The New Cardinals – and the Implications for Liturgy

As you’ve seen all over the web this morning, Pope Francis has named 19 new cardinals, 16 of which are under 80 and thus electors in a conclave.

As the Irish Times writes:

Pope Francis continued with his non-European “imprint” on the Catholic Church when he named his first batch of cardinals today, with ten of the 16 elector cardinals coming from outside Europe.

Two of the new cardinals come from Africa, two from Asia, two from Central America, one from North America and three from Latin America.

The nominations are in line with the priorities Francis has set since the beginning of his pontificate. Commentators are noting that Francis has gone “to the peripheries,” naming cardinals from poverty-stricken lands such as Haiti and Burkina Faso. He has also named, above all, pastors. Archbishop Müller from the CDF is the only theologian. In a nod to collegiality (as Rocco notes), the head of the Synod of Bishops, Baldisseri, outranks Müller from the CDF.

And in a nice shout-out to Pope John XXIII, who convened the reformist Second Vatican Council, Francis named Pope John’s secretary Loris Capovilla, now 98, to the College of Cardinals.

*               *               *               *               *

Pray Tell readers will be interested in what the nominations mean for liturgical renewal.

My first reaction is that today’s nominations are a setback for the “Reform of the Reform” espoused by Pope Benedict. When you place the emphasis on the periphery, on poverty-stricken lands, on closeness to people (“the smell of the sheep”), and on the vast, vast majority of the Catholic Church outside Europe, it can only be bad news for the previous pope’s vision of liturgy.

For Benedict’s vision of liturgy was always rather Eurocentric, administratively centralized, elitist, clericalist, antiquarian, and inspired by the splendors of court ceremonial.

This vision could only succeed through ecclesial neo-colonialism, by which a timeless European ideal is upheld for all cultures, which for their part are ignored. This vision is appealing to those who seek in the liturgy an escape from today’s world. And there is plenty in today’s world that is confusing and troubling, so the Reform of the Reform will no doubt continue to hold appeal for a good many people for some time to come. But like any colonialism, it can’t last. With today’s cardinalatial namings, it got another reminder of that reality.

awr

Share:

49 comments

  1. I don’t disagree with your description of Pope Benedict XVIs liturgical vision, but would still like to try and distinguish between what that vision *at heart* was about, and what (unintended) subconscious, underlying forces were at work.

    1. @Teresa Berger – comment #1:
      Teresa,
      Thanks much for this comment. You’ve named the slight unease I felt as I hit “publish.” Benedict’s vision tended too much in the direction I named above, and I don’t mean to back away from my description of it. But there is another aspect to it – what you name as “at heart” – that had solid theological substance. What a shame that so much that could have been good was overshadowed by unintended, subconscious, underlying forces.
      awr

  2. In the long run, yes but in the short run, it will probably be more important who is the next archbishop of Chicago, and then who are Francis’picks for future cardinals in the USA. For example Wilton Gregory might get to be a cardinal without leaving Atlanta.

    The notion that there are cities that automatically get cardinals or that residential cardinals have to come from a place that has had a cardinal before seems to be on the way out.

  3. “The notion that there are cities that automatically get cardinals or that residential cardinals have to come from a place that has had a cardinal before seems to be on the way out.”

    Bingo, though there are several Italian sees that have that “right” embedded by treaty, IIRC.

    One could treat cardinals as a temporary office, held by the N most senior (or, more intriguingly, most junior – the Catholic version of ultimogeniture, we could call it the Dominican option in honor of the Dominican practice of giving the most junior the right to speak first) metropolitans of a given nation/region for a period of Y years, and allocate those by rough proportions. A decade ago, when I created a spreadsheet to estimate what nations should get N cardinals (out of a denominator of 137 at that time) by Catholic population, Brazil would have gotten 16 and Mexico 14; the US, Philippines, Italy would have gotten 7, et cet – Germany would only get 3.

    One could also have red hats assigned by lot.

    Or a mixture of both.

    * * *

    Apropos the theme of the post, though, the effect is most likely negative: that is, red hats will simply be used without regard to a liturgical agenda, whereas for a few years it seemed some red hats were given with such an agenda partly in mind.

