My friend the nearly-ubiquitous fair-minded John L. Allen, Jr., still sadly writing for the unworthy National Catholic Reporter, has an piece today on Pope Benedict at his promotion of a new liturgical movement.
I have long contended that this Pope during this pontificate has as a major goal the restoration of our Catholic identity. Liturgy must be a key component of such an endeavor.
My emphases and comments:
What Benedict means by ‘new liturgical movement’
John L Allen Jr
Sometime soon, [in…. say…. Vatican "soon"?…] the Vatican is expected to release a motu proprio, meaning a legal document under the pope’s authority, which will transfer responsibility for an aspect of marriage law from one Vatican office to another. Though it will probably fly below the public radar, the document provides a glimpse into Pope Benedict XVI’s approach to liturgy, meaning how the church celebrates the Mass and its other rituals.
Specifically, Benedict is expected to encourage the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Vatican’s office for liturgical policy, to focus on promoting what he describes as a “new liturgical movement." The obvious question, of course, is what exactly he means by that. [Indeed, yes.]
In a narrowly tailored legal document, the pope can’t unpack the idea, but Vatican observers say that [get this…] Benedict’s broad liturgical approach can be described in terms of “continuity,” i.e., recovering elements of the liturgical tradition which he believes were too hastily set aside or downplayed in the immediate period after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). [So far so good. Nothing new here.] His own style when he celebrates Mass reflects this thrust, including distributing communion on the tongue, rather than in the hand, and placing a crucifix on the altar to remind people that the focus is on God rather than the celebrant.
The “new liturgical movement,” then, is one which attempts to restore what Benedict XVI and like-minded observers believe was lost in the post-Vatican II period, perhaps principally, in the pope’s mind, a strong sense of transcendence.
The phrase “new liturgical movement” was first used by the pope back in 1997, when as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger he published a set of memoirs about his life up to 1977 under the title Milestones. [The idea of a new liturgical movement came with strength from his book, named after a book by Romano Guardini, Spirit of the Liturgy.]
Here is the relevant section, which I’ll quote at length:
“There is no doubt that this new missal [after Vatican II] in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something ‘made’, not something given in advance but something lying within our own power of decision. From this it also follows that we are not to recognize the scholars and the central authority alone as decision makers, but that in the end each and every ‘community’ must provide itself with its own liturgy. When liturgy is self-made, however, then it can no longer give us what its proper gift should be: the encounter with the mystery that is not our own product but rather our origin and the source of our life. A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church.”
“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur, in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not he speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the worldwide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. And because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds – partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart."
"This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council.”
That extract provides the context in which the phrase from the forthcoming motu proprio should be understood (assuming it appears as expected), which otherwise may seem a bit out of the blue.
"Out of the blue"…?
Some of us have been talking about this – not generally NCR readers, however, for a while now.
It will be interesting to see what Mr. Allen is talking about. Motu Proprio… hmmmm….
Remember 07-07-07!
Loading ...
“one aspect of marriage law” – I wonder if he means to transfer the handling of Privilege of the Faith cases (sometimes called Petrine Privileges) from the CDF to the CDWDS? I’m not sure how that fits in with the new liturgical movement, but it’s the only “marriage” issue I can see transfering.
The other “marriage law” issue that comes to mind is granting a dispensation from canonical form for two Catholics – a dispensation reserved to the Holy See. If this gets a bit esoteric, I apologize, but, briefly, when a Catholic marries a non-Catholic, under certain circumstances he can apply for a dispensation from form, and then the wedding takes place according to the practices of the non-Catholic spouse, but is recognized canonically as a Catholic wedding. In these cases, the dispensation from form comes from the ordinary of the Catholic party.
The 1983 Code permitted the ordinary to grant a dispensation from form for a Catholic who marries another Catholic who has defected by formal act from the Church. This was utilized in situations where, say, the bride was baptized Catholic as an infant, but then her parents formally defected, became Lutheran and the bride was raised in the Lutheran church. (there can be legitimate differences of opinions as to whether this dispensation is pastorally adviseable – suffice it to say that the Church believed there were situations that would warrant this dispensation).
A dispensation from form for two Catholics was reserved to the Holy See, and seldom granted (I know of no situations in which it was granted).
Now, with the promulgation of the motu proprio Omnium in Mentem (presuming it has been promulgated – it still has not been published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, as per c. 8), the category of those who have “defected from the faith by formal act” no longer has any practical canonical significance. Therefore, in the situation I described above, if the Catholic and Catholic-raised-as-a-Lutheran wish a dispensation from form, that now has to come from Rome. I suspect there will be more petitions. I believe the CDWDS currently handles them (but am not positive), so perhaps this new MP will reassign that task, to permit the CDWDS to keep its focus on more liturgical matters.
Re. “There is no doubt that this new missal [after Vatican II] in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment” … on which planet did that happen please?
Re. “a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council” … sounds like a lot of busy work for the kind of experts who made all the trouble for us in the first place. My idea of a Liturgical Movement: why not just prohibit the evil NOM [A hint: park that rhetoric at the door and don’t post it here.] and reinstate the TLM as the only permitted liturgy in the Latin church?
God bless
Paul
Paul: I’m not sure you can call ‘evil’ an approved Missal of the Church?
I, like Paul, was struck by that first sentence, and really what followed is subtly misleading:
“. . .thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something ‘made’, not something given in advance but something lying within our own power of decision.”
I hate to be a stickler for details, but the use of appear here really softens this statement to the point of being harmless to the liturgically adventurous. If it is just about appearances and false impressions, there is really no harm at all.
Unfortunately, it is not about appearances — it is the sad reality that a group of “scholars” with juridical authority all but stamped out the product of nearly 2,000 years of organic development in favor of a “banal, on-the-spot product”. There is a chasm between the old missal and the new that cannot be crossed by traditional vestments, liturgical language, proper orientation, and Catholic music. These things are like beautiful flowers bloomed from the fertile plant of the old Missal. You can’t take rose blossoms, glue them to a plastic stick, put it in the ground and say, “See! It’s the same thing!”
[disclaimer: Yes, I realize that both Masses are valid, but there is so much more to the liturgy than validity!]
Dear Magpie,
I know what you’re getting at, but I still think I can say “evil”. E.g. the NOM was not promulgated infallibly, as infallibility requires applicability to the universal Church; the NOM is not universally applicable, only to the Latin rite. Thus the NOM is a debatable proposition.
Then, by applying the “by their fruits shall ye know then” argument, “evil” seems a fair description of the NOM.
Cheers
Paul
The surprising thing about the article is the generally favourable response given by the readers of the NCR in the comments section. Read them for yourself. I get the feeling that they’re being won over.
Paulbailes said: Then, by applying the “by their fruits shall ye know then” argument, “evil” seems a fair description of the NOM.
It crosses the line to call the Sacred Liturgy of the Roman Rite “evil.” Sacred things are by definition holy, not evil.
I know what you’re getting at, but I still think I can say “evil”. E.g. the NOM was not promulgated infallibly, as infallibility requires applicability to the universal Church; the NOM is not universally applicable, only to the Latin rite. Thus the NOM is a debatable proposition.
Cheers
Paul
Your approach to infallibility, which is both erroneous and dangerous, is a prime reason why the Church is in the present mess. You have reduced papal authority to juridical power. All the problematic changes in the liturgy can be traced to such a reduction.
Thanks friends for your responses to my comment about the nature of the NOM. May I respectfully reply that I am unpersuaded by your declarations.
May I take one of robtbrown’s remarks as typical of the difficulties engendered by the taboo on calling spades spades when it comes to the NOM? They refer to “problematic changes in the liturgy”: I don’t think these problems are “good”, rather “bad”. The e-word to which Fr Z objects seems to me like a suitable synonym for “bad”.
But moving ahead, when in future I might call the NOM “problematic” please be aware of what that signifies, as per the above paragraph, or as in “the change of government in Germany in January 1933 was problematic for European peace”. And I’m not being hyperbolic or rhetorical – IMHO the introduction of the NOM was the greatest disaster of the 20th century, with all its other tragedies.
Thanks
Paul
paulbailies: You lose. Cf. Godwin’s Law.
And I have already hinted about what works here, in reference to rhetoric.
Touche Father.
But sometime do read http://reason.com/archives/2005/07/14/hands-off-hitler
Paul,
the word “evil” is a rhetorically loaded term. As much as one could make a cold argument that the new Mass “lacks a due good”, the use of the word without careful definitions and distinctions being made is dangerous; many readers will immediately bunker down and get defensive — just look at what has happened to this discussion.
Imagine you are talking to a friend and she asks you to pray for her mom, mentioning that, as good a natural mother as she is, she is regrettably not Catholic. If you snapped back, “Your mom is an evil woman!”, you are not likely going to get a calm reaction.
Words are powerful tools, use them carefully.
Pope Pius XII’s letter to Count Galeazzi in 1933:
“I am concerned about the confidences of the Virgin to the little Lucia of Fatima. The persistence of the Good Lady in face of the danger that threatens the Church is a divine warning against the SUICIDE that THE MODIFICATION OF THE FAITH, LITURGY, THEOLOGY, and soul of the Church would represent.”
“I hear around me partisans of novelties who want to demolish the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her adornments, and make her remorseful for her historical past. Well, my dear friend, I am convinced that the Church of Peter must affirm her past, or else she will dig her own tomb.”
“I will fight this battle with the greatest energy both inside and outside the Church, even if the forces of evil may one day take advantage of my person, actions, or writings, as they try today to deform the History of the Church.”
Thank you for your vigilance, Father. Now, can the rest of us take a break from “Novus Ordo bashing” (as we used to call it) long enough to consider the proposed motu proprio itself?
It seems unclear to me how a philosophical rendering such as this (and for want of a better term) would be translated into a juridical action. Will there be revisions to particular instructions in the reformed liturgy? Will such practices as Communion in the hand be eliminated? Will certain rubrics in the Mass benefit from more clarity, more precision? Will the practice of a crucifix in the center of the altar be considered mandatory? Will the use of hymns in the place of the propers no longee an option?
One can ascertain much of the Holy Father’s agenda regarding the liturgy, simply from reading “The Spirit of the Liturgy.” All is revealed there. But it also seems to me, that what he calls for is a long and organic process, one that would try the patience of many who seek a quick fix. For now, I can prefer the extraordinary form of the Roman Mass over the ordinary (and I do). On the other hand, pretending that Vatican II never happened is not an option. Nor does the Holy Father presume that it is.
Words, words, words, etc… That is all it is!!! No action just words from our dear Pontiff. None of the NO Masses in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia have changed. You still got priests facing people, altar girls, pew people handing out communion, teen Masses, bad music, etc…
“Words are powerful tools, use them carefully.”
Comment by Hieronymus — 2 July 2010 @ 7:17 am
“Words, words, words, etc… That is all it is No action just words from our dear Pontiff.”
Comment by becket1 — 2 July 2010 @ 8:13 am
becket,
have you been to our lady of Lourdes in overbrook? the celebrate a latin novus Ordo, with communion received kneeling at the rail and on the tongue, Mass ad orientem, and no girls on the altar.
we must wait. we must be patient.
at the Feast of the Immaculate Conception the priest at a “typical” NO Mass I usually attend in University City instructed us to kneel at the Incarnation and catechized us on why this was a reverent gesture to make. yes, of course bowing at this point is actually in the rubrics which no one follows, but I call that progress. At another parish in Center city, the agnus Dei and Sanctus are routinely sung in Latin during daily Mass, and Tantum Ergo, O Salutaris, and other classic Latin hymns are sung at exposition, Benediction, etc. I call that progress.
Parents know how hard it is to get a family of four to change their ways. Pope Benedict has a tall order to follow and God bless him and keep him for the wonderful, patient, perseverent manner in which he is approaching this task.
Go to any of these parishes lux_perpetua and tell me if they say the NO in Latin or have any Gregorian Chant for that matter. I think you will find they don’t. And could care less about the Pope’s reform of the reform. They do what they please litugicaly , to please the laity, not the Pope. Hence the “Spirit of Vatican 2” work. So what ACTION will the Pope take, accept for just WORDS.
St. Agnes, Sellersville
St. Andrew, Newtown
St. Ann (Italian), Bristol
Assumption B.V.M., Feasterville
St. Bede the Venerable, Holland
St. Charles Borromeo, Bensalem
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Jamison
St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, Bensalem
St. Ephrem, Bensalem
St. Frances Cabrini, Fairless Hills
Holy Trinity, Morrisville
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Yardley
Immaculate Conception B.V.M., Levittown
St. Isidore, Quakertown
St. John Bosco, Hatboro
St. John the Baptist, Ottsville
St. John the Evangelist, Morrisville
St. Joseph, Warrington
St. Joseph the Worker, Fallsington
St. Jude, Chalfont
St. Lawrence, Riegelsville
St. Mark, Bristol
St. Martin of Tours, New Hope
St. Michael the Archangel, Levittown
Nativity of Our Lord, Warminster
Our Lady of Fatima, Bensalem
Our Lady of Good Counsel, Southampton
Our Lady of Grace, Penndel
Our Lady of Guadalupe, Buckingham
Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Doylestown
Our Lady of the Sacred Heart, Hilltown
St. Patrick Mission (1944-1979), Dublin
Queen of the Universe, Levittown
St. Robert Bellarmine, Warrington
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Tullytown
St. Thomas Aquinas, Croydon
St. Vincent de Paul, Richboro
what does this prove save that progress is slow? How could it be otherwise?
It took a hundred years to maneuver the priests of the Church into getting freaked out by the Sixties and the “Spirit of Vatican II”. It took more than forty years to get a decent translation to help people in the US know their own native Latin Rite prayers. And you are fed up when you’ve given B16 only five years to work in?
It took us a long time to get here. It’ll take a long time to get back. If you’re really all that impatient with your own ordinary (which is understandable), then you can always visit other dioceses, or help that ray of light that was pointed out to you above. It’s a bit mean to cuss at your bishop if you’re not doing anything but grumbling, yourself, so I’m sure you’re finding some way to help out!
Doing something helpful for others is the best cure for depression and impatience, they say. Or take a little liturgical vacation to places like Mater Ecclesiae, and cheer yourself up. It’s a long haul; you want to stay able to appreciate the good times when they get to you.
Words are fine as long as they are definitive and clear and most of all DECISIVE.
If there were something like an MP on this issue and it said very decisively that Altar Servers MUST BE MALE, there would then be a very clear sense of when this is being violated. Certainly there might be Bishops who would balk…but would there be many who would persist violating such a clear regulation for very long? I’ll wait and see what happens…
This is of course encouraging, but I find the Holy Father’s decision to adress liturgical issues in a document on marriage interesting. Perhaps he is concerned that producing a major document on liturgy alone would encourage some to say that he is trying to “roll back Vatican II. I fear, however that with this approach, those same critics will argue that he’s trying to pull a fast one on them by burying new liturgical norms in a document about marriage.
Oh well. . . there are some people he’ll never be able to please. Lord, please strengthen him against his critics and preserve his health.
Fr. Z, you almost gave me a heart attack!
At my parish the phrase “liturgical movement” is used to mean a pared-back version of “liturgical dance” — sort of swaying and waving the arms, sans leaping about or twirling. The pope would never approve!
No offense, becket1, but there ARE parishes outside of the Northeast! (that’s Pa talk for the non-initiates :))
becket1: So what ACTION will the Pope take, accept for just WORDS.
Perhaps the action that will do the job with parishes like those you list is not any that the pope can take in the next few years, but the replacement of their present pastors during the coming decades by the faithful young priests already coming out of seminaries like the one there in Philadelphia.
Why so long? Well, picture the typical pastor you’re complaining about. Do you really think anything the pope says or does today will completely change the way he celebrates Mass tomorrow?
To those from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia: If I am not mistaken Cardinal Rigali sent a letter to each pastor spelling out how Mass was to be celebrated in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. If that hasn’t happened it is my opinion that those pastors and their parochial vicars are acting in disobedience to their Ordinary and should be dealt with accordingly. I also believe that the USCCB must act to assure that all Liturgies that are celebrated in the USA be carried out with dignity and reverence thereby clearly showing that all Liturgical acts are for the honor and glory of God. My prayer is that a USCCB will call a nationwide Liturgical Conference as the new Missal is introduced and show by example how the Mass and other Liturgical Celebrations MUST be done: SAY THE BLACK, DO THE RED, NO EXCEPTIONS. We all MUST look to Rome to see the NEED for recapturing our Catholic identity. Thank you for letting me vent.
becket1, go to Our Lady of Lourdes in Pa, if you want escape from that madness
Paul: Probably not the best week to link to a Dave Weigel article.
May I take one of robtbrown’s remarks as typical of the difficulties engendered by the taboo on calling spades spades when it comes to the NOM? They refer to “problematic changes in the liturgy”: I don’t think these problems are “good”, rather “bad”. The e-word to which Fr Z objects seems to me like a suitable synonym for “bad”.
But moving ahead, when in future I might call the NOM “problematic” please be aware of what that signifies, as per the above paragraph, or as in “the change of government in Germany in January 1933 was problematic for European peace”. And I’m not being hyperbolic or rhetorical – IMHO the introduction of the NOM was the greatest disaster of the 20th century, with all its other tragedies.
Comment by paulbailes
You seem to have your eyes closed, swinging wildly. “Problematic” is an appropriate word for several reasons.
1. When you refer to the Novus Ordo, it is not apparent whether you are referring to a Latin mass said ad orientem or the run of the mill parish mass.
2. It is quite likely that if you were attending the former, you would not be aware of the differences between it and mass using the 1570 Missal.
3. Even though the changes (even in a best case scenario) are disturbing, nevertheless, they were introduced by the proper authorities.
4. Your erroneous concept of infallibility does little except obfuscate the issues.
Also:
5. Although the liturgical changes were not good, nevertheless, they merely reflect deeper problems in the Church. And this gives me the opportunity to once again link to an article I wrote:
http://christianorder.com/features/features_2001/features_nov01.html
Quote:
“To those from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia: If I am not mistaken Cardinal Rigali sent a letter to each pastor spelling out how Mass was to be celebrated in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. If that hasn’t happened it is my opinion that those pastors and their parochial vicars are acting in disobedience to their Ordinary and should be dealt with accordingly. I also believe that the USCCB must act to assure that all Liturgies that are celebrated in the USA be carried out with dignity and reverence thereby clearly showing that all Liturgical acts are for the honor and glory of God. My prayer is that a USCCB will call a nationwide Liturgical Conference as the new Missal is introduced and show by example how the Mass and other Liturgical Celebrations MUST be done: SAY THE BLACK, DO THE RED, NO EXCEPTIONS. We all MUST look to Rome to see the NEED for recapturing our Catholic identity. Thank you for letting me vent.”
News to me!!. And if he did, it was probably against everything Pope Benedict XVI wants done liturgically. Rigali spends more time in Rome than he does in his own Archdiocese from what I have read. Can’t wait till he goes as well.
Comment by lux_perpetua: what does this prove save that progress is slow? How could it be otherwise?
To slow for me!!.
Quote: becket1, go to Our Lady of Lourdes in Pa, if you want escape from that madness
Better yet. Why don’t the priests in the Archdiocese start following the Pope’s example!!. Instead of continuing to be brainwashed by the 60’s and 70’s ans the “spirit of Vatican 2”!!.
News to me!!. And if he did, it was probably against everything Pope Benedict XVI wants done liturgically. Rigali spends more time in Rome than he does in his own Archdiocese from what I have read. Can’t wait till he goes as well.
Comment by becket1
Cardinal Rigali has known the pope for years, having been a member of the SCDF. He is a big player in the nomination of new US bishops, both in the States and in Rome, where he is member of the Cong of Bishops.
He is a trained diplomat and so is not one to make bold public statements. On the other hand, he is very adept at working behind the scenes.
As a professional diplomat he would have been a perfect choice for the Archdiocese of DC. But that is another story.
Refer to the sites found below concerning Cardinal Rigali’s letter:
http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/rigali/lettersforparishes/Anniversary%20of%20Installation.pdf
http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/rigali/lettersforparishes/Select%20Norms.pdf
Philadelphia Catholics-
If I may take a break from this discussion for just a second, I am going to be moving to Philadelphia in late August and would love to have some contacts in the area. Please email me at amcdona4(at)nd.edu if you would like.
God bless.
Quote from Consilio:
“Refer to the sites found below concerning Cardinal Rigali’s letter:
http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/rigali/lettersforparishes/Anniversary%20of%20Installation.pdf
http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/rigali/lettersforparishes/Select%20Norms.pd”
From his letter
10. The tabernacle should “always” be placed behind the main altar not whenever possible!. Many times I see the priests chairs behind the main altar. Unacceptable!.
18. We do not need Extra-ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion!. They were not there before the Novus Ordo-Mass, and they are not used in any of the Eastern Rite traditions. So it takes all little longer for the Mass to be over.
21. Christs body and blood are both present in the sacred host. Why the need for the chalice, are we only getting half of Christ with just the host.
22. Once again “Extra-Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion”. Not needed!!!
23. There we go again “Extra-Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion”. Not needed!!!
Nothing mentioned in this letter as to those who wish to kneel for Holy Communion. Also nothing mentioned in regards to ad-orientum, gregorian chant, altar boys, incense, bells being rung during Mass. Or the Mass as being a sacrifice only.
It all has to do with the “active physical participation” rather then “active prayerful participation” of the people in the pews during the Mass of Bugnini.
“Nothing mentioned in this letter as to those who wish to kneel for Holy Communion. Also nothing mentioned in regards to ad-orientum, gregorian chant, altar boys, incense, bells being rung during Mass. Or the Mass as being a sacrifice only.”
May I suggest, becket1, you go back and read it again…this time slowly. It’s in there.
Attached below is Cardinal Rigali’s letter concerning “Summorum Pontificum” and the implementation of the EF” in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
http://archphila.org/evangelization/worship/guidelines/summpont.pdf
For those who have nothing but criticicm for Cardinal Rigali, please be reminded that it is at his direction that every seminarian at St. Charles Seminary in Overbrook, PA. must learn the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. I happen to live in a parish in Philadelphia where Mass is celebrated every Sunday in the Extraordinary Form and many people who are regulars travel each week from the suburbs. They don’t belly ache about how far they have to drive or complain about parking (we actually have plenty of it) or any other perceived inconvenience. If someone is that offended by altar girls, sappy hymns and irreverence at Holy Communion, they will do more than complain about it on a blog. They’ll do whatever it takes to support parishes that do offer the TLM.
“criticism” – sorry for the typo and any others my failing eyes may have missed.
To: Girgadis
“Prosit”