Professor Ratzinger (also known as Pope Benedict XVI) is meeting with his former students, his Schülerkreis, this Friday to Sunday in Castel Gandolfo. He meets yearly with his former students for a sort of intellectual symposium. This year’s topic: the interpretation of Vatican II, especially the liturgy constitution, with respect to continuity and rupture.
Share on:
#1 by Chase Becker on August 25, 2010 - 4:52 pm
Quote
I simply cannot buy the “hermeneutic of rupture” theory. In many ways, Trent could be considered more of a rupture in liturgical tradition than Vatican II!
#2 by Fr. Thomas Kocik on September 9, 2010 - 3:51 pm
Quote
While Trent standardized the liturgy in an unprecedented way, it did not radically recast the Roman Rite. The work of Bugnini’s Consilium did.
#3 by Adam Mindenki on August 25, 2010 - 5:07 pm
Quote
This is just another one of Professor Ratzinger’s “straw men” that he set up so he could easily knock it down.
And he is NOT a liturgist. He is a sentimentalist.
#4 by Jeffrey Herbert on August 26, 2010 - 6:45 am
Quote
We can be most thankful that he is not a “liturgist” as defined by most. As for a “sentimentalist”, what exactly is that? You seem to have an odd view of the current Pope… when he was head of the CDW he was a “hard line doctrinal fascist” and an “authoritarian mastermind behind the inner workings of the Vatican”, and now that he is Pope he is a “sentimentalist”?
There are indeed many “sentimentalists” in the Church today…most of them long for the heady days that followed the Council when the Missal was an open book and it was believed that anything was possible because nothing was questioned any longer.
#5 by Adam Zhou on August 28, 2010 - 12:45 pm
Quote
Please give credit where it is due. Marini the Elder concedes that Pope Benedict is an “expert in the liturgy”.
“In lui [Benedict XVI] ho potuto conoscere, con mia viva soddisfazione, non solo un Professore ma un Papa esperto in liturgia.”
#6 by Matthew Bellisario on August 25, 2010 - 5:50 pm
Quote
There is no question about the rupture that has taken place in liturgical theology over the past 40 or so years. I think Pope Benedict is quite a scholar and does not put up straw men to knockdown. In fact he embraced the liturgical changes of VCII, to only honestly admit later that it did not turn out quite like it was sold. If anyone would like to debate this issue on liturgical theology in a formal setting, by all means let me know.
May God bless and keep you.
Matthew
#7 by J. Thomas on August 25, 2010 - 6:45 pm
Quote
Sigh…role eyes. When is PrayTell going to get animated emoticons? Like the little green one that barfs.
Continuity is what the Paul VI, the consilium, and bishops did with SC after writing it and disseminating it through episocpal conferences, ICEL, FDLC, NPM and the like and how it was received by the same (just to mention the US) . To have the GIRM speak of the continuity of reform and then a minority insist on discontinuity with tradition in a multitude of directions is just a tired topic – Especially since those who claim liturgical continuity in reformed rites are those categorized as supporting a rupture event at the Council?! A special category of “extaordinary rites” was created for the supposed continuity camp. Can we move on, please? Sigh, role eyes.
#8 by John Drake on August 25, 2010 - 7:55 pm
Quote
I think the verb is “roll”.
#9 by J Thomas on August 25, 2010 - 9:26 pm
Quote
Why yes it is. Or is it a coded reference to the editing of the missal?
#10 by Matthew Bellisario on August 25, 2010 - 9:41 pm
Quote
The GIRM speaks of continuity in ambiguous terminology, but the practical reality is that continuity was never practiced. The original GIRM had to be reworded precisely because it was at odds with the traditional understanding of the liturgy. Words and practice and two different realties. Rolling your eyes does not make your argument more compelling. Again, if you want to debate the difference in liturgical theology of the New Mass and that of every other Liturgy in the Church, then by all means, let me know. I can arrange a formal written debate on the matter and we will see who’s argument is more convincing.
#11 by Todd Flowerday on August 25, 2010 - 11:08 pm
Quote
Matthew, continuity was hardly a major virtue of SC. The very first section of the constitution lays down the priorities: vigor in the apostolic and spiritual life of Christians, evangelization, Christian unity, and adaptation to modern needs.