  4. To get back to the topic of this post – implications for liturgy; here is an excellent bio/background of the named Filipino cardinal:

    http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/philippine-cardinal-architect-asian-pastoral-churches

    IMO, here are some implications you can draw:
    – FABC…..reinforces the regional conferences of bishops (which was one principle of SC)
    – Maryknoll Father James H. Kroeger, long time missioner and one of the most observant priests regarding the Asian churches, recently called the FABC, “the most influential body in the Asian Church since Vatican II.”

    “The FABC asserts that the pathway for the Church in Asia to truly discover its own identity is to continually engage in a threefold dialogue: with Asian peoples, especially the poor [integral development], Asian cultures [inculturation], and Asian religions [interfaith dialogue].

    This programmatic vision of a ‘triple dialogue’ has constructively guided the FABC for over three decades. In a word, one can validly assert that the FABC is truly ‘Asia’s continuing Vatican II.’”

    – Quevedo was the general secretary of FABC for years – he recently described it:

    “This dialogue … is at the heart of the vision of Church that FABC aspires to become. The Church in Asia strives to be inculturated in Asia, rooted in Asia, incarnate in Asia. At the same time the Church considers the task of inter-religious dialogue as a pastoral imperative in the common journey of Asian peoples to the Reign of God. Finally, in a continent of massive poverty the Church has to be in dialogue with the poor, so that as a Church of the Poor it can be a humble servant of the peoples of Asia and credibly and effectively proclaim the Gospel of Jesus, the Lord and Savior.”

  5. Of course, if one wished to spin things the opposite way for the sake of balance, one could also mention that on the same day that he announced the new cardinals, the Pope celebrated Mass ad orientem in the Sistine Chapel.

    Or one could simply hold off on trying to spin things in either direction.

  6. At his Mass in celebration of the Baptism of the Lord in the Sistine Chapel this morning, the Holy Father celebrated ‘ad orientem’ in a space where he has previously celebrated at a ‘versus populum’ altar. He also chose to use Pope Benedict’s crozier. I don’t think it is possible or necessary to offer any great commentary on these facts other than to suggest that Pope Francis’s liturgical formulations may be rather more complex and subtle than some people might suggest. Perhaps it would be wiser for us to let time and his own commentary unfold this particular mystery?

    1. @Msgr Andrew Wadsworth – comment #7:
      Oh, on the contrary, I don’t see why we need to wait for time and Francis’s own commentary to unfold. Unless if one doesn’t like the way it is rather clearly unfolding so far, I suppose. There’s always a risk in putting out commentary, as I did in my post, and I don’t claim to predict the future. But as for naming what is going on now, I stand by my post.

      All the indications are that Francis has little or no interest in the Reform of the Reform, and he has made numerous concrete decisions, as well as explicit statements, that indicate his positive dislike for that sort of thing. All this is well-documented.

      Francis is, above all, a pastor, not an ideologue. I suspect his style of celebrating today shows his desire to unify the Church and to affirm a small minority he doesn’t personally sympathize with but for whom he has still has respect and compassion. If so, that is an admirable quality of leadership.

      awr

      1. @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #8:
        I think you’ve captured my assessment of these appointments quite well, Anthony, both in the post and in the comments, especially when you wrote “Francis is, above all, a pastor, not an ideologue.”

        Francis appears most concerned that in the liturgy, the good news of God is made manifest to the community that gathers. He is not throwing out the old, willy-nilly, but rather his first question is “does it speak today, in this place?” rather than “What did Pope Gregory say about it?”

        Benedict, in contrast, appeared most concerned that in the liturgy, the good news of God must be protected and safeguarded, which required more supervision from Rome and had less room for local culture. “The culture of Rome is the culture of the church” might be an overstatement of Benedict’s approach, but not by much.

  7. Liturgically, the most significant action that the now Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster might achieve for the English speaking world would be to open real consultation on the new translation of the mass.
    It has been a matter of contention since Advent 2011 (and of real concern for many in the months before).
    Maybe now is the time to take the first few steps towards an honest reappraisal of the Vox Clara imposed text.

