s function is to advise the pope and to carry out daily administrative functions in the Vatican. It must also be pointed out that a critical objection to what is purported to be the binding nature of Liturgiam Authenticam is that this directive was, in fact, a constitutional violation — not a legal violation — by JPII. The late pope lacked constitutional authority to mandate the specifics of liturgical translation.

    Thus, if our bishops were to exercise courage and leadership in dismissing Liturgiam Authenticam as a binding papal directive, they would not be “disobeying” the pope. Rather, they would be upholding their rightful claim to (arch)diocesan governance vested in their episcopal office. Furthermore — and this is the more important point — our bishops would be telling the pope, never mind his curia, to obey a Vatican II constitution that is, by nature, essential to the governance and welfare of the worldwide Catholic communion of churches. This action would be rejection of, not disobedience to, an unconstitutional papal mandate.

    Paul VI’s approval in 1967 to “competent territorial ecclesiastical authorities” to proceed with use of the vernacular was a discretionary act on his part — specifically provided for in SC — allowing bishops’ conferences to proceed with liturgical translations without any further permissions, clearances, approvals, etc. required from Rome. This papal act put Article 36.4 into effect. What’s critical to remember here is that SC was approved and promulgated not only by the pope but also by the conciliar fathers.

47. Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
    on May 7th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
    

    Maid of Kent, I am responding to your comments of May 2. Considerations of time and economy preclude my addressing all of what you state. Therefore, I am replying to what I consider the more noteworthy, and any of your views not addressed should not be construed as agreement or disagreement on my part.

    1. “[T]here is no evidence from the council that the Fathers there envisioned the use of a less than totally accurate translation of the vernacular in the various languages. The usages in other countries give further evidence of this.”

    My answer to your second statement is “No, they do not.” The usages in other countries would reflect, at worst, the colonial legacy of various European powers that transplanted the faith, etc. in what were then strange lands. The U.S., on the other hand, does not have such a colonial legacy.

    Regarding your assertion that the Fathers expected nothing “less than totally accurate translation of the vernacular,” I must again ask you, “What evidence do you have or need?” SC, which sets forth the principles and norms for translation, does not specify any so-called “accurate” translation. It does, however, acknowledge the need for “restoration.” To “restore” means to bring something back to its original condition, the latter not by any means to be construed as Tridentine or Latin. SC mentions “adaptation” and “community” among other words/phrases intended to bring about the Fathers’ wish for a liturgy conducive to full and active participation “as befits a community.” “[A]s far as possible,” notes SC, this kind of “communal celebration…is to be preferred…to [one] that is individual and quasi-private.”

    To date, you have failed to identify the specific criterion/criteria that governs so-called “accuracy in translation.” There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that requires literal translation from the Latin.

    If other countries employ a more literal translation, that is their prerogative in accordance with the authority granted their territorial bodies of bishops. American Catholics are not Brits, Africans, Aussies, Mexicans, Germans, etc. — at least with respect to the matter under discussion.

    I remind you, however, that SC stipulates that once the pope gave his approval to announcements from bishops’ conferences to use the vernacular (Art. 36.3), the matter was then forever out of papal and curial hands in accordance with Article 36.4. Hence, my statement earlier that JPII’s Liturgiam Authenticam was an unconstitutional papal intervention that could not legitimately compel compliance. Paul VI gave this approval. While it was discretionary on his part, SC provided that once given, it effectively set in motion liturgical translation by territorial episcopal bodies. While Article 36.1 states that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites,” it does not specify either the “how” or the “how much” of preservation. The pope and his curia, though, must remain out of the picture.

    2. “I have become convinced…that no bureaucracy should govern the ancient liturgy to the point of simply ordering the abandonment of one ancient liturgy for another. Paul VI’s reform [placed him] over & above venerable tradition instead of placing him at the service of tradition.”

    First of all, we are not discussing “reform” although the word does appear a time or two in the first two chapters of SC that govern liturgical renewal (the remaining chapters dealing with the other sacraments and sacramentals, the divine office, the liturgical year, sacred music, and sacred art and sacred furnishings). We are focusing, instead, on “restoration,” a sort of “peeling away” to reveal the original or something very much akin to it based on what we know from the gospels and the extant record of the liturgies of the earliest Christian communities.

    Second, these changes were not (as you say) “Paul VI’s reform.” They were put into place — the unconstitutional papal/curial interference notwithstanding — by territorial bishops’ conferences. If one finds fault with implementation, much if not most of the blame must be laid at the feet of Rome.

    Finally, Paul VI was, indeed, serving “venerable tradition,” i.e., the most ancient tradition of the church, not the Tridentine — and certainly not any of the ostentatious and imperial encrustrations that took hold of our liturgy after the third century.

