 |
| "Obey me, obey my music..." |
As the LMS Chairman today tells us on his blog, Paul has taken individuals enthused by the TLM to task over their "disobedience". You naughty Priests, you! Don't you remember Summorum Pontificum, in which the Holy Father explicitly asked you to submit to the will of Paul Inwood and to play his music in your parish!?
Over to you, Chairman...
'Paul Inwood, Director of Liturgy for the diocese of Portsmouth, rarely lets a chance to attack traditionalists go to waste; here he remarks artlessly 'Summorum Pontificum was a reward for disobedience: Discuss'.
Very well. The first thing to note is that if SP was a reward for disobedience, it would have plenty of company. Famously, Paul VI's Memoriale Domini, which gave permission for communion in the hand, was a reward for disobedience; as the document says explicitly, the practice was permitted only because, and where, it had become established by disobedience.
But more generally it is clear that the permission for altar girls, communion under both kinds, Mass celebrated facing the people, etc. etc. were rewards for disobedience, since all these practices were instituted disobediently either during the chaotic period after the Second Vatican Council or before it. Indeed, Paul Inwood might like to consider the permission for parts of the liturgy to be in the vernacular, in Sacrosanctam Concilium itself, to be a reward for disobedience, since disobedient priests had been experimenting with vernacular liturgy since the early decades of the 20th Century, not to say the 16th Century. The practice of breaking rules in the hope of getting them changed was so established among liberals after the Council they even had a special phrase for it: 'anticipatory obedience'.
There is a great difference between SP and many of these other documents, however. In Memoriale Domini Paul VI takes the opportunity to issue what is in effect a final condemnation of the practice he is reluctantly permitting, and urges Catholics to continue to receive on the tongue. The permissions for many other abusive practices take a similar form. Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, for example, were permitted only in restrictive circumstances; so was communion under both kinds and altar girls. It is easy to forget these restrictions but there they are. By contrast, there is nothing reluctant about the freeing of the Traditional Mass in SP: it is described (in the accompanying Letter to Bishops) as constituting 'riches' for the Church; even back in 1988, John-Paul II told bishops to be 'generous' in allowing the Traditional Mass, not a word he used in relation to their right to permit altar girls or EMHCs.
But there is something altogether missing from the parallel, and that is the disobedience which SP is supposed to be rewarding. Presumably Paul Inwood means disobedience by priests who were saying the Traditional Mass before 2007. But according to SP, they weren't being disobedient: the Traditional Mass had never been forbidden. Even on the more restrictive interpretation common before SP, they had permission under Ecclesia Dei Adflicta to say the TLM.
Now here is something for Paul Inwood to ponder. The Latin Mass Society and the whole Una Voce movement argued from the very beginning that the TLM had never been abrogated. Anyone can read the argument in Michael Davies' book 'Pope Paul's New Mass' (1981). Our opponents argued that, no, it was only permissible by indult, that is, by special permission. So what was the practical policy of the LMS? We continued to make the argument for the less restrictive position, but acted on the more restrictive one. We always got permissions for the Masses we organised, even though we thought permission was not necessary. This was not disobedience, not anticipatory obedience, but obedience of a heroic, supererogatory kind.
So during the long years of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, what was Paul Inwood doing? Was he obeying the Church's liturgical laws? When he was Music Director of Portsmouth Cathedral (1995-1999) and now he is Director of Liturgy for Portsmouth Diocese (since 2000), did he implement the Council's decree that Gregorian Chant have pride of place in the liturgy, or that Latin be retained? Did he ensure that the rules of successive editions of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, forbidding all manner of abuses, were strictly obeyed? Did he enforce the norms of the Instruction Regarding Certain Questions on the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful, in 1997, or Redemptionis Sacramentum in 2004, each of which again condemned countless abusive practices?
Well, not exactly. A culture of disobedience has in fact become endemic across the entire Church since the Council, and it has often been observed that the only people expected to obey the rules are those who want the Traditional Mass - at least this was so when the rules were restrictive. But we now see a new generation of priests coming up who are rebelling against this culture. And what does Paul Inwood say?
He says they are disobedient.'
 |
| Perfect and exemplary obedience |
In one, I saw the 'one-armed bandit' consecration of the Host which Fr Ray Blake discusses in his blog today that makes it appear as if the Priest is holding Our Lord up for auction ("Do I hear 'My Lord and my God!'? No? Higher?") while in the other the Priest held the Host up to about his eyes and paraded it from left to right just to make sure everyone could see.
The music was absolutely awful and I could barely hear myself think, let alone think about praying. I believe the music was of the Inwoodian era (1969 - Present). The really awful bit was at the Offertory when the children came back from children's liturgy in the hall next door, all lined up and the Priest came down from the Sanctuary and held up each child's coloured-in picture to the congregation for the congregation to clap each child (there must have been 15 to 20 of them, which, as you can imagine, is a lot of applause to take place in the middle of Mass). Then, finally, he turned around and went back onto the Sanctuary for the Canon. I was gobsmacked. Little doubt that the children will find it hard when they are adults to go to Mass and not think that the Mass is all about them, but then, it seemed like the Priest, the Deacon and the rest of the throng of adults joining him on the Sanctuary to form an extraordinary number of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, thought the Mass was about us anyway, so perhaps the kids might never quite cotton onto the 'Mass is about Our Lord Jesus Christ' thing, but in that respect they'll be no different to the adults. Then again, more likely, they'll lapse. There must, after all, be other youth centres in that part of Sussex.
Nearly everyone held hands during the 'Our Father', including the Priest, with the Deacon and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, though, in my row (thanks be to God), the holding hands thing was not so popular. Were the Altar girls holding hands too? I forget. Anyway, I guess that I was a little bit "disobedient" in kneeling to receive Our Blessed Lord while, as far as I could see, I might have been the only one in the congregation who did, but then isn't "disobedience" nowadays just so relative, Paul?
It seems to be relative to whether the parish in question places God at the centre of the liturgy, or the congregation. It seems to be relative to whether the Priest takes seriously the theology and expressed wishes of the Successor of St Peter, that'll be Pope Benedict XVI, or not. It seems to be relative to whether the Priest fosters respect for the Blessed Sacrament, or not. It seems to be relative to whether liturgy and music during worship are arranged to give glory to God, or copyright fees for nauseatingly trite ditties, to you and your ilk.
Paul might be incensed by the Priests showing obedience to Pope Benedict XVI in liberating the Latin Mass with generosity and exposing their congregations to it, but, sadly, there was no incense for Our Blessed Lord on Sunday at the children's art show Mass on Sunday.
36 comments:
Well done. Excellent.
Romulus
I spotted six microphones in the picture. I really don't know why they don't dispense with candles, chalices etc and just have microphones.
Is Paul Inwood even Catholic? You may think that I am asking this question with tongue in cheek, but I assure you I am not. I have a particular aversion to the "music" of Marty Haugen which is ubiquitous in Catholic Churches in the US. Guess what? He's not even Catholic! http://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/marty-haugen-strikes-again/
Caroline
The claim that the old rite was not abrogated is highly questionable despite what SP says, some historical facts:
- the history of liturgical/missal changes has always suppressed all preceding missals/liturgies
- facts indicate that overwhelming the bishops of VII laid out principles and directions. By 1967 most conferences were asking Rome for approval for vernacular liturgies (there was no fear that groups, many priests, etc. would not comply – they were demanding these changes and the level of enthusiasm in the church was also measured and confirmed – your rewriting of history doesn’t change these things
- your description of Paul VI is very inaccurate. He was educated, followed, and supported the french thinkers, theologians, and pastoral initiatives long before John called VII. This included liturgical, scriptural changes; changes in pastoral ministries e.g. worker priests, etc. If anything, late in his papacy, his writings indicate that he constantly struggled with the tensions between even more liberal directions and curial positions that were much more “conservative”
- from the end of VII, he granted “temporarily” permission for aged priests, etc. for good reason to continue to use the older form of the liturgy. (You have twisted and used this to somehow create a foundation for two forms of the one rite? (which there is no precedent for in church history?)
- quote from John Page on Paul VI: “As someone who has lived through six papacies and trained in Church history, especially in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, I hold Paul VI in great esteem. He continued the Council. And his audience talks as well as his homilies in the parish churches of Rome, in the late 1960's, on implementing the liturgical reforms reveal a remarkable pastoral sensitivity and wisdom. He clearly regretted the loss of the Latin but saw the vernacular as the surest way forward.”
- would suggest reading this link about Paul VI and his times: http://celledoor.blogspot.com/2011/02/spirit-of-change-shakes-church-popes.html
I've never understood what the children's liturgy is for and whose idea it was in the first place. We went to Mass from the year dot and it was in Latin then. It was very good training for sitting still, not a highly regarded skill now.
Very young children seem to be able to manage it at the EF as do the Westminster Cathedral choirboys taken on at eight.
If the 'children's liturgy' were something like the old Anglican Sunday School one might hope for some kind of catechesis. But all the kiddies seem to do is crayon pictures and make little models.
Sounds like you hit on a parish whose pp goes for the "Aaaaah Factor" in the absence of anything else which is meaningful.
“The New Mass that we got after the Council was not what the Council Fathers had in mind, but it happened. . . ”
Then why did they allow it to happen? The same Fathers who promulgated the Constitution on the Liturgy, for the most part, oversaw the implementation, at times encouraging its extremes.
I respect the authority of those who are attempting a reform of the reform. But the claim that they are being authentic or faithful to the vision of the Council fathers — or more faithful than were the Fathers themselves in the years following the council — simply cannot be held within an historical consciousness.
.
Whatever one might think of the Novus Ordo, be it good, bad, or indifferent, let us not forget the “holy fathers”, went back to their respective dioceses, and were largely responsible for permitting the liturgy to develop in their churches along the lines it has developed into over the years. Pope Paul VI and until 1988, Pope John Paul, whatever you may think of their thoughts on the liturgy, permitted these developments to take place.
Here is an article written by J. Komonchak about the “hermeneutic of the reform”
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11375
- quote: “I think it is more plausible that the pope sought to persuade a different group of people, traditionalists whose rejection of the council derives in no small part from their belief that its teachings on church and state and on religious freedom represent a revolutionary discontinuity in official church doctrine.”
“…..the council was the fruit of 20th-century movements for renewal: in biblical, patristic and medieval studies; in liturgical theology; in ecumenical conversation; in new, more positive…
The pope’s claim that the old rite of Mass was never abrogated doesn’t hold up in the view of many critics. And since this isn’t an area of papal infallibility, scholars are free to hold various judgments.
The January 2011 issue of Worship has an exhaustive study of the issue, “Was the 1962 Missale Romanum Abrogated? A Canonical Analysis in the Light of Summorum Pontificum” by Chad D. Glendinning. Unfortunately it’s copyrighted and can’t be reprinted here. I warmly recommend this study to anyone interested in the issue.
The non-abrogation finesse in SP was a legal fiction to avoid a brutta figura. One way you can tell is the implication is that every pre-1970 edition of the Missal other than 1962 is abrogated, which creates a non-falsifiable feedback loop. For that matter, other editions of the post-conciliar Missal face the same feedback loop (like, what happens if the current translation is not formally abrogated before the pending translation is implemented; we will have a decree about use but not an act of formal abrogation supposedly required, et cet.)
.
Like the Council of Trent, Vatican II entrusted the preparatory and implementation after promulgation of their decisions to other bodies. What happened after Vatican II is arguably not what was entirely envisioned though it was at least tolerated and even promoted by bishops who were there. The bishops of VII were still in session and oversaw the implementation of the liturgcal changes.
My point above had to do with the fact that SC 21 demands in regard to what is now the EF a reform, in which “both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.”
Until the EF liturgy itself has been reformed in line with these principles, that work remains unfinished.
With this post you are showing that you don’t understand the nature of theology. I respect papal authority and accept the Petrine ministry. But I certainly don’t think that the pope has the power to change the past. Nor do I think that theologians must accept his judgments on entirely non-doctrinal issues when the arguments do not support this.
As an argument, the Latin Mass society article is weak in the extreme. By comparison, the Worship article qouted above thoroughly treats many, many documents – most of which are ignored in this post. One is left with the impression that “the Pope said so, so that settles it.” This isn’t an argument, it’s an assertion based on, according to St. Thomas, the weakest of all argumentation, the appeal to authority.
Popes like other ‘authorities’ at times have thought to arrogate to themselves the power ‘to declare the circle squared’. Of course, this can be asserted by those, who like the courtiers admired the “Emperor’s new clothes”, but it does not wipe away the true and honest situation that the Emperor, as the child said, was naked. On this question, one does have to look to the ‘realpolitik’ of the present Pope in relations with the Lefebvrists among others — who besides their liturgical ‘complaints’ want to ‘re-negotiate’ the Second Vatican Council to their own desires. [Another thought: much of this discussion rests on the 'personal preferences of the present Pope'. This is a height of 'ultramontanism' which even the most rabid enthusiasts for the notions of Pope Pius IX before Vatican I would quail at. The present Pope has every right to use his personal preferences in his own celebrations of the liturgy -- and he does seem to carefully advertise these as 'nudges' in a particular direction -- following the ideals in some of his pre-papal writings, but they are not meant for all the celebrations of the Roman Rite/Usage in all the parts of the Western Church -- nor in every circumstance. It is also to be noted that the discussions here are centered on the difficulties of the Roman Rite/Usage in various English translations as opposed to Latin -- but do not refer at all to the other vernacular translations of excellent quality which are used widely in large areas of the Western Church.]
.
You fail to explain why 40 years of disagreement from the traditionalists is good but that present disagreement from academic experts is not.
That Mass that Paul VI gave us, and the English translation of it that we have had for the last 40 years, are now part of our tradition. Every effort to improve our liturgies must be based on an acceptance of what we have now, and a desire to move forward with it. That is what we call Tradition.
Here, once again, is Pierre Jounel on abrogation:
What would you say to those people who don’t want to know the Missal of Paul VI, and to those who, while respecting it, regret that it was imposed to the exclusion of the Tridentine Missal?
I would say to them that they use computers, that they live with the instruments of the culture of their time, and that they have no reason to get stuck on the 1570 date when the Missal of Pius V was promulgated. Why should the liturgy be frozen then, when it had been periodically renewed up to that date? These people lack historical knowledge. Msgr Lefebvre was absolutely convinced that the ancient formula for Confirmation goes back to the time of the apostles, when in fact it only dates back to the 13th century.
Jounel then goes on to demonstrate how Paul VI followed exactly the same procedure with his Missal as Pius V had with the Missal and Breviary in 1570, Clement VIII in 1595 with the Roman Pontifical, Pius X with the psalter of the Breviary in 1911, and Pius XII with the Holy Week rites in 1955. In all these cases, the previous usage was abrogated and replaced by the new. This is the Church’s constant practice.
——————————-
If the previous rite had not been abrogated, what need would there have been for the indults in the different countries that actually existed? It quite clearly was abrogated, and the Pope was very badly advised by those who drew up his motu proprio for him
There is no doubt in Pope Paul’s mind. He was acting on the instructions of the Council in introducing a new form – the Vatican II form – and that it replaced the Tridentine form, just as the latter itself had previously replaced earlier forms in the sixteenth century.
The use of the new Ordinary of the Mass is definitely not left to the free choice of priests or Christian faithful… After mature deliberation, following the requests of the Second Vatican Council, the new Ordinary was promulgated to replace the old. In no way different, following the Council of Trent, did our holy predecessor St. Pius V make the Missal reformed under his authority obligatory.
Paul VI, 24 May 1976
It seems clear to me that Pope Benedict has countermanded Pope Paul.
Looking at the original latin promulgation on the vatican website, it seems quite clear and definate that the old rite was abrogated:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1976/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro_lt.html
“…the new Ordinary was promulgated to replace the old. In no way different, following the Council of Trent, did our holy predecessor St. Pius V make the Missal reformed under his authority obligatory.”
''these priests were demanding these changes and the level of enthusiasm in the church was also measured and confirmed – your rewriting of history doesn’t change these things...''
Traditional Catholics must remember this very important point. A good number of priests at the time of liturgical reform were insufficiently literate in Latin to sightread propers. The episcopal indult for priests to say the Office in the vernacular was granted liberally for good reason. Many priests insufficiently understood the Missal. It must have been liberating for many of them to actually understand the texts rather than mumble syllables.
I suspect that few Catholics question the need for a vernacular liturgy. Even those who worship exclusively in Latin must concede that the vernacular is a worthy development. It is unhelpful to conflate vernacularization with the Pauline rites, however. Vernacularization could have been implemented under a different Pope at a different time and according to a different liturgical philosophy. Pope Paul’s personal liturgical ideology is not synonymous with vernacularization.
.
The following quotation is from a book by Cardinal Ratzinger entitled Die Sacramentale Begrundung Christliche Existenz:
“Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects.”
All very interesting, but what are you scared of?
I have a feeling that the Latin Mass is frightening to you because it takes you out of your comfort zone.
We're not scared of anything, we just want to correct your revisionism. We thought it was the uber-traditionalists that are scared. Haven't you seen the Fr Z blog. He's got everyone praying that the rumoours about the clarification document for SP don't come to pass. You traditionalist are going to be reigned in at last.
The Ultramontanist movement after Italian Unification and the abrupt (and unofficial) end of the First Vatican Council in 1870 (due to the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War), and the opposing Conciliarism, became obsolete to a large extent. Some very extreme tendencies of a minority of adherents to Ultramontanism however, especially those attributing to the Roman Pontiff, even in his private opinions, of absolute infallibility even in matters beyond faith and morals, and impeccability, survived and were eagerly used by opponents of the Roman Catholic Church and papacy before the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) for use in their propaganda. These tendencies however were never supported by the First Vatican Council's dogma of papal infallibility and primacy of 1870, but are rather inspired by ERRONEOUS PRIVATE OPINIONS OF SOME ROMAN CATHOLIC LAYMEN, who tend to identify themselves completely with the Holy See.
After Vatican I, neo-ultramontanism as a semi-organised movement declined as its chief adherents were not replaced. Pope Leo XIII never attempted to exercise infallibility and by the time of his death all the neo-ultramontane publications had been closed down or had changed their views on what was now "history" (Vatican I and the debates within it). However, some liberal theologians and historians have argued since the beginning of John Paul II's papacy that a view of papal infallibility analogous to that proposed by neo-ultramontanes has made a comeback. This has been especially true since the controversy surrounding the aftermath of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994 and The Tablet's article about that letter On Not Inventing Doctrine published a year and a half later.
LS
We'll see. May God protect the Holy Father from his enemies.
If the rumours are true, then it is not the Holy Father, the Successor of St Peter, who wishes to revise his own statement.
Admit it. You're just old and don't like change.
Interesting comments from 'Get Real' on ultramontanism, in the context of the wider discussion (ambush?). Ultramontanism wasn't in decline in the scond half of the 20th century: arguably, it reached its apogee in the rapid, centrally-directed imposition of a new form of the Mass that represented a clear break with the old. Compare this with Trent, which aimed to consolidate developments and prune excess and permitted forms of the Rite, such as the Dominican and Benedictine, that had an established history. Indeed, but for the Reformation England and Wales would probably have continued to know the Sarum form of the Rite.
The ultramontane pattern was followed when conferences and dioceses insisted on liturgical practice that not only represented a break with tradition, but contradicted the stated wishes of the Conciliar documents. Use of Latin and the primacy of chant are glaring examples of this. One only has to consider the evangelical zeal of those who, like Mr. Inwood, use their ecclesiastical position to impose this revolution to see ultramontanism in action.
There are few who can match liberal Catholics for a hunger to obtain and exercise authority.
Lozza - i'm not old, i'm younger than you. I see i've got your rattled. Can't understand why because i thought you thought you were the Magesterium. Obviously not!
IanW - more revisionism by neo-cons but not very convincing and you won't find a credible scholar who will agree with your erroneous interpretations - not even old Benny himself. The V2 documents are very clear they called for a reform of the EF and the generous introduction of the venacular. Most catholics wanted it at the time, and most want it now. There's can be going back.
'Old Benny?'
And you think (or say) that traditional Catholics are arrogant!
He's the Holy Father, the Pope, the Successor of St Peter. He is the Vicar of Christ. He is God's representative on Earth.
Have you no fear of God? No ounce of respect, loyalty or love for the Pope? No humility, no sense of deference that there could exist an authority that is greater than yours? No sense that the Holy Spirit is at work in his work?
I don't know how old you are and I don't much care. Your arrogance in describing the Holy Father as you have suggests to me that, whether you know the entire history of the Church's liturgical life, or not, you are an enemy of the Pope, therefore an enemy of the Church, therefore an enemy of Jesus Christ.
Only a 'spirit of Vatican II' type could possibly refer to the Successor of St Peter in such a disrespectful way!
We expect such vileness from Protestants or atheists but as a Catholic you should really know better!
I sometimes wonder whether stand up for Vatican II people are sede-vacantists too. They only recognise the Pontificate of one Pope - Paul VI - since then, the Chair, to them, might just as well have been empty!
He's the Holy Father, the Pope, the Successor of St Peter. He is the Vicar of Christ. He is God's representative on Earth.....
I think you willfind most Catholics do not believe old Benny is 'the vicar of christ'. You show howout of stepyouare- he is just a man. No more or less divine than me
Latin Scholar,
I see from your conversation with Lawrence that you are a young scholar, so will do you the courtesy of responding to you where otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered. Please take this as useful advice rather than criticism: one should define terms where their meaning may be arguable or unclear; conjecture is no substitute for facts or reasonable inference from them; and Aunt Sallies don’t shed light on the subject under discussion
You brand me a ‘neo-conservative’ and ‘revisionist’, which could mean anything or nothing and to the best of my knowledge isn’t based on any substantive knowledge of me or where I stand on a range of theological and liturgical issues. It’s also an unhelpful term, associated as it is with politics. The whole effect is reminiscent of Pravda or the Morning Star, c. 1959, and about as enlightening.
You go on to suggest that I deny the Council Fathers’ call for reform of the Latin Rite. If you look again at my comments you will see that I don’t. To the contrary, my concern is that what was implemented was not sensitive reform of an existing liturgical tradition (as at Trent), but a radical break with it, the creation of something new for which there was no Conciliar mandate. So, too, I did not deny that the Council Fathers authorised the introduction of the vernacular, but observed that it was balanced by a specific call for the retention of Latin. This speaks of the development of a mixed model, rather than the wholesale abandonment of Latin. Gregorian chant has suffered the same fate, for all practical purposes: the Council mandated its pre-eminence as the music proper to the Rite, but very few parishes are obedient to the Council in this. I am disappointed that you failed to address the point.
Finally, you should understand that development and abuse of power structures is a problem common to liberals and conservatives alike. The liberals who implemented liturgical reform in the later 20th century merely employed power inherited from their more conservative predecessors. The extent and speed of change, however, were unprecedented, and it is in this sense that it is possible to understand the reform as the apogee of Ultramontanism. We are now fortunate to have a Holy Father who understands the complex nature of liturgical tradition and development, and who has publicly eschewed his right to make arbitrary change to the liturgy (it probably also helps that he didn’t want the job and the power that goes with it). I can do no better than to urge you to read him.
Post a Comment