  8. If only rank and file parishes celebrate Mass, the Liturgy of the Hours and the various devotions Pope Francis has modeled at the Vatican, including his daily Mass, but especially today’s Mass with Baptisms, Pope Benedict’s vision for an actual reform in continuity would be realized in ordinary parishes even on the periphery and even outside the so-called Eurocentric paradigm. I hope the fabulous orientation of Pope Francis’ liturgical genius rooted in elegant, understated nobility isn’t off topic!

  9. Gerard O’Connell of Vatican Insider has a couple of interesting thoughts:

    (1) “The second hallmark [of the appointments] is a distinguishing aspect of this pontificate: attention to countries and peoples on the peripheries of the world that suffer from poverty, diseases, violence, natural disasters, and for whom life is a daily struggles. 5 of the new cardinals (including 4 electors) come from Haiti, the Antilles, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, the Philippines. Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the Americas, often hit by violence and natural disaster. Nicaragua is also among the poorest countries in the Americas, and struggling with political tensions. The Antilles are islands in the Caribbean, where so many live on the bare minimum. Burkina Faso is one of the poorest countries in Africa. The Ivory Coast has been plagued by civil war, internal strife and much poverty. The Philippines suffers from widespread poverty, natural disasters and the conflict in Mindanao. Both Haiti and the Antilles have never had a cardinal before.”

    It’s not new cardinals from new places, but new cardinals from those places which suffer most. (Italics above are VI, bold is mine to highlight what I think is more particularly important.)

    (2) After noting the four curial names (and before noting the non-elevation of other Vatican clerics about whom pre-announcement speculation swirled), O’Connell notes that the only two other Europeans named were both recent appointees to the Congregation for Bishops. Francis passed over other Italian sees that might have expected to see a new cardinal. Said O’Connell, “Pope Francis by-passed Turin and Venice, and gave a red hat instead to the archbishop of Perugia, Gualtiero Bassetti, vice president of the Italian bishop’s conference, a pastoral, meek and prayerful man, the qualities the Pope likes in a bishop.”

    Collegial & pastoral both describe what Francis seems to like in liturgy, too.

    1. @Peter Rehwaldt – comment #10:
      @Peter Rehwaldt – comment #14:

      After writing these two comments, I saw Nathan’s piece on Francis approving the use in worship of two more indigenous languages in Chiapas, Mexico. I think Nathan is spot-on, and it only reinforces my thoughts here about the implications for liturgy of these new cardinal choices by Francis.

  10. In terms of liturgy, it is very good news that Archbishop Mueller, who recently affirmed the liturgical reforms of Vatican II in no uncertain terms, is being made a cardinal.

    See http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/206/0/cdf-prefect-praises-liturgy-reform-and-vatican-ii and also my post here at Pray Tell: http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2013/12/10/muller-speaks-at-csl-anniversary-in-wurzburg/

    Others will argue with him on issues relating to divorce and remarriage for example, for which he has recently been in the spotlight, but concerning the liturgy, he has said that “It is precisely because the liturgy was renewed in spirit and rite that it has proved an effective remedy against a godless culture.”

    That’s about as good as it gets.

  11. Fr Allan seems to want his bread buttered on both sides. Andrea Grillo’s book, “Beyond PiusV”, (The Liturgucal Press, 2013) makes salutary reading at this point. Thanks to Barry Hudock for translating it. I also don’t think Fr Anthony needs to be too apologetic over his comments. Here in the Far East we have struggled with the documents on the liturgy that seem to reflect Benedict XVI’s liturgical vision – here I’d include such documents as “Redemptionis Sacramentum”.

  12. Disappointment: Not the Archbishop of Dublin, who is a great figure,and one who does not fit the “company man” image of most bishops.
    Mark MIller

  13. I thank Pope Francis for his decision to gather together into the Curia bishops from diverse cultures and places outside of Europe. Truly the new cardinals’ experiences of not only poverty and strife but also their new solutions to internal and external crises will benefit all Catholics.

    I also agree that Pope Benedict’s liturgical style was exclusionary and neo-colonial. Certainly, his Masses at the papal altar would have been no less spiritually edifying should he had worn Pope Francis’ contemporary vestment sets rather than replicas of baroque solemn Mass sets. I hope that Pope Francis, with mutual agreement, will incorporate the inculturated worship of Catholics from around the world.

    Fr. Anthony writes, “This vision is appealing to those who seek in the liturgy an escape from today’s world. And there is plenty in today’s world that is confusing and troubling, so the Reform of the Reform will no doubt continue to hold appeal for a good many people for some time to come.”

    I find this statement to be quite condescending. It is true that the EF and “reform of the reform” are not acceptable for liturgies celebrated by the Holy Father, to give one example. The liturgies of Pope Benedict certainly broadcasted a neo-colonialism; this is especially true when his vestments were set within a certain past time-period and not in keeping with today’s expectations. And yet, if I wish to attend Mass celebrated substantially or almost entirely in Latin, I often must go to a RotR Mass. Might I be able to encourage inculturation in general while also desiring to worship in a language I know well and from which I derive spiritual insight? A desire to wrestle with this weighty question fraught with ethical and charitable pitfalls does not necessarily suggest vanity or insecurity.

    1. @Jordan Zarembo – comment #19:

      I’m not convinced that all aspects of Benedict XVI’s style was “neo-colonial” as you (and Anthony) claim – but even so, there is a certain congruity in a European expression in Europe. I was/am not a fan of some of the styles and vestments that were trotted out in the waning years of his papacy, and am even less of a fan of Baroque everything in general – but I wouldn’t completely write it off. Renaissance/Baroque styles in a Renaissance/Baroque building do ‘fit’, in a certain sense – even if finding the correct balance is tricky.

      Part of the point of inculturation is speaking to the experience of people. Even if the Holy Father is an international symbol, so to speak, I cannot see much point in willy-nilly inculturated celebrations in Rome. It would seem to turn it into a curiosity rather than a worship experience springing from cultural experiences of deep significance that can be identified with. Papal travels are another matter.

    2. @Jordan Zarembo – comment #19:
      Jordan, when you visit London I will happily take you to any several different Novus Ordo Masses celebrated entirely or largely in Latin, none of which are “reform of the reform”; most have been in their current shape since before the papacy of John Paul II. And these are not celebrated at obscure churches but at places like Westminster Cathedral. I’m guessing you would find similar celebrations in Rome, perhaps even some celebrated by Pope Francis.

      Latin does not necessarily imply “reform of the reform” (maniples and other fancy vestments, priest facing the apse, no exchange of the peace, etc., etc.) In some cases Latin is there because it is a better fit for the music in use.

      If it’s possible to do this in London, it’s possible to do it elsewhere.

      1. @Jonathan Day – comment #22:
        I’ve heard that the use of latin is far less political in Great Britain and Ireland than in the US, and your comment confirms the impression.
        What I’d like to know, from you and others more in the know than I, is just what DOES Reform of the Reform ‘look like’ liturgically? Benedict potentially provides a model, and you’ve highlighted a few elements (maniples, fancy vestments, etc.), but I’m left with a vague feeling that the RoR is less organized and cohesive than the manner in which PrayTell and other blogs discuss it. There is a difference between RoR and traditionalist, yes? Or am I inventing categories to suit my own interests (full disclosure: I generally like Benedict’s writing [and some modeling] on the liturgy among others but find the VII haters very, very wrong about much)? But I definitely could be wrong with this. Then again maybe I’m just looking for Eurocentric, administratively centralized, elitist, clericalist, antiquarian, and inspired by the splendors of court ceremonial liturgy so I can escape “today’s world”. 🙂

  14. I am very pleased with the appointment of Archbish Vincent Nichols from Westminster (London). Many have commented regarding Francis’ similarity to the good Pope John XXIII. I have often wondered if Benedict’s reluctance to raise Nichols to the cardinalate reflects his similarity to Montini.

    1. @Andrew rex – comment #21:

      “I am very pleased with the appointment of Archbish Vincent Nichols from Westminster (London).”

      As am I with the appointment of Abp. Andrew Yeom Soo-jung of Seoul!

      To boot, the news gave this delightful front-page headline to the local media: “For a change, the politicians of opposing parties stop fighting and come together to congratulate Cardinal-designate Yeom.”

      🙂

    2. @Andrew rex – comment #21:
      Benedict did not raise Nichols to the cardinalate, because his predecessor in that see, Murphy-O’Connor, was till of voting age in a conclave, a long-standing protocol. Byl now, he has past voting age.

  15. Having looked at parts of that Mass, I would not read too much into the Pope using the altar facing East.

    The space around the altar had to take 66 parents carrying 33 babies and have the Font present, yet another altar would have cluttered the proceedings, especially since the anointing was shared among the concelebrants.

    1. @Martin Badenhorst OP – comment #24:
      Thank you – plus 1111

      Grow tired of the constant *scorekeeping* and *fixation* on the pope’s liturgy – as if that really has much to do with the church and ministry on the periphery.

      The constant *continuity* with prior popes means what? Continues the past 150 years of papal centralization; redefinition of what is important and what the church is. “The popes are not the church; the church is not the popes” – quote from Rev. Komonchak. It also reveals a Eurocentric mindset that impacts ecclesiology and liturgy – see comments above for examples #12 & #13.
      #12 is an example of a lack of experience of *church* in the southern hemisphere and the third world…..parishes for more than 50% of world catholics struggle to have a priest for mass, period; have to struggle to provide their own catholic and sacramental education/preparation; have to organize their parish and its missions that may be scattered over miles and miles. (so, to suggest Liturgy of the Hours, etc. reveals a thorough disconnect with catholic reality in most areas of the world)

      Rita – hope your positive remarks on Mueller hold true – will take a wait and see attitude. But, if Francis de-emphasizes the role and impact of the CDF, well, who knows?

      Plus++ 111 for #17 and thanks Peter for the link.

      1. @Bill deHaas – comment #25:
        On the contrary, Bill, looking at the pope’s liturgy is part of what we do at this blog.

        I read Martin a bit differently, as pointing out that the ad orientem of Pope Francis was for entirely practical reasons of space, and probably not a statement about the desirability of the practice nearly universal before Vatican II.

        And for all that – please, everyone – the original post is about the new cardinals, not the liturgy of Baptism of the Lord.

        awr

      2. @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #26:
        Sorry – Fr. Ruff – can partly agree that PrayTell looks at the liturgy – my reaction or point is how some then reach certain conclusions.

        Example of this – Allan states: “I’ve been to several of Pope Francis’ Masses in Rome and think that it is “Reform of the Reform.” Propers are chanted at the appropriate places, the people’s parts are in Latin even if the Pope chooses Italian for his, the congregation is encouraged to chant their parts, there is solemnity, choreography and care with actions and vestments. There are lay readers for Scripture and the Universal Prayers. Vestments are more “modern” or understated, but tasteful, elegant. I certainly don’t beleive for a moment that the ad orientem of the Baptism of the Lord in the Sistine Chapel was just because there wasn’t room for a free-standing altar. Pope Francis knows exactly the symbolism of his choice to celebrate Mass at the historic altar and what will be made of it by those who like this and he certainly knows what it means to the ROTR movement by maintaining the pre-Vatican II altar arrangement at all his Vatican Masses and even when he travelsWould suggest that observing a papal liturgy and then connecting that to regional or local liturgy is a very recent development.”

        (ho hum….ROTR is using chant or antiphons (really?); latin (really?); ad orientem (but his opinion is merely his usual *speculation* and nothing more); vestment styles; etc. Sorry, this type of casual opinion making creates confusion…note, no one mentions ecclesiology, anti-semitism, three year cycle of readings, lots of rubrics that no longer have meaning; etc.)

        I read Martin the exact same way. (and find Allan’s opinion to be way off to fit his ideology)

        So, back to my original comment #5 – suggests that this specific Filipino cardinal and, my guess, is other cardinals from the third world (Haiti, for example, have a student who is the Vincentian provincial there and he speaks highly of this cardinal, his pastoral style, etc.) will or have focused on enculturation, empowering local peoples in making liturgy and sacramental decisions, etc. And that this pattern reaffirms the original intent of SC to allow episcopal conferences to make liturgical decisiions.

  16. I find these threads difficult to respond to because I don’t know what definition of ROTR Fr Ruff is using. It is a fairly broad movement and I don’t think I view it how he does.

    For example, I would consider it a very ROTR thing just to sing the Mass (dialogues, readings, Credo, EP). That, and celebrating Mass more or less “by the books” with quality music and objects strike me as being more central to the movement than Baroque vestments and Mozart music.

