I give up

For a couple of weeks now, I've been wanting to blog on a book I read, but I wanted to quote from the book, and I can't find the durn book (I read it on the way to and from Ann Arbor last month. I know it got home...but I can't find it. If you saw my house you would not be surprised in the least).

So I'll go ahead and talk a bit about it, but with not as much detail as I had hoped.

The book was The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Alcuin Reid, OSB. Reviewed here by Cardinal Ratzinger.

The book is an overview of the Liturgical Movement from the 19th century to the Second Vatican Council, within a particular framework, implied in the title: that an important principle to hold on to as we speak of liturgy is "organic development" - that the way the liturgy has developed over time is an essential aspect of what it is, and should not be viewed lightly.

(My question to theologians out there: is this a widely accepted central principle, or is this something Reid simply emphasizes? I couldn't determine that from the text.)

I was vaguely familiar with the basic history of the Liturgical Movement, but this book fleshed it out in a helpful way. He emphasizes that the beginnings of the movement (in the 19th century) were concerned with helping Catholics understand the liturgy better and to help them make it a more integral aspect of their spiritual lives, hence the emphasis on liturgical piety - promoting the publication of missals and other prayerbooks, educating the laity on the Mass and so on - rather than changing anything.

It was in the 20th century that the movement began to shift emphasis, looking to the possibility of reforming the liturgy. Even this has nuances, Reid points out (here's where I wish I had the book!).  There were, he says, valid reasons to make some changes in the liturgy (that wouldn't violate the principle of organic development), but what eventually emerged was an emphasis on Ratzinger calls "archaeological enthusiasm" - oldest is best - and a kind of pastoral concern that is not about bring the people into the liturgy, but changing the liturgy to fit the people.

The details are all quite interesting, but the weird thought I had was this - and I can't shake it (until one of you corrects me, of course)

The impetus for the most radical changes seem to have come from French and German scholars, especially in the wake of World War II. The concern, as I read it, was not just abstract. It was always that the Tridentine liturgy had failed to engage the people, had failed to bring them into fruitful relationships with Christ, and that it had to be rather radically altered  in order for the Mass to be something vital in the lived faith of the people again.

Not a word was said about this in the book, and perhaps it's just a fancy, but...I'm wondering if this conviction reflects at all, the experience of Catholics under Nazism...that perhaps what these scholars observed were populations that, for the most part, accomodated their lives to fascism, allowed their neighbors to be taken away and killed, and found itself powerless. Perhaps there was an honest questioning about the level of faith among those peoples and whether a more "accessible" liturgy might empower people to connect with God more deeply and live, not as accomdationists, but as martyrs?

There's, naturally enough, a great deal of work that's been done on the response of Jewish theology to the Holocaust. Has anyone ever studied the impact of Nazism and the war on Christian theology - not during, but after the fact? Michael took a class from Josef Fuchs, and he said that the moral theology of Fuchs, who had been a pastor in Germany during the War, struck him as very accomodationist...a "do what you can do" as long as your Fundamental Option is in the right direction (Fuchs being the father of much contemporary Catholic moral theology, as you can tell), and it seemed to him that this approach was very clearly reflective of Fuchs' position as pastor in that situation.

Comments

[Touchy Tech]

But how does all of this liturgy stuff tie in with The Wizard of Oz? (just kidding)

Another aspect of that history may be the experience of the resistance to the Nazi occupation, particularly with regards to the post-war drive towards greater ecumenism which was, I suspect, one of the driving forces behind liturgical reform. The reality of people of different faiths (including Communism) working intimately together to fight the manifest evil that had taken over their country may have inspired many thoughtful people to think of ways that the faiths that divided them could be brought into greater harmony.

[Septimus]

Your questions aren't without merit, but the liturgical movement, and the questions it raised about the liturgy as celebrated at the time of the Council, had a good deal of momentum prior to the war and the horrors of it. There is a danger of too-easily adverting to post-hoc thinking.

As to the issue of organic development: yes, that is a key principle, in liturgy and in all Catholic doctrine and practice.

Recall Cardinal Newman, and his insights on the development of doctrine. I think it would be fair to say this is an issue between Rome and the East.

[Michael Tinkler]

FASCINATING question about moral theology - and I'm interested in the possible liturgical connection, too (though I find it less likely, somehow).

[David Delaney]

RE: The organic development question: I believe that most Catholic theologians with a background in liturgy would agree that the liturgy has developed organically. Sacrosanctum concilium (Vatican II document - Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) paragraph 23 defines as a norm for the reform of the liturgy that any changes must be organic growths from already existing forms. The rub: what can be classified as an organic growth from existing forms and what fails this norm? This is probably the biggest source of debate.

[amy]

Septimus:

In reading the book, what struck me was that the reformist/authentic/stripped down/ accessible to the people push really gained strength after the war. Was this just (hah) an organic development of what had preceded it in the liturgical movement, or did it have something - anything - to do with the war experience? Did it reflect it at all?

(I just fail to see how any theological reflection could, even unconsciously, fail to take into account years of fascism, war, persecution a mere decade or so after all that had happened, when the ruins were still visible..)

[Rev. Terry Specht]

I have read some reflections on this before but, unfortunately don't recall the sources. As I recall there was an effort of liturgical reform in Germany in the 30s that attempted to counter the success of the Hitler Youth and other Nazi youth programs. It involved a shift in emphasis to processions and banners (imagine that). It was a dismal failure but the experimentation would reappear after the war.

The other issue I recall reading about was the experience of European priests under Nazi occupation. In many situations the Mass had to be celebrated without meeting the required rubrics because of the persecution many experienced (ie no vestments, improper vessels). While these exceptions were certainly acceptable it lead to reinforce a Roamn tendancy toward minimilism (the reduction to the absolutely necessary). Refeormers pointed to this persecution experience to insist that many elements of the Roman rite were unneccessary (and thus expendable).

These two unfortunate tendancies; to alter the liturgy to meet the expectations (need) of the people and to view most aspects of the liturgy as unneccessary certainly played a role in the disaster to follow. How much the war experience contributed is hard for me, with my limited reading, to say.

[Sr Lorraine]

From what I understand, the impact of Nazism, communism and the war was a major factor in the development of John Paul's philosophy at Lublin.
The above comment about ecumenism reminds me of something Fr. Walter Ciszak, SJ said about his experience in the Russian Gulag. He said the prisoners themselves, Orthodox and Catholic, who wanted the services of a priest would take them from whatever priest they could find, Orthodox or Catholic. So the requests for sacraments from the prisoners opened him and other priests up to an ecumenical aspect they didn't have before.

[Michael]

It's on top of the right speaker, next to the television.

(Remote viewing)

[Der Tommissar]

He said the prisoners themselves, Orthodox and Catholic, who wanted the services of a priest would take them from whatever priest they could find, Orthodox or Catholic. So the requests for sacraments from the prisoners opened him and other priests up to an ecumenical aspect they didn't have before.

Hasn't it always been the case that a Catholic could receive the sacraments from a validly ordained yet schismatic priest in articulo mortis?

I mean, I think even Evil Traditionalists would agree that being held in a gulag would fall along those lines.

[Don Boyle]

On the first point that Amy raises:

Does Reid's book address the interaction of "organic development" with rubric-based liturgy? I like the idea of organic development, as I've read Ratzinger talk about it in many of his books, but I've always been puzzled by how OD could work when the Church has, as it does now (and has at least since Trent), a liturgy that is *supposed to be* constrained by rubrics, esp. the GIRM and the Roman Missal itself? Here's what I mean--before Trent, there were apparently many variations in the practice of the Roman Rite, which St. Pius V standardized. Before the Missal of St. Pius V, there was arguably a freer rein to introduce local cultural elements into liturgical practice. After SPV, it seems that any OD will be seen as an illegitmate innovation--"Where is *that* in the rubrics?", would be the normal objection.

Take, for example, hand holding during the Our Father. Put aside for the moment whether one likes it or not. It seems to met that this is the kind of practice that *could be* a legitimate OD in the liturgy. At the same time, this seems to be the kind of practice that those calling for Reform of the Reform (possibly Reid and Cdl. Ratzinger) would say is an illegitimate innovation.

How do we have "organic development" now, when we have so much *structure*?

[reluctant penitent]

I think that Sister Lorraine is on to something, in my humble opinion.

Priests saying Mass in a concentration camp or at the front often had to make do with a minimalist version of the Mass. Yet their Masses were a testimony of great faith on the part of all who participated. Thus, if someone were to say, in the post-WWII period, that incense, elaborate vestments and vessels, elaborate chant and the rest are a necessary condition for a reverent Mass, they would, in effect, be saying that these very inspiring WWII Masses were irreverent, which was clearly false. In fact, the argument might have been made that these Masses were more reverent precisely because of the absence of these external signs of reverence. I'm not saying that this is a good argument, but I can see how it can be a very persuasive argument to many well-intentioned people.

[Michael]

Pope Benedict's review of the book:

http://michaeldubruiel.blogspot.com/2004/10/ratzinger-book-review-offers-keen.html#comments

[John Cox]

Interestingly, your questions come up in George Weigel's biography on John Paull II, "Witness to Hope." As a kind of undercurrent as he writes about Wojtyla's assessment and response as Pope to a post-war Europe that was rapidly de-Christianizing.

At one point, Weigel writes of the assessment of Germany Catholocism still suffering from BISMARK's "kultercampf" assault, which was amplified by Nazism and Marxism. Repeatedly, in this book, there is a sense of Western European national Catholic churches that have been hamstrung and marginalized partly by their own sin and accomodations (Amy touches on this), and partly by (what I would characterize as) their loss of faith-filled evangelical joy.

In Weigel's telling, Wojtyla had a deep respect and appreciation for the native piety of Catholics: seen in his pastoral role as Bishop and Archbishop in Kracow, and later in his various Papal pilgrammages. I'm thinking along the lines of Amy's post that such an appreciation (more widely adopted and more deeply rooted) could have finessed the excesses of the liturgical reform/change movement, while pointing the way to authentic reform -- to recasting the liturgy as "the work of the people" worshipping the loving, holy Triune God and entering into his life.

[Fred K]

Has anyone ever studied the impact of Nazism and the war on Christian theology
See, for example, Henri de Lubac's book, "Theology in History" for his responses to Nazism ("Drama of Atheist Humanism" has a similar task).

[patrick]

i do not think one can underestimate the reality of both world wars in "Christian Europe". One could argue that the first world war was even more devasting on many levels.

I do not think this 'accomdating' idea has been part of the organic renewal. (yes in pastoral pratice it has, but that is a distortion). I think PB16, in his book THE SPIRIT OF THE LITURGY, gives the real dynamic in a few paragraphs in the preface of the book. i would quote the words but not sure about quoting texts on a blog?

[John Cox]

Interestingly, your questions come up in George Weigel's biography on John Paull II, "Witness to Hope." As a kind of undercurrent as he writes about Wojtyla's assessment and response as Pope to a post-war Europe that was rapidly de-Christianizing.

At one point, Weigel writes of the assessment of Germany Catholocism still suffering from BISMARK's "kultercampf" assault, which was amplified by Nazism and Marxism. Repeatedly, in this book, there is a sense of Western European national Catholic churches that have been hamstrung and marginalized partly by their own sin and accomodations (Amy touches on this), and partly by (what I would characterize as) their loss of faith-filled evangelical joy.

In Weigel's telling, Wojtyla had a deep respect and appreciation for the native piety of Catholics: seen in his pastoral role as Bishop and Archbishop in Kracow, and later in his various Papal pilgrammages. I'm thinking along the lines of Amy's post that such an appreciation (more widely adopted and more deeply rooted) could have finessed the excesses of the liturgical reform/change movement, while pointing the way to authentic reform -- to recasting the liturgy as "the work of the people" worshipping the loving, holy Triune God and entering into his life.

[kcourt]

I can only comment on my own conversion experience - I have been a cradle Catholic, believing in the mind but not the heart. It was not until the Charismatiic renewal began in the 60's and 70's that I was touched, and in a powerful way. It took those great changes in our liturgy to bring this about in my life, and many others that I know also.

I personally believe the God uses all opportunities to touch us. Most Catholics need to be evangelized, and there must be something to be excited about in our faith, or it will not touch the individual.

Lately there has been a tendency in our diocese to eliminate the joy and make it a solemn occasion - I firnly believe that Mass should be a joyful time to praise God, as a community.

Some want the Latin Mass to return - personally, I never understood it. To me it was boring. I still feel that way. Since I was touched by Jesus, I started to read scripture and that desire has never left me. I am touched by the beautiful music that is total scripture.

I think often we put God in a box - we need to let him do what he wants. I bel;ieve that John 23rd was truly doing what God wanted, in his short time as Pope.

Thanks for listening.

[amy]

Michael:

Well, there it is.

[Christopher Sarsfield]

I would disagree that the current missal can be any way considered an organic development (and I believe this an opinion held by the current Holy Father). Many people would even say that current missal rather than being mandated by Sacrosanctum concilium (Adoremus position), is actually in violation of the text.

Finally, with regard to why the liturgy changed, I do not believe what happened in Germany (or the bombing of Tokyo, Hiroshima, or Nagaski) had anything to do with it. I do believe that many liturgists have decided that instead of the Temple Sacrifice as the type of the Mass, the Synagogue is more correctly the type of the Mass. Therefore, you see much more emphasis on the Scripture readings and the Sermon (Liturgy of the Word), and less on the sacrifice. Whatever, the motives behind the changes, it does seem the Benedict XVI views many of the changes to be a dismal failure.

[Jason]

John XXIII's removal of the phrase "perfidious Jews" from the Good Friday Liturgy is a small but significant "fruit" of the war, later confirmed by the Church's negative review of the "theology of contempt".

[perry lorenzo]

Have you all read Aiden Nichols' Looking at the Liturgy?

[Kevin Miller]

I would disagree that the current missal can be any way considered an organic development (and I believe this an opinion held by the current Holy Father). Many people would even say that current missal rather than being mandated by Sacrosanctum concilium (Adoremus position), is actually in violation of the text.

Two things:

1. The question of whether the current Missal goes beyond or even counter to what SC called for is not identical to the question of whether it's an organic development or otherwise legitimate move. SC doesn't exhaust the Church's authority. Pope Paul VI had his own authority.

2. In comment boxes under previous posts, I've pointed to texts of Cardinal Ratzinger in which he very clearly rejects the notion that the current Missal isn't an organic development. He says that because of the way in which the changes were made and promulgated, it understandably seems to people that it isn't an organic development. But he nonetheless says that it needs to be made clear that it is an organic development - fundamentally the same rite that we had before.

You can agree or disagree with that - and you can question whether it was entirely the correct development (Ratzinger himself questions this, and so do I) - but in fact, he says it - more than once, and we ought not misrepresent his position.

