Not sure what this means, but a a new banner just appeared below the Pope’s window for the Sunday Angelus.ย The previous one had a bishop’s mitre. The new one has the papal tiara which Pope Paul VI did away with.
UPDATE 10/12: Jerry Filteau discusses the issueย in an NCR article.
Wouldn’t be surprised if a coronation takes place
+JMJ+
He’s using all these old papal trappings… has reincarnation been completely ruled out as contrary to the faith?
Paging Gen. Patton… ๐
And on the eve of the 48th anniversary of the opening of “the” Council.
Viva il Papa!
“Not sure what this means”
Brick by brick?
(The restoration of the Church, that is, for those-if any-who don’t follow Father Z assiduously.)
CHE, do you support restoring the pre-Vatican II church brick by brick, or do you support the Second Vatican Council? Yes, I know, there is only one church, and all that. But I also know that Vatican II taught and decreed important things. My question is: do you support Vatican II? It will help me put your comments in context.
awr
Fr. Anthony, by your question are you implying that Vatican II somehow did away with the triple tiara? I’m quite sure that the decision to have a “coronation” vs an “inauguration” is at the discretion of each Pope, and since JPI they have all opted for the inauguration. But, interestingly, JPI and JPII both had the tiara on their coat of arms. This would appear to be a return to continuity with his predecessors for B16. .
Of course not. We shouldn’t expect an ecumenical council to decree every detail (that’s why we have a Pope and curia and synod of bishops to implement the council). But Vatican II said many things about renewing the church, the ministry, the papacy. There is a whole vision of how to relate to the modern world in Gaudium et Spes. It says almost nothing, then, to say that a specific change isn’t found expressis verbis in Vatican II.
My question stands for CHE.
awr
“CHE, do you support restoring the pre-Vatican II church brick by brick, or do you support the Second Vatican Council?”
Fr. Ruff, it’s not a fair question. You’ve written yourself about elements of the life of the Church that have been degraded over the past 50 years. To seek “restoration” isn’t neccesarily to seek the repudiation of Vatican II.
Fr. Zuhlsdorf is very much in favor of the second Vatican Council, last night in New York City (at a Solemn Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Missal) he preached about its importance and quoted at length from Gaudium et Spes.
There’s no reason from this comment to assume that CHE doesn’t support Vatican II. It’s rather insulting to just presume that he doesn’t and order him to defend himself from the charge. This kind of assumption of bad faith on the part of others is why Pray Tell gets cast as a liberal blog despite its stated desire not to push an agenda other than the true mind of the Church.
I hope this “new” trend is dissimenated to all pastors and churches. Bishops will surely follow suit. Ah, such pomposity!
Fr. Ruff,
Yes, indeed, I do support the teachings of Vatican II, in the same manner that I understand Pope Benedict to support them, in continuity with the tradition of the Church, realizing that the teaching of Vatican II subsumes that of Trent and Vatican I (and earlier ecumenical councils), so we continue to believe what the Church has always taught, while admitting the development of doctrine (as well as practice) that Blessed John Henry Newman enunciated. (Of course, neither I nor any other sane person accepts all the outlandish misinterpretations of Vatican II that have prevailed in some quarters in recent decades.)
More specifically, in the liturgy I look forward enthusiastically to the full implementation of Sacrosanctum Consilium, which I believe is now finally beginning, after the biblical (if not statutory) waiting period of forty years (in chaos, if not literally in the desert). Realizing, specifically, that in typical pre-Vatican II parish practice, Pope Pius X’s actuosa participatio, reiterated by Popes Pius XI and XII, had not yet materialized.
(continuing) As the Councilโs liturgical recommendations have not yet been implemented in the ordinary form, whereas the actual participation at the extraordinary form Masses I attend now may be rather close to what to what Pius X envisionedโthough perhaps not as close to what the Council envisioned, which I take to be more like the 1965 Order of Mass.
And so, for instance, when I have a fairly equal choice for daily Mass between a low EF Mass and an OF Mass thatโs celebrated carefully and reverently (preferably using EP I, though this morning I heard EP II), taking advantage of the variability in language, music, and solemnity that the ordinary form affords, I frequently choose the latter.
Glad to have obliged (I assume). Any other questions?
CHE, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. With all due respect, I think you have a somewhat distorted reading of Vatican II. There is a lot of second-guessing going on these days, and a lot of projecting ‘what Vatican II really intended,’ generally overlooking the calls for thorough-going reform in SC. Clearly everyone who put out 1965 thought it was transitional and partial, so I think it is amazing that 45 years later anyone could think it’s the closest to what Vatican II really meant! So I can only implore you to keep studying and reading, and try to stay open to a broader-based reading of SC.
Pius X set up a commission to revise the Roman missal, BTW. They said it would take decades to do the historical research for their work. This suggests that everyone at the time (including Pius X) was aware of the possibility and necessity of change to the Mass structure. The commission pretty much went dormant under his successors, to be revived by Pius XII and V2.
awr
We see the galero used in the coat of arms for bishops and cardinals. Two quick examples would be:
http://www.archdiocese-chgo.org/Cardinal/CoatofArms.aspx
Though the galero is not worn in practice these days, it is still present in the coat of arms, emblems, etc. One wonders if similarly the presence of the papal tiara in Benedict XVI’s coat of arms does not have practical implications, but ties together the current pontiff with his predecessors.
In addition, it will be curious to know if this one banner is an anomaly due to the artist’s rendition or if it is a systemic decision.
I wonder, Fr. Ruff, whether you misspoke in expressing amazement that I would think the 1965 interim liturgy closer than the 1962 Mass (even with 2010 actuosa participatio) to what Vatican II envisioned. In any event, I myself would be amazed if you did not yourself agree with this conjecture.
Of course I am familiar with the early 20th century liturgical movement, which certainly did not (nor do I) see the traditional Mass as a fly set in amber. Though I recall a period in the 1950โs when I knew of no other Catholic (in my southern Catholic community) whoโd yet heard of it.
Much more recently, I have read the detailed account in Giampietro-Antonelliโs โThe Development of the Liturgical Reformโ of the work of the Pius XII pontifical commission for the reform of the liturgy led by Antonelli and Bugnini, and the minutes of the 50+ meetings of the Vatican II conciliar commission on the sacred liturgy with Antonelli as secretary. It seems to me that this work largely was solidly based historically, and was directed in a positive way toward fulfillment of the pre-conciliar liturgical movementโs hopes and dreams.
(continuing) It was after the Council that so much of this constructive work was shunted aside, and a careful and systematic approach abandoned, with the result that we still await the liturgical fruits of Vatican II (whatever they may turn out to be). Of course, we need not argue endlessly what Vatican II intended. That was then and now is 45 years later. And, Deo gratias, Benedict has set us forth toward a glorious new flowering of the liturgy starting where we are, rather where we were. With all thatโs been said and done, surely now is not such a bad time for the long-awaited โnew springtimeโ in the liturgy.
CHE – of course 65 is closer to SC than 62! I thought you meant that 65 is closer than 69, that the interim missal was more what V2 intended than the actual reform of Paul VI in 69. You do see that claim a lot, odd though it is (imho).
awr
Well, I do think that 1969 as promulgated went well beyond what Vatican II recommended in SC. But the devil is in the (practical) details, in what we see in typical parish practice, rather than only in what we read in the published missal.
It might well be arguable that the both the rather Latinate Mass that Pope Benedict celebrated at Westminister Cathedral last month (at one extreme) and an entirely vernacular Anglican Use Mass (at another) are consistent with the intent of Paul VI in 1969.
And I might argue that even the 1962 Missa Cantata which I see regularly is closer–at least regarding the active participation of the people–to the intent of Vatican II than many a chaotic OF parish Mass (although it might well be argued that neither is all that close).
Perhaps many might argue that the EWTN Sunday Mass is the closest thing most folks are able to see (albeit only on TV). Whereas we (or I, at least) can hope that, with Pope Benedictโs re-connection of OF ars celebranda with traditionโwhich I take to be the raison dโetre of Summorum Pontificum (rather than any eventual whole cloth restoration of the TLM)โcombined with the Vatican II ideal of chanted liturgy (whether Latin or vernacular), we may fairly soon see something that truly is closer than any of the above to the goals of the original liturgical movement.
CHE – OK, but I guess I don’t read SC as you do. I think it is a highly selective reading of SC which would lead one to think that 1969 isn’t what SC intended. Read the whole constitution! We don’t go by the ‘original goals’ of the liturgical movement – we go by the ongoing development of the movement, under the leadership of the popes, including Paul VI. I think there are highly idiosyncratic readings of SC in comon circulation now – and that the people with these views are getting louder doesn’t make the view any more solid. It is such a stretch to claim that all the experts, all the bishops, the Pope – everyone involved in producing Vatican II – somehow suddenly forgot what the Council meant and made up something else only 6 years later in 1969. Especially when you read SC in the full range of its ideals and directives. SC leaves a lot of details open to the future revision, but implies and states in several places that the revision could be extensive.
awr
“We donโt go by the โoriginal goalsโ of the liturgical movement โ we go by the ongoing development of the movement, under the leadership of the popes, including Paul VI.”
But we don’t go by the original goals of SC either, we go by the ongoing development of the movement, under the leadership of the popes, including Benedict XVI. At times, this may include reinstatement or wider permission for things that were thought in the past to be unhelpful, e.g. the tiara on the coat of arms or the celebration of the liturgy according to the 1962 books.
So much for noble simplicity. Some things are just best left in the past. But it seems to follow the trend of this papacy.
โIt is such a stretch to claim that all the experts, all the bishops, the Pope โ everyone involved in producing Vatican II โ somehow suddenly forgot what the Council meant and made up something else only 6 years later in 1969.โ
Isnโt this really a straw man argument? Several alternative explanations are readily available. For instance, Cardinal Ratzingerโs Fontgombault comment:
โAfter the Council there was a new situation, because the liturgists had acquired a de facto authority: all the time, the authority of the Church was accorded less recognition, and it was now the expert who became the authority. This transfer of authority to the experts transformed everything, and these experts in turn were the victims of an exegesis profoundly by the opinions of Protestantism.โ
In short, he seems to suggest that the bishops who participated in Vatican II are not (or certainly are not entirely) to blame for what happened after the Council.
But even this may be neither here nor there. Or here, to be precise. Benedictโs reform of the reform starts not in 1963 or in 1969, but now, where we are at the present time.
(finishing) So, whatever my โmight have beenโ personal preference might be, my immediately preceding commentโin taking papal Masses or EWTN Masses as acceptable current examplesโimplicitly accepted Vatican II together with 1969 as the necessary foundation for ongoing organic development of the liturgy. Why argue endlessly about what may or may not have been intended forty years ago? The responsibility now belongs in the present.
CHE,
First of all, it’s a libel to say that careful historical work was “shunted aside” during the reform that followed Vatican II. Many very highly regarded and learned historians worked on the reform. The Consilium was a veritable “who’s who” of liturgical scholarship.
Second, Antonelli was not the “leader” nor the “secretary” of the Pian commission, he was the relator of the historical section.
Third, they held 82 meetings, and if you think the results were the full extent of what was wanted in the liturgical reform, then I defy you to present any possible reason why an ecumenical council was needed to countenance work that was already done.
If there was no necessity or wisdom in the developments that took place after the Council, I defy you to present the reasons why Karol Wotyla, who took part in the process as it was going on did not identify them, and why as Pope John Paul II he consistently upheld the reform–not as it “might have been” but as it was.
Your account of what happened is false, and no amount of wishful thinking about “what might have happened” had the minority won out at Vatican II will make it hold water, even for a minute.
RF,
Perhaps because of the curious intensity of your syntax and language, I’m not sure I understand precisely what point you intend, or what clear cut conclusion is implied by the opinions you cite.
But I am glad to assume that we share an enthusiasm for the flowering of the post-Vatican II liturgy that’s now underway, and a hope for its full fruition, however long-delayed.