    3. Regarding the various missals, all I know at this point is that SC acknowledges the centrality of the Latin text in two places in Chapter 1, to wit, Articles 36.4 and 39 (the latter mentioning “[w]ithin the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books”). Translations are to be based on the Latin texts, but various parts of SC provide the context, which shows that literal translations were anything but mandated. (Consider: If literal translation had been mandated, there would have been no need for the involvement of various territorial episcopal conferences in the first place — at least regarding translations! Everything could have been handled in Rome.) As long as the pope did not violate SC with respect to the “typical editions,” he did nothing wrong. Until I learn more on this aspect, that’s all I can say.

    4. “By the way, the first part of SC reserves final authority over the liturgy to the Holy See (the Vatican)…”

    Where? Please cite the pertinent article(s). Article 22.1 states, “Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See AND, as laws may determine, on the bishop” (emphasis added). While SC does stipulate certain areas needing papal approval, all other matters are reserved in SC’s coverage/ambit to the territorial bishops’ conferences.

    5. “I don’t agree,” etc.

    I do not agree with you. As far as the “bishops” not sharing Trautman’s views, I think there is more than enough history to demonstrate otherwise. Please see references in my earlier posts on this thread about dysfunctional organizations, the unhealthy behaviors of “family members” trying to cope in such settings, etc. What moderate/liberal/progressive bishops have had to endure over the past 40+ years is nothing short of bullying, intimidation, threats, and other crap emanating from the bowels of the Vatican and, I must add, from the papal throne!

    6. “There has been an explosion of apparitions since the council….[M]any unapproved ones date from the conciliar and post-conciliar period and continue to provide the nucleus of many devout Catholic’s [sic] religious lives. This reality, in my opinion, gives further evidence to the general failure of the liturgical reform…Another example of Catholic piety moving away from the liturgy since the council is the charismatic movement.”

    As far as one’s replacing apparitions, purported or otherwise, for the liturgy, no one can be forced to go to Mass. What is the basis of one’s attraction to apparitional sites? Piety? Illness? Curiosity? Lack of catechesis? Loneliness? Socializing? Superstition? I’d guess there are as many reasons as there are people visiting these sites. To suggest that the popularity of apparitions is but more evidence of an alleged “failure of the liturgical reform” strikes me, to say the least, as ill-founded.

    Regarding your mention of the charismatic movement, I suspect lots of devout Catholics active in this movement would disagree with you.

    7. Because I am not a sociologist of religion, I cannot argue one way or the other about your use of statistics in this thread. Given your global/universal assertions here and before, I would caution you about taking your apparent degree of certainty for granted. Again, regarding Ken Jones’ book, I have no reason to challenge his numbers. Drawing interpretive inferences or conclusions from numbers, however, is another thing altogether. I’m not qualified to do so regarding this topic.

    8. Regarding my prior assertion that most Catholics no longer participate in extra-liturgical devotions, I must disagree with your suggestion that any abandonment of faith is due to the introduction of the “vernacular missal,” Pauline or otherwise. I would suggest, instead, that departures from the Catholic Church can be attributed to (as I’ve noted elsewhere) outdated understandings of human sexuality, the paternalistic and autocratic character of JPII’s papacy, etc. These folks did not abandon their faith. They abandoned the institutional church.

    I remind you of history: Keith Pecklers, a Rome-based liturgical historian, has noted how the faithful did develop various devotions outside the Mass precisely because they were officially relegated to the sidelines/obscurity during their liturgies. To quote Pecklers, in part, again: “The normative way of celebrating Mass was essentially without a congregation, EVEN WHEN A CONGREGATION WAS PRESENT” (emphases added). Maid of Kent, that says it all!!!

    9. “The participation the Council Fathers called for is ‘actual participation’ and does not limit itself to public roles and performance.”

    Maid of Kent, your reference to “actual’ is neither here nor there. I’ll even concede that, properly speaking, the word ‘active’ is neither here nor there.

    That said, Sacrosanctum Concilium — as presented on the Vatican’s English website — has several references to the word ‘active’ but not to the word ‘actual.’ (In fact, I cannot readily recall finding ‘actual’ anywhere in the Introduction, much less in Chapters 1 and 2 of SC.)

    Church historian Christopher Bellitto in his RENEWING CHRISTIANITY quotes Klaus Gamber, a conservative-minded liturgical reformer, complaining, “‘[T]oo much emphasis is being given to the congregation ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING in the liturgy…” (emphases added).

    I mentioned above that the words ‘actual’ and ‘active’ are neither here nor there for me. This reflects my professional training background. In my field, we distinguish between ‘attendance/attendee’ and ‘participation/participant’ because these pairings represent the difference between night and day with respect to audience behaviors in a training program. We tend to “lose” attendees, for instance, whereas a program properly designed and implemented stands a better chance of “holding” participants. We want involvement (when appropriate), not passivity. We want folks to “do,” to “attend to,” not to fall asleep or stare off into space — or fail to return after lunch!

    Vatican II’s SC called for “participation.” In the above light, the modifiers ‘actual’ and ‘active’ have the same meaning. Strictly speaking, either adjective used with ‘participation’ would be redundant. My guess is that the conciliar fathers, mindful of the staleness of the Tridentine, employed the word ‘active’ to double-stress the importance of the faithful participating in the Mass.