[Kevin Miller]

Oh, one other thing. I read Reid's book a few months ago. I think Ratzinger is right to see the value in it that he does. But just as in his review he doesn't appear to have been exactly overwhelmed by all of it, so, likewise, I think some caveats are in order. Most notably, I don't think Reid does the best job of defining "organic development." Any changes, large or small, are going to happen on someone's authority. The question is, when are such changes "organic" - because they truly build upon or restore and bring out more clearly what was there before - and when are they other than organic - because they obscure or destroy what was there before? Too often, I think, for some authors - sometimes including Reid - an "organic" development is one that the author likes, and vice versa. Reid's interpretation of history would benefit from a liturgical theology that's better thought out and more explicit.

[reluctant penitent]

kcourt says:

"Some want the Latin Mass to return - personally, I never understood it. To me it was boring. I still feel that way."

I think that the really big problem was not the introduction of a new liturgy but the prohibition of the old. If a parish wants a liturgy with more Protestant-sounding singing and clapping, then fine. I personally would avoid this Mass like the plague if I had a more traditional alternative, but I would not petition the Vatican for the excommunication of those who want to clap and sing. (I'm an open-minded guy.)

The problem is that those who were attached to the Tridentine Rite (usually for lack of a reverent Novus Ordo alternative) were bullied into attending the happy-clappy New Masses. That has changed a little with the introduction of some permissiveness toward the Tridentine Rite, but we're all still at the mercy of our Bishops and fellow parishioners. Usually all it takes it one person in a Parish who's "uncomfortable" with something traditional going on in a 10-mile radius and a Bishop will give the Tridentinists the thumbs-down.

[Don Boyle]

Kevin:

Let me quibble with that comment that any changes occur on someone's authority. Sometimes, they just happen, because of grace, random chance, or someone's whim. For various reaons, some of these changes become a new practice.

Is this a good analogy: I think of little children and how tradition-bound they can be. Put them to bed one night, and the next night they want it to be *exactly* the same way. (The way you tuck them in, let them have a last sip of water, etc.) Don't you dare leave anything out!

Liturgy can change in this way, too. We do things a particular way because we did it that way last week, or last year.

Yet SC says that no one, not even a priest, is to add to or take away from the liturgy on his own authority.

So how can there be organic development under that rule, if it means what it says?

[Septimus]

You know, I really find it hard to believe it when people say, as reluctant penitent appears to say, that all he can find is "happy clappy" celebrations of Mass, and the Tridentine Mass.

[John Bianco]

One can argue that the current missal is an organic development, but only under certain conditions, only being celebrated in a traditional manner as one would see at St. Agnes in St. Paul MN, the Grotto in Detroit and at St. John Cantius in Chicago. These parishes celebrate the Novus Ordo facing the tabernacle, either mostly or entirely in Latin, usually using the Roman Canon and except for a lector, no lay involvment in the santcuary.

The problem is finding a parish that celbrates mass such as this is far more difficult to find than even an indult Tridentine mass.

[Jeff]

If there is any meaning to "organic" development, I think part of it must mean, bit by bit, leaving an essential continuity to the ethos and structure of the liturgy. After all, "organic" must be in contrast to what? "Mechanical", in which a new thing simply replaces and old, rather than change by degree.

I think John Bianco is pointing in the right direction anyway. The more you NOTICE the difference and the more sudden the change was, the less "organic" it is. Much of what seems most "inorganic" about the New Mass is a result of its celebration, rather than the texts and regulations of the Missal itself. The emphasis must be on recapturing a continuity with the Old Mass, in varying degrees and different ways. And the more the Old Mass is seen as something noble and valuable which we can all benefit from having available, the easier that process will be.

By the way, I attend the Old Mass every week, but also love the New. I find assisting at each enriches my experience of the other. How's that for uncategorizable? Maybe there's another person or two in the country that feels the same way...

[Mitchell Hadley]

John,

You're absolutely right in saying that "The problem is finding a parish that celbrates mass such as this [i.e. Novus Ordo in Latin, facing the tabernacle] is far more difficult to find than even an indult Tridentine mass." (P.S. As a member at St. Agnes, thanks for the plug!)

And it's even more difficult because there are no resouces readily available for people to help locate them. Yes, there are sites that tell you about indult Tridentines, and you can find out about Novus Ordo Latin Masses (through masstimes and, I think, the LLA website). But what about the parishes that offer the Novus Ordo very reverently, even though it may be in the vernacular with the priest facing the congregation. I'm thinking of Holy Childhood in St. Paul in particular, where the choir performs classical masses (a few each year accompanied by orchestra), the celebrant and the (all-male) altar servers use incense at the 10:00 mass each Sunday, and there has been very little accommodation to what would popularly be thought of as the "post-Vatican II" reforms, even though Childhood proudly bills itself as a "Vatican II Parish."

My point here is that even though (for example) it may suffer from the poor Latin translations of the prayers, a mass at a parish such as Holy Childhood can serve to introduce people, especially those considering converting, to the inherent beauties of the mass without either overwhelming them or offending the senses or the intellect. The main problem is - there are no resources to inform people of such churches! Simply to be told that a mass is in English, or to be shown the outside of a beautiful old church, is no guarantee that the liturgical assassins haven't been present. I hope we can develop some kind of repository where such information can be shared with travelers and others looking for reverent masses.

[James Kabala]

Don Boyle says what I've long been thinking.

[reluctant penitent]

'You know, I really find it hard to believe it when people say, as reluctant penitent appears to say, that all he can find is "happy clappy" celebrations of Mass, and the Tridentine Mass.'

Maybe you and I have a different sense of what 'happy-clappy' means. In most parishes in the mid-west one will find some version of the Haugen-Haas and company hymnal. As far as I'm concerned that's all 'happy-clappy' musical nonsense. How many Parishes can you name which are not either indult-Tridentine or the Novus ordo ad orientem type (like St. Agnes in St. Paul, MN), where Gregorian Chant is used, for example? I'm serious--a list like that would help many people, including myself.

[Mitchell Hadley]

Reluctant,

Sounds like we're speaking the same language! Maybe we should team up on that project!

[Tim Ferguson]

Jeff,

I may be one of the other two like you - I like both Masses, properly celebrated. I love the Mass in Latin, whether it's Novus Ordo or Tridentine - I feel it takes me out of myself and my petty world, and transports me into the communion of saints, uniting me with my faith community in both its geographic and temporal aspects.

Back to the original topic Amy, I think you may be onto something in trying to understand the impact of the world events (both Wars, the communist revolution, the rise of fascism, etc.) on the liturgical movement. There's a great doctorate in there somewhere. If only I had the time and money to go back to school (I just got out in May) and dig into it. Maybe in a couple years I will - it's fascinating to think about.

[Septimus]

...sorry, I got interrupted...

I think--no, I *know*--many, many priests are trying to have solemn, reverent celebrations of the holy sacrifice of the Mass.

No doubt, there are many priests who are the problem; but I'm here to tell you that many times more than you might realize, they're getting resistance every step of the way to their efforts to make Mass more solemn, more reverent.

A priest starts using incense on feast days; and he gets flack, people coughing ostentatiously as he comes down the aisle, and people confronting him, immediately after Mass, about how he "ruined" Mass for them.

A priest chooses a more traditional, perhaps a Latin, hymn, for a daily Mass; "why don't you sing songs we know, Father?" is often the response.

A priest chants the Gospel on Christmas; Mass took 1:15; "why'd Mass take so long?"

Priests try to "streamline" Mass, meaning: how about just having Mass, and not adding in this or that celebration of this or that -- not having a lot of announcements, week in, week out?

"Oh, why is Father so mean? He won't support (choose one:) boy scouts/girl scouts/bingo/KofC/prolife/volunteers/ the school/senior citizens/the poor/ etc."

At the priest's urging, the music director moves toward more traditional music, more latin pieces, and tries to lead the choir and cantors more in the direction of supporting/leading congregational participation, and away from a "performance" mentality.

After a few modest steps, cantors and choir members rebel, grouse, threaten to quit, some do quit, and some who remain are sullen and uncooperative.

Priest would be happy to have no cell phones go off in Mass, no one get up to go to the bathroom, no children have meltdowns, no one arriving late, or leaving early.

Father would be delighted if all dressed modestly, all presented clean hands or if they presented tongues, at communion. But the priest is not a dictator and--forgive him--but he really doesn't want to go to war. What do you propose?

Yes, he can talk about it from the pulpit, he can put it in the bulletin, he can send letters; he can make it a major cause. But at what cost? And if people don't listen, what then? All this, despite all else demanding time and energy...

The priest gives instructions on appropriate bows and genuflections; he models the behavior consistently. Little effect, but perhaps, in time...

Worship Commission members are itching to do more. Do you want more? Do you want pew-Nazis?

Now, folks often notice: the servers are uneven, some Masses they don't show, or they get recruited at the last minute -- in which case, Father can't give instruction at that point. "Father, what can we do about servers?" Depends: depends on how tough you want to be.

Do you want to "fire" servers? Do you want a reward system for better serving? Who keeps track of servers showing up, not showing up? Who keeps track of the "points earned" for better service?

One way is to have a smaller, more elite "corps" of servers. When I was a kid, the "stick" was Father was a terror.

Father sings the Mass, which is generally well received; but trying to get the assembly to sing, the response varies, from enthusiastic at some Masses, to non-response, with a touch of sullenness, at others.

All this before venturing into: singing the Creed (Music Director can't find an English version of the full, Nicene Creed); all this before any question of Latin prayers.

And, one comment to make here; the priest, even if he has his staff, and volunteers, on board, can only do so much, and go so far, with the people of the parish. Should the priest "push" them? How hard?

And all this, important as it is, is just one slice of what a pastor has to deal with.

Energy, energy, time, time.

There seem to be plenty of arm-chair pastors, plenty of carping about those rotten priests who don't care.

Well, some priests do care, and they could use CONSTRUCTIVE help.

[Rich Leonardi]

Kevin et al.,

Here is Fr. Neuhaus' review of then-Cardinal Ratzinger's memoir Milestones on the question of the organic development of the liturgy, specifically in reference to the Paul VI missal:

What happened is that the liturgy suddenly became something other than the lived experience of the Church through the centuries. The "new liturgy" of Paul VI was the product of liturgical experts imposed by official authority. Within half a year, the old Missal, which had its roots in "the sacramentaries of the ancient Church and had known continuous growth over the centuries," was almost totally prohibited. This "introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic." The liturgy appeared "no longer as a living development but as the product of erudite work and juridical authority"; it became something "made," something within our own power of decision rather than something received as a gift. "I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today largely derives from the disintegration of the liturgy. . . . This is why we need a new liturgical movement which will call to life the real heritage of the Council."

[T. Chan]

iirc, the only weakness with Fr. Nichol's Looking at the Liturgy is his account of the Liturgical Movement and the history of liturgical development preceding it. A good counterpoint would be Fr. Bouyer's Liturgical Piety.

As for OD... perhaps one can say that there has been a problem with respect to liturgical celebration/liturgical piety somewhat akin to
the problem of legalism in Christian spirituality/moral theology--an excessive or rigorist "rubricist" mentality without the cultivation of the proper "spirit". In the opinion of many, the invention of three eucharistic prayers (along with the accompanying neglect of the Roman Canon in practice) would be considered an innovation. One easy example of OD would be the incorporation of new feast days into the liturgical calendar. Another might be the restoration of suppressed prefaces to the Tridentine missal...

btw, Lambert Beauduin's (one of the fathers of the Liturgical Movement) short book on the liturgy is also available, from the same publisher of the Organic Development of the Liturgy.

[MelanieS]

septimus, great analysis. Much of it could be a description of my own parish priest. He's overworked and embattled, pulled in twenty different directions and trying to do his best. Those of us who want more Latin, more traditional hymns, more reverence are up against a very vocal group of old timers who vehemently oppose such things.

And on top of all that, father is worried about bleed off to other parishes. If we loose too many parishoners, will our parish be next on the chopping block?

reluctant penitent and Mitchell Hadley:

There surely is a range of mass styles between the two extremes you mention. My home parish in Austin, Texas has an English mass that is still very reverent and traditional: a choir that does both Latin and English hymns, plenty of smells and bells, a virtual fleet of very well trained altar servers who look like they could be serving a papal mass, and Father chants many of the prayers, often does the Kyrie in Greek, etc. The English mass does not have to be "happy clappy" as you put it.

[Pseudonymous for a reason]

T. Chan:

"As for OD... perhaps one can say that there has been a problem with respect to liturgical celebration/liturgical piety somewhat akin to
the problem of legalism in Christian spirituality/moral theology--an excessive or rigorist "rubricist" mentality without the cultivation of the proper "spirit". In the opinion of many, the invention of three eucharistic prayers (along with the accompanying neglect of the Roman Canon in practice) would be considered an innovation. One easy example of OD would be the incorporation of new feast days into the liturgical calendar. Another might be the restoration of suppressed prefaces to the Tridentine missal..."

I don't where you're getting your information on the Work from. Saint Escriva immersed himself in both Carmelite and Ignatian spirituality. Both of these inform the Work's implementation of the Mass. It may not be your cup of tea--it's not completely mine--but that doesn't make it not "in the right spirit."

Also, I am a rubricist when it comes to making children. (Wait a minute--it will come to you. Fecundity requires a proper order of things.)

Finally, adding feast days has long been a prerogative of religious orders. (I know, the Work is not a religious order, but the same principle applies.)

I have no idea what you mean by restoring suppressed prefaces of the Trid Mass. Please explain.

[Kevin Jones]

Heinrich Rommen's The Natural Law, though more specifically a work of legal philosophy rather than moral, is one result of a Catholic philosopher's confrontation with totalitarian politics. He writes "When one of the relativist theories is made the basis of a totalitarian state, man is stirred to free himself from the pessimistic resignation that characterizes these relativist theories and to return to his principles."

It's on-line at the Liberty Fund website, with an introduction by Russell Hittinger.

I suspect that Servais Pinckaers' The Sources of Christian Ethics is an indirect critique, being a reflection on the minimalistic and somewhat legalistic attitude of nineteenth and early twentieth century Catholic moral theology. At one point, he ridicules certain moral manuals' recommendations that one act of perfect love per year, just as one confession, suffices to meet the requirements for a good Catholic. Lurking beneath this is, of course, a criticism of the lukewarm "let's muddle through" attitude of so many clergy and laymen, myself included.

[dilys]

Amy, coming a little bit from outside the usual discussion sources, I found and briefly blogged a wide-ranging historical columnist called "Spengler" who writes for Asia Times. Amazing guy, not necessarily loyal Catholic, but approaches some liturgy-and-history questions here and here.

[T. Chan]

Pseudonymous for a reason:

OD, as it has been used in this thread, is an abbreviation for "Organic Development," not Opus Dei.

