This blogger makes an interesting point:
With the benefit of hindsight, it could be argued that the normal celebration of mass in the vernacular was unfortunate. It seems not to have been the intention of Vatican II, since the official document states only that mass “may” be celebrated in the vernacular, with the implication that it was a departure from the norm, which would for the mass to continue to be celebrated in Latin.
It is increasingly clear to me that the fatal flaw of Sacrosanctum Concilium is 36.3: “These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.”
Article 22.2, in turn, says: “In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.”
This is what opened the can of worms. The Catholic Church is a universal Church. To grant the regulation of the language within a nation to that nation is going to lead to the very thing that the Catholic Church so successfully mitigated against the whole of the middle ages: nationalism. It is no surprise that in only a few years following the promulgation of these seemingly innocuous words, the entire liturgical structure came to be shattered along language/ethnic/national lines. No single nation has an interest in preserving Latin; rather, the interests of the whole, which only Rome can protect, can defend Latin.
Maybe this can be seen better with the benefit of hindsight, but it strikes me that it should have been obvious that turning over the issue of language regulation to organizations organized along language lines was a grave error. Again, this is not a matter of faith or morals; it is a matter of management. Plainly, it was misstep.
With the forthcoming translation into English, we see steps away from this practice. The power to regulate language is being taken away from the national conference and is going back to Rome. This is happening in view of the obvious and undeniable incompetence that has thus far been shown in responsibly managing the language of liturgy: one only needs to look at the Latin vs. the English of the Gloria to see the point.
In this sense, the “progressives” are correct: the methods used to bring about the new translation are indeed steps away from Sacrosanctum Concilium, or at least this part of it. And it’s a good thing too. To save the document, it has become necessary to reign in some parts so that other parts may flourish. After all, the same document in section 23 says: “There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”
One wonders what an alternative history of the postconciliar era might have looked like if 36.3 never existed.
I think this quoted blogger might be confusing unity and uniformity. Common mistake.
It might also be argued that the use of an incomprehensible language (including its inaudibility) is a nod to gnosticism. Namely, that only a privileged class has the tools to comprehend a message for a privileged few.
The shift in liturgical responsibility from bishops to bureaucrats is decidedly non-traditional. The former have a sacramental office and a Christocentric connection with the leadership of local churches. The latter are a modern development intended to cement a political reality. At a time when clergy complain of a disconnect from bishops, a possible response is to remove their brotherly influence one or more steps farther from counsel? That seems counterproductive to me. Perhaps when Roman Catholicism covered one-half of a continent, it was marginally workable. But to deal with Catholics on six? It would seem that the Church needs a substantial helping of subsidiarity on this. To trust multiple translation of the liturgy to bureaucrats both ignorant of linguistics and, seemingly, liturgy, invites failure, ridicule, breach of morale, and is a disruption of the sacrament of Holy Orders.
We should return to SC1 and reconsider its aims:
– to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful;
– to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change;
– to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ;
– to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church
These are bold ideals, fitting for a Church focused on the universal proclamation of Christ. Vigor in the Christian life, adaptation, Christian unity, and evangelization: these are principles worthy of a council. Continuity is a minor player–one mention, compared to at least twenty for participation. And liturgical participation isn't even a primary goal of the Council. At best, continuity is a third-level principle to be applied for outright innovation; probably not even simple reforms.
The notion that Catholic liturgical vernacular would contribute to nationalism seems overly optimistic. Nation states grew ever stronger after Trent, not Vatican II. While they may consist of a plurality in a few English-speaking countries, Catholics are the majority in Ireland alone among ICEL members.
The main shift in power in the past several decades has been away from nation-states and toward corporations. It's a creative effort from "Physiocrat," but I have to wonder about his grasp of politics and history as well as his understanding of theology on this one.
Yes, Jeffrey, that's the crux of the matter:
"To grant the regulation of the language within a nation [to that nation] is going to lead to the very thing that the Catholic Church so successfully mitigated against the whole of the middle ages: nationalism. It is no surprise that in only a few years following the promulgation of these seemingly innocuous words, the entire liturgical structure came to be shattered along language/ethnic/national lines. No single nation has an interest in preserving Latin; rather, the interests of the whole, which only Rome can protect, can defend Latin."
The desire for a vernacular Mass was very strong at the time of the council among certain powerful figures in the Church and at the local diocese and even parishes. Most ordinary folks were ambivalent, if not opposed, but they were never consulted. When you have a cause that is very important for you to pursue, a minority can with little effort impose its will on a passive majority. Of course it is a bit more complicated than that, especially when the changes into vernacular were perceived as coming from the top, where every Catholic had to acquiesce through obedience.
Once you put "may" into a binding document, with some effort it can become a "must". Everyone knows the adage "give an inch and take a mile". Once the window was opened to let in some fresh air, there was little to stop all the doors and windows in the house from being opened to change the whole air.
What really helped this hegenomy of the vernacular was transferring more power of decision making to the local bishops, something that Vatican II was responsible for, the idea of collegiality. I have wondered if this was not the influence of the Americans at the council, with their idea of democracy. Of course, the competent authority became the bishop's conferences which imposed their will on all the bishops in the country. The Bishop's conferences at the time perceived Vatican II not just as allowing the vernacular but as calling for it because of the need for being pastoral and for more "active" participation. This was the strongest most powerful view after the council, almost everywhere; it was the fresh air the Church needed. Goodness, was not even Weakland able to become the president of the CMAA, at least for a short while! O tempus, O mores.
But this is precisely the problem today. The thinking at the time was by the WWII generation, helped by a rebellious emerging baby boomer generation at least for a very short while. The "reformed" Mass of the Bugnini group could easily be interpreted to fit the needs of the times. The Hegelian idea of community became very strong during the height of the cold war and became the leitmotif of interpreting the liturgical documents. But of course, the world started changing rapidly after VietNam was over. A new world emerged by the 90's, but the "reformed" liturgy remained the same focused on the needs of the 60's and 70's. The needs of the 2010's are quite different. For one, the growing de-sacralisation of the world is growing at full speed in the "advanced" societies. Where can a young person find the sacred today? More than ever, the world needs the EF Mass so that people can be offered a place in this world to get a glimpse of the heavenly realm. If one does not have that noumenal idea of the Holy, there is no point of even discussing God with him. Perhaps this is possible with the OF Mass celebrated properly, but there are just too many constraints at this time from those who still think that the liturgy should be celebrated the way of the 60's and 70's.
I would suggest that part of the driving force of Trent was precisely to curb nationalism – one might say that it went too far in this respect.
Ted, your analysis is interesting, but conflicts at times with what I've read.
I think the implementation of the vernacular was a surprise to American laity, but sociologists tend to agree that the Church staved off European-sized defections because of the reformed liturgy.
"When you have a cause that is very important for you to pursue, a minority can with little effort impose its will on a passive majority."
And yet, this didn't happen with Humanae Vitae, more often cited as the single greatest post-conciliar reason for defection–until the bishops' cover-up scandals. No acquiesence on that point, and generally sex issues have been treated with far greater moral gravity than the language of liturgy.
"I have wondered if this was not the influence of the Americans at the council, with their idea of democracy."
Probably not. It was definitely French/German.
As for " … allowing the vernacular but as calling for it because of the need for being pastoral and for more 'active' participation." I'm not too sure about this point. The vernacular is a nod to intelligibility, the opening of the Mass and its meaning to the laity, who up to this point, were either disengaged spectators, or disconnected from the clerical ritual action at the Mass.
Agreement with you about the strong desacralization in Western culture. I tend to blame rationalism, which is still strongly rooted in certain conservative circles, especially the idea of a willful assent to authority.
The 60's were certainly a complicated time, to be sure. My personal take is that the death of Marilyn Monroe set it all in motion. It's at least as valid a confluence of events as anything else people suggest.
Too funny, Todd.
I'm sticking to my story that the flashpoint of the sixties was at Cal Berkeley around '62/63 with Mario Savio and the Free Speech Movement.
But my literally physical aversion to joining my wife to watch "Madmen" attests to the reality that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Eisenhower/Disney years was falacious and rotten to the core.
One has to understand the provisions of SC on this point in light of the intervention of Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh of Antioch in favor of the use of the vernacular, one of the key interventions of the entire council. The wording of SC is a compromise, but the Patriarch's intervention (in dramatic contrast to Cdl Ottaviani's intervention) was thunderously welcomed. To look at the text without understanding that intervention and the reaction to it is to miss a lot.
