 |
"I said, is the modern Roman Rite an authentic expression of the liturgical tradition of the Church?"
"Hmm. This is tricky. Just give me another ten minutes. I need to think about this one."
Ten minutes later...
A very interesting question
I think first we need to consider very carefully, soberly and judiciously the employment of the terms 'authentic', 'expression' and with these, too, the term 'tradition', since, while perfectly valid, the modern Roman rite, at least in the manner in which it is widely celebrated, does certainly appear to be an aberration or constitute some form of rupture in a long-standing period of authentic expression of the Mass in the liturgical tradition of the Church. Under Benedict XVI, we were encouraged to see in the two rites of the Church a 'hermeneutic of continuity' in a process of 'mutual enrichment'. I agree with this. Attending both rites aids devotion and prayer in each, though I find it harder to pray at the Novus Ordo - more noise!
While we do not believe that the Church began in the 1970s, as Catholics we must surely accept the modern Roman rite as valid, but how do we determine the use of the word 'authentic' in this discussion? How do we define 'tradition'? To be 'authentic' would be to be true to oneself. Tradition takes in nearly 2,000 years! Is the modern Roman rite wholly true to itself? It is certainly the Mass, but is it an authentic expression of the liturgical tradition of the Church? This is certainly an area for debate (or, at least, it was, last I heard), for if it is, some caveats may be required.
In the first instance, Mass in the vernacular is a particularly modern innovation that appears to constitute a near total break with well over a millennium-held tradition in the form of the Roman rite of the Latin Church. So how easily does this fit in with the Church's 'tradition' of liturgical expression? What is the starting point? Does not Mass in the vernacular represent a sizable and dramatic U-turn in a long tradition in the Church's liturgical custom? Did the Second Vatican Council explicitly even call for Latin to be abandoned and for Mass in the vernacular everywhere? I think not! Thinking about all this makes me want to do a course at Maryvale. I find it all fascinating, where some would find it dull, but I expect, over time, Maryvale may experience a 'make-over'.
Certainly, the recent new translation of the Mass determined to make this modern rite more 'true to itself' and is surely a vast improvement. And yet even this is surely unable to communicate as effectively as the Mass in the Extraordinary Form the 'Otherness' of God, the holiness of the Mass and the universality of the Church. Mass 'facing the people', too, appears to be a modern innovation that crept in under the 'spirit' of the Second Vatican Council, that depletes the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of an essential component in the sacrality of the liturgy, encouraging Mass to be seen as a 'community' celebration within an 'enclosed circle'.
It would appear that the modern Roman rite, for very complicated reasons, appears culturally within the Church to be particularly vulnerable to a wide range of liturgical abuses certainly not called for nor explicitly envisioned in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. This is certainly less the case for the Mass in the Extraordinary Form. Fr Volpi raises a very interesting question that remains one that needs great and urgent consideration.
An atmosphere hostile to debate?
There remain a variety of other issues for consideration within this debate, sorry, 'oath', such as the modern phenomenom of the reception of Holy Communion standing, on the hand by the Faithful, as well as the employment of 'Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion' within the Mass, whose services are, more often than not, wholly unnecessary. Again, though, these customs do not form part of the modern Roman rite, but are attending customs.
May I recommend to Fr Volpi a wonderful book on the subject by a Cardinal named Joseph Ratzinger who later became Pope Benedict XVI, now Pope Emeritus Benedict. It was called, The Spirit of the Liturgy.
It was this Pope that was derided as 'Soviet' and under his reign that orthodoxy in belief produced a 'Catholic KGB'. With the persecution of the FFI now in full swing, what a salutary irony that is! It would appear that under the reign of this Pope, now Pope Emeritus, debate on this subject was promoted, rather than stifled. It was heresy that was viciously suppressed, mostly by means of polite and courteous letters from the CDF. May I also suggest that while liturgical abuse, as well as sacrilegious communions, appears to be a highly common feature in the modern Roman rite, that the Mass in the Extraordinary Form has a long-standing and notable success in limiting and, to a large extent, removing entirely, these abuses and scandals. The hermeneutic of continuity meant, under Benedict XVI, that we should not be fearful of our holy tradition, but see in it a school for holiness and authenticity. After all, this Mass was the Mass that nourished, among other giants of the Church, St Francis of Assisi himself!
