Latin? In my Mass?!

I recently asked a Benedictine priest (who has a rather conservative liturgical ideal) what he thought about the virtual absence of Latin from the typical parish liturgical experience today.  I am referring to Sacrosanctum Concilium (the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) article 54:

In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

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 is to be observed.

It seems that the only parts of this article that get real attention are the first and third sections, which deal with the inclusion of the vernacular in the Mass... potentially (and actually, as experience has shown) throughout the entire Mass.  But what about the second section?  “Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”

The saying or singing in Latin of certain parts of the Order of Mass is not the experience of most Catholics nowadays.  In fact, the ability for the faithful to do so is virtually non-existent.  And yet, our weekly experience of the reformed liturgy includes 1) an expanded Lectionary, 2) the regularity of homilies, 3) the Prayer of the Faithful, 4) the use of the vernacular, 5) the partaking in the sacrifice offered at that Mass (rather than Hosts consecrated at a previous Mass and retrieved from the tabernacle), 6) Communion under both kinds, 7) and a new rite of concelebration.

Those seven reforms I just mentioned are part of the typical parish experience (priest shortage notwithstanding), and they are the products of articles 51-58 of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

So why have the other reforms been so successfully implemented (and then some!) and generally well-received, but that pesky little sentence in article 54 about Latin can’t seem to get its foot in the door?  Why do Catholics who otherwise support the reforms they experience from articles 51-58 become indignant whenever mention is made of the mere possibility of making Latin responses at Mass?  (Such a reaction can be found in the comment-boxes at the National Catholic Reporter web site, for example:  here, here, and here.)


What’s the problem with that sentence about Latin in article 54? People — at least SOME people — were making the responses in Latin before 1963. Why did it become impossible and undesirable?  Is it obsolete? Opposed to "full, conscious, and active participation"? A monastic ideal not appropriate for normal parish life? A compromise sentence which was never meant to be taken seriously?

Pray Tell and Liturgical Reform

+JMJ+

(This post is much longer than I thought it would be when I started, but I encourage you to read the whole thing.  And I must insist that this post is not, in any way, to be regarded as an affront or insult to the priesthood in general or to the priesthood of my brother, Fr. Charlie; nor as denigrating the piety or sincerity or faithfulness of Catholics like myself who regularly attend the Ordinary Form, like me.)

For the past several months, I have been reading and commenting at Pray Tell, a relatively new (September 2009, I think) blog about "worship, wit, and wisdom".  My personal liturgical and theological views seem a bit more "conservative" and "traditional" than that of the majority of the contributors to the blog.  Some of the commentors (on both sides of the divide) make scathing personal attacks and insults.  (I've been told I know more Latin than I know about the Catholic faith and liturgy, for example, and I assure you, I don't know very much Latin.)

Recently, in order to remind myself to write with charity, I began writing +JMJ+ at the top of my comments.  This was soon met with suspicion and a bit of a side-conversation.  Make of it what you will.

Since the blog's topic is primary liturgy, the new Roman Missal (third edition) is often the subject of posts and comments, especially the impending English translation of it.  Along with that comes a great deal of criticism about the Extraordinary Form (1962 Missal, since edited by Pope Benedict XVI) and its "liberation" through Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum.  For example, just this morning a post on the blog reads (with my emphases):

Evangelicals are crossing the Tiber to Catholicism. God bless ‘em. But why do I have this sinking feeling that some of them are way more Catholic than you or I would ever want to be? Watch for more support of the 1962 missal, I suspect.

I recommend you read the linked article.  I read it and didn't notice any particular indicators representing a particular support for the Extraordinary Form.  (Not that I would be opposed to such support; indeed, I would welcome it.)

Now, there's also an ongoing debate on Pray Tell about the Ordinary Form of the Roman Mass, specifically about the degree to which it embodies the Second Vatican Council's decrees on liturgical reform found in Sacrosanctum Concilium.  (This debate has a sub-thread which continually points out how the Extraordinary Form is, so far, un-reformed in regards to Sac. Conc.)  For example, Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, who has an editorial role at Pray Tell, made this comment in response to someone's remark about the pope's open-mindedness in promulgating Summorum Pontificum (with my emphasis):

Yes – but on the other hand: the bishops of the world begged the Pope not to do this; several conferences implored him. He did it anyway. While his act might seem generous, it is a generosity that cannot possibly be reconciled with the directives of the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II never intended that an unreformed rite would be existence alongside a reformed one. There is no way that the 1962 Mass meets the reformist requirements of the Council. This is a serious problem, in my view. And it is a problem that will compound as the anomaly continues in coming years and decades. How will they ever phase out 1962, as obedience to the Council would require?

I replied, in part, that

I think the 1962 Missal will be “phased out” by slowly but surely applying the reforms clearly expressed in Sacrosanctum Concilium to it. I don’t know how long it will take, I don’t know if I’ll live to see it, but I think the Pope believes that the E.F. and the O.F. are both in need of reform to a “middle way”. The E.F. was not intended to exist indefinitely without being reformed, and the O.F. — and perhaps I’m being wild here — was not the intended result of the reform.

Now, this final remark of mine — that the Ordinary Form liturgy as it exist in the books (and not merely as it is poorly celebrated in many places) might not be an accurate product of the liturgical reform expressed in Sac. Conc. and intended by the Council Fathers who approved that Constitution — is one which others have expressed on Pray Tell and one which is seems completely out of bounds.

I made a later remark where I compared Pope Benedict's act (of approving the 1962 Missal for celebration alongside the Ordinary Form) with Pope Paul VI's act (of approving the 1969 Missal), and asked why it was that the 1969 Missal is regarded as consonant/reconcilable with the liturgical reform expressed by the Council Fathers in Sac. Conc.:

Pope Paul VI, though he did not personally develop the Ordinary Form, approved and promulgated it. But does that necessarily mean it accurately captures the liturgical vision of the 2000+ Council Fathers? Is the way we account for the seeming disparity between certain statements or “decrees” in Sac. Conc. and their relative reception in the Ordinary Form Missal, simply to say that because the Consilium was charged with implementing Sac. Conc. and the Pope approved the final product, it’s official?

In other words, does it come down, ultimately, to the approval of the missal by Pope Paul VI?

Then why is the approval of the yet-unreformed missal by Pope Benedict XVI received differently? Fr. Anthony questions whether it is reconcilable with Vatican II, but some Catholics question how the Ordinary Form is reconcilable with Vatican II as well.

Now, I should make it clear here, as I do at Pray Tell, that:

I’m not calling the [Ordinary Form] invalid or heretical or any of that. I wouldn’t attend it weekly or daily if I thought so. [I should add that I wouldn't be writing a catechetical series on the new English translation of the Ordinary Form if I thought it was invalid or heretical!] I’m just saying it’s possible it’s not what the Council Fathers intended, and that it, like other liturgical reforms of history, may eventually be undone to some degree.

A particular liturgy, as a product of a particular reform, can be official and yet be found wanting or insufficient later and be "rolled back" or re-reformed.  It has happened in the history of the Church.

So how was my question about Paul VI's approval of the 1969 Missal received?  Fr. Anthony replied:

What a strange era we’re in! It is now acceptable to question the approved liturgy of the Church! This ought to be quite daring, and it ought to shock people because it’s bordering on dissent and disobedience. But it is now a commonplace. How did we get to that place? Very strange indeed.

The Council Fathers didn’t prescribe every detail, they laid out general principles. Consilium followed these, without a doubt. Consilium could have gone much further on many points, but they didn’t; they could have been more restrained on some points, but they weren’t. They made their decisions, and the Supreme Pontiff approved them. And so did virtually every single bishop of the Catholic world, all of whom were there for the council debates and decisions.

This chipping away at lawful reform as prescribed by an ecumenical council is scandalous. At least it should be.