    1. @Jack Wayne – comment #28:
      I agree.

      Knowing just what Anthony (and others here) thought RotR is, and the manner in which Benedict espoused it (are we talking his own liturgical practices, his writings on liturgy, both, neither?) would make a response easier and perhaps open up an avenue to see whether RotR IS inherently Eurocentric, administratively centralized, elitist, clericalist, antiquarian, and inspired by the splendors of court ceremonial liturgy in order to escape “today’s world” (whatever THAT is) or if its able to speak about liturgy outside historical Christendom, etc., etc.

      Seriously, no snark intended. I very curious about the definition of our terms.

      1. @Brendan McInerny – comment #29:
        What is the Reform of the Reform? As a movement with many proponents it has, of course, indistinct boundaries and varying emphases. But I don’t think that means that we can’t use the term because nobody knows what it is.

        Thomas Kocik, Reform of the Reform? is as good a summary as any of the general direction of RotR. At Amazon you can read enough excerpts to get a good sense of the drift of it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0898709466/qid%3D1101130200/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr_11_1

        One could also mention Alcuin Reed, or Joseph Ratzinger, but I didn’t find online any handy summary written by either of them. Perhaps PTB readers can offer other links and/or summaries of the RotR.

        Hope this helps.

        awr

      2. @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #30:
        Thanks, Fr. Anthony.
        I do think terms like these help, for the record, but not as much as we’d like if we don’t all know the meaning or sense the term carries (especially when used in a *ahem* emotionally charged context.

    2. @Jack Wayne – comment #28:
      On the other hand, the pastor of the Newman Community where I attended college promoted singing the psalm and a Mass setting at every liturgy, and this is wholly a post-conciliar reform. Reform1 if you will.

      There’s a certain smarminess about some reform2 promoters: telling the rest of us we’re not singing the Mass because we’re not doing it the old-fashioned way. My rejoinder is that they’re pretty darn late to the party to be complaining about the cake and decorations.

      I will be glad when we can get more focus on liturgical reform, period. Maybe reform of the reform of the reform. Sure seems to need it from my view.

      1. @Todd Flowerday – comment #34:

        Todd: There’s a certain smarminess about some reform2 promoters: telling the rest of us we’re not singing the Mass because we’re not doing it the old-fashioned way. My rejoinder is that they’re pretty darn late to the party to be complaining about the cake and decorations.

        I agree Todd that many proponents of the reform of the reform often speak and act in a haughty manner. For some in this camp, it is indeed their way or no way. This is counter to charity and the cultivation of a sense of human dignity. Yet, a heart can yearn for the Latin language and the heritage of chant and also maintain respect for the status quo of worship, at least in North America.

        I have not attended the EF for the better part of a year. Even so, there’s always the doubt. An egotistical internal narrative tempts, “Face up to it. Postmodern Catholic worship is ‘baby Catholicism’. You know you need the nourishment of ‘ancient worship’ (a term traditionalists sometimes use for the EF). Return to traditionalism and sing the asperges eagerly.”

        I know that if I never attend the EF or the RotR ever again, I will never hear the glorious clarion call of Easter Day, resurrexi. Indeed, I will probably never hear an introit again. But I will find fellow travelers to Emmaus who also struggle, albeit in different ways. The failure of traditionalism and reform of the reform is rooted in the conceit that some persons are more intelligent, and therefore deserving, of what is deemed better. Complaints are merely manifestations of the elitism metastasis.

        This is a roundabout well traveled; I travel it no more.

      2. @Todd Flowerday – comment #34:
        Since they have to be part of the party, look at the decorations, and eat the cake for the rest of their lives, then I think the ROTR crowd has as much a right to criticize and offer solutions as anyone else. They are just as much a part of the Church as you, some have probably contributed just as much as you, and they are just as deserving of having a say as you are.

  17. Thanks. I’ve generally gotten most of my sense for the ROTR from the New Liturgical Movement blog, which I consider to be the main hub of online ROTR activity. Generally speaking, I’ve never been to a ROTR Mass.

    I consider myself more of a liturgical traditionalist, I suppose. I think any traditional option for liturgy should evolve from the EF – that a mild reform of the 1962 Missal would be more helpful/useful than trying to re-reform the OF. It’s easier to take a historic building and update it for modern use while still preserving its integrity than it is to take a new one and try and make it look historic.