    I am not going to quibble over the behaviors and motives of lay ministers. What you have described does not “jell” with my experience at any of the several parishes/chapels where I happened to worship around the country during my federal military and civilian career.

    10. “The…current liturgy is far more dependent on the celebrant than the [Tridentine]…because the rubrics of the older liturgy prevented the celebrant’s personality from getting inthe way of the celebration.”

    Aside from questioniong your use of “celebration” to characterize the Tridentine Mass, this liturgy also “prevented” the participation of the laity. In addition, the former liturgy was part and parcel of a sinful clerical culture that so subordinated the faithful over the years that our parents dared not question “Father” over parochial affairs — including allegations of clerical sexual abuse of children.

    “Lex orandi, lex credendi.” Yes, it is true that how/what we pray is how/what we believe — but not just about the liturgy or one’s spirituality or religiosity. How we worship also reinforces one’s view of oneself in the religious community. We once saw ourselves as peons in a highly regulated and clerical church. Do you really want to see a return to this kind of church?!?!?

48. Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
    on May 7th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
    

    Maid of Kent, I am responding to your comments of May 3.

    If you believed that “[m]ost of what [I've] written above applies more readily to many religious orders & pious associations than to the Church generally,” I can only ask: Why did you not raise your contention earlier on this long thread? I disagree, but that’s another matter.

    I’m not against the pope convening synods to help him in church governance. I accept his role as “the boss.” Please remember, however, that Vatican II was an ecumenical/general council of the church. By definition, it brought all the bishops of the world together to deliberate and take actions, as appropriate. Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium is a constitution, not a decree or declaration. SC was approved by both the pope AND the conciliar fathers. Neither the pope nor a synod can dispense with SC. Only a future general/ecumenical council can do away with SC.

    Please see my previous comments that address matters raised in your final paragraph. I should note, though, that you are correct in pointing out my “stated discomfort with broad exercises of papal prerogative” (or any other kind of papal action, for that matter). JPII, for instance, considered it his prerogative to issue Liturgiam Authenticam. In fact, his action was not an exercise of “papal prerogative.” He countermanded the explicit provisions of SC, a church constitution with double approval. Liturgiam Authenticam was an exercise of papal usurpation, and it is for this reason that it does not merit episcopal compliance. Indeed, if a bishop is true to his calling and to SC, he must reject this papal mandate. Such rejection would not be an act of “disobedience” since the Liturgiam Authenticam merited no “obedience” in the first place.

49. Posted by Joseph A. Komonchak
    on May 7th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
    

    Where the Maiden spoke of “accurate” translations, Joseph speaks of “literal”. These are not the same thing.

50. Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
    on May 8th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
    

    Father Komonchak, please elaborate a bit on the distinction. Given the Vatican’s focus on (or love affair with?) Latin, I suspect I’m not the only one “out there” who’s concluded that “accuracy” for those on the “right” is a literal or word-for-word translation from Latin. As far as the current brouhaha is concerned, I myself prefer “to leave well enough alone.” I have followed Bishop Trautman’s comments recently, and he seems to make sense.

    Anyway, any clarification here would be most appreciated.

    Thanks!

51. Posted by Ian H. Power
    on May 23rd, 2007 at 8:15 am
    

    I will not claim But I do think that the question posed by 1966 Ratzinger embodies the fundamental flaw with the implementation of Vatican II.

    “Will it be possible to minimize centralism without losing unity?”

    The answer to this question must be no. If it were absolutely necessary to allow greater latitude on the episcopal level, surely it should have followed rather than accompanied the implementation of Vatican II.

    What greater way to create confusion than to drastically overhaul the liturgy, go through great pains to describe how this was to be done, and then fling the instruction off to all corners of the globe to be poked, prodded, and implemented piecemeal by individual bishops.

    What better way to undermine one of the hierarchical church’s greatest blessings: that of unity and consistancy?

52. Posted by Joseph A. Komonchak
    on May 23rd, 2007 at 8:57 am
    

    Joseh J.:

    When St. Augustine was preaching, he often addressed his congregation as “Caritas vestra.” Literally, this is “Your Charity.” Accurately, but not literally, this is “Beloved.”

    When one of the prefaces quotes from the Vulgate translation of a text from Colossians, “filius dilectionis,” a literal translation would be “Son of love”; an accurate but not literal translation would recognize the Semiticism and render it “beloved Son.” (One of the early drafts of the new ICEL translation had it “Son in whom he delighted”, which made it sound as if God had another son in whom He did not delight.)

    In the opening prayer for forgiveness, the literal translation is: “May almighty God have mercy on us, and, our sins having been forgiven, lead us to eternal life.” An accurate, but not literal translation, would be the one that has been used for generations, even in pre-ICEL translations, and is used in every translation into other languages that I have ever seen. “May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to eternal life.”

    Those are some examples of an accurate translation that is not literal.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment