Today I can present to the public FIUV's 6th Position Paper, on Liturgical Pluralism and the Extraordinary Form. Many people seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of a plurality of liturgical forms; they seem to think that if all Catholics are not saying exactly the same Mass and Office each day all over the world, this wounds the unity of the Church. There is an example of this attitude in last weekend's Tablet (the world's least Catholic 'Catholic' periodical) in which Robert Mickens complains that the new Ordo for the Office produced by the PCED doesn't use the term 'Ordinary Time' and has saints on different days. This means, he says, we are 'not praying from the same page'. This attitude is not limited to wilder fringes of progressive publications, and deserves a reasoned response.
As this paper shows, the pluriformity which has always existed in the Church was affirmed at the Second Vatican Council as legitimate and positive, and Bl. Pope John Paul II placed great emphasis on the way in which liturgical plurality does not undermine but manifests unity. The same truths manifest themselves in different ways in different historical and cultural conditions, because they are not dead, but alive.
Legitimate liturgical variety continues to be fostered by the Church, as witnessed by the calendar approved for the Ordinariate, as well as the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum itself.
A curious side issue revealed in the preparation of this paper is the widespread error on the internet in the translation of a key passage of Pope St Pius V's Bull Quo Primum (1570). New Advent has it right, other sites have got it wrong. Let's hope that the transparency of the web will enable truth to drive out error.
The Dominican Rite in Oxford; more about this Mass here.
The next paper will be published on 1st June, on Latin as a Liturgical Language.
Comments can be sent to positio AT fiuv.org
Pdf of this paper here. Full set of papers, including the introductory disclaimer, can be downloaded from the FIUV website.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIUV
Positio 6: Liturgical Pluralism and the Extraordinary Form
Pluralism
in Liturgy and Harmony in Faith
Without
entering into the question of the future development of the Ordinary Form, the
question to be addressed by this paper is whether the existence in the Latin
Rite of an extra, ‘extraordinary’, ‘Form’ of the Roman Rite is problematic, and
therefore something to be overcome if possible, in the short or long term,
perhaps by the creation of a single, amalgamated, Form of the Roman Rite.
While
the coming into existence of two ‘Forms’ of the Roman Rite can be described as
accidental,[1]
a multiplicity of liturgical forms in the Church is in itself neither abnormal
nor regrettable. It is noteworthy that in Quo primum (1570) Pope St Pius V made a strong presumption in favour of the
preservation of venerable rites,[2]
and the Second Vatican Council, in its Constitution on the Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium affirms,
in faithful obedience
to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all
lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes
to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.[3]
Again:
Even in the
liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which
do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community;[4]
Speaking
of the multiplicity of Rites, the Council’s Decree Orientalium Ecclesiaum affirms that ‘the variety within the Church
in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it’.[5]
This
principle has been manifested historically in the Latin Church with a rich
variety of Rites and Usages, both geographically defined (notably the Ambrosian
and Mozarabic Rites) and those specific to religious orders. Just as in the
Middle Ages the Franciscans used the Missale
Seraphicum (closely related to the Roman Rite) in areas with local usages,
so in modern times (before the Council) Dominican and Premonstratensian
parishes maintained their proper liturgical traditions in areas accustomed to
the Roman Rite. Today the Eastern Churches are to be found throughout lands
‘prevalently of Latin tradition’;[6] far
from this creating a problem, Bl. Pope John Paul II saw in this an opportunity
for Latin Catholics to learn about the Eastern Rites.[7] Most
recently, Pope Benedict XVI has set in motion the creation of a new Use for
members of the Anglican Communion who have been received into full communion
with the Holy See. The purpose is
to maintain the
liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within
the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of
the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.[8]
As Bl. Pope John PaulII wrote, referring to the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio:[9]
we find the strength
and enthusiasm to intensify the quest for harmony in that genuine plurality of
forms which remains the Church’s ideal.[10]
The
harmony of faith which underlies the plurality of liturgical forms is
emphasised by Pope Benedict XVI in relation to the two forms of the Roman Rite.[11]
He immediately goes on to affirm the value, as well as the orthodoxy, of the
Extraordinary Form:
What earlier
generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot
be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behoves
all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and
prayer, and to give them their proper place.[12]
The Value of Pluralism
Pluralism
is the ‘ideal’ for two notable reasons. First, as the Instruction Il Padre, incomprehensibile expresses it,
echoing Orientalium Ecclesiarum[13]
and the Instruction Varietates Legitimae
(1994),[14]
different Rites incarnate the faith for differing conditions:
This multiformity of
the Eastern liturgies does not harm the unity of the Church at all, but rather
reinforces it, allowing it to sink its roots in the concrete reality of a
determined time and space.[15]
Secondly,
Unitatis Redintegratio reminds us
that different theological traditions, which have their own liturgical
expressions, give rise to complementary theological insights.
In the study of
revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed
differently their understanding and confession of God’s truth. It is hardly
surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full
appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has
expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological
expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than
conflicting.[16]
Pope
Benedict has written of the 1962 Missal as a valuable affirmation of particular
truths:
The possibility of so
celebrating [sc. using the 1962 Missal] constitutes the strongest, and thus
(for them) the most intolerable contradiction of the opinion of those who
believe that the faith in the Eucharist formulated by Trent has lost its value.[17]
Certain
valuable features of the Extraordinary Form are shared with the Anglican Use,[18]
and some with the Eastern Rites. The Eastern Rites’ appeal to the ‘whole human
person’ in his totality[19]
has already been discussed in Positio 2;[20] another
feature is fidelity to tradition:
Today we often feel
ourselves prisoners of the present. It is as though man had lost his perception
of belonging to a history which precedes and follows him. This effort to
situate oneself between the past and the future, with a grateful heart for the
benefits received and for those expected, is offered by the Eastern Churches in
particular, with a clear-cut sense of continuity which takes the name of
Tradition and of eschatological expectation.[21]
Pluralism and Church Unity
A
different kind of value is represented by the importance of both the Eastern
Churches’ liturgical traditions, and the Anglican Use, for ecumenism. With this
in mind Bl. John Paul II demanded
total
respect for the other’s dignity without claiming that the whole array of uses
and customs in the Latin Church is more complete or better suited to showing
the fullness of correct doctrine.[22]
The Instruction Il Padre echoes Orientalium Ecclesiarum[23]
in making ecumenism an important consideration in the development of the
Eastern Rites.
In
every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox
brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing
from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation…[24]
Again,
there is an analogy here with the Extraordinary Form. Pope Benedict XVI speaks
urgently of the importance of respecting the Church’s ‘ancient Latin liturgical tradition’ to
overcome, if possible, divisions in the Church.[25] These
divisions relate not only to groups, but countless individual Catholics who
found themselves alienated from the Church following the liturgical reform. As
Pope Benedict XVI has written:
I have seen how
arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally
rooted in the faith of the Church.[26]
. The
significance of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite for ecumenism in
relation to the Orthodox churches should also be mentioned. The late Patriarch
Alexy II of Moscow remarked, referring to Summorum
Pontificum, ‘The recovery and valuing of the ancient liturgical tradition
is a fact that we greet positively.’[27]
Conclusion
Liturgical pluralism in itself is not, and
never has been, a source of embarrassment for the Church, but is on the
contrary a source of vitality. It demonstrates the response of faith to
different conditions, and it represents a treasury of theological and spiritual
insights which complement each other. The plurality of Rites and Usages has
been affirmed and further developed by the Holy See right up to the present
day.
As well as the Eastern Rites, the Church has
always fostered Rites and Usages of venerable origin within the Latin Church,
and made special efforts to preserve them, when they seemed likely to disappear,
or to be unduly influenced by the Roman Rite. As well as the Usages of
religious orders, already mentioned, the Mozarabic Rite is an example of a Rite
whose historical and theological value is such that, however limited the use of
its liturgical books may have become, the very fact that it continues to be
celebrated in particular places is something to be treasured and preserved.