“…the flowering of the post-Vatican II liturgy thatโs now underway…”
How exactly is that happening? Two forms of the same rite? A new English translation that nobody seems particularly happy with? The pope wearing old vestments and making people kneel when receiving holy communion from him? The papal coat of arms being changed to โlookโ more โtraditionalโ? Six candles and a cross on the altar? A few more bishops throwing on great capes? More haughty traditionalist bloggers and their legion of sycophants making more noise about the need to restore ecclesial triumphalism, and the value of anathemas? More lace? The articulation of complimentarity growing fainter and fainter?
Wow. I am impressed. I thought I was a conservative, even traditional. How wrong I have been.
And that’s ALL we need to know about you.
Huh?
Well Rita’s point seemed pretty precise to me. What didn’t you understand?
Your last line assumes agreement with your stance, which seems presumptuous and even disrespectful to me.
awr
Let’s also be clear about what constitutes “full fruition,” namely what was laid down in SC 1: an “increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful;” a more suitable adaptation “to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change;” “whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ;” and a strengthening of universal evangelization.
Nowhere do I see making traditionalists (or any other Catholics) feel “enthusiastic” about one form or another. In fact, one might poke at any number of recent liturgical developments as being at odds with one or more of these conciliar aims: MR3 in English, the use of the 1962 Missal, Liturgiam Authenticam …
How is the use of the 1962 Missal at odds with any of the things you mention? It most certainly can lead to an “increased vigor to the Christian life of the faithful,” is an adaptation of institutions that can change (the OF as the only Roman Rite is certainly something that can change) to the needs of our own time, and could even be said to promote union amongst some Christians who have similar liturgical traditions or who felt the Church was wrong to abandon such a long liturgical tradition.
The new Missal and LA I suppose are subjective and their conformity to the things you listed depends on ones position regarding them, but I completely fail to see how anyone could find the use of the old Mass to defy those aims.
Well, Fr. Ruff, I only can say unabashedly and unapologetically that I am full of hope and optimism and, yes, excitement and enthusiasm for the glorious flowering of the ordinary form of the Roman liturgy that I believe to be underway.
Certainly there are traditionalists who do not agree with this โstanceโ. But who here in the present discussion does not?
Another disconnect – EWTN masses and CHE’s reference to liturgical experts, etc. One thing that we do know is that EWTN has NO liturgical experts; nothing that comes even close to those liturgical researchers, writers, developers that led to SC in VII. EWTN – not exactly what I would want a large parish liturgy to look like; the all male cast of ministers; the poorly read readings with no expression and no attempt to “proclaim”; choir vs. congregational singing all too often; no evidence of including cultural or language differences, etc. It is a limp expression of the eucharist that focuses on the accidents rather than the heart of liturgical rite and sacrament.
Along this same thought pattern, my understanding was that B16’s annual student gathering was going to discuss the “reform of the reform”. Has anyone seen anything from that? In past years, the meetings resulted in papers, remarks, etc.
There has been nothing that I am aware of? Does this tell us something or is it just the usual Rome delay?
The Vatican II conspiracies aside, the apparent rejection of the more subdued coat of arms is poor timing and poor taste. The divide between rich and poor grows daily, and the poor are only getting poorer. Christ the Lord got down on his hands and knees and washed the feet of his disciples. Benedict and his entourage feel they need to drape themselves in gold and lace and a tiara? This is just repulsive and scandalous.
Didn’t He also let a woman use expensive perfume to anoint Him when others objected?
Would you be similarly outraged if the decadence you perceive were directed towards more stereotypically “Vatican II” styles of worship or vestments? Sometimes it seems like it it only expensive *traditional looking* things that are “repulsive and scandalous” and an offense to the poor.
When the decadence of Benedict or the “reform2” crowd comes even remotely close to the level of decadence seen in the immediate post-Vatican II period, then all the outrage will seem less hollow to me.
The Lord made a mandate out of service, not anointings by others.
Oh yes, I am critical of opulence regardless of what form it’s under. Documents call for noble simplicity. When that is ignored, it is poor stewarship, plain and simple.
What is truly scandalous is the image. There is a sense of Rome, and the pope, exulting themselves above all. A papal crown quite clearly points to this. Is this what the Christ envisioned when he gave the keys to Peter?
The grail-room scene in Indiana Jones echoes in my mind. Is Rome choosing wisely or poorly?
Service and elaborate vestments and objects (when used to glorify God) are not mutually exclusive – one should be careful to not set up a false dichotomy. “Plain looking” and “noble simplicity” are not synonymous either.
I don’t see the revival of the Papal tiara in the coat of arms in the same way you do. I see it as reestablishing continuity with the heraldry of prior Popes and not as self-exaltation at all. The heraldry for the Vatican retains the papal crown, as have the coats of arms for John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, and John XXIII. I think a mountain is being made out of molehill. There’s a difference between continuing an old heraldic custom and running around wearing a crown and acting like a king so as to exalt oneself.
Thereโs a difference between continuing an old heraldic custom and running around wearing a crown and acting like a king so as to exalt oneself.
Fair enough. But it seems as if many of those who are excited by the return of the heraldic tiara are excited precisely because they see it (rightly or wrongly) as a prelude to a return of the practice of crowning Popes.
And, for the record, I think the return of that custom would be a very, very bad thing.
You said: “But it seems as if many of those who are excited by the return of the heraldic tiara are excited precisely because they see it (rightly or wrongly) as a prelude to a return of the practice of crowning Popes.”
I know some are excited for that reason, but it’s not something that I think naturally flows from Benedict including the crown on his coat of arms. Benedict isn’t really reviving an old or pre-conciliar tradition. Benedict isn’t the first Pope since Paul to use the crown in his coat of arms.
Sam – was thinking along the same lines. What message does this send to the Eastern church; to our separated churches; to those who are missionaries, health, education, government workers in poor nations? Wonder how those who minister and live in the third world feel about this change?
The explanation is much more simple.
B16 is merely trying to help the economy by giving all the church goods sellers a new product to promote, the “correct”, all new, papal arms to display.
Decadence… the very word!
Tiaras, cappa magnas, reconstructions of Leo X’s dress, Prada shoes, the EF restoration… can’t you SMELL the rancid decadence?
Of course I do not argue on the basis of taste and instinct alone. All the theological checks, as several posters have noted above, show that there is something rotten about the alleged reform of the reform, more aptly dubbed refusal of the reform.
I’ve never been to a decadent EF. It seems like a straw-man.
I have been to some rather decadent OF Masses in some very decadent spaces – and I’m not talking about the reform of the reform either. Not that I think decadence is a hallmark of the NO, but it’s not something the OF or any form of Mass is magically immune to.
This website sometimes devolves into nit-picking that is little different from a traditionalist who scrupulously observes the priest at every Mass he attends to find something he can use to accuse the priest of modernism, heresy, or ill-intent (“Oh no, he wore a Gothic chasuble and his maniple is crooked! Must be NewChurch!!”). It seems the Pope can’t do anything without being accused of having bad motives or of being self-centered.
No, Jack, I don’t think this is nit-picking. We’re talking about fundamental questions of what the Church is, its image, its relationship to the modern world. Externals such as the papal flag say much about fundamental theological understanding.
This is very different than conservative nit-picking about observance of the law, counting genuflections, and the like – and this despite the words and example of Our Savior regarding ritual laws!
awr
No, Fr. Anthony, it’s just constant nit-picking to find a “gotcha” to prove some pet theory about how the Pope is retrograde or doesn’t care about the people. A conservative nit-picker would likely say the exact same thing you did in regards to how externals say much about theological understanding as justification for such nit-picking.
If the Pope had gone off and been crowned the other day, I could understand your point. He wasn’t and likely will not be. Benedict didn’t revive a pre-conciliar practice, but rather one that had fallen out of use in the last decade or so.
This past Sunday we took up three collections at Mass — one for the parish, one for CAFOD, and a special collection, at the behest of Archbishop Nichols, to cover the costs of the papal visit. Everyone was happy to do this, even though we had already raised a lot of money for this purpose in advance of the visit. But it was disheartening to learn that Pope Benedict has now spent a lot of money on a new “stemma”. The maker’s website says that it is made with threads of gold and that pearls are sewn into the design. They have also just finished making a new “precious mitre” for Abp Burke, again with threads of gold and silver, pearls and “encrusted with gems”.
I have no wish to see the Church return to burlap vestments and felt banners, but in these times it is embarrassing to see the Vatican spending large sums on bejeweled hangings and golden mitres.
Now now, that’s just nit-picking. We’re getting back to old traditions! This is good stuff! Back when popes were popes!
Jonathan, do you know with certainty that the expenditure came from Church coffers? Certainly there are many well-to-do patrons of the Church who might generously fund such new acquisitions. That was clearly the case when our parish built a new church a few years back. Certain artwork was sponsored/funded by individual families.
“I have been to some rather decadent OF Masses in some very decadent spaces โ and Iโm not talking about the reform of the reform either.”
I’d like to know what those are. My beef with OF Masses is that they are flat non-events. It is this flatness and lethargy that needs to be fought, and the new translations or the EF helps not a whit,
” Not that I think decadence is a hallmark of the NO, but itโs not something the OF or any form of Mass is magically immune to.”
But need we court it?
Here is Pope Benedict on the munus regendi, the way in which the ordained are to govern the Church. Presumably the triple tiara is a symbol of this function of “ruling”, as distinct from sanctifying and teaching. This is from the General Audience of 26 May 2010.
Where can a priest today find the strength for such an exercise of his ministry, in full fidelity to Christ and to the Church, and complete devotion to his flock? There is only one answer: in Christ the Lord. Jesus’ way of governing was not through dominion, but in the humble and loving service of the Washing of the feet, and the kingship of Christ over the Universe is not an earthly triumph, but reaches its highest point on the wood of the Cross, which becomes a judgement for the world and a point of reference for the exercising of that authority which is the true expression of pastoral charity.
Inspiring words. Powerful symbols: the washing of the feet, the wood of the Cross. Useful for the next rendition of the papal banner?
Ah, I was wrong: according to the Vatican website:
With time, although it lost its temporal meaning, the silver tiara with three gold crowns came to represent the three powers of the Supreme Pontiff: Sacred Orders, Jurisdiction and Magisterium.
There is an article on the (old) papal stemma here, including an explanation of the bear and the “Moor’s head”:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/elezione/stemma-benedict-xvi_en.html
In the polemical comments above, is there a side missing to Pope Benedict’s revised coat of arms unfurled the day that the synod on Church in the Middle East began at the Vatican? The Eastern Rite bishops present for the opening Mass of the Synod with Pope Benedict for the most part were all wearing crowns rather than miters which is their custom. I suspect that these bishops have a more integrated view of “governing” which is not emasculated by the dualism of many when it comes to “governing” as bishops are mandated. It is not only in the spiritual realm that the bishop must “rule” but also in “governing ” the Church in the secular realm. It is not either/or but both/and. It is here that the Eastern Churches can teach the West in these latter days about the unity of “governing” both in the secular and religious realm and the West can recover its rich tradition of a holistically based understanding of “teaching, governing and sanctifying” in both the religious and secular realms. The hermeneutic of reform within the context of continuity with the past may teach those who have a tendency toward dualism to reexamine their position.
I’m not sure it is “dualism” to question the tie between spiritual and secular authority. To quote that Vatican website again:
The Supreme Pontiff’s arms have featured a “tiara” since ancient times. At the beginning this was a sort of closed “tocque”. In 1130 a crown was added, symbol of the Church’s sovereignty over the States.
Boniface VIII, in 1301, added a second crown, at the time of the confrontation with Philip the Fair, King of France, to show that his spiritual authority was superior to any civic authority.
It was Benedict XII in 1342 who added a third crown to symbolize the Pope’s moral authority over all secular monarchs, and reaffirmed the possession of Avignon.
What kind of “hermeneutic” would support a return to papal claims to strong authority over the states? It doesn’t feel like a hermeneutic of reform. A hermeneutic of triumphalism? Pope Benedict wasn’t calling for this in his speech in Westminster Hall, a few weeks ago.
Finally, I’m not sure that the Eastern Churches are a shining example of great governance — they have been plagued by scandal and collaboration with evil secular regimes at least as much as the Catholic Church has, perhaps more.
The problem with your theory here Fr McDonald is that the curia doesn’t buy it. If anybody’s holding the gelding knife these days it would be Rome. The simplest explanation is likely correct: retrotriumphalism.
May I recommend to everyone here the words of Bishop Slattery (Tulsa) quoted today at http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org, beginning with the paragraph
All of this leads me to an important consideration regarding the necessity of receiving the liturgy from the Church, rather than inventing it afresh Sunday after Sunday, or having our liturgy committees cobble it together like industrious shoemakers. I would like to propose that the most important thing we can do to foster and authentic liturgy, the most important thing we can do to implement the vision of the Second Vatican Council, is to return to the notion of a received liturgy, a liturgical that comes to us in place and properly arranged, without the need of our creativity or ingenuity to be successfully celebrated.
A link to the whole piece is provided by NLM, and perhaps our editor would like to highlight it here. Also,
In next month’s edition of the Eastern Oklahoma Catholic, they note that Bishop Slattery will continue this liturgical theme with a consideration of “how the new Roman Missal offers opportunity for a ‘new beginning’ of proper liturgical reform.”
CH, just an anecdotal example from this past Friday when we had a diocesan gathering concerning Catholic Coming Home, we were asked to share with the large group how each parish is welcoming to visitors. One parish’s liturgy committee, won’t name the parish, from an area of our diocese that produces peanuts galore (Plains), after the greeting of the Mass, the priest asks all visitors to raise their hands, introduce themselves and then gives them all a gift bag of fresh and boiled Georgia peanuts. Then the penitential rite continues. There were other such examples from other parishes thus we all got new ideas for enriching the liturgy much along the lines of airlines and their generous peanut giveaways.
Kind of sounds like he’s critiquing what some people did back in the 70s – not sure how this is relevant to the current situation.
awr
The 70s are not so far removed that we don’t encounter echoes at many parish Masses today.
Quoting from Slattery is kind of like quoting from any bishop from Pius XII. His views on LTM, ad orientem, etc. are well known and have very little to do with the VII as almost all know it. His ecclesiology is ultramontane.
Yes, well, I’m not sure what the funny stories from the 70’s and from rich peanut-growing parishioners have to do with liturgy on the ground today. I’m full of a lot of good stories myself, and if I were as inclined as Fr McDonald or Bishop Slattery, I could come up with any number of advancements on my own agenda.
Leaders have opportunities to create symbolic gestures that might of themselves have little direct meaning. What’s a banner on a Vatican building? It tells you who appears in the window above (as if we didn’t know!) and maybe it covers up some bird feces. But many gestures carry meaning well beyond their practical impact. And we all know it.
A new bishop rides into town and wants a suburban home with entertaining space. The previous bishop sold the episcopal mansion. The money from the mansion sale is long gone–it’s not about the poor anymore. But a new leader demonstrates priorities with every step.
Pope Benedict might think he’s keeping up with the Eastern Joneses. But what he’s communicating is something a good bit different. Red shoes and tiaras catch people’s attention. He may not be a narcissist, but a narcissist would have no different results, diverting the gospel message into the peripherals of aristocracy.
Isn’t there anyone in the entourage who can tell the Holy Father how bad this is? And how preaching the Gospel may well be impaired by fancy footwear and crowns.
Mr. Flowerday, you must stop reading Chick Tracts.
The only guilty pleasure I’ll confess is watching the occasional chick flick with my wife.
The Holy Father uses the symbols of his power not in a retro-triumphalist fashion, but in the present day to combat the dictatorship of relativism when the tyranny of false gods with their pseudo-triumphalism are the ideologies, fancy footwear and crowns that we should disparage not that of the reform with the hermeneutic of continuity. I think the Holy Father says it all rather simply and eloquently:
http://www.romereports.com/palio/The-Pope-Warns-of-Fundamentalism-in-the-Middle-East-english-2870.html
Symbols and communication have to do with both intent of sender and perception of receiver. Even if the Holy Father intends what Fr. AM says, how do people today perceive it? The comments here suggest that they don’t receive it very well, and the Pope’s intended meaning isn’t getting across. At what point do we admit that the wrong things are being communicated so we should change course? Additionally, I have a nagging fear that other less noble things perhaps really are intended by all the froofra, so the problem isn’t only with the recipients.
awr
Fr. Anthony, you may be right about perception and thus the need for catechesis. Certainly the Holy See should catechize about any “retro” use of symbols to dissuade those who carp about their return if in fact it is to present a new meaning for old things. The fact that the comments above are so negative about some of these trappings and so little is said about the real threat to the message of Christ, which the Holy Father lays out very simply in his intervention at the synod, seems to indicate that we’re missing the true false divinities out there that are more triumphalistic than any thing I’ve seen lately in the Church. It seems that many would like the Holy Father to take the route of the more progressive elements of liberal Protestantism and thus have very little or nothing to offer to Christianity facing the “red shoes, cappa magnas, coats of arms” of the dictatorship of these false divinities which seem to be seducing so many Christians and not just a few Catholics and neutralizing the power for good that we would other wise have if the focus was on the real enemy which are the false divinities.
Oh, please! Doesn’t this poor dumb laity meme ever get old? If only people understood the man on the throne. (What about Christ on the cross?!)
All of a sudden Franciscan poverty and Trappist simplicity is Protestant?
Not to mention those poor lil’ rich folk who want to shell out for pearl-encrusted banners: who’s to say *they* need catechesis on what defines authentic charity?
Mr Flowerday, in all charity:
If you’re going to argue that the laity are smart enough to grasp the Petrine office and some of its varied iconography, then you’re going to have to argue that the laity are smart enough to grasp words like ineffable and consubstantial. Yes, I’m talking about treating the laity with respect in terms of the new English translation of the Missale Romanum.
If you don’t want to argue this, you can join His Excellency Bishop Trautman, and apparently Joe and Mary Catholic: “Will the words ‘prefiguring sacrifices of the Fathersโ and โborn ineffably of the inviolate Virgin’ resonate with John and Mary Catholic? Is this prayer intelligible, proclaimable, reflective of a vocabulary and linguistic style from the contemporary mainstream of U.S. Catholics? Is this liturgical language accessible to the average Catholic and our youth? Does this translated text lead to full, conscious and active participation? I think not” (America Magazine, 5/21/2007).
If you’re not arguing either or both of these points, then we need to look at the concepts of “smart” and “catechized.” Most Catholics, I would say, are fairly smart, but many may not be well catechized. There’s a difference, and therein lies the Catholic rub.
Timothy, Iโm all for consistency, but Iโm not sure it applies here in the way you suggest. I can imagine someone rather simple, uneducated folks who would have difficulty with the big words in the new missal, but would still โreadโ the papal symbolism negatively because they sense there is something arrogant or domineering in it. Itโs possible, at least.
awr
Fr. Ruff, thank you for your comment. I take it to mean that we agree that the issues of perception and catechesis are at hand. This is good, because both can be addressed with relative ease, to the benefit of all.
Timothy, I’m afraid you’re barking up the wrong tree bringing Bishop Trautmann into the discussion. I don’t think much of his arguments. Likewise I don’t think much of ICEL’s English vocabulary here. Consider me a triangulator.
It’s just a mirror here: why is a perceived lack of catechesis so often the problem? It’s somebody else’s fault: that strikes me as one of the worse memes of the secular culture. The papal sycophants trot out pearls and gold and Catholic conservatives blame the ignorance of the protesters. It seems all rather … relativistic, if you ask me.
Crown him with many crowns,
the Pope upon his throne!
I think I read somewhere that each bishop in his own right is a “Vicar of Christ” in his own diocese, thus representing the one who is crowned with many crowns. Thus the sacramental character of the fullness of Holy Orders and its corresponding mandate to “rule” or “govern” is sacramentally made visible in the crown which belongs to Christ, but is worn by the sacramental sign of our Lord’s authority, his vicar the bishop. Evidently, the Eastern Rite bishops who do wear crowns and sit on thrones and thus have a sacramental theology that points to Christ crowned with many crowns sitting on his throne. Thank God we have a sacramental church unafraid of the material things of this world to point to Christ. We are not dualists.
Hark how the papal anthem drowns
all music but his own!
I would dare to venture that the new-now-out form of the mitre is to be read in relationship to the new-now-out pallium. It was a re-gearing of papal primacy in symbol to reflect theological shifts toward ‘ฮ ฯแฟถฯฮฟฯ ฮผฮตฯฮฑฮพแฝบ แผดฯฯฮฝ’. Thatโs why the East took so kindly to the pallium that was then so unceremoniously dumped in LโAquila. With the pallium dumped so too the mitre (which incidentally retained triple banding). Its all really kindโa ironic in light of the recent statement of US Roman Catholic โ Orthodox dialogue. Much of all this is spelled out in UFFICIO DELLE CELEBRAZIONI LITURGICHE DEL SOMMO PONTEFICE, Sede Apostolica Vacante, Storia-legislazione-riti-luoghi e cose, 2005, and, UFFICIO DELLE CELEBRAZIONI LITURGICHE DELSOMMO PONTEFICE, Inizio del ministero petrino del Vescovo di Roma BenedettoXVI, 2006. Although I know history, demonstrable facts, languages and research are really passรฉ aujourdโhui in favor of invention and sentimentality.
Ah yes, prophets of doom, dig the ditch deeper, and make the walls of impenetrable Jerusalem higher.
All kidding aside, I actually do believe that
(A) Such moves REINFORCE the dictatorship of relativism. Others look at us and shrug, oh those Catholics, they like to dress up. Plus, the pope DOESN’T HAVE the temporal powers that those crowns are all about. So what is the sign in practice? It’s a sign of being out of touch with reality. He’s living in a dream world. That’s not faith, it’s flight from the truth. Nostalgia for the temporal powers that once were is really inappropriate.
(B) It’s a scandalous disbursement of funds for finery and pomps in a time of straightened circumstances. Where does the money come from? The abuse crisis is impoverishing the Church everywhere but Rome? How is that? We peons in the pews are being asked for more donations or the Church will go bankrupt, and he is ordering jewel encrusted banners? It’s a scandal.
I’ll replay my comment from above…
“Do you know with certainty that the expenditure came from Church coffers? Certainly there are many well-to-do patrons of the Church who might generously fund such new acquisitions. That was clearly the case when our parish built a new church a few years back. Certain artwork was sponsored/funded by individual families.”
Perhaps an intrepid PrayTell investigative reporter could ferret out the truth?
Oh, so it’s left to the “little people” to keep the lights on and feed the poor, while the rich keep the pope in cloth of gold? Accepting lavish gifts while churches are closing and whole dioceses going bankrupt adds up to the same scandalous handling of wealth.
Accepting a gift is equally scandalous? Get real. If that’s the case, I hope you refuse every gift you are given and instead tell the person giving you the gift to donate to a homeless shelter instead.
Accepted, used, flaunted, while dioceses go bankrupt and parishes close… yes, that’s scandalous. Scandal = stumbling block. I am being real. These things matter to people who are affected by them.
I bet the money comes from the same place as it does to pay for diocesan liturgists.
Brad, just to be sure we get your point, what is it? That you want to mock diocesan liturgists gratuiously, or that they’re a waste of money, or something else?
awr
Fr. Z ran this story, and I’m glad Pray Tell picked it up, as well.
“Brick by Brick”
This is a really beautiful thing that our Holy Father has done. We really don’t deserve such a holy and smart leader as Pope Benedict XVI.
Um, any arguments, Mr. O’Leary? Or just cheerleading?
awr
“His ecclesiology is ultramontane.”
I suspect that Bishop Slattery is as devoted to and better qualified to speak about Vatican II than anyone involved in the present discussion. Another of his paragraphs from the same talk:
โFrom the time I was ordained in 1966, I have felt in my heart that the liturgy, as we know it today, does not reflect adequately the teachings of Vatican II. The effects of that inadequate reflection can be seen now, 40 years later, in the challenges we face in every field from catechesis to ecclesiology.โ
I too was there in the 1960s. As an enthusiastic liturgy leader in the โtrial parishโ of our archbishop who was a (the?) U.S. member of the famous Consilium. As thereby an original Vatican II Catholic, I was shocked and outraged (and still am) by the sidetracking of the exciting vision of liturgical renewal which inspired us in those first heady years. The flat and often ragged liturgy often seen now in parish churches, when celebrated without reverence or dignity on ugly table altars in churches stripped of all beauty, is an insult to the memory of Vatican II and the Council Fathersโ vision of a heavenly liturgy.
As a Jesuit commentator on Bp. Slatteryโs talk says at NLM, โit was an appalling experience in many ways, not least is seeing beauty abandoned and derided by the second and third rate.โ It still is.
“I have felt in my heart that the liturgy …”
Feelings, nothing more than feelings,
…
Feelings, for all my life I’ll feel it.
I wish I’ve never met you, Novus Ordo;
you’ll never come again.
ยซ Um, any arguments, Mr. OโLeary? Or just cheerleading? awr ยป
Arguments about…( ? )
“The poor you will always have with you,
but you will not always have me.”
Jack Wayne
C Henry Edwards
James O’Leary
Brad Wilson
John Drake
Fr. Allan J. McDonald
—–
“Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet,
you also should wash one another’s feet.
I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.”
Joe O’Leary
Bill deHaas
Sean Whelan
Anthony Ruff, OSB
Rita Ferrone
Todd Flowerday
Jonathan Day
Dom Helder Camara
Mother Teresa of Calcutta
You left out Pope Benedict XVI in our group, FYI.
He left him out of the other group as well.
Maybe because he belongs in both?
Probably just that he does not contribute to this blog. afaik.
I didn’t think Mother Teresa contributed to this blog either, but I could be wrong…
Such divisiveness, maybe we need the pope to unify us or are we truly divided? I find it very presumptuous to categorize your fellow Catholics in this way without visiting our parishes, walking in our shoes or seeing our ministries, very sad and very dismissive.
Sorry, Fr. Allan, you missed my point. Not being dismissive at all. Not at all my intention.
Let me explain. As you can see, I used two quotations from Scripture, both words of the Lord. My point is that on this topic, as on most others, there are two sides, or more. And both sides can have a basis in Scripture, in Jesus’ own words, as a matter of fact. Jesus said it was OK to anoint his feet with the expensive ointment. He also said to wash each other’s feet.
My comment was a mere mirror of the entries on this topic. No categorization. No dismissiveness. You inferred something I did not imply.
It is a simple mirror. You see what the mirror reflects.
Vic,
I send profuse gratitude your way for your ‘mirror’.
The association of the woman anointing Jesus (on the feet in Jn 12) and Jesus washing the disciples (on the feet in Jn 13) is too often ignored. I have seen the parallel in stained glass, but never in print.
“I wish Iโve never met you, Novus Ordo”
Straw man alert. And a mighty tired and puny straw man it is.
For many of us, the extent of our distress at abuse of Our Lord–in (seemingly literally) care-less celebrations of the normative liturgy–may well be a measure of our devotion to the ordinary form of the Roman rite, and of our hopes and dreams for its promise as heavenly liturgy. I myself find it difficult to reconcile alleged love for the liturgy with apparent indifference to its failure to meet the expectations of real renewal.
Henry, you continue to trumpet carelessness as a conciliar anti-virtue, but neither you nor anyone else on this site has ever produced evidence this was a development of the 1970’s and not the 1870’s or even the 1570’s.
I could say liturgical carelessness is a product of American pragmatism, apathy over the arts, and the failures of preconciliar seminaries. I might also suggest that Pope Benedict’s Hermeneutic of Continuity is for many Catholics, a very traditional Hermeneutic of Obstruction. I have yet to see a serious objection to either.
I am puzzled that some posters seem to say that anyone who doesnโt appreciate the triple tiara on the bejewelled banner is โdualisticโ or careless about liturgy or not appreciative of beauty.
The dualism charge seems self-refuting given that this is a blog about liturgy and worship: a true dualist wouldnโt read or post on this blog. He or she wouldnโt worry about what sort of liturgies we celebrated, or what vestments were worn, or whether the popeโs stemma featured a bear and a โMoorโs headโ or a badger and a steamship. A dualist wouldnโt really care about the cappa magnas or the red shoes. Noticing these symbols and expressing concern about the messages they convey is an assertion of non-dualism.
Similar comments about reverence, dignity, or stripping worship of all beauty. Some of us are exercised about the new Mass translations precisely because garbled English syntax cannot be beautiful or because overly long Latinate sentences with one embedded clause after another cannot be dignified. We donโt think itโs reverent for a priest to try to struggle through convoluted prose.
To me this raises an important issue, perhaps worthy of a separate debate on Pray Tell: to what extent are views on things like the papal banner matters of personal aesthetics, to what extent are they objective matters? I would post more but my character count is running out, and I can hear the Dictator of Relativism rattling his sabre in the next room…
Shifting gears a bit and paralleling the use of “triumphalism” to “imperialism”. John Allen article summarizing day two of the Synod for the Middle East. Appears that some from the East and Middle Eastern rites see the current Latin rite as “imperialistic” in its attitudes, imposition of law that is not balanced or fair, etc. http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/protests-against-roman-imperialism-middle-east-synod
Wonder what they would make of this new banner; that B16 dropped the title of Patriarch of the West from the latin rite, etc.
In terms of Slattery and his time with Concilium, etc. – long time ago I discovered that length of service or physical presence should never be confused with experience, competence, etc. Many a company or church has failed because folks confused “tenure” with actual leadership, creativity, accomplishments, achievements. Read up on Slattery – he is a follower of Ottaviani and his liturgical tastes are based on personal preference; not on scholarship, research, or even liturgical knowledge.
There was some dismay about dropping Patriarch of the West by the Orthodox. I’m not sure though about the Eastern Rites in union with the Holy See. I do know that the Orthodox as well as those of the Eastern Rites were grateful for the liberation of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass as a step in the right direction as they feared Roman imperialism imposing a stripped down version of the liturgy upon them. Fortunately that didn’t happen and the Eastern Rites maintain the liturgy as the Orthodox celebrate it.
My former and now deceased associate pastor who was also Melkite use to decry Latin Rite Catholics whom he felt were snobs when it came to the reform of the Mass and trying to impose Latin Rite, post Vatican II sentiments on Eastern Rite Catholics. He would have none of it. I think he was right in many ways and John Allen’s article captures some of his sentiment too.
As for the papal crown, I doubt the orthodox bishops and those of the Eastern Rite would mind a return to it since they themselves wear crowns not Latin rite miters. They probably saw the unilateral dumping of it as a polemic against their crowns, just conjecture on my part and thus more Latin Rite imperialism.
Here are other thoughts from NCR Online:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/has-pope-benedict-changed-his-coat-arms
Questions about this change:
“To my knowledge, no recent pope before Benedict has changed the coat of arms he adopted at the start of his papacy.
The rationale for his changes rightfully deserves lively and critical discussion. What signals is the pope trying to send in the changes he has initiated?”
Given all the comments on this, the NCR article by Filiteau certainly points to the fact that this change has opened controversy and begs for clarification. Symbols are still powerful in the Church and the change of even a papal coat of arms seems to get all kinds of people up at arms! And can you imagine if the Holy Father wears the tiara at his first public EF Mass as pope what comments that will produce? Just what does it all mean?
I have yet to see a blazon of the emblem used on the banner. That would be a requirement of a (new) coat of arms.
I wonder if the new banner could be the gift of Ars Regia, http://www.ars-regia.com, with the explanation given at http://www.tridentinum.com.
The latter indicates that the banner was given as a gift from ‘a faithful’ (as Google translates it) on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the present pontificate. It also notes that a similar style of design has been used on some vestments made for the Roman Pontiff by Ars Regia.
Could it be that the best way to advertise luxury items–be they ecclesiastical or otherwise–are to give a lovely highly visible gift?
Further to my previous note: at http://www.tridentinum.com/en/catalogue.html?page=shop.browse&category_id=127&vmcchk=1 … there is a variety of embroidered works incorporating features of the papal coat of arms.
Todd, I certainly have not intended to โtrumpet carelessness as a conciliar anti-virtueโ. Entirely to the contrary, my lament is that liturgical carelessness in recent decades has forestalled the realization of the virtues of the Council. And has prevented the fulfillment of the promise of liturgical renewal that inspired so many of us in the 1960s, but which we still await over forty years later (as a uniform feature of the of the Roman rite).
Nor am I aware of having claimed that this carelessness originated in the 1970s. I myself observed liturgical carelessnessโadopting this term as an umbrella for a complex of attitudes and behaviors–before the Council, on the part of both lay and clergy, though not so frequently and pervasively as more recently. Indeed, the prevalence of such โshadows and distortionsโ undoubtedly has a venerable tradition of its own, and certainly was an impetus for the much-needed liturgical movement that manifested itself in Vatican II.
In any event, I agree with your assessment of diverse causes for the multiplication of such problems in the decades immediately following Vatican II. Partly a result of misinterpretation of council documents, as refracted by the societal chaos of the 1960s and 1970s, when instead of the Church going out into the world through the famously opened window as intended by John XXIII, the world came into the Church. And especially into the seminaries and various extra-hierarchial agencies of the Church.
Okay. I think we have some congruence here. Like you, I lament the lack of application of Vatican II. My sense is that this poverty has increased in recent years, perhaps as the curia has become more emboldened.
Unlike Pope Benedict, I’m not prepared to lay blame with cultural upheaval. It was an opportunity more than it was a stumbling block for the Church. There’s no other way to view it.
I disagree that the world came into the Church at Vatican II. I might place the penetration with Constantine, and reformers (or purists, perhaps) have been at odds with this ever since. I have a hard time reconciling the preaching and images of Christ with crowns, great capes, and aristocratic finery.
The pope really needs to dispense with all this. I’m prepared to believe his good intentions, but this is a stumble for everyone except his pep squad.
Fr. Mac – not sure I would draw the same conclusions about the Orthodox or the Eastern Rites. I remember well the statements on the floor of St. Peter’s during VII by Patriarch Maximos who refused to speak in latin to make his point that latin is not essential to the Catholic faith.
Believe that his statements about liturgy had more to do with principles around cultures and rites having the ability to form their liturgies so that their cultures and peoples could pray in their own languages and with their own cultural meanings, insights, etc. That does not seem to be aligned with the reform of the reform much less Summorum Pontificum.
Read the post on the right hand of the blog – altho it is focused on our communion and separated churches, it works well also in terms of the Orthodox and Eastern rites.
Unfortunately, when you dig deeper in terms of the various rites and how liturgy is to be translated, etc.; you can find a mixed bag of what and how to do it – those who feel VII imposed liturgical change on Eastern rites and those who feel that VII freed them up to express their rites fully and completely? Who knows.
Similarly, Todd, I would be suspicious of anyoneโs suggestion of a single explanation or cause for the complex phenomena we have all lived through. Likewise, there surely is no any single solution to our present liturgical predicament. Surely Pope Benedictโs hermeneutic of continuity is one constructive approach. But I donโt hear anyone claiming it as the sole and sufficient solution for all the problems of the Church.
I get so tired of Pope Benedict making decisions and changing things without any explanation.
Why did he accept the resignation of bishop Jim Moriarty and refuse the resignation of bishops Eamonn Walsh and Raymond Field? In the first case Fr. Lombardi said he “had no comment to make, pointing out the bishopโs own statement gives a comprehensive explanation.” In the second case he “told the AP that the Vatican only makes public announcements when resignations are accepted, not when they are rejected”.
And now, we are wondering why a tiara is appearing on the pope’s banner – a very public, highly symbolic change. Why don’t people ask Pope Benedict what it means, rather than let Vatican observers make wild conjectures? The man is not inarticulate.
In fact, didn’t he say that the church should be more transparent? Well, here’s his chance.
I agree with Rita Ferrone: Benedict’s anachronistic retrotriumphalism is contributing to a dictatorship of relativism and is reducing Catholicism to inane fashion statements.
Could it be that many people are looking too much into this? As someone mentioned earlier, it might have been given to him as a gift and put out without him even really knowing about it. Who knows. I think we can all spend time worrying about other things.
But if that was the case, there wouldn’t be much to talk about around here. Although I rarely agree with them, the conspiracy theories do create interesting reading material. I just make sure I attend a few conservative blogs as well to get a “well-rounded” view of things.
Haha, I agree. It’s just to read some of the comments, you would think this banner was a situation over which we could all lose our faith in the Church! ๐
by
Tags:
Please leave a reply.