Motu coverage continues.
Today’s New York Times contains an Editorial Observer piece on the return of the old Mass. Writer Lawrence Downes recounts his experience at a Tridentine “low” Mass at a Chicago church:
I went up the steps of the Renaissance-baroque church, through a
stone doorway and back into my dimmest memories. Amid the grandeur of
beeswax candles and golden statuary, the congregation was saying the
rosary. I sat behind an older couple wearing scapulars as big as credit
cards. I saw women with lace mantillas and a clutch of seminarians in
the front rows, in black cassocks and crisp white surplices.
The
sanctuary, behind a long communion rail, looked oddly barren because it
lacked the modern altar on which a priest, facing the people, prepares
the Eucharistic meal. The priest entered, led by altar boys. He wore a
green and gold chasuble and a biretta, a black tufted hat, that he
placed on a side table. His shaved head and stately movements gave the
Mass a military bearing.
I couldn’t hear a thing.
I strained to listen, waited and, finally, in my dimness, realized that there was nothing to hear.
Diogenes is predictably upset. That post is a choice example of what’s wrong with anonymous writers who regularly spew vitriol. Note especially Uncle Di’s dubious, undemonstrated claim that “all the enthusiasm–in the sense of positive relish for one form of liturgy–belongs to the Latin camp.” He goes on: “A true partisan of the post-Conciliar vernacular liturgy, on the other
hand, pays his respects by blowing it off (ever hear a liberal Catholic
call ahead for Mass times when traveling to unfamiliar territory?).” Apparently the poor writer (or is it writers?) behind the cryptonym doesn’t get out much.
More delightfully, ur-Diogenes takes a shot at both NCR and Rembert Weakland: “The NCR
was knocked so far off-balance by the challenge as to invoke Rembert
Weakland in defense of its position, which is something like calling
Paul Shanley as a character witness.” I suppose comparing Weakland to Hitler would have been too passe for a man of Diogenes’ rhetorical gifts.
For a different take on the matter, be sure to check out our preview of the August issue: Rita Ferrone’s analysis of the motu proprio and what it means for the church.
on July 29th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
The NYT writer notes, in part: “same God, same church, but separate camps.”
I think the above phraseology is too charitable. It’s inaccurate.
Different conceptions of God, of church (the institutional church, that is), and of one’s place in the church.
We did have — de facto — two very different churches under one Roman roof.
Now the practice is legal.
Thank you, Benedict — for nothing.
on July 29th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Just a theory: I don’t think the Pope is aiming for a permanent situation of two usages of the Roman Rite. I think he is thinking ahead 25-30 years, and considering that there could be a truly reformed liturgy that is actually in keeping with Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Too often people read the VII documents as people often read Scripture–taking about half of it seriously.
SC called for increased congregational participation AND the primacy of Gregorian chant. Both camps are missing something. But maybe in the future we could have it all.
on July 29th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Now that is an interesting thesis, Kathy. But can you imagine the howls on both sides if it came to that? And to what end? I think it’d be a battle royal, and portends decades of sturggle and division.
on July 29th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Because (as has been said here many times) liturgy is where “the rubber meets the road” for many, and because perception strongly colors how we appraoach things, i think David is right - and, besides, there’s so much other points of division and so little real dialogue that I fear we only move to a smaller, and not so much purer Church
on July 29th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
David, you may be right. But I don’t think it has to be that way. There could be an organic give and take between the two usages that makes a blending seem advantageous to all sides.
For example, already the Bl. John XXIII Missal promoters have been rather heatedly discussing the 3-year Lectionary cycle and its place in the extraordinary use. Some see a distinct advantage to the reformed Lectionary and its greater number of readings.
on July 29th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Sorry to disappoint Diogenes, but I’m a reformed/vernacular liturgy man and I always called ahead (or checked the internet) for mass times on vacation. My kids will testify, in fact, that once when we showed up at the tail end of mass at the Cathedral of the Madeleine in Salt Lake because I had forgotten to adjust my watch for the time change I checked when the next mass was and came back in an hour to make sure I didn’t miss it.
I’m not, by the way, sure that the above practices necessarily represented extreme mental health on my part.
on July 29th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Kathy, I do not subscribe to your theory. I think the two “camps” (or churches) are too far apart. I don’t see any kind of “organic give and take” occurring in the future.
I don’t have the reference, but there is a website by a more traditionalist/conservative-minded Catholic civil lawyer who took the time to read SC and concluded that in its phraseology, the bishops of Vatican II gave very wide latitude for liturgical change. I, too, read the document and concluded the same. The whole thrust of SC is renewal (to make new again) and restoration (to return something to its original condition). Within this context, I think we are looking at (what we know of, at least) the earliest Christian communal liturgies before the 4th century. The Tridentine and its historical antecedents don’t seem to lend themselves to the Vatican II renewal or restoration that self-proclaimed “orthodox” Catholics would support.
I remember some folks complaining years ago about how fast the bishops instituted liturgical change. Too quick, these people believed. Fast forward 30 and more years, and the Novus Ordo was a fait accompli.
There were elements (SSPX, etc.) that would leave the Roman church, but there were other elements — unhappy as they were — who nonetheless would remain within the fold. I think JPII “stirred the pot” of discontent back in 1984. That was bad enough. Now his successor has added all these old ingredients, and we have a “witch’s brew,” so to speak.
I do not share your hopeful optimism.
on July 29th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Perhaps the more important part of the above message is Grant’s link to Ferrone’s preview article “A Step Backward”.
It provides some exceedingly disturbing information which only support the above comments that the divide will grow and that this may really only be the first step:
“. A more plausible understanding of the present moment is that it marks another step toward a goal that the vast majority of Catholics would not countenance if it were openly acknowledged-namely, the gradual dismantling of the liturgical reform in its entirety. “
on July 29th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I think that some definition would be helpful.
What constitutes the liturgical reform?
Is it the entire (vast) body of literature from the early 20th century Benedictines through the present day?
Is it the Constitution from the Council, along with the documents it proposed and which followed?
Is it the Constitution, the documents it proposed, and the many further documents that were issued by every conceivable consultative body?
Is it the current thinking among the Directors of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions?
Is there a consensus about what constitutes the Liturgical Reform among liturgy scholars?
on July 29th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I would only say that from someone who chooses to be called Diogenes one can expect to hear canine effusions.
on July 29th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Here’s a word on behalf of Downes, whose piece was (I thought) beautifully written, and who challenges again the idea that the NYT and elsewhere is run by nothing but godless secularites (those would be secular elites).
The outro was the most poignant line, and the truest, sadly:
“And we probably won’t see one another on Sunday mornings, if ever.”
Gene: Having seen the Salt Lake City Catherdal for the first time just last year, I commend you on returning for a full mass. I liked it very much.
on July 29th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Kathy,
I think you have a profound misunderstanding of Pope Benedict. His reverence for tradition is such that he cqnnot countenance the idea that our current liturgy is in any way not “in keeping with Sacrosanctum Concilium.” The mass of Paul VI is part of the tradition, and it is the ordinary eaxpression of worship in the Roman rite, as the MP affirms.
That does not mean that it cannot be improved, and he is hoping that the use of John XXIII’s missal will contribute to that. It leaves open the possibility that other things will also contribute to it. Lutheran hymnody? African dance? Syrian chant? He does not say, but he apparently gotten a large number of traditionalists to accept that diversity in worship can be a good thing.
on July 29th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
I commend Salt Lake Cathedral and its terrific music programs to all, as per David Gibson’s comment above. Some may be interested that the remarkable paintings there (sort of old fashioned Christmas card cum silent movie poster in style) were done by the same artist (forget the name) who did most of the paintings in the Cathedral in Portland.