Liam, either I didn't know that or I had forgotten that. Is there more information you can provide?
These will get your started; there's a lot on this intervention out there, though I am not sure how much is online.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FOEiFDGe00wC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=Maximos+IV+Saigh+of+Antioch+in+favor+of+the+use+of+the+vernacular,&source=bl&ots=4UUeMyP5-X&sig=hz3qKTp9j-Go7H27n870WlamXy0&hl=en&ei=cQNjTIONJ8T48Aa2_dTaCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://verbatimetapothegm.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-about-use-of-vernacular-in-mass.html
My impression of SC 36.3 is that it operated to avoid revealing too much of a brutta figura on the part of the Curia, but the tide went with the Patriarch, who also won on his interventions on behalf of the Eastern Churches, and who was soon rewarded with a red hat for the esteem with which he was held during the Council. How the council fathers intended to implement 36.3 is pretty much seen in the scope with which they permitted the vernacular in the preliminary implementation of the liturgical reforms that started during the Council.
I don't interpret that to mean they intended Latin to be banished in the way some interpreted developments. But I think you need to understand the fear about the shift that was evident in the lead-up to the discussion was more of the "Can we really do this?" kind than deep-rooted principled resistance; once they realized "Yes, we can do this?", the results followed in quick order. Texts need to be understood in their contexts that way.
And that does not mean the implementation was all AOK, either. I am making the much more limited argument that appeal to the text – Scalia-style, as it were – is inadequate as a historical matter, as a theological matter and as a pastoral matter. I make the same argument to my fellow progressives who have over the years resorted to cherry-picking texts when they favored their desiderata.
My own hermeneutic: I am usually in favor of taking a scalpel to arguments in this realm, resisting grandiose theorizing and conceptualizing (way too Continental for my taste), and looking at facts and data from different perspectives (especially the human perspective over and above the theoretical perspective) before assessing reasonable interpretations (of which I assume there are usually more than one available).
This comment has been removed by the author.
Oh I completely agree about reading these texts. I've been misled many times by reading lawyer-like commentaries that have no root in the real history. You are so right to emphasize this.
Todd:
Thanks for your comments. But:
1.What you have read may be quite wrong.
2.Sociology is not a real science; if it were it would have predictive power like the natural sciences do, but it does not. I would not base my liturgical views on sociology.
3.Your mention of Humanae Vitae is important because it shows that the conferences were going one way, against the way of the Vatican, and that includes liturgy.
4.I do not want to raise the question of religious freedom in a modern democratic society, but that issue was raised and became important during Vatican II because of John Courtney Murray. The argument was precisely that the Church had to adapt itself to modern democracies. Democracy was important for the Americans.
5.You speak about modern day rationality and yet you favour a high degree of intelligibility in the Mass. The problem is that the Holy is beyond the rational. I think Rudolph Otto did a good job of showing the importance of that supra-rational level of cognition of the sacred, of the divine. Latin can be important here simply because it veils and yet points to the divine world. The Romans found it amusing when they looked behind the veil in the Temple as they were destroying the Temple to find nothing behind it. But they missed the whole point that the veil separates the common world of the profane from the world of the sacred; you can only have a "glimpse" of the divine realm on this earth, never really see it unless you have been blessed as a mystic. You need pointers.
6.Rationality has little to do with authority as such. The conservatives as you call them maybe respect the authority of the Church and the Scriptures but that is not a specialty of rationality.
7.Actually the war in Vietnam was THE issue for America in those times, much of the pop culture revolved around it, as did the rebelliousness of the youth.
well Todd, I guess we live with very different world views…
A historical note if anyone cares to reconsider how to view the youth rebellion in the '60s:
It was the parental generation where pluralities emerged against the war a year or two ahead of the youth generation, IIRC from reading years ago about the changes in the polled sentiments on the subject from the mid- to late-60s.
Thanks for the civil engagement on this, Ted. I want to state that I think implementation of SC was hamfisted in many areas. Though I would obviously agree with most of the specifics and the principles behind liturgical reforms, I have no problem ceding that implementation was blundered in some places, though not all.
"Sociology is not a real science …"
Well, that's what my classmates in the "hard" sciences were saying in college in the 70's. Rationalism ascendant, I guess.
"Humanae Vitae … shows that the conferences were going one way, against the way of the Vatican, and that includes liturgy."
Really? I think you need to elaborate on this. My sense was the parish priests, more than bishops and conferences, were stuck in the middle on this one. Liam's points are well taken. Certainly the curia wasn't pulling in the same direction as the conciliar bishops, or the pope, for that matter.
"Democracy was important for the Americans."
Sure it was. But I think the greater value coming out of the council was subsidiarity, hand in hand with collegiality.
"The problem is that the Holy is beyond the rational."
Sure. But we're also mortal beings attracted to the "accidents," if you will, of the material world. That God chose to become incarnate is testimony to the effectiveness of seeing the physical world as a route to the sacral. Just consider how Christmas eclipses Easter in the Christian mindset. Or the value attached to adoration–people using the consecrated sacrament (or statues, icons, beads, etc.).
The problem is when the means get mistaken for the spiritual end. On that point, I'd say that the Church has moved very little from before the council. SC 7 speaks of liturgy as the means of sanctification of the faithful. I think that sanctification happens on many levels. Most simply, the balance between action and contemplation. But that's a whole other topic.
Again, thanks for the engagement on this interesting topic.
Todd:
Actually I was thinking of the Winnipeg Statement on Humanae Vitae by the Canadian Bishops conference in 1968. To this day the conference has been reticent to amend what effectively amounts to an unofficial schism with Rome.
The authority of these conferences is still murky today, but they sure exercise it as if they were collective patriarchs for their nation. Perhaps the conference is convenient for the local bishops in reducing their workload, but in this way these conferences become the bodies that dictate at the local level.
We see the way the conferences published certain liturgical and musical documents in USA as guidelines, but in reality they had the effect of legislation. Like in so many nations, Latin was virtually banned after the council by the influence of these conferences, despite the wishes of Rome. The GIRM is amended for the nation and does not allow for variations at the local level. The whole idea of inculturation is now based on the national conferences, which raises the question of whether a nation is of one "culture" in the first place, or what exactly a nation and a "culture" are thought to be. Inculturation seems more about language these days than adaptation to some local "culture". Personally there should be one Catholic culture and one GIRM for the whole planet, and the idea of adapting to local "culture" be severely curtailed, as it seems to lead to a dangerous fragmentation of the Faith, especially when Bishops conferences get involved.
Ted, I think I see where you're going with this. I was not aware of the Winnipeg statement. Schism, however, usually is rooted not in a moral stance but in an ecclesiastical one.
I know one of the priests who was asked by the then-NCCB to write MCW in 1971. The writing committee included a well-known chant scholar, and at least two trained church organists–all clergy. You are right that these documents were intended as guidelines–there was little confidence at the time that legislation would improve the quality of church music. The best hope was that parishes, pastors, and church musicians would work to gradually improve conditions through engagement in planning, improving musical skills, and focusing on the essentials of the rite.
I recognize your reticence about "fragmentation," but the nature of evangelization in non-European cultures seems to demand a certain flexibility. The stated goal of the council in this regard is conversion to Christ and the Gospel, not a uniformity of rite. Even for Churches under the banner of Roman Catholicism there was never a single traditional rite, but several that were entirely sound in their approach to liturgy (Sarum, Gallican, Mozarabic, etc.). The notion of "one Catholic culture," aside from being anti-traditional, also seems needlessly limiting, if not provocative.
But I would be interested to hear more from you on that point. Do you accept the liturgical practices of the major orders that have their own sacramentaries (such as the Dominicans) or the Eastern rites (those loyal to Rome) or even the Ambrosian rite. Or are they all dangerous, too?
Todd:
Trent was faced with a similar issue. Different versions of the Missal had been appearing all over Europe for a while, not a few suspected of liturgical abuses and doctrinal errors. Trent did not have the resources nor manpower to check every altarbook, or every Sequence of the thousands going around for doctrinal compliance. Trent's solution was to replace all Missals that were 200 years or younger with the Roman Missal as faithfully transmitted from the time of St Gregory the Great. So the old Rites, of Milan, and so forth, which were quite ancient, remained untouched.
Today we live in a much more homogeneous world, where almost every culture is becoming re-cultured with American/English pop culture. Sure, things like music and vernacular language are variables, but then these are not big issues, or should not be. Th GIRM would need no changes in each country to accommodate those two. Yet why is it an issue for the American conference with, for instance, the new translation of the Missal? Why do Americans have to be different from other English speaking countries? Obviously American Catholics are not more stupid than those from other countries; yet you would not think so listening to some members of the USCCB.
So The modern Roman Rite should be much more homogeneous than it is around the world, and stop all those petty GIRM variants.
Of course, the post-Tridentine goal uniformity with regard to Missals was only functionally possible with that talisman of modernity: the printing press. Yet another illustration of the rationalist, modernizing dimensions of Trent that people often neglect to remember.
Ted, every nation has it's own brand of Catholic culture that crystallizes in its missal. One prominent example: saints. Except for a small minority of universal saints, almost everyone in the martyrology is associated with a country, a religious order, or even a cultural region within a larger society. Not only do nations and religious communities have patrons, but vocations and avocations, too.
Every nation petitions for and receives particulars to apply to its Roman Missal. And then we have whole Eastern traditions in union with Rome, but not following the Roman Missal. How do you reconcile the traditional Eastern churches with the need for uniformity?
This desire for uniformity is not congruent with the orthodox history of Christianity.
Todd:
Yes, thanks for reminding me about the Saints. In the old Missal there was sometimes an addendum pasted on the back, but everything else was the same.
It is this last sameness that I am fond of. This is the consequence of a church that considers itself universal.
My discussion is of course with the latest Roman Missal, and those places that use it. There are so many options in it already that I really wonder what need there is for more. Has something changed in the world since 1962 that all of a sudden requires more and more variations? If anything, the world has become more homogenious because of our communications technology.
As you can probably tell, my attitude has been fostered by the many liturgical abuses I had to tolerate over so many years. You reach a point when you actually start questioning the nature of the true Church, and I am pretty sure that a lot of people did and reached unfortunate conclusions. Things are starting to tighten up, but those kind of uncalled for experiences have taught me that perhaps the more uniformity the better in the current Roman Liturgy. We agree, as they say, to disagree.
As for the bishops conferences, they have become so poweful that they even dictate to Rome. Recall the whole fiasco over Communion
in the hand. That was pretty well forced upon Rome by the conferences. Imagine Rome now trying to recind that permission. I need not mention the word schism in this situation.
And those liturgical abuses were fostered in no small part by an artificially prolonged era of uniformity. Just as those who espoused improvisation (without regard to what is permitted in the ritual books) have fostered a reaction in favor of greater uniformity, so too those who are part of the reaction will, if they are too successful, foster a counterreaction. (I am not channeling Hegel conceptually, merely observing what appears to happen on the ground.)
Sometimes, it's better not to get too much of what you prefer, else you lay the foundation for erasing it.
Liam:
Fair enough, but for 400 years after Trent the uniformity did translate into unity, helping to stop the territorial advance of the Reformation.
Todd:
Do you think that there is less uniformity in the Eastern liturgies than in the Western?
Ted, I would think there are. In my city of origin we had Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and I think some Greek Catholics on the south side of town. Then you have Ruthenians, Lebanese, at least two rites in India, two I think in Iraq, and maybe a few others scattered in southwest Asia. And that's before you get to the churches in schism.
All very old, very traditional groups. Many in Communion with Rome, and if not, they have entirely valid sacraments.
Tod:
But apart from language and music, do their liturgies differ much? That is, are not the Divine Liturgies of St Basil and St John the same?
Here I am talking within the same Rite, which would be of ancient origin. In my mother's family there are both Greco-Catholics and Ukranian Orthodox, but one would even be hard pressed to see differences in the Divine Liturgy between them except perhaps their greater frequency and greater use of coloured vestments for the Catholcs. But within the Greco-Catholic Rite itself, I wonder if there are any differences other than perhaps in the music, or the occasional use of Old Slavonic.
The liturgies of St Basil and St John are common to the churches of the Byzantine heritage, but not the various Oriental rites.