October 7,
2012
David
Timbs
Another
Disaster in the making?
Commenting
on the imminent introduction of the new English-language translation of the
Roman Missal over a year ago, Fr Thomas Reece sj, former editor of America
Magazine, described it as a ‘train wreck in slow motion.’ Signs are that
it may well have collided with an immovable force long ago. That force is the
re-emerging mass confusion, disquiet, criticism, protest and resistance to the
translation. [1]
It
has long been the dream of Benedict XVI to bring about a substantial change in
the structure of the Roman Rite of the liturgy. He signalled this wish while he
was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when he wrote in a
2003 letter to an lay member of the SSPX. He spoke of his wish for a hybrid,
wherein the elements of the Traditional Rite would be combined with innovations
of the Novus Ordo. This is now promoted with increasing vigour as mutual
enrichment. Cardinal Raymond Burke has been at the forefront in promoting
the idea in the English speaking world but heavily slanting the pitch in favour
of the traditional Latin Mass.
What
the traditionalist say about the Novus Ordo
A
constant criticism of Traditionalists is that the Novus Ordo has become too much
of a manufactured human performance and has consequently lost the profound sense
of God-centeredness. Burke observed,
however, in a NCN interview (28/11/11) that under the direction of JP II and
Benedict XVI, errors and distortions emanating from post Vat II reforms had been
mostly eliminated. The authentic
liturgical vision of the Council has been restored to the pristine purity of a
‘God-centred liturgy and not a man-centred liturgy.’
Burke
attributes most of success of the ‘correction’ to the unrestricted
reinstatement of the Latin Mass, “The celebration of the Mass in the
extraordinary form is now less and less contested and that people are seeing the
great beauty of the rite as it was celebrated since the time of Pope Gregory the
Great (6thC).” The traditional role of the priest has been reaffirmed and
validated as Burke insists that, “The priest is the servant of the rite.
Christ has given us the sacred liturgy in his Church and the priest serves. He
is not the protagonist.”
The
old Tridentine rite did have its critics at least for its stilted, clerical,
formalism, studied ornateness and the disengagement of the people. Of note here
is young theologian, Joseph Ratzinger. In his Vat II diaries, he criticised the
Latin Mass for having developed into a kind of elaborate operatic performance
and that among the few things that the priest and people had in common was that
they were in the same church at the same time. The focus of their attention was
different: the priest attended to the strict requirements of the rubrics - under
pain of sin - while the people concentrated on the common pieties which
sustained them.
Anthony
Ruff OSB, formerly of ICEL, has recently echoed some of Ratizinger’s
observations, “Even at its best, Mass with the 1962 Missal doesn’t bring out
at all that the priestly community is brought into Christ’s self-offering by
their self-emptying to each other for the sake of the world, drawing them closer
to the community. Even at its best, it looks like there’s only the priest, and
everyone else is privileged a) to be present as he offers sacrifice and b) to
receive grace his Ritual brings them.” Pray Tell comment 05/09/10.
The
criticism of the Traditionalists that the Novus Ordo promoted the image of
‘priest-as-entertainer’ comes monumentally unstuck when one observes the
studied mechanistic, even narcissistic operatic performance of the priest within
the securely gated sanctuary of the intensely clericalised Extraordinary Form.
What
some are saying about new Missal
There
have clearly been very mixed responses to the new mandated English translation
of the Roman Missal. Among the consistently critical voices, Irish theologian
Joe O’Leary perhaps sums up what many if not most Catholics are feeling. It
has been a huge challenge for the authorities to ‘sell’ the translation from
start to implementation. O’Leary explains why, “..simply because the
translation is so bad. Had the 1998 translation been accepted by Rome they would
have received it with gladness. The present botched job will cause only
headaches all round.” (Cathnews comment, 03/05/11).
And
Gerard Flynn notes on the same article O’Leary was responding to, “...it
tries to spiritualise the situation we find ourselves in now that we are
presented with a hybrid of English words and Latin syntax and all brought
together by unscrupulous political restorationism.” Pray Tell 06/05/11.
There
is lingering bitterness and resentment from many quarters about the overturning
of the translation protocols of the 1969 Comme le Prevoit and its
methodology of dynamic equivalence by CDW Prefect Jorge Cardinal Medina-Estevez
in his March 2001 document, Liturgiam Authenticam. The excellent new
translation of 1998, despite the approval of the world’s English speaking
Episcopal Conference, was rejected. Vox Clara was established to micro-manage
ICEL in the provision of a slavishly and mechanistically literal translation
from Latin.
Bishop
Thomas J. Tobin of Providence Rhode Island in a recent pastoral letter on Our
Prayer should be Simple wrote, “The Sacramentary that was used for many
years after the Second Vatican Council was 1099 pages long. The new Roman
Missal, just introduced, has 1341 pages and is rife with long sentences, too
many dependent clauses, and ineffable words like consubstantial, firstly,
abasement and prevenient.” Rhode Island Catholic, 06/09/12 [2]
Now,
after the years spent in attempting to convince Catholics that the former Missal
translation was inadequate and, indeed, unworthy of the Eucharist, even more
energy is going into persuading the faithful that there is yet another grand
leap to be taken. It will be extremely interesting to see if the Congregation
for Divine Worship will have the humility and the nerve to admit that it had all
been a ghastly mistake.
Why
mutual enrichment or a single Rite will never work
Mutual
enrichment was a bad idea at the time, is a very bad idea now and it will never
work. Despite all the advocacy work in its favour, any kind of conflation of the
Rites is a pipe-dream.
The
strategy of the SSPX and their natural allies is to engage in predictable
delaying tactics. These take the forms of utter black balling and rejection on
the one hand and appeals for special treatment on the other. A survey of the
many Traditionalist and Restorationist websites and journals will make it plain
that these people cannot and will not budge. History has stopped for them. There
is no longer any possibility of development of the liturgy even organic. It all
ceased developing centuries ago. For them, it is now fixed and cannot be
tampered with. They even call the Rite of the Latin Mass, The
Immemorial Mass of all Ages.
The
rigidity and inflexibility of the SSPX have actually been reinforced and, in
some way validated, by Benedict XVI himself who has lifted the bans of
excommunication on the four bishops illicitly consecrated by the schismatic Arch
Lefebvre. The Pope has been proactive in directing Curial departments to
initiate and continue negotiations with the SSPX with a view to reincorporating
them into the Catholic Church. The sticking point for the Lefebvrists is, and
always will be, the authority of Vatican II in the continuum of ecclesiastical
history.
The
major obstacle to their acceptance of the Council is Benedict’s hermeneutic
of continuity which insists that Vatican II stands in the line of the
previous dogmatic councils without rupture. Furthermore, Benedict has taught
that all of them are contained in Vatican II. To guarantee non reception of this
is the insistence of Benedict, through Porta Fidei that all of the preceding
subsist in the personal Magisterium of JP II and his own. SSPX and even the so
called liberals would see this as an illustration of a profound discontinuity
and rupture.
A
key factor driving Benedict’s desire for a single Rite is his theology of
Church. He firmly believes in the historical and theological priority of the
Universal Church. He seems to have little or no understanding of the local
church or the legitimate historical authority that goes with it especially in
matters of governance and liturgical order. All of this was affirmed by Vatican
II especially in Lumen Gentium.
While
Benedict has continued to insist that nobody has the authority to change the
‘divinely instituted’ structure of the Church, the Eucharist in particular,
that is precisely what he has done, ignoring the principles of collegiality,
co-responsibility and subsidiarity mandated by Vatican II. He has managed the
complete overhaul of the various vernacular translations of the Roman Missal
under the aegis of a very authoritarian papacy. [3]
He
has long planned for and is now setting in place procedures for the
implementation of a single liturgical rite in the Latin Church and he has
succeeded spectacularly in painting himself into a corner. No one can be happy
with what is going on and it is showing.
The
SSPX will never accept post Vat II reforms such laity inside the sanctuary,
communion under both kinds, a revised calendar, Eucharistic prayers other than
the Roman Canon or any form of vernacular. All such are deemed to be modernist
innovations and as such are gravely erroneous and contrary to God’s Will. The
identity of these believers stands or fall on such convictions.
On
the other hand, the people who have grown up with the Novus Ordo will not accept
the levels of ecclesiastical compliance, conformity and exclusion the SSPX
demand. The Catholics of the vernacular and lay ministry generation will
vigorously resist the abolition or limitation of liturgical developments since
Vatican II which they so highly value as confirmation of their baptismal gifts.
The
vision of Benedict for a single Rite in the western Church may be well
intentioned on his part, but it is ill-conceived, unrealistic and would be a
catastrophe for all Catholics. The Eucharist itself would become the source of
scandalous division for the People of God and a terrible defeat for the Gospel
of Christ. Prudence and sanity must prevail if unity is to be protected. The
Catholic Church will implode if division is accepted as the price of enforced
uniformity. It will flourish if legitimate differences are respected.
There
is a large section of the Church which has a genuine need of the Extraordinary
Form of the Mass. There is, however, a vast majority of Catholics who equally
have a genuine and legitimate need and right to the Eucharist in the vernacular
and not in a latinised version of it.
[1] For a theologian’s critique of the New Missal twelve months after implementation, see Anthony Lowes’ two part series published Sept-Oct in Catholica. For a pastor’s assessment of the New Missal, click [Here]
[2]
The observations on the New Roman Missal are found in Bishop Thomas Tobin’s
letter, Our Prayer should be Simple. The text is linked [Here]
[3]
For Benedict’s recent public audience address on the official prayer of the
Church, click [Here]
David
Timbs writes from Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.