    The biggest change I would like to see happen in the OF is for sung Mass to become the norm since it has become almost completely extinct since Vatican II.

    1. @Jack Wayne – comment #31:

      The biggest change I would like to see happen in the OF is for sung Mass to become the norm since it has become almost completely extinct since Vatican II.

      I agree with this Reform provided that sung Mass includes a sung Canon,

      I would allow the readings not to be sung.

      And as long as sung means that the congregation gets to sing at least half the sung words that do not belong to priest or the readers.

      I like cantors and choirs and think they should have a role different from the congregation as long as they do not overshadow the congregation.

      Obviously Francis is unlikely himself to go in this direction, however I suspect he will move in a trajectory toward more married priests which would allow us to recruit more musically oriented priests such as in the Orthodox Church.

      1. @Jack Rakosky – comment #42:
        The primary determination of a sung Mass is what the faithful sing together. And dialogues between parts of the faithful.

        I think a sung Eucharistic Prayer is a nice advanced bit of liturgy, especially if the faith community has a solid sense of itself as important to the celebration of liturgy. Otherwise, why bother?

        More singing on Easter and Christmas, then Advent and Lent, and a coherent plan that puts the assembly at the forefront of the effort. Otherwise, a fair claim might be made about concertizing.

      2. @Jack Rakosky – comment #42:
        I can’t relate to the extinction of sung Masses since the 70’s. The initial reform introduced hymn singing to Catholics who were totally unfamiliar with this form of participation. Soon thereafter the people began singing the ordinary parts of the Mass. Some priests chanted the prospers, most didn’t. Some priests chanted the EP or at least the institution narrative, most didn’t. For the last 35 years every mass in every parish I’ve served involves the singing of the mass, rather than singing at mass. Don’t know what you’re talking about, Jack?

    2. @Jack Wayne – comment #31:
      I would categorize the reform of the reform movement as having to do with the Ordinary form of Mass not the Extraordinary form of mass. CMAA is the hub for the reform of the reform movement. Although, CMAA now runs the New Liturgical Movement site, it is still in my opinion, heavily EF Mass related. All the EF Mass goers I know would not consider themselves as reformers but Traditionalist. They only want to freely celebrate the EF mass, and are little concerned with what goes on in the OF. They certainly wouldn’t spend much energy or money on reforming it. On the other hand, the reform of the reform movement cares a great deal about how the OF Mass is celebrated, and spends a lot of energy and money on new liturgical books, music, and workshops for the OF. This may be a simplistic way of looking at it, and yes the lines do blur on some occasions since they share similar goals, but in my experience this seems like a good starting point for discussion.

  18. I think reform of the reform is not easily categorized and has its extremes as does the status quo of the past 50 years. I see it as going back to SC and reexamining that document and looking at the flaws and strengths of subsequent papal documents and then actual practice in various places. I would be of the school that is not either/or but both/and. The vernacular Mass, especially since the English revision, is certainly an institutional form of ROTR, but not really, because it simply goes back to the post-Vatican II template Mass in Latin and translates it literally with great care for the Latin theological and devotional qualities, its spirituality. Then the ROTF moves to using the actual Mass parts, especially the propers. It looks at reexamining sacred music and striving for more chant quality, no matter how simple or more complex.
    For me, actual participation is very important, first internal appropriation of the Mysteries and then external participation.
    One is comfortable with each form of the Mass, OF, EF and Anglican Use.
    The Anglican Use calendar which is basically the post-Vatican II calendar but with some “ROTR” elements is great. Apart from the specific Anglican patrimony, allowing in the appendix of the missal the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, EF Offertory Prayers, EF’s rubrics for the Roman Canon and the Last Gospel as well as clearly allowing for the option of ad orientem or toward the assembly are wonderful, not to mention the option of kneeling for Holy Communion without stigma, the same for standing.
    I’ve been to several of Pope Francis’ Masses in Rome and think that it is “Reform of the Reform.” Propers are chanted at the appropriate places, the people’s parts are in Latin even if the Pope chooses Italian for his, the congregation is encouraged to chant their parts, there is solemnity, choreography and care with actions and vestments. There are lay readers for Scripture and the Universal Prayers. Vestments are more “modern” or understated, but tasteful, elegant. I certainly don’t beleive for a moment that the ad orientem of the Baptism of the Lord in the Sistine Chapel was just because there wasn’t room for a free-standing altar. Pope Francis knows exactly the symbolism of his choice to celebrate Mass at the historic altar and what will be made of it by those who like this and he certainly knows what it means to the ROTR movement by maintaining the pre-Vatican II altar arrangement at all his Vatican Masses and even when he travels. If he had a disdain for these things, these things would have been gone as soon as the lace was gone, which was instantly if one recalls.

