Liturgy Lines: ‘Orthodox’ Catholics

by Elizabeth Harrinton. This article originally appeared atLiturgy Brisbane on June 29th, 2017.

I was saddened by a couple of recent conversations with Catholics who call themselves ‘orthodox.’ By ‘orthodox’ they appear to mean that they follow the straight and true path of exemplary Catholicism.

It seems to me that proponents of the new ‘orthodoxy’ are frequently selective. They will insist on a particular way of purifying the communion vessels, or lament the use of a carafe or glass chalice, but ignore the requirement of giving the people Holy Communion from the altar and not from the tabernacle, or the desirability of offering people communion from the cup.  For them it is fine if the priest omits a weekday homily or the general intercessions, but to omit the washing of the fingers is apparently a hanging offense.

For such ‘orthodox’ Catholics every liturgical lapse is an equally grave offense: for the priest to offer a sign of peace to a few people in the front seat is just as bad as making up your own Eucharistic Prayer. Despite having been present at the sacrifice of the cross, re-presented on the altar, all that stands out in their minds is where the priest stood or whether he used every word in his script.

What concerns me most is that adopting the label ‘orthodox’ carries with it an implied judgment on the rest of the Church. If something is orthodox, anyone who differs is condemned as unorthodox. It does not matter if it is a bishop, priest or religious who has dedicated their entire life to the Church – if they are not deemed to be ‘orthodox,’ they are blithely consigned to the path to perdition.

Orthodoxy is all-embracing, for that is the meaning of ‘Catholic.’ It is not threatened by variety in rubric or practice. The Second Vatican Council was clear on this point. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. (SC 37)

The Council here is talking about adapting the liturgy to various cultures and traditions. It is not advocating a free-for-all of indiscriminate changes to the liturgy, but it clearly presumes that a wide measure of variety is compatible with the ‘substantial unity of the Roman Rite’ and therefore with Catholic orthodoxy.

Unity is not uniformity. Having an entire library of Roman liturgical books with their Latin texts and rubrics is a blessing for the Roman Catholic Church because it forms the core of our unity with the tradition of all times and places.  But it is not, and should never be used as, a straight-jacket.

A well-known motto that originated in the religious conflicts of seventeenth-century Germany and has been very widely used by Protestants and Catholics alike could be the catch-cry for all in the Church whether they consider themselves ‘orthodox’ or not: Inessentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.

© Liturgy Brisbane. Liturgy Lines columns are accessible on the Liturgy Brisbane website . Featured image: Bishops at the Second Vatican Council.

Other Voices

Please leave a reply.

Comments

24 responses to “Liturgy Lines: ‘Orthodox’ Catholics”

  1. Rebecca Spellacy

    I firmly believe I am and call myself an orthodox Catholic. I do that because I view it as a way of saying that I hold firmly to what Holy Mother Church teaches when many who say “Catholic” do not. That also means I understand and love that, notably in liturgy, the Church is flexible and much is allowed and even desired (you’ve named a few of those things) that so many “orthodox” or “traditional” or even “liberal” Catholics seem to forget. To say I am Catholic, to say I am orthodoxly Catholic means that, while I have a way I would like liturgy done, I must respect and should love that the Church is bigger than my dislike or like of certain things.

    Yes, saying I’m orthodox implies a judgement that others are not, the same way any label does. However, it should also carry with it an understanding that to be Catholic means to act and correct in love and charity and that is what I pray to God that I am able to do.

    So, while I wholeheartedly agree with you, I guess what I’m asking is maybe we can reclaim the word Orthodox, or maybe even jus reclaim the word Catholic and move on. I guess I’m asking that you don’t let a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

    Reply
    1. Rita Ferrone Avatar
      Rita Ferrone

      I appreciate the enthusiasm here, but Jesus had a few negative things to say about the “orthodox” religious leaders of his day that we should remember, mutatis mutandis, when we consider the issues that come into play whenever one adopts a “holier than thou” attitude.

      Sorry, but when a person self-describes as an “orthodox Catholic” as a judgment on their fellow Catholics, it shows a lamentable blindness and lack of humility. Jesus decried this numerous times. The Pharisee at the temple (“I thank you God, that I am not like other people… not like this tax collector”) did not go home justified. The one who wears long phylacteries in public, and prays for all to see, “already has his reward.”