I should also add a famous family anecdote — in the interval between the missed mass and the one we went to we ran over to Temple Square and stood on the edges of the Tabernacle as the choir finished its Sunday program (with Faure’s Cantique de Jean Racine, as I recall). My daughter’s comment was, “Gee, they sing a lot better than the choir in our church.”
on July 29th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Jim, you are right, I misspoke. The Pope affirms the validity of the Paul VI missal.
However, in his explanatory letter, he gives indications that the actual celebrations of the ordinary usage are not always in keeping with the Missal: “…In many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
Again, this is not about validity–although I suppose it is common knowledge that sometimes questions of validity (invalid matter at the Eucharist, innovative wordings at Baptisms, etc.) have been part of our history of working out the reception of the Constitution.
As for the Tradition, I believe the MP is making a statement about continuity: the pre-Vatican II Liturgy was also valid. I mean, this is obvious, but it might be sometimes misunderstood because of the radicality, suddenness, and unexplained character of the changes.
I used to know an elderly lady, a church lady, the porter at my parish when I was in the guitar group. One time over coffee she said, earnestly, “Were we wrong before? Or are we wrong now?”
on July 30th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Interesting how perceptions and perspectives can so differ.
David Gibson praises Downes’ piece for being “beautifully” written; and suggests that it belies the view that the NYT is “run by nothing but godless secularites.”
I concede: the piece is cleverly written in a calculated, predictable way that fits well into the NYT editorial policy of disparaging the benighted.
To wit: “scapulars as big as credit cards;” “seminarians in crisp white surpluses; “priest’s shaved head and stately movements gave the Mass a military bearing;” “submit … or leave;” “ecclesial young Republicans, homeschoolers … and other shock troops of the faith.”
I would say that the “Editorial Observer” faithfully reflects his employer’s editorial line and bias.
As for the sententious close, one wonders why Mr. Downes did not stay to interview those attending the Mass, rather than call Gene Kennedy? He might have obtained some interesting perspectives as to why “St. John Cantius, once given up for dead, is now thriving.”
I have made it clear before that I do not foresee my celebrating anything but the novus ordo in English (or Italian) for the remaining days that God gives me.
But I do hope that both forms of the Roman rite will continue to evolve organically, I hope that the older form will benefit from the gift of the expanded lectionary. I hope that those who participate in the newer form will learn the place of silence, of enhanced use of icons and incense, of music that supports and does not detract from worship. And that our teens will not come back from communion “as if wishing they had been given gum instead.”
In all there is much for all to do, rather than continually sniping at one another.
Sentimental regrets at not meeting again risk sounding like self-indulgent and self-fulling prophecy.
on July 30th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Bob,
One of the things I worry about with the motu proprio is the fact that it seems to reward sniping and non-communal behavior. I do not know about the worldwide situation, but a perusal of the blogosphere suggest to me that manypeople who wanted the Latin mass disdained the novus ordo mass, doubted its legitimacy, and called into question the Catholic bona fides of those who went along with the new mass.
It was not humble, heartfelt sorrow at a loss of an old way of worship that begged for thirty years to get a Latin mass. It was an organized political movement to change things. The personal is political here. Ironically, a very sixties kind of move.
At any rate, sniping, in my view, has proven to be a very successful political strategy in all this. I do not see it going away soon.
on July 30th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Well said Fr. Imbelli, though I bet the Italian translation of Paul VI’s Mass is far richer than the English version most of us are compelled to endure.
I read Rita Ferrone’s piece and I’ve looked over Vatican II’s SC on the liturgy and I cannot find anywhere recommendations for a lectr(ess) or altar girls. I cannot find a call for a three year lectionary or inclusive language either. It does not say anything about Mass facing the people or minimalism.
Someone might say - but the post-conciliar decrees say (with the exception of minimalism) we can have these things. I’d say “Yes, they do” but don’t forget that “Summorum Pontificum” is also a post-conciliar liturgical decree with the force of law and SP can be read clearly to be in continuity with Vatican II’s SC because SP provides room for renewal following the application of SC in the extraordinary usage. The old German practice in which the people said the responses with the choir and the readings were read toward the people are already widespread in the “usus antiquor”. You see friends - Vatican II has already influenced celebrations of the extraordinary usage.
on July 30th, 2007 at 7:56 am
There has been sniping. But there have also been legitimate questions raised, such as, where have the proper texts gone? There is a proper antiphon and a proper Communion verse for each Sunday. They are informative and prayerful. Where are they?
And there has also been careful scholarship, including Lauren Pristas’ excellent criticisms of the Collects (in the Latin).
on July 30th, 2007 at 7:58 am
(S/B “proper Introit antiphon”.)
on July 30th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Cathleen,
There has been “sniping” against the “usus antiquor” for nearly forty years and most of that criticism is not found in authoritative documents (e.g. SC) but in personal opinions or served the interests of publishing houses seeking to market new materials.
Much of this kind of sniping is heard in education journals designed for pastoral care. Some recent examples can be found in the writings of a certain Benedictine, a former prioress, from the diocese of His Excellency Bishop Trautman. Some of that kind of sniping can be read in recent editions of the New York Times.
My point is that the “sniping” against the “usus antiquor” is so embedded in our liturgical establishment and has been repeated for so long that some of us risk not noticing the polemic when we encounter it and grant it a level of authority it does not deserve.
on July 30th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Bob, perception is funny. I thought Downes’ was honestly conveying a sincere attraction for the Latin Mass of Olde, for himself and for others, while also honestly describing the frequent defects of contemporary celebrations. His was an opinion/impression piece, not a reported article, so interviewing worshippers for their predicatble comments was not necessary. Going to Gene Kennedy, however, a liberal, for such sympathetic comments about the old rite was more interesting and telling. I think Downes was being genuine to his impressions rather than parroting an NYT editorial line on the Latin Mass–not that they would have one.
on July 30th, 2007 at 9:06 am
I grew up in the 1970s– I agree that a lot of the free form stuff was bad, and trite, and needed reform.
But I don’t think the options are a clown mass or the tridentine rite. And I don’t see how the latin mass is going to fix the clown mass, which I don’t think is around much any more.
I think the most important aspect of the op/ed in the Times is the two churches motif that he raises.
The church of the holy, the pure, and the church of the lumpy, bumpy rest of us.
Do Kathy and the Maid and Bob not see any problems here?
on July 30th, 2007 at 9:14 am
I see elitism on every side.
on July 30th, 2007 at 9:20 am
As for sniping, I think it is effective. But I don’t think the next generations of Catholic progressives in the pews will snipe back. I think many of them will walk away, thinking the Church itself is hopeless.
on July 30th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Why would the two simultaneous uses make progressives think that the Church itself is hopeless? I really don’t understand the connection.
Has anyone here read Pristas on the collects? Here’s her bio page, scroll down for articles. http://faculty.caldwell.edu/lpristas/
on July 30th, 2007 at 10:13 am
In 1996 my best friend’s mother died. During the preparation for the Funeral Mass, which was to take place in a parish church of the Diocese of Brooklyn the family requested for permission to have the funeral be celebrated according to the 1962 Missal. My friend, and his family are very much attached to the older rite of Mass, and his mother had requested this on her deathbed. The pastor of the church was uncomfortable with the request. He was assured by the family that a priest familiar with the rite would say the Mass if needed. He called the Diocese and was told under no condition could the Mass be said using the older rites. The reason–it might start a trend. My friend then asked if the Mass could, at minimum, be celebrated in black vestments, and in Latin. The pastor gave in to the request for Latin, but said no to the black vestments—he was afraid of making the Mass resembled the older rite. This is in 1996, well after John Paul II demanded that “a generous application” of the indult of 1984 be made, and that respect for the “rightful” attachment to the previous liturgical rites by Traditionalist be shown by all in the Church.
This is the kind of heavy handed pastoral approach that Traditionalists in the Church have had to put up with for the last 40 years. The only alternative to being treated with open contempt and hostility even at the most sensitive moments in life have been to go into schism, or become inactive in the Faith.
Pope Benedict is very, aware of the injustice suffered by not a small number of the faithful, to use his words, and he is seeking to heal a deep wound in the life of many Catholics that have done nothing other than to hold sacred and of value what has always been held as sacred and of value. I can assure you that the Holy Father will not stop simply at the point of the Motu Proprio. The deep injury suffered by the Church and her individual Traditionalists members requires now a grand healing effort by the highest authorities of the Church. This means that apart from the restoration, of the old Mass, that has been occasioned by Summorum Pontificum, the Pope will very likely also lift the excommunication or rather declare the excommunication of Archbishop Lefevre and the other bishops associated with the episcopal consecration of 1988, to be nulled. He is also expected to reach a theological agreement with the Society of Saint Pius X on the correct understanding of the Council texts, and the level of authority of these and many of the post-Conciliar magisterial teachings “in the light of the previous and perennial teaching of the Church”.
What no doubt will be felt as the most significant step from a pastoral and sociological point of view in this healing process will be the end result of each of these steps. The corporate reintegration of the Society of St. Pius X and the other ancillary groups associated with it throughout the world, into the life of the Church.—we speak here of a group of perhaps as many as five million active Catholics, more than the active Catholic population of Ireland to put it in perspective. These folks will bring with them not just the Mass, but religious communities of men and women, active and contemplative. They will bring with them very large and young families; Schools, Colleges, publishing houses, and most significantly four bishops.
What we understand Catholic life to be like now, will change significantly, for both Traditionalist and Progressives. How can it not?
Fr W.T.C.
on July 30th, 2007 at 10:17 am
It’s not so much the two simultaneous uses envisioned abstractly. It’s the concatenation of recent events, I think, that have deeply affected many progressive non-professional Catholics that I know: 1 ) the motu proprio; 2) the declaration on the Church, which reasserted the traditional position on the superiority of the Catholic church; and 3) the pope’s book on Jesus , and 4) the sex abouse settlement in LA..
2. seems to many progressive non-theologians I have met, and to many theologians, as unbelievably ironic in light of 4. The sex abuse crisis seems to many people to be based in a sense that the priests matter more than laypeople , and that priests are to be set apart as better than laypeople; preserving a priest in holy orders is more important than protecting a lay child. That mentality, which sets priests apart from and arguably above the people, is embedded in 1, the old rite.
1,2, and 3 seem collectively, to reintroduce a mentality that existed in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. I have not read Benedict’s book myself, but a very learned friend of mine said that it seemed to be very much a Christological sensibility that would have been cutting-edge at the cusp of the council, but seems less interested in issues and questions that have arisen in the academic debate since that time.
Some of the Pope’s recent comments –the interview Sandro Magister produced -strenthen the impression that what the Pope wants to do is largely a matter of undoing–going back before the bad effects of the revolution of 1968, and the 1989.
So to some progressive Catholoics, it seems like a general “going backward” is what’s involved. Emphasis on continuity with the past over change. And if you’re not convinced that the real changes in the 1960s were a total mistake (e.g., civil rights, women’s rights, anti-Vietnam protests, Medicare Medicaid) and that the charge of nihilsim is a fair one (not all forms of pluralism or even relativism are nihilistic), it’s hard to get on board.
At the same time, who wants to refight battles that were just fought? Better just to walk away.
on July 30th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Maid: “It does not say anything about Mass facing the people or minimalism.”
Refer to Inter Oecumenici from 1965, par. 91: “The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. Its location in the place of worship should be truly central so that the attention of the whole congregation naturally focuses there. ”
This has been reiterated by the newest revision of the GIRM, such as in par. 299: “The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns…”
Anyone: Are there other similar precedents that back up these instructions?
on July 30th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Cathleen, I agree that it helps to look at the MP as part of a trend, rather than as a divisive event in itself. Because I would think that there is a legitimate diversity in liturgical uses possible–for example, the MP could lead religious orders to rediscover their own liturgical heritages. And people like the family that Fr. W.T.C. mentions are able to have their ministerial needs met.
I’ve already mentioned that I think the sex-abuse crisis has in fact been more divisive than it had to be, so I won’t belabor that point. And I haven’t read much of the Pope’s book beyond his (to my mind) thorough consideration of the benefits and limitations of the historical-critical method. (so just a few pages).
I can see that the Pope hasn’t really done anything to reach out to progressives. I believe his efforts have been ecumenical in nature. I believe him, when he said that in the past, too little has been done to correct schism. In other words, the progressives aren’t the “lost sheep” in this situation. Schism is always on the right.
on July 30th, 2007 at 10:45 am
About the article, I wish to refer Mr. Downes to a parish such as Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary Church in Indianapolis.
Coexistence and mutual respect can come from this if people get off their high horses.
on July 30th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Oops. Here’s the article address:
http://www.archindy.org/criterion/local/2007/07-27/latin.html
on July 30th, 2007 at 10:58 am
In a way, Fr. WTC’s comments raise concerns acutely. He starts, to my mind, very sympatheticaly. A person who is dying, a grieving family, the core sacramental and merciful mission of the Church. I can certainly see encouraging pastors - to treat these situations with the utmost pastoral sensitivity.
But Father goes on to express sentiments that, I think, indicatewhy the mainstream catholics are worried. Reinterpreting the councils to emphasize continuity rather than change–will this mean, for example, rereading the Declaration on Religious Liberty in the narrowest possible fashion, simply to call for no use of force in teaching religion? That, I believe, is a major concern of the Lefebrists. The Pope’s hermeneutical principle of elevating continuity over change does not preclude such a narrowing of the Declaration.
Five million Catholics–verses fifty million Catholics in the US of the more ordinary sort.
I think the Pope may get his smaller, purer, Church. Because if the Declaration on Religious Liberty is narrowed, I don’t think most of the fifty million will stick around to argue. The Church will be, from their perspective hopeless.
on July 30th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Maid,
You must not say “usus antiquor” or we will begin to doubt your bona fides as a Latinist.
on July 30th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Father O’Neal,
thank you for the link to the article which I find most hopeful.
Cathy,
we may be emerging as the yin and yang of this blog.
Among the documents you mention, one is missing which I think may be the most important of them all: the Pope’s Letter to the Church in China. Has it even been mentioned, much less commented on, on dotCom? One can find it on Sandro Magister’s blog:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=152521&eng=y
Speaking of Magister: the ex tempore(?) responses of the Pope, at his meeting with the priests of the Veneto region, need also to be placed in their experiential context. The last question was asked by a pastor, formed during the Council, who was now expressing disappointment, not least because some of his younger confreres were saying that he was only indulging in “nostalgia” for the Council.
In many ways the Pope’s response was an affirmation of the man, uniting himself with the Pastor’s commitment: “We had hoped so much, but in reality things proved more difficult. Nevertheless, the great heritage of the Council, which opened a new way, remains: it is always the Magna Carta of the Church’s journey, essential and fundamental.”
on July 30th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Fr. Shawn,
I am familiar with the passages you cite none of which come from the council anyway but a free-standing altar does not necessarily mean the ad orientatem posture is not presumed for the canon. IO also only suggests v. populum when it is possible, it in no way proscribes ad orientatem celebrations.
You also fail to address the numerous places the rubrics in all the post-conciliar missals presume the priest and people facing in the same direction during the celebration of Holy Mass. I can list them for you:
1. the Orate, fratres,
2 t.he Pax Domini,
3. the Ecce, Agnus Dei, and
4. the Ritus conclusionis.
The rubrics tell the celebrant that the priest should turn towards the people at these times.This would seem to imply that beforehand priest and people were facing the same direction, that is, towards the altar. At the priest’s communion the rubrics say “ad altare versus” which would be redundant if the celebrant stood behind the altar facing the people anyway.
Versus populum may be helpful in Liturgies of the Word especially in chapels (and they do exist) where an ambo may not exist and for the collects when these are not recited from the celebrant’s chair. Many times, especially during the early days following the council, all prayers were recited from the altar itself and I still see occasional parishes where this is the practice.
To accentuate my point let’s return to your quoted document I.O. prepared by the “Consilium” and an explaination provided by the president of this “Consilium” on January 25, 1966 by His Eminence Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro. Cardinal Lercaro stated that
“…it is not indispensable that the altar should be versus populum: in the Mass, the entire liturgy of the word is celebrated at the chair, ambo or lectern, and, therefore, facing the assembly; as to the eucharistic liturgy, loudspeaker systems make participation feasible enough.”
My point exactly!
Additionally,
# 299 in the 2002 GIRM reads in Latin:
“ltare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit.”
It is clear from this reading that the phrase “wherever possible” refers to a free-standing altar not celebrations facing the people. That is an important distinction.
I recommend Uwe Michael Lang’s book “Turning Towards The Lord” (in Italian Rivolti al Signore: l’orientamento nella preghiera liturgica. Cantagalli, 2006. The book’s thesis on the importance of priest and people facing in the same direction during this great prayer has been put foward by other scholars including Klaus Gamber, Joseph Jungmann, Max Thurian, Louis Bouyer, and Joseph Ratzinger (better known today by another name).
The release of “Summorum Pontificum” which is now the law of the Church has some bearing on this issue as well and certainly even the extraordinary usage can be employed on a free-standing altar.
on July 30th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Fr. Shawn,
I meant to add that your quote from GIRM #299 is a faulty translation already clarified by the CDW in response to requests for clarification on this very point (9-25-2000). Recall that the 2000 Latin edition of the GIRM was released well in advance of the 2002 RM to which it was incorporated. The whole paragraph isn’t principally about the orientation of celebration as such but about the placement of the altar.
on July 30th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Maid,
I failed to include those other examples for the sake of making a brief comment.
I thank you for the book suggestions and the references.
on July 30th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Cathleen said:
“I think the Pope may get his smaller, purer, Church. Because if the Declaration on Religious Liberty is narrowed, I don’t think most of the fifty million will stick around to argue. The Church will be, from their perspective hopeless.”
Cathleen,
The Church of Christ has been founded by the Savior in large part to hand on His revelation, the deposit of Faith. The hallmark of the Church is to be traditional in the best sense of that word. Every document of the Church, every council, every Papal teaching, every disciplinary and prudential act of the Church must be governed by authentic Tradition, by what is termed more technically as the principle of diachronic identity, what the Holy Father terms the hermeneutics of continuation, and what the Lord Himself commanded when He said to his disciples: Go out into the world…teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
The intent of the Council was not to create new teachings, not even to settle questions, but to be faithful to the command of the Lord in the modern age.
The Council intended from its inception to add nothing new to the teaching of the Church but only to enunciate the Traditional teaching of the Church in a new way. In a way that the people of the then modern world would better understand.
Whether or not the Council can be evaluated as having achieved successfully its stated goals requires the prudential judgment of historians, theologians, Church officials etc. A negative evaluation would not call into question its authenticity, its validity or its orthodoxy. The V Council of the Lateran was an abysmal failure in the practical order of things; it remains nevertheless an authentic part of the magisterium of the Church even though in its pastoral implementation it quickly became a dead letter.
The Pope who was present at the Council questions the success of the Council but without at the same time rejecting it, many others do as well. I can say with full confidence that for the majority of Traditionalist this is the case.
The upcoming theological dialogue with the Society of St. Pius X will look narrowly at this point. How can the Council speak today without contradicting what the Church has said for the last two thousand years? How can a Catholic who finds it difficult to reconcile the apparent teaching of the Council with Catholic Tradition, nevertheless accept the fact that it was a council correctly called for and approved by the authority of the Church?
With respect to this one should keep in mind that the Society of St. Pius X is an heir to the late Archbishop Lefebvre’s ongoing dialogue with the Council and the post-Conciliar Church. The Archbishop, himself a Council father who approved of all but two of the documents of the Council, wanted to speak to Modern Man in a fashion best suited for Modern Man to integrate the Doctrine of Christ into his life and his world.
In preparation for this future dialogue the Holy Father has already made it clear to the members of the Society of St. Pius X and to all Traditionalists within and without the Society that they must accept the validity of the Council and its teaching. Something that the Society in principle already accepts, as long as a secularist hermeneutic, alien to the constant mind of the Church, is not employed in this effort.
The Society I can assure you will reject any interpretation of Dignitatis Humane that attempts to find in that document an inherent right on the part of Man to worship as he sees fit, a right that morally Catholic governments must recognized and promote.. Such interpretation will be understood as a contradiction of the Gospel which lets face it says that Christ is the only way, the only truth and the only life upon which the dignity of Man can rest, and of the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ which clearly teaches that the social order has an obligation above all to recognize in its laws and institutions, the right of God over His creation.
on July 30th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Fr. W.T.C.: What is a “morally Catholic government?”
on July 30th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I am absolutely no expert on these matters, but as they say, “Fools go . . . .
I am always a little queasy about talk of “going back” or “going forward” in relation to the Church. Where, exactly are we going? And is going back always such a bad thing? If I’m lost, the best thing may be to go back. In fact, wasn’t some of the reform supposed to get back to earlier roots? In relation to the old rite, I (in my very limited way) have never understood VII as getting away from anything, but as opening up what we have and making it accessible in the modern world. Shouldn’t whatever liturgical reform the Church comes up with have some reference point? Shouldn’t we be preserving and, in fact, expanding what was good about it (the sense of the holy, beauty etc.) rather than . . . well . . . there’s a saying about babies and bathwater.
The thing I don’t understand is the sense that the 1962 mass is some sort of “threat” to the Church, and more importantly to Catholics who don’t like it. Do some denizens of the Tridentine Rite fancy themselves “holier” than their progressive counterparts? Probably, but an awful lot of progressive Catholics I have met seem to think they have boatload more Holy Spirit and Christian Charity in them than I do. So what? That’s no threat to me. If the old rite gains in popularity, what’s the harm? If it happens, it will only happen because people want it.
The Holy Father’s so called declaration of the “superiority” of the Catholic Church is simply a restatement of Church doctrine – a doctrine that we affirm in a different way every time we recite the creed. In fact, “superiority” implies that there is some sort of hierarchy when the Church’s doctrine is that there is only one Church. Was he supposed to say something different? Or was he supposed to simply dummy up to avoid offending the neighbors? I just don’t get the consternation.
on July 30th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Yes, Father, that is what I figured you would say. But thank you for saying it. Now, I don’t agree with you about the proper interpretation of the Council on this–I’m with Noonan, but I’m not going to repeat him here. Development involves both change and continuity.
Kathy, in a nutshell, Fr. WTC’s take on religious liberty is why some progressive Catholics are getting the willies about the concatenation.
Bob/Yang? Yin is calling. Or are you Yin? At any rate, any comments on the final paragraph of Father’s interpetation of Dignitatis Humanae–”no inherent right on the part of Man to worship as he sees fit”. Can you see why I’m troubled?
I read the China document. My problem isn’t that the Pope isn’t right now saying nice things about the new teaching of Vatican. My problem is the systemic priviliging of continuity of change isn’t going to give the Pope anything to say to Fr. WTC, other than “I lhappen to like Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty –but the document on the liturgy, I don’t like too much.”
I’m assuming Fr. WTC is a member of the Society of St. Pius X. So it’s a doctrinal package for him. Can someone sympathetic to the reasoning in the Latin Mass Motu Proprio come up with a principled way to a) affirm continuity in the case of liturgy; but b) affirm the imprtance of difference in the case of religious liberty?
on July 30th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Oops I meant “My problem isn’t that the Pope isn’t right now saying nice things about the new teaching of Vatican II about religious liberty. My provelm is the systemic priviliging of continuity over change. . . ”
Sorry.
on July 30th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Prof. Kaveny,
What is it specifically about the motu proprio that makes you wonder whether the “Declaration on Religious Liberty” is to be read in the “narrowest possible fashion”? I gather from your earlier comment that it may have something to do with Vietnam and Medicaid, but perhaps you could clear up my confusion on that point.
on July 30th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
“The Society I can assure you will reject any interpretation of Dignitatis Humane that attempts to find in that document an inherent right on the part of Man to worship as he sees fit, etc.”
What I mean to say is that the Society of St. Pius X rejects any understanding of D.H. in which the right to worship, and religion is located in the dignity of Man as Man, rather than Man as a creature of God created to come to know and serve the true God of the Trinity. It will claim that anything less than this would be a contradiction of the Councils own stated purpose and thus reduce D.H. to the level of a none binding, private teaching of the Council Fathers rather than a teaching of the Council itself. Very much like the degree to the Armenians of the Council of Florence.
I got to learn to proofread .
on July 30th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
“I’m assuming Fr. WTC is a member of the Society of St. Pius X. ”
For the record I am NOT or have ever been a member of the Society of Pius X, I attended Immaculate Conception Seminary in South Orange NJ, I was ordained to the priesthood in the New Rite, and I say Mass in English every day facing the lovely people of my parish
on July 30th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
For what it’s worth, St. John Cantius also uses the Pauline Missal and hosts a religious order, the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, whose motto is “restoration of the sacred.” And they’ve been around since the mid-90s. Inclusion of any of this might have added some context to the NYT piece. Also FWIW, the most beautiful and sanest old-rite mass I have attended was there last spring on Ascension (I called ahead). There was a pretty wide range of folks in the pews, and this bleeding-heart liberal was pleased to hear a Tridentine mass homily utterly lacking in culture-warrior code-words. And the only flags in the place were tiaras and keys. Now, maybe it’s not always like that, or maybe it has changed. But what I saw doesn’t quite match the Downes piece.
And so as not to beat up too much on the NYT–didn’t they have some pretty lovey-dovey writing on Cardinal O’Connor’s trid mass at St. Pat’s on Mother’s Day (was it 1995?)?
on July 30th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Cathleen, I doubt a lot of progressives have thought that far ahead. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think that we’re still in the symbolic stage of reaction.
Fr. WTC–himself, please–could you please say more about the distinction between those two ways of looking at religious freedom? What, canonically, would result from the non-SSPX-acceptable scenario?
on July 30th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Fr. WTC,
You raise many questions as well as eyebrows. Fundamentally, when a person refuses to give one’s name and does not explain when suspicions arise, the tone is set for deceit. Your championing of the Society of St Pius X should be tempered by the fact that this society has called the Vatican apostate and deliberately chose schism.
Your clear attack on religious liberty is startling in that in another age the members of the Society of Pius X would have been burnt at the stake. You write: “The Society I can assure you will reject any interpretation ..”
Does that mean you are a leading member of that society?
Further, you should know that your question may be ipso facto inoperative, namely:”How can the Council speak today without contradicting what the Church has said for the last two thousand years?”
If you are honest you will acknowledge that The church has contradicted itself on many issues and been wrong. Or do you think she was right about the condemnation of the Jews, that there was no salvation outside the church, that the emperor was subject to the pope, etc. etc.
I agreed with Cathy that the unity of the church can remain if all, as Shawn O”Neal wrote will keep level headed. But if certain people are pushing a Counter Reformation there will be strife indeed.
The Economist notes how the Sex Abuse crisis has actually helped the church. See why. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9516068
Your triumphalism promises to go back to many deceitful ways.
on July 30th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Prof. Kaveny
You are aware that the Holy Father has issued Summorum Pontificum in part to satisfy one of three conditions presented by the Society of St. Pius X as necessary for the reintegration of the Lefevrist. The other two conditions being, the nullification of the excommunication of AB.Lefevre and the other bishops, and the initiation of non-polemical talks between the Vatican and the Society on the doctrinal nature of the Council.
The Pope in his address of 22 December 2005 has decidedly given the Church the only hermeneutical device by which the Council can and will be understood. Continuity is the guiding principle for any and all issues addressed by the Council. In effect all other ways of reading and understanding Council and the post-Conciliar documents are in proper and illegitimate.
on July 30th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Father, do you have a hyperlink for the address?
Do you agree with Brian Harrison, OS in this article on religious liberty?
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/00MarApr/continuity.html
His bio says “His special interest in theological and liturgical matters, in keeping with the charism of the Oblates of Wisdom, is upholding a ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ between the teachings of Vatican Council II and the bimillennial heritage of Catholic Tradition.”
So Sean, you are a lawyer. In itnerpreting the contuing evolution of the common law, you can stress continuity or difference. Normally, you stress continuity by giving a narrow reading of the newer case, rather than setting in motion a new principle. Example: Promissory estoppel. It started as a means for substituting for consideration in a few, narrow cases (generally family promises or charities) and then expanded to be a theory on its own, with its own inner logic.
You can read the early cases narrowly–just a substitute for consieration —or more broadly –reliance is an indepedent reason for enforcing a promise.
I guess the question is does the motu proprio, which emphasizes the continuity and similarity between the two rites, and does not even address the differences, count as a pastoral accommodation of a small group of people, or is it a harbinger of a way of reading other V2 texts, as Father says.
on July 30th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I agree with you, Cathy, that the items you cite suggest Benedict is doing his best to reverse many of the progressive changes (yes, changes) made at VII, and yes, the situation is discouraging.
His recent conversation with his fellow priests at his summer place featured yet another version of that story he has told so often about what went wrong after VII. He holds on to it, it seems, for dear life–narrow, dated, intellectually unconvincing as it may be. I suspect it prevents him from seeing legitimate merit in positions he doesn’t already hold, and so having to change his mind.
Back in 1988 when he was still doing his homework, Benedict made a stab at critiquing the historical-critical movement in scriptural studies. At least then he was engaging with the issues, rather than dismissing its practitioners with faint praise. Perhaps completing the second volume of his devotional speculations will occupy him for awhile, though I believe he is also contemplating an encyclical of some sort.
Not a happy thought.
on July 30th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I should also point out–given my analogy to promssory estoppel, that protecting reliance–the new theory was also old, in the sense that one of the reasons for requiring consideration was that it encouraged reliance. It hink it was fuller who said “to encourage reliance we must dispense with its proof.”
So too in the second vatican council. Those who favor a more expansive reason of religious liberty than say, Fr. Harrison aren’t importing secular ideas–they (e.g., Noonan) see themselves as retrieving an aspect of the tradition itself, focusing on what it needs now. So error has no rights, but persons, as moral agents, called to respond in freedom and love to God, do.
on July 30th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Oops again. Stuart, I’m sorry I called you Sean. I know your name, of course!
