The innovative thoughts of one Catholic bishop, 50 years ago

Do you know about the interesting website Vatican II: 50 Years Ago Today?

This past week the website reported on the idea of a German missionary bishop 50 years ago to create a new “ecumenical Mass” based as much as possible on the words of Christ from Scripture, with as little as possible of words written by men. The idea was that Protestants could be invited to this new Mass.

After all, rites are man-made, the bishop argued.

Unity in belief hardly seemed possible to the bishop. But liturgy? “There can be unity in the sphere of worship,” he thought.

Mind-blowing, no?

Catholic bishops, fathers of Vatican II, actually thought thoughts like this, and said things like this, in the very first days of the Council.

Hermeneutic of continuity? Not so much. Organic development of the liturgy? Hardly. Intercommunion…why not? Invent a new liturgy from scratch? Sure. The sky’s the limit.

Now I’m not by any means advocating for the bishop’s wild plan, and of course it isn’t what later came to pass under Paul VI. Even the good bishop allowed that he was speaking only as a pastor, not as a liturgical expert.

But here’s the point: such thoughts were on the table, back then.

A new spirit was afoot. Innovation was the idea. All manner of new things were thought possible.

Good to keep that in mind whenever we hear about the “hermeneutic of continuity” these days, the supposed key to understanding the real Council, before it was supposedly hijacked by liberals infected with the supposed “spirit of the 60s” after the Council.

Even Pope Benedict XVI allows for rupture within a greater continuity, and speaks of especially of a “hermeneutic of reform,” before he goes on to emphasize mostly the continuity part. Some of his most zealous followers lack even this minimal nuance.

Reports like this one about the German missionary bishop show that the real history of Vatican II is rather complicated. There are a variety of ways to interpret the council – including giving emphasis to the spirit of innovation that was afoot among the Council fathers.

awr

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, is a monk of St. John's Abbey. He teaches liturgy, liturgical music, and Gregorian chant at St. John's University School of Theology-Seminary. He is widely published and frequently presents across the country on liturgy and music. He is the author of Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform: Treasures and Transformations, and of Responsorial Psalms for Weekday Mass: Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter. He does priestly ministry at the neighboring community of Benedictine sisters in St. Joseph.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

29 responses to “The innovative thoughts of one Catholic bishop, 50 years ago”

  1. Todd Flowerday

    Continuity is a euphemism for obstruction, all too often.

    Rupture is an essential experience in the spiritual journey. Rupture is essential to conversion. Peter and his brothers left their nets. Matthew left a tax collecting desk. Abraham never returned to his ancestral home. The witness of the patriarchs and apostles and saints repeatedly shows that the most faithful path is the one in which we leave behind former life and embrace fully life in Christ.

    Rupture is nothing a believer need fear.

    Reply
  2. Peter Rehwaldt

    Unity in belief hardly seemed possible to the bishop. But liturgy? “There can be unity in the sphere of worship,” he thought.

    Given the delight with which hymnody has flowed between the churches, especially since Vatican II, unity in the sphere of worship is not at all beyond belief. Indeed, some of the best primary liturgical theology is done when God’s children sing.

    Reply
  3. M. Jackson Osborn

    Interesting indeed. Nor should it be really surprising. There were, in fact, a multitude of those in and out of holy orders who, in Reformation times (and before!), desired reforms that we today would consider with satisfaction, and might well have gone far to heal the breach. On the other hand, we should not ignore the theological perils of ‘open communion’ with those who honestly do not believe what Catholics believe about the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. This, it seems to me, would actually be sacrilege. Still, one cannot but applaud every opportunity to share the faith to the degree with which we share it. For, if the early Church embraced the gentiles and our Lord lived and died for all, how could we dare not enjoy mutual love and respect with our brethren, the well-meaning and historically-conditioned heirs of what (in part) were once legitimate greivances.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @M. Jackson Osborn – comment #3:
      “… we should not ignore the theological perils of ‘open communion’ with those who honestly do not believe what Catholics believe about the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. This, it seems to me, would actually be sacrilege.”

      Many non-Catholics embrace the reality of the Eucharist. And even Rome accepts the validity of some Christian sacraments but still doesn’t permit intercommunion. The stumbling block, maybe more often, is the acceptance of Peter. Idolatry is indeed a danger, even if our leaders don’t quite recognize it.

