My most humble astute comments first:
One of the misinterpretations of SC is the modality of the “real presence” of Christ in the Mass, makes all four “means” of the “real presence” equal, a false egalitarianism.
Pope Leo clears that up immediately. Yes, during Mass, Christ is present as High Priest in the Mass when the Word is proclaimed (not in the Book by the way), in the gathered community, in the ministers who celebrate (i.e. priest) and IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE IN THE EUCHARIST.
As I have noted before, in the 1970’s the false teaching that the Word and Sacrament are equal in status, sanctuaries were re-ordered to have the Ambo and Altar (table) equally placed, meaning neither in the center (except the priest’s chair, of course).
Today, I have seen a non-rubrical addition to the proclamation of the Gospel, when the deacon takes the Book from the altar to go to the Ambo, he stands and shows the book to everyone in an arch of movement from center to side and side. What the heck?
And then once the Gospel is proclaimed and the page of the Gospel is kissed, the Book of the gospel is processed to its enthronement, usually on an older altar. What the heck?
I can remember lectors raising the lectionary at the end of their reading and saying in a bold voice and gesturing with the lectionary to the congregation, “THIS is the WORD OF THE LORD!”
That along with the additional things deacons do with the Book of the Gospels are actions of creativity and non-rubrical and should be purified from the Mass. It is the proclamation of the Word, by a lector or the Gospel that Christ is present. The Book of the Gospel is not the same as the Consecrated Host!
Pope Leo’s Catechesis. The Documents of the Second Vatican Council. III. Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. 1. The liturgy in the mystery of the Church:
Dear brothers and sisters, good morning and welcome!
Today we are beginning a new series of catecheses on the first Document issued by the Second Vatican Council: the Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC).
In drafting this Constitution, the Council Fathers sought not only to undertake a reform of the rites, but to lead the Church to contemplate and deepen that living bond which constitutes and unites her: the mystery of Christ. Indeed, the liturgy touches the very heart of this mystery: it is at once the space, the time and the context in which the Church receives her very life from Christ. For in the liturgy, “the work of our redemption is accomplished” (SC, 2), which makes us a chosen lineage, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people whom God has acquired for Himself (cf. 1 Pet 2:9).
As manifested by the threefold renewal – biblical, patristic and liturgical – that the Church underwent through the course of the twentieth century, the Mystery in question does not designate an obscure reality, but God’s salvific plan, hidden from all eternity and revealed in Christ, according to Saint Paul’s affirmation (cf. Eph 3:2-6). Here, then, is the Christian Mystery: the Paschal event, that is to say, the passion, death, resurrection and glorification of Christ, which is made sacramentally present to us precisely in the liturgy, so that every time we take part in the assembly gathered “in his name” (cf. Mt 18:20) we are immersed in this Mystery.
Christ Himself is the inner source of the mystery of the Church, the holy people of God, born from His side pierced on the cross. In the holy liturgy, through the power of His Spirit, He continues to act. He sanctifies and unites the Church, His bride, to His offering to the Father. He exercises His utterly unique priesthood, He who is present in the proclaimed Word, in the sacraments, in the ministers who celebrate, in the gathered community and, in the highest degree, in the Eucharist (cf. SC, 7). Thus, according to Saint Augustine (cf. Sermon, 277), in celebrating the Eucharist the Church “receives the Body of the Lord and becomes what she receives”: she becomes the Body of Christ, “a dwelling place of God in the Spirit” (Eph 2:22). This is the “work of our redemption”, which conforms us to Christ and builds us up in communion.
In the holy liturgy, this communion is achieved through “rites and prayers” (SC, 48). The rituality of the Church expresses her faith – in accordance with the familiar saying lex orandi, lex credendi– and at the same time shapes ecclesial identity: the proclaimed Word, the celebration of the Sacrament, the gestures, the silences, the space – all this represents and gives form to the people gathered by the Father, the Body of Christ, the Temple of the Holy Spirit. Every celebration thus becomes a true epiphany of the Church in prayer, as Saint John Paul II recalled (Apostolic Letter Vicesimus quintus annus, 9).
If the liturgy is at the service of the mystery of Christ, one understands why it has been defined as “the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed … the font from which all her power flows” (SC, 10). It is true that the action of the Church is not limited to the liturgy alone; however, all her activity (preaching, service to the poor, the accompaniment of human realities) converges towards this “summit”). Conversely, the liturgy sustains the faithful by immersing them ever and anew in the Pasch of the Lord and, thus, through the proclamation of the Word, the celebration of the sacraments and communal prayer, they are refreshed, encouraged and renewed in their commitment to faith and in their mission. In other words, the participation of the faithful in the liturgical action is at once “internal” and “external”.