I find this comment "shocking", since there are plenty of statements made on Pray Tell which are about dissenting from doctrines of the Church, but they often go unchecked and unadmonished by the editorial staff.  My comment is "shocking" because, as Fr. Anthony has said (on other occasions when I have brought up this unequal reception such comments receive) I am someone who is opposed to the dissenting and disobedient attitude portrayed by certain commentors.  In other words, as someone calling for assent, it is a "shock" to make a statement questioning the Ordinary Form in any way.

I think I need to defend myself and my question.  I am not questioning the Council, nor am I questioning the reform prescribed by the Council as found in Sac. Conc.  However, I am questioning certain facets of the liturgy produced by the Consilium (that is, the group assembled to carry out the liturgical reform).  Yes, their final decisions and the liturgy they produced was approved by the Supreme Pontiff, Paul VI.  But just because he approved them does not mean they were consonant or reconcilable with the liturgical reform as prescribed in the Council documents.  Is it true that "virtually every single bishop" approved the decisions of Consilium?  I thought only the Pope did.  What the bishops approved was the document Sac. Conc. in 1963, not the decisions of the Consilium nor the liturgy they produced in 1969.

I do not know if I can say, with Fr. Anthony, that "the Consilium followed the general principles of Sac. Conc. without a doubt."  There are certain principles and even decrees of Sac. Conc. that they did not uphold very well, and there are others that they adhered to, even to the point of going beyond them.  (I also question the process by which other changes with took place in the Ordinary Form after 1969 — like the rapid proliferation of Communion under both kinds to situations not envisioned by the Council Fathers and expressly forbidden by Rome at the time — but that is for another time.)

My overall question is: must the Ordinary Form (as it exists in the books) be accepted as an/the "accurate" interpretation of the principles and decrees on liturgical reform found in Sac. Conc., simply because Pope Paul VI approved it? (Again, I am not calling into question its validity or licitness.)

And if this "chipping away at lawful reform as prescribed by an ecumenical council is [or should be] scandalous", shouldn't the chipping away at other things said by the same council be decried as scandalous and shocking on Pray Tell as well?

So that's where I am for now.  The trailing part of this post of this will be posted as a comment on Pray Tell, where they don't need to hear all this backstory.

Thoughts on liturgical catechesis and reform

The following excerpts come from an email conversation with a "QV", a Catholic from Texas.  Text in blue is from QV.  This post is kind of long, but I think it's well worth reading (and not only because I wrote it).

---

What really were the 'needs of modern man' that were used as a foundational principle in Sacrosanctum Concilium for advocating the Liturgical Reforms after Vatican II? What made 20th Century Man so different from our ancestors?

Wow, that's a good question (and one which my books do not even begin to address, since they are not about the liturgical reform, per se, but about the reformed liturgy). I will think about it and try to provide some possible answers.

20th century man, at least in first- and second-world countries, has a lot of advantages (and disadvantages) that our ancestors did not have. The technological revolution has changed our way of looking at things. We have the ability to be entertained 24/7: TV, TiVo, OnDemand, pay-per-view, etc. We can be "busy" without being mentally engaged. Mystery has given way to explicitness, silence has given way to noise. All this makes the older liturgy seem immediately unattractive.

I agree with you that the problem was not necessarily the liturgy but our ability to participate in it, our understanding of what sort of participation the liturgy requires. The liturgy requires silence, prayer, attention, recollection, but it does also require verbal responses, gestures and postures. We cannot worship God only in motionless silence, as that denies our bodies their role in true worship.

It seems to me that our culture fosters short attention spans, a desire to be entertained, a desire to be "doing something". Perhaps modern man needs more assistance than his predecessors to be receptive to the traditional form of liturgy.

To me, this means modern man needs to be educated (catechized) better. The "modern" liturgical reform, in its earlier stages (in the 19th century), was more about reforming the liturgical attitude of the people than it was about reforming the liturgy; it was about liturgical catechesis before it was about liturgical changes.

I agree with you completely when you said "We can be 'busy' without being mentally engaged. Mystery has given way to explicitness, silence has given way to noise." However, the Traditional Mass addresses those very shortcomings in our culture — it clearly provides a spiritual "oasis"...

I agree that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass addresses those shortcomings and is a spiritual oasis... but only if a person knows he is thirsty will he approach to drink. Part of the crisis we face today is that "thirst" has been falsely quenched, and the feeling of "thirst" has been described instead as something else. It's like calling evil good and good evil.

I think you are right on the money when you say "Perhaps modern man needs more assistance than his predecessors to be receptive to the traditional form of liturgy." I do think that the Council Fathers were definitely led by the Holy Spirit in Sancrosanctum Concilium paragraph 19 when they wrote: "With zeal and patience, pastors of souls must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation in the liturgy...."

I agree:

But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions, that their minds should be attuned to their voices, and that they should cooperate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain. Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects. (SC 11)

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work. Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy. (SC 14)

It is no accident that in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the section titled "The Promotion of Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation" comes before "The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy".

It seems to me that the reforms to the Liturgy tried to address the "active participation" aspect (albeit wrongly, in my opinion), but nobody did anything to address the "liturgical instruction of the faithful".

Yes, I agree that the "reform" issue was addressed but the "catechesis" issue was not addressed very well at all.  I've made that same statement many times:

1. "The Council recognized the need for both liturgical catechesis and liturgical reform. Not one or the other, but both. (And I would argue that the Council documents expected a catechesis on the liturgy  as it was in 1962, which would mean the Council did not expect a complete re-write of the Missal thus rendering the theological liturgical catechesis of the 1962 Missal null and void!)"
2. "Comprehension is a major factor -- that's why Vatican  II stressed the need for liturgical catechesis of the faithful alongside  liturgical reform -- but it is often overlooked."
3. "Vatican II called for full, conscious, active participation by the faithful at Mass first and foremost through proper catechesis by their priests!"
4. "The Second Vatican Council called for catechesis  (education, formation) above all else in liturgical matters. Re-read Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 14 and see how it envisioned that 'full, conscious, active participation' would be brought about."
5. "The Council called for liturgical catechesis  above all, before it mentioned its few changes to the liturgy. (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 14) And one wonders if the desired understanding of the Mass was even accomplished."
6. "One of my biggest grievances is the liturgical catechesis  called for, and echoed numerous times since then, is still wanting. Instead of catechesis, things are dumbed down; instead of catechesis, numerous abuses are introduced (because people just don't know any better!); instead of catechesis, the things that need explaining are omitted and replaced with banality."
7. "I would say that, rather than reform being de facto promotion, promotion is de facto reform, because promotion of the liturgy (meaning better catechesis  for the laity and the clergy) would lead to a more zealous and devout and informed and reverent celebration of the Mass, which would yield greater fruit in greater abundance. This is not to say that a reform-by-promotion would require no changes, but that fewer changes (and less dramatic ones at that) would be necessary."
8. "What is needed is a liturgical movement which does two things: 1) reads Vatican II in light of the liturgical tradition of the Church, one of organic development rather than redesign-by-committee, and 2) emphasizes liturgical catechesis as a necessary precursor to any liturgical reform."

My position can be summed up with these five words of mine:

"CATECHESIS IS THE BEST REFORM"

Also, I opined that "Bishops expected that the reform (and specifically the introduction of the vernacular) would make catechesis less necessary" in a thread with you. Don't have any proof, just a hunch. Maybe replace "Bishops" with "the Consilium".

The "agenda" of the liturgical reform?

(Updated on Feb. 3rd; see below)

Here is an excerpt from a recent address given by Fr. Anscar Chupungco, OSB, in Australia. His overall tone can be gleaned from this question and answer he puts forth near the beginning: "What agenda does [a reform of the postconciliar reform] put forward so that liturgical worship could be more reverent and prayerful?  The agenda is, to all appearance, an attempt to put the clock back to a half century."

I find a bit of inconsistency in the following consecutive sentences of his address:

[T]he study of liturgy should have due regard for its historical, theological, and cultural elements. In this way we will not dismiss too readily the ancient prayers and rites of the liturgy on grounds that they belong to another culture and age. Such an iconoclastic attitude can indeed impoverish the theology of the liturgy. We know that many of these ancient forms are rich in doctrine and spirituality.

A serious study of liturgy will likewise neutralize the liturgical romanticism and allegorism that holds some sectors of the postconciliar Church. The indiscriminate revival of Latin and Gregorian chant, for example, indicates that some people have not followed the historical process. It is true that the Liturgy Constitution (SC 36 and 116), given the peculiar circumstances surrounding the council, claims them as distinctive elements of the Roman liturgy.

This seems duplicitous to me:  first he speaks of the danger of dismissing elements of worship "on grounds that they belong to another culture and age," then he speaks of the "peculiar circumstances surrounding the council" that led to its calling Latin and Gregorian chant normative and proper to the Roman Rite.  In other words, he is speaking dismissively of Latin and Gregorian chant as products of another culture and age which were only given lip service at the Council out of historical necessity.  I'm all for a Catholic faith which embraces the "both/and" (rather than "either/or") approach, but here it seems like Fr. Chupungco is asking too much:  he can't have it both ways here because the two ways are contradictory, not complementary.

He mentions the "indiscriminate revival" of Latin and Gregorian chant.  It should be noted that, had the Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy been more closely adhered to in the years following its promulgation, we would not be experiencing a revival of Latin and Gregorian chant; rather, they would have continued to be part of the normal liturgical life of Catholics.

For example, in article 54 of the Constitution, the same article which addressed in general terms the inclusion of the vernacular in the Mass, we read that "steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."  These parts would include the Kyrie (in Greek, actually), Gloria, Credo (Creed), Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy), and Agnus Dei (Lamb of God).

As for Gregorian chant, article 116 of the Constitution "acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited [proprium = proper] to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place [principem locum = the principal place] in liturgical services."

Next in Fr. Chupungco's address, he says:

It is true that Latin and Gregorian chant still claim their rightful place in the liturgy.

Do they, really?  Where, exactly?  I would expect most Catholics (especially English-speaking ones, or at least American ones) would disagree that Latin and Gregorian chant have (or should have) a "rightful place" in the liturgy.  But I interrupted; continuing:

But to recall them as the ordinary, normal language and song of worship in parishes seems to overlook the conciliar principle of intelligent participation. The Church of Rome might have delayed the use of the vernacular, but it is part of her earlier tradition to adopt contemporary language in order to foster active participation.

I disagree with him here.  First, just because a text is in your vernacular does not mean you understand it immediately; catechesis (and a good translation!) is still required.  Have English-speaking Catholics had both of these for the past forty years?  Second, the Constitution did expect Latin to remain in use in the Mass, despite its allowance of the vernacular; see articles 36 and 54.  Third, Latin is indeed the normal — and normative — language of the Latin Rite; there's no getting around it.

As for intelligent and active participation, it is utterly insulting to insinuate that modern Catholics cannot participate actively and intelligently where Latin is used; it implies that Catholics had not been participating intelligently for the previous centuries!  It is not a matter of learning Latin; it is simply a matter of learning a few Latin phrases and chants, which you'll say week after week — if not more often — and which don't change.

He continues by saying:

To revive Latin as the daily language of the liturgy, regardless of whether or not the presider and the assembly can follow the readings and prayers, disclaims “sound tradition” and obstructs what the Constitution (SC 23) calls “legitimate progress”.

Again this mention of "revival".  While it is historically what we are experiencing now, a look at the Constitution and several post-Conciliar magisterial liturgical documents makes it clear that Latin was not meant to be jettisoned from the liturgy!  On the contrary to his point here, the wholesale removal of Latin and Gregorian chant from the liturgy was neither "sound tradition" nor "legitimate progress".

Here are two views (one pro the address, one con).  Read either at your own leisure and/or risk.

---

Update:  Fr. Chupungco continued to speak very negatively of the development of the Latin liturgy from its original form(s).  After a worthwhile and enlightening example about the changes perceived in the sacrament of Confirmation, he says:

According to the Liturgy Constitution the study of liturgy has three chief orientations, namely theological, historical, and pastoral. [...] The theology of the liturgy is drawn best from the liturgical books, namely the prayers, readings, and introductory notes. [...] Theologizing about liturgy apart from the liturgical books could become an exercise in theological hallucination. At best, it encourages the allegorical understanding of the liturgy, which incidentally was a favorite pastime of the clergy during the Middle Ages.

Fr. Chupungco seems to be operating from the assumption that all liturgical developments during the Middle Ages (and the Medieval Ages) were "accretions" (see below).  With this mindset, he sees the allegorical interpretation of the liturgy as an effect of "theological hallucination" which surely cannot be good for one's spiritual health.  It is as if each liturgical rite or sign must have a clear-cut and immediately graspable value, and that multi-layered and allegorical signs (e.g. the priestly vestments) are unnecessarily encumbering and distracting, and do not build a person up spiritually.  I disagree entirely:  the wealth of signs in the liturgy is surpassed only by the diversity of meanings of those signs, and this provides more than a lifetime's worth of contemplation on the mysteries contained therein.  (It also gives catechists something to write about!)

Later on, he says:

Students of liturgy should be aware of recent developments, including recent documents from the Congregation for Divine Worship that are becoming increasingly perplexing. Students should be equipped with a critical mind that allows them to weigh the theological, historical, and pastoral value of new norms and directives, though always in the spirit of ecclesial obedience.

It would be nice if he provided some concrete examples of perplexing documents, although I assume he would include the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum on that list.  What is perplexing about that document?  I don't know, Fr. Chupungco doesn't say, but the "student of liturgy" should be aware of it!  At least he tempers his call for critical examination (I would have said discernment) of liturgical norms and directives with a reminder of obedience, although there could be a wide interpretation of just how the "spirit of ecclesial obedience"

Then he says:

Everything in history has its own justification, though not necessarily a lasting and universal value. Not every text in the liturgical books, not every rite and symbol from the past, and not every feast in the calendar has perennial significance for the life of the Church. The reform of the Roman missal wanted by the Constitution (SC 50) eliminated much of the medieval textual and ritual accretions that only served to blur the meaning and purpose of the Mass.

It is clear that the liturgical reform carried out by the Consilium eliminated many medieval developments ("accretions") to the liturgy, but it is certainly debatable whether such elimination was "wanted by the Constitution" itself.  (Fr. Chupungco is clearly stating his stance on that question.)  But I find duplicity here again, a double standard which favors the (ancient) older over the (merely medieval) old.  He says that not everything that has been part of the liturgy has a "perennial significance," but he would probably argue that most of the most ancient parts which were omitted or replaced over time are superior to their replacements, and that most (if not all) of the additions from the Middle Ages onward "only serve to blur the meaning and purpose of the Mass."  I am curious if he is in favor of a diminution of feasts like Corpus Christi which were developed after the "ancient" period of liturgical development.

But he does not provide examples of these accretions and why he feels they bring about blurring.  (How I wish I could see notes on each element of the 1962 Missal that was touched by the Consilium's reforming pen, detailing each element's worth, meaning, and purpose.)  I am also not wholly convinced about certain changes that were made for the purpose of so-called "active participation," such as the change of the formula for distribution of Communion.

Now, it is true that the Constitution speaks of elements removed imprudently or added unhelpfully:  "[T]he rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary." (article 50)  But the Constitution does not say that all elements which were discarded or incorporated after a particular period of time are up for restoration or removal.  It does say that the substance of the rites must be preserved; whether that was always the case is a matter of debate, for example, in the case of the Offertory prayers.

For the record, I am in favor of the Prayer of the Faithful, an example of an element which "suffered injury" and has now been "restored."  There are other changes I'm not so sure about, but, as Fr. Chupungco suggested, my "critical mind" is tempered by "ecclesial obedience."

Later on, he describes "Vatican II's liturgical principles" as including "active participation with all this implies (use of the vernacular, congregational singing, lay ministry)."  While I recognize that the participation of the faithful at Mass is possible in a new way when the vernacular is used, the vernacular is not strictly necessary for active participation.  Regarding congregational singing, that need not mean injecting hymns into the liturgy, but could be fulfilled by singing the Ordinary (and perhaps also part of the Gradual or the Responsorial Psalm, part of the Alleluia, and maybe even the antiphon of the Communion chant); hymns, whether in Latin or the vernacular, can be wonderful, but it is unfair to the integrity of the liturgy to replace (to the point of near extinction) the Propers of the Mass with hymns chosen on a local whim.

On the topic of inculturation, he says:

Inculturation by definition uses dynamic equivalence to re-translate the liturgical books in the historical, socio-cultural, and religious context of the local Church.

That might be his working definition of inculturation, but is it the definition the Church uses?  To close this post, I will provide some references from magisterial texts addressing the matter of inculturation in the liturgy:

Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 37, Vatican II, 1963)

Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 38, Vatican II, 1963)

Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 39, Vatican II, 1963)

In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore: 1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced. 2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose. 3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 40, Vatican II, 1963)

The norm established by the Second Vatican Council — that in the liturgical reform there should be no innovations unless required in order to bring a genuine and certain benefit to the Church, and taking care that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing — must also be applied to efforts at the inculturation of the same Roman Rite. Inculturation, moreover, requires a necessary length of time, lest the authentic liturgical tradition suffer contamination due to haste and a lack of caution. Finally, the purpose of pursuing inculturation is not in any way the creation of new families of rites, but aims rather at meeting the needs of a particular culture in such a way that adaptations introduced either in the Missal or in combination with other liturgical books are not at variance with the distinctive character of the Roman Rite. (GIRM 398, 2000)

In preparing all translations of the liturgical books, the greatest care is to be taken to maintain the identity and unitary expression of the Roman Rite, not as a sort of historical monument, but rather as a manifestation of the theological realities of ecclesial communion and unity. The work of inculturation, of which the translation into vernacular languages is a part, is not therefore to be considered an avenue for the creation of new varieties or families of rites; on the contrary, it should be recognized that any adaptations introduced out of cultural or pastoral necessity thereby become part of the Roman Rite, and are to be inserted into it in a harmonious way.  Ever since the promulgation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the work of the translation of the liturgical texts into vernacular languages, as promoted by the Apostolic See, has involved the publication of norms and the communication to the Bishops of advice on the matter. Nevertheless, it has been noted that translations of liturgical texts in various localities stand in need of improvement through correction or through a new draft. The omissions or errors which affect certain existing vernacular translations – especially in the case of certain languages – have impeded the progress of the inculturation that actually should have taken place. Consequently, the Church has been prevented from laying the foundation for a fuller, healthier and more authentic renewal. (Liturgiam Authenticam 5-6, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2001)

The development of sacred art and liturgical discipline which took place in lands of ancient Christian heritage is also taking place on continents where Christianity is younger. This was precisely the approach supported by the Second Vatican Council on the need for sound and proper "inculturation". (Ecclesia de Eucharistia 51, Pope John Paul II, 2003)

As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration of Holy Mass and reiterated the same in 1988. [...] As regards projects of inculturation in liturgical matters, the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed. (Redemptionis Sacramentum 27, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2004)

A more effective participation of the faithful in the holy mysteries will thus benefit from the continued inculturation of the eucharistic celebration, with due regard for the possibilities for adaptation provided in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, interpreted in the light of the criteria laid down by the Fourth Instruction of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments Varietates Legitimae of 25 January 1994 and the directives expressed by Pope John Paul II in the Post-Synodal Exhortations Ecclesia in Africa, Ecclesia in America, Ecclesia in Asia, Ecclesia in Oceania and Ecclesia in Europa. To this end, I encourage Episcopal Conferences to strive to maintain a proper balance between the criteria and directives already issued and new adaptations, always in accord with the Apostolic See. (Sacramentum Caritatis 54, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007)

And, of course, the whole 2004 instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Varietate Legitimae.

Wisdom from Fr. Cantalamessa

Christ loved the Church and gave himself for her so that she would be 'without stain.'  And the Church would be without stain if we were not a part of it!  The Church would have one less wrinkle if I committed one less sin.  Martin Luther criticized Erasmus of Rotterdam for remaining in the Catholic Church despite its corruption, but Erasmus answered him: 'I put up with this Church, in the hope that one day it will become better, just as it is constrained to put up with me in the hope that one day I will become better.'

(H/T: Fr. Jay @ Young Fogeys)

ZENIT: Pope is not "undoing" Vatican II

Here are some excerpt's from a ZENIT article today:

Benedict XVI's closest collaborator is denying media rumors that the Pontiff is working to gradually "undo" the changes implemented after the Second Vatican Council. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Pope's secretary of state, stated this in an interview with L'Osservatore Romano published Thursday.

He addressed the debate surrounding false rumors in the Italian media about supposed documents that would reverse changes in the Church since Vatican II, especially regarding the liturgy. The cardinal asserted that in order to understand the Holy Father's intentions and actions, it is necessary to consider his personal history, one that included involvement "as a genuine protagonist" in the Conciliar Church. These other rumors about "presumed documents of reversal are pure inventions," he stated. ...

True change

As regards the "reform of the Church," the cardinal affirmed "that it is above all a question of interiority and holiness." For this reason, he said, the Pontiff concentrates on recalling "the source of the Word of God, the evangelical law and the heart of the life of the Church: Jesus, the known, loved, adored and imitated Lord."

This is the reason he is currently working on the second volume of his book "Jesus of Nazareth," the prelate explained.

Pope Benedict's letter refers to the hermeneutic of continuity

Just a few days ago, Pope Benedict wrote a letter to all the bishops of the Church explaining the situation calmly and rationally. He included these important words:

The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.

Archbishop Ranjith on the reform of the liturgy

Late in February, I posted about Archbishop Ranjith's comments about the state of the post-Vatican II liturgy. I am happy to announce that The New Liturgical Movement blog has the complete foreword, of which the earlier post contained an excerpt.

Liturgy: Archbishop Ranjith on the need for a "reform of the reform"

This is big news, partly because of the people involved, and partly because of the impact of the matter.

A key Vatican official has called for "bold and courageous" decisions to address liturgical abuses that have arisen since the reforms of Vatican II. Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, cites a flawed understanding of Vatican II teachings and the influence of secular ideologies are reasons to conclude that — as then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said in 1985 — "the true time of Vatican II has not yet come." Particularly in the realm of the liturgy, Archbishop Ranjith says, "The reform has to go on." ...

Specifically, Archbishop Ranjith writes: "Some practices which Sacrosanctum Concilium had never even contemplated were allowed into the Liturgy, like Mass versus populum, Holy Communion in the hand, altogether giving up on the Latin and Gregorian Chant in favor of the vernacular and songs and hymns without much space for God, and extension beyond any reasonable limits of the faculty to concelebrate at Holy Mass. There was also the gross misinterpretation of the principle of 'active participation'." ...

Today, Archbishop Ranjith writes, the Church can look back and recognize the influences that distorted the original intent of the Council. That recognition, he says, should "help us to be courageous in improving or changing that which was erroneously introduced and which appears to be incompatible with the true dignity of the Liturgy." A much-needed "reform of the reform," he argues, should be inspired by "not merely a desire to correct past mistakes but much more the need to be true to what the Liturgy in fact is and means to us and what the Council itself defined it to be."