It’s a sign from God to get back to my day job!
Thanks, all–and I promise I’ll read the link, Father.
on July 30th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Cathleen,
I am not sure I understand the analogy. First, in looking at promissory estoppel, the purpose it served was to substitute for consideration, but the justification for it (arising in equity) was always to prevent injustice by not rewarding someone for encouraging detrimental reliance in another. The principle has always been the same even if it applies in more cases now. Also, that development wasn’t necessarily the result of a stressing difference over continuity, it could have just as well have been the cumulative result of many cases, narrowly decided on their facts (as ideally they should be) in broader and broader contexts.
I guess I don’t see the analogy because I don’t see things in the Church “developing” in the same way – as a response to human behavior and interaction.
I say the following as someone who is unlikely to regularly seek out old rite masses. I like you grew up in the 70’s, so I have only the vaguest recollection of the old mass – most vividly the smell of incense that sometimes made my stomach sick – from when I was very young. When I went to my first old rite mass a few years ago, my reaction wasn’t oh how beautiful (although it was) but what happened? The differences between it and many of the masses I experienced as a teenager, less than a decade after VII, were like the differences between a Muslim call to prayer and a Baptist Revival meeting. In short, I don’t think anyone needs to be reminded of the differences, they slap you in the face. The only thing I hope comes out of this is a renewed sense of the liturgy as something special, not a mundane weekly meeting, and as focused on the Lord, not ourselves.
As for harbingers for reading VII documents – so long as it involves readings based on what they actually say – I’m all for BXVI.
on July 30th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
My Latin has been corrected at least once on this blog, but it’s pretty clear to me (contrary to the Maid of Kent) that “quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit” does not refer to the situation of the altar (which would be otiose after the jussive subjunctive and contrary to the flow of the sentence) but is simply a parenthetic addition to a rather loose-limbed sentence reminding the reader that the celebration versus populum is to be the standard practice to the extent that it is possible.
Quod referring to clauses or sentences is often ambiguous in Latin, but I’m pretty sure that it in this sentence it doesn’t reach across the versus populum bit to the start of the sentence.
on July 30th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
I guess W.T.C. is not willing to identify himself. Staying unknown while wishing to impart what he wants to be known to us. Quite amusing that he chooses to introduce the notion of continuity into the dialogue.
Of course each person’s continuity is another person’s heresy. The only real way continuity has of being defined is that Jesus assured us that he would be with his people till the end of time. That does not mean that they will not make mistakes and the huge blunders that have been made. Continuity simply means that Jesus will be with those who follow him, giving them strength and courage on their journey with and to God.
Truly the notion of continuity is laughable and only serves those who need to control. We are truthful when we admit that we are a sinful church wholly dependent on the grace of God.
If we had real continuity that is boasted about by some (and I understand most of us bought this notion at one time or another) then we would not have all the discrepancies that have occurred.
Just take the case of Mary Magdalene who for most of Catholic history was considered a former whore and rarely as the apostle she is. Not only as the “apostle to the apostles ” which she is. At one time in various Catholic communities we have had not one, but five bodies of the Magdalen, each proferred as genuine by its town. Those relics do bring in money and tourists.
Certainly the gnostics were an elitist group but recent discoveries from them show that Magdalene was a strong leader until the Lords of Christianity stifled her and so many other women. The examples go on and on.
We are a sinful church which is allowed to have hope because of the abundant love of God who sent Jesus as our model and brother. Too many have placed dogma over behavior and as a result too many leaders in the church have not only tolerated wars but encouraged them and even initiated them.
Dogma apparently cannot stop the continual spiral of wars. There is a continuity of wars. To our shame.
In discipleship is where continuity belongs. Now that can prevent wars.
on July 30th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Kathy, the analytical article I mentioned the other day is “Sacrosanctum Concilium: A Lawyer Examines the Loopholes.” I would attempt a hyperlink, but when I tried it (with same URL a couple weeks back or so), I think we ended up getting something else. The author is Christopher Ferrara.
Although SC and the recent mp are, as you’ve noted, just two documents in comparatively recent liturgical history (going back to the 18th/19th centuries), SC carries much weight by virtue of its being a co-approved conciliar constitution. The mp, of course, is no such thing, and Benedict — his references to “juridical” notwithstanding — has effectively brought back a rite that the greater part of the worldwide Catholic Church relinquished — and that Paul VI himself as much acknowledged when he said it had been replaced. The current controversy, of course, deals with more than just a style of liturgy. We face competing issues of ecclesiology and theology. In effect, we are looking at different and contradictory ecclesial “systems” (to borrow from systems theory).
Fr. O’Neal, your link to the Indianapolis parish is interesting. Although I’m not familiar with the principals involved, we must not overlook the fact that the archdiocese is governed by Daniel Buechlein, a hierarch not exactly considered moderate-to-progressive in ecclesial outlook (for those unfamiliar, the AB is a former Benedictine monk from St. Meinrad archabbey in Indiana). To what extent his “shadow” hangs over this possibly successful arrangement, I do not know.
on July 30th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
I am a Saint Meinrad alumnus. I have met Archbishop Buechlein many times; however, I am not privy to his ecclesial outlook.
From what I have been told by my many friends who live in and around Indy, it just made good sense to have at least one church around town where the 1962 Rite could be celebrated and I truly give that community credit for not operating as isolationists. (Some folks I know here in NC could take that lesson to heart.)
As for southeastern Indiana, I understand that there was concern by priests and perhaps by Archbishop Buechlein (at best, a guess on my part) that a few Catholics would choose preference of rite over ecclesial communion, thereby choosing to attend a SSPX church in Cincinnati which is not a far drive for many households in far southeast Indiana. That is why the 1962 Rite was established in Oak Forest.
on July 30th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Joseph,
Could you please describe the two systems?
on July 30th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Hello Grant,
Granted that Diogenes’ forensic methods are aimed less at winning hearts and minds than crushing them underfoot, I don’t think that NCR did its case many favors by citing Archbishop Weakland.
The Shanley comparison is a bit of sharp elbows (given that no one has accused Weakland of diddling anyone but consenting adults), but he remains a very compromised figure just the same. Unlike political figures, a compartmentalization of policy (theology) and morality can’t be easily come by with our prelates.
On the larger point I find it difficult to add much to Fr. Imbelli’s analysis, save to add that, in his own way, Downes did seem to be at least trying, genuinely, to take on the traditionalist project on its own terms - as far as such things can be done within the Grey Lady’s echo chamber.
But he couldn’t have hurt his outreach by trying a little harder to get inside the heads of some of the TLM’s devotees.
on July 31st, 2007 at 12:01 am
Hello Bill,
“If you are honest you will acknowledge that The church has contradicted itself on many issues and been wrong. Or do you think she was right about the condemnation of the Jews, that there was no salvation outside the church, that the emperor was subject to the pope, etc. etc.”
Where has the Church contradicted itself on these issues?
on July 31st, 2007 at 7:08 am
R.M.: I’m afraid I can’t agree. Comparing Weakland to a man commonly regarded as a pedophile is beyond the pale. “A bit of sharp elbows” doesn’t quite capture the moment.
on July 31st, 2007 at 8:24 am
R.M., I’m interested in your expression, “Unlike political figures, a compartmentalization of policy (theology) and morality can’t be easily come by with our prelates. ”
If I understand you correctly, I think you mean that, because the Church teaches sexual morality, anyone who represents Church teaching must be held to a higher moral standard.
Is this what you mean?
Because I think that something is missing in this argument: the Church’s teaching about the forgiveness of sins. Which, actually, is an article of the faith–it is part of our Creed. Whereas sexual morality–though derivable from the Creed–is not an article of the Catholic faith.
on July 31st, 2007 at 9:57 am
Gene:
I absolutely agree. The “quod” is used, as often, for “id quod” referring not to a particular noun but to but the precideing clause or phrase as a whole. The Maid’s Latin is rather uneven.
on July 31st, 2007 at 10:15 am
“The Shanley comparison is a bit of sharp elbows (given that no one has accused Weakland of diddling anyone but consenting adults), but he remains a very compromised figure just the same. Unlike political figures, a compartmentalization of policy (theology) and morality can’t be easily come by with our prelates.”
The same argument could be made of Diogenes about compartmentalization of theology and morality. Wasn’t it CS Lewis who said that a cold self-righteous prig was nearer to hell than a prostitute? It clear from his writings that Diogenes is a man who hates heretics and squishes more than he loves the Catholic faith and the gospel. That is not to be confused on my part with an endorsement of Weakland’s career - I’m glad he’s gone for lots and lots of reasons.
on July 31st, 2007 at 10:29 am
Compartmentalization of policy and morality must be made.
The validity of moral governance does not depend on moral perfection. Otherwise one could only go to confession to someone who doesn’t need to go himself.
on July 31st, 2007 at 10:39 am
But confession isn’t the issue, is it?
The real question is: Given the failure of priests to practice sexual morality, and the failure of prelates to ensure the moral behavior of priests, does the Catholic Church retain its teaching authority in matters of sexual morality?
The answer being, of course, that this is not a real question.
on July 31st, 2007 at 10:44 am
Hello Grant,
“R.M.: I’m afraid I can’t agree. Comparing Weakland to a man commonly regarded as a pedophile is beyond the pale. “A bit of sharp elbows” doesn’t quite capture the moment.”
Fair point. I was being too cute by half.
But then Weakland had more than his share of shuffling-pedophile priest problems around as well. Like his views or not, he was a major part of the crisis of the episcopacy we’ve been suffering through.
But set that aside. If Uncle Di did himself few favors by using an over the top analogy, I still reaffirm my observation: “I don’t think that NCR did its case many favors by citing Archbishop Weakland.” Parallels with the likes of Shanley should be rejected, certainly. But the fact remains that he was forced to resign in disgrace after having been discovered paying $400,000 to fend off blackmail by what was to all appearances a former lover. And this is the first thing most readers are going to think of when they hear his name.
It’s not like there is a lack of progressive liturgical authorities NCR could have quotes. But they chose Weakland. Curious.
Well - maybe this is all nitpicking. It’s certainly not the most problematic part of NCR’s editorial.
Hello Kathy,
“Because I think that something is missing in this argument: the Church’s teaching about the forgiveness of sins. Which, actually, is an article of the faith–it is part of our Creed. Whereas sexual morality–though derivable from the Creed–is not an article of the Catholic faith.”
We (or at any rate those whose trust they betrayed) can forgive Weakland, or Law - but this doesn’t mean that they should remain in positions of responsibility. Or be referenced as such. They should not be treated as lepers but a real withdrawal from public life seems only fitting as part of their penance.
If, say, Crisis had favoriably cited Law in a similar context, I imagine NCR (or someone of like mind) would be one of the first to call them out on it.
I just found the cite jarring - especially as a closing.
on July 31st, 2007 at 11:26 am
Not that anybody cares about promissory estoppel and the law But.
1. I think development of the legal tradition and development of the theological tradition actually have a lot in common. MacIntyre’s Whose Justice Which Rationality is a good place to start on how traditions develop.
2. More concretely, I read Frank Sullivan’s Creative Fidelity, which talks about development in a theological context actually works well as a description of how law develops too. Sean and Stuart, in your not-so-spare time, why don’t you read it and see what you think.
on July 31st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Well, a good part of the English common law tradition was established in the ecclesiastical courts of equity (versus courts at law). I used to know more about their historical development but it’s lost in the mists of faded memory. Eventually, these two branches were merged into a single court system, but the division between law and equity remains relevant for, among other thints, determining when one has a constitutional right to trial by jury. When religious institutions had more civil administrative responsibility, they were much less able to stake their authority in tradition. Equating authority and tradition, I think, is a more modern development that is tited in part to not having to deal with the practical consequences of actually running things. For good and bad.
on July 31st, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Kathy, you asked me to please describe the two ecclesial “systems.”
Basically, I am referring within this thread to two very different understandings of “church” and all that such understandings entail. The Tridentine and Novus Ordo liturgies (including their respective underpinnings) are as different as night and day.
Systems, of course, have inputs, processes, and outputs. There can also be feedback loops that enable outputs, so to speak, to influence inputs.
When I apply the word ’systems’ to the current Catholic Church (and, perhaps, more importantly to the church to come — in light of the papal mp, etc. of recent days), I am confining my remarks, first of all, to western-rite folks in communion with Rome, and, second, to what I see as two distinct churches continuing to grow further and further apart under their common Roman umbrella. Given the importance of the liturgy in the Catholic scheme of things, I see no other outcome.
We could also get into other facets of systems theory as applied (here) in studies of organization — technology, rules, belief systems, customers, etc., etc., but I’ll leave it at that.
I do not see any genuine interlocking of these systems down the road, regardless of their being under Rome.
on July 31st, 2007 at 4:48 pm
R.M. Lender asks, ” the condemnation of the Jews, that there was no salvation outside the church, that the emperor was subject to the pope, etc. etc.” Where has the Church contradicted itself on these issues?
Please look at Charles E. Curran, ed. Change in Official Catholic Moral Teaching, which addresses some of these issues.
Or just look at the difference between the 1959 Good Friday prayers and the current ones.
on July 31st, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Joseph J., I wish you could describe the systems in more detail. Their structure, underpinnings and so forth. I understand what you are getting at by saying that they are not compatible. What I don’t see is what they actually consist of.
on August 2nd, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Kathy, rather than try to describe the two systems in specific detail (a product that likely would not meet with total agreement among reviewers), I’ll pass along some generic information on factors that can/should be considered when developing a system model.
I must emphasize my background in this area is theoretical, not practical. My MA in HRD (1987) included, inter alia, study of organization development. My work in government was in staffing, position classification and management, and training.
The following information is from two editions of Wendell French and Cecil Bell’s ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT: BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE INTERVENTIONS FOR ORGANIZATION IMPROVEMENT as well as from the 4-volume THEORIES AND MODELS published a number of years ago by Pfeiffer Company.
Every organization is a system, that is, a set of interdependent/interacting components that take in resources from the broader environment, process such ingredients, and release the final product/service to the end user. A system, in relation to its environment, can be open or closed. The former takes advantage of the wider (external) environment in the interest of growth or, at least, healthy self-preservation. The latter does not. An organizational system can be comprised of two or more subsystems that, in turn, can be made up of two or more sub-subsystems.
Any system model should lend itself to understanding how an organization works (or doesn’t work :) Different practitioners and theorists may use variants of the above generic model that best address specific kinds of organization: manufacturing or service, profit or non-profit, open or closed, etc. (I’d tend to put “church” under “etc.” :)
One source offers the following factors to be considered in a basic system model:
a. Inputs - people, ideas, time, money, facilities, technologies, customers, location, collaborators, etc.
b. Processes - individuals, teams, projects, programs, products and services (used in production), processes (cross-functional), functions, etc.
c. Outputs - trained customers, courses, books, revenue, fixed cars, patients, furniture, houses, etc.
d. Outcomes - happy, financially strong, employed, literate, independent, healthy, mobile, etc.
