Tuesday, February 25, 2014

The Death of the Reform of the Reform Part 3: Falling between two stools

Eloquent gesture: genuflecting in the Last Gospel

In my last post I described the historical process by which we ended up with a liturgy from which drama, gesture, mystery, awe, and beauty have been systematically removed. There is still some left, but less than before; the point is that their removal was not accidental, but deliberate and systematic. There was a principle at work:

Mass should be readily comprehensible.

Drama, poetry, anything which is hidden from sight or in a foreign language: these are inevitably harder to understand. And who can argue with the principle? What the reformers took for granted was the presupposition that we are talking about verbal communication. So let's get this assumption out in the open:

Mass should be readily comprehensible at the level of verbal communication.

Suddenly it looks less obvious. Might it be possible that what is more readily comprehensible at the verbal level is actually less readily comprehensible, or, to use another term favoured by liturgists, meaningful, taking verbal and non-verbal forms of communication together? Listen to what Fr Aidan Nichols OP observed (Looking at the Liturgy p59):

To the sociologist, it is by no means self-evident that brief, clear rites have greater transformative potential than complex, abundant, lavish, rich, long rites, furnished with elaborate ceremonial.

When you put it like that, it is clear enough. It is perfectly possible that the effort to make Mass more meaningful at a verbal level has had such a deleterious effect on its non-verbal aspect that we've ended up with something which is less meaningful all things considered.

It should be borne in mind I'm talking about 'verbal communication' in a very narrow, intellectual sense. When we read a poem or watch a play, we are engaging with words, but the effect the words have on us is something broader and more complicated than the purely intellectual effect which the reformers wanted. We can appreciate things we don't fully understand - a somewhat obscure poem can have great meaning for us - but the reformers wanted us to understand every syllable. This is why, in the 1974 translation of the Missal, they didn't want to hear 'He took the precious Chalice in His Holy and Venerable hands' (which is what the Latin of the Roman Canon says), and opted for 'He took the Cup'. 

There is another aspect which I don't want to go into, but don't want to ignore, which the sociologist Anthony Archer mentions: ritual efficacy. People were content to go to a service where they couldn't see what was going on or understand (or even hear) the words in part because the whole thing said to them that something important was being performed and accomplished on the Altar. He contrasts, for example, 'those who regarded the sacred as mediated through participation rather than ritual efficacy'. The Novus Ordo does not encourage us, in the same way, to see the point of Mass as the stupendous appearance of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and the offering of Him to the Father, a thing with which we can unite ourselves spiritually.

Back, however, to the problem of the Reform of the Reform. The Novus Ordo is geared towards verbal comprehension. It may be lacking in other things - certainly the Reform of the Reform (RotR) people tell us so - but in terms of understanding the liturgical texts it must be said it is pretty successful. They are read nice and clearly, usually amplified, in one's mother tongue (at least for those of us who have a major language as a mother tongue, and live where it is an official language); the vocabulary (at least until the new translation) is not challenging. Yes, we get the message, at the intellectual, word-by-word level.

To say the Vetus Ordo operates at another level is to state the obvious. You can't even hear the most important bits - they are said silently. If you could hear them, they'd be in Latin. And yet, somehow, it has its supporters. It communicates something, not in spite of these barriers to verbal communication, but by means of the very things which are clearly barriers to verbal communication. The silence and the Latin are indeed among the most effective means the Vetus Ordo employs to communicate what it communicates: the mysterium tremendum, the amazing reality of God made present in the liturgy.

If you take the Novus Ordo and make it verbally incomprehensible, or take the Vetus Ordo and take away the Latin and the silence, you are not creating the ideal liturgy. You are in grave danger of creating something that is neither fish nor fowl: that doesn't work at either level.

But to be clear, it is not a matter of balance, of trade off. First, because the entire modern rite has been designed for comprehensibility as opposed to mystery, you are at a huge disadvantage trying to make a revised form of the OF eloquently mysterious. The same goes the other way round: because the texts of the EF were not intended to be read aloud (in many cases), or in the vernacular, they are too long and conceptually and grammatically complicated to work at all well at that verbal level.

But secondly, and more importantly, the two forms of participation imply two, incompatible, kinds of attitude on the part of the Faithful. On the basis of the theory of participation which lies behind the liturgical reform, you have to be drinking in every word, and taking part as much as possible with acclamations, responses, hand-shaking and so on. On the basis of traditional liturgical participation, you have to engage contemplatively with the mysterious rituals going on in the sanctuary, with heart and soul.

Both take a little getting used to. They require formation. And once you are formed in one way, you can't easily flip over and engage with the liturgy in the other way. Even more obviously, you can't expect people (as many in the RotR crowd suggest) to engage in the first way in the first half of Mass, and then flip over to the other way in the second: to have a touchy-feely vernacular 'liturgy of the Word' followed by a Moses-on-the-Mountaintop type of Canon.

This is important because it explains why some people (not everyone) can feel a bit uncomfortable going to the 'form' of the Mass they are not used to. They have learnt over many years to engage with the liturgy in a way which is spiritually satisfying - or, at least, satisfactory - and when they attend the other form, whichever way round it is, they find it doesn't work. They are frustrated, they come away dissatisfied.

Just to illustrate the point, recall the development of the liturgical movement I described in my last post. By the time of the 1950s, the emphasis, by liturgical experts, on verbal comprehension was huge, but the Mass as it then existed did not lend itself to this form of engagement. Two old ladies - today one is a stalwart of orthodox Catholicism, and one a leading liberal campaigner - separately explained to me why they welcomed the Novus Ordo: because as young women they has been trying to follow every word in their missals, and it was a huge relief when this was no longer necessary, they could understand it straight away because it was in English. It was a particular relief for the one who had had children by then: coping with them in Mass made close attention to her hand-missal impossible. The liturgical formation of these pious ladies - they were both educated, middle class, cradle Catholics - had prepared them for the Novus Ordo. They were trying to engage with the TLM in way to which it was not really suited. They represent a certain educated group among Catholics at the eve of the Council.

I'm not against hand missals for the Faithful. Reading and understanding the texts can be hugely helpful, and the books and commentaries of the liturgical movement unpacking the riches of the ancient liturgy are a magnificent achievement which I recommend to everyone. But most people who attend the Traditional Mass put their books down at a certain point and stop worrying whether the priest saying the Canon is on one paragraph or the next one. They know the little bell will prepare them for the Consecration. They are well described here by Fr Bryan Houghton, recalling the less self-conscious Faithful before the Council (Mitre and Crook p44):

‘Some meditate for a moment but soon give up; some thumb a prayer book without much conviction; some finger a rosary without thinking; the majority just sit and kneel and become empty. They have their distractions, of course, but as far as they are able they are recollected. 

You see, the state of prayer of the overwhelming majority of the faithful is that of “simple regard”. 

 ‘…Human activity is reduced to its minimum. Then the miracle occurs. At the fine apex of their souls, imperceptible even to themselves, the Holy Ghost starts making little shrieks of “Abba, Father” or,  after the consecration, soft groans of the Holy Name, “Jesu, Jesu.” They adore: or rather, to be more  accurate, the Holy Ghost adores within them.’

A number of position papers are relevant to these posts, and you can see them on the FIUV website. Notably:

Liturgical Piety and Participation; Worship ad orientem; Latin as a Liturgical Language; Silence and Inaudibility; The Proclamation of the Lections in Latin.

In the next post I will say something about the implications this all has for future liturgical development.



  1. You are getting to the nub of it. The two rites are chalk and cheese. Contemplation is sometimes possible for the Novus Ordo but usually requires a great act of will. The fact that many make this deliberate act of will is a sign that they would, after a week or two, feel extremely at home at the TLM. It is just being denied them (having TLM at times which are untypical of normal Sunday observance is not going to change a thing in the long run).

    I had an extremely difficult return to the NO in France last week. The lack of reverence, recollection and respect were too much to handle. In such circumstances, it's just important to stay on your knees in prayer, trying to block out the emptiness, the communitarianism, the lack of depth of what is going on, and focus on Our Blessed Lord. It is extremely difficult. It leads to a sort of punishment training which, I suspect, defeats most in the end, hence the dwindling congregations in the West. The only hope is the TLM - at some point a bold step will have to taken and Catholics who currently attend the NO will need to be actively approached to let them know where they can find a TLM in their area, or to ask for one of the Sunday Masses in their current parish to become a TLM.

  2. Clicking the hyperlinks for each of the 5 position papers mentioned in the article lead to a page where the message seen is: 'Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.'
    Please fix.

    1. Thanks.

      Slowly going through them but some preliminary observations...

      In the context of the reference to 'mutual enrichment' in Summorum Pontificum, subtly (or not!) holding up one form as superior to the other would not be 'according to the mind of Peter / the Church'. Before proceeding to a fruitful discussion on how one form can enrich the other, parties on both sides need to be respectful of what Holy Mother Church in her wisdom has 'given birth to' in the liturgical realm.

      What was said in 'Mediator Dei' applies also to the Novus Ordo, viz., 'The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.’

      That said, in the abstract at http://www.unavoce.ru/pdf/FIUV_PP/FIUV_PP4_OrientationFinal.pdf, it is said: 'celebration ad orientem emphasises both the escatalogical nature of the liturgy, and the common orientation of priest and people towards the Lord, as opposed to an excessive focus by the Faithful on the celebrating priest (and vice versa). It also emphasises the sacrificial nature of the Mass.'

      This leads one to wonder whether versus populum necessarily implies a denial or obscuring of 'the eschatological nature of the liturgy'.
      But why can't we look at it in this manner?... Further on in the eschaton, the Lord will "fulfill the desire of Ps. 27:8" and be "face to face" with His people in the Eternal Banquet - and that is perhaps what the Church is trying to emphasize through versus populum.

      This doesn't imply that one form is superior to the other - it merely shows that the focus of the Ordinary Form can be as equally valid as the Extraordinary Form with regard to emphasizing the eschatological nature of the liturgy.

      As for 'the common orientation of priest and people towards the Lord' >> while that is fine with regard to the Extraordinary Form, in the Ordinary Form, perhaps the people are being reminded that the priest is acting in persona Christi who faced the Apostles at the Last Supper when He said: "Take this, all of you and eat / drink..."

      Regarding 'an excessive focus by the Faithful on the celebrating priest (and vice versa)', is that always the case? There may be abuses but if so, that certainly isn't in accordance with the 'mind' of the Church.The problem would be a *demonstrable* 'excessive' focus - not merely a ('healthy') focus (i.e., a focus formed as a result of proper catechesis in line with the mind of the Church.)

      Finally, with regard to the statement: 'It also emphasises the sacrificial nature of the Mass', it would be wrong to imply that versus populum does not also emphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass >> through, for instance, the *visible* Fraction Rite.

    2. What you are criticising comes straight out of Ratzinger's 'Spirit of the Liturgy', except that he goes much further in criticising celebration 'facing the people'. Would you apply you complaints to him? Or to others in the Reform of the Reform movement who have no interest in the EF but feel passionately about celebration ad orientem in the OF?

      It would be absurd to say that only people who don't like the EF can make such arguments. The arguments themselves don't imply any comparative judgment.

      You write as though vs. pop is essential to the OF, but it is not mandatory and was never mentioned by Vatican II. Did 'the Church' give birth to it? Did the Church give birth to Communion in the Hand? Altar Girls? Extraordinary Ministers replacing the priest to distribute Communion? Clown Masses?

      Finally, did the Church give birth to the Quinonez Breviary? Are we allowed to assess that in a rational and scholarly way?

      Come come! We can have discussions in the Church. The Position Papers go the extra mile in terms of being respectful for eclesiastical authority and indeed in not making firect criticisms of the OF. Everything is expressed in terms of what things mean, what things are *for*, in the EF. It is for others to explain the OF.

  3. "What you are criticising comes straight out of Ratzinger's 'Spirit of the Liturgy', except that he goes much further in criticising celebration 'facing the people'. Would you apply you complaints to him?"
    Quoting the general introduction to the position papers: 'The authors of the papers are not named...because we prefer them to be judged on the basis of their content, not
    their authorship.'
    Can't the same reasoning apply here? That is, after looking at what was argued by Ratzinger, when I presented a different way of looking at things (with regard to the OF), you seem to be saying: 'But you are criticizing Ratzinger / The Spirit of the Liturgy!' Is that really engaging with the content of what I actually wrote?
    "Or to others...who have no interest in the EF but feel passionately about celebration ad orientem in the OF?"
    There's nothing wrong with celebration ad orientem in the OF - but that wasn't my point. Rather: if properly understood and reverently celebrated, there isn't anything wrong in vs. pop either.
    "It would be absurd to say that only people who don't like the EF can make such arguments."
    I didn't say that.
    "You write as though vs. pop is essential to the OF"
    Not 'essential'. I merely pointed out that there isn't anything wrong with it per se. The Last Supper and the Eternal Banquet are both "vs. pop" and hence, if the Church in her wisdom wants to present that aspect to the faithful, surely she is free to sanction that? (This doesn't mean ad orientem is wrong!)
    If abuses have resulted because of vs. pop, then by all means correct them in charity - but 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.'
    "Did 'the Church' give birth to (vs. pop)?"
    Do you imply that she didn't? If yes, were / are all the Popes and other Successors to the Apostles together with their collaborators in the presbyterate who have celebrated / celebrate vs. pop as well as the faithful who have taken part in such celebrations guilty of "bastardization" in the liturgical realm?
    "Did the Church give birth to Communion in the Hand?"
    This is digressing from vs. pop but to answer the question:
    Yes, in a way the Church did 'give birth' >> Rome has allowed Bishop's Conferences to permit this.
    Did the One who said "Henceforth I call you not servants but friends" ask the Apostles to "Take and eat/drink"? There's nothing wrong per se with reverently receiving Communion in the Hand. (I am not denying the value of the tradition that gave rise to kneeling and receiving on the tongue.)
    "Altar Girls?"
    OF / vs. pop don't mandate this. That said, did women "serve" the Lord (also at His Passion and Cross)?
    "Extraordinary Ministers replacing the priest to distribute Communion?"
    Sweeping generalization? Replacing? Or helping when there is a huge number of people?
    "did the Church give birth to the Quinonez Breviary?"
    Has it survived across time and generations without being proscribed by appropriate authority? If not, then no.
    "The Position Papers go the extra mile in terms of being respectful for eclesiastical authority and indeed in not making direct criticisms of the OF."
    One gets an impression that the OF / vs. pop is "looked down upon". That doesn't augur well; and as noted earlier,'In the context of the reference to 'mutual enrichment' in Summorum Pontificum, subtly (or not!) holding up one form as superior to the other would not be 'according to the mind of Peter / the Church'.
    Without going into the nitty gritty of the changes proposed at https://plus.google.com/photos/photo/117743464420970703587/6446024785870267090?icm=false, do note the last two paragraphs therein.
    [By the way, it looks like a part of my earlier comments may have been missed out - so I shall post the same again herein below (presuming it would get past moderation).]

    1. You haven't answered the question about Ratzinger. His comments on vs. pop. are far stronger than ours. Is that wrong? It's got nothing to do with comparing EF and OF: does thst make a difference?

      You miss the point about my examples. Things are not above critiicism just because they happen: hence my including *abuses*. CITH started as an abuse (as did vs. pop actually). Was it ok to criticise it, on principled grounds, before it was permitted, but impossible to discuss seriously after?

      My point is that your view seems to involve anti-intellectual ultra-montanism. The Quinonez example shows how silly that position is. Even *after* things have been approved they can be criticised and the Holy See can *recerse its view*. (Same thing happened with the Pian Psalter in fact.)