Continuity, in some respects, is contraindicated in the spiritual life. Are those called by Christ not at times urged to leave the past behind and reform? Some aspects of pre-conciliar liturgy demanded reform to better align with the core effort of the Church.
#12 by Jack Wayne on August 26, 2010 - 8:32 am
Quote
I think you’re possibly taking calls for “continuity” to mean “no change at all.” I think a lot of people recognize that the EF needed reform to better serve the Church, but that the reform didn’t need to break with continuity to the extent that the OF ultimately did. Reform in and of itself doesn’t exclude continuity.
#13 by Karl Liam Saur on August 26, 2010 - 8:56 am
Quote
But, by the same token, I believe proponents of continuity need to validate that it was the rationalizing impluses of Trent that led to an artificial (albeit helpful in some respects) freezing of development-in-continuity.
This not only meant that, when the thaw finally occurred, there would be leakage, as it were, but also it meant (to mix metaphors here) that pressures would build up that needed venting and experimentation to be proved out.
The more thoughtful critics of the discontinuities experienced after Vatican II have rightly pointed to Trent as the foundation of the problem. Of course, Trent was fighting a different war, and we are always a war behind….
#14 by Jeffrey Herbert on August 26, 2010 - 6:43 am
Quote
The discussions that Pope benedict has had with his students for the past several years have been something of an indicator of priorities and even actions of the Holy See:
“In 2008 the circle of former students worked on ecumenism” (Anglicans-SSPX)
“In 2009 the topic was missions” (The New Evangelization)
And this year- “the interpretation of Vatican II, especially the liturgy constitution, with respect to continuity and rupture”. Might there be a pattern here anyone?
#15 by C H Edwards on August 26, 2010 - 8:32 am
Quote
*And this year- “the interpretation of Vatican II, especially the liturgy constitution, with respect to continuity and rupture”. Might there be a pattern here anyone?*
Let us hope so. Only with a faithful (re)interpretation of the Council can its long-delayed implementation occur. And then that “new springtime” will finally be upon us.
#16 by Jack Wayne on August 26, 2010 - 9:20 am
Quote
Karl,
I think you have a good point. It was probably a bad thing that almost no notable reform happened until the mid 20th Century and that needs to be recognized.
However, I sort of get the impression from some people that most everything that was reformed after Vatican II was perfectly justified and an improvement on what came before (right down to seemingly arbitrary changes, like the Confiteor) and that it simply needs to go even further for it to truly work. I think that mentality hurts liturgical reform just as much (if not more) than the “frozen in time” approach.
IMO, I think the liturgical reform we got was very much a product of the time it occurred in, where people thought the past had little positive to teach us (indeed, you almost get the impression that they held up the old missal as an example of “what not to do”). I think that the liturgical renewal of the 1960′s can almost be compared to the Urban Renewal so popular at the time (when you could suggest that Paris be demolished and replaced by high-rises and be taken seriously). The “reform2″ movement strikes me as being more like the New Urbanism that tends to be more in vogue amongst urban planners today.
#17 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on August 26, 2010 - 9:36 am
Quote
I agree with Jack – the reform was a product of its time and it isn’t perfect. The problem today is that everything is so polarized, and the ‘reform2′ movement (I mean this respectfully) hasn’t yet come into its own or matured. Too much of it is uninformed and emotionally unhinged. The unappealing aspects of ‘reform2′ make some people (including myself) all the more defensive about the 1960s reform. I sometimes find myself being driven to liberal positions that I’m not sure I really believe, all from the heat of the argument. I sometimes wonder whether the most fruitful way forward wouldn’t be a matured ‘reform2′ movement – but that seems pretty far off on the horizon at this point.
awr
#18 by Bill deHaas on August 26, 2010 - 10:22 am
Quote
Sorry, Fr. Anthony, but that mature movement occurred and was approved in 1998 but a coup happened to use Rita’s image.
#19 by Jeffrey Herbert on August 26, 2010 - 10:59 am
Quote
Fr. Ruff;
I agree with you here, however being somewhat “in the trenches” on some of these issues, surely you understand the kind of resistance that even the most modest of reforms comes up against. It is enough to drive even the most rational person to do quite irrational things.