If the above is an open system, there is feedback not only among the parts (subsystems) but also between the latter and the external environment.
French and Bell offer the following organizational subsystems for consideration:
a. External Interface - data sensing and collection, resource procurement (including staffing), output placement or resource exchange, environment influencing, responses to external demands.
b. Task - tasks and subtasks.
c. Technological - tools, machines, procedures, methods, technical knowledge.
d. Goal - superordinate, subunit, program.
e. Structural - organizational subdivision, rules, communications (incl. feedback), authority, planning, coordination, control, decision-making, work flow.
f. Human/Social - skills and abilities, leadership philosophy and style, formal (staffing, rewards, appraisal, bargaining, justice), informal (activities, interactions incl. coalition and competitive behaviors, norms, sentiments/feelings, values, status).
A related approach looks at “work setting factors” in organizations:
a. Organizing Arrangements - goals, strategies, structure, administrative policies and procedures, administrative systems, reward systems, ownership.
b. Social Factors - culture (I suggest Schein’s work), management style, interaction processes, informal patterns and networks, individual attributes.
c. Physical Setting - space configuration, physical ambiance, interior design, architectural design.
d. Technology - tools/equipment/machinery, information technology, job design, work flow design, technical expertise, technical procedures, technical systems.
The systems approach lends itself to understanding the dynamic nature of organizations. In this respect, it surpasses the traditional “organizational box” approach that is, by its very nature, superficial and static.
A few other factors that may be helpful in analyzing an organization/system are work climate, mission/vision/values, organizational history, dress codes, reception to learning and change, individual needs and values.
Two websites that you may find of interest are:
a. www.mnodn.org
click “other OD resources”
click “www.managementhelp.org”
click “systems thinking”
b. www.ctb.ku.edu
This is the “Community Toolbox” maintained by the University of Kansas.
Some recent articles that may offer grist for thought about (in my view) two basically different “churches” under the Roman roof are:
a. Editorial, “Stay the Course?” COMMONWEAL (12-01-06)
b. Editorial, “Not bad for melodrama,” National Catholic Reporter (11-24-06)
c. Joan Chittister, “Coming Soon to a Church Near You,” National Catholic Reporter (07-10-07)
d. Rita Ferrone, “A Step Backward…” COMMONWEAL (07-13-07)
e. Mark Francis, “Beyond Language,” THE TABLET (07-14-07)
f. Richard McBrien, “Fundamentalism: The Real Problem, in Any Religion,” Los Angeles Tidings published by the archdiocese (September 2004).
While the above sources/writers reflect my reading preferences, I would not overlook articles from conservative or more “traditionalist”-minded publications such as First Things, National Catholic Register, etc.
While I do think we have two separate churches (and not “camps” as suggested by another writer), I would not rule out the possibility of a single systems model (in the abstract) being adequate as a point of departure for discovering the dynamics of the respective churches. In other words, it would be necessary to build upon a basic model in order to arrive at a specialized one appropriate to the different understandings, cultures, technologies, rewards systems, management styles, etc.
on August 3rd, 2007 at 11:45 am
Okay, thank you, Joseph.
Now just to keep it schematic for me, may I ask, what do you see as the two separate churches according to this most basic model:
1. Inputs
2. Processes
3. Outputs
4. Outcomes
on August 4th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
You’re welcome, Kathy.
I am not prepared to take the time to “flesh out” the schematics of the pre- and post-Vatican II churches. They are, however, quite different even though both are under Rome. I prefer two models of church rather than one because I do not think a single model of the Catholic Church is adequate for purposes of description and analysis.
To help you get started (if you wish :), may I suggest the chasuble as an input? The pre-Vatican II model would specify the so-called “fiddleback” design; the post-Vatican II model would specify the free-flowing design.
In a book about the liturgy, a French theologian, Denis Crouan, notes that the fiddleback version, interestingly enough, is not actually “traditional” as so-called “orthodox” Catholics would like to believe. It is a 19th c. design that, in a matter of speaking, came about as something of a fad promoted by liturgical vestment clothiers of the time. Crouan, in a footnote, suggests that possibly this stiff and comparatively short chasuble might reflect the “stiffness” of the priest wearing it? It’s pretty much accepted that clothing can reveal something about the psychology of the wearer.
Anyway, I’d be happy to critique any model(s) you might happen to develop :)
on August 4th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Joseph, I don’t think there are 2 systems–how can I develop the models?
I hope this whole line of reasoning hasn’t been based on chasubles…
on August 5th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Kathy, I think there are two systems essentially opposed to each other. I could refer to each of them as ecclesial subsystems, a term that is also appropriate. (Ultimately, a subsystem is, in itself, a system that is part of a larger system, the larger system in this case being the Church of Rome.)
I would suggest the outcome for either system (or subsystem) as “religious and spiritual formation.” Chasubles are only a small — but not insignilficant — part of the overall “schematic” to which you referred earlier. It just occurred to me that perhaps I have been referring primarily all along (unconsciously) to “belief systems” for which various tangibles (chasubles among them) are distinct components.
You ask, “[H]ow can I develop the models?) You might want to check out a copy of Bell and French’s classic work on organization development. Although work in this field has not been associated with churches, the principles, etc. can certainly be applied.
on August 5th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Joseph, what I am trying to understand better is why you are convinced there are two systems. Since you can’t delineate their differences, I’m inclined to think that your twofold schema doesn’t necessarily exist, except in certain symbolic dichotomies (Rome vs. American Church, fiddlebacks vs. longer chasubles, Missals of Bl John XXIII and Paul VI, etc. etc)
I wouldn’t be drawing out this questioning like this, except that I think that as long as we think of the Church as half good, half bad–or half up-to-date, half regressive–we will first of all be at odds with one another. More to the point, we will be missing out on what is so great about Catholicism: we are supposed to be able to have it all.
on August 6th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Kathy,
The universal church is an organization.
Every organization is a system.
The universal church is a system.
I see two subsystems in the universal Catholic Church. Each subsystem is, of course, a system in its own right. For lack of better descriptors, I’ll assign the adjectives “pre-” and “post-” Vatican II churches to this discussion. Each church has its own set of beliefs and practices that, in my view, are essentially opposed to one another. The pre-church is individualistic and clerical in nature: clergy on pedestals, a liturgy with individuals in attendance, etc. The post-church is communal in nature: laity as well as clergy with important roles in the life of the church, a liturgy that stresses genuine participation, i.e., understood as the clear expectation that people will “attend to” the Mass. The chasuble, which I gave as an example earlier, differentiates the roles of the priests in the Novus Ordo and Tridentine scheme of things. The modern version is free-flowing; the so-called “fiddleback” version is “hard” and stiff. The former suggests exceptions to rules: the latter are black and white, but life is anything but. The Tridentine schema with its hard/stiff chasuble tells us that life is rules, period. The Novus Ordo calls to mind the words of Jesus: “I want mercy, not sacrifice.” The Tridentine with its minutely prescribed rubrics, etc. tells us: “I want sacrifice, not mercy.”
Those pining for the “good ol’ days” when everything in the life of the church was set in black and white have been consistent in their opposition to the Novus Ordo (some so far so that they contend it is not a valid Mass). The history of Vatican II includes repeated attempts by curial stalwarts both during and after the council to thwart implementation of the restored/renewed liturgy. “Lex orandi, lex credendi” they have repeatedly reminded us.
I’m speaking in generalities, of course, just as any “schematic” or systems diagram must necessarily be general in nature. However, the differences between the old and new ways of worship (and, hence, of one’s understanding of the role of the clergy and the role of oneself in the church, etc.) are very real.
I’ve got to get off for now, but I hope I have given you some idea of my concerns.