Pope Francis on the “grammar of simplicity”

From the AP story at HuffPost:

In the longest and most important speech of his four-month pontificate, Francis took a direct swipe at the “intellectual” message of the church that so characterized the pontificate of his predecessor, Benedict XVI. Speaking to Brazil’s bishops, he said ordinary Catholics simply don’t understand such lofty ideas and need to hear the simpler message of love, forgiveness and mercy that is at the core of the Catholic faith.

“At times we lose people because they don’t understand what we are saying, because we have forgotten the language of simplicity and import an intellectualism foreign to our people,” he said. “Without the grammar of simplicity, the church loses the very conditions which make it possible to fish for God in the deep waters of his mystery.”

Hmm, what do youย suppose Francis wouldย think of the “English” of the new Roman Missal? Of course he wasn’t referring to that, but the second paragraph above uncannily could be made to apply to it.

Speaking of the loss of members to the Pentecostal churches, he said this:

“Perhaps the church appeared too weak, perhaps too distant from their needs, perhaps too poor to respond to their concerns, perhaps too cold, perhaps too caught up with itself, perhaps a prisoner of its own rigid formulas,” he said. “Perhaps the world seems to have made the church a relic of the past, unfit for new questions. Perhaps the church could speak to people in their infancy but not to those come of age.”

Wow. He really said all that! (Emphasis mine.)

awr

Editor

Katharine E. Harmon, Ph.D., edits the blog, Pray Tell: Worship, Wit & Wisdom.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

21 responses to “Pope Francis on the “grammar of simplicity””

  1. Dale Rodrigue

    And we’re only 4 1/2 months into his pontificate.
    Is this a preface for what is to come?

  2. Ellen Joyce

    Are the US bishops listening??? I still can’t believe that what he’s saying this week is real–and it’s very, very difficult to see how this will change the hearts and minds of those who would have to stand up and deal with the Missal.

  3. Graham Wilson

    Ellen Joyce :Are the US bishops listening???

    Probably not, sigh.

    Ellen, the ICEL bishops as a group have let the Church down badly by surrendering to the reactionary liturgical bureaucrats of the CDW and moving into their shadow. Expect no help from them because they themselves are helpless. Look rather to individuals, bishops or not, to help save the Church from the pretentious prattle of the new translation.

    But the change has started. For example, I have experienced first hand many emendations of the new translation in parishes by pastors either using their own words or some mixture to improve the text. One or two even use the 1998 prayers wholesale. But you’ll grow old waiting for the current generation of bishops to wake up and listen – I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.

    It’s up to Pope Francis to weaken the curia and strengthen the bishops. Let’s help him.

  4. I love this Pope!

  5. Devin Rice

    I am generally supportive of the new translation but if Pope Francis or the Bishop’s Conference wish to return to the 1973 I would obey (if I had any choice in the matter that is).

    But I would like to add a few thoughts. If simplification is a virtue in isolation, even the 1973 could be trimmed down and vocabulary replaced. The Nicene Creed could be omitted. There are always trade offs between understandability and the need to communicate concepts that are a bit complex.

    Has Pope Francis/Cardinal Bergoglio opined on the Spanish translation he used to celebrate mass? I am familiar enough with that text to know it is a more literal translation overall than the 1973 missal but I am not familiar enough with the Spanish Language or the New Missal to make a comparison between the two.

    Has he spoken about the Eastern Rites (I remember reading that he attended a Catholic Divine Liturgy on occassion)? These rites are often quite complex, even more so than the current translation.

    I haven’t seen anything where Pope Francis has commented on the Liturgy. This may be because it hasn’t made it’s way to the English speaking world yet or he hasn’t spoken on the subject? But perhaps the readers of this blog would have information or know if any material is coming out?

  6. Jack Rakosky

    Francis was influenced deeply by a brand of liberation theology which places its emphasis upon the experience of ordinary people. This theology certainly seems to have strong implications for how we do liturgy.

    He begins his talk with a reflection upon Aparecida which precedes the quote above on simplicity:

    http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-to-brazilian-bishops-are-we-still-a-c

    In Aparecida God gave Brazil his own Mother. But in Aparecida God also offered a lesson about himself, about his way of being and acting. A lesson about the humility which is one of Godโ€™s essential features, part of Godโ€™s DNA.

    And God arrived in a novel fashion, since he can always reinvent himself: as a fragile clay statue, darkened by the waters of the river and aged by the passage of time. God always enters clothed in poverty, littleness. Then there is the statue itself of the Immaculate Conception. First, the body appeared, then the head, then the head was joined to the body: unity. What had been broken is restored and becomes one. Colonial Brazil had been divided by the shameful wall of slavery. Our Lady of Aparecida appears with a black face, first separated, and then united in the hands of the fishermen Here there is an enduring message which God wants to teach us. His own beauty, reflected in his Mother. conceived without original sin, emerges from the darkness of the river.

    The fishermen do not dismiss the mystery encountered in the river, even if it is a mystery which seems incomplete. They do not throw away the pieces of the mystery. They await its completion. Then the fishermen bring the mystery home. Ordinary people always have room to take in the mystery.

    Perhaps we have reduced our way of speaking about mystery to rational explanations; but for ordinary people the mystery enters through the heart. In the homes of the poor, God always finds a place.

    The fishermen โ€œbundle upโ€ the mystery, they clothe the Virgin drawn from the waters as if she were cold and needed to be warmed… The fishermen wrap the mystery of the Virgin with the lowly mantle of their faith. They call their neighbours to see its rediscovered beauty; they all gather around and relate their troubles in its presence and they entrust their causes to it.

    There is much we can learn from the approach of the fishermenโ€ฆ We speak about mission, about a missionary Church. I think of those fishermen calling their neighbours to see the mystery of the Virgin. Without the simplicity of their approach, our mission is doomed to failure

    Another lesson which the Church must constantly recall is that she cannot leave simplicity behind; otherwise she forgets how to speak the language of Mystery. Not only does she herself remain outside the door of the mystery, but she proves incapable of approaching those who look to the Church for something which they themselves cannot provide, namely, God himself.

    Francis sees โ€œmysteryโ€ and โ€œsimplicityโ€ united in the experience of ordinary people rooted in their faith, their hope, and their love. Our liturgies should be full of both mystery and simplicity, but both have to be rooted in religious experience (the faith, hope, and love) of ordinary people not intellectualisms of experts which in the case of liturgical translations seem to want to set mystery and simplicity in opposition.

    1. Jordan Zarembo

      @Jack Rakosky – comment #6:

      Jack, quoting Pope Francis: Perhaps we have reduced our way of speaking about mystery to rational explanations; but for ordinary people the mystery enters through the heart. In the homes of the poor, God always finds a place.

      This past Sunday’s gospel reading in the 1962 Missal is the Parable of the Pharisee and Publican [see Luke 18:9-14]. in his homily, the celebrant of the Mass I attended emphasized a phrase found in Vulgate Lk. 18:11, se orabat, “he was praying to himself”. The self-righteous and ostensibly materially privileged person might speak the words of prayer but in actuality pray only to satisfy his or her egotism or vanity. However, isn’t it also possible for a privileged person to answer a pietistic impulse, to listen not to word and ritual but to the moral prompting of the heart?

      It is an error for a professed Catholic to confess Luther’s simul justus and peccator, or his teaching that justification in baptism does not cleanse of sin but merely imputes justification onto an ever-sinful believer. It is not heresy, however, for a Catholic to confirm that all persons are capable of being both pharisee and publican at different points in life. What concerns me about Pope Francis’s sermon is the implication that educationally or materially impoverished persons are somehow more capable of a “heartfelt” movement towards faith than more privileged brothers and sisters in Christ. Every person is capable of se orabat. Why is Pope Francis unwilling to affirm what I am sure he knows: that the full range of ritual and spiritual affection are open to all the baptized regardless of education, wealth, or social standing.

  7. Dave Jaronowski

    Fr. Ruff, and you, of course, believe that this all is meant to apply to liturgy, when there’s nothing to suggest that he was talking about liturgy at all …

    The hazard of a liturgist: we see everything as being about liturgy, me included.

    See you in DC!

    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      @Dave Jaronowski – comment #7:
      David, you might want to reread my post. I explicitly wrote, “Of course he wasn’t referring to that [i.e., the new Roman Missal],” then went on to say that it could be made to apply to it anyway. That is to say, I acknowledged that I was applying his comments in a way he probably didn’t intend. I’m sorry you missed that.
      awr

  8. Ann Olivier

    It’s quite understandable that a great deal of attention is given here to the words and the music of the Mass. What has struck me as being absent is consideration of gestures and the other physical parts (e.g., artworks and the physical elements of the liturgy). In other words, Mass as theater doesn’t seem to be a concern here.

    Surely Pope Francis’ simple actions from carrying his own valise to washing the feet of prisoners prove that simple actions can have enormous teaching value. Please, experts, give the physical parts of the Mass more attention when you’re trying to improve the ritual. These days the dramatic elements, and their inter-relationships, leave a lot to be desired, or so I see it. Aside from the poor translations, the Mass as a whole doesn’t seem to hang together very well except for the Offertory, Consecration and Communion which do remain tightly integrated.

    (And I continue to wonder whether it’s even *possible* for one single Mass format to be very meaningful for all the local churches — gestures from culture to culture differ so much. But that’ s another, even more difficult question.)

  9. Jack Rakosky

    Collegiality and solidarity in the Episcopal Conference

    This section of the document may also have implications for liturgy and translation

    The Church in Brazil needs more than a national leader; it needs a network of regional โ€œtestimoniesโ€ which speak the same language and in every place ensure not unanimity, but true unity in the richness of diversity.

    Communion is a fabric to be woven with patience and perseverance, one which gradually โ€œdraws together the stitchesโ€ to make a more extensive and thick cover. A threadbare cover will not provide warmth.

    It is important to remember Aparecida, the method of gathering diversity together. Not so much a diversity of ideas in order to produce a document, but a variety of experiences of God, in order to set a vital process in motion.

