Since my bishop banned the common chalice to the laity about two months ago due to concerns about spreading the H1N1 Flu virus, I have had several people, including my parochial vicar, question the reason for this edict. Their contention is that if we really believed in the Real Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharistic Species of either Bread or Wine, then God would not allow harm to come to us; He would preserve us from that contagion by our act of faith by receiving our Risen Lord in Holy Communion, either the Host, the chalice or both. One parishioner wrote, "Since it is our belief that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus, we should have no fear in taking Communion in any way. Perhaps one day I will be proven wrong, but how could something that Holy cause me harm?"
I am moved by people's testimony of faith and I know that faith can move mountains and that our Eucharistic Lord can perform miracles even in the case of a deadly poison being added to the Precious Blood in a chalice.
On the other hand, our Church teaches that faith and reason walk hand-in-hand. Scientific research in no ways compromises faith nor does reason. At the same time, science only or reason only are inadequate when separated from faith and questions of faith that arise because of the "natural order of things." For example, many people of faith question why good people suffer in such terrible ways and are made to die like in Haiti's earthquake.
Some religious people, like the Rev. Pat Robinson, declare that it was the sinfulness of Haiti and the practice of Voodoo by some there that brought the catastrophe of a monster earthquake to the Haitians. Not really an adequate or even "Catholic" explanation and quite judgmental about every Haitian I would say.
Scientists would explain that earthquakes are random events caused by shifting Teutonic plates. Anyone, good or evil, in the way of this shifting or in buildings above will be injured or killed. Yes, this is true, but the religious question of why people suffer so greatly is not answered. The religious answer is quite complicated and entails not only science but doctrine and theology as well as philosophy and a philosophical way of looking at good and evil, sin and redemption. I don't have time in this blog to go there right now.
But the question, can a person get sick or receive a bacteria, germ or virus from the common chalice containing the Precious Blood of our Risen Lord remains. My contention from the point of faith is no. Of course, the Precious Blood is meant for healing and redemption. Sick people, more than likely, are drawn to Holy Communion seeking health of mind, body and soul. Some with contagious diseases that could kill them seek the Lord's Real Presence in either Form that Christ is offered. Who could blame them? They are seeking miraculous cures. Look at the number of sick people who make pilgrimages to Lourdes seeking miracles for their illnesses.
But from a biological point of view, from scientific research, we do know, not believe, that a deadly poison added to the Precious Blood can kill you, although I am not barring the possibility of a miraculous incident in this regard, but I suspect that would be rare, not common. The deadly poison, although invisible when mixed with the Precious Blood, does not become the Precious Blood, it corrupts the Precious Blood but remains independent of it. The Precious Blood is "desecrated" not only by the poison but by the one who adds the poison.
I don't think that people of good faith "intentionally" desecrate the Chalice containing our Eucharistic Risen Lord when they drink from it while also carrying a virus, bacteria or other contagious disease, but in a sense they are "contaminating" what the Chalice contains or at the minimal, the metal of the Chalice, in particular its rim. You can get sick from sharing in this virus or bacteria and if you are elderly or already compromised health, you could die if you catch something from "additives" on the chalice or in the Precious Blood.
One last note on my paranoia motivated by my bishop's mandate to cease giving the chalice to the laity because of the H1N1 contagion (a ban now lifted by the way). When I was in Augusta, a very young, healthy 19 year old contracted, it is believed, bacterial meningitis from kissing her boy friend. There is now a vaccine for young people, especially those who go to college, who can contract this deadly form of meningitis. You can also get it from drinking after someone, like from a coke can, a beer bottle, etc. It is a rare bacteria and disease, but some healthy people do get it and in the manner just described--it doesn't take much.
The next day, this poor soul had flu like symptoms. She came home from college to convalesce. The day after that, her fever was so high, her parents brought her to the emergency room. She was admitted to the hospital. From that point on, her health spiraled out of control. There was talk by the doctors that she would need multiple amputations. Her white skin turned dark black, all over her body. I was called in the middle of the night to offer her the "last rites," the Anointing of the Sick. When I got there, the nurses told me to take every precaution by "gowning up" with total face mask and surgical gloves so as not to be exposed to her contagion myself. I learned that the doctors and nurses themselves feared entering her room out of the very possible threat of contracting her deadly disease! I placed my faith in the Lord, called on His protection for me, and went in and offered her the "Last Rites." She died the next morning. I could have been exposed to this and died too, but this was a risk I was willing to take to offer this poor child of God the sacrament and last rites of the Church. My point though, is that this poor child of God died from kissing her boy friend. She could have died, like some have, from simply drinking after a friend from their coke can or beer bottle. YIKES, I exclaim! What your parents told you about not drinking after your friends is not just an "urban legend!"
The common Chalice is a novel liturgical addition to the Latin Rite Mass, that came into being only in the 1970's by mandate of progressive liturgists. Originally it was implemented illicitly as was communion in the hand despite the Vatican's and local bishops' reiteration that this was not the liturgical law of the Church at the time. But like the use of altar girls, the grassroots lawlessness led Church officials, including the Vatican to allow these novelties. These novelties became "legalized" in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.
However, the liturgical law of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal envisions the sharing of the common chalice for small group celebrations of the Mass, in convents, monasteries and other "small" parochial events. This instruction does not foresee its common practice in large parish Sunday Masses as an "every Sunday" event. It is viewed as a "special occasion" event for smaller celebrations. Intinction is clearly an option, although listed after the common chalice, which is seen as the "normal" practice in the USA.
The local bishop must give permission for the common chalice and the bishop as in the case of the Diocese of Savannah, can ban the common chalice either completely or for a short time. However, once the bishop allows for the common chalice, the local pastor or priest can choose to implement it or not, but he must follow the norms of the American adaptation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 2001. This clearly shows the second option of "intinction" which local priests can employ as well as the first option of the common chalice for smaller groups, if the priest chooses to do so.
Your thoughts...
Friday, February 12, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
AM I A PROPHET OR NOT?
I know the title to this blog above is somewhat arrogant, but what the heck! The article below,which I posted on this blog when I first starting blogging this past November comes from my computer archives of articles I wrote in the past for our Diocesan newspaper, "The Southern Cross." The article below was written by me in 1999 and appeared in the Southern Cross that year. Little did I know what would happen to poor old Archbishop Weakland and yes, poor old Cardinal Ratzinger. But at any rate, from a historical perspective that I did not anticipate actually occurring at the time, you might find this interesting if you have not already read it!
From 1999! Am I a Prophet?
There has been much discussion about our current Roman Catholic Mass and what it has done to the Church, for better or worse, since the heady days of the Second Vatican Council. Two high ranking prelates, Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who seem to be on the opposite ends of the liturgical spectrum, have offered some analysis that may help the Church in its future liturgical development.
In an article titled “Liturgy and Common Ground” in America magazine (1999), Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland critiques the various factions who are concerned about our Holy Mass. He writes, “Something that should be a point of unity in the church, the Eucharist, has now become the most conspicuous point of disagreement and tension.” But he adds reason for hope, “that people—from prelates and scholars to worshiping faithful—are genuinely concerned about the quality of the prayer life of the Church.”
To those who desire the Pre-Vatican II liturgy as a remedy for what they perceive as a loss of dignity and the sacred in the current Mass, Archbishop Weakland wonders if they disagree with the Second Vatican Council altogether? We cannot ignore the Second Vatican Council. Should the bishops cater to retrograde reactionaries whose mission in fact is divisive? Local bishops should rightly be concerned about reactionary groups in any given diocese who wish to undo the Second Vatican Council, not only in Liturgy but also in the inclusion of the laity in areas of ministry and liturgy once forbidden to them. In addition, are these groups opposed to the revised Mass when it is properly celebrated highlighting dignity, solemnity and the sacred? The revised Mass can be as solemn, dignified and sacred if done by the book and with care.
At the opposite extreme, to those who want to continue with the direction of the current reform and go much further, Archbishop Weakland challenges the theology that has caused our Liturgy to drift “into a more horizontal and purely human activity.” He then asks the most startling question of this group: “Has the reform at times led to a diminution of respect for and belief in the real presence in the Eucharist?” He goes on to ask this disturbing question: “In seeking to make the liturgical symbols more true and clear, has the renewal made the symbol more important than what is symbolized?” He notes the use of “real bread” where “ministers” become sloppy about the crumbs and thus diminish belief in the real presence. He asks, “Has the kiss of peace ceased to be a symbolic gesture of reconciliation with one’s neighbor and become a moment for greeting everyone in the church—to the detriment of the symbol and breaking the liturgical moment of preparation for Holy Communion? In the desire to emphasize the nature of the community, has one introduced rites of dubious origin, e.g., holding hands?”
For the more progressive Catholic, Archbishop Weakland’s observations and critiques must be taken seriously for these abuses can in fact force people who desire “sacred and dignified” celebrations of the Mass to reject the current Mass as “flawed in principle” and not just in isolated, illicit, non-rubrical applications of its celebration.
At the other end of the theological debate we have Cardinal Joseph Ratizinger. In an address to “traditionalists” in Rome on October 24, 1998, the Cardinal made some interesting points. A fine reading of his presentation will show that the Cardinal’s remarks are as critical of some “traditionalists” as they are of those whose celebrations of the reformed Mass diminish its sacred character.
One of the more controversial assertions the Cardinal makes is, “The Church has never abolished Orthodox Liturgies.” Within this context Cardinal Ratzinger is sympathetic to those who desire the Tridentine Mass but also acknowledges that many claim that having two “Roman Rites” can harm the unity of the Church. Local bishops definitely need to be concerned about this. He points out, however, in the pre-Vatican II Roman Church, there were many variations of the Liturgy that existed alongside the Roman Rite, e.g. the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic rite of Toledo, the rite of Braga, the rite of the Cistercians and of the Carmelites as well as the Dominicans. He states that in that era of diversity, no one was scandalized by the variations but “we were proud of this richness in having many different traditions.”
Then the Cardinal makes his most important theological or doctrinal point. The Second Vatican Council Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy “itself does not say a word about celebrating Mass facing the altar or facing the people. And on the subject of language, it says Latin ought to be preserved while giving greater space to the vernacular...As for the participation of lay people, the Council insists first in general that the Liturgy concerns the entire Body of Christ, head and members, and that for this reason, it belongs to the entire Body of the Church and consequently the liturgy is to be celebrated in community with the active participation of the faithful.” And the text specifies: “In the liturgical celebrations, each person, whether as a minister or as one of the faithful, should perform his role by doing solely and totally what the nature of things and liturgical norms require of him. By way of promoting active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamation, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures and bodily attitudes. And at the proper time all should observe a reverent silence.”
In other words, what the Second Vatican Council teaches applies to those who wish the Pre-Vatican II Mass as well as those who maintain the revised Liturgy. The Cardinal has some scathing remarks for those who corrupt the revised Liturgy according to the very same critiques as Archbishop Weakland. But Cardinal Ratzinger also criticizes those who desire an aberrant form of the Pre-Vatican II Mass which slipped too much into the domain of the individual and the private, and that the communion between priests and faithful was insufficient. Cardinal Ratizinger insists that if the Old Latin Mass is celebrated, it should be with the full, conscious and active participation of the people, a development that was occurring already in the late 1950’s prior to the council. This came to be known at the “Dialog Mass.” Even then, the “Dialog Mass” foresaw the use of lay lectors and commentators as an application of the principle of the laity performing “what the nature of things and liturgical norms require of him.”
The difference of attitudes between Archbishop Weakland and Cardinal Ratzinger are not that dramatic. In one sense Cardinal Ratzinger is actually more liberal. He believes that the Tridentine Mass and the Revised Mass can coexist side by side if the principles of the Second Vatican Council regarding active participation are observed in both. He sees the allowance of the Tridentine Mass as a way to preserve the sacred character of the revised Mass, since it is there that the two should converge and show continuity between the old and the new.
It would seem that if the Old Latin Mass is allowed in any diocese or parish, then the local bishop has a grave responsibility to make sure that the principles of active participation of the faithful should be guaranteed, as the Second Vatican Council makes clear! It should not be too much for local bishops to request from Rome or mandate by their own legitimate authority that lay-lectors be used for the reading of Scripture, the use of Extra-ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion as needed, and leaders of song to encourage active participation. The question of the use of the full array of Scriptures from the current three-year cycle lectionary as a point of convergence between the two liturgies should rightly be explored. And obviously the Scriptures and sermon should be allowed in the vernacular as they were in the late 1950’s.
Celebrating the Post-Vatican II liturgy as it is prescribed and not allowing it to be diminished through banalities or super-creativity imposed upon it by priests, liturgy committees or congregations could enhance the Revised Liturgy as well. Doing it by the book and making sure the principles of active participation are observed would show the unity and continuity between the two masses. If the pre-Vatican II liturgy needs to recapture its human horizontal dimensions, so too the revised Mass must recapture its vertical, sacred dimensions as well!
When those who desire the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass are denied this permission while others who celebrate charismatic Masses, inculturated Masses and a whole variety of approved and disapproved expressions of the current Mass go unchallenged, it is no wonder they become reactionary and obstinate.
Finally, many would argue that the two liturgies could co-exist side by side and creating respect and unity among the advocates of both. At the heart of both is the real presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ and His One Sacrifice that brings salvation to the world. And at the heart of both is “The Body of Christ” the Church who celebrates and journeys toward the heavenly Liturgy of which the earthly liturgy is but a foretaste!
Posted by Frajm at Saturday, November 07, 2009
From 1999! Am I a Prophet?
There has been much discussion about our current Roman Catholic Mass and what it has done to the Church, for better or worse, since the heady days of the Second Vatican Council. Two high ranking prelates, Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who seem to be on the opposite ends of the liturgical spectrum, have offered some analysis that may help the Church in its future liturgical development.
In an article titled “Liturgy and Common Ground” in America magazine (1999), Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland critiques the various factions who are concerned about our Holy Mass. He writes, “Something that should be a point of unity in the church, the Eucharist, has now become the most conspicuous point of disagreement and tension.” But he adds reason for hope, “that people—from prelates and scholars to worshiping faithful—are genuinely concerned about the quality of the prayer life of the Church.”
To those who desire the Pre-Vatican II liturgy as a remedy for what they perceive as a loss of dignity and the sacred in the current Mass, Archbishop Weakland wonders if they disagree with the Second Vatican Council altogether? We cannot ignore the Second Vatican Council. Should the bishops cater to retrograde reactionaries whose mission in fact is divisive? Local bishops should rightly be concerned about reactionary groups in any given diocese who wish to undo the Second Vatican Council, not only in Liturgy but also in the inclusion of the laity in areas of ministry and liturgy once forbidden to them. In addition, are these groups opposed to the revised Mass when it is properly celebrated highlighting dignity, solemnity and the sacred? The revised Mass can be as solemn, dignified and sacred if done by the book and with care.
At the opposite extreme, to those who want to continue with the direction of the current reform and go much further, Archbishop Weakland challenges the theology that has caused our Liturgy to drift “into a more horizontal and purely human activity.” He then asks the most startling question of this group: “Has the reform at times led to a diminution of respect for and belief in the real presence in the Eucharist?” He goes on to ask this disturbing question: “In seeking to make the liturgical symbols more true and clear, has the renewal made the symbol more important than what is symbolized?” He notes the use of “real bread” where “ministers” become sloppy about the crumbs and thus diminish belief in the real presence. He asks, “Has the kiss of peace ceased to be a symbolic gesture of reconciliation with one’s neighbor and become a moment for greeting everyone in the church—to the detriment of the symbol and breaking the liturgical moment of preparation for Holy Communion? In the desire to emphasize the nature of the community, has one introduced rites of dubious origin, e.g., holding hands?”
For the more progressive Catholic, Archbishop Weakland’s observations and critiques must be taken seriously for these abuses can in fact force people who desire “sacred and dignified” celebrations of the Mass to reject the current Mass as “flawed in principle” and not just in isolated, illicit, non-rubrical applications of its celebration.
At the other end of the theological debate we have Cardinal Joseph Ratizinger. In an address to “traditionalists” in Rome on October 24, 1998, the Cardinal made some interesting points. A fine reading of his presentation will show that the Cardinal’s remarks are as critical of some “traditionalists” as they are of those whose celebrations of the reformed Mass diminish its sacred character.
One of the more controversial assertions the Cardinal makes is, “The Church has never abolished Orthodox Liturgies.” Within this context Cardinal Ratzinger is sympathetic to those who desire the Tridentine Mass but also acknowledges that many claim that having two “Roman Rites” can harm the unity of the Church. Local bishops definitely need to be concerned about this. He points out, however, in the pre-Vatican II Roman Church, there were many variations of the Liturgy that existed alongside the Roman Rite, e.g. the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic rite of Toledo, the rite of Braga, the rite of the Cistercians and of the Carmelites as well as the Dominicans. He states that in that era of diversity, no one was scandalized by the variations but “we were proud of this richness in having many different traditions.”
Then the Cardinal makes his most important theological or doctrinal point. The Second Vatican Council Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy “itself does not say a word about celebrating Mass facing the altar or facing the people. And on the subject of language, it says Latin ought to be preserved while giving greater space to the vernacular...As for the participation of lay people, the Council insists first in general that the Liturgy concerns the entire Body of Christ, head and members, and that for this reason, it belongs to the entire Body of the Church and consequently the liturgy is to be celebrated in community with the active participation of the faithful.” And the text specifies: “In the liturgical celebrations, each person, whether as a minister or as one of the faithful, should perform his role by doing solely and totally what the nature of things and liturgical norms require of him. By way of promoting active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamation, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures and bodily attitudes. And at the proper time all should observe a reverent silence.”
In other words, what the Second Vatican Council teaches applies to those who wish the Pre-Vatican II Mass as well as those who maintain the revised Liturgy. The Cardinal has some scathing remarks for those who corrupt the revised Liturgy according to the very same critiques as Archbishop Weakland. But Cardinal Ratzinger also criticizes those who desire an aberrant form of the Pre-Vatican II Mass which slipped too much into the domain of the individual and the private, and that the communion between priests and faithful was insufficient. Cardinal Ratizinger insists that if the Old Latin Mass is celebrated, it should be with the full, conscious and active participation of the people, a development that was occurring already in the late 1950’s prior to the council. This came to be known at the “Dialog Mass.” Even then, the “Dialog Mass” foresaw the use of lay lectors and commentators as an application of the principle of the laity performing “what the nature of things and liturgical norms require of him.”
The difference of attitudes between Archbishop Weakland and Cardinal Ratzinger are not that dramatic. In one sense Cardinal Ratzinger is actually more liberal. He believes that the Tridentine Mass and the Revised Mass can coexist side by side if the principles of the Second Vatican Council regarding active participation are observed in both. He sees the allowance of the Tridentine Mass as a way to preserve the sacred character of the revised Mass, since it is there that the two should converge and show continuity between the old and the new.
It would seem that if the Old Latin Mass is allowed in any diocese or parish, then the local bishop has a grave responsibility to make sure that the principles of active participation of the faithful should be guaranteed, as the Second Vatican Council makes clear! It should not be too much for local bishops to request from Rome or mandate by their own legitimate authority that lay-lectors be used for the reading of Scripture, the use of Extra-ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion as needed, and leaders of song to encourage active participation. The question of the use of the full array of Scriptures from the current three-year cycle lectionary as a point of convergence between the two liturgies should rightly be explored. And obviously the Scriptures and sermon should be allowed in the vernacular as they were in the late 1950’s.
Celebrating the Post-Vatican II liturgy as it is prescribed and not allowing it to be diminished through banalities or super-creativity imposed upon it by priests, liturgy committees or congregations could enhance the Revised Liturgy as well. Doing it by the book and making sure the principles of active participation are observed would show the unity and continuity between the two masses. If the pre-Vatican II liturgy needs to recapture its human horizontal dimensions, so too the revised Mass must recapture its vertical, sacred dimensions as well!
When those who desire the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass are denied this permission while others who celebrate charismatic Masses, inculturated Masses and a whole variety of approved and disapproved expressions of the current Mass go unchallenged, it is no wonder they become reactionary and obstinate.
Finally, many would argue that the two liturgies could co-exist side by side and creating respect and unity among the advocates of both. At the heart of both is the real presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ and His One Sacrifice that brings salvation to the world. And at the heart of both is “The Body of Christ” the Church who celebrates and journeys toward the heavenly Liturgy of which the earthly liturgy is but a foretaste!
Posted by Frajm at Saturday, November 07, 2009
MORE ON THE COMMON CHALICE! IS THE CHURCH LIABLE TO LAWSUITS?
Like a lamb led to the slaughter, I was taught in the 1970's that in order to promote the novel practice of the laity drinking from the common chalice, as opposed to the then recently allowed "intinction" method, which in fact has a basis in tradition and antiquity, we were to tell reluctant laity the following:
"Because of the alcohol content of the wine, the turning of the chalice each time a person received and the wiping of the rim of the chalice with a purificator, we have been told that scientific studies show that a person is unlikely to contract a germ, virus or some communicable disease. In fact, one is more likely to get sick from shaking hands with others."
I believed those who told me about this "scientific" study and so I have taught the above diligently now for over 30 years! I never asked for the actual study. I never asked if there were other studies that had other conclusions and I never asked why we were to ask people who were actually sick with a cold or some other simple virus, not to drink from the common chalice. I was obedient. But my obedience was misplaced. I was obedient to "liturgists" who were pushing their "agenda" of renewal of the Mass. I do not have to be obedient to them or to any form of scientific study that indeed could be flawed. I must be obedient to the Church and my bishop in the areas of faith, morals, canon law, the GIRM and yes, also Sumorum Pontificum only. But church law gives priests a great deal of flexibility in things liturgical and otherwise. Pastoral sensitivity is another issue.
When my bishop mandated that the common chalice no longer be permitted two months ago because of the concern for spreading the H1N1 flu and the fear of an epidemic and when he also at the same time mandated that the sign of peace (handshake) no longer be shared at Mass, mine eyes were opened! What? You can get the flu from the common chalice? What? you can get sick from shaking someone's hand, if that hand is contaminated with a virus of some sort? You mean to tell me what I had taught for over 30 years about the laity not being able to get sick from drinking after one another was a lie at worst, or mistaken at best? Yes, this one event of my bishop forbidding two practices that I had employed and encouraged for over 30 years now opened "mine eyes" and woke me up! And what an awakening it was! I was indeed like a lamb led to the slaughter and I led other lambs and sheep in the same direction!
I have to ask now, is the Church, her liturgists, her bishops, her priests, her deacons, her catechists, legally liable in any way for giving wrong medical or scientific advice as it concerns the common chalice and the "fat chance" that you'll get sick from some sort of communicable disease by drinking after others, multiple others? Are there lawyers smacking their lips eager to sue us in this regard? No, no one would ever sue the Church! Right?
Common sense needs to reign in our Church, not ideology and liturgical innovation and naivete. Coming next, the common chalice, drinking poison, handling snakes and the like...
"Because of the alcohol content of the wine, the turning of the chalice each time a person received and the wiping of the rim of the chalice with a purificator, we have been told that scientific studies show that a person is unlikely to contract a germ, virus or some communicable disease. In fact, one is more likely to get sick from shaking hands with others."
I believed those who told me about this "scientific" study and so I have taught the above diligently now for over 30 years! I never asked for the actual study. I never asked if there were other studies that had other conclusions and I never asked why we were to ask people who were actually sick with a cold or some other simple virus, not to drink from the common chalice. I was obedient. But my obedience was misplaced. I was obedient to "liturgists" who were pushing their "agenda" of renewal of the Mass. I do not have to be obedient to them or to any form of scientific study that indeed could be flawed. I must be obedient to the Church and my bishop in the areas of faith, morals, canon law, the GIRM and yes, also Sumorum Pontificum only. But church law gives priests a great deal of flexibility in things liturgical and otherwise. Pastoral sensitivity is another issue.
When my bishop mandated that the common chalice no longer be permitted two months ago because of the concern for spreading the H1N1 flu and the fear of an epidemic and when he also at the same time mandated that the sign of peace (handshake) no longer be shared at Mass, mine eyes were opened! What? You can get the flu from the common chalice? What? you can get sick from shaking someone's hand, if that hand is contaminated with a virus of some sort? You mean to tell me what I had taught for over 30 years about the laity not being able to get sick from drinking after one another was a lie at worst, or mistaken at best? Yes, this one event of my bishop forbidding two practices that I had employed and encouraged for over 30 years now opened "mine eyes" and woke me up! And what an awakening it was! I was indeed like a lamb led to the slaughter and I led other lambs and sheep in the same direction!
I have to ask now, is the Church, her liturgists, her bishops, her priests, her deacons, her catechists, legally liable in any way for giving wrong medical or scientific advice as it concerns the common chalice and the "fat chance" that you'll get sick from some sort of communicable disease by drinking after others, multiple others? Are there lawyers smacking their lips eager to sue us in this regard? No, no one would ever sue the Church! Right?
Common sense needs to reign in our Church, not ideology and liturgical innovation and naivete. Coming next, the common chalice, drinking poison, handling snakes and the like...
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
WHAT MINE EYES HAVE SEEN!
Lest I be accused of scrupulosity in my words below, let me be clear that there should be a distinction made between true scrupulosity which is related to "obsessive, compulsive disorders" and what many would simply call a legitimate concern for certain matters, especially those of faith. For example, I wash my hands a few times a day, after using the restroom, before celebrating Mass, after touching something unclean, out of a concern for germs and hygiene and for the well being of others with whom I interact. A scrupulous person washing his hands constantly and for no other reason then a scrupulous fear of germs and other psychological issues is a completely different matter. (Do I hear "Purell," anyone?) So with that written, let's go head long into the topic at hand.
One of the things mine eyes has seen since celebrating the EF Mass for over two years now is the rubrical mandate that the particles of the Most Holy Eucharist that could become detached from the consecrated Host in no way be "desecrated" in any intentional or unintentional way; all precautions must be taken even liturgically. Therefore, prior to the consecration, the hands are placed on the altar outside of the corporal cloth which is carefully managed by proper folding and unfolding, using a burse,proper cleaning, etc.
After consecrating the host, the fingers and thumbs that touched the host are joined together so that not even the smallest particle of a particle could be unintentionally "desecrated." When touching the altar, the priest does so on the corporal cloth.The priest even holds the chalice for consecration by having his index finger and thumb joined prior to taking the chalice. Prior to the priest receiving the Precious Blood, he takes the patten and scrapes the corporal cloth of any particles that could have fallen and then places these in the chalice. At the purification of the the chalice, (the priest's fingers and thumbs still joined) the server first places wine in the chalice, so that any droplets of the Precious Blood can be reverently consumed. Then wine and water are poured into the chalice over the priest's fingers and thumbs that may have attached to them particles of the host. The priest drys his fingers, drinks the ablutions and dries the chalice. This is "built in" piety and reverence of the EF Mass that was stripped from the OF Mass. This institutional "care," in the EF Mass is borne of the concern for avoiding "desecration" of the Sacred Species even unintentional,and contributes to the overall respect due our Lord in the Eucharistic Species. It cannot be classified as OCD or personal scrupulosity.
Let's fast forward to today to what many have disparagingly called the "theology of the crumbs" since the reforms of the Mass. I can remember as a teenager and very young adult seeing older priests celebrating the OF Mass using the same rubrics they were taught for the EF Mass as it concerned "crumbs, fingers, thumbs, etc." These priests were accused of scrupulosity by others. I believed this accusation of scrupulosity to be true, because I didn't know these priests had been trained in this custom of reverence by their celebration of the Tridentine Mass and the institutionalized piety, reverence and concern for not desecrating the Eucharistic Species of this Mass. In other words I was mistaken concerning the "rubrics" these older priests employed--it was not their scrupulosity, but their piety instilled by the EF Mass. "Lex Orandi, Lex credendi," the law of prayer is the law of belief.
During the wild time of experimentation with the New Order of the Mass, certainly after it was promulgated,(the 1970's) many "progressive priests, seminaries and parishes" experimented with what was euphemistically called "real bread" as opposed to the unleavened, traditional hosts of Pre-Vatican II. (Anyone recall the sarcastic remark that it was harder to believe that these traditional hosts were real bread, let alone the real Body and Blood of our Savior?)
In my seminary we used bread that had honey in the recipe and salt that in fact acted as a leaven. And in fact, when receiving these "hosts" at Holy Communion, significant crumbs remained on the palm of one's hand. (More about that below)!
As a 23 year old seminarian, I attended the first Mass of a Jesuit priest in 1978 where he used small French Bread loaves with its very crispy crust for the Eucharist. At the Breaking of the Bread at the altar, these loaves were ceremoniously broken by a variety of lay people at the altar and then these were distributed to the laity. I know for a fact, because I saw it with mine eyes, that after Mass, there were crumbs of Consecrated Eucharist, all over the altar and on the carpet where Holy Communion had been distributed! A seminarian friend of mine and myself tried in vain to gather the larger particles from the carpet, but were derided by others who castigated us for the "theology of crumbs!" Do ya think there was an ideology there promoting French Bread Eucharist as well as Holy Communion in the hand? If you believe that our Lord is truly present in all particles of the Eucharistic Bread, then one would be reluctant to use bread that is crumbly, flaky or to receive this type of "Bread" in the hand. So the minimization or ridicule of the Church's faith reality was necessary in order to promote a liturgical innovation and agenda. This trendy agenda at the time lamented what was seen as Liturgical scrupulosity that would motivate "scrupulous" traditional Catholics to have an abhorrence for Eucharistic crumbs on the floor and on one's hands. So undermining one's actual faith in the real Presence of Christ in every speck, crumb, particle and morsel of Holy Communion was necessary for this type of so-called liturgical renewal agenda to go forward, but forward it did go.
This same "theology of crumbs" which is a disparaging description of those whose reverence and belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist includes every particle that is attached to every host, is also carried forward now to the Precious Blood, since there is now wide-spread distribution of the Eucharist under the form of consecrated Wine, from a common chalice or cup.
Many people of an older and more institutionalize piety are concerned that there is a possibility of spilling the Precious Blood by distributing Holy Communion under both forms. Those who promote this custom, both of Holy Communion in the hand and from the chalice say that if particles do fall or the Precious Blood is spilled, God will take care of Himself. I think most of us believe that the all powerful and Almighty God is quite capable of taking care of Himself as well as us. But that's not the point! The point is the reverence we creatures owe to the Almighty God! We actually believe that we must rely upon the Almighty to save us as we cannot do this work of salvation by ourselves. By our worthy reception of Holy Communion, God, Who does not become a part of us in this act, but rather makes us a part of Him is the essence of Superiority in relation to His creatures who receive Him. Should not such an awesome means to accomplish this work of salvation by Almighty God not have the utmost and yes "scrupulous" respect from us, God's creatures?
I have seen with mine own eyes the following--an extra chalice on the altar knocked over by a Communion Minister, thus spilling the Precious Blood everywhere! I have seen children spit the host that was in their mouth into the chalice they were given to drink from. I have seen chewing gum in a chalice because the person receiving accidentally allowed it to fall from her mouth.I have seen the Precious Blood on ties, shirts and blouses, not to mention the floor! I have seen people "self-intinct." I have had extra-ordinary ministers of Holy Communion tell me that some people consume the entire chalice once it is handed to them. I have had Eucharistic ministers tell me that they have a hard time drinking the "dregs" of the Chalice at the end of some 30 people having drunk from the chalice because they fear there is more "backwash of saliva" than Precious Blood remaining. I believe this to be true by the way, because I've had to consume these "dregs!" I don't mind being a martyr for the Holy Mass and the Sacred Species, but I do mind being made to do something that is not necessary in the first place, having 30 to 40 people drink from the same chalice and then cleaning up after that.
Now a conundrum that many will resent me for bringing forward:Intinction! This form of distributing Holy Communion by dipping the Consecrated Host into the Precious Blood with a Paten under the chin of the communicant is permitted in the GIRM of the 2002 Roman Missal. In fact the American bishops in their adaptations of the GIRM state that this is the "second" option available to priests if the priest chooses to follow their bishop's approval for Holy Communion under both kinds, the option of which, of course, is at the discretion of the priest, to allow both Species in his parish or not. He just has to follow the bishop's approval for this permission or exception to allow the chalice for the congregation in the first place. (Have you ever heard people disparagingly call the venerable tradition and ancient one at that, of intinction as "dunking donuts?" Talk about irreverence!You know there is an agenda or ideology at work when you hear that, meaning only the common chalice is legitimate!)(Mine own ears have heard this and mine own tongue has spoken this in the past, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!--dunking donuts, yikes!)
The objection to intinction is that it removes from the communicant the "right" to receive Holy Communion on the palm of the hand. In fact, this is not true, as one could still receive the Host in the hand but not intincted. Then the objection comes that one is removing the "right" of the communicant to receive the Precious Blood if one wants to receive in the hand. Yes--but it is not a liturgical or canonical right to receive the Precious Blood from the Chalice. One receives the Body and Blood of Christ completely under either form. (The only complaints I have received from people since my bishop mandated not allowing the chalice to the people because of H1N1 contagion concerns is that these people felt they were only partially receiving Holy Communion! (More about contagion in a future blog!)
Now, if we buy into the "theology of the Crumbs" in its disparaging way as encouraging us not to be worried about the "crumbs" as scrupulous people are, then we are not concerned that to this very day when people receive even the traditional consecrated host in their hands, that it is possible for small and even larger particles to adhere to their palm,finger and thumb. I have seen with my mine own eyes, children and adults dust off their hands after receiving the host or wipe them on their clothes, or simply ignore any particles of the Sacred Species that might adhere to the palm, thumb or finger of one's hand.
So my question of logic: if we don't worry about these sorts of things anymore,(the theology of crumbs) why not place an "intincted" host onto the palm of the communicant? There really isn't that much Consecrated Wine on the Host. And if the palm gets wet from the Precious Blood, why not rub your hands together to dry it, wipe them on your clothes or simply ignore it? Concern about this is the "theology of scrupulosity" after all, isn't it? My point is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think we should be concerned about both forms of possible intentional or unintentional desecration of the Sacred Species! But that implies returning to the exclusive distribution of Holy Communion on the tongue and to a pre-Vatican II, now post Vatican II with the EF Mass, institutionalized "scrupulosity" but what preferably should be called awe, wonder, respect and reverence for the Sacred Species and fear concerning either intentional or unintentional desecration of the Same.
In a later post I will rant about "germs, viruses, H1N1, the common chalice and the Precious Blood and if one can get sick from drinking the Precious Blood." A clue, no the Precious Blood will not make you sick if your receive or Lord worthily. However, if I drop a bit of arsenic into it you could get sick or even die, no matter how strong your faith in the Real Presence. In other words, germs, viruses and poisons intentionally or unintentionally placed into the Precious Blood after or before the wine is consecrated can make you sick. These poisons, germs and viruses do not become the Precious Blood, but remain independent of the Precious Blood. Thus a deadly poison even in a very small amount can kill you if you drink the Precious Blood. And if you drink the Precious Blood, although poisoned, and in a state of grace, well, what a way to go! More later.....
One of the things mine eyes has seen since celebrating the EF Mass for over two years now is the rubrical mandate that the particles of the Most Holy Eucharist that could become detached from the consecrated Host in no way be "desecrated" in any intentional or unintentional way; all precautions must be taken even liturgically. Therefore, prior to the consecration, the hands are placed on the altar outside of the corporal cloth which is carefully managed by proper folding and unfolding, using a burse,proper cleaning, etc.
After consecrating the host, the fingers and thumbs that touched the host are joined together so that not even the smallest particle of a particle could be unintentionally "desecrated." When touching the altar, the priest does so on the corporal cloth.The priest even holds the chalice for consecration by having his index finger and thumb joined prior to taking the chalice. Prior to the priest receiving the Precious Blood, he takes the patten and scrapes the corporal cloth of any particles that could have fallen and then places these in the chalice. At the purification of the the chalice, (the priest's fingers and thumbs still joined) the server first places wine in the chalice, so that any droplets of the Precious Blood can be reverently consumed. Then wine and water are poured into the chalice over the priest's fingers and thumbs that may have attached to them particles of the host. The priest drys his fingers, drinks the ablutions and dries the chalice. This is "built in" piety and reverence of the EF Mass that was stripped from the OF Mass. This institutional "care," in the EF Mass is borne of the concern for avoiding "desecration" of the Sacred Species even unintentional,and contributes to the overall respect due our Lord in the Eucharistic Species. It cannot be classified as OCD or personal scrupulosity.
Let's fast forward to today to what many have disparagingly called the "theology of the crumbs" since the reforms of the Mass. I can remember as a teenager and very young adult seeing older priests celebrating the OF Mass using the same rubrics they were taught for the EF Mass as it concerned "crumbs, fingers, thumbs, etc." These priests were accused of scrupulosity by others. I believed this accusation of scrupulosity to be true, because I didn't know these priests had been trained in this custom of reverence by their celebration of the Tridentine Mass and the institutionalized piety, reverence and concern for not desecrating the Eucharistic Species of this Mass. In other words I was mistaken concerning the "rubrics" these older priests employed--it was not their scrupulosity, but their piety instilled by the EF Mass. "Lex Orandi, Lex credendi," the law of prayer is the law of belief.
During the wild time of experimentation with the New Order of the Mass, certainly after it was promulgated,(the 1970's) many "progressive priests, seminaries and parishes" experimented with what was euphemistically called "real bread" as opposed to the unleavened, traditional hosts of Pre-Vatican II. (Anyone recall the sarcastic remark that it was harder to believe that these traditional hosts were real bread, let alone the real Body and Blood of our Savior?)
In my seminary we used bread that had honey in the recipe and salt that in fact acted as a leaven. And in fact, when receiving these "hosts" at Holy Communion, significant crumbs remained on the palm of one's hand. (More about that below)!
As a 23 year old seminarian, I attended the first Mass of a Jesuit priest in 1978 where he used small French Bread loaves with its very crispy crust for the Eucharist. At the Breaking of the Bread at the altar, these loaves were ceremoniously broken by a variety of lay people at the altar and then these were distributed to the laity. I know for a fact, because I saw it with mine eyes, that after Mass, there were crumbs of Consecrated Eucharist, all over the altar and on the carpet where Holy Communion had been distributed! A seminarian friend of mine and myself tried in vain to gather the larger particles from the carpet, but were derided by others who castigated us for the "theology of crumbs!" Do ya think there was an ideology there promoting French Bread Eucharist as well as Holy Communion in the hand? If you believe that our Lord is truly present in all particles of the Eucharistic Bread, then one would be reluctant to use bread that is crumbly, flaky or to receive this type of "Bread" in the hand. So the minimization or ridicule of the Church's faith reality was necessary in order to promote a liturgical innovation and agenda. This trendy agenda at the time lamented what was seen as Liturgical scrupulosity that would motivate "scrupulous" traditional Catholics to have an abhorrence for Eucharistic crumbs on the floor and on one's hands. So undermining one's actual faith in the real Presence of Christ in every speck, crumb, particle and morsel of Holy Communion was necessary for this type of so-called liturgical renewal agenda to go forward, but forward it did go.
This same "theology of crumbs" which is a disparaging description of those whose reverence and belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist includes every particle that is attached to every host, is also carried forward now to the Precious Blood, since there is now wide-spread distribution of the Eucharist under the form of consecrated Wine, from a common chalice or cup.
Many people of an older and more institutionalize piety are concerned that there is a possibility of spilling the Precious Blood by distributing Holy Communion under both forms. Those who promote this custom, both of Holy Communion in the hand and from the chalice say that if particles do fall or the Precious Blood is spilled, God will take care of Himself. I think most of us believe that the all powerful and Almighty God is quite capable of taking care of Himself as well as us. But that's not the point! The point is the reverence we creatures owe to the Almighty God! We actually believe that we must rely upon the Almighty to save us as we cannot do this work of salvation by ourselves. By our worthy reception of Holy Communion, God, Who does not become a part of us in this act, but rather makes us a part of Him is the essence of Superiority in relation to His creatures who receive Him. Should not such an awesome means to accomplish this work of salvation by Almighty God not have the utmost and yes "scrupulous" respect from us, God's creatures?
I have seen with mine own eyes the following--an extra chalice on the altar knocked over by a Communion Minister, thus spilling the Precious Blood everywhere! I have seen children spit the host that was in their mouth into the chalice they were given to drink from. I have seen chewing gum in a chalice because the person receiving accidentally allowed it to fall from her mouth.I have seen the Precious Blood on ties, shirts and blouses, not to mention the floor! I have seen people "self-intinct." I have had extra-ordinary ministers of Holy Communion tell me that some people consume the entire chalice once it is handed to them. I have had Eucharistic ministers tell me that they have a hard time drinking the "dregs" of the Chalice at the end of some 30 people having drunk from the chalice because they fear there is more "backwash of saliva" than Precious Blood remaining. I believe this to be true by the way, because I've had to consume these "dregs!" I don't mind being a martyr for the Holy Mass and the Sacred Species, but I do mind being made to do something that is not necessary in the first place, having 30 to 40 people drink from the same chalice and then cleaning up after that.
Now a conundrum that many will resent me for bringing forward:Intinction! This form of distributing Holy Communion by dipping the Consecrated Host into the Precious Blood with a Paten under the chin of the communicant is permitted in the GIRM of the 2002 Roman Missal. In fact the American bishops in their adaptations of the GIRM state that this is the "second" option available to priests if the priest chooses to follow their bishop's approval for Holy Communion under both kinds, the option of which, of course, is at the discretion of the priest, to allow both Species in his parish or not. He just has to follow the bishop's approval for this permission or exception to allow the chalice for the congregation in the first place. (Have you ever heard people disparagingly call the venerable tradition and ancient one at that, of intinction as "dunking donuts?" Talk about irreverence!You know there is an agenda or ideology at work when you hear that, meaning only the common chalice is legitimate!)(Mine own ears have heard this and mine own tongue has spoken this in the past, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!--dunking donuts, yikes!)
The objection to intinction is that it removes from the communicant the "right" to receive Holy Communion on the palm of the hand. In fact, this is not true, as one could still receive the Host in the hand but not intincted. Then the objection comes that one is removing the "right" of the communicant to receive the Precious Blood if one wants to receive in the hand. Yes--but it is not a liturgical or canonical right to receive the Precious Blood from the Chalice. One receives the Body and Blood of Christ completely under either form. (The only complaints I have received from people since my bishop mandated not allowing the chalice to the people because of H1N1 contagion concerns is that these people felt they were only partially receiving Holy Communion! (More about contagion in a future blog!)
Now, if we buy into the "theology of the Crumbs" in its disparaging way as encouraging us not to be worried about the "crumbs" as scrupulous people are, then we are not concerned that to this very day when people receive even the traditional consecrated host in their hands, that it is possible for small and even larger particles to adhere to their palm,finger and thumb. I have seen with my mine own eyes, children and adults dust off their hands after receiving the host or wipe them on their clothes, or simply ignore any particles of the Sacred Species that might adhere to the palm, thumb or finger of one's hand.
So my question of logic: if we don't worry about these sorts of things anymore,(the theology of crumbs) why not place an "intincted" host onto the palm of the communicant? There really isn't that much Consecrated Wine on the Host. And if the palm gets wet from the Precious Blood, why not rub your hands together to dry it, wipe them on your clothes or simply ignore it? Concern about this is the "theology of scrupulosity" after all, isn't it? My point is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think we should be concerned about both forms of possible intentional or unintentional desecration of the Sacred Species! But that implies returning to the exclusive distribution of Holy Communion on the tongue and to a pre-Vatican II, now post Vatican II with the EF Mass, institutionalized "scrupulosity" but what preferably should be called awe, wonder, respect and reverence for the Sacred Species and fear concerning either intentional or unintentional desecration of the Same.
In a later post I will rant about "germs, viruses, H1N1, the common chalice and the Precious Blood and if one can get sick from drinking the Precious Blood." A clue, no the Precious Blood will not make you sick if your receive or Lord worthily. However, if I drop a bit of arsenic into it you could get sick or even die, no matter how strong your faith in the Real Presence. In other words, germs, viruses and poisons intentionally or unintentionally placed into the Precious Blood after or before the wine is consecrated can make you sick. These poisons, germs and viruses do not become the Precious Blood, but remain independent of the Precious Blood. Thus a deadly poison even in a very small amount can kill you if you drink the Precious Blood. And if you drink the Precious Blood, although poisoned, and in a state of grace, well, what a way to go! More later.....
Sunday, February 7, 2010
JUST FINISHED OUR 2:00 PM MONTHLY EXTRAORDINARY FORM HIGH MASS, MISSA CANTATA
I just finished celebrating our 2:00 PM monthly Sung Extraordinary Form Mass. About 100 people in attendance. After two years of a monthly event, we have developed a culture for Gregorian Chant. Some people think it is impossible to do and they even question if it was done prior to Vatican II. Their version of history is that most parishes only celebrated low Mass and didn't even sing metrical hymns that were allowed for the procession, offertory, communion and recession. They say these were only sung at popular devotions, like Benediction and novenas. I know for a fact that is untrue--we did sing at Mass, hymn and many Marian hymns, sometimes misplaced at processions and communion time.
They believe Gregorian chant, not only plain but the more complex was and is just too hard.They think that scholas and choirs just can't pull it off in the normal, run of the mill parish. If any of you who are old enough to remember accurately what it was like in a typical parish in pre-Vatican II times, please let me know what was the custom in terms of the low and high Mass and the nature of the choirs at that time, in terms of capability. It seems to me that most parishes had a "principal" high Mass most every Sunday, maybe not summer, and then a multitude of low Masses, but even the low Masses had four hymns.
Many thanks to Nelda Chapman, our United Methodist Music Director and organist for her love for the "classics" both the OF and EF Masses! and allowing us to be a Post Vatican II singing parish that includes the complete array of our tradition! Ho-ray!
You should have heard them today! And you should have heard the congregation joining in the Latin Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei and metrical hymns that were sung--who said Catholics don't participate in a full, conscious and intelligent way in our EF Latin Masses--lies, all lies!
They believe Gregorian chant, not only plain but the more complex was and is just too hard.They think that scholas and choirs just can't pull it off in the normal, run of the mill parish. If any of you who are old enough to remember accurately what it was like in a typical parish in pre-Vatican II times, please let me know what was the custom in terms of the low and high Mass and the nature of the choirs at that time, in terms of capability. It seems to me that most parishes had a "principal" high Mass most every Sunday, maybe not summer, and then a multitude of low Masses, but even the low Masses had four hymns.
Many thanks to Nelda Chapman, our United Methodist Music Director and organist for her love for the "classics" both the OF and EF Masses! and allowing us to be a Post Vatican II singing parish that includes the complete array of our tradition! Ho-ray!
You should have heard them today! And you should have heard the congregation joining in the Latin Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei and metrical hymns that were sung--who said Catholics don't participate in a full, conscious and intelligent way in our EF Latin Masses--lies, all lies!
Saturday, February 6, 2010
EXCELLENT COMMENTARY ON THE HERMANUETIC OF CONTINUITY BY: Fr. Nathanael Hauser, O.S.B.
The article I paste below, but already appearing in a longer previous blog, is worth reading.It comes from the comment section of the Pray Tell Blog. It is a bit out of context, but I think you will get the gist of what he is writing. The Benedictine in question, Fr. Anscar, is evidently a well-known liturgist in the field of "enculturation" and the Mass. His hermeneutic in this regard is one of rupture with the past, not of continuity. Fr. Anscar decries Pope Benedict's hermeneutic of continuity. Fr. Nathanael in the article below takes on his own Benedictine Liturgical Scholar, Fr. Anscar, for chastising Msgr. Marini's recent talk to a group of international, English speaking clergy in Rome. Msgr. Marini is Pope Benedict's Master of Ceremonies and quite an impressive young man. He was basically reiterating Pope Benedict's theology of the "Reform of the Reform" and overcoming the ideology of "rupture" that so many have promoted in our beloved Catholic Church for more than 45 years.
It's time to move on, call a spade a spade, and continue the work of salvation of our great Church! Fr. Nathanael also makes a sound case for the nearly 1500 year tradition of the Mass being celebrated, "ad orientem" meaning the priest joining the laity in facing the liturgical east. (Could you imagine anyone, let alone a Benedictine, actually making a case for Ad Orientem, let alone celebrating it with the OF Mass ten years ago?) Fr. Nathanael acknowledges that "ad orientem" would be in continuity with the unique role of the priest as, well, priest,(mediator!) one who offers sacrifice (thanksgiving) and worship to God on behalf of God's people.
Classic Catholic doctrine, unfortunately down played in the last 45 years, teaches that the priest represents both Christ (the head and bridegroom of the Church)in "persona Christi" and the priest also represents the "bride of Christ" the laity at the altar, thus his position facing the altar (when ad orientem) is on the laity's side of it and facing in the same direction as the laity! Have we lost this visual my brothers and sisters? The two natures of who it is that the priest represents?
In addition, the hermeneutic that ICEL used in the 1960's to translate the Latin Mass into English is one of "equivalency" not "accuracy". (Praise God that this dumb hermenutic was thrown out in the revised English translation to be promulgated, hopefully, by Advent 2011!) There is a very clear "political and theological" ideology at work in this form of translation especially as it concerns the neutering of pronouns and gender referring to the Church as "her" or "bride of Christ" "she" "holy mother" etc. While not in the 1970 English Mass, many since that time have advocated for neutering any masculine pronouns (He, Him) that refer to God and sometimes even the Risen Lord. This ideology (you really can't call it theology!) has led to the desire to neuter the priest in terms of his sacramental position and sign as "alter Christus!" This plays into the agenda and the rupture "ideology" so many are embracing today, especially feminists, that it doesn't really matter what gender the sacramental sign of Christ is at the altar, thus the case for female priestesses.
But what exactly does a female priestess celebrating "Mass" signify if Christ is the Bridegroom of the Church? She signifies not bridegroom but "spouse" and the Church (clergy and laity) signify not bride or mother, but spouse and parent and yes "it". (Don't so many of us use the term "it" in describing she who is the Church? I know I do sometimes, yikes!)
Is it any wonder that the Anglican/Episcopal Church which ordains "priestesses" also now celebrates gay marriages? Duh! The Episcopalians have thrown out two of the most significant sacraments of the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ instituted in this regard: Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders!
Our current sociological and cultural phenomenon of neutering male and female roles for spouses (husband-man-spouse, wife-woman-spouse, father-man-parent, mother-woman-parent) is also at work in our Church for the past 40 years amongst an elitist group of scholars and religious. These elitists would decry our sound Catholic doctrine that Christ,whom the priest represents in the Church and specifically at Mass, gives birth to new Children through His bride, the Church,(clergy and laity) who being His bride is also the Mother of the faithful. This birth of new children is generated not through physical conception and birth, but by water and the Holy Spirit. The priest, however, even though he is a "sacramental, visual sign" of the "bridegroomness" and "Fatherness" as well as "priestness" and "shepherdness" of Jesus, still remains a mere mortal configured to the laity too. In a very real sacramental way (Holy Orders) the priest at Mass is a visual,walking and talking sacramental sign of the two natures of the Divine Person of Jesus, human and divine in one Divine Person! Of course the priest is not Jesus nor divine, just the visual (sacramental, by virtue of ordination into Holy Orders) sign of Him in the Risen Lord's complete "Status!" The Risen Lord is now the exclusive "High Priest" who offers Himself again and again, in an unbloody way to His Heavenly Father, at every Mass. The Risen Lord continues to be the Good Shepherd of His flock the Church. And the Risen Lord is the Bridegroom of the Church who is His bride.
In other words, a woman cannot be a priest in the Judeo-Christian understanding of the Priesthood (except configured to the male Christ, along with men in the "feminine" nature and description of the Church as bride and mother,which comes from the "priesthood of the laity" through Holy Baptism). Through Holy Baptism and Confirmation, men and women laity functioning as a "priestly people" offer along with the male priest (my sacrifice and yours) the Lord Jesus' passion,death and resurrection.
Only within paganism or Christianity that departs from divinely revealed truth, can a woman be called a priest (a male term, as priestess is the female term linguistically). Beware, though, if you teach the truth about all this, radical Catholic feminists who embrace the "hermeneutic of rupture" will crucify you or me for what I just wrote! But take heart, Jesus was crucified for the truth too!
At any rate, Fr. Nathanael's commentary:
Written by: Fr. Nathanael Hauser, O.S.B. on February 1, 2010 - 10:29 pm
I hesitate to enter the Liturgical controversies, being an art historian rather than a Liturgist. However, I have been personally acquainted with Fr. Anscar since 1980 and greatly respect his work, having spoken with him and read many of his books and articles. It is because of my respect for his work that I am disappointed with this speech. I think that it is important recognize it as a speech that is meant to rally the troops, rather than a scholarly article. Given that, one must allow him room to overemphasize and even to exaggerate.
His remarks, though, seem to me to grossly misstate the history of the past 50 years in order to inflame the current liturgical situation rather than to add to the scholarship that his status demands. Fr. Anscar implies in his second paragraph that we are in a new “autumn” that has suddenly blighted the bright springtime of the Church. However, nothing has been said in the recent past that was not said over twenty years ago by the Holy See in “Vicesimus Quintus Annus” of 1988 (for instance in v13: “It cannot be tolerated that certain priests should take upon themselves the right to compose Eucharistic Prayers or to substitute profane readings for texts from Sacred Scripture. Initiatives of this sort, far from being linked with the liturgical reform as such, or with the books, which have issued from it, are in direct contradiction to it, disfigure it and deprive the Christian people of the genuine treasures of the Liturgy of the Church.”).
More important is Fr. Anscar’s assertion that “The agenda is, to all appearance, an attempt to put the clock back half a century.” He then asks some rhetorical questions that, if taken as serious questions, would indeed contribute to the conversation that is so needed today. The one question that I would like to discuss is his questioning of the new translations. To be clear, I have nothing invested in the new translations. From my reading, I can agree with many of the criticisms of them. The problem that I see is the assumption in Fr. Anscar’s speech that the current translation was the philosophically best kind of translation and to move away from that philosophy is to turn the clock back fifty years.
This declaration is to pretend that the question of the best way to translate was settled in 1960. The translators of that time followed the then new ideas of Eugene Nidal and his idea of Dynamic Equivalence. The difficulty with Fr. Anscar’s approach is that since then this philosophy has been critiqued by many in the field and has even been corrected by Nidal himself who dropped the term. (see: “Theories of Translation.” TTR: traduction, terminologie, redaction 4.1. 1991. 19-32 and also “The Sociolinguistics of Translating Canonical Religious Texts” TTR, 7.1. 1994. 191-217). Further, Nidal’s philosophy of translation was developed as a way to translate the Bible in a non-Catholic context: that is, freed of any authoritative tradition.
One need only scan the articles in “Meta: journal des traducteurs” to see how active the level of critique of this form of translation has been since 1960 and continues to be today. One article I would recommend is: Jacobus A. Naudé. “On the Threshold of the Next Generation of Bible Translations: Issues and Trends.” Meta 50. 4. 2005. http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/019851ar
The question, then, is not one of scholarship but of ideology. To pretend that the “historical research, theological investigation, and pastoral consciousness” of the 1970s would inevitably lead the Church into its present condition is ridiculous on its face. It is obvious to any historian (even an art historian as myself!) that any major disruption in culture is brought about by politics and ideology not by research and investigation.
That this is ideology is clear in Fr. Anscar’s rhetorical questions. For instance, he asks “Will the priestly role of mediation be reinforced by praying at the altar with the back to the assembly?” The question itself reveals the author’s implied response and gives no credit to the past fifty years of scholarly attention that has been given to the question of the orientation of the altar. This question is not about scholarship, or of turning back the clock, but of what the writer prefers. Indeed, that there is no real scholarship behind the turning of the altars was admitted as early as 1959 in an article by John H. Miller, (“Altar facing the People: Fact or Fable” Worship 33. 2. 83-91) in which he says that given the scholarship of the day “… advocates of the altar “versus populum” base their cause on other reasons BESIDES historical ones. We invoke two theological reasons: a deeper consciousness of the reality of sacramental priesthood and a valued appraisal of the Mass as a banquet in format. To this we add a valid psychological motive: the people can see better the actions of the priest and understand them as, at least partially, directed towards themselves.” (Emphasis in the original.)
The question then is, as it has always been, one of theological views. A particular viewpoint was ascendant for many years but is now being increasingly questioned by many in the Church in 2010. In my estimation, these important theological questions would be better served if all parties admitted that and ceased to try to hide behind the conceit that one’s interlocutors are simply romantics attempting to turn back the clock.