With the codification of the Roman Missal by Pius V, not only were certain "unorganic" accretions eliminated, but also various prefaces corresponding to different types of feasts that had been in use. Restoring some of these may have mitigated the call for more variety. (Then again, it may have not.) iirc, Klaus Gamber talks talks about the possibility of restoring the prefaces as an example of organic development in his work.

[sj]

"Pseudonymous for a reason"

I think OD in this case refers to Organic Development.

[Zhou]

Just some random thoughts on this topic:

I think the Western Church (Catholic and Protestant) is still working the Reformation here.

Was it not with the Reformation and Trent that there was mandated a single, uniform Mass for the Roman Catholic Church (except for other rites in use at least 200 years)? And was it not with the Reformation and Trent that Roman Catholic resistance to vernacular solidified, and the Vulgate became the Scripture (even to this day, for liturgical translations). It seems that in response to the chaos of the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church said, "Stay between the lines of Scripture and Tradition: the Vulgate Bible and the Missale Romanum of Pius V."

Protestants moved on to do much historical critical work on Scripture, digging around in Greek manuscripts, etc., so that my the late 19th century, there was a very new perspective on Scripture. Some think that the Liturgical Movement was a similar effort by Catholics to recovery Tradition (most especially the Liturgy) using similar historical critical methods to look at early liturgical documents in the church. I think that to a certain extent, just as the Protestants studying Scripture manuscripts had a romantic idea of "the original Scriptures," the Catholics studying liturgy manuscripts had a romantic idea of "the original liturgy (tradition)."

In both cases, by the mid-20th century, I think everyone realized there was no "one original" for either Scripture or liturgy (Tradition). So there was a shift from looking for "The Original" to looking for "Lowest Common Denominator."

On the Scriptural side, this produced things like "The Jesus Seminar" where, basically, scholars agree that Jesus said, "Be nice," but little else. And on the Liturgical side, we have the minimalist trend in liturgy and tradition (word, bread, wine, priest, community--all else is "preference"). The results in both areas are rather chaotic. We have a multitude of Bible versions in myriad languages, but fewer people read them, and even fewer ever go back behind the vernacular to source language. We have a multitude of liturgies, not just those of Pius V and Paul VI, but even more liturgical prayers coming (now in Latin), liturgies for Children, liturgies for absence of a priest, endless variations of the Office, differences between languages. And who, today, really cares what liturgy was like in the first 700 or so years of the Church? Remember, that is what started the Liturgical Movement back in the mid 19th century.

In any case, we lurch along, soaring "On Eagle's Wings," trying to understand what we really have ecumenically in common, and what are our crucial distinctions.

[Dad29]

I think Mr. Sarsfield has a piece of this: the "synagogue/Temple" dichotomy.

Amy, I think your take is far too limited in the timeframe-scope. If you read Mgr. Hayburn's "Papal Documents on the Liturgy" it becomes clear that there is pattern: Bishops tend to ignore the Pope (synagogue-tendency) until the Pope cracks down hard (Temple-tendency.) So the ying and yang is Rome v. "local control."

Further: the Liturgical Movement was active at Regensburg and one of the Regensburg students came (eventually) to Milwaukee and trained the liturgical priests of the Archdiocese, who were then the "go-to" lit guys during the period just prior to Vat II.

Because of the connections established between Regensburg and Milwaukee, the Movement's ideas were well-known here--and there was great effort made to promulgate them, including the "Dialogue Mass" circa 1958 or just before then. But the "Dialogue Mass" was not a stripped-down quick/dirty Mass at all: it was in the standard forms (Low or High) and all the usual trappings of the High Mass were present, although sometimes the people sang the Chant.

Further, the Movement's people were not all that happy about the Bugnini/Weakland implementations--and this is reflected in the doubts of Cdl. Ratzinger, who most definitely knew Movement people (his brother worked at Regensburg for 40 years or so.)

Summarily, I think this more resembles the questions surrounding "collegiality/primacy" than anything else, and the history would seem to support this, albeit the Wars could have had some impact as well.

[T. Chan]

Zhou writes: "the Catholics studying liturgy manuscripts had a romantic idea of "the original liturgy (tradition)."

I believe Fr. Nichols makes a similar point in his book, or maybe he's just talking about the influence of Romanticism upon the liturgy... not sure. --I'd have to look it up.

This tendency may exist to some degree in some liturgical scholars (such as Fr. Jungmann) and in others it is the full blown archeologism condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, but it is not true of all members of the Liturgical Movement. Interestingly, this shortcoming has even been observed in Dom Gueranger and his restoration of "traditional" Benedictine life, liturgy and chant. The preoccupation of Beauduin et al wasn't necessarily with liturgical documents themselves and adding to the missal, but with recovering a Christian spirituality rooted in the liturgy for everyone, not just for an "elite," and this was done primarily by helping the faithful understand what the liturgy is and the liturgical prayers. (Hence the publication for bilingual missals.)

[T. Chan]

Liturgy the Life of the Church
by Lambert Beauduin

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0907077404/qid=1121292162/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5222915-7312918?v=glance&s=books

[Jeff]

Septimus, you really hit the nail on the head. This is one crucial piece of the puzzle that people just don't realize. A lot of people have gotten used to junk and actually like it! How to wean them away from it? Especially since it can hurt if your very real orthodox piety is bound up with "On Eagle's Wings"? Step by step, trust in God. That's the "organic" way.

[katymalone]

In the book Feast of Faith by then-Cardinal Ratzinger (Ignatius Press), he presents, with many footnotes, an organic treatise on the Mass. The book takes the Mass from its pre-Sacrifice introduction at the Last Supper through the Sacrifice, Death, and Resurrection, and from Christ's subsequent Appearances to his Ascension and the Acts of the Apostles and their followers. From the beginning, the Eucharistic celebration superceded (although it did not deny) the Meal aspect and brought, through Revelation and God's grace, symbols of Old Testament sacrifice and realities of the New Testament to an organic ceremony of adoration, praise, thanksgiving, and most especially the sacrifice of self through word and devout concentration into the very Self of the God/Man truly present in the Eucharist.

Through the centuries, despite error, the Real Presence, of course, prevailed, and with guidance by the Holy Spirit, Councils, and back-on-track progressions, the organic profundity underlying celebration and devotion to the Eucharist lasted.

What happened, began with "liturgical studies" in the 19th century (to answer a felt--and probable--need for laymen and women to increase their understanding of the Mass). The form of the Mass devolved into sacrifice and meal. Experts and interpreters were ready by the mid-20th century to enter into the "form" of liturgical worship with back-to-beginning interpretations that resulted in a "new liturgy" post-Vatican II that emphasized community meal--to the detriment of the sacredness of meaning and approach, by many, to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and to faith itself. This has introduced creative innovation into rubrics, music, etc. (by and on behalf of the "community") and has diluted the Traditional (with a capital T) organic seriousness about adherence to objective, sacred truths. (So, I guess what's happened is, like, "no so-called sin can get anyone to keep me, in my circumstances, from joining in the line to 'take' communion, because God loves me as I am and I came here to eat).

I *think* this is what Cardinal Ratzinger was saying--or alluding to--in much more elegant language.

So, "organic" I think starts with something much deeper than rubrics, dress, setting, music, etc., but it certainly includes them.

[Pseudonymous for a reason]

T. Chan and sj:

Thanks. Another reason to remain pseudonymous. I mixed up threads. OD referred to Opus Dei in another thread. Thanks,

Ps

[T. Chan]

An excerpt from Fr. Bouyer's book can be found here: http://www.adoremus.org/0403Tradition.html

[John]

I attended a Mass at Roanoke, VA recently where the K of C were installing their state officers. There was no appreciable difference in the level of piety with which the Knights inducted their leaders and the manner in which the offeratory prayer, the preface and the Eucharistic Prayer were offered. The Knights actually demonstrated a lot more formality, discipline, and respect during their ceremony than the congregation/priests did during the communion rite.

This church had two very young servers and what looked like a female denmother to the 1 girl 1 boy server team. The servers were basicly just decoration. The lady carried the processional cross and set the table prior to the offeratory. She put on tablecloth, placed the wine and bread and about 4-6 cups on the altar. There was a deacon present watching this. Later the deacon pured a little water into the jug containg all the wine before it was pured into the cups. The priest failed to notice so when the time came he also added more water to the wine. There was a little confusion in the goings on.

Of course we sang Gather us in and On Eagles Wings, but also Ave Maria was sung solo during the communion rite.

They did something wierd during the prayers of the faithful. The lector read the names of people who needed our prayers so when he said John Doe, the congregation would chime in "John" and so on Mary Doe "Mary" or Bill Roe "Bill".

After Mass a person visiting from Europe came to me very puzzled and wanted to know what we witness for about an hour and a half. It looked like a Mass but....The Knights' ladies were present at the ceremony. Most were not dressed modestly. Bare arms and low cut, tight fitting dresses were on liberal display. They looked more like like Roman temple pristesses from bad 1950s movies than Catholic women attending Mass which is maily a representation of the sacrifice on Calvary.

All in all, the liturgical reforms of the Councill were on ample display. I am not sure the reform is reformable at this stage of the game.

[Septimus]

Melanie, Jeff:

Thanks; what I see here is b**ch and moan, b**ch and moan, everything sucks, our priests are lousy, I'm searching the Internet for the perfect parish, and I can't find one, boy, don't our bishops suck?

And there are people in ordinary parishes, trying, including priests, who could use some help, but too many of these uber-Catholics can't be bothered. They'd rather alternate between their misery, their arm-chair liturgizing, or their reveries about the perfect Mass, offered . . . somewhere.

[John Bianco]

Septimus, like a famous blogger did a couple of months ago, you are just throwing stones at people who are rightfully fustrated. You have to ask yourself, why are people fustrated? I will tell you why............

In the last 40 years, often when people have spopken up for any kind of traditional mode of worship, what they got back from clergy and bishops is they are too "Pre Vatican II". They have often been treated in the most uncharitable manner. Their suggestions for the last 40 years have time and again fallen on deaf ears, or worse, been responded to like they are dirt. When clergy did things not specified by either Vatican II or the Novus Ordo missal itself, such as the elimination of Latin, thje elimination of altar rails and kneeling for communion, the imposition of EMHCs, often times making people recieve communion on t he hand instead of communion on the tounge, implying that method is not longer allowed and more recently, the imposition of altar girls, people who questioned these things were again often treated like dirt, called "pre Vatican II" and in effect told to sit down and shut up or go away. And that is why they did, they either jumped parishes or as I suspect most of them do, suffer in silence.

I know Septimus that it is fashionable to base "uber" or "traditional" Catholics on Catholic message boards, like a few mainstream conservative bloggers do all too well, but before you cast stones, understand the mindset of why people react the way they do. Most people who do care about the liturgy also have burdens of their familes and everything else the world throws at them do not want to deal with the culture war inside the santuary, from the pulpit and from the chior loft. I will admit myself I am not registered at my neighborhood parish, and I havent been at mass at a neighborhood parish for more than 3 years, I do not have the energy nor the inclanation to deal with clergy, musicians or parish council members who are set in their ways when it comes to liturgy.

[David Kubiak]

Again it is gratifying to see that other people are now making the kind of comments I would want to make on these issues. I don't recall that being the case when I first discovered this blog only a couple of years ago.

I can't resist a few observations, no doubt ones I have made before somewhere.

1. The best test of when a development in the liturgy is organic is, for once, the "People of God". The Roman Missal of 1962 did not cause a schism in the Church, even though it would not be my ideal realization of the Roman rite (which in case anyone is interested would be 1945 with a larger group of Prefaces and the suppressed Sequences).

2. Northern European leadership in the direction the liturgical movement took must be realistically seen in light of the Reformation. There is not a single major reform contained in the Pauline Missal and in Pope Paul's personal concessions that had not earlier been a demand of Protestants denounced at Trent, and by later Popes after the famous Synod of Pistoia dressed them up in Catholic clothes. (Please read this statement for what it says, which is not "The N.O. is full of Protestant doctrinal errors.")

3. The strained and artificial emphasis on "the unity of the community" in the new liturgy that started in the 60's is absolutely connected to the mentality that produced the kind of thing Leni Riefenstal filmed in "Triumph des Willes". It's pure German Romanticism mediated by German liturgical scholars.

4. Intelligent Catholics are beginning to see a grave structural problem in how Rome talks about the liturgy and the reality we have around us. I don't have Dom Alcuin's book to hand either, but as I recall then Cardinal Ratzinger warmly praises the general thesis of the book, and then says something like "the author has probably been wise to stop his narrative before the Vatican Council and its aftermath." In many, many places in his writing on the liturgy Pope Benedict has led people straight to conclusions that for reasons of policy the Vatican is not able officially to recognize and act on. It's a sort of wink and nod: "The more we look at things historically the more we realize how badly the whole thing was botched, but here it is and there's not much that can be done except make the the best of it." Someone who held and published the opinions Mons. Bugnini held and published could not come anywhere near the kind of power he wielded in the 60's in today's Vatican. And yet it is his Committee's Mass that must be formally defended for institutional reasons.

5. I am convinced that Mons. Bugnini would be horrified if he were to see how the N.O. is celebrated at St. Agnes or the Brompton Oratory. If you look at the responses to "dubia" submitted to Rome in the early 70's you can see very clearly how the intention was to suppress and eradicate the whole rubrical tradition surrounding the traditional rite of the western Church. The people who created the new rite were anxious that it be perceived as a clean break with the past. The sequellae of this attitude persist to the present, as Fr. Tucker reminded us recently on his blog when he said that things finally got so bad with the Papal Masses when he was in Rome that he stopped going.

6. It is very hard for me to conceive how organic development can occur in post-Modern culture. The Roman Canon descends to us surrounded by a virtually supernatural mist. Someone wrote the prayers, but we will never know who. Today we know exactly where our liturgy is coming from, and that fact sabotages organic development. And I don't use this observation to attack liturgical liberals, because it should be very troubling to traditionalists. It certainly is to me.

[stuart chessman]

Findings of fact regarding German Catholics circa 1933-45: "Accomodationists...allowed their neighbors to be taken away and killed...[questionable] level of faith...without fruitful relationship with Christ...Mass [not] something vital in the lived faith of the people... ."

Headline today: Bishop von Galen to be beatified October 9. Comment?

[Dad29]

David Kubiak: easily the finest short-response essay on The Question that I've seen in a year or so. Thanks!

However, I do think that the "reform of the reform" can be accomplished--beginning with (at whatever pace is necessary) simply celebrating the NO the way it was intended in 1964--largely Latin) AND putting in place a translation which is accurate.

Yes, there's more to do AFTER that--but that, alone, will be a 25-year project.

[Septimus]

John:

I'm sorry you were mistreated. So that makes it okay to relentlessly bash priests with a broad brush, rather than seeing if you can help them? Oh, right; there *are* no good priests out there trying, so why should the laity bother?

And if you don't think these threads almost invariably descend into clergy-bashing, I don't know how we can be reading the same threads.

[Septimus]

John:

I can't help noticing that your post seems to assume the priest in your "sanctuary" is the enemy; hence it's a "war." Now, I can't dispute your experience; but I really don't believe (and I really don't think you do) that every priest is the enemy. So why would you want to assume, and treat, a non-enemy, as an enemy? How does that help?

[John Bianco]

Septimus, please dont put words in my mouth. I know there are many good priests, and I do not assume they are enemies, but again, I do not have the energy, nor do most people have the energy to fight the culture wars inside a parish. That is why many go to parishes like St. Agnes, the Assumption Grotto or go to an indult.

[reluctant penitent]

MelanieS says:

'The English mass does not have to be "happy clappy" as you put it.'

Agreed. I was not making a statement of possibility but a statement of fact: most parishes in this part of the US have some version of the GIA Haugen-Haas hymnal, and that is always a recipe for liturgical nausea.

Mitchell Hadley, I agree. There is a need for a blog that allows people to post comments about their own parishes--pictures, anecdotes, comments about music, etc. There is always a danger for such a blog to turn into a gossipy chat room, but the moderator can try to counteract any such tendency.

[F. C. Bauerschmidt]

1. The best test of when a development in the liturgy is organic is, for once, the "People of God". The Roman Missal of 1962 did not cause a schism in the Church, even though it would not be my ideal realization of the Roman rite (which in case anyone is interested would be 1945 with a larger group of Prefaces and the suppressed Sequences).

The councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon caused schism in the Church. Does this mean that they were not "organic" (or, as i would prefer to put it, "faithful") developments of the Church's Christology? As to the 1945 Missal -- do we really want an Easter Vigil at 6:00 AM and a Good Friday liturgy with no opportunity for the laity to receive communion? As to prefaces, the Missal of Paul VI has far more than the 1945 missal.

2. Northern European leadership in the direction the liturgical movement took must be realistically seen in light of the Reformation. There is not a single major reform contained in the Pauline Missal and in Pope Paul's personal concessions that had not earlier been a demand of Protestants denounced at Trent, and by later Popes after the famous Synod of Pistoia dressed them up in Catholic clothes.

You raise an interesting point. But the biggest innovation (IMNSHO) was the departure from the practice of having one one Eucharistic prayer (the Roman Canon). Whatever one thinks of this innovation, one can hardly claim that it was something demanded by the 16th century Reformers, who pretty much wanted to eliminate Eucharistic prayers altogether (and, to aniticpate an objection), I don't buy the claim that the new EP's are more protestant than the Roman Canon -- indeed, EPIV is almost over-the-top in its theology of Eucharistic sacrifice).

I think an equally significant factor is that most of the leaders of the liturgical movement were monastics. If you think about it, the reformed liturgy is designed for those who celebrate the liturgy on a daily basis: a greater variety of texts; simplified ceremonial, etc. Even things like concelebration make the most sense in a monastic community.

3. The strained and artificial emphasis on "the unity of the community" in the new liturgy that started in the 60's is absolutely connected to the mentality that produced the kind of thing Leni Riefenstal filmed in "Triumph des Willes". It's pure German Romanticism mediated by German liturgical scholars.

I suppose that according to Godwin's law (i.e. "he who first invokes the Nazis loses the argument") I don't even need to reply to this. But, not to be deterred by common sense, I will agree that in some folks, like Karl Adam, there is a disturbing note of German Romantic ideology in his liturgical theology, but one need not turn to German Romanticism to find an emphasis on "the unity of the community". You might try the Gospel of John or the letters of Paul.

4. Intelligent Catholics are beginning to see a grave structural problem in how Rome talks about the liturgy and the reality we have around us. . . . [snip]It's a sort of wink and nod: "The more we look at things historically the more we realize how badly the whole thing was botched, but here it is and there's not much that can be done except make the the best of it."

You may be correct, but institutional inertia is one of the reasons I like being Catholic. There are things about the Missal of Paul VI that I consider unfortunate, but I don't think changing them back to how they were in 1962 (or 1945) would be any more "organic" than leaving them as they are (thus leading to your next point).

6. It is very hard for me to conceive how organic development can occur in post-Modern culture. . . . [snip]Today we know exactly where our liturgy is coming from, and that fact sabotages organic development. And I don't use this observation to attack liturgical liberals, because it should be very troubling to traditionalists. It certainly is to me.

An excellent point. This indicates to me that perhaps we need to get rid of the idea of "organic development" entirely, or at least highly qualify its value. As far as I can tell, it too is a product of German Romanticism. No one prior to the late 18th century talked about things developing "organically." Indeed, they were more likely to think of the liturgy (like any cultural product) as a static thing, that mirrored the ideal of the heavenly liturgy. In some ways, "organic development" was a way of accomodating a deeper historical awareness, and thus a good thing. But I think we need to be aware that "organic development" is itself a historically conditioned concept, and not presume that it is the only way to think properly about liturgy.

I should note, as others have already, that most of the "organic development" that has gone on since 1970 has been denounced by traditionalists as liturgical "abuse." I'm no fan of holding hands during the Our Father, but I think it's a good candidate for an "organic development" -- indeed, it's like a weed that keeps cropping up even when you think you've uprooted it. The embracing of pseudo-pop music for liturgy also seems "organic." Sure, it's heavily marketed, but most Catholics just lap it up, in a way that they never embraced gregorian chant (at least in the modern era). So it seems to me that there is nothing inherently good about organic development. I'm not exactly sure how we ought to think about liturgical change, but I suspect that "organic development," at least taken by itself, is inadequate.

[David Kubiak]

On Bishop Graf von Galen, he gets zero points on the secular score card, since he never denounced treatment of Jews. The Nazis certainly hated him and had plans to deal with him when the time was right, but you'll never get the NYT to see him as vindicating the position of the Church under the regime.

[stuart chessman]

I'm not seeking points on the secular or NYT scorecard. My concern was that some of the assumptions upon which judgments regarding other peoples in other situtations may be based on said "scorecards," not on the reality of what was actually done or what could have been done. Your comments lead me to the conclusion that my concern is well founded.

[stuart chessman]

And what would they say if they knew of von Galen's views on allied bombing, occupation and democracy??

Your posting on organic development is outstanding, by the way.

[Septimus]

Fine, John; I don't really wish to fight with you, and if I'm more combative than I really ought to be, and perhaps mean to be, maybe because I'm frustrated, too, and I hope that's allowed.

Because -- and tell me if I'm reading you wrong -- it sure sounds like the good guy priests who you acknowledge are out there in parishes needing allies making things better, can't count on your presence to help them.

And I'm not faulting you from declining to provide that help, not knowing you or what you've been through.

But that does, it seems to me, confirm one of the points I tried to make, perhaps in a combative way: that priests need help from the pew, but they don't get enough of it.

In that case, don't blame the priest who decides, "I've only got so much time, so much energy, so I think I'll focus it HERE, instead of liturgy." Because, really, isn't he making very much the same decision YOU are: he just doesn't want to fight the battle?

[Septimus]

John . . . because as I see it, there IS a whole lot of priest-bashing, b**ching and moaning, and maybe you don't acknowledge that, fine, but I see it.

And in my judgment, it's not helpful; and at some point, people who say, "well, understand how frustrated we are," need to say, "ok, when do we move from this phase, to something else? I fail to see how plowing the same ground of frustration and anger and hurt is all that helpful to the one who is frustrated, angry and hurt.

And I think I'm not out of line in calling people on it, and reminding people that, in their own hurt, there is no excuse to spread it by dumping on others...

And I think there is a fair amount of chest-beating, to the effect: "we really good Catholics are faithful, in contrast to those awful people who..." like the wrong stuff in liturgy, push the wrong agendas, etc.

And maybe they are "better Catholics" -- but then, being a better Catholic means behaving better, not just having a better liturgical sense.

[John Bianco]

Septimus, when a pastor makes a bold move such as elimination of altar girls, elimination of EMHCs, pushes for a change of the hymnals, while difficult at first, would get notice among many faithful in the diocese. But untill some dramatic moves like these are taken, then do not be surprised of Catholics who perfer more traditional liturgy go out and find a parish that will serve them.

Also, in my spiritual life, and that of others, we do not dump on other parishes, they do what they do, because again, many want a sanctuary from the real world, not the world in the sanctuary.

[George]

Although I did not read every post re: liturgy and the organic principle of development, I was surprised to see that no one spoke about the monumental efforts that occured in the early 20th century (well before WWII) in textual criticism and recovery of the treasury of liturgical history, forms and rites that had been laid aside since the reforms of the Council of Trent.
The work of the Benedictines in the Low Countries, France and Germany were key is recovering (to the best extent possible) the history of the development of the liturgy - which it clearly did, e.g. the interaction of the Roman and Gallican liturgies during and after the reign of Charelmange.
I would offer that when these scholars looked at the history - the organic principle was clearly seen from the earliest record up to Trent. The history from Trent to modern times is one of conformity (and I do not assume that is a bad thing...).
Whether "organic development" is a primary principle is a subject for debate among litugists, theologians and other way above my pay-grade (and abilities).
As for myself, I lean towards the clear historical record of a longer history of adaptation in keeping with "liturgia" as the word of the people

[stuart chessman]

"Liturgia" is neither the "word" or the "work" of the people.

[Septimus]

John:

Sounds to me, like: "Go ahead Father, you take all the s*** for awhile, and if you can take it, then maybe we'll come and help."

Gee, I can't imagine why any priest wouldn't jump at THAT offer!

[Septimus]

... and...

"Oh, and Father, you have to be MORE strict than the Church requires; because it's OUR standards you have to meet (no altar girls, no extraordinary ministers at all) -- and you have to choose the RIGHT hymnal, father; it has to meet OUR standards...what, show up and contribute to the discussion of WHAT hymnal? Nope, Father, you have to GUESS; if, in guessing what'll please us, and you guess wrong, you're out $10,000? You get a lot of flack, and we're not there to support you? Oh, well, life sucks sometimes, doesn't it father?"

[John Bianco]

Well Septimus, it was the clergy, not the laity that imposed changes from the 60s though the 90s such as stripping all Latin from the mass, standing for communion, EMHCs, often forcing communion in the hand, pushing banal liturgical music and lastly altar girls, and often they pushed many of these things before it was ofically allowed by Rome, so if it was clergy that got us in this mess, it will have to be a push from clergy(along with chanceries being cleaned out) to get us out of this mess, I know it wont be easy. But it was the bulk of the clergy in the last 40 years that have treated laity who wanted to retain tradition like dirt, so again, expecting many of these Catholics to support various clergy in parishes that have lackluster, if not herretical liturgical practices is a bit much.

Anyways, again, why would you expect traditional minded laity to even go though the local parishes after having all of these "innovations" being pushed upon them for 4 decades? These people are fed up, and go to a parish that has a mass and preaching with a traditional lean. The reason why inner city parishes such as Emmanuel in Dayton OH and St Joeseph in Toledo OH , for example, still exist and still are viable is due to laity being fed up with their local parishes and going to a place where they will feel welcomed, and a place where they can support clergy that is in line with tradition. Traditional and traditional leaning Catholics fully support clergy that welcome them and hold the line on liturgical practices and value them.

Septimus, I am sorry that some priests are in that situation, but again, ask yourself, after 40 years of being treated like dirt, do you blame Catholics that want to hold on to traditional liturgical elements for being tired of it all? My long term solution for this mess is for the Latin Rite to have a high church and a low church, theologically united(in theory at least) but with different GIRM practices(TLM or St. Agnes style NO), different seminaries, posisbly different Bishops to avoid these fights.

[Septimus]

John:

I'm glad you're assisting at Mass where you find it most fruitful. You're frustrated, tired of the fight, and I don't fault you for that.

Hearing your perspective is very insightful.

[John Bianco]

Septimus, I can not think of a easy solution for priests who are stuck in parishes that have what I call well entrenched laity who came to positions of power when "Sprit of Vatican II" priests rolled out the changes. I know even after these priests leave, the what I call "self appointed laity", everyone from the parish exexuative asst whose daughter was the first altar girl, to the chior director who cant get enough of Haugen and Haas to the semi herretical DRE remain, and they are entrenched.

I know priests who are put in these parishes have more than their hands full, and for now, most chanceries are still dominated by progressives that will back the self appointed laity no questions asked. That said, these people are needless to say very anti traditional, and make this quite well known to other laity who may want a more traditional mass(not to mention a theologically sound CCD and RCIA), and they make it known they have the power and influence to hold on to parish council seats and head up all the lay ministries as well.

So what do these more traditional Catholics do? One of three things, the first two I mentioned, and that is suffer in silence and simpily endure a mass, go to another parish or just stay home. The rot runs deep sorry to say.

[David Kubiak]

Mr. Bauerschmidt makes interesting responses to my post, one of which I would like to reply to. The theological concept of unity of faith as expressed in Scripture has of course always been at the center of the Christian religion. But never before the reforms did anyone attempt to legislate its physical manifestation in the ruthless fascist way we see today. My bishop continually writes the most absurd and fatuous things about how we cannot be a unified community unless we are all to the last man, woman, and child standing and singing all through Communion. I never tire of pointing out that the first time the Roman rubrics ever dictated anything for the laity was in the reform of Holy Week in the 50's. This tendency, which became stronger and stronger in the succeeding decades, is what I claim has a direct connection to the German psyche, and was madly exploited by Hitler. (I also never tire of pointing out that one of the biggest proponents of liturgical reform in the last century was Cardinal Innitzer, he of "Heil Hitler" fame.)

And yes, definitely, for reasons I cannot go into here, I very much would like to have back the old five hour Holy Saturday liturgy that began early in the morning (accounting for the fact that traditionally the Lenten fast ends at noon). And the Missa Sicca at the start of Palm Sunday -- very great liturgical stuff.

[F. C. Bauerschmidt]

Your point about a desire to over-control lay behavior at Mass is well taken. I think for the most part people should feel free to wander around, light candles, stand, sit, kneel, whatever. If you want people to adopt a certain posture at a particular moment, do it in the traditional way: ring a bell or have the deacon announce it (as in the Good Friday liturgy). And I think there is something distinctly northern European about this desire, though I'm still not convinced about the connection with German Romanticism.

As to the Holy Week Reforms of the 50's, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Calvin Hazelwood]

By Cardinal Josef Ratzinger from his preface to the French edition to Klaus Gamber's very good book, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy:

"It is difficult to say briefly what is important in this quarrel of liturgists and what is not. But perhaps the following will be useful. J.A. Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, defined the liturgy of his time, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as a 'liturgy which is the fruit of development'...

"What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it -- as in a manufacturing process -- with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy. As a man who knew and loved history, he showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical development; as a man who looked at history from the inside, he saw in this development and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, that which is not the object of our action but which can continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves intimately with its mystery. The death of this eminent man and priest should spur us on; his work should give us a new impetus."