    The disciples of Emmaus returned to Jerusalem, recounting their experience of meeting the risen Christ. There they came to know other manifestations of the Lord and the experiences of their brothers and sisters. The Episcopal Conference is precisely a vital space for enabling such an exchange of testimonies about encounters with the Risen One, in the north, in the south, in the westโ€ฆ There is need, then, for a greater appreciation of local and regional elements. Central bureaucracy is not sufficient; there is also a need for increased collegiality and solidarity. This will be a source of true enrichment for all.

    Do we really need one translation for the English speaking world? Would it not be better to have many regional testimonies which ensure not unanimity but unity in the richness of diversity? Does not the idea of one English translation falsely imply that there is only one way to translate the Latin? Does it not invite the Vatican to try to regulate that translation since they fear that it (rather than the Latin) will be the basis for translation into non-English languages?

    Do we really need just one translation for the USA? Donโ€™t we have a richness of diversity and the high level of education that we could easily have multiple translations in use? Even in the same region? Even in the same diocese?

    It seems to me that the starting point for translation is not in the original Latin text, nor in some goal of a uniform English translation, but rather in the huge diversity of religious experience among all the nationalities that have come and continue to come to this country (European, African, Latin-American, Asian, Eastern Catholic).

  10. Dave Jaronowski

    I did see that part, but when you highlighted “relic of the past” and “rigid formulas,” it seemed like you were off the topic of translation and onto a new, but related topic, of liturgy.

    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      @Dave Jaronowski – comment #11:
      Yes. Exactly as a wrote. I said, “Speaking of the loss of members to the Pentecostal churches, he said this: …” And then what follows has to do with anything in the church, liturgy or otherwise, that the Pope thinks contributes to the loss of members.

      I’m really not following what your point is.

      awr

  11. Ann Olivier

    Some questions: Does the Mass itself have a “grammar of simplicity”? What IS the grammar of the Mass? Is it some simple structure that determines what the details will be? What is that simple structure? A bloodless sacrifice of a God-man? Which sorts of sub-parts does it require to make it fully meaningful to the participants? The structure obviously must begin and end in time. What should it begin with? And what end with? (The central parts are still awesome, to put it mildly.)

    Just asking as an old lady former aesthetics teacher now a pew warmer.

    1. Bill deHaas

      @Ann Olivier – comment #13:
      Ann – try this link: http://www.tomrichstatter.org/eEucharist/e00index.htm#Part_3_Structure_and_Elements

      Simple structure = Emmaus story

      Gathering, Story telling, meal sharing, commissioning

      Meal sharing – sub-parts: setting the table, saying the blessing; breaking and sharing by eating/drinking

  12. Ann Olivier

    OH OH! Be careful for what you wish for!!!! I just visited Rod Dreher’s blog and found this extraordinary video of the bishops in Rio learning some choreography, I assume for a Mass!!! Be Careful!!!!

    (But I think I kind of like it even if it is funny???)

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/

    1. Mark Miller

      @Ann Olivier – comment #14:
      Looks to me that those bishops mostly know this routine already.
      Hurray!

    2. Jack Rakosky

      @Ann Olivier – comment #14:

      This choreography was part of the warm up of the young people before the Mass. They are not just going to stand around waiting for the Mass to begin.

      Since the bishops were to be in their places before start of the Mass, it seems logical for the organizers as part of the practice, to teach the bishops how to participate in the youth warm-up.

      After all many bishops make a big point to be with their young people for WYD. Some of them report that 10% of their vocations come from people who have participated in WYD, and they would be in even deeper trouble without that 10%.

      I saw part of the warm up before the actual Mass; some of the bishops took part in the choreography; some did not. I like giving people options at Mass, even including bishops.

  13. Charles Day

    The Pope is sending a lot of signals about what he would accept/do personally/like to see in parishes and in the Church at large. This started right away and has continued progressively in the short time since his selection. Barely a day goes by without him doing something to get our attention on some departure from the past.

    However, as far as I can tell there is no official change in the immediate future on anything to do with the liturgy, whether in regard to language or music. I know it is early – official changes, even if they do occur, might take years – but it causes me to wonder if he is telling us to do as he does and not so much as he (i.e., the Church) says?

  14. Paul Nienaber SJ

    The “grammar of simplicity” comment resonates (at least for me) with a comment John Baldovin SJ made in his Hymn Society paper delivered earlier this month, to the effect that addressing mystery with the tools of analysis and critical problem-solving (however well-suited those implements may be to other tasks) is often less successful than an approach based on narrative — that this is not a puzzle but a story.

  15. Ann Olivier

    Fr. Nienaber —

    Hmmm. Narrative, presentation of mystery, presentation of puzzle. Three different grammars (ways of organizing) the Mass. Can Mass be all three? It would be strongest if it were both narrative and mystery. Not sure about the puzzle — a puzzle is a question with a definite answer, unlike a mystery.

    I still think that it is the artists, including the poets and the theater professionals, who can most easily come up with an effective grammar, though the theologians are needed for the mystery.

    (I wonder what sort of grammar Shakespeare would invent for the Mass.)


Posted

in

by

Discover more from Home

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

Continue reading