It's time to move on, call a spade a spade, and continue the work of salvation of our great Church! Fr. Nathanael also makes a sound case for the nearly 1500 year tradition of the Mass being celebrated, "ad orientem" meaning the priest joining the laity in facing the liturgical east. (Could you imagine anyone, let alone a Benedictine, actually making a case for Ad Orientem, let alone celebrating it with the OF Mass ten years ago?) Fr. Nathanael acknowledges that "ad orientem" would be in continuity with the unique role of the priest as, well, priest,(mediator!) one who offers sacrifice (thanksgiving) and worship to God on behalf of God's people.
Classic Catholic doctrine, unfortunately down played in the last 45 years, teaches that the priest represents both Christ (the head and bridegroom of the Church)in "persona Christi" and the priest also represents the "bride of Christ" the laity at the altar, thus his position facing the altar (when ad orientem) is on the laity's side of it and facing in the same direction as the laity! Have we lost this visual my brothers and sisters? The two natures of who it is that the priest represents?
In addition, the hermeneutic that ICEL used in the 1960's to translate the Latin Mass into English is one of "equivalency" not "accuracy". (Praise God that this dumb hermenutic was thrown out in the revised English translation to be promulgated, hopefully, by Advent 2011!) There is a very clear "political and theological" ideology at work in this form of translation especially as it concerns the neutering of pronouns and gender referring to the Church as "her" or "bride of Christ" "she" "holy mother" etc. While not in the 1970 English Mass, many since that time have advocated for neutering any masculine pronouns (He, Him) that refer to God and sometimes even the Risen Lord. This ideology (you really can't call it theology!) has led to the desire to neuter the priest in terms of his sacramental position and sign as "alter Christus!" This plays into the agenda and the rupture "ideology" so many are embracing today, especially feminists, that it doesn't really matter what gender the sacramental sign of Christ is at the altar, thus the case for female priestesses.
But what exactly does a female priestess celebrating "Mass" signify if Christ is the Bridegroom of the Church? She signifies not bridegroom but "spouse" and the Church (clergy and laity) signify not bride or mother, but spouse and parent and yes "it". (Don't so many of us use the term "it" in describing she who is the Church? I know I do sometimes, yikes!)
Is it any wonder that the Anglican/Episcopal Church which ordains "priestesses" also now celebrates gay marriages? Duh! The Episcopalians have thrown out two of the most significant sacraments of the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ instituted in this regard: Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders!
Our current sociological and cultural phenomenon of neutering male and female roles for spouses (husband-man-spouse, wife-woman-spouse, father-man-parent, mother-woman-parent) is also at work in our Church for the past 40 years amongst an elitist group of scholars and religious. These elitists would decry our sound Catholic doctrine that Christ,whom the priest represents in the Church and specifically at Mass, gives birth to new Children through His bride, the Church,(clergy and laity) who being His bride is also the Mother of the faithful. This birth of new children is generated not through physical conception and birth, but by water and the Holy Spirit. The priest, however, even though he is a "sacramental, visual sign" of the "bridegroomness" and "Fatherness" as well as "priestness" and "shepherdness" of Jesus, still remains a mere mortal configured to the laity too. In a very real sacramental way (Holy Orders) the priest at Mass is a visual,walking and talking sacramental sign of the two natures of the Divine Person of Jesus, human and divine in one Divine Person! Of course the priest is not Jesus nor divine, just the visual (sacramental, by virtue of ordination into Holy Orders) sign of Him in the Risen Lord's complete "Status!" The Risen Lord is now the exclusive "High Priest" who offers Himself again and again, in an unbloody way to His Heavenly Father, at every Mass. The Risen Lord continues to be the Good Shepherd of His flock the Church. And the Risen Lord is the Bridegroom of the Church who is His bride.
In other words, a woman cannot be a priest in the Judeo-Christian understanding of the Priesthood (except configured to the male Christ, along with men in the "feminine" nature and description of the Church as bride and mother,which comes from the "priesthood of the laity" through Holy Baptism). Through Holy Baptism and Confirmation, men and women laity functioning as a "priestly people" offer along with the male priest (my sacrifice and yours) the Lord Jesus' passion,death and resurrection.
Only within paganism or Christianity that departs from divinely revealed truth, can a woman be called a priest (a male term, as priestess is the female term linguistically). Beware, though, if you teach the truth about all this, radical Catholic feminists who embrace the "hermeneutic of rupture" will crucify you or me for what I just wrote! But take heart, Jesus was crucified for the truth too!
At any rate, Fr. Nathanael's commentary:
Written by: Fr. Nathanael Hauser, O.S.B. on February 1, 2010 - 10:29 pm
I hesitate to enter the Liturgical controversies, being an art historian rather than a Liturgist. However, I have been personally acquainted with Fr. Anscar since 1980 and greatly respect his work, having spoken with him and read many of his books and articles. It is because of my respect for his work that I am disappointed with this speech. I think that it is important recognize it as a speech that is meant to rally the troops, rather than a scholarly article. Given that, one must allow him room to overemphasize and even to exaggerate.
His remarks, though, seem to me to grossly misstate the history of the past 50 years in order to inflame the current liturgical situation rather than to add to the scholarship that his status demands. Fr. Anscar implies in his second paragraph that we are in a new “autumn” that has suddenly blighted the bright springtime of the Church. However, nothing has been said in the recent past that was not said over twenty years ago by the Holy See in “Vicesimus Quintus Annus” of 1988 (for instance in v13: “It cannot be tolerated that certain priests should take upon themselves the right to compose Eucharistic Prayers or to substitute profane readings for texts from Sacred Scripture. Initiatives of this sort, far from being linked with the liturgical reform as such, or with the books, which have issued from it, are in direct contradiction to it, disfigure it and deprive the Christian people of the genuine treasures of the Liturgy of the Church.”).
More important is Fr. Anscar’s assertion that “The agenda is, to all appearance, an attempt to put the clock back half a century.” He then asks some rhetorical questions that, if taken as serious questions, would indeed contribute to the conversation that is so needed today. The one question that I would like to discuss is his questioning of the new translations. To be clear, I have nothing invested in the new translations. From my reading, I can agree with many of the criticisms of them. The problem that I see is the assumption in Fr. Anscar’s speech that the current translation was the philosophically best kind of translation and to move away from that philosophy is to turn the clock back fifty years.
This declaration is to pretend that the question of the best way to translate was settled in 1960. The translators of that time followed the then new ideas of Eugene Nidal and his idea of Dynamic Equivalence. The difficulty with Fr. Anscar’s approach is that since then this philosophy has been critiqued by many in the field and has even been corrected by Nidal himself who dropped the term. (see: “Theories of Translation.” TTR: traduction, terminologie, redaction 4.1. 1991. 19-32 and also “The Sociolinguistics of Translating Canonical Religious Texts” TTR, 7.1. 1994. 191-217). Further, Nidal’s philosophy of translation was developed as a way to translate the Bible in a non-Catholic context: that is, freed of any authoritative tradition.
One need only scan the articles in “Meta: journal des traducteurs” to see how active the level of critique of this form of translation has been since 1960 and continues to be today. One article I would recommend is: Jacobus A. Naudé. “On the Threshold of the Next Generation of Bible Translations: Issues and Trends.” Meta 50. 4. 2005. http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/019851ar
The question, then, is not one of scholarship but of ideology. To pretend that the “historical research, theological investigation, and pastoral consciousness” of the 1970s would inevitably lead the Church into its present condition is ridiculous on its face. It is obvious to any historian (even an art historian as myself!) that any major disruption in culture is brought about by politics and ideology not by research and investigation.
That this is ideology is clear in Fr. Anscar’s rhetorical questions. For instance, he asks “Will the priestly role of mediation be reinforced by praying at the altar with the back to the assembly?” The question itself reveals the author’s implied response and gives no credit to the past fifty years of scholarly attention that has been given to the question of the orientation of the altar. This question is not about scholarship, or of turning back the clock, but of what the writer prefers. Indeed, that there is no real scholarship behind the turning of the altars was admitted as early as 1959 in an article by John H. Miller, (“Altar facing the People: Fact or Fable” Worship 33. 2. 83-91) in which he says that given the scholarship of the day “… advocates of the altar “versus populum” base their cause on other reasons BESIDES historical ones. We invoke two theological reasons: a deeper consciousness of the reality of sacramental priesthood and a valued appraisal of the Mass as a banquet in format. To this we add a valid psychological motive: the people can see better the actions of the priest and understand them as, at least partially, directed towards themselves.” (Emphasis in the original.)
The question then is, as it has always been, one of theological views. A particular viewpoint was ascendant for many years but is now being increasingly questioned by many in the Church in 2010. In my estimation, these important theological questions would be better served if all parties admitted that and ceased to try to hide behind the conceit that one’s interlocutors are simply romantics attempting to turn back the clock.
Friday, February 5, 2010
FROM THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER!
But don't fret! The author is John Allen and because of that, he's fair and balanced and fun to read not only because of his great style of writing, but because he really has something to write about:
A 'DALLAS EXPERIENCE' IN ORTHODOXY AND OPENNESS
by John L Allen Jr on Feb. 05, 2010
* All Things Catholic
In Georges Bernanos' Diary of a Country Priest, the elderly Curé de Torcy gives his young priest friend a bit of advice about proclaiming the Gospel: "The Word of God is a red-hot iron," he says. "Truth is meant to save you first, and the comfort comes later."
One could probably craft a meditation on the state of the Catholic soul today in terms of the tension between those two values -- truth and comfort. We want the church to offer comfort, which among other things implies that Catholics shouldn't brutalize one another in internal tribal warfare. Yet we also want the church to be bold in proclaiming the truth that saves, which inevitably means that sometimes lines have to be drawn and feelings may be bruised.
The $64,000 question is, can we do both? Can the Catholic church be both the "sacrament of the unity of the human race" and a fearless evangelical force?
One place to watch these tensions play out is the University of Dallas, where I took part in a panel discussion Monday night devoted to "the identity of a Catholic university." The point of departure was Bishop Kevin Farrell's commencement address last May, in which he warned against "dogmatism, closed mindedness, judgmentalism, [and] suspicion of another's motives" in the life of a Catholic university.
Here's what makes the situation especially interesting.
A strong current in Catholic life these days is what I've called "evangelical Catholicism," meaning a drive for clarity and courage about Catholic identity. It's both top-down, the most important policy-setting instinct in Catholicism, and also bottom-up, especially palpable among a cohort of younger Catholics usually tagged the "John Paul II generation."
Dallas has just such an evangelical ethos. Given its recent history and the kind of person it tends to attract, the university is popularly regarded as a "conservative" alternative to Catholic institutions sometimes seen as more secular and liberal. (I chatted with one young man Monday night, for example, who told me there's a cluster of students at UD from California who came here because they didn't feel they could find a "serious" Catholic university back home.)
In other words, if you're looking for an experiment as to whether it's possible to be both unapologetically Catholic and yet civil in engaging disagreement, the University of Dallas represents a mighty interesting laboratory.
Moreover, the powers that be seem to understand that. Back in 2001, the staff of what was then called the "Institute for Religious and Pastoral Studies" defected to the new Ave Maria College, and then-Bishop Charles Grahmann called their exodus a "blessing." (The bishop of Dallas is also the chancellor of the university.)
Grahmann said the leaders of the institute had become "advocates of an ideal orthodoxy and built walls that no one could penetrate." When the dust settled, the result was a new School of Ministry self-consciously designed to be more mainstream.
Farrell's commencement address last May forms part of the same picture.
"We need to be self-critical and realize that no one of us has the only approach to Catholicism," Farrell said. (His address was published in Origins in August). "Honest debate, not confrontation -- true dialogue where we seek to understand the other, not facile condemnation -- should be the overarching way we move forward."
"The word 'heretic' has been reserved for precious few people in our Catholic tradition," Farrell said, rejecting what he called "verbal fratricide" and a tendency to become "smug, dismissive and righteous" about the Catholic intellectual tradition.
"No theologian, or professor or pope, has ever had or ever will have all the answers to what it means to be authentically and fully Catholic," Farrell said.
Obviously, Farrell didn't craft these remarks in a vacuum. He challenged "verbal fratricide" because, at least in the eyes of some, that occasionally describes the climate at the University of Dallas. As one insider put it to me, the official motto is "The Catholic University for Independent Thinkers," but in practice it can feel like a university for people who think only one way about being Catholic.
To be sure, Farrell is no milquetoast on Catholic identity. Recall that he and Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth issued a joint pastoral letter on Catholics and politics in October 2008, calling abortion "the defining moral issue, not just of today but of the last 35 years." It was widely seen as a warning to Catholics about supporting Obama (or, at least, doing so uncritically), and led to protests outside the chancery.
Yet Farrell's commencement address amounted to a plea to blend orthodoxy with openness, clarity with generosity of spirit. That's a beguiling vision, but just because somebody decrees it doesn't automatically make it so.
I spoke with a few students and faculty on Monday night who embody the evangelical outlook, and who told me they feel stigmatized by some elements in the university's leadership. They worry that what's precious to them about the university, meaning its robust Catholicity, may be at risk. Meanwhile, others told me they're weary of feeling that their orthodoxy is constantly under a microscope, and that someone always seems ready to question their Catholic credentials over any disagreement, however trivial.
In other words, things are still messy. Yet the reality is that there are precious few places where what we might call the "evangelicals" and the "moderates" in the Catholic world actually live cheek by jowl in significant numbers, and the tensions at UD are therefore also an index of possibility -- the possibility that the university could offer an object lesson in how truth and comfort, clarity and dialogue, can coexist.
Especially with a new university president taking over on March 1, the "Dallas experiment" bears watching.
* * *
As a footnote, I may have inadvertently added fuel to the fire by introducing something new to fight over: My phrase "Taliban Catholicism" to capture a certain trajectory within the church. (At least I think I coined the term, though for all I know somebody else got there first.)
In my brief remarks Monday night, I applauded Farrell's vision, underscoring it with a bit of rhetoric that's become part of my standard stump speech. A defining challenge for the church these days, I said, is to craft a synthesis between entirely legitimate hunger for identity on the one hand, and engagement with the great social movements of the time on the other.
That synthesis, I said, has to involve striking a balance between two extremes. Here's how I described them:
"On the one extreme lies what my friend and colleague George Weigel correctly terms 'Catholicism Lite,' meaning a watered-down, sold-out form of secularized religiosity, Catholic in name only. On the other is what I call 'Taliban Catholicism,' meaning a distorted, angry form of the faith that knows only how to excoriate, condemn, and smash the TV sets of the modern world."
Some in the audience chuckled, but others weren't so amused. One younger faculty member rose during the Q&A period to offer a thoughtful, and heartfelt, challenge:
"To say things with clarity is not to be the Catholic Taliban," she said, adding that she found the phrase "profoundly offensive."
"There are no suicide bombers in the Catholic church," she said, "but we have had an epidemic of Catholicism Lite for the last 30 years." Younger Catholics, she insisted, should not be dismissed as fanatics simply because they seek "fidelity and clarity."
Her remarks were met with applause, suggesting she had struck a chord, though others later pulled me aside to say they found them strident. (By the way, it turns out the questioner is a relative of a friend of mine in Rome ... small world.)
For the record, she's not the first person who's objected to the term "Taliban Catholicism," just as others protested when Weigel first started talking about "Catholicism Lite." Of course, when pundits employ such sound-bites, part of the point is to provoke a reaction, so it would be disingenuous to proclaim shock that anyone could take offense.
That said, let me offer two clarifications that may help.
First, at least when I use them, the phrases "Catholicism Lite" and "Taliban Catholicism" are not intended to describe real people. Instead, I understand them as states of mind, instincts, and psychological tendencies -- potential distortions in Catholic life that can flare up anywhere if we're not careful.
To be honest, there's probably a little Catholic Lite and a little Taliban in all of us.
Second, I suspect many people assume that by "Catholicism Lite" I mean the Catholic left, and by "Taliban Catholicism" the church's conservatives. Not so.
In fact, there's a right-wing form of Catholicism Lite that's just as watered-down and sold out to secularism as its kissing cousin on the left. In the States, it can take the form of a country club Republican Catholicism -- untroubled by the inequities of global free-market capitalism, quite at home with anti-immigrant rhetoric, the death penalty, and the use of armed force.
At least in my mind, the defining feature of "Catholicism Lite" is not a liberal or conservative outlook, but rather taking one's cues from secular culture rather than the faith. No ideological camp has a monopoly on that.
Similarly, there's a Taliban instinct on the Catholic left that can be just as noxious as its right-wing version. It generally includes paranoia about almost any exercise of authority in the church, coupled with derision of any attempt to defend traditional Catholic thought, speech or practice -- a liberal "hermeneutic of suspicion" that can easily shade off into rage. Try telling a certain kind of Catholic liberal that Benedict XVI isn't actually "rolling back the clock" on Vatican II, for example, and you'll want to duck and cover before the shooting starts.
Bottom line: When I talk about "Taliban Catholicism," I know I'm playing with fire -- but the point is to invite an examination of conscience across the board, myself very much included, not to slur one side or the other in Catholic debates.
[John Allen is NCR senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
Copyright © The National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company
115 E. Armour Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64111
(TEL 1-816-531-0538 FAX 1-816-968-2268)
A 'DALLAS EXPERIENCE' IN ORTHODOXY AND OPENNESS
by John L Allen Jr on Feb. 05, 2010
* All Things Catholic
In Georges Bernanos' Diary of a Country Priest, the elderly Curé de Torcy gives his young priest friend a bit of advice about proclaiming the Gospel: "The Word of God is a red-hot iron," he says. "Truth is meant to save you first, and the comfort comes later."
One could probably craft a meditation on the state of the Catholic soul today in terms of the tension between those two values -- truth and comfort. We want the church to offer comfort, which among other things implies that Catholics shouldn't brutalize one another in internal tribal warfare. Yet we also want the church to be bold in proclaiming the truth that saves, which inevitably means that sometimes lines have to be drawn and feelings may be bruised.
The $64,000 question is, can we do both? Can the Catholic church be both the "sacrament of the unity of the human race" and a fearless evangelical force?
One place to watch these tensions play out is the University of Dallas, where I took part in a panel discussion Monday night devoted to "the identity of a Catholic university." The point of departure was Bishop Kevin Farrell's commencement address last May, in which he warned against "dogmatism, closed mindedness, judgmentalism, [and] suspicion of another's motives" in the life of a Catholic university.
Here's what makes the situation especially interesting.
A strong current in Catholic life these days is what I've called "evangelical Catholicism," meaning a drive for clarity and courage about Catholic identity. It's both top-down, the most important policy-setting instinct in Catholicism, and also bottom-up, especially palpable among a cohort of younger Catholics usually tagged the "John Paul II generation."
Dallas has just such an evangelical ethos. Given its recent history and the kind of person it tends to attract, the university is popularly regarded as a "conservative" alternative to Catholic institutions sometimes seen as more secular and liberal. (I chatted with one young man Monday night, for example, who told me there's a cluster of students at UD from California who came here because they didn't feel they could find a "serious" Catholic university back home.)
In other words, if you're looking for an experiment as to whether it's possible to be both unapologetically Catholic and yet civil in engaging disagreement, the University of Dallas represents a mighty interesting laboratory.
Moreover, the powers that be seem to understand that. Back in 2001, the staff of what was then called the "Institute for Religious and Pastoral Studies" defected to the new Ave Maria College, and then-Bishop Charles Grahmann called their exodus a "blessing." (The bishop of Dallas is also the chancellor of the university.)
Grahmann said the leaders of the institute had become "advocates of an ideal orthodoxy and built walls that no one could penetrate." When the dust settled, the result was a new School of Ministry self-consciously designed to be more mainstream.
Farrell's commencement address last May forms part of the same picture.
"We need to be self-critical and realize that no one of us has the only approach to Catholicism," Farrell said. (His address was published in Origins in August). "Honest debate, not confrontation -- true dialogue where we seek to understand the other, not facile condemnation -- should be the overarching way we move forward."
"The word 'heretic' has been reserved for precious few people in our Catholic tradition," Farrell said, rejecting what he called "verbal fratricide" and a tendency to become "smug, dismissive and righteous" about the Catholic intellectual tradition.
"No theologian, or professor or pope, has ever had or ever will have all the answers to what it means to be authentically and fully Catholic," Farrell said.
Obviously, Farrell didn't craft these remarks in a vacuum. He challenged "verbal fratricide" because, at least in the eyes of some, that occasionally describes the climate at the University of Dallas. As one insider put it to me, the official motto is "The Catholic University for Independent Thinkers," but in practice it can feel like a university for people who think only one way about being Catholic.
To be sure, Farrell is no milquetoast on Catholic identity. Recall that he and Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth issued a joint pastoral letter on Catholics and politics in October 2008, calling abortion "the defining moral issue, not just of today but of the last 35 years." It was widely seen as a warning to Catholics about supporting Obama (or, at least, doing so uncritically), and led to protests outside the chancery.
Yet Farrell's commencement address amounted to a plea to blend orthodoxy with openness, clarity with generosity of spirit. That's a beguiling vision, but just because somebody decrees it doesn't automatically make it so.
I spoke with a few students and faculty on Monday night who embody the evangelical outlook, and who told me they feel stigmatized by some elements in the university's leadership. They worry that what's precious to them about the university, meaning its robust Catholicity, may be at risk. Meanwhile, others told me they're weary of feeling that their orthodoxy is constantly under a microscope, and that someone always seems ready to question their Catholic credentials over any disagreement, however trivial.
In other words, things are still messy. Yet the reality is that there are precious few places where what we might call the "evangelicals" and the "moderates" in the Catholic world actually live cheek by jowl in significant numbers, and the tensions at UD are therefore also an index of possibility -- the possibility that the university could offer an object lesson in how truth and comfort, clarity and dialogue, can coexist.
Especially with a new university president taking over on March 1, the "Dallas experiment" bears watching.
* * *
As a footnote, I may have inadvertently added fuel to the fire by introducing something new to fight over: My phrase "Taliban Catholicism" to capture a certain trajectory within the church. (At least I think I coined the term, though for all I know somebody else got there first.)
In my brief remarks Monday night, I applauded Farrell's vision, underscoring it with a bit of rhetoric that's become part of my standard stump speech. A defining challenge for the church these days, I said, is to craft a synthesis between entirely legitimate hunger for identity on the one hand, and engagement with the great social movements of the time on the other.
That synthesis, I said, has to involve striking a balance between two extremes. Here's how I described them:
"On the one extreme lies what my friend and colleague George Weigel correctly terms 'Catholicism Lite,' meaning a watered-down, sold-out form of secularized religiosity, Catholic in name only. On the other is what I call 'Taliban Catholicism,' meaning a distorted, angry form of the faith that knows only how to excoriate, condemn, and smash the TV sets of the modern world."
Some in the audience chuckled, but others weren't so amused. One younger faculty member rose during the Q&A period to offer a thoughtful, and heartfelt, challenge:
"To say things with clarity is not to be the Catholic Taliban," she said, adding that she found the phrase "profoundly offensive."
"There are no suicide bombers in the Catholic church," she said, "but we have had an epidemic of Catholicism Lite for the last 30 years." Younger Catholics, she insisted, should not be dismissed as fanatics simply because they seek "fidelity and clarity."
Her remarks were met with applause, suggesting she had struck a chord, though others later pulled me aside to say they found them strident. (By the way, it turns out the questioner is a relative of a friend of mine in Rome ... small world.)
For the record, she's not the first person who's objected to the term "Taliban Catholicism," just as others protested when Weigel first started talking about "Catholicism Lite." Of course, when pundits employ such sound-bites, part of the point is to provoke a reaction, so it would be disingenuous to proclaim shock that anyone could take offense.
That said, let me offer two clarifications that may help.
First, at least when I use them, the phrases "Catholicism Lite" and "Taliban Catholicism" are not intended to describe real people. Instead, I understand them as states of mind, instincts, and psychological tendencies -- potential distortions in Catholic life that can flare up anywhere if we're not careful.
To be honest, there's probably a little Catholic Lite and a little Taliban in all of us.
Second, I suspect many people assume that by "Catholicism Lite" I mean the Catholic left, and by "Taliban Catholicism" the church's conservatives. Not so.
In fact, there's a right-wing form of Catholicism Lite that's just as watered-down and sold out to secularism as its kissing cousin on the left. In the States, it can take the form of a country club Republican Catholicism -- untroubled by the inequities of global free-market capitalism, quite at home with anti-immigrant rhetoric, the death penalty, and the use of armed force.
At least in my mind, the defining feature of "Catholicism Lite" is not a liberal or conservative outlook, but rather taking one's cues from secular culture rather than the faith. No ideological camp has a monopoly on that.
Similarly, there's a Taliban instinct on the Catholic left that can be just as noxious as its right-wing version. It generally includes paranoia about almost any exercise of authority in the church, coupled with derision of any attempt to defend traditional Catholic thought, speech or practice -- a liberal "hermeneutic of suspicion" that can easily shade off into rage. Try telling a certain kind of Catholic liberal that Benedict XVI isn't actually "rolling back the clock" on Vatican II, for example, and you'll want to duck and cover before the shooting starts.
Bottom line: When I talk about "Taliban Catholicism," I know I'm playing with fire -- but the point is to invite an examination of conscience across the board, myself very much included, not to slur one side or the other in Catholic debates.
[John Allen is NCR senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
Copyright © The National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company
115 E. Armour Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64111
(TEL 1-816-531-0538 FAX 1-816-968-2268)
MY LETTER OF WELCOME TO THOSE WHO DESIRE TO REGISTER AT ST. JOSEPH CATHOLIC CHURCH
I've revised my letter of welcome for those who register here. I hope I capture what we are as a Catholic parish.
Dear Friends in Christ,
I am so very pleased that you have moved to St. Joseph parish and desire to register here. Church law has set geographical boundaries for what constitutes a parish and the pastor who has the care of souls in that particular geographical area. It is important for me to make clear that if you join our parish and do not live within our parish boundaries, that I must inform you where your parish Church is located and the proper pastor of this “geographical” site called a parish. Once you know this, but nonetheless desire to register here for what are considered serious reasons, we are happy to welcome you.
Please know that our primary mission is to “teach, govern and sanctify” God’s people so that we may come to know, love and serve Jesus Christ in this life and to be happy with Him forever in heaven. Everything we do, from Holy Mass and the other sacraments, especially Penance, to Christian service, and to catechesis is directed toward the love of God and the salvation of souls. We strive as a Catholic parish to live the Faith and Morals of our holy religion and to be a people of faith and good works, inspired by hope and love. We also respect canon law (Church Law) which brings order to our Catholic community.
We are a part of the Diocese of Savannah and I represent to you our chief shepherd, Bishop J. Kevin Boland. He, of course, is appointed by and shares in the work of our Pope and the other bishops in union with him. The priests and staff of St. Joseph Church are here to serve you, not as workers at Wal-Mart might do, but as companions on the pilgrimage that leads to salvation. Together we strive to use our God-given gifts to be obedient to Jesus Christ, Holy Mother, Church and to our high calling to bring Christ to the world in the particular vocation Christ has for us and in our specific “avocation.” Thank you for joining us to help us to perpetually pick up the Holy Cross and walk in the footsteps of our Savior, through His “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!” God bless you.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Father Allan J. McDonald
Pastor
Dear Friends in Christ,
I am so very pleased that you have moved to St. Joseph parish and desire to register here. Church law has set geographical boundaries for what constitutes a parish and the pastor who has the care of souls in that particular geographical area. It is important for me to make clear that if you join our parish and do not live within our parish boundaries, that I must inform you where your parish Church is located and the proper pastor of this “geographical” site called a parish. Once you know this, but nonetheless desire to register here for what are considered serious reasons, we are happy to welcome you.
Please know that our primary mission is to “teach, govern and sanctify” God’s people so that we may come to know, love and serve Jesus Christ in this life and to be happy with Him forever in heaven. Everything we do, from Holy Mass and the other sacraments, especially Penance, to Christian service, and to catechesis is directed toward the love of God and the salvation of souls. We strive as a Catholic parish to live the Faith and Morals of our holy religion and to be a people of faith and good works, inspired by hope and love. We also respect canon law (Church Law) which brings order to our Catholic community.
We are a part of the Diocese of Savannah and I represent to you our chief shepherd, Bishop J. Kevin Boland. He, of course, is appointed by and shares in the work of our Pope and the other bishops in union with him. The priests and staff of St. Joseph Church are here to serve you, not as workers at Wal-Mart might do, but as companions on the pilgrimage that leads to salvation. Together we strive to use our God-given gifts to be obedient to Jesus Christ, Holy Mother, Church and to our high calling to bring Christ to the world in the particular vocation Christ has for us and in our specific “avocation.” Thank you for joining us to help us to perpetually pick up the Holy Cross and walk in the footsteps of our Savior, through His “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!” God bless you.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Father Allan J. McDonald
Pastor
RIGHT ON PATER IGNOTUS!
As some of you may be aware, Pater Ignotus (father unknown, but presumably a Catholic priest)has often challenged me to good humor, lighthearted debates that have occurred in the "comments" section of this blog. Sometimes,things do get inflamed. He offers a comment to Gabriel Wilensky that hits the target's bull's eye. Kudos! I paste it here prominently but also publish it in the previous blogs comment section:
To Gabriel Wilensky:
In her small book, "Did Pope Pius XII Help The Jews?", Sr. Margherita Marchione offers a limited chronology of Pius XII's life. The first entry concerning Pacelli and the Jews is February 9, 1916. (Note the date) "In response to an appeal by the American Jewish Committee on Dec 30, 1915, that Pope Benedict XV use his moral influence to speak out against anti-Semitism, Pacelli (later, Pius XII) became deeply involved in the preparation of a pro-Jewish document signed by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Gaspari. His statement appeared in the New York Times, April 17, 1916 under the headline, "Papal Bull Urges Equality for Jews."
As early as 1916, Pacelli was involved in work on behalf of the Jews.
Both "Pius XII and the Second World War - According to the Vatican Archives" by Fr. Pierre Blet, SJ, and "The Myth of Hitler's Pope" by Rabbi David Dalin, offer extensive reviews, based in part on Vatican archival materials, of the involvement of Pius XII and the Vatican on behalf of the Jews throughout the years before, during, and immediately after World War II.
Both books cite their sources. Dalin's book alone offers 673 end notes.
It seems to me that anyone who asks "Where is the evidence?" has simply not looked.
To Gabriel Wilensky:
In her small book, "Did Pope Pius XII Help The Jews?", Sr. Margherita Marchione offers a limited chronology of Pius XII's life. The first entry concerning Pacelli and the Jews is February 9, 1916. (Note the date) "In response to an appeal by the American Jewish Committee on Dec 30, 1915, that Pope Benedict XV use his moral influence to speak out against anti-Semitism, Pacelli (later, Pius XII) became deeply involved in the preparation of a pro-Jewish document signed by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Gaspari. His statement appeared in the New York Times, April 17, 1916 under the headline, "Papal Bull Urges Equality for Jews."
As early as 1916, Pacelli was involved in work on behalf of the Jews.
Both "Pius XII and the Second World War - According to the Vatican Archives" by Fr. Pierre Blet, SJ, and "The Myth of Hitler's Pope" by Rabbi David Dalin, offer extensive reviews, based in part on Vatican archival materials, of the involvement of Pius XII and the Vatican on behalf of the Jews throughout the years before, during, and immediately after World War II.
Both books cite their sources. Dalin's book alone offers 673 end notes.
It seems to me that anyone who asks "Where is the evidence?" has simply not looked.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
To Gabriel Wilensky: IF WE ARE GOING TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE, THEN LET US CALL THEM ALL OUT, PLEASE!
To my previous blog on Pope Pius XII, Gabriel Wilensky comments and I paste it here again below. I am no expert on Pope Pius XII, therefore I cannot condemn or accuse him. I can only listen to the voices of historians and these voices and writings offer totally different perspectives. I tend to want to believe that Pope Pius XII was not an anti-Semite and did what he could and more so than most other world leaders. I also believe that with 20/20 hindsight we can fault him and many others for what they didn't do, verbally and in actuality.
But let's say that Mr. (Dr.?) Wilensky is correct in his assessment about Pope Pius XII. I will also agree that anti-Semitism was at work throughout the ages, even pre-Christian, that has contributed to Jewish suffering and the Holocaust. Christians from this perspective could well be complicit. But lets face it Hitler and his henchmen were far from Christian--they were atheistic, godless secularists trying to form a Utopian society of perfect blue-eyed, blond Germans.
In addition, many Jewish commentators are silent on the other 6 million who died under Hitler. These died also because of their ethnic origin, mental or physical disabilities or sexual orientation. The majority of these were Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. Was Pope Pius XII anti-Christian due to is so-called silence in this regard?
Finally, lets fast forward to today. In this country alone nearly 50 million unborn children have been slaughtered because of our Government's promotion of the legality of abortion.These victims' only crime is that they are "unborn, underdeveloped physically, unwanted, undesired, unseen, not heard and perhaps the wrong gender and experience mental and physical disabilities that would be burdensome to those who would have to care for them." While I know it may not be appropriate to call this a Holocaust, what would we call it? I would ask Mr. Wilensky if he has been silent about this wholesale slaughter? What Jewish Rabbis in this country have been silent? Are there any rabbis on the international level and in Israel who remain silent on this wholesale slaughter in the USA and elsewhere? Please name them! Or has there been an explicit call to allow for the legalization of this slaughter under the euphemism of the despicable term "Pro-choice?" We're in the midst of this major infanticide today and blindness, silence and advocacy for the pro-choice agenda needs to be condemned as loudly and clearly as the voices against Pope Pius XII condemn him for his so-called silence and inaction during and before his papacy! Mr. Wilensky, I hope your silence will not be deafening on this subject of legalized abortion.
Gabriel Wilensky said...
Pope Benedict claims the “The Apostolic See itself provided assistance, often in a hidden and discreet way” during the Holocaust. How does he know this? Is there any evidence he has access to the rest of the world doesn’t? If so, given the controversy surrounding the role of the Vatican and of Pope Pius XII during the murder of six million Jews, the last and most devastating step in a long history of antisemitism fostered by the Church for centuries, it behooves the Church to release any information as soon as possible. Yet, about 50 years ago when the controversy about Pope Pius began the Holy See released eleven volumes of documents with the purpose of “exonerating” the wartime pope from any wrongdoing, including that of inaction. It stands to reason these must have been the best documents showing the Vatican’s “hidden and discreet” work to save Jews. Yet, almost none of it showed the Holy See or the pope had done that. The Vatican’s public efforts are of course well-known, and they show no clear action on behalf of the hounded Jews of Europe, including those of Rome. Now Pope Benedict wants to raise Pope Pius to the sainthood for his “heroic virtues”. Even though it’s the Church’s prerogative to canonize whoever they wish, canonizing Pope Pius XII before the Vatican Secret Archives covering the WWII period are opened to independent researchers is a misguided effort that can turn into a public relations disaster for the Catholic Church.
Gabriel Wilensky
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author
Six Million Crucifixions:
How Christian Teachings About Jews Paved the Road to the Holocaust
http://www.SixMillionCrucifixions.com
Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sixmillionbook
-------------------------
But let's say that Mr. (Dr.?) Wilensky is correct in his assessment about Pope Pius XII. I will also agree that anti-Semitism was at work throughout the ages, even pre-Christian, that has contributed to Jewish suffering and the Holocaust. Christians from this perspective could well be complicit. But lets face it Hitler and his henchmen were far from Christian--they were atheistic, godless secularists trying to form a Utopian society of perfect blue-eyed, blond Germans.
In addition, many Jewish commentators are silent on the other 6 million who died under Hitler. These died also because of their ethnic origin, mental or physical disabilities or sexual orientation. The majority of these were Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. Was Pope Pius XII anti-Christian due to is so-called silence in this regard?
Finally, lets fast forward to today. In this country alone nearly 50 million unborn children have been slaughtered because of our Government's promotion of the legality of abortion.These victims' only crime is that they are "unborn, underdeveloped physically, unwanted, undesired, unseen, not heard and perhaps the wrong gender and experience mental and physical disabilities that would be burdensome to those who would have to care for them." While I know it may not be appropriate to call this a Holocaust, what would we call it? I would ask Mr. Wilensky if he has been silent about this wholesale slaughter? What Jewish Rabbis in this country have been silent? Are there any rabbis on the international level and in Israel who remain silent on this wholesale slaughter in the USA and elsewhere? Please name them! Or has there been an explicit call to allow for the legalization of this slaughter under the euphemism of the despicable term "Pro-choice?" We're in the midst of this major infanticide today and blindness, silence and advocacy for the pro-choice agenda needs to be condemned as loudly and clearly as the voices against Pope Pius XII condemn him for his so-called silence and inaction during and before his papacy! Mr. Wilensky, I hope your silence will not be deafening on this subject of legalized abortion.
Gabriel Wilensky said...
Pope Benedict claims the “The Apostolic See itself provided assistance, often in a hidden and discreet way” during the Holocaust. How does he know this? Is there any evidence he has access to the rest of the world doesn’t? If so, given the controversy surrounding the role of the Vatican and of Pope Pius XII during the murder of six million Jews, the last and most devastating step in a long history of antisemitism fostered by the Church for centuries, it behooves the Church to release any information as soon as possible. Yet, about 50 years ago when the controversy about Pope Pius began the Holy See released eleven volumes of documents with the purpose of “exonerating” the wartime pope from any wrongdoing, including that of inaction. It stands to reason these must have been the best documents showing the Vatican’s “hidden and discreet” work to save Jews. Yet, almost none of it showed the Holy See or the pope had done that. The Vatican’s public efforts are of course well-known, and they show no clear action on behalf of the hounded Jews of Europe, including those of Rome. Now Pope Benedict wants to raise Pope Pius to the sainthood for his “heroic virtues”. Even though it’s the Church’s prerogative to canonize whoever they wish, canonizing Pope Pius XII before the Vatican Secret Archives covering the WWII period are opened to independent researchers is a misguided effort that can turn into a public relations disaster for the Catholic Church.
Gabriel Wilensky
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author
Six Million Crucifixions:
How Christian Teachings About Jews Paved the Road to the Holocaust
http://www.SixMillionCrucifixions.com
Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sixmillionbook
-------------------------
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
POPE PIUS XII: WHY DO SOME JEWS SO HATE HIM?
In the last month, I have had two people, one Jew, one Catholic tell me how horrible a man Pope Pius XII was. The Catholic told me that if Pius XII is canonized, he'll leave the Church! The current rewriting of history concerning this "pious" soul is truly astounding and makes one wonder about political and religious agendas at work.
There is no doubt in my mind that Christians since day one have harbored anti-Semitic prejudice that has led to the great suffering of Jews. The Holocaust and Christian complicity in it must be examined and if Christianity in any way had any thing to do with how Jews have been mistreated and murdered, then there must be repentance and yes, justice. However, it is also possible that there is anti-Catholicism at work with the current campaign to malign Pope Pius XII. After all, anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice in our current culture. Hopefully, though, this anti-Catholicism will not lead to the types of things that Jews experienced through anti-Semitic prejudice.But you never know how the wind will shift!
The following article is noteworthy:
Much-maligned pontiff
By Dimitri Cavalli
Tags: Israel news
Some things never go away. The controversy over Pope Pius XII's actions during World War II was recently reignited when Pope Benedict XVI signed a decree affirming that his predecessor displayed "heroic virtues" during his lifetime. When the pope visited the Great Synagogue of Rome on Sunday, Riccardo Pacifici, president of Rome's Jewish community, told him: "The silence of Pius XII before the Shoah still hurts because something should have been done."
This was not the first time the wartime pope, who is now a step closer to beatification, has been accused of keeping silent during the Holocaust, of doing little or nothing to help the Jews, and even of collaborating with the Nazis. To what extent, if any, does the evidence back up these allegations, which have been repeated since the early 1960s?
On April 4, 1933, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, the Vatican secretary of state, instructed the papal nuncio in Germany to see what he could do to oppose the Nazis' anti-Semitic policies.
Advertisement
On behalf of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Pacelli drafted an encyclical, entitled "Mit brennender Sorge" ("With Burning Anxiety"), that condemned Nazi doctrines and persecution of the Catholic Church. The encyclical was smuggled into Germany and read from Catholic pulpits on March 21, 1937.
Although many Vatican critics today dismiss the encyclical as a light slap on the wrist, the Germans saw it as a security threat. For example, on March 26, 1937, Hans Dieckhoff, an official in the German foreign ministry, wrote that the "encyclical contains attacks of the severest nature upon the German government, calls upon Catholic citizens to rebel against the authority of the state, and therefore signifies an attempt to endanger internal peace."
Both Great Britain and France should have interpreted the document as a warning that they should not trust Adolf Hitler or try to appease him.
After the death of Pius XI, Cardinal Pacelli was elected pope, on March 2, 1939. The Nazis were displeased with the new pontiff, who took the name Pius XII. On March 4, Joseph Goebbels, the German propaganda minister, wrote in his diary: "Midday with the Fuehrer. He is considering whether we should abrogate the concordat with Rome in light of Pacelli's election as pope."
During the war, the pope was far from silent: In numerous speeches and encyclicals, he championed human rights for all people and called on the belligerent nations to respect the rights of all civilians and prisoners of war. Unlike many of the pope's latter-day detractors, the Nazis understood him very well. After studying Pius XII's 1942 Christmas message, the Reich Central Security Office concluded: "In a manner never known before the pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order ... Here he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals." (Pick up any book that criticizes Pius XII, and you won't find any mention of this important report.)
In early 1940, the pope acted as an intermediary between a group of German generals who wanted to overthrow Hitler and the British government. Although the conspiracy never went forward, Pius XII kept in close contact with the German resistance and heard about two other plots against Hitler. In the fall of 1941, through diplomatic channels, the pope agreed with Franklin Delano Roosevelt that America's Catholics could support the president's plans to extend military aid to the Soviet Union after it was invaded by the Nazis. On behalf of the Vatican, John T. McNicholas, the archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, delivered a well-publicized address that explained that the extension of assistance to the Soviets could be morally justified because it helped the Russian people, who were the innocent victims of German aggression.
Throughout the war, the pope's deputies frequently ordered the Vatican's diplomatic representatives in many Nazi-occupied and Axis countries to intervene on behalf of endangered Jews. Up until Pius XII's death in 1958, many Jewish organizations, newspapers and leaders lauded his efforts. To cite one of many examples, in his April 7, 1944, letter to the papal nuncio in Romania, Alexander Shafran, chief rabbi of Bucharest, wrote: "It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews ... The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance."
The campaign against Pope Pius XII is doomed to failure because his detractors cannot sustain their main charges against him - that he was silent, pro-Nazi, and did little or nothing to help the Jews - with evidence. Perhaps only in a backward world such as ours would the one man who did more than any other wartime leader to help Jews and other Nazi victims, receive the greatest condemnation.
Dimitri Cavalli is an editor and writer in New York City. He is working on books on both Pope Pius XII and Joe McCarthy, the late manager of the New York Yankees.
There is no doubt in my mind that Christians since day one have harbored anti-Semitic prejudice that has led to the great suffering of Jews. The Holocaust and Christian complicity in it must be examined and if Christianity in any way had any thing to do with how Jews have been mistreated and murdered, then there must be repentance and yes, justice. However, it is also possible that there is anti-Catholicism at work with the current campaign to malign Pope Pius XII. After all, anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice in our current culture. Hopefully, though, this anti-Catholicism will not lead to the types of things that Jews experienced through anti-Semitic prejudice.But you never know how the wind will shift!
The following article is noteworthy:
Much-maligned pontiff
By Dimitri Cavalli
Tags: Israel news
Some things never go away. The controversy over Pope Pius XII's actions during World War II was recently reignited when Pope Benedict XVI signed a decree affirming that his predecessor displayed "heroic virtues" during his lifetime. When the pope visited the Great Synagogue of Rome on Sunday, Riccardo Pacifici, president of Rome's Jewish community, told him: "The silence of Pius XII before the Shoah still hurts because something should have been done."
This was not the first time the wartime pope, who is now a step closer to beatification, has been accused of keeping silent during the Holocaust, of doing little or nothing to help the Jews, and even of collaborating with the Nazis. To what extent, if any, does the evidence back up these allegations, which have been repeated since the early 1960s?
On April 4, 1933, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, the Vatican secretary of state, instructed the papal nuncio in Germany to see what he could do to oppose the Nazis' anti-Semitic policies.
Advertisement
On behalf of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Pacelli drafted an encyclical, entitled "Mit brennender Sorge" ("With Burning Anxiety"), that condemned Nazi doctrines and persecution of the Catholic Church. The encyclical was smuggled into Germany and read from Catholic pulpits on March 21, 1937.
Although many Vatican critics today dismiss the encyclical as a light slap on the wrist, the Germans saw it as a security threat. For example, on March 26, 1937, Hans Dieckhoff, an official in the German foreign ministry, wrote that the "encyclical contains attacks of the severest nature upon the German government, calls upon Catholic citizens to rebel against the authority of the state, and therefore signifies an attempt to endanger internal peace."
Both Great Britain and France should have interpreted the document as a warning that they should not trust Adolf Hitler or try to appease him.
After the death of Pius XI, Cardinal Pacelli was elected pope, on March 2, 1939. The Nazis were displeased with the new pontiff, who took the name Pius XII. On March 4, Joseph Goebbels, the German propaganda minister, wrote in his diary: "Midday with the Fuehrer. He is considering whether we should abrogate the concordat with Rome in light of Pacelli's election as pope."
During the war, the pope was far from silent: In numerous speeches and encyclicals, he championed human rights for all people and called on the belligerent nations to respect the rights of all civilians and prisoners of war. Unlike many of the pope's latter-day detractors, the Nazis understood him very well. After studying Pius XII's 1942 Christmas message, the Reich Central Security Office concluded: "In a manner never known before the pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order ... Here he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals." (Pick up any book that criticizes Pius XII, and you won't find any mention of this important report.)
In early 1940, the pope acted as an intermediary between a group of German generals who wanted to overthrow Hitler and the British government. Although the conspiracy never went forward, Pius XII kept in close contact with the German resistance and heard about two other plots against Hitler. In the fall of 1941, through diplomatic channels, the pope agreed with Franklin Delano Roosevelt that America's Catholics could support the president's plans to extend military aid to the Soviet Union after it was invaded by the Nazis. On behalf of the Vatican, John T. McNicholas, the archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, delivered a well-publicized address that explained that the extension of assistance to the Soviets could be morally justified because it helped the Russian people, who were the innocent victims of German aggression.
Throughout the war, the pope's deputies frequently ordered the Vatican's diplomatic representatives in many Nazi-occupied and Axis countries to intervene on behalf of endangered Jews. Up until Pius XII's death in 1958, many Jewish organizations, newspapers and leaders lauded his efforts. To cite one of many examples, in his April 7, 1944, letter to the papal nuncio in Romania, Alexander Shafran, chief rabbi of Bucharest, wrote: "It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews ... The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance."
The campaign against Pope Pius XII is doomed to failure because his detractors cannot sustain their main charges against him - that he was silent, pro-Nazi, and did little or nothing to help the Jews - with evidence. Perhaps only in a backward world such as ours would the one man who did more than any other wartime leader to help Jews and other Nazi victims, receive the greatest condemnation.
Dimitri Cavalli is an editor and writer in New York City. He is working on books on both Pope Pius XII and Joe McCarthy, the late manager of the New York Yankees.
FROM THE PRAY TELL BLOG: Fair and balanced, but on progressive side
This is from the Pray Tell Blog www.praytellblog.com
I'm not sure how this looks on my blog having pasted it on to mine. However, please read the subject matter, then the comments below. I have a few that got me into some hot water. But the comment that I really want you to read is the last one by Fr. Nathanael Hauser, O.S.B. His comment knocked my socks off--excellent and very well said and tactfully so, something I sometimes fail at with my hyperbole. But I am half Italian and my Canadian side isn't much better! I'm the incarnation of multi-culturalism, being half Italian, half Canadian and having grown up in the south! The following is a bit long.
“Liturgical Studies and Liturgical Renewal,” Fr. Anscar Chupungco, OSB
Jan 25
Posted by Other Voices in Inculturation, Reform of the Reform | 26 Comments
We present the entire address of Anscar Chupungco — follow the first link below. – Ed.
World-renowned expert in liturgical inculturation, Fr. Anscar Chupungco OSB, challenged recent announcements on liturgical reform decrying their “absence of a historical and cultural approach to the liturgy, or, in a word, the inability to fuse together the two basic concepts of Vatican II’s liturgical renewal, namely sound tradition and legitimate progress.” He noted that recent statements coming from no less than the papal master of ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini, which called for a reform of Vatican II’s reform were part of an agenda to turn the clock back 50 years, that “seems to conveniently forget that since Vatican II, the Church has been marching with the times, acknowledging the changes in social and religious culture, and adopting new pastoral strategies.”
Fr. Chupungco received a standing ovation for his paper, “Liturgical Studies and Liturgical Renewal” that was delivered at the launch of The Broken Bay Institute-University of Newcastle’s programs of Liturgical Studies (Graduate Certificate in Theology – Liturgical Studies and Master of Theology – Liturgical Studies). Fr. Chupungco, a scholar whose expertise in liturgical inculturation has placed him in a critical staging area for the Church, is the first Filipino on the Pontifical Institute’s faculty, serving as the Institute’s President for 12 of his 23 years in Rome.
Fr. Chupungco noted that students of liturgy should be aware of recent developments, including recent Roman documents “that are becoming increasingly perplexing.” Fr. Chupungco noted that the good “student of liturgy should know how to critique historical development in the light of Vatican II’s liturgical principles, like the central place of the paschal mystery, the place of God’s word, active participation with all that this implies (vernacular, congregational singing, lay ministry), and the ecclesial dimension of the sacrament and sacramentals. These constitute the guiding principles to decide whether things are liturgically acceptable or not.” Fr. Chupungco urged students to become “equipped with a critical mind that allows them to weigh the value of new norms and directives, though always in the spirit of ecclesial obedience.”
Fr. Chupungco concluded: “The long and short of it is that liturgical reform requires serious academic work, not mere romantic attachments to the past that close the eyes to the reality of the present time. The drive for legitimate progress makes us run towards the realisation of Vatican II’s liturgical reform, but we should not run as if we did not carry on our shoulders the weight, both heavy and precious, of sound tradition.”
Source: CathNews, Australia
This entry was posted on January 25, 2010, 8:52 am and is filed under Inculturation, Reform of the Reform. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
26 Comments
*
#1 by F C Bauerschmidt on January 25, 2010 - 11:17 am
Reply Quote
I have some serious doubts about the rhetoric of “reform-of-the-reform,” since I think it often masks a nostalgic restorationism. But I become a bit more sympathetic when I read someone saying (approvingly) that “since Vatican II, the Church has been marching with the times.” Of course I know that Fr. Chupungco is a more sophisticated thinker than this single quotation would indicate, but it is these sorts of statements that give the reform-of-the-reform rhetoric its traction.
o
#2 by Karl Liam Saur on January 25, 2010 - 12:33 pm
Reply Quote
I agree; the rhetoric brings to mind images like this:
http://www.sovmusic.ru/jpg/posters/ussr0482.jpg
Rallying the like-minded tends to get in the way of persuading the opposite-minded. There’s far too much of it in Catholic liturgical discourse. Anyway, his remark “but we should not run as if we did not carry on our shoulders the weight, both heavy and precious, of sound tradition” is a helpful balance.
*
#3 by J Peter Nixon on January 25, 2010 - 12:06 pm
Reply Quote
Any chance we can get a link to the full text of the address?
*
#4 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on January 25, 2010 - 12:38 pm
Reply Quote
I’ll work on it.
awr
*
#5 by Charles Culbreth on January 25, 2010 - 3:41 pm
Reply Quote
Dear FC Bauerschmidt,
I would offer the following video as examples of clearly defined “rhetoric” regard “Reform2″ proponents.
http://www.vimeo.com/8941838
o
#6 by Fr. Allan McDonald on January 26, 2010 - 8:38 am
Reply Quote
Thanks for that video! Are we going to let the liturgical experts, i.e. elitists, tell us that our nearly 1500 years of Latin Rite heritage are nothing compared to what “they” say is the “spirit of Vatican II” which in only 45 years supposedly trumped as “new and improved” everything that preceded it? ? I prefer what Msgr. Marini speaks of, as it is in continuity with the Holy Father’s writings and example. The Holy Father is calling for “organic” development of the Liturgy, which an “elitist” committee in Rome foisted upon the universal Church after Vatican II. Vatican II was much more measured and nuanced about any future revisions compared to what a small body of so-called liturgists eventually imposed upon us with the help of Pope Paul VI. These revisions, while authoritative and yes valid, are in no way comparable to the liturgical document of Vatican II–therefore Vatican II actually must be the hermeneutic we must follow in the “reform of the reform.” We must go back to what Vatican II actually requested! The Holy Father is on to something. Liturgists still living in the pseudeo-euphoria of 1965 need to sober up–it’s 2010! We’re not trying to turn the clock back on Vatican II, only on the ill-advised post Vatican II revision of the Mass and lack of oversight on vernacular translations and just what inculturation means. Not everything in any one’s culture is good or should be dragged into the Latin Rite liturgy. Some things are good. The question is, who decides? I think our Roman Catholic Tradition and ecclessiology makes that quite clear.
+
#7 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on January 26, 2010 - 8:46 am
Quote
Fr. Allan, I live right in the thick of liturgical reform in Collegeville, and I honestly don’t know anyone who is “still living in the pseudo-euphoria of 1965.” I do know lots of sincere people of differing opinions who are doing their best to serve the Church. I’m finding some of your stereotyping and word choice to be divisive.
Pax in Christo,
awr
*
#8 by Robert Burns on January 26, 2010 - 7:31 pm
Reply Quote
“I’m finding some of your stereotyping and word choice to be divisive.”
It may be divisive to conclude that many liturgists are “still living in the pseudo-euphoria of 1965”, but I think it’s largely true. To “march with the times”, was the governing principle then and is still as the preceding quote from Fr. Chupungco proves. That desire to bend the essentials of the Faith to suit modern sensibilities, which had been gaining strength since the beginning of the 20th century, was held back from spewing its poison largely by The Anti-Modernist Oath required of all clergy and professors in philosophical and theological seminaries. If some Catholics feel a little outrage at the junking of that oath and the seemingly consequent dismantling of the sensus Catholicus, perhaps a little understanding is in order.
Fr. McDonald’s disgust with modernists and “elitists” hijacking Vatican II in the name of the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” is justified and Fr. Chupungco’s insistance that any Reform of the Reform requires “serious academic work” smacks of that modernist elitism. Just what does he think has been going on in Pope Benedict’s head? Oh, that’s right – he told us – “mere romantic attachments to the past that close the eyes to the reality of the present time”. His claim of finding “sound tradition” “precious” rings hollow.
*
#9 by Todd Flowerday on January 27, 2010 - 12:01 am
Reply Quote
What hampers many tradition-advocating musicians is a set of presumptions which, though not divisive, are fairly insulting. I have no reason to doubt Fr McDonald’s experiences with bad eggs. I have some of my own. Let’s talk about them over a beer or something.
But lets not imagine or elevate our personal subjective experiences translate somehow into good theology.
*
#10 by Charles Culbreth on January 27, 2010 - 12:21 am
Reply Quote
That’s not playing fair, Todd.
What presumptions exactly have you deemed insulting as advanced by those who advocate respect for tradition.
Please enlighten.
o
#11 by Todd Flowerday on January 27, 2010 - 11:27 am
Reply Quote
Fair? I’m only playing with what was posted here. Let’s make a list: liturgical experts, i.e. elitists, so-called liturgists, pseudeo-euphoria, need to sober up–and that’s just in one comment. Do you want me to go back to other threads?
I don’t know that Fr McDonald advocates *respect* for tradition, as much as he conducts a pep rally for it. Authentic respect is cultivated by everything a person writes, says, and does. Fr Ruff is the model of respect, and he manages to poke a bit–respectfully to alter the tone.
I believe that tradition-advocates have a sound case and should be heard. But Fr McDonald shoots the reform2 effort in the foot with posts like this. I sure wouldn’t want him as a spokesman for post-conciliar liturgy.
*
#12 by Fr. Allan McDonald on January 27, 2010 - 5:08 am
Reply Quote
Admittedly, there may be some hyperbole in metaphorical choices in terms of our liturgy today and just what the “spirit of Vatican II” is. I have no doubt about the sincerity of anyone who loves the Church, but we certainly can question advisability of what has occurred over the last 45 to 50 years. Church history also proves that the Holy Spirit somehow works through the chaos that ecumenical councils sometimes bring to the church immediately following their deliberations to elevate the Church to a higher plane, but that takes about 100 years. I have no doubt that Fr. Anscar voice is needed as well as others like Pope Benedict and his favorite liturgical theologians. But alas, we are a hierarchy no matter how much some would wish it wasn’t so. So some voices will carry more weight than others as we continue to go back to the actual documents of the Second Vatican Council and read them through a new lens. In terms of some of my rhetoric, it is to excite discussion. I know the liberal theologians of my major seminary days (1976-80, Baltimore, MD) did it to me and I enjoyed it.
*
#13 by Karl Liam Saur on January 27, 2010 - 8:58 am
Reply Quote
My perspective on rhetorical excess that is designed to excite discussion is that it is better in person than on blogs; blogs are so bloated with provocative statements that they no longer function as they are intended (to engage the skeptical), but more as shibboleths to rally the like-minded.
*
#14 by Paul Schlachter on January 27, 2010 - 11:53 am
Reply Quote
Fr. Chupungco has certainly paid his dues, for his long service both to Philippine Catholics and to the universal church. From his position at the Anselmiano he taught many of us to learn our history and be attentive to the prompts of the culture in which we now live. He has never been a wild-eyed zealot on behalf of gratuitous change. Indeed, he has reminded Americans that we have to experience liturgy first, in other words, stop “hearing mass” and start entering into the paschal mystery with all our senses, before we can consider “reform/renewal.”
As an aside, another professor at the Anselmiano told me once that the Congregation of Worship and the Sacraments had no consultative relationship with liturgists on his faculty. And not a single cardinal prefect of that congregation in recent memory has been either a liturgist or scripture scholar by training. If this is the way our leadership is chosen and behaves, it is not a surprise that there are so many local disconnects among us faithful Catholics.
*
#15 by Carlos Antonio Palad on January 31, 2010 - 5:44 am
Reply Quote
Fr. Chupungco’s speaks of the “cold chill” that has come over the proponents of liturgical reform, and claims that inculturation is now spoken in “hushed” tones. I think those words are more applicable to Filipino Catholics who speak in favor of the “Reform of the Reform” and who support Summorum Pontificum. Certainly in the Philippines, “inculturation” remains the order of the day, and those who favor the approach of Benedict XVI are routinely insulted, marginalized and persecuted.
*
#16 by Robert Mickens on January 31, 2010 - 12:33 pm
Reply Quote
Why has no one that is actively supporting this “reform of the reform” movement responded to the points raised by Fr Chupungco?
He has been a major force in liturgical theology, having been elected to four consecutive terms as president of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute, and four years as rector (or president) of the entire Atheneum of Sant’Asnelmo, which includes all the various faculties (and specialised areas) of philosophy, theology and monastic studies.
Why no reasoned and sound reply??
o
#17 by Fr. Allan McDonald on January 31, 2010 - 2:52 pm
Reply Quote
I’ve not heard of him before, so this blog is quite useful. To be quite honest, inculturation has both negative and positive overtones. As an white American in the south, I’ve had many ministerial experiences with African American Catholics and now with African Catholics. The two have totally different cultural likes and dislikes. Africans for the most part do not care for “Negro Spirituals” but certainly African Americans do as well as whites. In fact one of our Masses had a Gospel Choir and many whites preferred it to our standard “Anglo” Masses–but then comes the rub, the division this creates in a multi-cultural parish–so I would like to learn and listen, but more and more I’d like to see some unity in the diversity. I do think that the African liturgies that Pope Benedict celebrated in Africa, what Pope John Paul celebrated for the canonization of St. Juan Diego are inspiring and a starting point for understanding as well as local adaptations.
o
#18 by Ioannes Andreades on February 1, 2010 - 5:36 am
Reply Quote
Without a doubt, the poorest paragraph in the speech (abounding in sloppy reasoning) is that beginning, “A serious study in liturgy…” He dismisses as simply a historically conditioned statement (”peculiar circumstances surrounding the Council”) the Conciliar pronouncement that Latin remain the language of the liturgy and that Gregorian chant have the chief position of music in the mass (princeps locus). Apparently no other material in Sacraosanctum Concilium is attenuated by such “peculiar circumstances.” It is exactly this kind of cafeteria legalism that drives RotR’ers like me up the wall. It’s no surprise that when the laity sees its priests picking and choosing, that it picks and chooses as well. Far from being a “serious study,” Fr. Chupungo’s talk displays egoism and arrogance.
*
#19 by Eric Styles, SJ on January 31, 2010 - 11:05 pm
Reply Quote
Fr. McDonald,
After being so critical of Fr. Chupungco, I found it disheartening and all too telling to read that you had never heard of him until reading him here. I would very much think it would be important for you to do more listening when it comes to inculturation. I would also caution your quick denouncement of Fr. Chupungco’s academic orientation. I am an African American Catholic and it has become more than clear to me that the slow progress of our particular population is due to the lack of two major necessities: (1) indigenous clergy and (2) authentic inculturation.
You make reference to some experience in African American cultural contexts, yet I wonder how open you might be to the possibility that even a relatively long stint in a multicultural parish could never give you the skills to discern what might qualify as authentic black Catholic inculturation. Might it ever have occurred to you that the genius and particular gifts of a black culture might not be so obvious? I myself am a student of African American culture and Catholic worship and I would never dismiss the hard work of scholars and cultural workers who have labored and sacrificed to make way for a truly inculturated black Catholic liturgy.
No, African Americans and Continental Africans don’t share the same tastes. Who would say that we do? Yet and still, within African American culture are crosscurrents of multiple cultural paradigms and West African cultures with their distinctive religiosity are central. Hard work work in intellectual thought, solid pastoral commitment, and deep love for the whole tradition are absolutely essential.
The work of inculturation will never be done, though many would acknowledge the need to regroup and continuously rethink our vision. And lastly, if you asked me (and I know you didn’t) I would say that instead of blaming the intellectuals we would do better to reconnect to the greatest of our artists and ask them to re-immerse themselves in the church’s tradition, history and current pastoral concerns so that we might have a return of the kind of liturgical art that is of the highest caliber, speaking the language of the people, that is, the language of faith, the language of the heart.
o
#20 by Fr. Allan McDonald on February 2, 2010 - 8:22 am
Reply Quote
Thanks for your comments. I was not completely honest about being a “southern white.” I am a native Italian with a completely native Italian mother, who now 90, still speaks to me exclusively in Italian. My father was a Canadian immigrant and at the age of three I moved with them from Italy to Georgia where I grew up in army neighborhoods and parishes. From 1960 to 1976, my parish in Augusta, GA was composed of some southerners, but mostly Hispanic, Korean, Italian, German, French, Filipino, Vietnamese. As a seminarian I worked in a black parish and my first year of ordination was in one. My downtown parish in Augusta where I was pastor from 1991 to 2004 was an amalgamation of two other parishes that closed, one all black and merged into a third. We had a significant black population. The highest compliment that I received from my African American brothers and sisters is that they didn’t see me as “white.” And in fact, I find many similarities in my black brothers and sisters that I see in my Italian side.
Now to Macon where I pastor since 2004. The parish next to mine was founded as a black parish in the early 20th century, but all white clergy and religious–but strong and thriving. A concerted effort was made to integrate the parish in the 1960’s-whites were encouraged to move in and join–they formed a folk group! The Folk Group is still strong today. Of the two Masses available on Sunday morning, a more traditional organ music one at 9:00 AM and the 11:00 AM that is folk, which do you think is predominately white in attendance? In addition, there is now a separate Spanish Mass predominately for Mexican immigrants that now outnumber the blacks and the whites. In addition to that the pastor for the past five years is from Poland! He is now replaced by a new pastor who is from Nigeria–it will be interesting over there to see how that works.
In my childhood multi-cultural parish, in pre-Vatican II times, we all attended the same Mass, homily of course in English. Music traditional, but there was also always a low Mass with no music. We intermingled. We new each other and celebrated festivals in meals, processions and popular devotions unique to some of the other cultures, Mass, though, was not “inculturated.” After Vatican II, much did not change, but we had folk music and traditional music masses. Today in that same parish, there is a Korean Mass, Vietnamese Mass and Spanish Mass–the community has no popular devotions except surrounding “Our Lady of Guadeloupe.” The pastor today is Irish. But has a Korean priest and a Vietnamese Mass and he can celebrate Spanish Masses.
So, I hope this puts things into context. Finally, my criticism of Fr. Chupungco had little to do with what he has done, since I don’t know what he’s done, but with his comments concerning the papal MC, Msgr. Marini. Marini was basically mouthing what his boss Pope Benedict believes about the reform of the reform and the hermeneutic of continuity rather than rupture. From what I gathered in Fr. Chupungco’s remarks about Msgr. Marini is that he prefers the status quo of the past 45 years liturgically–progressive rupture. I think we can disagree on which hermeneutic is best for the Church even if we don’t really understand the forms of “inculturation” many would like to impose on the Latin Rite.
*
#21 by Carlos Antonio Palad on January 31, 2010 - 11:59 pm
Reply Quote
“Why has no one that is actively supporting this “reform of the reform” movement responded to the points raised by Fr Chupungco?
“He has been a major force in liturgical theology, having been elected to four consecutive terms as president of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute, and four years as rector (or president) of the entire Atheneum of Sant’Asnelmo, which includes all the various faculties (and specialised areas) of philosophy, theology and monastic studies.
“Why no reasoned and sound reply??”
Perhaps because the talk abounds with cliches (”back to the people”), loaded words (”rightist” — and, in the Philippines, this is just about one of the worst appellations you can apply to anyone), and obvious contempt for those who favor the Reform of the Reform. I don’t think it can be considered as a serious effort to “critique” the ROTR.
Such rhetoric is better met with silence. I assume that the supporters of the ROTR have a lot on their plate and that responding to every cliche-ridden attack is not a good way for them to spend their time.
*
#22 by Ralph Harris on February 1, 2010 - 2:07 am
Reply Quote
Fr. Anscar Chupungco’s comments seem not to be informed by documents
like SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM. Perhaps they were written some time ago,
before these crucial documents came out to clarify some of the misunderstandings?
*
#23 by Fr. Nathanael Hauser, O.S.B. on February 1, 2010 - 10:29 pm
Reply Quote
I hesitate to enter the Liturgical controversies, being an art historian rather than a Liturgist. However, I have been personally acquainted with Fr. Anscar since 1980 and greatly respect his work, having spoken with him and read many of his books and articles. It is because of my respect for his work that I am disappointed with this speech. I think that it is important recognize it as a speech that is meant to rally the troops, rather than a scholarly article. Given that, one must allow him room to overemphasize and even to exaggerate.
His remarks, though, seem to me to grossly misstate the history of the past 50 years in order to inflame the current liturgical situation rather than to add to the scholarship that his status demands. Fr. Anscar implies in his second paragraph that we are in a new “autumn” that has suddenly blighted the bright springtime of the Church. However, nothing has been said in the recent past that was not said over twenty years ago by the Holy See in “Vicesimus Quintus Annus” of 1988 (for instance in v13: “It cannot be tolerated that certain priests should take upon themselves the right to compose Eucharistic Prayers or to substitute profane readings for texts from Sacred Scripture. Initiatives of this sort, far from being linked with the liturgical reform as such, or with the books, which have issued from it, are in direct contradiction to it, disfigure it and deprive the Christian people of the genuine treasures of the Liturgy of the Church.”).
More important is Fr. Anscar’s assertion that “The agenda is, to all appearance, an attempt to put the clock back half a century.” He then asks some rhetorical questions that, if taken as serious questions, would indeed contribute to the conversation that is so needed today. The one question that I would like to discuss is his questioning of the new translations. To be clear, I have nothing invested in the new translations. From my reading, I can agree with many of the criticisms of them. The problem that I see is the assumption in Fr. Anscar’s speech that the current translation was the philosophically best kind of translation and to move away from that philosophy is to turn the clock back fifty years.
This declaration is to pretend that the question of the best way to translate was settled in 1960. The translators of that time followed the then new ideas of Eugene Nidal and his idea of Dynamic Equivalence. The difficulty with Fr. Anscar’s approach is that since then this philosophy has been critiqued by many in the field and has even been corrected by Nidal himself who dropped the term. (see: “Theories of Translation.” TTR: traduction, terminologie, redaction 4.1. 1991. 19-32 and also “The Sociolinguistics of Translating Canonical Religious Texts” TTR, 7.1. 1994. 191-217). Further, Nidal’s philosophy of translation was developed as a way to translate the Bible in a non-Catholic context: that is, freed of any authoritative tradition.
One need only scan the articles in “Meta: journal des traducteurs” to see how active the level of critique of this form of translation has been since 1960 and continues to be today. One article I would recommend is: Jacobus A. Naudé. “On the Threshold of the Next Generation of Bible Translations: Issues and Trends.” Meta 50. 4. 2005. http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/019851ar
The question, then, is not one of scholarship but of ideology. To pretend that the “historical research, theological investigation, and pastoral consciousness” of the 1970s would inevitably lead the Church into its present condition is ridiculous on its face. It is obvious to any historian (even an art historian as myself!) that any major disruption in culture is brought about by politics and ideology not by research and investigation.
That this is ideology is clear in Fr. Anscar’s rhetorical questions. For instance, he asks “Will the priestly role of mediation be reinforced by praying at the altar with the back to the assembly?” The question itself reveals the author’s implied response and gives no credit to the past fifty years of scholarly attention that has been given to the question of the orientation of the altar. This question is not about scholarship, or of turning back the clock, but of what the writer prefers. Indeed, that there is no real scholarship behind the turning of the altars was admitted as early as 1959 in an article by John H. Miller, (“Altar facing the People: Fact or Fable” Worship 33. 2. 83-91) in which he says that given the scholarship of the day “… advocates of the altar “versus populum” base their cause on other reasons BESIDES historical ones. We invoke two theological reasons: a deeper consciousness of the reality of sacramental priesthood and a valued appraisal of the Mass as a banquet in format. To this we add a valid psychological motive: the people can see better the actions of the priest and understand them as, at least partially, directed towards themselves.” (Emphasis in the original.)
The question then is, as it has always been, one of theological views. A particular viewpoint was ascendant for many years but is now being increasingly questioned by many in the Church in 2010. In my estimation, these important theological questions would be better served if all parties admitted that and ceased to try to hide behind the conceit that one’s interlocutors are simply romantics attempting to turn back the clock.
o
#24 by Fr. Allan McDonald on February 2, 2010 - 11:42 am
Reply Quote
Fr. Nathan! WOW! God bless you.
o
I'm not sure how this looks on my blog having pasted it on to mine. However, please read the subject matter, then the comments below. I have a few that got me into some hot water. But the comment that I really want you to read is the last one by Fr. Nathanael Hauser, O.S.B. His comment knocked my socks off--excellent and very well said and tactfully so, something I sometimes fail at with my hyperbole. But I am half Italian and my Canadian side isn't much better! I'm the incarnation of multi-culturalism, being half Italian, half Canadian and having grown up in the south! The following is a bit long.
“Liturgical Studies and Liturgical Renewal,” Fr. Anscar Chupungco, OSB
Jan 25
Posted by Other Voices in Inculturation, Reform of the Reform | 26 Comments
We present the entire address of Anscar Chupungco — follow the first link below. – Ed.
World-renowned expert in liturgical inculturation, Fr. Anscar Chupungco OSB, challenged recent announcements on liturgical reform decrying their “absence of a historical and cultural approach to the liturgy, or, in a word, the inability to fuse together the two basic concepts of Vatican II’s liturgical renewal, namely sound tradition and legitimate progress.” He noted that recent statements coming from no less than the papal master of ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini, which called for a reform of Vatican II’s reform were part of an agenda to turn the clock back 50 years, that “seems to conveniently forget that since Vatican II, the Church has been marching with the times, acknowledging the changes in social and religious culture, and adopting new pastoral strategies.”
Fr. Chupungco received a standing ovation for his paper, “Liturgical Studies and Liturgical Renewal” that was delivered at the launch of The Broken Bay Institute-University of Newcastle’s programs of Liturgical Studies (Graduate Certificate in Theology – Liturgical Studies and Master of Theology – Liturgical Studies). Fr. Chupungco, a scholar whose expertise in liturgical inculturation has placed him in a critical staging area for the Church, is the first Filipino on the Pontifical Institute’s faculty, serving as the Institute’s President for 12 of his 23 years in Rome.
Fr. Chupungco noted that students of liturgy should be aware of recent developments, including recent Roman documents “that are becoming increasingly perplexing.” Fr. Chupungco noted that the good “student of liturgy should know how to critique historical development in the light of Vatican II’s liturgical principles, like the central place of the paschal mystery, the place of God’s word, active participation with all that this implies (vernacular, congregational singing, lay ministry), and the ecclesial dimension of the sacrament and sacramentals. These constitute the guiding principles to decide whether things are liturgically acceptable or not.” Fr. Chupungco urged students to become “equipped with a critical mind that allows them to weigh the value of new norms and directives, though always in the spirit of ecclesial obedience.”
Fr. Chupungco concluded: “The long and short of it is that liturgical reform requires serious academic work, not mere romantic attachments to the past that close the eyes to the reality of the present time. The drive for legitimate progress makes us run towards the realisation of Vatican II’s liturgical reform, but we should not run as if we did not carry on our shoulders the weight, both heavy and precious, of sound tradition.”
Source: CathNews, Australia
This entry was posted on January 25, 2010, 8:52 am and is filed under Inculturation, Reform of the Reform. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
26 Comments
*
#1 by F C Bauerschmidt on January 25, 2010 - 11:17 am
Reply Quote
I have some serious doubts about the rhetoric of “reform-of-the-reform,” since I think it often masks a nostalgic restorationism. But I become a bit more sympathetic when I read someone saying (approvingly) that “since Vatican II, the Church has been marching with the times.” Of course I know that Fr. Chupungco is a more sophisticated thinker than this single quotation would indicate, but it is these sorts of statements that give the reform-of-the-reform rhetoric its traction.
o
#2 by Karl Liam Saur on January 25, 2010 - 12:33 pm
Reply Quote
I agree; the rhetoric brings to mind images like this:
http://www.sovmusic.ru/jpg/posters/ussr0482.jpg
Rallying the like-minded tends to get in the way of persuading the opposite-minded. There’s far too much of it in Catholic liturgical discourse. Anyway, his remark “but we should not run as if we did not carry on our shoulders the weight, both heavy and precious, of sound tradition” is a helpful balance.
*
#3 by J Peter Nixon on January 25, 2010 - 12:06 pm
Reply Quote
Any chance we can get a link to the full text of the address?
*
#4 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on January 25, 2010 - 12:38 pm
Reply Quote
I’ll work on it.
awr
*
#5 by Charles Culbreth on January 25, 2010 - 3:41 pm
Reply Quote
Dear FC Bauerschmidt,
I would offer the following video as examples of clearly defined “rhetoric” regard “Reform2″ proponents.
http://www.vimeo.com/8941838
o
#6 by Fr. Allan McDonald on January 26, 2010 - 8:38 am
Reply Quote
Thanks for that video! Are we going to let the liturgical experts, i.e. elitists, tell us that our nearly 1500 years of Latin Rite heritage are nothing compared to what “they” say is the “spirit of Vatican II” which in only 45 years supposedly trumped as “new and improved” everything that preceded it? ? I prefer what Msgr. Marini speaks of, as it is in continuity with the Holy Father’s writings and example. The Holy Father is calling for “organic” development of the Liturgy, which an “elitist” committee in Rome foisted upon the universal Church after Vatican II. Vatican II was much more measured and nuanced about any future revisions compared to what a small body of so-called liturgists eventually imposed upon us with the help of Pope Paul VI. These revisions, while authoritative and yes valid, are in no way comparable to the liturgical document of Vatican II–therefore Vatican II actually must be the hermeneutic we must follow in the “reform of the reform.” We must go back to what Vatican II actually requested! The Holy Father is on to something. Liturgists still living in the pseudeo-euphoria of 1965 need to sober up–it’s 2010! We’re not trying to turn the clock back on Vatican II, only on the ill-advised post Vatican II revision of the Mass and lack of oversight on vernacular translations and just what inculturation means. Not everything in any one’s culture is good or should be dragged into the Latin Rite liturgy. Some things are good. The question is, who decides? I think our Roman Catholic Tradition and ecclessiology makes that quite clear.
+
#7 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on January 26, 2010 - 8:46 am
Quote
Fr. Allan, I live right in the thick of liturgical reform in Collegeville, and I honestly don’t know anyone who is “still living in the pseudo-euphoria of 1965.” I do know lots of sincere people of differing opinions who are doing their best to serve the Church. I’m finding some of your stereotyping and word choice to be divisive.
Pax in Christo,
awr
*
#8 by Robert Burns on January 26, 2010 - 7:31 pm
Reply Quote
“I’m finding some of your stereotyping and word choice to be divisive.”
It may be divisive to conclude that many liturgists are “still living in the pseudo-euphoria of 1965”, but I think it’s largely true. To “march with the times”, was the governing principle then and is still as the preceding quote from Fr. Chupungco proves. That desire to bend the essentials of the Faith to suit modern sensibilities, which had been gaining strength since the beginning of the 20th century, was held back from spewing its poison largely by The Anti-Modernist Oath required of all clergy and professors in philosophical and theological seminaries. If some Catholics feel a little outrage at the junking of that oath and the seemingly consequent dismantling of the sensus Catholicus, perhaps a little understanding is in order.
Fr. McDonald’s disgust with modernists and “elitists” hijacking Vatican II in the name of the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” is justified and Fr. Chupungco’s insistance that any Reform of the Reform requires “serious academic work” smacks of that modernist elitism. Just what does he think has been going on in Pope Benedict’s head? Oh, that’s right – he told us – “mere romantic attachments to the past that close the eyes to the reality of the present time”. His claim of finding “sound tradition” “precious” rings hollow.
*
#9 by Todd Flowerday on January 27, 2010 - 12:01 am
Reply Quote
What hampers many tradition-advocating musicians is a set of presumptions which, though not divisive, are fairly insulting. I have no reason to doubt Fr McDonald’s experiences with bad eggs. I have some of my own. Let’s talk about them over a beer or something.
But lets not imagine or elevate our personal subjective experiences translate somehow into good theology.
*
#10 by Charles Culbreth on January 27, 2010 - 12:21 am
Reply Quote
That’s not playing fair, Todd.
What presumptions exactly have you deemed insulting as advanced by those who advocate respect for tradition.
Please enlighten.
o
#11 by Todd Flowerday on January 27, 2010 - 11:27 am
Reply Quote
Fair? I’m only playing with what was posted here. Let’s make a list: liturgical experts, i.e. elitists, so-called liturgists, pseudeo-euphoria, need to sober up–and that’s just in one comment. Do you want me to go back to other threads?
I don’t know that Fr McDonald advocates *respect* for tradition, as much as he conducts a pep rally for it. Authentic respect is cultivated by everything a person writes, says, and does. Fr Ruff is the model of respect, and he manages to poke a bit–respectfully to alter the tone.
I believe that tradition-advocates have a sound case and should be heard. But Fr McDonald shoots the reform2 effort in the foot with posts like this. I sure wouldn’t want him as a spokesman for post-conciliar liturgy.
*
#12 by Fr. Allan McDonald on January 27, 2010 - 5:08 am
Reply Quote
Admittedly, there may be some hyperbole in metaphorical choices in terms of our liturgy today and just what the “spirit of Vatican II” is. I have no doubt about the sincerity of anyone who loves the Church, but we certainly can question advisability of what has occurred over the last 45 to 50 years. Church history also proves that the Holy Spirit somehow works through the chaos that ecumenical councils sometimes bring to the church immediately following their deliberations to elevate the Church to a higher plane, but that takes about 100 years. I have no doubt that Fr. Anscar voice is needed as well as others like Pope Benedict and his favorite liturgical theologians. But alas, we are a hierarchy no matter how much some would wish it wasn’t so. So some voices will carry more weight than others as we continue to go back to the actual documents of the Second Vatican Council and read them through a new lens. In terms of some of my rhetoric, it is to excite discussion. I know the liberal theologians of my major seminary days (1976-80, Baltimore, MD) did it to me and I enjoyed it.
*
#13 by Karl Liam Saur on January 27, 2010 - 8:58 am
Reply Quote
My perspective on rhetorical excess that is designed to excite discussion is that it is better in person than on blogs; blogs are so bloated with provocative statements that they no longer function as they are intended (to engage the skeptical), but more as shibboleths to rally the like-minded.
*
#14 by Paul Schlachter on January 27, 2010 - 11:53 am
Reply Quote
Fr. Chupungco has certainly paid his dues, for his long service both to Philippine Catholics and to the universal church. From his position at the Anselmiano he taught many of us to learn our history and be attentive to the prompts of the culture in which we now live. He has never been a wild-eyed zealot on behalf of gratuitous change. Indeed, he has reminded Americans that we have to experience liturgy first, in other words, stop “hearing mass” and start entering into the paschal mystery with all our senses, before we can consider “reform/renewal.”
As an aside, another professor at the Anselmiano told me once that the Congregation of Worship and the Sacraments had no consultative relationship with liturgists on his faculty. And not a single cardinal prefect of that congregation in recent memory has been either a liturgist or scripture scholar by training. If this is the way our leadership is chosen and behaves, it is not a surprise that there are so many local disconnects among us faithful Catholics.
*
#15 by Carlos Antonio Palad on January 31, 2010 - 5:44 am
Reply Quote
Fr. Chupungco’s speaks of the “cold chill” that has come over the proponents of liturgical reform, and claims that inculturation is now spoken in “hushed” tones. I think those words are more applicable to Filipino Catholics who speak in favor of the “Reform of the Reform” and who support Summorum Pontificum. Certainly in the Philippines, “inculturation” remains the order of the day, and those who favor the approach of Benedict XVI are routinely insulted, marginalized and persecuted.
*
#16 by Robert Mickens on January 31, 2010 - 12:33 pm
Reply Quote
Why has no one that is actively supporting this “reform of the reform” movement responded to the points raised by Fr Chupungco?
He has been a major force in liturgical theology, having been elected to four consecutive terms as president of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute, and four years as rector (or president) of the entire Atheneum of Sant’Asnelmo, which includes all the various faculties (and specialised areas) of philosophy, theology and monastic studies.
Why no reasoned and sound reply??
o
#17 by Fr. Allan McDonald on January 31, 2010 - 2:52 pm
Reply Quote
I’ve not heard of him before, so this blog is quite useful. To be quite honest, inculturation has both negative and positive overtones. As an white American in the south, I’ve had many ministerial experiences with African American Catholics and now with African Catholics. The two have totally different cultural likes and dislikes. Africans for the most part do not care for “Negro Spirituals” but certainly African Americans do as well as whites. In fact one of our Masses had a Gospel Choir and many whites preferred it to our standard “Anglo” Masses–but then comes the rub, the division this creates in a multi-cultural parish–so I would like to learn and listen, but more and more I’d like to see some unity in the diversity. I do think that the African liturgies that Pope Benedict celebrated in Africa, what Pope John Paul celebrated for the canonization of St. Juan Diego are inspiring and a starting point for understanding as well as local adaptations.
o
#18 by Ioannes Andreades on February 1, 2010 - 5:36 am
Reply Quote
Without a doubt, the poorest paragraph in the speech (abounding in sloppy reasoning) is that beginning, “A serious study in liturgy…” He dismisses as simply a historically conditioned statement (”peculiar circumstances surrounding the Council”) the Conciliar pronouncement that Latin remain the language of the liturgy and that Gregorian chant have the chief position of music in the mass (princeps locus). Apparently no other material in Sacraosanctum Concilium is attenuated by such “peculiar circumstances.” It is exactly this kind of cafeteria legalism that drives RotR’ers like me up the wall. It’s no surprise that when the laity sees its priests picking and choosing, that it picks and chooses as well. Far from being a “serious study,” Fr. Chupungo’s talk displays egoism and arrogance.
*
#19 by Eric Styles, SJ on January 31, 2010 - 11:05 pm
Reply Quote
Fr. McDonald,
After being so critical of Fr. Chupungco, I found it disheartening and all too telling to read that you had never heard of him until reading him here. I would very much think it would be important for you to do more listening when it comes to inculturation. I would also caution your quick denouncement of Fr. Chupungco’s academic orientation. I am an African American Catholic and it has become more than clear to me that the slow progress of our particular population is due to the lack of two major necessities: (1) indigenous clergy and (2) authentic inculturation.
You make reference to some experience in African American cultural contexts, yet I wonder how open you might be to the possibility that even a relatively long stint in a multicultural parish could never give you the skills to discern what might qualify as authentic black Catholic inculturation. Might it ever have occurred to you that the genius and particular gifts of a black culture might not be so obvious? I myself am a student of African American culture and Catholic worship and I would never dismiss the hard work of scholars and cultural workers who have labored and sacrificed to make way for a truly inculturated black Catholic liturgy.
No, African Americans and Continental Africans don’t share the same tastes. Who would say that we do? Yet and still, within African American culture are crosscurrents of multiple cultural paradigms and West African cultures with their distinctive religiosity are central. Hard work work in intellectual thought, solid pastoral commitment, and deep love for the whole tradition are absolutely essential.
The work of inculturation will never be done, though many would acknowledge the need to regroup and continuously rethink our vision. And lastly, if you asked me (and I know you didn’t) I would say that instead of blaming the intellectuals we would do better to reconnect to the greatest of our artists and ask them to re-immerse themselves in the church’s tradition, history and current pastoral concerns so that we might have a return of the kind of liturgical art that is of the highest caliber, speaking the language of the people, that is, the language of faith, the language of the heart.
o
#20 by Fr. Allan McDonald on February 2, 2010 - 8:22 am
Reply Quote
Thanks for your comments. I was not completely honest about being a “southern white.” I am a native Italian with a completely native Italian mother, who now 90, still speaks to me exclusively in Italian. My father was a Canadian immigrant and at the age of three I moved with them from Italy to Georgia where I grew up in army neighborhoods and parishes. From 1960 to 1976, my parish in Augusta, GA was composed of some southerners, but mostly Hispanic, Korean, Italian, German, French, Filipino, Vietnamese. As a seminarian I worked in a black parish and my first year of ordination was in one. My downtown parish in Augusta where I was pastor from 1991 to 2004 was an amalgamation of two other parishes that closed, one all black and merged into a third. We had a significant black population. The highest compliment that I received from my African American brothers and sisters is that they didn’t see me as “white.” And in fact, I find many similarities in my black brothers and sisters that I see in my Italian side.
Now to Macon where I pastor since 2004. The parish next to mine was founded as a black parish in the early 20th century, but all white clergy and religious–but strong and thriving. A concerted effort was made to integrate the parish in the 1960’s-whites were encouraged to move in and join–they formed a folk group! The Folk Group is still strong today. Of the two Masses available on Sunday morning, a more traditional organ music one at 9:00 AM and the 11:00 AM that is folk, which do you think is predominately white in attendance? In addition, there is now a separate Spanish Mass predominately for Mexican immigrants that now outnumber the blacks and the whites. In addition to that the pastor for the past five years is from Poland! He is now replaced by a new pastor who is from Nigeria–it will be interesting over there to see how that works.
In my childhood multi-cultural parish, in pre-Vatican II times, we all attended the same Mass, homily of course in English. Music traditional, but there was also always a low Mass with no music. We intermingled. We new each other and celebrated festivals in meals, processions and popular devotions unique to some of the other cultures, Mass, though, was not “inculturated.” After Vatican II, much did not change, but we had folk music and traditional music masses. Today in that same parish, there is a Korean Mass, Vietnamese Mass and Spanish Mass–the community has no popular devotions except surrounding “Our Lady of Guadeloupe.” The pastor today is Irish. But has a Korean priest and a Vietnamese Mass and he can celebrate Spanish Masses.
So, I hope this puts things into context. Finally, my criticism of Fr. Chupungco had little to do with what he has done, since I don’t know what he’s done, but with his comments concerning the papal MC, Msgr. Marini. Marini was basically mouthing what his boss Pope Benedict believes about the reform of the reform and the hermeneutic of continuity rather than rupture. From what I gathered in Fr. Chupungco’s remarks about Msgr. Marini is that he prefers the status quo of the past 45 years liturgically–progressive rupture. I think we can disagree on which hermeneutic is best for the Church even if we don’t really understand the forms of “inculturation” many would like to impose on the Latin Rite.
*
#21 by Carlos Antonio Palad on January 31, 2010 - 11:59 pm
Reply Quote
“Why has no one that is actively supporting this “reform of the reform” movement responded to the points raised by Fr Chupungco?
“He has been a major force in liturgical theology, having been elected to four consecutive terms as president of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute, and four years as rector (or president) of the entire Atheneum of Sant’Asnelmo, which includes all the various faculties (and specialised areas) of philosophy, theology and monastic studies.
“Why no reasoned and sound reply??”
Perhaps because the talk abounds with cliches (”back to the people”), loaded words (”rightist” — and, in the Philippines, this is just about one of the worst appellations you can apply to anyone), and obvious contempt for those who favor the Reform of the Reform. I don’t think it can be considered as a serious effort to “critique” the ROTR.
Such rhetoric is better met with silence. I assume that the supporters of the ROTR have a lot on their plate and that responding to every cliche-ridden attack is not a good way for them to spend their time.
*
#22 by Ralph Harris on February 1, 2010 - 2:07 am
Reply Quote
Fr. Anscar Chupungco’s comments seem not to be informed by documents
like SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM. Perhaps they were written some time ago,
before these crucial documents came out to clarify some of the misunderstandings?
*
#23 by Fr. Nathanael Hauser, O.S.B. on February 1, 2010 - 10:29 pm
Reply Quote
I hesitate to enter the Liturgical controversies, being an art historian rather than a Liturgist. However, I have been personally acquainted with Fr. Anscar since 1980 and greatly respect his work, having spoken with him and read many of his books and articles. It is because of my respect for his work that I am disappointed with this speech. I think that it is important recognize it as a speech that is meant to rally the troops, rather than a scholarly article. Given that, one must allow him room to overemphasize and even to exaggerate.
His remarks, though, seem to me to grossly misstate the history of the past 50 years in order to inflame the current liturgical situation rather than to add to the scholarship that his status demands. Fr. Anscar implies in his second paragraph that we are in a new “autumn” that has suddenly blighted the bright springtime of the Church. However, nothing has been said in the recent past that was not said over twenty years ago by the Holy See in “Vicesimus Quintus Annus” of 1988 (for instance in v13: “It cannot be tolerated that certain priests should take upon themselves the right to compose Eucharistic Prayers or to substitute profane readings for texts from Sacred Scripture. Initiatives of this sort, far from being linked with the liturgical reform as such, or with the books, which have issued from it, are in direct contradiction to it, disfigure it and deprive the Christian people of the genuine treasures of the Liturgy of the Church.”).
More important is Fr. Anscar’s assertion that “The agenda is, to all appearance, an attempt to put the clock back half a century.” He then asks some rhetorical questions that, if taken as serious questions, would indeed contribute to the conversation that is so needed today. The one question that I would like to discuss is his questioning of the new translations. To be clear, I have nothing invested in the new translations. From my reading, I can agree with many of the criticisms of them. The problem that I see is the assumption in Fr. Anscar’s speech that the current translation was the philosophically best kind of translation and to move away from that philosophy is to turn the clock back fifty years.
This declaration is to pretend that the question of the best way to translate was settled in 1960. The translators of that time followed the then new ideas of Eugene Nidal and his idea of Dynamic Equivalence. The difficulty with Fr. Anscar’s approach is that since then this philosophy has been critiqued by many in the field and has even been corrected by Nidal himself who dropped the term. (see: “Theories of Translation.” TTR: traduction, terminologie, redaction 4.1. 1991. 19-32 and also “The Sociolinguistics of Translating Canonical Religious Texts” TTR, 7.1. 1994. 191-217). Further, Nidal’s philosophy of translation was developed as a way to translate the Bible in a non-Catholic context: that is, freed of any authoritative tradition.
One need only scan the articles in “Meta: journal des traducteurs” to see how active the level of critique of this form of translation has been since 1960 and continues to be today. One article I would recommend is: Jacobus A. Naudé. “On the Threshold of the Next Generation of Bible Translations: Issues and Trends.” Meta 50. 4. 2005. http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/019851ar
The question, then, is not one of scholarship but of ideology. To pretend that the “historical research, theological investigation, and pastoral consciousness” of the 1970s would inevitably lead the Church into its present condition is ridiculous on its face. It is obvious to any historian (even an art historian as myself!) that any major disruption in culture is brought about by politics and ideology not by research and investigation.
That this is ideology is clear in Fr. Anscar’s rhetorical questions. For instance, he asks “Will the priestly role of mediation be reinforced by praying at the altar with the back to the assembly?” The question itself reveals the author’s implied response and gives no credit to the past fifty years of scholarly attention that has been given to the question of the orientation of the altar. This question is not about scholarship, or of turning back the clock, but of what the writer prefers. Indeed, that there is no real scholarship behind the turning of the altars was admitted as early as 1959 in an article by John H. Miller, (“Altar facing the People: Fact or Fable” Worship 33. 2. 83-91) in which he says that given the scholarship of the day “… advocates of the altar “versus populum” base their cause on other reasons BESIDES historical ones. We invoke two theological reasons: a deeper consciousness of the reality of sacramental priesthood and a valued appraisal of the Mass as a banquet in format. To this we add a valid psychological motive: the people can see better the actions of the priest and understand them as, at least partially, directed towards themselves.” (Emphasis in the original.)
The question then is, as it has always been, one of theological views. A particular viewpoint was ascendant for many years but is now being increasingly questioned by many in the Church in 2010. In my estimation, these important theological questions would be better served if all parties admitted that and ceased to try to hide behind the conceit that one’s interlocutors are simply romantics attempting to turn back the clock.
o
#24 by Fr. Allan McDonald on February 2, 2010 - 11:42 am
Reply Quote
Fr. Nathan! WOW! God bless you.
o
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)