For instance, why will those of a more “progressive” mindset (and I mean this simply as a description, not as a “label” or anything negative) not admit that some of the practices and liturgical behavior that has developed since the council have nothing to do with anything that was considered at the council, but were simply changes that ocurred in the wake of the percieved loosening of rubrics and which were made possible by an unfamiliarity with the new liturgical form. Instead, they cite such phantoms as the “Spirit of Vatican II” or the “sensuum fidelium” as justification without ever identifying what this “Spirit” is or without having any evidence that shows that the “fidelium” have expressed any such “sensuum”, and why it would matter even if they did.
There are those who would like to see a Church that truly embodies the ideas AND the actual reforms set forth in that council. For such people to have to fight on every point, even those that are so obviously supported by the liturgical documents, legislation and even outright direct proclamation of the Holy See (SP for instance…) can make them act irrationally, but I would say not without justification.
#20 by Todd Flowerday on August 26, 2010 - 11:12 am
Quote
Jeffrey, speaking from that “mindset,” I think you’ll have to concede I’ve often mentioned that post-conciliar reforms were handled very poorly in some places. In my own home parish, one week there was an altar rail, and the next week, nothing. No explanation. Just live with it. I was twelve years old, and I was just curious.
I think we progressives are quite critical of many aspects of the post-conciliar reform. Perhaps we are more guarded in that criticism when other ideologies are present. Perhaps we communicate this poorly. Or perhaps some just fail to listen and hear it.
I also think that many of us have been quite clear in identifying aspects of “Spirit” (I would prefer “themes”) of Vatican II. SC 1 lists four explicitly, and I think it’s authentic to ask how and if reform (including reform2) addresses the issues of evangelization, Christian unity, and so on.
More often, but certainly not always, I see more sentimentalism and a certain anti-intellectual streak in those who obstruct, or who appear to obstruct the implementation of Vatican II. The latter is really curious, given that we have a theologian in the Chair of Peter now. On another thread here someone commented about his own distrust of academics. But I assume that given his professed loyalty to the pope, that distrust doesn’t extend to scholars with whom he agrees.
#21 by Jack Wayne on August 26, 2010 - 12:40 pm
Quote
That’s an insightful post. I wonder if sometimes progressive and traditional types in the Church talk past each other sometimes. I consider myself to be very sympathetic to the reform2 and Latin Mass movements within the Church, and view the situation as actually being somewhat opposite of what you write. I was drawn more to the “traditional” movements because they struck me as being the ones that were more intellectually engaging and keen on addressing those concerns you mentioned while the more progressive movements seemed to me to much more in the game of sentimentalism and retaining a status quo that doesn’t seem to be working.
#22 by Jeffrey Herbert on August 27, 2010 - 8:30 am
Quote
Todd;
My distrust is of “academics”, not those who are learned or scholars. There is a difference.
Strangely enough, and I’m sure you know this well, many of those identified as “conservative” or “obstructionists” are in fact very much hoping for the implementation of at least the liturgical proscriptions of the council. That’s what I was trying to get at in my above comment… every time it is pointed out that V2 maintains Latin as the liturgical language with only a few exceptions…every time it is pointed out that chant is to be given “pride of place”, which we all know very well means that it is to be the predominate musical expression of the liturgy…. every time it is pointed out that “ad orientem” posture for the priest is assumed in the missal for most of the liturgy and is only indicated to the contrary in a select few places during the liturgy… every time it is pointed out, correctly, that this is what the council intended for the liturgy, someone trots out the “Spirit of Vatican II” or the “sensuum fidelium” to justify why it should be otherwise. That’s all..
#23 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on August 27, 2010 - 8:35 am
Quote
Come on, Jeffrey, you’ve been part of these discussions long enough to know that SC is more complicated than your portrayal. You can’t just quote your favorite parts about Latin and ignore the other parts. SC explicitly provides the legal framework for church authorities to decide for greater use of the vernacular. On eastward orientation of the priest, the Council says nothing for or against it. Are you denying to the Pope and Bishops the authority to allow ad populum, when SC says nothing about it?
awr
#24 by John Finn on August 28, 2010 - 12:58 pm
Quote
If Pope Benedict is to be counted among the Reform 2 movers and shakers I can’t imagine how much more it would need to mature. There are many reformed minded thinkers: Agostino Marchetto, Alcuin Reed, Peter Elliott, Aidan Nichols, Laszlo Dobszay, Guido Marini, and Martin Mosebach.