  19. In terms of the implications for the liturgy of the new cardinals, at least one has gone to the periphery of the Church’s liturgy and celebrated the EF and that is
    – Abp. Gualtiero Bassetti, Perugia-Città della Pieve (Italy). Mueller sees no reason to dismiss ad orientem for the OF but doesn’t make it an ideology. Don’t know about the others.

  20. ‘at least one has gone to the periphery of the Church’s liturgy and celebrated the EF” – really?

    What a sad statement – taking a dynamic and insightful phrase/word *periphery* from Francis and twisting it to fit your ideology. Again, nothing like taking things out of context to fit your mantra.

    Liturgy is about *mission* and Mission is *periphery*…..the liturgy is made for people not people for a liturgy (whether EF, TLM, or whatever). In fact, would suggest that the focus on the EF raises a question about just how much does the EF point to mission? Or, as Fr. Ruff stated earlier, is it an *escape* from dealing with realities and the periphery?

    Ad Orientem – does it really encourage full, active, and complete participation? Would suggest that most of the world and the past 40 years have resolved this issue. (nothing like citing exceptions or rare instances which tells us what?

    1. @Bill deHaas – comment #37:
      Bill,
      When Allan says the same stuff over and over, with arguments that often enough don’t hold up, may I suggest that you ignore him like the rest of us? I’m getting complaints about this ongoing cat fight between you two, and I don’t think it’s helpful or necessary for you to point out what’s lacking in his posts. You have good contributions to make elsewhere – go there and forget the little stuff.
      Pax,
      awr

  21. After reading that there has not been a cardinal from Perugia since the late 1800s, I was surprised to find out that Cardinal Pecci of Perugia became Pope Leo XIII.

    The 1878 conclave turned to the Cardinal from Perugia in the wake of Pius IX’s long pontificate opposing the political changes of the modern world. As Pope, Leo continued Pius in some ways, eg by remaining a “prisoner of the Vatican” and not in other ways, such as his social & biblical teaching. An interesting note to hear at this moment.

  22. It seems to me that “reform of the reform” as what the linguistic philosophers call a “family resemblance term”. Those are terms which have no one defining characteristic in common, but their uses aren’t totally ambiguous — no matter which use of the term you pick, it has some meaning in common with at least one othet thing called by the same term.

    Consider family resemblances amongst the Jones family. Jack’s bulbous nose is like Sue’s, Sue’s enormous gray eyes are like Mary’s, Mary’s frizzy hair is like Luke’s. You can always tell a Jones when you see one, but there is no one feature which they *all* have.

    The varied uses of RoTR are like that — there’s no one thing they all have in common that specifies them, but no matter which use you consider it is like some other use. In other words, the meanings are like links in a chain — they all somehow overlap with each other but there is no one link that links them all.

  23. So, here is what I see. Francis wants everybody. The list includes some “liberals” and some “conservatives.” People from east and west. There is no one ideology of liturgy on that list. Some of those people have celebrated the EF of the mass. Many haven’t and never would. None of them are ideologues- though they are of course influenced by different ideologies. I think Francis is tired of the liturgy wars. He has taken up some of what Pope Benedict did in liturgical reform (increased Latin, chant, Benedict’s altar arrangement, some Cardinal Deacons, etc) and has left other aspects of it by the way (the elaborate and the baroque). He respects the idea of continuity with the past (has said so in several direct ways regarding the interpretation of Vatican II), but clearly sees the emphasis to be on a turn to the future. Francis is no one’s man. He wants to move past the kinds of ideologies that would separate the readers of this blog from the readers of Father Z (for instance).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *