It has been a busy day (and not over yet), in part due to another newborn lamb to attend to. Say hello Flora.
One of my fine blog correspondents (and there are some really good people who drop me a line) has sent me some interesting news, confirming and elaborating information received from another correspondent Michael over at St Bede Studio.
It seems that the 1965 Missal is not as dead as I had thought it to be. The monks at the thriving monastery of Fontgombault have been known to use it. It is reported that in 2011 the 1965 Missal was used for the Mass at which the new Abbot of Fontgombault, Dom Pateau, received the abbatial blessing from the Archbishop of Bourges.
The silence over the last year on the new lectionary’s progress has been unsettling. We had it from the Chairman of ICPELL himself that the new lectionary would make use of the ESV Bible, a revision of the RSV originally authorized for vernacular worship back in the mid-60s, and that things were advancing to the point that we might even this year see a first volume published. Then he, and everyone else, went quiet.
Br Tony Jukes SSS has discovered the reason for the silence. He has come across a statement from the Education Officer for Liturgy of the Archdiocese of Brisbane (Australia), Mrs Elizabeth Harrington, that explains all. It can be trusted as the Archbishop of Brisbane is (oops! was) the Chairman of ICPELL. She gives a valuable and balanced summary of the dynamics of the process over the last decade, and comes to this climax:
After 10 years of unsuccessful efforts by ICPELL, it became apparent that the whole lectionary project was in serious jeopardy. It had proved impossible to find a lectionary that suits the Holy See, the copyright holders of the scripture translations, and bishops’ conferences. Another issue was that the Revised Grail psalms, which were planned to be part of the revised lectionary, have also lost support in some quarters.
At the end of 2013 the decision was made to dismantle ICPELL and leave each conference of bishops to make its own decision regarding a lectionary for Mass. Consequently, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference agreed to discontinue its involvement in the international lectionary project and to reprint the existing lectionary. It would contain a slightly modified version of the Jerusalem Bible currently in use and the Grail translation of the responsorial Psalms.
The general opinion is that some poor translations in the Jerusalem Bible are easily remedied and that other required changes to the text can be made fairly quickly.
So the cat is out of the bag. ICPELL is dead. Each bishops’ conference will make its own provision. For a start, we know now what the Australian bishops propose to do. The often unsuitable Jerusalem Bible will be retained, though with some attempt to remedy its “poor translations”. The New Grail Psalms are to be abandoned and the old Grail retained. Finally, they hope to have the new lectionary ready for the end of 2014 (the First Sunday of Advent I presume).
Most probably the bishops of England and Wales will not depart much from the Australian plan.
This will be something of a blow to some in the Reform of the Reform movement. For liberals and traditionalists, to use those sweeping labels for brevity’s sake, this development is probably welcome. The former tend to like the current lectionary as it is; the latter have their eyes firmly on the Vetus Ordo and its vastly different lectionary.
One factor in the demise of ICPELL might be the desire of Pope Francis to devolve as much as he can to local bishops’ conferences. ICPELL was not a curial body as such but it did represent centralization of sorts, and that is no longer encouraged.
It would have been nice to have heard it from someone more responsible in this matter than a diocesan education officer (though we must be grateful to her).
We could always Revive ’65.
**NB: the new lectionary was never envisaged for North America. Both the USA and Canada already have their own lectionaries in place. The new arrangement has at least the virtue of being consistent with what has happened in North America.**
When I typed, rather unwittingly, my personal reaction to Fr Thomas Kocik’s re-assessment of the Reform of the Reform initiative, little did I know the the issue would be such a lively one. Most of it has been interesting. Only once has it descended to invective (under the guise of muscular Christianity or something similar).
Dom Mark Kirby’s more recent contribution is another personal contribution, from one who did his best for the new liturgical order and found it to be exhausting and in vain. His reference to Thomas Merton’s trepidation at the prospect of liturgical reform was an eye-opener. His own later confusion seems to mirror and coincide with that of the liturgy.
There are three posts which have really captured my attention. One is by Dom Mark again, looking at (in part) the merits of the 1965 Missal which has occupied my recent speculation. Purists argue, rightly, that this Missal was not conceived as a permanent Missal but a transitional one. Put another way, it was not an editio typica for posterity. That ultimately seems irrelevant, since the point Dom Mark makes (and I agree) is that this Missal was never given a decent chance. It was an opportunity lost. He explains in his post 1965’s continuity with the pre-conciliar liturgy, and also its modest reforms. He cites the Vatican Secretary of State, writing on behalf of Paul VI in 1966, who expressed the view that,
(t)he singular characteristic and primary importance of this new edition is that it [the revisions of 1965] reflects completely the intent of the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
It took me aback to see in writing, from the highest authority, what appeared to me to be so obvious of the 1965 Missal: it fulfilled the mandate of Sacrosanctum Concilium, and no further novelty was needed (save, maybe, for refinements or restorations in light of pastoral experience). But what should have been an end-point for immediate reform ended up being commandeered as one in a sequence of changes, each of which softened the blow of the one following. The results we have seen all to clearly in some truly horrific travesties of Mass.
Dr Joe Shaw has not agreed with this view, and did so with his usual logical evenness. One excellent point he makes in an earlier post in his series is that the Novus Ordo of 1969/70 and the Vetus Ordo of 1962 are radically different in their methodologies, for want of a better word at this time of night. The new Mass is built primarily on verbal communication and comprehension, and exalts the text; the old Mass operates primarily by non-verbal communication and silence, and exalts ritual action (I have paraphrased and grossly simplified his writing: please go and read him direct). For him the 1965 Missal is fatally flawed in that it seeks to compromise between the two methodologies, and such a compromise is doomed to failure, as “falling between two stools.” His analysis is compelling and convincing. For him, naturally, the only solution is a return to the Missal of 1962.
Dr Shaw focuses most of his critique on the 1967 changes made to the 1965 Missal, and which were the subject of the Agatha Christie indult. It is the existence of this indult that led me to mention the 1967 changes, since they appear to be licit, permissible even now in England and Wales. By preference, I would prefer the 1964 or ’65 reforms This is not to quibble with Dr Shaw, but merely to clarify.
One thing I do quibble with is his assertion that “none of these changes find direct support from the Council.” That seems not to be a compelling point. The Council Fathers were not concerned with itemizing individual changes, so I would expect to find such direct support almost no conceivable change. This of course raises the issue of the naïveté of the majority of the Fathers, those who came without a fully-worked out agenda and plan of action. They left the field to those who did. Their vagueness served very well those who desired radical change.
Lastly, please do go and read the latest from Dr Peter Kwasniewski at the New Liturgical Movement. He expresses my own position far more coherently than I do. He accurately identifies the two approaches that make up the Reform of the Reform movement: to use the current books with with rubrical integrity, and with as much reverence and traditional beauty as possible; and to revise the books themselves and restore what was too hastily discarded while removing what was too hastily introduced. At present, I live by the former, and I yearn for the latter.
Dr Kwasniewski then goes on to explain that to recognize the apparent futility of the Reform of the Reform is not to have abandoned the prevailing liturgical order lock, stock and barrel. If that were so, I (for one) would not still be daily celebrating, or even concelebrating, the new Mass. “One cannot recover lost continuity by stubbornly insisting on it”, writes Dr Kwasniewski. The options are a complete return to the status quo ante concilium or such a radical revision of the new Mass as to have effectively abolished it, not because it is not valid but because it represents,
a detour, an evolutionary dead-end. It is like those modernist churches that do not suffer gently the passage of time, that are trapped in their own era and mentality, never able to escape from it. The way forward is not to keep developing the modernist aesthetic but to abandon it resolutely and definitively, embracing and cultivating in its place the noble artistic tradition we have received, which retains tremendous power to speak to us of realities that are timeless and transcendent.
Some no doubt see that a “detour”, a new departure was precisely what was needed for the liturgy, to make it relevant to modern circumstances. Whether that view is right or wrong is one question, but what is beyond question is the fact the Council did not mandate any such detour from liturgical tradition.
But we need to remember that any resolution needs to be done fully in the bosom of the Church, as far as possible bringing her members with us willingly and not dragging them by their hair. For now, we must employ the two options universally and licitly available: the Ordinary Form or the Extraordinary Form, and present each at its very best – a new Mass with reverence and traditionally-consistent beauty, and an old Mass performed with loving care and joy as something in which all are invited to share as an enduringly and intrinsically Catholic means of worship. The first must never involve the abandon of liberty hall (as some might see it) and the second must never be the work of a traditionalist ghetto (as some might see it).
For most of us some sort of personal resolution of the issue is possible. For the pastor, and just as much for the faithful Catholic too, the desire must be for a communal solution. For me, as is clear, the glimmer of hope that reconciles the realpolitik of the conciliar teaching on liturgical reform with the urgent need to recover a radical and authentic continuity with the liturgical tradition of the Church’s worship lies in the 1965 Missal. It exists, was used for an obscenely brief period of time, is post-conciliar and yet more comfortably sits in the liturgical tradition. Perhaps it could even be introduced as a third Form (despite my horror of too many options) and allowed to sink or swim on its own merits. Perhaps it would attract those who continue to attend the OF because it is seemingly the only viable option for them, for whom the EF would be too much, too soon. Perhaps it would serve as an excellent entrée to the EF.
Perhaps it could go some way to addressing the acute and chronic haemorrhaging the Church has endured in the last 50 years or so. The need to reverse this dismal decay in the Church is something we can all agree on.
Is it possible that the mood of the moment, in liturgical terms, has changed to such a degree as to be irreversible?
Dom Mark Kirby OSB of Silverstream Priory states his position in his clear and balanced way, as one who had laboured for the new rites and made no headway in the direction that had been set for those rites by their own creators.
On the New Liturgical Movement we find a useful introductory synthesis by Dr Peter Kwasniewski of the increasingly public lamenting of the liturgical status quo.
Dr Joe Shaw investigates more deeply yet accessibly both the real disadvantage the Reform of the Reform (RotR) has faced, and the obsession with the text that was the fatal (?) flaw of the Liturgical Movement. In the first case, I think the real disadvantage is not necessarily insuperable (why not, for instance, offer a RotR Mass alongside the normal one, much as he advocates offering the old Mass alongside the prevaling liturgy?). The focus on the text, on the human word, is soberingly accurate, and it is an obsession that expresses the hyper-rationalism of modern man.
…first of all, we attend Mass because we are in need. We are there because we need to be fed.
This could do with much fruitful unpacking. We go to the Mass not because there is something we can give (other than our bodies as a living sacrifice, our spiritual worship) but because there is something we must receive. We go not to do something but to have something done to us, to put it a little crudely. This is an essential insight for an authentic and fruitful liturgical spirituality.
There may well be more out there that I am yet to see.
Perhaps most surprising of all is an interview given by Jimmy Fallon, who is about to be promoted as Jay Leno’s successor on The Tonight Show, one of America’s biggest and most influential modern TV shows. This is the voice of one of the multitude whom we have lost in the wake of the liturgical reforms. Of his childhood he reveals what was probably the common experience of so many Catholic boys,
I loved the church. I loved the idea of it. I loved the smell of the incense. I loved the feeling you get when you left church. I loved like how this priest can make people feel this good. I just thought it was – I loved the whole idea of it. My grandfather was very religious, so I used to go to Mass with him at like 6:45 in the morning, serve Mass. And then you made money, too, if you did weddings and funerals. You’d get like five bucks. And so I go ‘Okay, I can make money too.’ I go, ‘This could be a good deal for me.’ I thought I had the calling.
Though ever the comedian he is being sincere, as will become obvious in his answer to being asked if he still goes to church:
I don’t go to – I tried to go back. When I was out in L.A. and I was kind of struggling for a bit. I went to church for a while, but it’s kind of, it’s gotten gigantic now for me. It’s like too… There’s a band. There’s a band there now, and you got to, you have to hold hands with people through the whole Mass now, and I don’t like doing that. You know, I mean, it used to be the shaking hands piece was the only time you touched each other… I’m doing too much. I don’t want – there’s Frisbees being thrown, there’s beach balls going around, people waving lighters, and I go, ‘This is too much for me.’ I want the old way. I want to hang out with the, you know, with the nuns, you know, that was my favorite type of Mass, and the grotto, and just like straight up, just Mass Mass.
It is obvious to see why a Swiss cartoonist penned this sharp little cartoon in 2012.
Yesterday Pope Francis sent a message to the symposium recently concluded in Rome, entitled “Sacrosanctum Concilium: Gratitude and Commitment to a Great Ecclesial Movement”, and held at the Pontifical Lateran University. So far there seems to be no English translation of the Italian text, but we can still delve into it a little. There are a couple of interesting moments. Acknowledging the 50th anniversary of the publication of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council’s first document and its manifesto for liturgical renewal, Pope Francis declares that the anniversary,
…inspires gratitude for the profound and widespread renewal of liturgical life, enabled by the teaching of the Council, for the glory of God and the building up of the Church; and at the same time urges a revived commitment to accept and implement this teaching more fully.
This might sound like the beginning of another paean of praise for the post-conciliar liturgy: we’ve heard the formula before. However, maybe all is not quite as it might seem. “More fully” might imply in the eyes of some a desire for even more changes and modernizations. Yet it could also mean that the full meaning of the text of the document itself is yet to be implemented. The Missal of 1969/70 has but a tenuous link with what the Council Fathers actually wrote.
The Holy Father continues a little later by affirming the crucial truth that “Christ is the true protagonist at every celebration”. Neither the people, nor the priest, are the subject of the Mass: it is Christ, gathering His people together and leading them, through the priest, in His perfect worship of the Father.
It gets better. Pope Francis restates the truth expressed by St Paul in Romans 12:1 that “to celebrate true spiritual worship is to offer oneself as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God”. A liturgy without this element of spiritual worship risks being empty of true sacredness and becoming “quasi-magical and an empty aestheticism”. That might sound like a shot across the bows of those who value the old Mass or more solemn worship, the Reformers of the Reform for example. No doubt the pope has little time for those who obsess about lace or the depth of bows (if such still exist in any numbers). Yet aestheticism works in more than one direction. It is also a type of aestheticism that seeks to manufacture an atmosphere of community, an emotive and artificial sense of togetherness, mutual-affirmation and acceptance. The rainbow stole is just as affected as an obsessive use of lace.
He goes on to say that “being the action of Christ, the liturgy from its innermost moves us to put on Christ, and in that dynamic all reality is transformed”. The liturgy should transform us into Christ, and since we are the salt of the earth and the yeast that leavens the bread, through us Christ transforms the world. It brings to mind Fr Z’s tag line, “Save the liturgy, save the world”. What Pope Francis is pushing here again is the centrality of Christ, not ourselves, in the liturgy. He elaborates this dynamic of transformation by quoting Benedict XVI, which is surely significant. More on that in a bit.
His conclusion is also worthy of noting carefully:
To render thanks to God for that which has been possible to carry out, it is necessary to unite in a renewed willingness to move forward along the path set by the Council Fathers, because much remains to be done for a correct and complete assimilation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy on the part of the baptized and of ecclesial communities. I refer in particular to the commitment to a strong and organic initiation and liturgical formation, as much in the faithful laity as in clergy and consecrated persons.
Pope Francis, so fond of the off-the-cuff, is here using very well measured words indeed. In fact, it takes no great stretch at all to see this encouragement for those who yearn for a renovation of the liturgy along the lines discussed in a previous post, one more obviously in line with the 1965 Missal. That certainly is closer to a “correct and complete assimilation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy”. Correct (in the Italian, corretta) – not normally a word we might hear from this pope. But here he uses it, in relation to worship. He emphasizes the need for a “strong and organic… liturgical formation” for both laity and clergy. As Arhcbishop Gänswein said of Pope Francis, he seeks to change not the Faith but the faithful; or here, by transference, he locates the more urgent need as in the faithful and clergy to understand, correctly, the Council teaching on the liturgy, rather than to change the liturgy at will.
And as if to provide a lens, or a hermeneutic, by which to view and interpret his short teaching, he quotes only scripture and Benedict XVI. It is hard not to see this as an implicit affirmation of the liturgical theology and praxis of the Pontiff Emeritus.
Given that Pope Francis is not overly concerned with liturgy, having other fish more urgently in need of frying, his message can reasonably be read as an encouragement, indeed a mandate, to the Church to recover the “correct and complete” understanding of the conciliar teaching on the liturgy – not least that it is the work of Christ not man; that the people’s most essential role is to offer their bodies as a living sacrifice in union with Christ’s – our spiritual worship; that all the faithful might be actively engaged in the mystery of worship so that the mystery of worship might permeate their lives (the nub of Pope Francis’ quotation Benedict XVI). This is wholly consistent with Francis’ repeated emphasis on a faith that is expressed in daily living; that putting on Christ in the liturgy our whole life might be transformed.
Pope Francis clearly wants doers of God’s word, and here he affirms that we must first hear God’s word, or Word, and that we hear Him in the most privileged way when we turn from ourselves to Him in the liturgy. This is the timeless teaching of the Church, and not least of the Second Vatican Council. If the current liturgy as very often celebrated does not correctly express that teaching, we need urgently to embrace a liturgy that does before our churches are totally empty. The 1962 liturgy has the centuries of proven achievement; and the 1965 Missal enhances that liturgy, correctly interpreting the Council Fathers’ express desire. Is it too late to give it another go?
Revive ’65. It is not such a silly hope. This pope has shown himself adept at breaking moulds, and surprising us in our complacency. It could well be, for example, that the Vatican bank, or IOR, might not be around in its current form for much longer. Is it impossible that Pope Francis might do something bold and dramatic with the liturgy? He might if he hears enough of us clamouring for it, especially the young. Moreover, he seems to surf the net and read papers for himself. To quote Pope Francis, go out and make a noise!
On the matter of the interim liturgy, between Sacrosanctum Concilium and 1969, Michael at St Bede Studio plans to do a series on this process of imposed liturgical change and acceptance, which he introduced briefly today. It should prove very interesting indeed.
**Caveat: my Italian is not brilliant so when the official translation comes out it might not be in precise agreement with my rough and ready one. However, mine hopefully captures the essential meaning of Pope Francis’ message.**