      Reply
      1. M. Jackson Osborn

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #12:
        Todd: your are, of course, right about the beliefs of many Protestants converging with those of Catholics as regards some or all the sacraments. I can certainly vouch that I, as a former Anglican, did not from childhood up ever believe that the Blessed Sacrament was anything other than what Jesus and the Catholic Church (which, allowing as how Romans did not have a monopoly on the Catholic faith, included my church) held them to be. And, this belief was quite obvously evident in a plain reading of the canon of the BCP. Nor did I ever question the legittimacy of Anglican orders. You will know that I was far from alone as an Anglican in being so disposed. You will also know that very large numbers of Anglicans would disavow what I have just described as ‘Anglican belief’. And disavow it in no uncertain terms. So, right belief about the Sacraments remains in Anglicanism and Protestantism a basically individual matter with church officialdom not definitvely taking one position or the other (and, in most cases actually taking a negative one). To me, this mitigates strongly against a formal inter-communion. It gives me no pleasure or self-satisfaction to hold this view. Actually, it hurts. But that is symptomatic evidence of the realities of our sad divisions.

        Too, you say that Rome accepts the validity of some Christian sacraments. Other than those of our Eastern Orthodox cousins, I am not aware of any. Can you enlighten me here?

      2. Todd Flowerday

        @M. Jackson Osborn – comment #18:
        “So, right belief about the Sacraments remains in Anglicanism and Protestantism a basically individual matter …”

        Of course. Some pessimists among us would say the same about Roman Catholics.

        Yes, I was thinking about baptism across most all of Christendom and all the sacraments of our Eastern brothers and sisters, including the Eucharist celebrated by certain Christians in the Middle East, despite not praying an explicit institution narrative in their anaphora. By way of exception, also situations in which Catholics may receive the sacraments from non-Catholic churches when a Catholic community or priest is not readily available.

        As a skeptic of institutions, I don’t know what to make of persistent stubbornness. I think that there is a danger of pelagianism in “awarding” Communion to those deemed “worthy” by either institutional loyalty or, in some instances, professed belief. Matthew 21:28-32 is a strong caution for us. Or could be.

      3. M. Jackson Osborn

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #22:
        Ah… some pessimists among us, you say, would say the same about Roman Catholics. And, I say, you and they would be right. I remember several years ago reading a poll, the results of which shewed that roughly 70 or so % of Catholics did not believe in the objective presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Even if the poll was off by 25%, this remains an astonishing denial of one of the basic tenets of the Catholic and Orthodox faith. I have even had people whom I know to be devout tell me that it was a memorial. The more substantive issue here, though, is that regardless of what individuals may or may not believe, The Church believes definitively. (I cannot tell you how disappointed I was when the Episcopal Church stopped practicing so-called ‘closed communion’ back in the 60’s. This was a sure sign to me that the ‘writing was on the wall’.)

  4. Scott Smith

    The work of God, not men, must be the key to understanding the council.

    Surely, this leads us away from what council fathers may or may not have though they were doing, to how the Holy Spirit has spoken though the ages via this and other Councils.

    This approach, a hermeneutic of continuity, does not prevent reform. The Holy Father has been clear on this. However, it does require the Council to be CLEAR on when it wants reform, and therefore stops us reading in our own desires and preferences.

    Our interpretation must aim to find God’s teaching in the council, not our own. To do otherwise is the worst kind of idolatry.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Yeah, well, but the whole issue is that men (and women) disagree about what the Council means. It looks to me like you’re trying to avoid that issue by proclaiming that YOUR view (the view of one man) is really “God’s teaching.” Idolatry, anyone?
      Of course we should look at “what council fathers may or may not have thought they were doing” if we’re trying to interpret the council – unless you think that YOUR view of continuity permits you to ignore the Council fathers.
      awr

      Reply
  5. Jordan Zarembo

    [From the CNS article, 12 November 2012] Bishop Duschak: “The priest must face the people. ‘Nobody who invites guests to a supper turns his back on them.’”

    In a lunate sigma arrangement of dining couches (i.e. capital letter ‘C’ or a square of couches with an open side), the leader or most honored guest reclined on the head couch in the center position. In this way, the couches to the right and left from the perspective of the most honored guest would not be looking him in the eye. Naturally, the recliners at the side tables would look each other into the eyes primarily and then the honored guest secondarily.

    versus populum celebration has proved popular and even necessary for many reasons, not in the least the strong preference in many cultures for a liturgical/ritual president to look at the assembly as one would occasionally look into the eyes of a conversation partner. However, the rationale for “facing the people” today does not easily correlate with the late antique experience.

    Reply
    1. M. Jackson Osborn

      @Jordan Zarembo – comment #4:
      ‘Nobody invites guests to a supper and then turns his back on them’.

      This is clever. But, it overlooks one rather obvious matter: namely, it is Christ who has invited both priest and people to a ‘supper’. The priest is neither the host nor the inviter. Though the priest is ‘in persona christi’, he is, like everyone else a guest of the Lamb. So, there is nothing shoddy about him facing the Host like every one else… rather than turn his hack to Him. Having said all this, I am not overly fond of nor disturbed by either versus populi or ad orientem, though I, like Jordan, am partial to that posture which has the greater antiquity behind it. I am not bothered nearly so much by the actuality of versus populi as I am the vocifeous, even obstreperous clamour of those who must have it or else. Their rationales are amusingly adolescent and self-centred.

      Reply
      1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        @M. Jackson Osborn – comment #7:
        I agree with MJO that Christ is host, not the priest. Good comment.
        “Amusingly adolescent and self-centred”? Not so much.
        awr

  6. Jonathan How

    I’m enjoying reading Massimo Faggioli’s books at the moment. “True Reform”, and “Vatican II: The Battle for Meaning”. Both quite insightful offering frameworks for reading the Council and what followed and bringing a large amount of European (non-English) literature to an English speaking audience.

    Reply
  7. Dunstan Harding

    If the bishop were alive today, I have little doubt his views publicly expressed would probably earn him a long tenure as a prison chaplain in sub-Saharan Africa.

    Reply
  8. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    As one who buys into the hermeneutic of reform of the reform, we have to keep in mind that what Pope Benedict has allowed in terms of the Anglican Ordinariate would have been mind boggling prior to the Council, so there is truly a “rupture” if you will that is quite good here, but how many at Pray Tell feel that way? Odd isn’t it. In fact it could even lead toward a Lutheran Ordinariate down the road with a liturgy more like the Lutheran one. That certainly would have been unheard of in pre-Vatican II times.
    And the possibilities of two forms of the one Latin Rite, the EF of 1962 and the reform of it in 2003. That is quite novel too and bit of a wonderful rupture too. How many, like Todd, advocating rupture would embrace that in the most wonderful way?
    And my dream that the 2012 Roman Missal in the vernacular/English allowing for a 1962 Order of the Mass with the 1962 GIRM and rubrics but with the 2012 lectionary and calendar and other things that can be allowed in the Liturgy such as RCIA rites, etc certainly looms as a possibility in this new day and age that even the good bishop cited in this article never may have imagined! God is good!

    Reply
    1. Bill deHaas

      @Fr. Allan J. McDonald – comment #11:
      As Fr. Ruff states clearly:

      “Even Pope Benedict XVI allows for rupture within a greater continuity, and speaks of especially of a “hermeneutic of reform,” before he goes on to emphasize mostly the continuity part. Some of his most zealous followers lack even this minimal nuance.”

      We have repeatedly posted on B16’s Advent statement and the misinterpretation of this talk…..your comment: “….As one who buys into the hermeneutic of reform of the reform”

      Which is Fr. Ruff’s point – it is NOT a hermeneutic of reform OF THE REFORM. Only in your alternate universe.

      Anglican Ordinariate – doubt most experts in ecumenism dating back to VII or who participated in VII, see this *experiment* as an example of what the council fathers desired; much less to continue this for Lutherans, etc.

      Two forms of the one rite – we have repeatedly posted on that also. But would agree that most council fathers would see this papal (therefore temporary) step as a *rupture*….it broke precedent, tradition, etc. Not sure they would use the word – *wonderful*

      And your hobbyhorse dreams – doubt it. They are antiquarianism versus what Fr. Ruff’s example of forward looking dreams:

      Reply
      1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        @Bill deHaas – comment #15:
        Thanks for confirming my post and many who simply dislike rupture whether the reform is with continuity or not and even when the rupture, no matter what, is within the spirit of novelty present amongst some of the Council fathers. You’re a good poster child!

  9. Jeffrey Pinyan

    create a new “ecumenical Mass” based as much as possible on the words of Christ from Scripture, with as little as possible of words written by men

    Well, the words of Christ from Scripture were written by men, and we don’t really know what the Last Supper was like. Paul F. Bradshaw has argued in his essay “Did Jesus Institute the Eucharist at the Last Supper?” (Issues in Eucharistic Praying in East and West, Lit. Press, 1-19) that “the focus of these Last Supper narratives [in Mark and Luke] is on eschatology and upon impending betrayal. They make total sense without the body and blood sayings, and those sayings therefore look like secondary insertions.” (13)

    The idea was that Protestants could be invited to this new Mass.

    To what extent would they participate in this worship; that is, how far would the unity extend? Since “it is impossible to work for unity in belief” (he said, after quoting Paul in Eph. 4:4 saying that there is “one faith”), what would the Protestants (individually or denominationally or collectively) believe was taking place?

    Would this “ecumenical Mass” be an actual Mass in the Catholic sense of the term (sacramental re-presentation of the one sacrifice of Christ, etc.), or a service of worship and prayer in which everyone shares bread and wine (or juice) that has been prayed over using as few words of men as possible? There would almost certainly be no epiclesis, to the chagrin of the Eastern Christians — but this effort was not aimed at the East, but at Protestants.

    I’m not going into details, of course, nor answers. I leave those to the experts.

    Reply
  10. Jack Feehily

    There is no doubt about the once universal practice of ad orientam. But will someone please tell me how the thought developed that during the Sacred Liturgy God is alway over there rather than here in our midst. Can anyone believe that this was the practice of the apostles or the communities they served prior to the later practice of using large public buildings? Families often gather around dinner tables, sometimes with hands joined, and pray Our Father. Should they all rather direct their gaze to the east? I’m sorry, but I believe the overriding motive for restoring ad orientam is a profound discomfort with the messiness of an incarnate God. But I could be wrong.

    Reply
    1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

      @Jack Feehily – comment #14:
      While I am not opposed to facing the congregation for the Liturgy of the Eucharist and since I celebrate the Mass both ways, depending on the time on Sunday and type, I have found ad orientem to be to my personal liking. I’ve asked our 12:10 PM OF Mass members to comment on it and all seem to like it and like that I’m joining them in facing the same direction for prayer but turn to them when I am speaking directly to them–it is abundantly clear to whom the words of the priest are directed.

      Obviously the priest and other EMC’s face the communicant as they come to the altar of Sacrifice and Holy Table for Holy Communion, so one might consider the Eucharistic Prayer ad orientem like the kitchen where the cook, cooks facing the stove and in most places the wall and that the kitchen itself in most traditional homes is separate from the dinning room so that what is dispatched in the kitchen and then cooked is out of sight. But when all is ready and in an elegant presentation it is brought from the hot, sacrificial kitchen to the table for the guests. So ad orientem is our kitchen experience, much like the iconostasis in the East, the holy of holies and the Communion Rite is the presentation of what has been sacrificed and in a palatable way.

      Reply
  11. Bill deHaas

    MOJ – baptism? confirmation?

    Reply
    1. M. Jackson Osborn

      @Bill deHaas – comment #19:
      I had in mind the eucharist. Yes baptism with water and in the Name of the Trinity is accepted. But confirmation? I think not.

      Reply
  12. Brian Duffy

    It seems to me that what the good bishop was promoting was the liturgy as found in older editions of the Kings Chapel Book of Common Prayer, in Boston.

    I have a copy that includes a liturgy based on the Didache, probably under Universalist influence.

    Reply
  13. Brendan Kelleher svd

    Given that the report on the CNS/Vatican II anniversary blog was based on comments that Bishop Duschak SVD made at a press conference, the level of speculation generated is verging onto fantasy. So far, however, no one has accused him of heresy, as a few commenters did re the original blog. I commented there, and will desist from adding comment here, except to say that once more I am amazed at how many use their comments to push their favourite topics.
    Just a little background on Bishop Duschak SVD. He went out to the Philippines as a missionary in 1931, and was appointed VIcar Apostolic of Calapan in 1951, having served there during the war years. He came to the Council with thirty years experience in an environment very different to possibly everybody commenting here on Pray Tell. As with many of his fellow “ex-pat” Bishops from Asia at Vatican II, he felt a need for a totally new approach to the liturgy, that it might respond to the people he served and open new avenues towards Ecumenism – post WWII the Philippines like Japan saw a strong influx of American protestant missionaries, so creating a new missionary/pastoral situation.
    His intervention has this emerging situation as background. He also came to realize that the Filipinos needed to take responsibility for their own Church and missionary endeavor there, so in 1973, on reaching the age of 70, he resigned as Vicar Apostolic and handed on responsibility for the diocese to a Filipino SVD. He was by all accounts an exemplary missionary and pastor.

    Reply
  14. Scott Smith

    Anthony Ruff, OSB : Yeah, well, but the whole issue is that men (and women) disagree about what the Council means. It looks to me like you’re trying to avoid that issue by proclaiming that YOUR view (the view of one man) is really “God’s teaching.” Idolatry, anyone? Of course we should look at “what council fathers may or may not have thought they were doing” if we’re trying to interpret the council – unless you think that YOUR view of continuity permits you to ignore the Council fathers. awr

    Perhaps I have been unclear. I thought we were discussing HOW we should determine the meaning of the Council, so that we have some hope of resolving our disagreements.

    This is prior to proclaiming any actual view of its meaning, and as I mentioned, should help prevent us reading in our own desires and preferences (including my own). And it seems we agree this is worth avoiding, as it is idolatry.

    Getting back to the Council Fathers, clearly we can not ignore them in their collective capacity as Council Fathers, particularly as represented in the texts they together approved. However, it seems well accepted they represented a multiplicity of views.

    Accordingly, at least to me, it appears a fruitless endeavour to consider their individual agendas for the Council. We could clearly play a game where we say Bishop X thought we should all be ultra liberal, and Bishop Y ultra conservative. This just leads to cherry picking to match our pre-existing views, and back to the danger of Idolatry.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      @Scott Smith – comment #25:
      OK, now I understand better what you’re saying.

      I agree, this is only one bishops, and he’s an outlier. My point, though, is that it was an era and environment in which views such as his could be put on the table and not dismissed out of hand. It tells us something about the era, and about the spirit in which all the Council fathers endorsed their reform principles.

      The value in being aware of this bishop’s views, and the reason why I posted this, is that some now are pushing this “hermeneutic of continuity” which is mostly an imposition upon the text. The best remedy for such eisogesis is studying the Council, the “event” character of it, the history of what really happened, the full context in which the reformist docs were issued. I believe history will show that the “continuity” view, while certainly present in the docs in some places, isn’t the overriding principle some want to make it to be. In fact, this cautious view is representing most strongly in the minority of “conservative” Council fathers, and they got out-voted.

      awr

      Reply
      1. Scott Smith

        @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #26:

        I agree there are many who are imposing on the text, and that context is a vital aid in preventing us from falling into this very human error.

        I also agree the immediate context of the Council can be useful. For example, the fact it was held and its event nature, must I think lead to some presumption that it had real effects on our beliefs (contra cherry picking about it being a pastoral council).

        We can not, on some fixed view of continuity, assume the clear teachings of the Council out of existence. This seems to be the error of the SSPX.

        However, the broader historical context must also be considered, including past authorities which have not been explictly rejected. After all, the liberal reformers also did not get their agenda accepted in full.

        We are seeking the voice of the Holy Spirit, and therefore, all documents in which we presume this may be found must be of assistance in interpreting each other.

  15. Bill deHaas

    Just love it, Fr. Ruff, when you try to expand our horizons.

    Here is a link to a good article that compares/contrasts exegesis and eisogesis: http://www.theologicalmusingsblog.com/2007/04/05/exegesis-vs-eisegesis/

    Thought it would be good to expand on your comment for folks such as Allan whose blog excels in the craft of *eisegesis*.

    Reply
  16. Hereward Wake

    But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
    Galatians 1:8

    Makes me wonder if the Easterners haven’t been right all along.

    Reply

Posted

in

by

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading