This article in Commonweal by Massimo Faggioli is worth reading. He discusses the split between the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form:
"For the foreseeable future, it won’t be possible to restore the unity of
the Roman liturgy: the split between the “ordinary form” and “the use of
the 1962 Missal as a forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass” (as Benedict XVI put it in the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum
of July 7, 2007) will be with us for a long time. Whatever we think of
it, this split has become part of the ecclesial landscape."
And: "The disputes between the advocates of the liturgical reform of Vatican
II and advocates of the extraordinary form are—another paradox—disputes
between an older generation advocating the new and a younger generation
advocating the old. These disputes have wounded the sense of communion
between Catholics. The rancor of this conflict in the United States was a
painful surprise for me when I first moved to this country."
Faggioli makes a parellel to the divisions in contemporary Judaism which I found interesting:
"One wonders if, under the surface of unity, Catholicism in America is
not fragmenting in a way that parallels the divisions in contemporary
Judaism. There is a Traditionalist Catholicism (corresponding in some
ways to Orthodox Judaism), which celebrates the Mass in Latin and treats
the development of doctrine as having ended at some point between John
Henry Newman and Pius XII. Then there is a kind of ressourcement Catholicism
(corresponding roughly to Conservative Judaism), which is rooted in
the theology of Vatican II, with its understanding of tradition as
dynamic. And, finally, there is a Progressive Catholicism (corresponding
to Reform Judaism), for which the tradition is mostly a relic of the
past and Vatican II is just a springboard for future developments."
Faggioli concludes that "...There can be no reconciliation between Catholics that does not involve some kind of liturgical reconciliation, given the liturgy’s primary position in the life of the church."
As much as I think he is right, I don't see how that is going to happen, absent a mutual respect. Maybe that starts with accepting that different people respond in different ways to the liturgy. Perhaps the path to a greater unity leads through accepting one another's preferences for a more or less traditional liturgical mode; while acknowledging that we all celebrate the same Mass and that is what binds us together.
I have many thoughts on this, but here are just a few for now:
ReplyDelete* I largely agree with Faggioli on a couple of points: this is becoming, for all practical purposes, two different rituals on parallel tracks; and that this situation is contrary to unity in Roman Catholicism.
* I also agree that some (although not all, by a long shot) of the mischief needs to be laid at the feet of Benedict XVI, who did his best to make the preconciliar mass widely available with his questionable claim that the liturgical reforms of Vatican II never abrogated the preconciliar missal. Benedict also probably had a hand in John Paul II's earlier Ecclesia Dei which provided an "indult" for groups that wanted the preconciliar mass.
* Another big part of the issue was the accession into positions of influence of a "party" within Catholicism during the '70's and '80's whose views of preconciliar spirituality were laced with contempt. This is the previous generation (or, in some cases, the same generation, just a lot younger then) of the group that Faggioli compares to Reform Judaism, and which sees the post-conciliar reforms as half-measures and a springboard to the much broader/wider/deeper reform they'd like to see. Liturgical Traditionalism was the opposite (if not equal, at least in numbers) reaction to that group's reign.
* I just wish that more options that are available in the missal today would be used for those who desire them, rather than having to have a separate book and ritual for the Traditionalists. Saying today's post-conciliar mass in Latin is permissible. Do it with Eucharistic Prayer No. 1, with the Ordinary chanted in Latin. Do it in a church that still has its cruciform layout, its altar rail intact, its tabernacle in the middle of the sanctuary, and an organ up in its choir loft - there are still a lot of those churches (except perhaps for the altar rail). Such a mass would probably be acceptable to the militant little groups that I and so many others find wearisome - or would have been until Benedict gave them their own book. Now, nothing less will please them.
Jim, I agree with you that it would have been better to encourage the available options for traditionalists rather than going off into a separate book and ritual. Now we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
DeleteAnd I feel that it is disingenuous for Cardinal Sarah to try to encourage Mass being said ad orientem and kneeling for Communion as the more authentic liturgical expression. Occasionally there are people who attempt to push things that way by kneeling on the floor in the Communion line, which just attracts attention to oneself.
Boy, I sure do not care about this, though somebody should tell Faggioli that we have had different "divisions" in Catholicism for about 600 years. It's called Protestantism.
ReplyDeleteI presume that God will show up for Mass whatever the words and rubrics are. There are many strands of Catholic tradition, let the strands that speak to the congregation take precedence. Emphasize that Latin is not more holy than English, just older.
I have no problem with kneelers on the floor. I have seen some of our congregants do this and kiss the priest's hand. I assume they feel especially moved. Possibly it's a Hispanic thing.
At the Prayers of the People, I have heard folks in the Episcopal Church bust out in tongues or run on and on about some incarcerated relative. It used to annoy me, indecorous and all that. But charity requires me to assume that God probably loves drama queens and those who suck all the air out of the room as much as he loves those who sing off key, make weak coffee in the bingo hall, and who, like me, stand in their pews.
I opt not to hold hands during the Our Father or shake during the peace. Chemo makes me immuno suppressed. I sit in the back with the widowed farmers in the "no hands" zone.
Second Jean. Not that I don't care, care.
DeleteBut is this really an issue liturgically? Go to five different parish on Sunday supposedly observing the reforms of Vatican II and you're lucky if one is actually observing the spirit of the reforms. The "performances" themselves are all over the place, and the sheep are mostly quiet, while the presider is on autopilot. Not in all, of course. Liturgies not the cause of "disunity." They reflect the shambles and indifference.
Sorry last sentences: Liturgies are not the cause of "disunity." They reflect the shambling indifference of the bishops, seminary education, priestly formation, and the failure to put many of the other "reforms" into practice.
DeletePeggy - among the liturgistas (of which I count myself a fellow-traveler), the main area of focus/conflict in recent years has been the quality of the translation. Maybe that's an important topic (although personally, I think that, if the translation achieves a certain baseline of competence, it's not a crisis), but it does sort of distract from the spirit of Vatican II reforms goal/issue you're raising.
DeleteJean, aren't there skirmishes (or worse) in Anglicanism regarding which version of the Book of Common Prayer to use? Or has that died away in recent years?
DeleteJim, I have attended an Episcopal parish for about 8 years. The BCP was updated in 1979. I understand that it caused a bit of consternation among some Episcopalians for a while, but I have heard nothing about it at all since I started attending an EC parish and following ECUSA news. The big controversy in recent years was the opening of the priesthood to gays, following the election of Bishop Robinson, an openly gay priest. in 2004. After about 3 dozen parishes in the US left the ECUSA the controversy settled down. The property cases also now seem to be pretty much settled. I raad that the ECUSA was victorious in keeping 28 pieces of church property (mostly churches) and that 7 were awarded to the defecting parishes, according to how the properties were originally held. In England the controversy in recent years centered around women priests and bishops, but that has also settled down. The issues related to homosexuality still rage on in the African members of the Anglican communion.
DeleteThe BCP is beautiful. I much prefer their liturgy to any of the RCC liturgies. We usually attend the Rite I service, which is marginally more formal than Rite II (thee and thy instead of you and your). We don't attend for the thee and thous, but because of the time the service is offered (there are 3/Sunday)
Anne, Rite I in the BCP is essentially Rite II with the archaisms left in. Some parishes advertise themselves as using the 1928 BCP. No ome seemed to care much.
DeleteThe 1978 BCP was a controversy, in part because of the language, but in part because some saw it as a more "Romanized" liturgy (responses and order of worship). People were huffy about it when I signed on, but the women priest and gay marriage/blessing and Gene Robinson issues quickly overshadowed all that.
I use the BCP for private devotions, a kind of unholy "fusion cooking" in which Anglican prayers are repurposed for novenas. Jim might not approve, but those are the first prayers I learned as a trinitarian Christian, and I am tenderhearted about them.
Margaret, yes, those niggling over cup/chalice are apparently blind to the larger problem of indifference. I agree wholeheartedly.
Jean, that is interesting. I had no idea that the problem with the 1979 BCP was because it was too Roman. I thought they were unhappy about too modern language. As I said before, I have not heard one single word about any groups in the ECUSA being upset with the BCP. I receive newsletters from the national Episcopalians and follow certain websites and discussions. The prayer book is simply not an issue. The church I attend is very progressive except in liturgy - it is pretty high church. I have attended a special service at another parish just to see what they were up to - the church is on a busy street, and their sign advertised a "Come as You Are" service on Saturday evenings. It is an attempt to get young adults I think - VERY informal. No need to change from Saturday bumming around clothes. The priest sat on a stool right at the head of the aisle for the homily and offered comments, asked questions and solicited discussion about the readings. It reminded me of several Jewish services I have attended - reform and conservative synagogues. The rabbis did the same thing - they asked and answered questions and addressed comments that were from the congregation. I don't know if Orthodox services do the same. I loved it though - sort of a big group lectio.
DeleteNot to be Pollyanna, but we've always been bi-ritual. Remember the old low Mass (no singing, no incense), high Mass (singing, no incense) and solemn high Mass (all bells and whistles)? Right now we have, in the ordinary rite at least four canons and priests who, on some authority, use Latin for the Consecration and impose it for congregation parts like the Agnus Dei.
ReplyDeleteThe people who used to hang in there every Sunday for the high Mass were looked upon by the low-Massers as super-Catholics. The difference between then and now, it appears, is that the ER attendees look upon themselvesas the super-Catholics.
That said, I do think the bi-ritualism is a sign (not a cause) of the kind of division in the Church that Jesus prayed against. As Jean rightly points out, getting into these internal brawls is not new, though. And they have been worse at some times in the past.
And, btw, just to bring the young-'uns down to reality, as a member of the most crack team of Latin Mass altar servers (after graduation, we were allowed to serve the early Mass all summer until the next generation of servers was trained), I often assisted at Masses, even by monsignori (!), in which not a single clear word of Latin could be discerned among the mumbles.
Tom, I think you are right that the bi-ritualism may be a sign, rather than a cause, of division.
DeleteSpeaking of Latin Mass responses, did you have the Dialogue Mass for school Masses? We did, everyone brought their big daily missals and said all the responses together. I can still remember a lot of the responses. I wonder if any of the EF congregations do that.
The sort of division that Faggioli described doesn't manifest itself at our parish. Thank you, God.
ReplyDeleteTypically, there are two possible sources of local communal division when it comes to liturgy. One is when there is what Benedict described as a stable group of parishioners who want the preconciliar mass. Benedict's decree essentially was that those groups should be accommodated. In practice, local bishops, who have little or no appetite for this sort of thing on top of everything else they have to deal with, have managed to ignore and/or minimize its impact in their dioceses.
The second scenario, which I think is probably more common, is when a priest with traditionalist proclivities is assigned to a parish. Naturally, priests, especially pastors, have a good deal of latitude in their parishes, and some choose to pursue traditionalist liturgy. There are ten thousand shades of grey between a typical post-conciliar mass and a purely preconciliar mass, and these priests will pick somewhere on that spectrum to have their celebrations of the mass.
Fortunately, there aren't many of those priests in Chicago. I am certain that's not the case in other dioceses.
Personally, I suspect there is a special circle in hell for priests who foist their personal little preferences on a parish community that neither wanted nor asked for those programs.
B16 made a huge mistake. From the moment he did his motu proprio, my sociological instincts told me that it was going to cause a huge amount of trouble. Be divisive, sectarian, etc. It is a good example of where the Holy Spirit likely did not guide the Pope. That is Popes can make huge mistakes in regard to practice. We should learn from this to be skeptical about practices coming from Rome.
ReplyDeleteJust saying there are two forms of the Mass was a bad idea. It pitted the old Latin Mass against the "new English" Post conciliar Mass. However the Post Conciliar Mass can be said in Latin and English. In whatever combinations. The priest who still wants to say the consecration in Latin but have the rest in English can do so. People who want to do the Introit, Gradual, Offertory and Communion in Latin but the rest in English can do so. Now a lot of these options may be odd or bizarre but they are legitimate, e.g. suppose you had a Latin chant group that wanted to learn and use the propers at a Mass but at the same time have the people sing the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Agnus Dei in English. It can be done.
Giving the 1962 Pre-Vatican II Missal an exalted status as the only acceptable prior Mass was another terrible idea. There were many slightly different versions of the Roman Rite between Trent and 1962, e.g. the reforms of Holy Week in the 1950's, John 23 added Joseph to the Cannon, etc. That has given the traditionalists the notion that the 1962 Missal is somehow the same as the beginning of the Roman Rite. Of course before Trent there were all sorts of regional and local variations in the Latin tradition.
As soon as B16 is buried, the Pope needs to issue a new Motu Proprio saying that only with the permission of the local bishop can prior forms of the Roman Rite be used in celebration of the Mass. It should also establish an institute somewhere to codify all prior editions of the Roman Rite that can be legitimately used. (that is from which bishops can choose). Universities, monasteries, retreat houses and other places should be encouraged to use these prior forms both for historical understanding of prior liturgical, musical and spiritual practices. NO MORE TWO FORMS, JUST ONE ORDINARY AND MANY PRIOR FORMS, the latter under the control of local bishops from an approved collection.
Jack - yes, great points and suggestions.
DeleteJack, I agree that the motu proprio has turned out to be a big mistake. Maybe the law of unintended consequences applies.
DeleteI wonder why we can have the various Eastern Rite churches, such as the Ukrainian Rite, the Maronites, etc.; and it doesn't seem to cause a lot of controversy and trouble. But the EF vs the NO has certainly roiled the waters. I think one of the differences is that the Eastern Rite churches don't claim to be the one and only True Expression of the Catholic Faith. And there would never be an instance of a bishop staffing a previously western rite parish with Eastern rite clergy to try and shape the place up.
Katherine, I think it's because Eastern Riters are more episcopal--local/cultural variations are allowed. Ditto the Anglicans.
DeleteJack, interesting point, though not sure I grasp why "two forms" is so divisive. Other sects seem to function OK with two approved liturgies--or even more. Is there something in Catholicism that makes choices like this a problem? Not trolling, just wondering as an outsider (ha, after 20, years, still an outsider) what the nuances are.
Does anyone think that "church unity" is a Platonic idea trying to make its way in an Aristotelian religion? When you read back far enough in history it looks like diversity was the rule and unity a chimera. Maybe unity still is a chimera!
DeleteMargaret, you are right that so far unity has been an ideal to strive for rather than something we ever actually achieved for more than five minutes.
DeleteLanguage is very divisive.
DeleteFor example although the various national orthodox churches here in the USA recognize each other, efforts to establish one orthodox church for the USA have failed.
Some Russian orthodox here established the Orthodox Church in America. They received a grant of self government from the Patriarch of Moscow during the cold war. Some other Slavic countries affiliated with them but they still keep there own dioceses, e.g. the Bulgarian diocese. The Greeks who are the largest group recognizes the OCA bishops as legitimate but not their self governing status independent of the Patriarch of Moscow, The OCA was not permitted to send representatives to the recent Orthodox Ecumenical Council.
Language was very divisive in the pre-Vatican II church with many ethnic parishes. Some of the parishes still attempt to maintain themselves by hiring priests from the old country.
B16 contrasted the Latin of the Pre=Vatican II Mass with the English of the Post-Vatican II Mass. That has made the problem acute in the USA which has very few Latin Post=Vatican II Masses. In England it is less a problem because you can easily find in places like London complete Latin Masses using the current Post-Vatican II Rite.
Most of the historic fractures in Christianity have been along language divisions. The Copts in Egypt and the various Syrian churches of the East fell out of union with the Byzantines because they could not accept the Greek definitions about the nature of Christ.
The division between Orthodox and Catholic is largely along languages (Latin) vs (Greek). The major tension today in Orthodox is between the Slavs and the Greeks.
Jack - don't you think, too, that language is both a marker and a carrier of culture?
DeleteJack, Yes it is. As Gerald O'Collins and John Wilkins point out in "English is not Latin."
DeleteMy personal distancing from the current translation consists in refusing to say, "Under my roof," and keeping on with, "Lord I am not worthy to receive you," say.... I guess a form of "disunity." but also the avoidance of saying something ridiculous. My brain retains other bits from the previous translation...
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/english-not-latin
Peggy, it would be interesting to list a number of contentious phrases from the recent translation and then check boxes going from "really annoying" to "ok". Sounds like something US Catholic could do. My personal unfavorite is "consubstantial". "Substance" to me is something physical like ytterbium. I still mumble "one in being".
DeleteStanley, Great memories remember alike!
DeleteYes, Consubstantial ...opaque, confusing...while "one in being," Pretty clear. And wherever "his Holy Church," appears, I just say "the whole Church," on the grounds that a lot of the church isn't "holy," including moi, and the part that isn't needs prayers more than "holy" part wherever that may be.
I guess I don't really care that much about contentious phrases, though I'll admit that "this precious Chalice" seems affected, and I feel that "...poured out for you and for many" is theologically incorrect. I actually like "And with your spirit".
DeleteIf they want the mass in a dead language, I'd rather classical Greek. Classical Greek is to Latin as French is to English. Sounds prettier. If course, there's always Aramaic. Would that be resourcement?
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, did anyone see Rita Ferrone's article re: Cardinal Sarah today on the Commonweal site? It seems to me that Cdl. Sarah needs a new job; something like Titular Bishop of Laodicea.
ReplyDeleteI don't spend time at the reform-of-the-reform Web sites, where Sarah is probably being hailed as a savior of the Church that went off the rails after Pius X. But I found it bracing that everywhere else, as soon as Sarah's thoughts were widely reported the reaction was a snort of derision. Things are not as bad as I feared.
DeletePretty strong piece by Rita.
Delete"Why did Pope Francis appoint Sarah—not to a niche position, but to a mainstream post in a field about which he knows little? And why does he let him go on blundering in this way?" Ferrone asks.
DeleteMaybe to keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
If you appoint someone like Sarah to a "mainstream" position, you force his opinions into the mainstream where you can make a point of correcting them in the mainstream.
In other words, you ensure that everyone who is hearing these kinds of opinions in the dark corners of the Church, are getting the message that they are wrong.
Jean, LOL. You would do well in DC - you thoroughly understand Machiavellian maneuvering.
DeleteI suspect that Cardinal Sarah's being from the developing world probably had some initial appeal for Francis. And despite their rather sharp differences in approach and outlook on liturgy, it wouldn't surprise me if they share common approaches and outlooks regarding other important church matters (such as social justice).
DeleteSarah's apocalyptic language of Satan and devils isn't foreign to Francis's spiritual outlook (as I understand it).
I've never believed that liturgy is a high priority for Francis. (And personally, I think that's a good thing; I don't believe that the state of liturgy in Roman Catholicism is in a crisis and that urgent intervention is required.) Francis may have figured at one time that he could tolerate someone like Sarah with idiosyncratic/retrograde views on liturgy, because of that larger affinity I'm suggesting here. But I think the liturgical conflict has now reached the point where the two officials can't continue on in this status quo.
"We" sometimes forget that we see these things from a "first world" perspective, and Francis does not. Argentina for all of its "whiteness" is not a first world country...maybe more like the third world. So Jim has a point in asking whether Francis doesn't share the perspective, at least in part, with Sarah.
DeleteAdd to that the possibility that Anglo as in Anglo-Saxon "Whiteness" differs in some respects from Latin "Whiteness."
Anne, I guess that says more about me than the Pope and Cardinal Sarah!
DeleteLiturgies are not the cause of "disunity." They reflect the shambling indifference of the bishops, seminary education, priestly formation, and the failure to put many of the other "reforms" into practice
ReplyDeleteIt's more than shambling indifference - too many actively oppose the fundamental understandings of "church" that the VII liturgy reflects, just as John Paul II and Benedict did - and that is reflected in their appointments, bishops the church is stuck with for years and years.
Many men in mitres and collars could see that the "vision" of VII meant personal losses in prestige, power, and even perqs. They liked their absolute power within their own fiefdoms, they liked living like "princes" and having the "simple faithful" put them on some kind of pedestal as more "holy" and somehow needed as "mediators" with God. This happens in chanceries, in Rome, and in parishes - all levels. VII also brought a new understanding of the priesthood, with priests as "servant leaders" working WITH laity, rather than cultic leaders operating from a "superior" plane, and having the rights of the lord of the manor over their parishes. JPII and Benedict brought the cultic leader types back to the seminaries. (There was a study done some years back about this, presented at a conference at Boston College.) These cultic priests, all the way up the clerical ladder, are very much like Washington pols that I have known. Once they get that little taste of power and prestige, even those from tiny little rural districts seldom give it up voluntarily to return to a quiet life in their hometowns. They are addicted to the adrenaline rush of being a "VIP" in Washington. So they become lobbyists and hang around.
I would say that liturgy is not the only cause of disunity, but liturgical differences are a symptom of disunity, and they also reinforce and solidify that disunity. My personal view is that, over time, the existence of competing liturgical books and rites is part of the dynamics that pull different cultural "camps" farther part from one another.
DeleteRobert Putnam talks of two different types of social capital: bridging and bonding. Bonding capital is generated by groups (usually minority or marginalized groups) with strong senses of identity, and that develop strong social bonds among themselves. This is the classic case of ethnic neighborhoods, enclaves and parishes where the members of an ethnicity tend to "stick together", do business with one another, marry other members of the group, and so on.
Bridging capital is generated when non-like groups develop stronger bonds across group boundaries. Political parties depend on bridging in order to succeed. There is a lot of bridging that is taking place in the business world these days as business becomes more international/global.
The liturgy should be a bridge - it should allow people from different backgrounds and walks of life to come together, and to become united in the Body of Christ. This is rooted in Jesus's prayer that "they may be one".
After a few decades of experience of the traditionalist, Latin Mass crowd, it's difficult to conclude that they aren't working at cross-purposes to the bridging purpose of liturgy. Traditionalism leads to bonding rather than bridging. Traditionalists reinforce one another's common outlooks and their(often negative) experiences with the outside world, and provide rhetorical rings of defense against the rest of the world.
I think Benedict's vision was that the Latin Mass would be widely available in parishes and dioceses, and the Latin and English masses would co-exist peacefully; and that in turn would lay the groundwork for cross-pollination some day. That irenic vision, in my humble opinion, didn't take into account the reality of bonding. The entire dynamic of traditionalism is us-against-them.