SC is indeed complicated in some places but in reference to the place of Latin and chant appears quite clear. Without these clear statements it would never have been approved by the Fathers. We also know what Pope Paul VI did with Iubilate Deo and what the 1985 Synod of Bishops, convened to interpret V2, said about active participation. The call for active participation is sometimes invoked to obscure SC’s call for the retention of Latin but the bishops point out that SC’s “active participation … does not consist only in external activity, but above all in interior and spiritual participation”.
#25 by John Finn on August 28, 2010 - 4:22 pm
Quote
I think my post #22 treats Latin & chant equally-my focus is not only on chant. Maybe we do agree on part of this but my point remains that that the text of the documents is what matters not the diary entries, interviews with journalists or private musings of individual participants. It was the text, together with the footnotes, that were vetted by the Fathers in council and approved by them. The late Cardinal Dulles made this point in America and I find it convincing. I know there are those who disagree but the 1985 Synod concurs with Dulles.
If we agree that the text of V2′s SC puts Gregorian chant & polyphony in a superior position to other musical forms we can see where the unifying theme of SC & what followed (MS). It appears that the call by the Fathers to support chant & polyphony over hymn singing was more than a push by the drafting committee because the Fathers clearly vetted & voted on SC’s statements re. chant and we can see this supported by
Musicam sacram in 1967. Musicam sacram, implementing and explaining SC clearly puts chant and polyphony in 1st place.
#26 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on August 28, 2010 - 1:05 pm
Quote
JF, Have you read any studies of how the constitution got drafted? Latin language was indeed hotly contested. But the Fathers did NOT call for Latin chant as a condition for approving the constitution. Rather, the strong statements on Gregorian Chant are there because of some musicians on the drafting committee. It wasn’t much of an issue in the council discussions. It’s YOUR issue, John.
awr
#27 by John Finn on August 28, 2010 - 2:08 pm
Quote
Fr. Ruff,
Blessed John XXIII gave many reasons for retaining Latin that had little to do with music. Considering the frequent calls to respect this part of SC after the promulgation of the new missal from Pope Paul VI to our own day, I fail to see how anyone could consider it to be an issue important to any single believer. J. Peter Nixon points out that most of the Fathers at V2 took a middle-of-the-road position between those Fathers who wanted no vernacular & others who wanted a great deal of the vernacular (Commonweal blog). He explains the well known fact that the Consilium in 1964 specifically excluded the vernacular canon. The canon, of course is not a place where musicians are prominent. It took three more years for the pope & the consilium to retract their 1964 prohibition on the vernacular canon. The fact that the canon was the last area to be approved in the vernacular suggests that the concerns of musicians may not have been the driving force there. Studies of how the constitution got drafted do not have the importance that we see in the actual text and the authoritative interpretation of the actual text (Avery Dulles). “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites”.
#28 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on August 28, 2010 - 2:20 pm
Quote
JF, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? My point was that the Council fathers were concerned about *Latin*, but not about Latin *chant*, as you had claimed. Now everything you cite is about Latin, but not about chant. That supports my claim, doesn’t it?
awr
#29 by F C Bauerschmidt on August 26, 2010 - 12:51 pm
Quote
It has come up in the comments on several posts, so I’m wondering: what qualifies one as a “liturgist”? The Pope has advanced degrees in theology, has celebrated the liturgy for years, and has presumably done fairly extensive reading and reflection on the topic. What would need to be added to make him a “liturgist”? would it be attending meetings of professional liturgists? Who it be publishing a scholarly monograph on some aspect of the history or theology of the liturgy?
I am not asking this as an oblique way of saying, “how dare you not consider the Holy Father a liturgist!” I am genuinely curious, in part because I am a theologian who has little formal training in liturgy (one course with Aidan Kavanagh), belonged for a few years to an association with “liturgy” in its name, have published a few pieces on the boarderline between liturgy and sacramental theology, and once gave a plenary address at a liturgy conference. Plus I serve on the liturgy committee in my parish. Do I qualify? Should I want to qualify?
#30 by Fr. Allan J. McDonald on August 26, 2010 - 1:31 pm
Quote
FC, of course you qualify as a liturgist. In some quarters, maybe even here, it’s only if you agree with Pope Benedict’s liturgical mindset that you’re not.
#31 by Fr. Jan Michael Joncas on August 26, 2010 - 3:59 pm
Quote
My former teacher, Ralph Keifer, once quipped that in the United States in the 1970s it seemed that a liturgist was any ex-seminarian with a guitar and a mimeograph machine
#32 by Fr. Jan Michael Joncas on August 26, 2010 - 4:18 pm
Quote
I would distinguish between the liturgical-assembly-at-worship (whose members animated by the Holy Spirit are conjoined to the action of the Liturgist, Christ, in ordered roles, texts, and ceremonies, and thus may be considered “liturgists”), pastoral liturgists (who assist worshipping communities to respond ever more deeply as liturgical-assemblies-at-worship through formation, coordination of ministries, development of the visual environment, choice and performance of music, mystagogy, etc.) and academic liturgists (who explore worship from theological/religious studies, historical, and/or social science perspectives). In a way this distinction may reflect the three “audiences” that David Tracy sees theologians addressing: the liturgical-assembly-at-worship addresses the world (more accurately is addressed by God and addresses God in a way that embodies humanity-transformed/transforming-by-grace), pastoral liturgists address the church, and academic liturgists address the academy. I try to live my life as all three, promoting enriching conversations among all three groups, with what effect and success only God knows. I believe that Pope Benedict XVI is a liturgist in the first 2 senses and for the 3rd primarily a theologian with interest in liturgy with some acquaintance with worship history and less with ritual studies.
#33 by Mary Ann Carr on August 26, 2010 - 11:27 pm
Quote
On continuity and rupture, I find myself considering things from an interesting angle. Raised entirely in OF parishes, having been to the EF 5-10 times, I am now employed by the FSSP.
The job offer came out of the blue, I needed it to put food on the table and justify two music degrees and nine years of music school. So I came with an open mind, and because my husband and liturgical mentor both frankly reminded me, ‘in this diocese, no one else wants your skill set’.
One of the things that struck me in the first weeks was the obvious rupture. 18 months later, I still can’t help but think that where we came from and where we are now are in two strikingly different areas. Ars celebrandi aside, the prayers of the EF strike me as more explicit and having greater depth. It seems to speak of a more vigorous Catholicism.
I understand simplifying repetitions, encouraged outward participation in
terms of responses and the Ordinary. When it comes to the prayers themselves, I cannot help but honestly ask, ‘why’d they ditch this’ in so many instances.
If we acknowledge that SC hasn’t been fulfilled (and hello, Musicam Sacram?), then I think that we must admit that experiencing (joyfully praying) the older form can help us reevaluate in our current era what needed and needs change… and what, and how, things can be restored.
But if self-proclaimed traddies or progressives don’t step out of their liturgical comfort zones, we can’t realize what I hope is…
#34 by Mary Ann Carr on August 26, 2010 - 11:29 pm
Quote
Still a common goal: richly Catholic, vibrant and sustainable Sacred Liturgy, fitting for God and as alluring to souls as He is.
#35 by Jack Wayne on August 27, 2010 - 1:27 am
Quote
You said:
“I understand simplifying repetitions, encouraged outward participation in
terms of responses and the Ordinary. When it comes to the prayers themselves, I cannot help but honestly ask, ‘why’d they ditch this’ in so many instances.”
This statement captures my exact feelings too (and I’ve encountered many who feel the same way), and I think it’s a question that more and more people are going to ask as time goes on. I’m sure there were reasons for all the text and rubric changes in the missal, but one has to wonder how good those reasons must have been if they aren’t the least bit self-evident. It’s obvious why some changes were ultimately positive (like allowing vernacular, encouraging the congregation to sing and respond, and expanding the lectionary – this is all stuff the average pew sitter mentions when Vatican II comes up), but what’s the obvious advantage of cutting the saints’ names out of the Confiteor, ditching the triple “Domine non sum dignus,” completely ditching the offertory prayers and others, or cutting out some of the priest/people dialogues? Why’d they ditch the Sundays after Pentecost and Epiphany? I’m sure there are reasons, but they don’t seem very obvious (or all that advantageous) unless you go out of your way to find them and then try to understand them.
#36 by Jeffrey Herbert on August 27, 2010 - 8:45 am
Quote
Mary Ann;
This has been my experience as well (Music Director in an OF Parish, but serving the Schola of the nearby EF Parish). One cannot help but feel that there are two different “Catholicisms” here, and the distinction is more than just a matter of taste or preference. Your use of the term “restored” is right on the mark.