Read the complete article. I'm adding True Development of the Liturgy by Msgr. Nicola Giampietro (a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) — with foreword by Archbishop Ranjith — to my wish-list!

[H/T: Catholic World News]

Papal Nuncio Archbishop Thomas Gullickson on Reform of the Liturgical Reform

I'll just paste the first two paragraphs of his brief (11-paragraph) essay on Summorum Pontificum, worship ad orientem, and the "reform of the reform":

Pick up the Ball and Run!
Taking a Stance on the increasing Sentiment in favor of a Reform of the Liturgical Reform

Recently I happened across what I presume was a sports shoe commercial for television but of a very surreal sort built around a rugby theme. In the video the ball comes crashing through the front window of a restaurant and the next thing you know the men from the restaurant in business suits are joining in the game on the streets of the busy city outside. The video resembles as much urban warfare as it does a sport. I know rugby has become a genuine “thing” for boys and young men, replacing for our day and time the quest for the “red badge of courage” once to be gained in a forgotten type of warfare that was far from all-out for the civilian population but oftentimes mortal for the flower of a nation’s youth. In watching the video, the thought came to me that much of what goes on in the area of vernacular liturgy, its planning and celebration is not without parallels to the sport of rugby and its ethos. The incongruity of this thought is as shocking to me as watching the video “rugby” chase over cars, down alleys and onward through a bustling business district of town. The ethos of Divine Worship should be another.

Since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum the calls for a genuine reform of that liturgical reform which we have netted over the past forty years have become more insistent but likewise more eloquent and credible as proponents clarify their positions and line up behind the Holy Father. The contrast to the at times rugby-like status quo presented by the Pope’s gentle hand and his balanced words, notably during his recent visit to France, has led me to draw my little parallel between what has been touted as a reform according to the mind of the Second Vatican Council but which many times over the years and even yet today rather seems to resemble rugby rules for picking up the ball and running with it, that is, if you dare. The liturgical renewal which many of us have experienced in many parts of the Western World is unfortunately tinged with an inclination on the part of the priest celebrants to protagonism and no small amount of bravado being shown by others (let’s point our fingers at some of the pop choirs, musicians and dancers, leaving aside people with feminist and other agendas who also occasionally attempt to highjack what we were taught was the work of all God’s people).

I strongly suggest you read the rest of the essay. Also check out Fr. Z's excellent commentary.

The Once and Future (and Present) Liturgy

I love the liturgies of the Catholic Church. I've lived with the Pauline Missal -- that is, the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite -- my whole life. Only very recently (within the past few years) have I ventured outside of this liturgy. My first exposure to non-Catholic liturgies came as a preparation for my work on the RCIA team of my parish: I want to a handful of nearby churches to see what their services were like so that I might have an idea of where other Christians are "coming from". Three were liturgical, two were not.

Then, in the middle of 2007, I attended an Orthodox Divine Liturgy for the first time, and a Vespers service shortly thereafter. The chanting, the incense, the bells, the gestures, the words... I found the whole thing very beautiful. In the past year, I have attended three Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgies and three Masses in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (i.e. the "Tridentine" or "Pian" or "Gregorian" Missal).

What I'd like to do with this contribution to the Christian Reconciliation Carnival is look at the structure and content of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite. This post complements Anne's post about the Lutheran "Common Service".

Structure of the Roman Mass
Extraordinary Form (E.F.)	Ordinary Form (O.F.)
Introductory Rites
Entrance Procession	Entrance Procession
(see below)	Introit antiphon (often replaced by hymn)
(see below)	Approach and kissing of the altar
Sign of the Cross	Sign of the Cross
(see below)	"Dominus vobiscum" (Greeting) (one of several greeting texts)
"Iudica Me" (Psalm 42)
"Confiteor"	Penitential Rite (Confiteor is Form A of three Forms)
"Deus tu conversus"	(dialogue suppressed, although part of this prayer is used as part of Form B of the Penitential Rite)
"Dominus vobiscum" (Greeting)	(see above)
"Aufer a nobis" (approaching the altar) "Oramus te Domine" (kissing of the altar)	(prayers suppressed, altar approached and kissed earlier)
Introit antiphon	(see above)
Kyrie (Lord, have mercy) (nine-fold)	Kyrie (Lord, have mercy) (six-fold) (omitted if Form C of the Penitential Rite was used)
Gloria (Glory to God)	Gloria (Glory to God)
"Dominus vobiscum"
Collect(s)	Collect (only one)
Liturgy of the Word
Lesson / Epistle	First Reading
Gradual	Gradual (often replaced by Responsorial Psalm)
	Second Reading (Sundays and Solemnities)
Alleluia / Tract	Alleluia / Gospel Acclamation
"Munda cor meum" (preparation by the Priest for reading the Gospel)	"Munda cor meum" (preparation by the Priest for reading the Gospel) (shortened)
Gospel	Gospel
Homily / Sermon	Homily / Sermon
Creed	Creed
	Prayer of the Faithful
Liturgy of the Eucharist
Offertory collection	Offertory collection
"Dominus vobiscum"
Offertory verse	Offertory verse (often replaced by a hymn)
"Suscipe, Sancte Pater" (over the bread)	"Benedictus es, Domine" (over the bread) (new prayer)
"Deus, qui humanae" (mingling of the water and wine)	"Per huius aquae" (mingling of the water and wine) (briefer prayer)
"Offerimus tibi, Domine" (over the chalice)	"Benedictus es, Domine" (over the chalice) (new prayer)
"In spiritu humilitatis" (prayer for offerings to be accepted)	"In spiritu humilitatis" (prayer for offerings to be accepted)
"Veni Sanctificator" (a sort of epiclesis)
"Lavabo" (Psalm 25) with "Gloria Patri"	"Lava me" (verse from Psalm 51) without "Gloria Patri"
"Suscipe, Sancte Trinitas" (prayer to the Trinity)
"Orate fratres" (invitation to prayer)	"Orate fratres" (invitation to prayer)
Secret (prayer over the offerings)	Super Oblata (prayer over the offerings)
"Dominus vobiscum, Sursum corda, Gratias agamus" (Preface dialog)	"Dominus vobiscum, Sursum corda, Gratias agamus" (Preface dialog)
Preface	Preface
Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy)	Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy)
Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer)	Eucharistic Prayer (13 to choose from), part 1
	Memorial Acclamation
	Eucharistic Prayer, part 2
"Per ipsum" (Doxology and minor elevation)	"Per ipsum" (Doxology and minor elevation)
"Pater Noster" (Our Father)	"Pater Noster" (Our Father)
"Libera nos" (prayer for peace)	"Libera nos" (prayer for peace) (shortened)
	"Quia tuum" ("For the Kingdom...")
Fraction (breaking of the Host)	(see below)
"Haec commixtio" (mingling of the Body and Blood)	(see below)
Agnus Dei (Lamb of God)	(see below)
"Domine Iesu Christe" (prayer for peace)	"Domine Iesu Christe" (prayer for peace) (slightly altered)
Pax (sign of peace) (only at solemn Masses)	Pax (sign of peace)
(see above)	Fraction (breaking of the host)
(see above)	"Haec commixtio" (mingling of the Body and Blood)
(see above)	Agnus Dei (Lamb of God)
"Domine Iesu Christe" (prayer for holiness) "Perceptio Corporis" (prayer for grace)	"Domine Iesu Christe" (prayer for holiness) or "Perceptio Corporis" (prayer for grace) (slightly altered)
"Panem caelestem" (over the Host) "Domine non sum dignus" (priest, three-fold)
"Corpus Domini" (Communion of the priest)	(see below)
"Quid retribuam" (over the Chalice)
"Sanguis Domini" (Communion of the priest)	(see below)
"Ecce Agnus Dei" (Behold the Lamb)	"Ecce Agnus Dei" (Behold the Lamb)
"Domine non sum dignus" (people, three-fold)	"Domine non sum dignus" (people) (once)
(see above)	"Corpus Domini" (Communion of the priest)
(see above)	"Sanguis Domini" (Communion of the priest)
(see below)	Communion antiphon (usually replaced by a hymn)
"Corpus Domini" (Communion of the people)	"Corpus Christi / Amen" (Communion of the people) (new formulary)
"Quod ore" (Ablutions)	"Quod ore" (Ablutions)
"Corpus tuum" (Ablutions)
Communion antiphon	(see above)
"Dominus vobiscum"
Post-communion prayer(s)	Post-communion prayer (only one)
Concluding Rites
"Dominus vobiscum"	"Dominus vobiscum"
"Ite, missa est" (Dismissal)	(see below)
"Placeat tibi" (prayer to the Trinity)
"Benedicat vos" (blessing)	"Benedicat vos" (blessing)
(see above)	"Ite, missa est" (Dismissal) (one of a few variants)
The Last Gospel (John 1:1-14)
Recessional (often with hymn)	Recessional (often with hymn)

Whew! You can see that the O.F. (re)introduced some parts into the Mass, while simplifying some of the rites and also cutting out a large number of prayers. I didn't mention the numerous gestures, such as signs of the cross, kisses, genuflections, bows, etc.; these are greatly reduced in the O.F. I also didn't mention the Scriptural origin of many of the things said and done in the Mass.

Now comes my responses to some of Anne's questions. She asks: "How close is this to your own order of service? Are there differences? Are differences in the service used to highlight differences in theology?"

I mentioned that I grew up with the Ordinary Form. When I went to the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Christ Congregation (United Church of Christ) liturgies a couple years ago (before I started studying the liturgy) I was surprised how similar they were in format to the Mass I knew. They even used the same Lectionary (cycle of readings)!

Now, I have yet to research the Presbyterian, Methodist, and UCC liturgies, to know their history and when they came to be like they are today. I am curious if they modeled themselves after the Ordinary Form of the Mass... or if the Ordinary Form of the Mass modeled itself after their liturgies.

Either way, while there is an ecumenical reason for happiness at the similarities, there is also a cause for concern, at least from the Catholic perspective. Why do some Protestant liturgies so highly resemble the reformed Catholic liturgy, if the Catholic liturgy (or "law of prayer", lex orandi) is supposed to be an expression of the Catholic faith (or "law of belief", lex credendi)? This is my answer, then, to Anne's last question:

While the similarities between the liturgies may be helpful in ecumenical matters -- especially from the perspective of bringing people into the Catholic Church -- I wonder if these similarities might cause more damage to the goal of unity sought by the Catholic Church. I agree wholeheartedly with what Lumen Gentium (the Vatican II dogmatic constitution on the Church) says, that the one Church of Jesus Christ subsists uniquely* in the Catholic Church, but that elements of that one Church (which belong to her and consequently are ordered toward Catholic unity) are also found outside of the Church. But this can lead to the misconception that a Christian community only needs some of the elements; or that elements like the Eucharist (i.e. the Real Presence) and the ministerial priesthood and the Papacy are simply Roman traditions that are not necessary for the Church of Jesus Christ.

To put it more bluntly, if Catholics believe something very specific and special is happening at a Catholic Mass, then why does a Protestant liturgy look so similar (seeing as how the theology behind the Protestant liturgy denies key elements of Catholic theology)? Even discounting the use of Latin, the more traditional liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, the Extraordinary Form, is considerably different from virtually every Protestant liturgy, and as such, it makes its point known, that there is something fundamentally different going on.

---

* This statement from Lumen Gentium 8 has sometimes been interpreted to mean the Catholic Church no longer teaches or believes that it is the one Church of Jesus Christ. However, in 2007, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith answered that allegation in the negative: "The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are 'numerous elements of sanctification and of truth' which are found outside her structure, but which 'as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity'." (Responsa ad quaestiones, Q3)

Liturgy: "Looking at the Liturgy"

I just finished reading Looking at the Liturgy by Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P., for the second time (this time with highlighter in hand). It is an excellent book, and a must-read for anyone interested in the context of the liturgical reform after Vatican II. It looks at the liturgy from three perspectives: historical ("A Historical Inquest"), anthropologically ("The Importance of Ritual"), and culturally-sociologically ("The Idiom of Worship").

Here are a few key passages:

As soon as the latreutic [worship-oriented] character of the Liturgy, now seen as a vehicle of instruction, is downplayed, the instruction it conveys, or perhaps one should its celebrant conveys in interpolating the rite, ceases to be mystagogic and becomes banal. By the same token, a community sense that does not arise from the ritual celebration of worship but is aimed at in and for itself soon appears evanescent or superficial or both and becomes consequently a source of frustration. (ch. 1, pp. 32-33)

Mary Douglas ... warns that contempt for ritual forms eventually leads people to take a purely private view of religious experience, from where it is only a short step to the frank avowal of humanism. ... [T]he mediocrity of the spiritual and theological life typically produced by an antiritualist Church is the best possible proof of the inadequacy of the form of life in civil society that such a Church presupposes and represents. (ch. 2, pp. 71, 76)

[A] church ... should be a symbolization via the properly architectural means of mass and space, shape and fabric, of the heavenly realities that surround the Liturgy of the throne of God to which the earthly Liturgy gives entrance. ... [T]he Modernist understanding of architectural language simply cannot be combined with the Catholic tradition's own approach to church construction. Functional modernism is per se aniconic, indeed anti-iconic. In the modernist vocabulary, a door, for instance, is simply a door. It cannot address the pregnant processes of entering, crossing thresholds, transition, and passage and therefore cannot speak, as in the mediaeval period it did to Durandus and Abbot Suger of St. Denis (authors of important treatises on building) of the person of Christ. Similarly, to the architectural modernist, space is essentially an empty universal, determined only by the function occurring in it at some time. There is no "sacred space", no space that is unconditionally set apart. Hence the possibility of modernist churches with multifunctional spaces usable indifferently for worship, wedding receptions, and playing table tennis. (ch. 3, pp. 89-90)

It's only 127 pages (and they're small pages). You can get through it in a few hours for sure. The final chapter, "A Practical Conclusion", offers a series of suggestions for the "Pian Missal" and the "Pauline Missal", which the author (writing in 1996) expects will co-exist. He offers a few ideas for how the Missal of 1962 can be reformed in accordance with Sacrosanctum Concilium, and for what might become of the Missal of 1969.

Tradition: Refounding and Restorationism

Here is yet another dangerous homily from Fr. Patrick Brennan on the occasion of the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul. It pains me to hear him telling his congregation these things, because the dissent he feeds his parishioners will probably manifest itself as flat-out disobedience from them towards whomever is appointed their new pastor in a matter of months. My emphases are in bold; commentary is inside and outside of the homily.

1. A group called the Gnostics, they resisted Peter's leadership. They said he didn't have the right to be looked on as leader because of his denial of Jesus. And Paul, Paul also a flawed and sinful man. Paul persecuted the early Christians. The Acts of the Apostles tells us that Paul was right there participating when Stephen the deacon was stoned to death, was martyred. And yet Paul went on to become the first writer of the New Testament, and Paul more than anyone else in our history has taken Christianity and made it a livable spirituality, a way of life, a system of meaning that people can have conversions to. Peter and Paul, the "super-apostles", they really took the Jesus movement and ignited it. But two very human men. If they were here speaking today, I think both of them would say Jesus is the rock on whom we need to build our lives.