These liturgical scandals, rather than devotion to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and the Church's rich and glorious Sacred Tradition, should surely be a priority for those in authority, under whom are placed the care of religious orders endeavouring to be faithful to the vision of both their founders and their heavenly patrons for whom the modern Roman rite might constitute something akin to a Protestant import into the Bride of Christ, albeit, when followed according to the rubrics, entirely valid and perfectly licit.
Well...you did ask!
Is love for Sacred Tradition, the Latin Mass and the Magisterium really the greatest threat facing the Catholic Church?
The question is, why do those placed in authority in the Church not deem it necessary that God be given the maximum glory, worship and honour due to Him in the Mass!? If you invited St Francis of Assisi in the 12th century to the Novus Ordo and then asked St Francis of Assisi to take the oath, 'The modern Roman Rite is an authentic expression of the liturgical tradition of the Church', would he say, "Sure, if you say so!" or, "This is a joke, right?" I attend both the Novus Ordo and the Mass in the Extraordinary Form. I've no problem with attending the modern Roman rite. I have a preference for the Usus Antiquior and rejoice that I have been been privileged to attend the Mass that nourished our forefathers. What was held as sacred to previous generations, I hold sacred today.
Mass is always holy - an encounter with the Lord. However, if someone were to ask me to sign an oath to say that I believe the Novus Ordo to be an 'authentic expression of the liturgical tradition of the Church', on the balance of things, I think I would want to say that perhaps, in my humble opinion, the Church should probably wait another ooohh...40 - 1000 years to decide on that.
I say this because, in terms of Her presence on Earth, the Novus Ordo as we generally experience it is still relatively new to the Church and that while 'Mass is Mass', the Mass in the Extraordinary Form is demonstrably superior and gives greater glory to God. I mean, the very fact that the 'Novus Ordo' has the word 'new' before 'order' suggests that we're on unchartered, even experimental territory liturgically speaking. Can such a divergence from the holy tradition of the Church be seen as part of that same tradition? I'm not absolutely sure. The great irony in this is that only a 'liturgical obsessive' or 'self-appointed guardian of doctrinal orthodoxy' would ask the question, nevermind coerce someone to sign an oath on the matter!
That's a personal opinion, of course, but in order to remain 'authentic' you have to stay true to yourself. The other 'option' is to lie in order to please others and that would be surely some kind of a sin.
Let us not underestimate the gravity and importance of an oath
So, I take issue with Fr Hunwicke because what at first appears a very easy 'oath' to sign for the FFI is perhaps a little more complicated than it may at first appear. In the heart of hearts of some, it may produce some 'prisoners of conscience' as they ask themselves, 'Do I really believe this?' or 'Am I even qualified to answer this?'. This question, raised by Fr Volpi would make for a cracking theology dissertation, or exam question, worth at least 35 marks, but I don't think it is a very fair 'oath' to place on the FFI or any Catholic. The last time Catholics had to sign an oath, things went a bit pear-shaped. Oh, but then there was the oath against modernism. That was good...in my personal opinion. I already signed that online relatively recently so if the persecution now experienced by the FFI goes general, I guess I'm in a bit of trouble. But hey, I guess that at the end of the day, my personal opinion isn't important.
After all, Fr Volpi...
Or not, as the case may be. Let's face it, there are plenty of religious orders, other Franciscan orders, where you can find the Novus Ordo, day in, day out, but most of them are said to be gradually dying out. Only the traditional orders, like the FFI apparently, are (or were) genuinely thriving. In a hundred years time, the Church might blend the the two rites into one glorious fusion, so 'what if we just said wait?' before loyal sons of the Church are coerced into signing an oath with which they feel uncomfortable under the penalty of being labelled 'schismatics' and 'heretics'. Eerily, indeed increasingly eerily, there was a man that predicted something like this coming to pass. His name was...
Ten minutes later...
 |
| "Hmm...well...now you mention it..." |
I think first we need to consider very carefully, soberly and judiciously the employment of the terms 'authentic', 'expression' and with these, too, the term 'tradition', since, while perfectly valid, the modern Roman rite, at least in the manner in which it is widely celebrated, does certainly appear to be an aberration or constitute some form of rupture in a long-standing period of authentic expression of the Mass in the liturgical tradition of the Church. Under Benedict XVI, we were encouraged to see in the two rites of the Church a 'hermeneutic of continuity' in a process of 'mutual enrichment'. I agree with this. Attending both rites aids devotion and prayer in each, though I find it harder to pray at the Novus Ordo - more noise!
While we do not believe that the Church began in the 1970s, as Catholics we must surely accept the modern Roman rite as valid, but how do we determine the use of the word 'authentic' in this discussion? How do we define 'tradition'? To be 'authentic' would be to be true to oneself. Tradition takes in nearly 2,000 years! Is the modern Roman rite wholly true to itself? It is certainly the Mass, but is it an authentic expression of the liturgical tradition of the Church? This is certainly an area for debate (or, at least, it was, last I heard), for if it is, some caveats may be required.
In the first instance, Mass in the vernacular is a particularly modern innovation that appears to constitute a near total break with well over a millennium-held tradition in the form of the Roman rite of the Latin Church. So how easily does this fit in with the Church's 'tradition' of liturgical expression? What is the starting point? Does not Mass in the vernacular represent a sizable and dramatic U-turn in a long tradition in the Church's liturgical custom? Did the Second Vatican Council explicitly even call for Latin to be abandoned and for Mass in the vernacular everywhere? I think not! Thinking about all this makes me want to do a course at Maryvale. I find it all fascinating, where some would find it dull, but I expect, over time, Maryvale may experience a 'make-over'.
Certainly, the recent new translation of the Mass determined to make this modern rite more 'true to itself' and is surely a vast improvement. And yet even this is surely unable to communicate as effectively as the Mass in the Extraordinary Form the 'Otherness' of God, the holiness of the Mass and the universality of the Church. Mass 'facing the people', too, appears to be a modern innovation that crept in under the 'spirit' of the Second Vatican Council, that depletes the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of an essential component in the sacrality of the liturgy, encouraging Mass to be seen as a 'community' celebration within an 'enclosed circle'.
It would appear that the modern Roman rite, for very complicated reasons, appears culturally within the Church to be particularly vulnerable to a wide range of liturgical abuses certainly not called for nor explicitly envisioned in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. This is certainly less the case for the Mass in the Extraordinary Form. Fr Volpi raises a very interesting question that remains one that needs great and urgent consideration.
There remain a variety of other issues for consideration within this debate, sorry, 'oath', such as the modern phenomenom of the reception of Holy Communion standing, on the hand by the Faithful, as well as the employment of 'Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion' within the Mass, whose services are, more often than not, wholly unnecessary. Again, though, these customs do not form part of the modern Roman rite, but are attending customs.
May I recommend to Fr Volpi a wonderful book on the subject by a Cardinal named Joseph Ratzinger who later became Pope Benedict XVI, now Pope Emeritus Benedict. It was called, The Spirit of the Liturgy.
It was this Pope that was derided as 'Soviet' and under his reign that orthodoxy in belief produced a 'Catholic KGB'. With the persecution of the FFI now in full swing, what a salutary irony that is! It would appear that under the reign of this Pope, now Pope Emeritus, debate on this subject was promoted, rather than stifled. It was heresy that was viciously suppressed, mostly by means of polite and courteous letters from the CDF. May I also suggest that while liturgical abuse, as well as sacrilegious communions, appears to be a highly common feature in the modern Roman rite, that the Mass in the Extraordinary Form has a long-standing and notable success in limiting and, to a large extent, removing entirely, these abuses and scandals. The hermeneutic of continuity meant, under Benedict XVI, that we should not be fearful of our holy tradition, but see in it a school for holiness and authenticity. After all, this Mass was the Mass that nourished, among other giants of the Church, St Francis of Assisi himself!
These liturgical scandals, rather than devotion to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and the Church's rich and glorious Sacred Tradition, should surely be a priority for those in authority, under whom are placed the care of religious orders endeavouring to be faithful to the vision of both their founders and their heavenly patrons for whom the modern Roman rite might constitute something akin to a Protestant import into the Bride of Christ, albeit, when followed according to the rubrics, entirely valid and perfectly licit.
Well...you did ask!
Is love for Sacred Tradition, the Latin Mass and the Magisterium really the greatest threat facing the Catholic Church?
The question is, why do those placed in authority in the Church not deem it necessary that God be given the maximum glory, worship and honour due to Him in the Mass!? If you invited St Francis of Assisi in the 12th century to the Novus Ordo and then asked St Francis of Assisi to take the oath, 'The modern Roman Rite is an authentic expression of the liturgical tradition of the Church', would he say, "Sure, if you say so!" or, "This is a joke, right?" I attend both the Novus Ordo and the Mass in the Extraordinary Form. I've no problem with attending the modern Roman rite. I have a preference for the Usus Antiquior and rejoice that I have been been privileged to attend the Mass that nourished our forefathers. What was held as sacred to previous generations, I hold sacred today.
I say this because, in terms of Her presence on Earth, the Novus Ordo as we generally experience it is still relatively new to the Church and that while 'Mass is Mass', the Mass in the Extraordinary Form is demonstrably superior and gives greater glory to God. I mean, the very fact that the 'Novus Ordo' has the word 'new' before 'order' suggests that we're on unchartered, even experimental territory liturgically speaking. Can such a divergence from the holy tradition of the Church be seen as part of that same tradition? I'm not absolutely sure. The great irony in this is that only a 'liturgical obsessive' or 'self-appointed guardian of doctrinal orthodoxy' would ask the question, nevermind coerce someone to sign an oath on the matter!
That's a personal opinion, of course, but in order to remain 'authentic' you have to stay true to yourself. The other 'option' is to lie in order to please others and that would be surely some kind of a sin.
Let us not underestimate the gravity and importance of an oath
So, I take issue with Fr Hunwicke because what at first appears a very easy 'oath' to sign for the FFI is perhaps a little more complicated than it may at first appear. In the heart of hearts of some, it may produce some 'prisoners of conscience' as they ask themselves, 'Do I really believe this?' or 'Am I even qualified to answer this?'. This question, raised by Fr Volpi would make for a cracking theology dissertation, or exam question, worth at least 35 marks, but I don't think it is a very fair 'oath' to place on the FFI or any Catholic. The last time Catholics had to sign an oath, things went a bit pear-shaped. Oh, but then there was the oath against modernism. That was good...in my personal opinion. I already signed that online relatively recently so if the persecution now experienced by the FFI goes general, I guess I'm in a bit of trouble. But hey, I guess that at the end of the day, my personal opinion isn't important.
After all, Fr Volpi...
Or not, as the case may be. Let's face it, there are plenty of religious orders, other Franciscan orders, where you can find the Novus Ordo, day in, day out, but most of them are said to be gradually dying out. Only the traditional orders, like the FFI apparently, are (or were) genuinely thriving. In a hundred years time, the Church might blend the the two rites into one glorious fusion, so 'what if we just said wait?' before loyal sons of the Church are coerced into signing an oath with which they feel uncomfortable under the penalty of being labelled 'schismatics' and 'heretics'. Eerily, indeed increasingly eerily, there was a man that predicted something like this coming to pass. His name was...
 |
No comments:
Post a Comment