Your final plea is surely most heartfelt, but I would have to say that many of those “Traddies” and Progressives don’t see their goals as having much in common. There would have to be specific agreement on what those terms “Catholic” , “Sacred”, and “Fitting for God” mean before there could be any kind of common goal or agreement, and the differences are what define their associations as “Traditional” or “Progressive”. Coexistence and cooperation is impossible when the other side is praying fervently for your destruction, or at the very least your complete and total suppression. And that happens on both sides of the divide…
#37 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on August 27, 2010 - 8:12 am
Quote
Jack, why do you expect such weighty changes to be self-evident and require no study?
Just to take up one point:
The offertory prayers were shortened for good reason. It was to be made clearer that the offering of the sacrifice is memorialized (i.e., made present) in the Eucharistic Prayer, not yet at this point. In the course of history, especially in the second millennium, the offertory prayers started increasingly to anticipate and duplicate content which properly belongs to the Eucharistic Prayer.
In this case as in all the cases mentioned, the reason for the change is by no means self-evident, and one shouldn’t expect it to be.
awr
#38 by Jack Wayne on August 27, 2010 - 8:57 am
Quote
I expect it because they *are* weighty changes. The liturgy is changed for the good of the faithful, so things really shouldn’t be tinkered with unless the reason is exceptionally good and the pre-changed form was really really lacking.
I have read the explanation given for the offertory prayer change (it’s just not compelling to me, I suppose – not enough to make the use of the old prayers completely forbidden in the new missal anyway). The explanations I’ve seen for the other items I’ve listed tend to have to do with getting rid of “repetitions” and “accretions,” but they seemed to handle it in an almost obsessively literal way. I can’t help but look at a lot of the changes as being more in the spirit of the 60′s (the 50′s/early 60′s really, not the later 60′s) than anything else, and perhaps now that it isn’t the 60′s anymore, the Church needs to reevaluate how extreme the editing was and possibly restore some of what was lost.
#39 by John Finn on August 28, 2010 - 1:22 pm
Quote
The consilium abolished the old offertory prayers and tried to suppress the “Orate fratres” prayer too but the Holy Spirit through the 1967 Synod of Bishops demanded that they were retained. The continuity issue arises because the new offertory prayers replacing the older ones were never part of the tradition of the Church before. The older offertory prayers seem to be the result of organic development in the west fusing the Roman, Mozarabic, & Gallican tradition.
#40 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on August 28, 2010 - 1:29 pm
Quote
Well of course a Synod of Bishops can’t “demand” anything because it is purely advisory to the Pope. So the 1967 vote on the new Order of Mass wasn’t binding on anyone since the Pope alone decides such things. Or are you arguing for greater collegiality and a more synodal Catholic Church with less centralism?
awr
#41 by John Finn on August 28, 2010 - 1:37 pm
Quote
I am pointing out that the earlier process was far more abrupt than today’s process is. Additionally, calls for greater collegiality seem selective.
#42 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on August 28, 2010 - 1:47 pm
Quote
So are you saying that the heavy-handedness was good in the 1960s and also good now, or are you saying that it was bad in both cases?
Or are you selective about it?
Tell us your position.
awr
#43 by John Finn on August 28, 2010 - 2:13 pm
Quote
I agree with Pope Benedict that the pope is the servant of tradition not its master. I also find the concerns articulated here about the Holy See doing too much to regulate the liturgy and its translations to be selective unless they also disapprove of the process that gave us the earlier modern reforms of the Roman rite from Pius XII to our own day. I find the 1967-69 reform troubling because it was so juridical-no legitimate centuries old tradition can be justly suppressed in the Church (300 year rule-SP concurs I think). The present-day case is less extreme both in what it attempts to address and in its goal which is limited to translation not form.
#44 by Karl Liam Saur on August 28, 2010 - 4:13 pm
Quote
Actually, SP does not validate the idea that any liturgical tradition is beyond the juridical and legislative power of the pope. Some have tried to spin it that way, but Rome hasn’t enshrined that idea in any kind of binding law.
UPDATE: John, the 200 year “rule” refers to St Pius V’s exemption for liturgical rites of that vintage from being suppressed when he issued his Missal. But it’s merely a rule related to the adoption of that Missal; it does not bind his predecessors to mirror it in subsequent legislation. If anything, his legislation established the principle that the Pope can abrogate if he so chooses even immemorial and centenary liturgical rites, uses and customs. For example, even SP concedes by a telling silence that the pre-1955 Holy Week rites are abrogated except by indult; in terms of addressing the issue of abrogation of the 1962 Missal, SP was effectively engaging in a bit of legal fiction for form’s sake. It’s a fiction that may prove to be seed for some bitter fruit down the line.
#45 by John Finn on August 28, 2010 - 4:28 pm
Quote
Interesting, what about the 200 (or is it 300) year rule?
#46 by Brian MacMichael on August 27, 2010 - 9:02 am
Quote
Without denying that there are some very fundamental differences across this spectrum when it comes to emphases and perhaps even theological starting points, I firmly believe from experience that this (talking past each other) happens all the time. It is unfortunate that the most prominent (i.e. outspoken and with a public following) advocates for the “progressive” or “traditional” causes appear to be so unbending and out-of-touch. What we lack – and desperately need – are balanced voices. Again, though disconnects remain, I’ve been amazed at how civilized and productive some simple, levelheaded conversations with the various “camps” can be.
#47 by Tom Poelker on August 28, 2010 - 5:09 pm
Quote
All in this discussion, from the Curia to the commenters above, seem to assume that unity requires uniformity.
It is my opinion that much of the conflict over the liturgy is due to the practice of parishes being based on geography and having to settle on a single liturgical approach for all members. Parishes are not expected to define themselves by their liturgical approach but to provide a sort of lowest common denominator liturgy, subject to regular obiter dicta from new pastors or bishops who impose their own tastes.
Instead of being satisfied with EF options, its proponents seem to feel compelled to impose its particular versions of “Catholic” and “sacred” and “fitting for worship” on all others. Similarly, the “progressives” in the 60s and 70s [including some mea culpa here] often over rode the pieties and devotions of those not prepared for full, conscious, and active participation.
All of the internal parish struggles take place within the limitation that Catholics are not allowed to “vote with their feet” and every division is recreated in every parish.
#48 by John Finn on August 28, 2010 - 5:33 pm
Quote
Catholics cannot always vote with their feet. Your observation does not consider the concept of rite, the plight of rural parishioners, the aged or infirm, and religious who must rely on the celebrants chosen by their “leadership team” (superiors).
#49 by Tom Poelker on August 28, 2010 - 5:27 pm
Quote
We are suffering the collapse of the liturgical initiatives of Vatican II caused by modifying the structure without providing for adequate maintenance. The directions of SC regarding education of the clergy and restructuring the seminary curriculum were never carried out. Popular publications held sway, right and left.
As a young adult in the 60s and 70s, I read widely on liturgy. Eventually, I returned to get a Master’s degree in Liturgical Ministry. I have moved a lot and served on parish liturgy groups in multiple parishes
My greatest frustration has been that people on those committees did not seem to care what the GIRM or other documents from SC on down actually said, but wanted to do what they saw or heard in another parish or at some conference or in some magazine. A desire to be creative seemed to often over rule any effort to understand the structures and means of liturgy.
The “traditionalists” seemed to have they same desires in reverse. Again, no interest in understanding what was being taught about the liturgy by the bishops and the experts respected by the bishops. They just wanted the types of worship most appealing to themselves to be imposed on all.
I see this same unfortunate pattern in the present Pope. He knows what he likes and is set on imposing it in the name of uniformity, unable to see unity without uniformity.
#50 by Fr. Allan J. McDonald on August 28, 2010 - 6:24 pm
Quote
Tom, The Holy Father certainly allows for more variety of celebrations of the Mass for a greater number of people. I’ve seen him celebrate Mass in Africa with an African flair, and use multiple languages during the Mass during his travels. He’s allowed for two forms of the one Roman Rite for anyone who earnestly desires it. I now celebrate it regularly which in fact has added a great diversity to my liturgical life. There are always extremes in the Church, fanaticism on either end of the spectrum. That’s human nature. There’s great unity in the diversity we experience especially now with the somewhat unprecedented two forms of the one Mass. There have always been and will always be diversity in spirituality. There’s room for that.