May 13, 2012
David Timbs
Anatomy
of a Reform
A theologian’s
visions
During
first session of the Second Vatican Council in 1962 the debate on the
Constitution on the Divine Liturgy was just underway when Cardinal Alfredo
Ottaviani, head of the Holy Office, rose to speak and asked the question, Are
the Fathers planning a revolution? So great was Ottaviani’s disquiet and
so persistent his protestations that, on day three of that session, his
microphone was turned off! A young priest-theologian would, decades later
symbolically switch it back on again.
Fr
Joseph Ratzinger, Professor of theology at Bonn University, was in his
mid-thirties when Cardinal Frings of Cologne invited him to be his theological
advisor, peritus, at the Second
Vatican Council. Ratzinger held in the greatest respect the theological giants
of the time, de Lubac, Congar, Danielou, Schillebeeckx, Rahner and others. He
was standing on the shoulders of giants and he knew it. He wholeheartedly
celebrated the fact that much of their scholarship was forming the basis for
Conciliar debate and subsequent documents.
In
a long article published on March 31, 2010 in Commonweal
(republished online in The Free
Library), John Wilkins examines the diary entries of Professor Ratzinger
during the Council and compares his thoughts then with those of the later
Cardinal Ratzinger/ Pope Benedict XVI. Of particular interest here, are
Ratzinger’s evaluations of the Council’s liturgical reforms. Wilkins’
notes follow with Ratzinger’s words in bold italics,
“Trent,
he writes, centralized all liturgical authority in a priestly bureaucratic
Congregation of Rites. Lacking
historical perspective,
the Congregations viewed the liturgy solely in terms of ceremonial rubrics; a sort
of court etiquette for sacred matters prevailed reducing the
liturgy to a rigid, fixed, and firmly encrusted system. ….. a
total impoverishment of the liturgy. Ratzinger wrote that the Baroque
High Mass became a kind of sacred opera, that during its celebration the
people simply went about their private devotions. On the relationship between
congregation and congregation during Mass, he wrote, They were united with him only
by being in the same Church with him. For Ratzinger, if the liturgy’s
proper function was to be recovered, the
wall of Latinity had to be breached.”
No
surprisingly, Ratzinger’s observations at the time on the need for liturgical
reform reflect what the Council Fathers themselves envisioned and directed,
The rite of the Mass is to
be revised in such a way that the intrinsic purpose of its several parts, as
well as the connection between them, may be more clearly shown, and that the
devout and active participation of the faithful may be more easily achieved. To
this end, the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their
substance. Duplications
made with the passage of time are to be omitted, as are less useful additions.
Other parts that are lost through the vicissitudes of history are to be restored
according to the tradition of the Holy Fathers, as may seem appropriate or
necessary. –
Sacrosanctum Concilium,
#50.
At
some stage, probably after the tumultuous events of 1968, Joseph Ratzinger began
to have second thoughts about the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.
He became
concerned that the Council should not be seen to be in any way discontinuous
with past Conciliar tradition and the transmission lines of doctrine. By 1998
and now Cardinal Ratzinger of the CDF, he wrote that, in his view, the negatives
of liturgical reform had come to outweigh the benefits, almost
to the point of pushing liturgy toward its own self-destruction.
A
Cardinal
re-envisions the Vision
It
is quite obvious now that during his years at the CDF Ratzinger had specific
plans for the reform of the Mass in the Latin Rite. In a 2003 letter to Heinz
Lothar-Barth, a German Catholic academic with strong links to the SSPX,
Ratzinger outlined his vision for a single Latin Rite. Ratzinger was cautious at
the time but quite clear on what the future might hold,
Whether the Holy See will
“admit the old rite again for every place and without restrictions” as you
desire and have heard it rumoured cannot be simply answered or confirmed without
further ado. Still too great is the aversion of so many Catholics, instilled in
them over many years, against
the traditional liturgy
which they scornfully
call “preconciliar”. Also
one would have to reckon with considerable
resistance on the part of many bishops against a general readmission.
Things
look different, however, if one thinks about a limited readmission. The demand
for the old liturgy is limited, too, I know that its worth, of course, does not
depend upon the demand for it, but the question of the number of interested
priests and laypeople, nevertheless, plays a certain role. Besides, such a
measure can now, only some 30 years after the liturgy reform of Paul VI, be
implemented only stepwise. Any new hurry would surely not be a good thing.
I
believe, though, that in the long term the Roman church must have again a single
Roman Rite. The existence of two official rites is for bishops and priests
difficult to “manage” in practice. The Roman rite of the future should be a
single rite, celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular, but standing completely
in the tradition of the rite that has been handed down. It could take up some
new elements which have proven themselves, like new feasts, some new prefaces in
the Mass, and expanded lectionary – more choice than earlier, but not too much,
-….
The
Pope realises the Cardinal’s dream
Within
a few years of this letter, Cardinal Ratzinger had already used all of his
influence to realise his vision with a great deal more haste than he previously
envisioned. He made his first decisive move on the liturgy of the Catholic
English speaking world.
At
Ratzinger’s direction, the 1998 ICEL Missal translation was shelved despite
having been accepted by all of the English speaking Episcopal Conferences and
Vatican Recognitio. A completely new
literal translation from Latin was commissioned under the watch of Vox
Clara.
Now,
under his aegis as Pope Benedict XVI, the new Missal has been officially
mandated and launched in most Anglophone countries by now. The conversations and
debates over its acceptance or dissatisfaction have been mixed, quite noticeably
conflicting and they continue.
Despite
the earlier ponderings by Card. Ratzinger on the coexistence of the
extraordinary and ordinary forms of the Mass, there is now a noticeable drift
towards some sort of composite of the two. The language increasingly used by
Vatican officials might be construed as signifying a softening up of the popular
Catholic mind to the reception of an even more unified liturgical construct
called a mutual enrichment of the two
rites.
From
the very beginning of his pontificate, Benedict has been at pains to justify his
reform of the Reform by invoking the argument of reform
in Continuity. He argues
that Vatican II did not in any substantial way separate itself from the previous
conciliar tradition. Not everyone, however, is convinced of this. The leadership
of the extremely marginal SSPX insists that Vat II is in rupture with the
Tradition on matters of dogma not simply disciplines or Canon Law. More liberal
observers, while not going that far, are arguing that a number of radical and
revolutionary things took place on the floor of the Council which represent a
significant departure from the Tradition.
Boston
College professor of Ecclesiology, Richard R. Gaillardetz, Commonweal
2007, has examined these aspects of continuity and discontinuity in great
detail. He notes that in his
2005 address on the question of continuity, discontinuity and Vat II
Benedict attempts to seek middle ground between the two poles. He claims that
Benedict has discounted the very possibility of substantive change in the
thinking and directives of the Council, It
(Benedict’s homogenisation of Conciliar history) fails
to do justice to the dynamics of the tradition, in general, and to the shifts in
Church teaching embraced by the bishops at Vatican II.
Gaillardetz
cites Australian theologian Ormond Rush who argues that while Vatican II was not
in any kind of major rupture with previous Conciliar history it did in fact move
significantly beyond previous Councils in the development of doctrine and
discipline in some important areas.
Vatican
II clearly did not represent a macro-rupture, but the Council did effect
specific micro-ruptures, especially with regard to religious freedom, the
Church’s stance towards Judaism, the need for fundamental reform of the
liturgy, and our understanding of the relationship among hierarchy, clergy and
laity.
While
Benedict and the Roman Curia continue to insist that Vat II added nothing
substantially new, Gaillardetz is much more critically nuanced. He insists that,
on the basis of a rigorous assessment, an open and honest acceptance must be
made, namely that Vatican II was both the work of the Holy Spirit and that real
substantial development in the tradition occurred,
Finally,
we must have the courage to embrace the possibility that at Vatican II genuine
change, innovation, and even reversal were not repudiation of the great
tradition but signs that the Spirit continues to move among God’s people. Only
with that recognition can the Council continue to be a sign of hope for the Church
today.
It
may well be that in the forthcoming Year
of Faith commemorating the
fiftieth anniversary of the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, we might
hear an almighty Yes to Cardinal
Ottaviani’s horrified question all those years ago, Fathers,
are you planning a revolution?
Next
Sunday’s article will take up the debate on the contentious issue of ‘for
many’ or ‘for all’ in the Eucharistic Memorial words over the cup. The
Pope has made his decision very clear. Is that the end of it all?
David Timbs writes from Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
If
you would like to comment on this article, please send comment to John W:
jdwomi@gmail.com
Comments will be uploaded within 24 hours
From Joseph Quigley,
May 14:
I remember a distinction made when one appealed to St Thomas Aquinas as an authority
on some philosophical point.
Thomas junior - concedo.
Thomas senior - nego.
I suppose that is what would be said if one appealed to Benedict as an authority
on the need for enculturation of the Liturgy:
Ratzinger junior - concedo
Ratzinger senior - nego.
The distinction infers that the opinion of the senior is superior to the junior
because the senior's is based on more experience, more study, more reflection,
more consultation etc.
Of course that inference is not always justified.
It could be that the change in opinion was the result of junior falling under the influence
of a person or persons who could progress his career, warn him against the dire
consequences (real or imagined) of his opinion, convince him that God couldn't
possibly want him to hold that opinion (with or without visionary proof!), etc.
So I can only guess when I say I think Benedict is out of touch at the parochial level
with what is happening in the world today.
And his advisers (most of them anyway) are just as out of touch.
I'm indebted to David Timbs for his keeping track of what has happened
to the church post-Vatican 2.