« Must-watch of the day. Or night. | Main | Doing lunch »
March 13, 2007
A Whapster's take
Drew at Holy Whapping has interesting thoughts:
The Exhortation plays an important role in this movement, then, by codifying Ratzinger's ideas on liturgy into the written magisterium of the Church. He gave the reform of the reform much of its steam by expressing these ideas in popular books; it can only continue to pick up steam now that these ideas are more fully incorporated into the magisterium. The momentum of liturgy seems, from my vantage, to be clearly swinging in favor of a this reforming of the reform: by this exhortation, will it not continue to pick up speed, and continue to be desired by the people and priests themselves? Certainly, creating an environment in which the Church wants the "reform of the reform," though this takes longer than reform by fiat, is more effective in the long run. It may be less satisfying than a glorious smack-over-the-head delivered to those with whom one disagrees, but glorious smacks-over-the-head are not effective in the long term. How many people, pining for a liturgical smack down akin to Pius X's smack-down against "Modernism," are willing to concede that Modernism dissapeared consequent to being "smacked down?"
snip
After Mass today, I met one of the seminarians for my diocese--a reverent guy my age, also in love with the Church. These future leaders of the Church have had their hearts moved and formed by the exhortations of Cardinal Ratzinger and Benedict XVI, and it is precisely to loving and willing hearts that exhortations are recieved and by them are enacted. This exhortation, then, is a seed planted in the heart of those who want to reform the liturgy and the Church, and it is precisely the desire to reform the Church, it seems to me, which is the way to effect a reform of the Church that is sincere and lasting. Reform of the Church, then, begins in the reform of the heart--and in exhorting the willing heart. It is easy to call such Christian exhortation "ineffective" because the effects take time to come to fruition: but is that ineffective governance, or is it good psychology? Reform by fiat, which is not also reform of the hearts of Christians, waits only until the cat is away to quickly decay.
And as for me in my house...I have to distill the 31,000 words of this Exhortation into between 1500-1700 words, and I have to do it Wednesday morning. So, if I'm scarce (which I had better be!) that's why.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Indeed, I would guess that many of the seminarians today who love Pope Benedict's writings on the Eucharist will actually become more zealous about it if they find that their own bishop is not working towards the same liturgical goals as the Pope!
That doesn't mean that it's good that some bishops simply ignore this. But it does seem as if the Pope's goal is to create a groundswell, which -- in a decade or two -- will become a huge earthquake.
Posted by: Lawrence King at Mar 13, 2007 11:13:05 PM
The Exhortation plays an important role in this movement, then, by codifying Ratzinger's ideas on liturgy into the written magisterium of the Church. He gave the reform of the reform much of its steam by expressing these ideas in popular books; it can only continue to pick up steam now that these ideas are more fully incorporated into the magisterium.
Let us not fall into the erroneous trap of thinking that Pope Benedict necessarily believes and subscribes to the same things that Cardinal Ratzinger believed in. Cardinal Ratzinger may have had some really great ideas about the liturgy and other aspects of the Faith, but he was not the Magisterium, and the mere fact that the man who was Cardinal Ratzinger became the Successor of Peter does not automatically convert his prior thoughts into magisterial thoughts. They are, in a very real sense, two different men, as I'm sure Pope Benedict would tell you.
Posted by: Bender at Mar 13, 2007 11:49:34 PM
I don't think it's so much that his thoughts are different; that would be a hermeneutic of discontinuity, and go against God's use of people's natural capabilities. :)
The point is that "Pope Benedict" has to be very careful about what goes out under his name, and how it is expressed, so as not to introduce anything misleading into the magisterium. "Cardinal Ratzinger" could suggest all kinds of things, because although he had authority as head of the CDF, he still could retreat to "me as an ordinary theologian".
But indeed, with his book on Jesus, "Pope Benedict" also retreats to "me as an ordinary theologian", in order to say things with academic freedom and not with magisterial force. So that's not so different.
Pope Benedict knows perfectly well that God doesn't want him to forget all his past work. Being Pope demands use of all one's past thoughts and experience, after all. But he has to put a lot of skullsweat and prayer into figuring out what God wants him to say and do as Pope, and how he can say it _effectively_. Sometimes that means he doesn't say as much as Pope as he would as Cardinal Ratzinger, or Professor Ratzinger.
But then, people can easily look up what he said back then, to explicate with greater fullness what he says now. So although "Cardinal Ratzinger" doesn't have as much magisterial force, he's not pigs' feet, either. So yeah, I'd think the Holy Whapping statement is a fair comment, and a lot quicker way to say it than I've managed! :)
Posted by: Maureen at Mar 14, 2007 8:06:29 AM
How many people, pining for a liturgical smack down akin to Pius X's smack-down against "Modernism," are willing to concede that Modernism disappeared consequent to being "smacked down?"
I'm not willing to concede, because Modernism didn't disappear! The entire "culture of dissent" IS MODERNISM! You just have to look at any number of Amy's posts over the years to realize that.
Posted by: PMcGrath at Mar 14, 2007 9:18:24 AM
I'm quite certain that Pope Benedict believes and subscribes to the same things that Cardinal Ratzinger believed and subscribed to, as they are ONE AND THE SAME PERSON. Certainly, election to the papacy has changed him in many ways, but this artificial parsing of an individual is modern philosophy at its worst (viz. the Jesus of History vs. the Christ of Faith).
To say that, as Pope, Ratzinger has to weigh his statements more carefully may be true, but to say that the thoughts which go behind those statements have been completely altered is simply preposterous.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Mar 14, 2007 9:26:47 AM
PMcgrath- that was the point, modernism did not not disappear just becasue it was whacked.
I think there is a lot of truth to what the writer is saying, but this way is sure dissatisfying for those of us who want what we want and want it now. Possibly moving the Sign of Peace? That's all we are getting as reform of the reform? Uh, okay. So,I think I'll take a leave of absence form the Liturgy Wars at this point and leave it to those who know more than I do and who have the responsibility for it. In the meantime, I'll work on improving my capacity for patience, and try to deepen my relationship with God.
Posted by: thomas tucker at Mar 14, 2007 9:59:05 AM
PMG,
The point is, as Thomas says, that if smack downs didn't make modernism dissapear, why should anyone think they would solve this problem? No, the Church must first be formed, theologically, and exhorted to desire the change. Either one can say that modernism dissapeared after the smackdown, and so smackdowns are effective, or that modernism didn't, and so smackdowns aren't effective. If modernism still exists, it is because smack-downs don't work in the long haul.
Andrew of the Holy Whapping
Posted by: Andrew of the Holy Whapping at Mar 14, 2007 10:43:28 AM
I still have to read and fully digest this new document from the Holy Father, but one thing did catch my eye: in No. 48, he states that "The different Eucharistic Prayers contained in the Missal have been handed down to us by the Church's living Tradition..."
Reading, for example, Fr. Cassian Folsom's short description of the multiplication of eucharistic prayers in the new Missal, which can be found at http://www.adoremus.org/9-11-96-FolsomEuch.html leaves one with the impression that EP II was pulled out of the dustbin of history, from 215 A.D., while EPs III and IV were composed, largely by Vagaggini, based on his own notions of what should be in there. This certainly makes one pause to ponder what is the content of the famous (you recall, of course, Ecclesia Dei adflicta) phrase "living Tradition".
Posted by: Woody Jones at Mar 14, 2007 11:53:46 AM
"If modernism still exists, it is because smack-downs don't work in the long haul."
Not alone, they don't. But "smack-downs" are sometimes unavoidable and even beneficial, something that the Church seems to have trouble accepting these days.
Anyway, it's foolish to expect an Apostolic Exhortation to include any "smack-downs." That's just not what Apostolic Exhortations do, folks. I think Drew's analysis of what the Pope is doing is correct -- this Apostolic Exhortation is vintage Ratzinger on the Liturgy, only its a magisterial document instead of a private theologian's opinions.
Posted by: Jordan Potter at Mar 14, 2007 1:11:21 PM
I have a lot of hope for the long haul. For example my parish priest is very scrupulous to the GIRM when saying Mass, but not so enamored with the thought of saying Mass in Latin or even with chant. He is quite simply bad at languages and has probably forgotten all but the most rudimentary knowledge of Latin, even though I know he formally studied it for at least five years.
He will never be gun ho for the use of Latin in the N.O., nor for more widespread use of the Tridentine Mass.
Now one of the Transitional Deacons/Seminarians that I know in my diocese, a much younger man is also very scrupulous about how Mass should be celebrated, and is much more open to the use of Latin.
The first priest would start using Latin if Rome or the bishop directed, without complaint, because he believes in the Magisterium.
The future priest would gladly move toward Latin unless prevented and even, probably actively feel out his parish to see if Latin was desired. Maybe even catechize the laity to why it is desirable to have Masses in Latin.
The effect of this Exhortation on these two men will be different. Also don't forget, though both are (or will probably be)good priests, one will be retiring within the next few years and one will still be serving (God willing) decades from now.
In some ways the best long term hope of the Church is that is seems most new priest are fairly conservative. It will take time, and I many not live to see it, but I expect a much more orthodox clergy in the future. Maybe I'm naive?
Posted by: TerryC at Mar 14, 2007 4:54:01 PM
That's a good call on the Pius X's Smackdown on Modernism. These approaches don't always work.
We all want to see results here. Can anyone think of some good examples of major change or reform coming from a more subtle approach? It would be encouraging to hear and think about.
Posted by: Mike at Mar 14, 2007 5:35:08 PM