      The hostile questioning of the man born blind, the criticism of healing on the Sabbath, the finger of blame pointed at Jesus for eating with sinners — all these tragic rejections of grace came not from the weak or from those who failed, but from those who were the zealous religious people of Jesus’ day, precisely those who believed they alone were on the right path. We can’t afford to replicate those errors. This will not help anyone, least of all the self-proclaimed “orthodox Catholics.”

      Reply
      1. Rebecca Spellacy

        So, I agree to a point. First, I don’t actually see the folly in judgement, when it is done in true charity and that is what Jesus, at least by my reading and understanding, is actually going on about…a lack of charity.
        I also think that we need to be careful and ask why and how a person is self-describing as orthodox Catholic. I know I do it to make very clear that I am Catholic (see my above) but I hope to do so with the charity and understanding that the Church calls me to. I don’t see an issue with that.
        I do see an issue with the holier than thou attitudes you’re talking about but I would actual argue that the issue there is not with the word orthodox but with the word Catholic-as in they are not

  2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
    Anthony Ruff, OSB

    Rebecca, this is well-put. Especially this:
    “Maybe we can reclaim the word Orthodox, or maybe even just reclaim the word Catholic and move on.”
    Thanks for contributing to Pray Tell!
    awr

    Reply
  3. Jim Pauwels

    “For such ‘orthodox’ Catholics every liturgical lapse is an equally grave offense: for the priest to offer a sign of peace to a few people in the front seat is just as bad as making up your own Eucharistic Prayer.”

    This is an astute point. At the same time, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that there *are* priests who make up their own Eucharistic Prayers, and the ‘orthodox’ – and everyone else – have a legitimate beef with them.

    The ‘orthodoxy police’, at least in my experience and observation, tend to be right in the most unpleasant way possible. The unpleasantness probably is something they should work on. The content of their gripes, as often as not, is something that should at least give us pause and cause us to question what we’re doing.

    Reply
  4. Jack Feehily

    What priests “make up” their own Eucharistic prayers? Do you mean like in days of old when the priest gave thanks to the extent that he was able to do so? I recall some “non-official” EP’s circulating in the 70’s until we ended up with 9 official ones giving plenty of options. Perhaps there should be English translations of the Easter anaphoras?

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      In my 47 years as a Catholic, I knew only one priest who did this. As a curious grad student, I noted he had all the elements right. It actually became something like an EP V for him–less variety than if he had used the nine. I wasn’t curious enough to ask him why. I knew another priest who improvised the Passion reading every Palm Sunday. A blending of synoptic and Johannine. Same curiosity and lack thereof on my part.

      In their minds, I am sure these guys had well-considered reasons for doing as they did. They also had substantial positive feedback from their parishes and friends. Enough, it seems, that naysayers did not dissuade them.

      I knew another guy who, with knee problems, bowed rather than genuflected at the consecration. He was reported to his bishop. He also had well-considered reasons, and his bows were rather more “profound” than some genuflections I’ve seen. He also got a letter of correction that rather established the hierarchy in his parish: videographer, then bishop, then pastor. My thought: “Well done, good and faithful orthodox Catholic.”

      I think there are people in the Church who think things out and still do something clumsy, boorish, or just plain wrong. Sometimes they have “orthodoxy” on their side and sometimes not. Sometimes what they do has significant ripple effects far beyond the present moment, totally unintended.

      Discernment is everything. Does a person have an impulse to offer a meaningful contribution to the Mass? I can work with that, improvisation or video capture or whatever. Does a person need to center attention on themselves? That’s difficult, improvisation, video capture, or whatever. Ms Harrington’s commentary is spot on. But there are some people I know who aren’t ready yet to hear it.

      Reply
      1. Jim Pauwels

        Todd – good comment. I think I’m reasonably tolerant of things that “wander” from the red and the black, although there are items that I’d consider a bridge too far, e.g. substituting one’s own baptism formula. I’m not blessed/cursed with an urge to invent my own texts, and so confess that I’m not particularly empathetic toward those who have that particular itch. Let’s use what’s in the books as best we can, would be my guiding philosophy.

        I’m fairly sure there is a special circle in hell for a parishioner who would report a priest whose knees don’t permit him to genuflect, and another for a bishop who would discipline the priest. Bowing is common enough among elderly priests that I would have thought it was an acceptable thing to do. My knees, ankles and feet aren’t always in a cooperative mood, either, so my genuflections probably come across as pretty perfunctory-looking, but in truth a little way down is often all I can manage.

        But all that aside, I hope we can distinguish between a priest who doesn’t genuflect because of a disability, and a priest who rewrites scripture passages for reasons unknown. If I found myself in the extremely uncomfortable position of having the latter guy as my pastor, I’d like to think I’d follow the scriptural injunction to approach him alone to ask him to cease and desist; and then with a few witnesses. And then I would shoot an email to the bishop, and if that makes me a member of the orthodoxy police, I can live with that. Maybe we all have our limits.

    2. Janice Stephenson

      I had a priest ad-lib the entire Eucharistic prayer just last Sunday.

      The first consecration was, “For this is my body which is been giving out for the entire world so that all may be happy with me…”

      It descended into chaos from there, along with mentioning “and the Saints of the Reformation who were saved even though not of the body”.

      Reply
  5. Jim Pauwels

    Jack – there was a priest down the street from here who did it all the time. Some people thought it was wonderful – supposedly he had a gift. He retired a few years ago, presumably is still out there celebrating somewhere as a retired priest.

    That dynamic of encouragement for freelancing is part of the whole ‘orthodoxy’ topic as well. It’s not difficult to find folks who find rubrics and other laws and rules to be overly constraining. That chafing under constraint, in tension with the discomfort that others (the ‘orthodox’) feel when they observe rules being circumvented, might be able to be discussed in an open and friendly manner, with a minimum of distrust and conflict. But it never is 🙁

    Reply
  6. Allen F Corrigan

    I’m with Father Anthony as far as reclaiming the rightful use of the term “orthodox,” and would coin a new word, “ultradox,” for the catholicesque fundamentalists.

    Reply
  7. Fr. Anthony Forte

    Equally offensive is the use of phrase “those who accept Vatican II.” This is likewise carries with it an implied judgment on the rest of the Church and is used to stigmatize those with whom one disagrees.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Except there are people who do not accept Vatican II, who do not accept Sacrosanctum Concilium, who wish to worship as before SC. Pray Tell will continue to speak of those who do not accept Vatican II in this regard if it is an accurate statement.
      awr

      Reply
      1. Rebecca Spellacy

        This is honestly one those things I will never understand. I fully understand wishing to use the allowable practice of the older Latin Rite, that said, the Second Vatican Council happened, it mattered, it changed the Church and I think a lot more needs to be done to figure out how that all works in a world where we’re still arguing about liturgical use.

      2. Lee Fratantuono

        “who wish to worship as before SC”.

        And yet the writings of both John Paul and Benedict address the issue of how the “rightful aspirations” (to quote one of them) of those “who wish to worship as before SC” (to borrow your quote) are perfectly in accord with…Vatican II.

        Now you may disagree with these popes; you may think that those “who worship as before SC do not accept Vatican II”…the point is fair, if it is offensive to set oneself up as an arbiter of orthodoxy (and I think it oftentimes is indeed offensive), it is also offensive (and uncharitable) to assert that people don’t accept Vatican II merely because they embrace the teachings of two popes that a third pope hasn’t rescinded.

        Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum are part of the Magisterium, every bit as much as, say, Magnum Principium.

      3. Janice Stephenson

        And Rome allows that with Summorum Pontificum.

      4. Bennett Kalafut

        Fr.: We have some locals who accept the Council but wish to worship in the old way because they think SC wasn’t implemented faithfully and this causes them to suffer spiritually or will cause their children to have a muddled understanding of what Christ did for us. (I’m not in that number, and go to EF Masses only rarely, but I’m sympathetic.) Some were pushed to this when what used to be called “reform of the reform” was smacked down in a local parish by a new pastor and left for personal parishes celebrating the EF.

        Where do such individuals fit into the picture? Unfaithful to VII or driven to the (SC-influenced practice of the) preconcilar mass by pastoral failure? Or something else?

        We laity are largely incapable of self-help when it comes to liturgy. Would it be fair to say that there is a heirarchy of spiritual needs and that the care of their own amd their children’s souls comes before absolute fidelity to SC?

  8. Jonathan Day

    Lee, the vast majority of traditionalist writers view Vatican II as either a mistake, or a “pastoral” council whose teachings can largely be ignored. On liturgy, about the best they will say for the Mass of Paul VI is that it can be acceptable if celebrated according to parameters far stricter than the rubrics or the GIRM — Eucharistic Prayer I only, priest facing the apse, no exchange of the peace, etc. Or that it was a poor implementation of the reforms called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium; this despite those three popes you mention celebrating public Masses only in the normative form.

    Many of “those who wish to worship as before SC” persist in slagging off the normative Mass, disparaging it as perhaps valid but, almost certainly, incapable of meeting the spiritual needs of the faithful.

    They will not distance themselves from the narrative of Vatican II as a deficient council, hijacked by the Germans and the Dutch, corrupted by the presence of Protestant observers, etc., not dogmatic and therefore not binding, etc.

    There are a few “trads” who are charitable toward the Council and the Mass of Paul VI. They prefer the older form but don’t want to impose it on those who prefer the newer. They see that Vatican II and the normative Mass corrected some errors — antisemitism in particular — that had been present before.

    Some of them post here on Pray Tell and I enjoy reading their comments.

    They are in the minority.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Lee,

      And to follow up on Jonathan’s excellent observations, I would add this. Pray Tell’s mission is to promote our understanding of the Second Vatican Council. This isn’t going to change any time soon, so get used to it. It is futile for you, to be honest and blunt, to argue repeatedly at this website against the mission of this website.

      awr

      Reply
      1. Lee Fratantuono

        Father, with all due respect, what is the mission of the website? Is it solely to promote your understanding of Vatican II, and that of those who agree with you? (I.e., an echo chamber?) If so, then there would seem to be precious little difference between your approach and that of the most hardened traditionalist. Indeed, the impression given is that dialogue is possible with absolutely anyone except those who embrace fully the Church’s teachings in Summorum Pontificum.

      2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        O come on, Lee, the mission of the site should be obvious by the content here and the editorial line. Surely you’re not that obtuse.

        This is a site for those who accept Vatican II and like the way in which Pray Tell promotes Vatican II. That leaves a very large space indeed for discussion and exchange of ideas.

        Dialogue with traditionalists and those who want to use the preconciliar liturgy isn’t really a big part of our mission, to be honest. We do a bit of that, but not much – because it’s a waste of time, everyone has heard all your arguments, and they aren’t persuading many people. If other sites want to have that mission and promote that dialogue, fine.

        But we get to set our mission, not you. And our mission is to promote our understanding and to counteract understandings we think are mistaken.

        We do not permit anyone – including you – to repeat the same old arguments over and over, to promote a viewpoint which is at odds with our convictions.

        awr

    2. Rebecca Spellacy

      I agree with you almost 100% and that makes me more than a little sad.
      Simply put, I’m not a huge fan of how the Second Vatican Council has been implemented in many places. Saying that often makes me look like a traditionalist and like someone that has views I do not. I think the very unfortunate thing about this whole discussion is that we’re stuck having to defend that the Council was in fact a Council that made, in fact, teachings that cannot be ignored, and can never get into a real discussion on what do we with that reality.
      I think there must be a real middle ground somewhere where there is space for people like me to be critical of implementation but not the idea. And yet, unfortunately we still have to have people like you (and many others, including myself) defend the Council. Last time I checked, the Pope was a real Pope and the Bishops were real bishops and that means it was all good in the Vatican hood.
      Moral of my reply: well put, I just wish it didn’t need putting anymore.

      Reply
  9. Scott Pluff

    In my estimation, anyone who describes himself or herself as an “orthodox Catholic” is lacking in charity and quite possibly committing the sin of pride. Tread carefully when separating the wheat from the chaff, especially if you confidently place yourself among the wheat.

    Reply
    1. Rebecca Spellacy

      May I ask very sincerely why you think that? Noting what I’ve said before about what that phrase could mean?

      Reply

Posted

in

,

by

Other Voices

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading