Edward Pentin has – HERE – the text of an Open Letter correcting Card. Cupich who not long ago wrote a bizarre piece for Vatican News using Dilexi te as a springboard to trash the Church’s liturgy which has been (i.e., still is) in use in a relatively stable form for over a thousand years. HERE
If you don’t remember what Dilexi te is, that’s alright. Hardly one does. It came out eons ago… last October! It’s an Apostolic Exhortation from (but in large part not, I think, by) Pope Leo XIV, which focuses on the Church’s mission to love and serve the poor.
Msgr. Bux is the originator of the great “Bux Protocol”. He is a liturgical expert and former consulter to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and, if I remember rightly, the Office of Papal Ceremonies.
What did Cupich do? He situates the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council (e.g. Sacrosanctum Concilium – SC) within the broader movement of the Church seeking “a new image … simpler and more sober, embracing the entire people of God … more closely resembling her Lord than worldly powers.” According to Cupich, the liturgy therefore is not only about ritual or aesthetics, but must be a tangible expression of the Church’s mission among the poor and marginalized (never mind how those who want traditional liturgy are marginalized). Cupich asserts that the “noble simplicity” mentioned in SC in the liturgical reform aimed to let God’s action shine more clearly in the liturgy, and to free the Church from the trappings of worldly power, so it can speak more authentically to our age. Along the way the windy prelate proclaimed:
The liturgical reform benefited from scholarly research into liturgical resources, identifying those adaptations, introduced over time, which incorporated elements from imperial and royal courts. That research made clear that many of these adaptations had transformed the liturgy’s aesthetics and meaning, making the liturgy more of a spectacle rather than the active participation of all the baptized for them to be formed to join in the saving action of Christ crucified.
Ed Pentin’s reaction to Cupich’s musings – HERE.
Shall we have a look at Msgr. Bux’s piece v. Cupich?
To His Eminence Cardinal Blase Cupich
Your Most Reverend Eminence,
“For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men.” (1 Cor 4:9). This statement of the Apostle describes the identity of Christianity, both as the proclamation of the Gospel and as the Church’s public worship. Focusing on the latter, it can rightly be said that the liturgy is the spectacle offered to the world by those who adore Christ, the one Lord of the cosmos and of history, to whom they belong and not to the world. This is recalled by the expression “liturgical service,” which is truly appropriate — unlike the term “animation,” now in vogue — as if worship were not already animated by Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit. [That “animation” language is used more in Italian liturgical jargon than in English. For example, the old Willie Nelson imitator playing the bongo at Jesus Happy Lamb And Friend Faith Community in Rogerville is helping to “animate” the liturgy.]
After the persecutions, this became evident, because Christians did not burn incense to the Roman emperor but to Jesus, the Son of God. Catholic liturgy therefore has regal and imperial characteristics — Eastern liturgies teach us this [NB: Cupich doesn’t mention the Eastern “lung” of the Church] — because worship of God stands in opposition to any worship of the worldly rulers of the moment.
It is untrue that the Second Vatican Council desired a poor liturgy, since it asks that “rites should shine with noble simplicity” (Constitution on the Liturgy, 34), because they must speak of the majesty of God, who is noble beauty itself, and not of worldly banalities. The Church understood this from the beginning, both in East and West. Even Saint Francis prescribed that the most precious linens and vessels be used in worship. [More about St. Francis on liturgy HERE]
What then is the “participation” of the faithful, if not to be part of and to take part in the “spectacle” of a faith that affirms God and therefore challenges the world and its profane spectacles — which are indeed spectacular: think of mega-conferences and rock concerts. The liturgy expresses the Sacred, that is, the Presence of God; it is not a theatrical performance. The participation desired by the last Council must be full, conscious, active, and fruitful (ibid. 11 and 14) — that is, a “mystagogy,” an entry into the Mystery that takes place per preces et ritus [through prayers and rites], which, as Saint Thomas reminds us, must elevate us as much as possible to divine truth and beauty (quantum potes tantum aude); or, in the words of then-Father Robert F. Prevost: “Our mission is to introduce people to the nature of the mystery as an antidote to the spectacle. [And the stiletto finds the gap between the 4th and 5th ribs.] Consequently, evangelization in the modern world must find adequate means to reorient the public’s attention, shifting it from spectacle toward mystery” (May 11, 2012). The usus antiquior of the Roman rite performs this function; [NB] otherwise it could not have withstood the secularization of the Sacred that entered into the Roman liturgy, to the point of making people believe that the Council itself wanted it. This is the identity and mission of the Church.
Finally, Your Eminence, I invite you to consider that the liturgy, since ancient times, was solemn in order to convert many to the faith, and for this reason it must also have an apologetic value and not imitate the fashions of the world, as Saint Cyprian reminds us (applause, dances, etc.), up to the “deformations at the limit of the bearable” that entered the novus ordo, as Benedict XVI observed. This is the authenticity of the “sacred liturgy”; this is the ars celebrandi, as demonstrated by the offertory of the Mass, which is performed for the needs of worship and for the poor.
Therefore, Your Eminence, I ask you to engage in a synodal dialogue for the good of ecclesial unity!
In the Lord Jesus,
Fr. Nicola Bux
Thus, Bux has tossed the gauntlet of dialogue across Lake Michigan.
Loading ...
God reward Msgr. Nicola Bux, a wise, fearless and faithful priest. Would that there be legions of such priests.
I had a chuckle when coming across Cardinal Cupich’s longing for sobriety. Who could possibly characterize our epoch as being one of liturgical sobriety? Of theological sobriety? Most recently we see a document discouraging long venerated titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Where is the sobriety in that?
Could the current ecumenical enterprise be characterized as sober?
Who spiked the juice?
Checking the English translation of Sacrosanctum Consilium on the Vatican website, I do not find “shine” in 34 – or anywhere in that translation. There, it has rendered “Ritus nobili simplicitate fulgeant” as “The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity”. Interestingly, Lewis and Short give both the meanings of ‘fulgeo’ by transference as “to flash, glitter, gleam, glare, glisten, shine (syn. splendeo)” and tropologically as “to shine, glitter; be conspicuous, illustrious (rare and mostly poet.)” – rather as anything so muted as “be distinguished by”.
[Well done!]
I think Msgr Bux’s letter is very nice and clever, particularly asking for synodality regarding liturgy. But I don’t think Cupich is fooling anyone. He wants a liturgy that does not teach the faith so he can advocate cleverly for allowing those committing sexually immoral acts or living in sin to receive Holy Communion without repenting. As Aidan Nichols points out in his autobiography, this would require a completely new theology. One cannot change one iota of church dogma without the whole palace tumbling down.
It is a mistake that many make thinking that active participation of the laity requires that they physically “do” or “say” things. Simply being quiet in the presence of the Almighty and Living God giving Him our worship is active participation enough. In Scriptures, God even tells us: “Be still, and know that I am God.” After all, we are in the awesome presence of a Mystery, Sacrifice, and Sacrament at Holy Mass.
Fr. Bux, in the library, with a stack of scholarly tomes.
One has the impression of a scholarly professor dropping a new book on the desk of a cocky student, every week, for a year, and then handing him a personalized final exam.
If only the Cardinal had the humility and self awareness to feel embarrassed by this most righteous Fisking.
I must not be following the argument. Doesn’t the quote from Prevost support Cupich’s position more than Bux’s?
Pingback: VVEDNESDAY EARLY-MORNING EDITION - BIG PVLPIT
Monsignor Bux has written with truth, charity, and clarity, and I am grateful to you for posting this, Father.
The Novus Ordo Form of the Mass has often been unfairly attacked for being lax and disrespectful. As Monsignor points out, that was *never* the direction given by Vatican II. The Mass in the vernacular can and should be respectful, elegant, and devout, and that, I think, was the intention of Vatican II. And in many parishes – including mine – that is exactly how the Novus Ordo Mass is validly and licitly celebrated.
The comment on the Eastern Rite Divine Liturgies is very apt. Their valid, licit Divine Liturgies are prayed in the vernacular of the people. They stand for Holy Communion and have done so always, with great reverence. And the Divine Liturgies are extremely reverent and holy, just as any TLM or Novus Ordo Mass should be.
Cardinal Cupich’s understanding is terribly flawed. He seems to have his own agenda, which is at odds with the expectations and teaching of the Church.
I personally believe that if every Latin Rite Mass – whether it is TLM or Novus Ordo – were held to the highest standards of reverence, dignity, and valid, licit liturgy as has always been expected, there would be none of the in-fighting among us, because we would recognize the holiness of a proper liturgy between us, just as we do not attack the Divine Liturgies of the Eastern Rites.
I am not as well-catechized as many of your commenters, of course. But even the least-catechized among us should desire and be worthy of a beautiful, reverent Mass, and not a watered-down, silly, disrespectful liturgy that talks down to us.
Peace to all here.
Dear Father Z,
What an amazing response by Msgr. Bux! My guess is he doesn’t receive any “synodal dialogue” back from Card. Cupich.
Father Z,
I should add to my previous comment that Msgr. Bux is the type of liturgist that Card. Cupich would find to be a terrorist. No joke! ;-)
Pingback: There is an ancient paradox – sobria ebrietas – the sober intoxication of sacred worship. | Fr. Z's Blog
up to the “deformations at the limit of the bearable” that entered the novus ordo, as Benedict XVI observed.
Au contraire: many times they go well beyond the bearable. Clowns, fireworks inside church, silly-dance, surfboard mass, “musical” compositions that include literal screeches and yowling…we could go on and on. That they HAVE BEEN PERMITTED without punishment is not evidence that they are “bearable”, it is proof rather that the authorities – up to the very top – have no effective answer.
Pingback: THVRSDAY EARLY-MORNING EDITION - BIG PVLPIT