This also means that it is called to unfold in a tangible way throughout daily life, in an ethical and spiritual dynamic, so that the liturgy celebrated is translated into life and demands a faithful existence, capable of making concrete what has been experienced in the celebration: it is in this way that our life becomes a “living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God”, fulfilling our “spiritual worship” (Rom 12:1).
In this way, “the liturgy daily builds up those who are within into a holy temple of the Lord” (SC, 2), and forms an open community, welcoming to all. Indeed, it is inhabited by the Holy Spirit, it introduces us into the life of Christ, it makes us His Body and, in all its dimensions, it represents a sign of the unity of the entire human race in Christ. As Pope Francis said, “the world still does not know it, but everyone is invited to the supper of the wedding of the Lamb (Rev 19:9)” (Apostolic Letter Desiderio desideravi, 5).
Dear friends, let us allow ourselves to be shaped inwardly by the rites, symbols, gestures and above all the living presence of Christ in the liturgy, which we will have the opportunity to explore in the coming Catecheses.
34 comments:
You are correct. Christ is present in the Word, Celebrant and community. These convey Him. The Eucharist IS Him. We venerate the Gospel book but Adore the Eucharist. We don't worship the book, but honor it even as we honor an icon of Christ, not adore. I
Many deacons over-do the carrying of the Gospel book. Maybe because they want to make a big production of what they as deacons can do.
We bow down and worship the Blessed Sacrament. We honor the Gospel book, the altar and the priest (as standing in persona Christi).
When on Sabbatical at Pope Leo's alma mater, the Chicago Theological Union (CTU), in 2004, some of the Africans planned what was, I think, the house's Thanksgiving liturgy. There were about 30 of us there for sabbaticals, but CTU was the major theologate for many religious orders, including the pope's Augustinians. There were also a TON of Divine Word seminarians from SE Asia.
In the Thanksgiving liturgy, the Book of the Gospels was placed in a cloth satchel and carried to the altar on the back of the book bearer who gently danced with the others in the procession. BEARING the Gospel was powerfully enacted.
LOL - Dancing? How come Africans were converted to Catholicism with the TLM and no dancing?
TJM - Maybe because in the days Africans were first converted to the faith they were looked upon by many Europeans as "savages" whose culture and traditions were inherently inferior, their languages barbaric, their intellects sub-standard, and their music Philistinic. SOOOO, everything European was better than anytling African. Then came INCULTURATION, Baby! Woo Hoo!
But, but, but, didn’t convert to Christ to worship Him and not their culture?
But . . . they converted to Christ and worshipping Christ WHILE doing so in their own cultural expressions. (This is not rocket science.)
We got a new pastor several years ago. I never cared for him. My recollection is that he started the practice in our parish of going to the front of the altar, picking up the book of the Gospels, holding it up, then walking deliberately around the altar to the ambo. I always thought it was too "showy" because we don't worship a book and would always look away when he did it. Our two subsequent pastors have done it as well so it must be "the thing to do," but I still think it's goofy.
The bigger question, Fr. Kavanaugh, is why do you celebrate the Africans having the freedom to celebrate in their culture but not traditionally minded Catholics to celebrate in theirs. The historic Latin Mass is my culture. Where is inculturation for me and others like minded?
But their culture was informed by their religious beliefs which produced a form of worship that was not reflective of the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. This, too, is not rocket science.
Logic is not his strong suit
Oikophobia is one of the defining characteristics of his ilk.
Africans may worship as their (pagan) forebears did and be embraced and praised as noble Catholics; I may not worship as my (Catholic) forebears did and receive the same treatment. At best, I must hie myself to the parish gymnasium and pray the bishop doesn't change his mind about my community continuing to exist past the end of the year.
Nick
Anthony - The "historic Latin Mass" is not a culturally American phenomenon. It is wholly an expression of Western European culture - language, music, architecture, decor, fabric, etc. You want Doric columns supporting the portico over your church door? Thank the Greeks. You want Gothic architecture (originally known as with Opus Francigenum) with flying buttresses? Thank the French. You want Baroque or Rococo decorations in the church? Thank the French. You want Gregorian chant? Thank the Carolingian rules of Europe.
What you call "your culture" is something that was imposed on you, not something that grew out of your cultural milieu.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
American culture is an extension of Western European culture. It is not separate entity. Those European elements were not "imposed" on American culture; American culture grew out of them. And for the descendants of Catholic Europe living in America, it is very much part of our culture. What was imposed on us was the ripping away of that culture and having is replaced by something that was totally manufactured and alien to us.
Bravo!
K - 0
Father Anthony - 1
American culture is based in part on European culture. And that "part" is slowly fading away, as it should. The culture of the Western European liturgy was imposed on the entire Catholic world, from Budapest to Bangkok, San Francisco to Singapore, Cairo to Cape Town. That other cultures were older, more revered, more meaningful to the peoples from which they sprang was ignored, and not infrequently suppressed, because, well, "Everything's Better In Rome."
And why should it fade away? The majority of this country is still descendant from Europe. By your own name you clearly have an Irish background. Why would you want to see that part of your cultural background fade away? For those of a European background, our culture is old, reverent, and meaningful to us. Why should we not cherish it? And why do you not give the same respect to those of a European background as those of a non-European background?
Nor was the Roman rite "imposed" on the non-Romans of Europe. It was adopted freely. I remind you how the Missal of Paul VI spread. It was not imposed. Those local church with rites at least 300 years old were free to keep them. The switch from their local rite/usage was done by the local churches, it was not imposed by Rome. Even today the various Eastern rites are free to exist. Why is the historical Roman rite the only one that cannot continue?
Anthony - It should fade away because that's the normal process. People of French ancestry don't speak French much after the second generation. People of Norwegian ancestry don't seek out lutefisk after a generation or two. Italian, Polish, Lithuanian, German parishes went out of existence here in the American salad bowl.
I have Irish, German, and French ancestry, but have never heard a banshee or played a tin whistle, never donned a pair of lederhosen, and would not eat escargot on a bet.
The Roman rite wasn't adopted freely. The Church showed up with that rite and that was it. If your priest was Roman, there was no thought of "adopting" another rite. And after fighting off Latinization for many decades, the Eastern rites are rapidly shrinking.
Notably, Archbishop Weakland, a primary instigator of the "spirit of Vatican II" vibe of 1970s Roman Catholic liturgy in America, reportedly said that American culture is "kitsch"--so an American inculturated liturgy will be kitschy.
Incredible how attached some people are to kitsch, ain't it?
Nick
Fr. Kavanaugh,
The languages may fade away but the culture is more than the languages. America is part of a much larger European Christian culture; Irish, French, Italian, etc., are only subsets of that culture. It should be noted that even in Ukraine many military units have Latin mottoes. This was not imposed upon them. Rather, it is an expression of their inclusion in a much larger cultural identity than merely local Ukrainian.
And if the dominant western European culture should simply fade away into the sunset, why not the non-western cultures also? Why do you celebrate their continuation while calling for the end of western culture?
You should look at the history of the spread of the Roman rite again. It was not even imposed in Milan which has its own rite. It was not imposed in Spain which had its own rite. Nor was it imposed in the various Eastern rites. The non-Roman nations looked to Rome spontaneously as the center and source of their faith. Accepting the Roman rite was a sign of their unity with Rome. What was imposed was the new rite.
What should fade away is an ersatz liturgy created by a bunch of leftwing loons in committee. It is not authentic and it does not appeal to deeply religious people. Never has, never will. But that's why it appeals to you!
The Roman Rite had multiple Rites: Ambrosian, Sarum, Dominican, etc. You can lie all you like but facts are inconvenient truths.
Anthony - Language is an essential, even fundamental element, of a culture.
America was once an extension of "a much larger European culture," but that has been declining since we separated from Mother England, since we stated clearly in our founding documents that we do not establish a particular form of religious practice, and since our country has welcomed, though not without significant struggle, people who are not from Europe and who are not Christian. The evolution of American culture is a natural process. Attempts to stymie that process are bound to fail, just as attempts to stop coastal erosion on the Georgia barrier islands are stop-gap measures that, in time, will come to nothing.
The non-Roman Catholic rites are barely surviving. The sub-rites in the Roman Catholic Church are miniscule. The Ambrosian Rite is barely known outside Milan, the Dominican Rite is used by few Dominicans.
The Roman rite was imposed on the vast majority of Catholics. No one gave Mexicans, for instance, the option to be anything else in the 16th century. Corsican chant, with its Byzantine influences, was suppressed for liturgical use and nearly disappeared.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
You are missing the point that Western culture transcends many different subcultures, all with their own languages. This is the importance of Latin. It does not belong to any single of those subcultures and, with the Christian religion and a shared sense that they all are, to greater and lesser degrees, heirs of the old Roman culture, acts as a unifying force of that larger culture.
America may be distinct from the English culture from which it rose, but it is still a part of the greater Western culture. Look at the architecture of Washington, D.C. A classical style was deliberately chosen. This shows that we are consciously a part of Western culture. And while new cultures are being added to the American culture, this does not negate that the foundations of American culture are still western.
That the non-Roman rites are struggling does not indicate that Rome is trying to impose itself on other rites. Indeed, Rome is trying to protect those rites.
The Roman rite was imported into Mexico with the importation of the Catholic faith. This was only natural. The missionaries were all Roman rite. Perhaps they should have created a new Mexican rite based on Aztec cultures. The Mass could benefit from some human sacrifices, no?
And why are you upset with the idea that the Roman rite was "imposed'"? No you not support the imposition of the new rite?
Anthony - The "old Roman culture" no longer exists. We can pretend that it exists by re-enacting the liturgies of that time, but just as wearing Civil War uniforms at a thee day re-enactment of the Battle of Gettysburg doesn't bring back the past, neither does celebrating an "ancient" liturgy.
Washington, DC, has many architectural elements that harken to the "classical" style. It also has many elements that do not. Rather, they are modern or contemporary. Examples include, but are not limited to the National Gallery of Art East & West Wings, National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Museum of the American Indian which incorporates a modern take on some elements of the architectural styles of Native Americans, the terminal at Washington Dulles International Airport, the Mead Center for American Theater / Arena Stage, and the Hirshhorn Museum.
Many DC monuments also are very contemporary in their design, including the FDR memorial, the Vietnam War Memorial, and the 9/11 Pentagon Memorial.
Tims and cultures change. When a person of French ancestry no longer speak French, eats classic French cuisine, wears a beret, gives up Hermes for Dockers and Chanel for Tommy Hilfiger, when he/she gives up the cheek to cheek air kisses, etc., that person is no longer living French culture.
True, the "old Roman culture" no longer exists, but I never said it did. Rather, there is a thread of a common Western culture that is the heir of that culture. And although cultures change with time, and additions are made to it from the outside, the historical foundations still remain and have continuing influence and relevance. You cannot simply banish it because you are an ultra-modernist (in a cultural sense and no reverence to the heresy implied). You may not identify with a common Western culture but there are many who still do. What you are seeking is to artificially suppress that connection with this common Western culture. It is you who are trying to impose your cultural view on others.
Father Anthony,
There is no one more illiberal, than a liberal. They want to suppress others opinions because they cannot intellectually defend their positions, most of which are unhinged from reality.
Anthony - The foundations, which are not historical, of the culture which supersedes all others of any time, place, language, architecture, musical, are still present in the sacrifice of the mass. It was never lost, never set aside, never abandoned.
The "thread" that binds us to Christ and His Church is no thread at all. It is a Divine Covenant that binds us tightly to the person of Jesus Christ and the Church He established.
While others may want to hitch their wagons to this era or that era in human time, to the Byzantine, the Romanesque, the Gothic, the Mozarabic, or the Gilded Age, I'll stick with what truly matters.
You are separating the religious foundations of the Mass from the its cultural expression. Yet, you celebrate when non-Western groups celebrate in a way that expresses their cultures. Why this double standard? Why do you celebrate non-Western cultural expressions but do not appreciate Western expressions, and even try to dismiss them as unimportant and rightly suppressed?
Anthony - There is no double standard. Dancing at celebrations is part of the CURRENT culture of many African peoples. They are not dragging some element from 400 years ago and saying "Let's make this an essential part of our liturgy."
Your culture does not CURRENTLY use the Latin language, medieval architecture, European fabric designs. You want to drag this into the present, creating an ersatz Middle Ages event.
Incorrect! My culture does CURRENTLY still use historic architectural forms and music. Look at any CURRENT movie that highlights the Catholic faith. It includes medieval architecture and Gregorian chant. These are still widely recognized as a part of the Catholic identity. These things are still important to many people. Do not restrict Catholic culture to your narrow views.
Now let's turn back to your repeated dismissal of anything that you do not consider essential. This would exclude expressions of African culture as essential. Despite your claims to be only interested in what is religiously essential, your clear double standard shows that you are actually introducing a secular political agenda into the liturgy. Concerned about past and present discrimination of minorities, you are trying to use the liturgy to address that concern. But the liturgy is not the proper place for this.
An important part of the development of the Roman rite that you do not consider is that, other than the use of Latin, it is not Roman, it is Jewish. The early Christians rejected the idea of inculturation. They specifically rejected the use of secular Roman musical forms. Rather than hymns, the Mass uses the psalms. And these are sung to a chant style that harkens back to the Temple, not to Roman musical forms.
Even the later universal use of Latin should not be considered the insistence on something identifiable as Roman. With the fall of the Roman Empire, Latin took on a new and broader meaning. Its value was precisely because it was not identified with any particular ethnic group. It had become universal, a common thread that united the various nations in western Christianity. Thus we see it used from Madrid to Warsaw, in secular venues as well as religious. Even the English universities maintained the use of Latin after the break with Rome and the vernacularization of the Anglican service. And although Latin does not hold the place that it once did, it is still a common link across the Western world. Thus the example I gave earlier of the use of Latin mottoes by the Ukrainian army. Just because you do not think something is culturally important does not mean that others hold your same views.
Anthony - Unless you grew up in a Gothic or Romasesque time, your culture is not Gothic or Romanesque. You may have ADOPTED that culture, but it is not yours. I can start cooking Egyptian food or wearing classical Mongolian clothe styles, but that does not mean my culture is Egyptian or Mongolian.
No, there is no double standard. Africans belonging to a culture in which dance is an fundamental element, rightly bring their culture into the liturgy - from which it might not have been excluded in the first place if Europeans had not held themselves and their culture in such high esteem.
The early Christians "rejected" the idea of inculturation? Along with the psalms, what "hymns, and inspired songs" were the disciples singing in Colossians 3:16? Did you know that prior to the 9th century, there was Byzantine chant, Ambrosian chant, Mozarabic chant, among others. The Church was certainly getting along quite well for centuries before Gregorian chant was imposed.
One wonders why everyone wasn't chanting - why this part of the liturgy fell to choristers. Might it have been that so few in the congregation were literate? Now that literacy is more common, why not choose and write hymns in which all (or many) can join in?
As for things being important to some people, there are not a few who want to return the days of racial segregation, who want to ban Muslims from America, who want to rescind voting by women, who want to teach religion in science classes in public schools. So much for what "some people" want.
What utter nonsense! You are confusing culture with fashion. Culture is not just what is contemporary; it includes historical memory. I have not ADOPTED Gothic or Romanesque culture. I have INHERITED it. It is part of the cultural patrimony of the West in a way the Egyptian and Mongolian is not. Tell the French who just spent millions on restoring Notre Dame that it is not part of their culture. Tell the New Yorkers who daily worship in Saint Patrick's that it is not part of their culture. Over the years I have worshipped in many different churches of many different architectural styles, some of which were built in my lifetime, and I felt at home in them because I recognized those styles with my Catholic identity.
Dancing may, indeed, be an important part of African culture but that does not mean that it belongs in the liturgy. Irish dancing or the Russian ballet would be equally inappropriate. It is not that it is African that makes it inappropriate but that it shifts the focus from the altar to the congregation. This is major mistake of the radical post-Vatican II reformers and their misplaced emphasis on the actions of the congregation. The main actor of the Mass is Jesus Christ acting through the ministry of the priest, not the gathered faithful. We are here to worship God, not celebrate a particular ethnic group. The appropriate place for African dance would be in extra-liturgical actions.
The hymns and inspired songs of Colossians were modeled after Jewish examples, not the secular Greek or Roman music. Plainsong is markedly different from the secular music of the time.
Gregorian chant was not "imposed" on the whole church. Byzantine, Ambrosian, and Mozarabic chant is still used within their respective rites. Why the surprise that the Roman rite would use its own chants? And with the new Mass we are not limited to Gregorian chant. Anglican chant and Gelinaeu chant are quite nice and could work well in the new Mass. But not all musical forms would be appropriate, regardless of their ethnic origin. I remind you that before the Council Rome forbid the use of operatic forms even though they were of European origin. The question is not ethnic origin but suitability for the liturgy.
You fail to distinguish between the purpose of the various musical elements of the Mass. The antiphons, which have been largely replaced by hymns, were never meant to be part of the congregational singing. They were occasional music to cover the silence during liturgical processions. The singing of these were not stolen from the congregation by the schola; it was always their part. What the congregation was meant to sing was the ordinary of the Mass.
And how dare you try to equate a love for one's cultural heritage with unjust actions. There is no crime in loving one's culture. It is no crime for Africans and it is no crime for Western man. Nor is this limited to just "some people"; this is the common sentiment of most people. It is you who are "some people" who hates and disparages it.
Bravo, Father Anthony! You nailed it. I agree with you 100 percent. May God bless and protect you.
Anthony - When Latin was introduced into the liturgy, why did it "belong in the liturgy"?
"...I felt at home in them because I recognized those styles with my Catholic identity." And if you went to a Catholic church where the mass was celebrated, but included elements that did not comport with your Catholic identity, why would you feel not at home? Would that be something found in the liturgy, or something found in you?
"This is major mistake of the radical post-Vatican II reformers and their misplaced emphasis on the actions of the congregation." There is no major mistake in recognizing the importance of the congregation and their rightful place in the action of the liturgy. Is it not possible that the old style of liturgy overlooked or omitted or, heaven forbid, discounted the people in the pews who, by virtue of their baptism, share in the priesthood of all believers? SC: "30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence." When was an active role - an outwardly active role - for the congregation so emphasized before VAT2?
"We are here to worship God, not celebrate a particular ethnic group." Would that include the ethnic group known collectively as Western Europeans? Where, in the old mass, were the organic elements that arose from anywhere else in the world? What arose organically from a particular people and culture cannot be considered universal, unless that universality is imposed.
Which brings us to "suitability in the liturgy." YOUR at-home feeling doesn't determine what is suitable. That YOU inherited a European vision of what is suitable doesn't make your understanding of what is suitable superior or preferable (except to you) in the liturgy.
How dare you try to defend unjust actions by saying they are simply expressions of love for one's culture. Some people make the grave error of saying that because elements of the mass that arose from a culture that I love are suitable in the mass while elements that arose from non-Western European cultures, de facto, do not.
If I went to a Byzantine rite liturgy I would not feel at home. That is not to say that it is wrong but it is not my culture. For the Byzantines it is their culture and they should cherish it, just as we in the West should cherish our culture.
There is no mistake in recognizing the importance of the congregation but they are not the center of activity; Jesus Christ acting through the ministry of the priest is. Active participation is taking part in what is present in the liturgy but there is a division of participation between the priest, his ministers, the schola, and the congregation. For what it is worth, I am a fan of the pre-Vatican II dialogue Mass which fulfills what the Council was calling for. So the question is not an active role, it is a role that flattens the proper distinction between priest and laity or diverts attention away from the altar and to the actions of the laity. And this is what liturgical dance does regardless of its ethnic origin.
The Roman rite was not developed as a vehicle to celebrate the Roman people. Much of what arose in the Roman world was deliberately excluded from the liturgy. Catholic worship is markedly different from the worship style that arose organically among the Romans. Just because something arose organically among a certain people does not mean that it is suitable for the liturgy, especially when it has developed in a pagan environment. This is not to say that all ethnic expressions are to be excluded from the spiritual life. The Italian spiritual life is replete with enthusiastic expressions of the faith, especially public processions, but these take place outside of the liturgy. This is the proper forum, and this is where specific ethnic expressions should be directed. The Roman rite, as did not other Catholic rites, developed from Catholic theology, not an expression of Roman cultural expression. This needs to be the same rule applied to all cultures. Some things can be incorporated into the liturgy, some things can be expressed outside of the liturgy, and some things need to be jettisoned.
That I have feel at home within the western European culture does not mean, as you imply, that I find it superior to other cultures. As I stated above, I would not feel at home within a Byzantine liturgy. This does not mean that I think that the Roman liturgy is superior to the Byzantine. It is just not my cultural heritage, just as the Roman is not that of the Byzantines. And I will also point out that the whole point was a response to your denial that there exists a historical Western culture that I should be attached to.
And where did I try to defend any unjust actions? I just denied your linkage of the love of one's cultural heritage with the unjust actions that you named. And I do not deny the legitimacy of non-Western cultures. But that does not mean that we should accept everything in non-Western cultures uncritically. Just as the early Roman Christians purged their culture of elements at variance with Christianity, so do non-Western cultures.
And finally, we return to what started this conversation: why to you hold non-Western cultures in high regard but disparage Western culture or even deny the existence of a historical Western culture?
Post a Comment