Cdl. Ratzinger on p. 100 (p. 10 of the PDF): "Regarding the particular situation of the Roman basilicas, I made a least a brief allusion to this in my book. There can, for that matter, be no doubt that the liturgical call conversi ad Dominum, after the sermon, was an invitation to the faithful to turn to the East, in those cases where the disposition of the building as such did not already provide for it."
This and other passages sound like parts of a certain homily recently delivered by a certain pope...
I am absolutely amazed by the brilliant and powerful response of Papa Ratzinger. Just love it!!
I did not know that Fr. Gy was dead. (RIP).
I don't really see what the big deal is. The altar is the focus of the liturgy, not the back wall. The Real Presence is in the Gifts, not the crucifix, and to behold the Gifts lying upon the Altar is a precious thing, more inspiring of devotion than the all the brocade and fringe of a baroque chasuble that would otherwise obscure Them. But if the Holy Fiddleback is what y'all would rather gaze upon, then by all means have at it. Of course, the Body of Christ is also the Church, and the identification of the Church with the Sacramental Body in the broken bread is something that has been lost in all the fracas about what is vere dignum et justum, but is a concept that many of the earliest Eucharist prayers make explicit.
I am sure lots of odd things (Mozart writing music for low mass, for instance, and the omission of graduals etc...) happaned prior to the 1970 Missal (Peace Be Upon It) and Bugnini (PBUH). But surely it is a little disingenuous to say that Cardinal Ratzinger wanted to go back to a stage where music covered over the Canon of the Mass? Also, Ratzinger (and Pope Benedict) puts himself in line (as I understand it) not of those who want to go back to the Mass of the 50s or the 40s, but of those of the Liturgical Renewal movement who saw themselves as returning the liturgy to its proper place, and to celebrate it with the dignity intended by Trent, stripping away some of the later abuses.
Communion Under Both Species is another interesting thing. It might be a good thing in some respects, but even Fr. Yves Congar OP did not see it either as proper to every Mass, or as contributing essentially (as opposed to accidentally) to a greater participation or a greater spiritual benefit. I don't see how unless one was an utraquist, one could see this otherwise. In point of fact, I found it revelatory to see how restrained Congar was in speaking about both this and concelebration.
The idea that Germanic countries were especially ignorant of latin is ridiculous and insulting. At any rate, the inference drawn therefrom is a non sequitur. There is a bit of rather unfortunate Germanophobia in the article.
It is disingenuous too to argue for a distinction between prayers said by the priest qua celebrant and qua individual, in the "Tradition" and then cite as a source the GIRM of 2002, rather than - say - an original liturgical document or history or reflection. It is odd at the very least to argue that what began at Trent is untraditional, but what began at Vatican II is traditional. There is a word that describes this type of argument. It is called "whiggism" (historically) or "affirming the consequent" (philosophically).
Active participation - rightly understood - is something that is discussed by Thomas Aquinas, and Augustine among others. It was behind Aquinas' criticism of musical showmanship and Augustine's castigation of drunkenness at Festivals, and so cannot have been enunciated for the first time by St. Pius X. To argue otherwise is to be whiggish.
Another great error - and this seems to be present in quite a few of the people who spoke on behalf of or to the Council - is the idea that Private Devotions actually detract from the Mass. Hence the post-conciliar attack on forms of extra-liturgical piety.
I wonder whether the word translated "traditionalist" is integriste in the originals?
Actually, clint, if you are using the word "gifts" to mean the host and the wine prior to consecration (as in the term "Procession of the gifts") the Real Presence most certainly is not in the gifts. But if you mean that the Real Presence is what remains after consecration, nobody would disagree. One can see this in the medieval focus on the Elevation. Everything else however, serves to point to the Eucharist and honour it. The secrecy surrounding it is something which also serves to honour it. "Familiarity breeds contempt" as they say. I cannot honestly say that we today are not contemptuous as a result of familiarity and the breaking down of the boundaries conserving the Sacred.
Clint,
Eucharistic devotion and piety is a great thing, but the sacred liturgy's purpose is not first and foremost for the purposes of Eucharistic devotion.
Rather, it is the worship of God the Father which is the primary focus of the liturgy, through the perpetuated Sacrifice of Christ (made present again in an unbloody manner), in the Holy Spirit.
Understanding the hierarchy of ends within the sacred liturgy is a key to understanding the importance of orientation. It is also important to understand the cosmological and eschatological dimensions to this question. These things also touch back into early Church history.
You are far too dismissive of an issue that has found expression in the earliest practice and thought of the Church -- extending back into Judaism for that matter -- and which has seen continued importance throughout its life.
As for your comments about baroque vestments and fringe, for myself your comments here only demonstrate you have some kind of axe to grind.
There is not much to add to Kiran's insightful analysis of the particulars of Fr Gy's (r.i.p.) review. And certainly the then Cardinal Ratzinger's reply correctly sees that the criticisms of his book have been so specific that they betray either a misunderstanding of the book's whole purpose on the reader's part or an ignorance of the book's content. Indeed, Cardinal Ratzinger speaks quite eloquently of the "spirit" of the liturgy and introduces no criticism of current liturgical practice that does not have a justification in that spirit.
I especially like the irony in Fr Gy's insistance that change in the liturgy is reserved to the Pope... Well, that certainly is true...
Re-reading this article after several years brings back some important points, very timely in light of the Holy Father's Easter Vigil homily... I think this response from the Cadinal makes clear enough what exactly he was sayig concerning the call "conversi ad Dominum" and it's significance in that homily!
Another point to make... did anybody else notice the considerable difference in critical style between Fr. Gy and Cardinal Ratzinger? The former criticizes based on opinion, while the latter defends based on facts. Reading both of these articles, one gets the impression that not only does Cardinal Ratzinger know he is right, but that Fr. Gy knows that Cardinal Ratziner is right as well...
Clint...
I certainly agree tht you don't see what the big deal is.
Denis alludes to an especially hilarious passage in the Dominican Pere Gy's critique:
"[what Ratzinger says] about papal authority in liturgical matters ... is insufficient, and ... the theologian [is this a slam? an atttempt to portray Ratzinger as setting himself up as an alter magisterium?] Ratzinger should have taken greater care to avoid the egocentricism with regard to the rules of the Church. Would it not be appropriate to mention the reservation of liturgical law (droit) to the Pope by the Council of Trent [here Gy sets himself up as the great defender of tradition against Ratzinger, the usurper of papal authority], and the reaffirmation of this role both by the Constitution on the Liturgy of Vatican II and by current canon law?"
To which Ratzinger may reply:
"How you like me now?"
Wow. See, liturgical continuity is great. I'm a big believer in that. But I'm also a big believer in the gems that liturgical scholarship over the years has uncovered about the liturgy in centuries and lands much less removed than ours (or the middle ages) from the cultural origins of Christianity. Entering deeply into the discoveries of said scholarship can really shake up what you thought you knew about Christianity and the Divine Liturgy of whatever Rite. Then it is also easy to see what later cultures that inherited the Liturgy found valuable (and troubling too), and how those values and concerns found expression through various shifts, deletions, innovations, insertions, etc. Some of those later accretions have very little to do with the Mystery, and more to do with what the people in charge expected both of their inferiors and of God too. This is not the place to get into some huge exposition, that's why people write books. I'm just saying that WE devised the liturgy to transmit the central experience of encountering the Risen Christ, and like everything we do, sometimes we screw it up and sometimes we get it right, and sometimes others notice aspects of the Mystery that we overlooked, or found too uncomfortable to enshrine in sacred ceremonial. Be open to all those possibilities with one faithfully skeptical eye both to what has been received and what is proposed. I think you know on Whom to keep the other eye.
And what is this junk about how too much familiarity with the Real Presence in the Eucharist "breeds contempt"? What, are people out to destroy Jesus because now they can see Him "upon the altar laid"? I'm not attached to either orientation, and see the beauty in both.
Oh, and in the most ancient liturgies we have, the term "Holy Gifts" is used throughout the whole liturgy to refer to the elements, before and after consecration. Are they Gifts to God, or from God, or does it take both for the Real Presence to come through? Fascinating.
Clint, I think there is ample evidence, both in anthropological theory and in actual Catholic practice of the idea that "familiarity" (or lack of clearly defined boundaries) with the Divine can breed contempt. See either or both of Mary Douglas' Natural Symbols and Purity and Danger, on this matter. Why else is it that, over the past few decades, we seem to have - in practice - greater ignorance of, and flouting of, rules against sacrilege? To act otherwise is to pretend somehow that original sin has no effect on the sensibilities of modern man.
If you were indeed open to the beauty of both orientations, your comments about the Holy Fiddleback suggested otherwise.
Of course, the gifts (prior to consecration) are part of the liturgy, but seeing them isn't any more intrinsically edifying than seeing a beautiful chasuble, or seeing lights or any other part of the liturgical whole.
Also, I think in many ways (as part of this exchange demonstrates) some of the historical conclusions drawn about medieval practice were hasty, strongly influenced by ideological preconceptions and programmes for action, and quite simply wrong. As an academic myself, I would tend to take anything earth-shatteringly new with a considerable grain of salt. I am certainly aware that liturgy is made out of human fabric, but one should also be aware that tradition - constructed out of human actions - is God's Grace acting in human history, and that hasty change of the sort we have had in the past forty years can be hugely unsettling to people.
I think in many ways, that the Liturgy is like a Gothic cathedral, constructed across ages. It shows the action of several generations. One must show respect for those constructions and especially refrain from replacing it wholesale with something new. Liturgical "traditionalism" is neither (of its nature) reactionary, nor a matter of going back to some ideally concieved past (which is more than can be said for liturgical innovationism), but simply a recognition of the reality of this principle, which ultimately involves a recognition that human effort and human constructions are valid, and valuable as part of God's action in the world.
9 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