This is all quite fine: Jesus is the rock on whom we need to build our lives. Neither Peter (cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-5) nor Paul (cf. Col. 2:6-7) would say otherwise. Scripture also testifies that the Church founded by Jesus was built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles, and specifically Peter (petros = "rock", cf. Matt. 16:18-19), with Christ himself as the cornerstone (cf. Eph. 2:19-20).

2. John Cardinal Newman was declared venerable by John Paul II before he [Pope John Paul II] died [obviously]. That means he's on the way to canonization, to sainthood. By John Newman said something in the 19th century: he said there was not a papacy, and there were not bishops, while the Apostles still walked the earth. [More on this below] Other historians have picked up on that theory and say there probably was not a Bishop of Rome for 100 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. [Other historians recognize there were Bishops of Rome, like Clement.] Rome was governed by a group of priests, a group of elders, and Rome compared to the other churches in the East, was not even considered a church of great esteem early on. [When?] But then [when?] Rome began to take on a position of power and authority. Why? Because Peter and Paul, who were held in equal reverence and esteem, were martyred there. Rome was the city of Peter and Paul, the two heroes of the early Church.

What John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote in Development of Christian Doctrine, chapter 4 ("Instances in Illustration", section 3 ("The Papal Supremacy"), paragraph 2, was this:

For instance, it is true, St. Ignatius is silent in his Epistles on the subject of the Pope's authority; but if in fact that authority could not be in active operation then, such silence is not so difficult to account for as the silence of Seneca or Plutarch about Christianity itself, or of Lucian about the Roman people. St. Ignatius directed his doctrine according to the need. While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. When the Apostles were taken away, Christianity did not at once break into portions; yet separate localities might begin to be the scene of internal dissensions, and a local arbiter in consequence would be wanted. Christians at home did not yet quarrel with Christians abroad; they quarrelled at home among themselves.

Cardinal Newman, interpreting (fallibly) the writings of the New Testament as well as the epistles of St. Ignatius, says that there was no "display" of a Bishop or Pope. That is true enough; there was display of the Magisterium of the Church at the Council of Jerusalem, though (cf. Acts 15). The Apostles were the "primitive" bishops, and there was no Pope until there was a church in Rome to have a Bishop! Newman is a bit off, since the Apostle John was still alive close to the end of the 1st century, and there is evidence of Clement being a successor of Peter in Rome long before John finally died. St. John himself laments that someone in a particular church is disregarding his (John's) authority there (cf. 3 John 9). Even earlier than that, Pauline and Petrine epistles refer to priests (presbuteroi, that is, "presbyters", also rendered as "elders") and bishops (episkopoi, that is "overseers"). I would guess that the language of "bishop" and "pope" was stressed more and more to distinguish between literal Apostles and the post-Apostolic leadership.

There is also literary evidence of Rome being held in high regard in the early (pre-Constantine) Church; one example is the epistle of St. Ignatius to the church in Rome, "worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed [most] holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father" of whom he goes on to say "Ye have never envied any one; ye have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions ye enjoin [on others]." I do not know exactly how early Fr. Brennan was restricting his analysis.

3. But then some things began to shift, especially after the 4th century. Devotion to Peter, and the tradition about Peter, began to prevail over Paul. A tradition began to spread that indeed Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and different powers that were assigned to different parts of the Church around the world began to concentrate on the Bishop of Rome, and we began to see emerge the papacy as we know it today, reaching its zenith in the Middle Ages.

Is this insinuating that the tradition that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, which "began to spread" later, was a false one?

4. Now I don't intend this history to be a critique of the papacy. What I'm trying to present today on the Feast of Peter and Paul, is that Jesus did not start a rigid, monolithic institution. [Can we use some different adjectives, though? Jesus did start a single visible institution, with standards for membership and the potential for world-wide growth!] The Church is something that evolved and developed over history. And different roles, like the papacy, and the role of bishop, and the role of priests, evolved. [But there were always priests and bishops, unless Fr. Brennan is insinuating that the Eucharist back then wasn't what it is today (or even in the time of St. Ignatius). It is true that roles developed and evolved; for example, deacons didn't exist at the start.] And that same spirit of flexibility and evolution and development must be present in our Church too, if the Church is going to face the future, if the Church is going to be relevant in the future to younger people. [What happens if the Church becomes "relevant" to younger people... but becomes "irrelevant" to older people?] Flexibility, development, evolution.

There's going to be a contradictory theme to this homily: the Church evolved and developed, and the Church needs to continue evolving and developing, but some of that evolution and development needs to be erased. Essentially, we need to "evolve" and "develop" the Church back to how it was in the time of Saints Peter and Paul, but then continue evolving and developing. It's fine to "go back in time" 1950 years, but not to "go back in time" to 1950, basically. (Not that I advocate restoring the Church to what it was in 1950, but simply that recovering Church practices from the 1st century seems to take precedence over recovering Church practices from the early 20th century.)

5. I've mentioned before the work of Gerald Arbuckle, his great classic book, "Refounding the Church". [Subtitle: "Dissent for Leadership". I kid you not.] Arbuckle says in his book "Refounding the Church", in every age, the church has to go back to its founder and ask the question, "What was the founder about... Jesus?" Well he was about the reign of God. [And everything that reign entailed, not just the "social justice" aspect of it; salvation from sin was awfully high on his list.] In every era, the Church and parishes like ours, have to ask the question, "Okay, Jesus was about the reign of God... what structures, what systems do we need in 2008 to preach him and to preach his vision of the reign of God?" The Church needs to be evolving, the Church needs to be developing; this parish needs to be evolving, this parish needs to be developing. For ever-new challenges and new ages. As the parish ages, as we move into our 25th year as a parish.

I've just purchased this book (used copy for $3.50) from someone on Amazon. I'm curious to see how it renders dissent as leadership. If you get a chance, look at the sample pages Amazon has. It's got a three-page chart showing the differences between the pre-Vatican II, post-Vatican II, and "Restorationist" (explained below) mindsets. It is general and caricatured; it also assumes the "either/or" rather than "both/and" mentality. Here are some examples:

Of the "culture of the Church", it says: before Vatican II = closed; after Vatican II = open; restorationist = "closing to dialogue; fear of dissent". Just what type of dialog is this about?

Of the "structure and authority", it says: before Vatican II = "Hierarchical - vertical authority structures, under Pope; centralization of papacy, Curia; 'creeping infallibility'"; after Vatican II = "Hierarchical - collegial authority: Pope and bishops; local church restored; collaborative emphasis at all levels"; restorationist = "Desiring a milder form of pre-Vatican II structures". Perhaps the author did not read Lumen Gentium which says, in n. 22:

The college or body of bishops has for all that no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head, whose primatial authority, let it be added, over all, whether pastors or faithful, remains in its integrity. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

I suggest you read the whole document, especially the explanatory note attached to it which clarifies the notion of collegiality it espouses.

A third example describes the liturgy this way: pre-Vatican II = "Latin; theatrical; congregation passive; uncreative; legalistic/rubrical"; after Vatican II = "Vernacular; simple; congregation active; creative"; restorationist = "Creativity not encouraged" (is that all?). Again, a reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium is in order.

Vatican II never desired to get rid of Latin from the Mass. Furthermore, the Church has been staunchly opposed to "creativity" and "experimentation" in the liturgy because it impedes the universality of the Rite and endangers the proper transmission of the faith to those present. Pope Paul VI said the completion of the liturgical reform in 1969 would put an end to experimentation. And as I mentioned in a previous post, the Church was on guard against abusive "creativity" even during the 1970s and 1980s. I also think "theatrical" better describes the "creative" Masses celebrated in the Ordinary Form, involving clowns, dancing, secular-sounding music, etc.

A fourth example about the priesthood describes the three-way transition as "Cultic" to "Preacher of Word; builder of believing/worshiping/justice-oriented community" to "Role: confused". As for their relation to the laity, the transition is "superior" to "co-operation" to "confused". I think, perhaps, the author is confused. Just what the author means by "cultic" is undefined (although perhaps covered in greater detail in the book). I would hazard a guess it does not include preaching or building of community. Does the preacher/builder definition include a sacramental aspect? I would sure hope so.

A final example describes the Eucharist this way: from "Holy Communion / Mass / Sunday obligation" to "Union of faithful, centered on the Eucharist, symbol and source of unity" to "Vatican II directions not developed; fear of inculturation at local levels". Now I'm confused! Did Vatican II really do away with the notions of "Holy Communion" and "Mass"? And it is not possible for the Eucharist to be the "union of faithful, centered on the Eucharist". The Eucharist has always been the "symbol and source of unity" -- the Eucharistic Sacrifice is the source and summit, as Vatican II put it, and the "source and center of Christian piety" as Pope Pius XII put it in Mediator Dei n. 201. Pope Leo XIII wrote an encyclical on the Holy Eucharist which described it as "the source and chief" (Mirae Caritatis, n. 6). As for the directions of Vatican II, Pope Benedict has recently called us to re-examine what Vatican II said about the Eucharist, particularly in Sacrosanctum Concilium, so I think we're headed towards a truer realization of the Vatican II "direction".

6. In the late 19th century the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was declared by Vatican I at the encouragement of Pope Pius IX. That doctrine teaches when the Pope speaks [teaches] on issues of faith and morals, we must listen, we must obey, we must conform. [Are those bad words?] At the time of the doctrine of infallibility being passed, there was another theory of infallibility on the floor of the First Vatican Council. And that doctrine of infallibility said this: Yes, there's this theory of the inerrancy of the Pope -- we're not going to deny that, we'll not take that on -- but another connotation of infallibility is: the Church will never fail. [I think the Church knew that the whole time. Do Matthew 16:18 and 28:20 ring a bell?] The Church is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We'll have problems, we'll have difficulties, we'll have challenges, we'll have growth spurts, but the Church of Jesus Christ will endure through the power of the Holy Spirit. [Amen!] I encourage us this morning to look at the value of both understandings of infallibility. The latter one I think is very livable and very existential: the Holy Spirit is with our Church. The Holy Spirit is with our Church. [The former one is also very livable, because it gives us assurance in the things our Church teaches us concerning the faith and morality.]

7. Quickly... Peter and Paul, equal in reverence in the early Church, have come down through history to represent two different sides of the Church. Peter obviously represents the organizational, institutional dimension of Church, Paul represents the dynamism of the Church. Paul writes a lot about charisms, he writes about the nature of community. John Paul II before he died, [obviously!] in an encyclical Redemptor Hominis, [see below] said the most scripturally accurate model of Church is the Church is a community of learners, a community of disciples. That's the model of Church that Paul preached. [The hierarchical Church is not an obstacle to the Church as a "community of disciples".] And the Church is more than just a community of disciples: the Church is sacrament to the world, herald, prophet, teacher, moral authority, agent of justice, agent of mercy. [And Bride of Christ, and Body of Christ, and Household of God.] We should never allow one image of the Church to prevail over other images of the Church. [So don't let images that may stress Her non-hierarchical nature overpower those images that make that hierarchical nature clear.] The fact that we celebrate the Feast of Peter and Paul together today is a lesson in itself that these many different sides of the Church must be held in a healthy balance and tension. Otherwise we get into mistaken notions of [the] Church.

Pope John Paul II has not released any encyclicals nor announced any canonizations after his death, just for the record. In Redemptor Hominis n. 21, he writes:

Indeed, the Church as the People of God is also-according to the teaching of Saint Paul mentioned above, of which Pius XII reminded us in wonderful terms -- "Christ's Mystical Body". Membership in that body has for its source a particular call, united with the saving action of grace. Therefore, if we wish to keep in mind this community of the People of God, which is so vast and so extremely differentiated, we must see first and foremost Christ saying in a way to each member of the community: "Follow me". It is the community of the disciples, each of whom in a different way -- at times very consciously and consistently, at other times not very consciously and very inconsistently -- is following Christ. This shows also the deeply "personal" aspect and dimension of this society, which, in spite of all the deficiencies of its community life -- in the human meaning of this word -- is a community precisely because all its members form it together with Christ himself, at least because they bear in their souls the indelible mark of a Christian.

I have no argument at all with what the Pope has written here. The minute the Church ceases being the community of disciples, She has ceased to be the Church founded by Jesus Christ. And as disciples of Christ, we are bound to "observe all that [he] has commanded [us]" (Matthew 28:20). That includes respecting the hierarchy of the Church; it's not like the Pope isn't a disciple!

Oh, and like Fr. Z, I really can't stand this trend of dropping definite articles from words like "Church", and "Eucharist".

8. I mentioned Gerald Arbuckle. Arbuckle in addition to introducing the notion of refounding the Church in every age, also coined the term "restorationism". He said beginning in the 90s, he felt there was a movement in the Church to push the Church back before Vatican II. [The extremist movement to overturn Vatican II is one thing; the "reform of the reform" movement, the "New Liturgical Movement", is another. The latter seeks to properly implement what Vatican II mandated regarding the liturgy.] Now remember why Vatican II was called: Vatican II, when I was in high school, was called an ad fontes movement, back to the fonts. Vatican II was an attempt to discover what was the nature of the Church of Peter and Paul. [While it did look to the past -- the whole history of the Church -- it was also concerned with aggiornamento, that is, "updating".] "We've become too institutionalized," the Council leaders said in the 1960s. "We're leading too much with the organization, with the institution; we've got to get back to the Church of Peter and Paul." [These are not exact quotes, of course, but when was this sentiment conveyed? Was this Pope John XXIII's vision? I'd say no.] Arbuckle is saying in this period of restorationism -- the 90s and the early 2000s -- some people are trying to push us back to the Council of Trent, back to the Council that articulated things in the 16th century. [Trent hasn't been abrogated or nullified. Vatican II quoted them. The Catechism quotes them.] I don't know if you saw in the local Chicago Catholic newspaper, The New World: the Pope is encouraging every parish to have a Latin Mass. [Amen!] Is that really the Church we want [choose your next words very carefully...] to return to? Arbuckle says at the heart of restorationism is nostalgia: nostalgia so that we don't have to do the hard work of refounding. [So if the Pope says it's not for nostalgia that he's doing this, but Arbuckle says it is, whom should I believe? Does Arbuckle know the Pope's mind better than the Pope himself?]

This is not the first time Fr. Brennan has contrasted "refounding the Church" with "restorationism". He wrote about it in his parish bulletin back in May 2005 as well. He is also hostile towards Latin, whether in the Extraordinary Form (which he caricatured in a previous homily) or the Ordinary Form. He openly questions here whether a Church which celebrates Mass in Latin, ad orientem, etc., is a Church worth having. If that Church returns, he seems to be asking, do we want to belong to it? The negative answer to that question results in schism, plain and simple.

Would he mind explaining what's inherently wrong with Mass in Latin in general, or with the Extraordinary Form in particular?

9. [Fr.] George Kane is offering a course this fall on the vision [and "Spirit", no doubt] of Vatican II. [If the budget gets approved, I'm sure it'll include actually looking at the documents!] I hope some of you will attend that course, and I'm grateful to [Fr.] George for doing that, but more than just the course in the fall, remember, John XXIII called Vatican II to open the windows of the Church because "it's gotten dusty in here", he said, and the Church needs fresh air. [That's for sure. Fresh air with a hint of incense!] The Church needs the movement of the Holy Spirit. I hope, Holy Family, that you will always keep the vision of Vatican II alive in this parish. John XXIII opened the windows; keep the windows open.

I am frightened to think what the subject matter of such a course will be. What sources will Fr. Kane use? The documents themselves, taken in context? That would be an eye-opener...