However limited, or however wide, the usage of the Extraordinary Form may
become in time, it too will have a value for the whole Church by representing,
as a living tradition, a rich source of spiritual and theological insights, and
a deep connection to the liturgical patrimony of the Latin Church.
The value
of the Extraordinary Form is affirmed by Pope Benedict XVI. Like the Eastern
Rites, it will maintain and develop this value, for the whole Church, only if
it remains true to itself, its spirit and its traditions. This integrity is
also necessary for its value in the cause of Church unity. There is a lesson to
be learned from the fate of the Eastern Rites in former centuries, in which the
Holy See approved changes which can now be seen as regrettable.[28]
The words of Il Padre, applied to the Eastern Churches, but equally applicable
to the Extraordinary Form, are relevant:
For historical and
cultural reasons, they have maintained a more direct continuity with the
spiritual atmosphere of Christian origins, a prerogative that is ever more
frequently considered even by the Occident not as a sign of stagnancy and
backwardness but of precious fidelity to the sources of salvation.[29]
[1] Pope Benedict XVI ‘Letter to
Bishops’ accompanying the Motu Proprio Summorum
Pontificum (2007): ‘At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it
did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the
earlier Missal. Probably it was thought
that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved,
case by case, on the local level.
Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of
people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite…’
[2] The adoption of the Roman Missal
in preference to a different Rite Usage is only permitted with the unanimous
consent of a cathedral or community Chapter and in addition the agreement of
the bishop or superior. Pope St Pius V (1570) Quo primum: The Roman Missal, in the revised edition of 1570, is to
be said in all churches ‘saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass
differently was granted over two hundred years ago simultaneously with the
Apostolic See’s institution and confirmation of the church, and those in which
there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not
less than two hundred years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their
prerogatives or customs aforesaid. Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have
seen fit to publish be more agreeable to these last, We hereby permit them to
celebrate Mass according to this rite, subject to the consent of their bishop
or prelate, and of their whole Chapter, all else to the contrary
notwithstanding.’ (‘nisi ab ipsa prima institutione a Sede Apostolica
adprobata, vel consuetudine, quae, vel ipsa institutio super ducentos annos
Missarum celebrandarum in eisdem Ecclesiis assidue observata sit: a quibus, ut
praefatam celebrandi constitutionem vel consuetudinem nequaquam auferimus; sic
si Missale hoc, quod nunc in lucem edi curavimus, iisdem magis placeret, de
Episcopi, vel Praelati, Capitulique universi consensu, ut quibusvis non
obstantibus, juxta illud Missas celebrare possint, permittimus;’)
[3] Constitution on the Sacred
Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council Sacrosanctum
Concilium 4: ‘Traditioni denique fideliter
obsequens, Sacrosanctum Concilium declarat Sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam omnes Ritus
legitime agnitos aequo iure atque honore habere, eosque in posterum servari et
omnimode foveri velle’
[4] Sacrosanctum Concilium 37: ‘Ecclesia, in
iis quae fidem aut bonum totius communitatis non tangunt, rigidam unius tenoris
formam ne in Liturgia quidem imponere cupit;’
[5] Decree of the Second Vatican
Council Orientalium Ecclesiarum 2: ‘ita
ut varietas in Ecclesia nedum eiusdem noceat unitati, eam potius declaret’.
[6] Instruction Il Padre, incomprehensibile (1996) 10
[7] Bl. Pope John Paul II Apostolic
Letter Orientale Lumen (1995) 24 ‘I
believe that one important way to grow in mutual understanding and unity
consists precisely in improving our knowledge of one another. The children of
the Catholic Church already know the ways indicated by the Holy See for
achieving this: to know the liturgy of the Eastern Churches’ (‘Putamus sane magnum pondus ad crescendum in mutua
comprehensione atque unitate tribuendum esse meliori mutuae intellegentiae.
Catholicae Ecclesiae filii iam noverunt vias quas Sancta Sedes significavit ut
ii eiusmodi propositum consequi valeant: liturgiam Ecclesiarum Orientalium noscere
[corrected from ‘nascere]’) (The quoted passage ends with a footnote
reference to the Instruction In
Ecclesiasticum Futurorum (1979) 48
[8] Pope Benedict XVI Apostolic
Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus
(2009) III
[9] Decree of the Second Vatican
Council Unitatis Redintegratio 4:
‘All in the Church must preserve unity in essentials. But let all, according to
the gifts they have received enjoy a proper freedom, in their various forms of
spiritual life and discipline, in their different liturgical rites, and even in
their theological elaborations of revealed truth. In all things let charity
prevail. If they are true to this course of action, they will be giving ever
better expression to the authentic catholicity and apostolicity of the Church.’
(‘In necessariis unitatem custodientes, omnes in
Ecclesia, secundum munus unicuique datum, cum in variis formis vitae
spiritualis et disciplinae, tum in diversitate liturgicorum rituum, immo et in
theologica veritatis revelatae elaboratione, debitam libertatem servent; in
omnibus vero caritatem colant. Hac enim agendi ratione ipsi veri nominis
catholicitatem simul et apostolicitatem Ecclesiae in dies plenius
manifestabunt.’)
[10] Orientale Lumen 2: ‘satis iterum virium
reperimus ac studii ut ea in veritate ac multiplicitate concordiae augeamus conquisitionem
quae Ecclesiae remanet propositum optimum.’
[11] Letter to Bishops accompanying
the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum:
‘There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal.’
[12] Letter to Bishops
[13] Decree of the Second Vatican
Council Orientalium Ecclesiarum 2: ‘the
variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it,
for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite
should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt
its way of life to the different needs of time and place.’ (‘varietas in
Ecclesia nedum eiusdem noceat unitati, eam potius declaret; Ecclesiae enim
catholicae hoc propositum est, ut salvae et integrae maneant uniuscuiusque
particularis Ecclesiae seu ritus traditiones, eademque pariter vult suam vitae
rationem aptare variis temporum locorumque necessitatibus.’)
[14] Instruction Varietates Legitimae (1994) 4: ‘The constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium spoke of the different
forms of liturgical adaptation. Subsequently the Magisterium of the Church has
used the term inculturation to define more precisely “the incarnation of the
Gospel in autonomous cultures and at the same time the introduction of these
cultures into the life of the Church.” [Note: Bl. John Paul II Encyclical Slavorum Apostoli (1985) 21]
Inculturation signifies “an intimate transformation of the authentic cultural
values by their integration into Christianity and the implantation of
Christianity into different human cultures.” [Note: Bl. John Paul II Encyclial Redemptoris Missio (1990) 52]
[15] Il Padre, incomprehensibile 15
[16] Unitatis Redintegratio 17: ‘Etenim in veritatis revelatae exploratione methodi
gressusque diversi ad divina cognoscenda et confitenda in Oriente et in
Occidente adhibiti sunt. Unde mirum non est quosdam aspectus mysterii revelati
quandoque magis congrue percipi et in meliorem lucem poni ab uno quam ab
altero, ita ut tunc variae illae theologicae formulae non raro potius inter se
compleri dicendae sint quam opponi.’ Cf Orientale Lumen 5: ‘The Christian tradition of the East implies a
way of accepting, understanding and living faith in the Lord Jesus. In this
sense it is extremely close to the Christian tradition of the West, which is
born of and nourished by the same faith. Yet it is legitimately and admirably
distinguished from the latter, since Eastern Christians have their own way of
perceiving and understanding, and thus an original way of living their
relationship with the Saviour.’ (‘Certum enim modum
secum importat orientalis traditio suscipiendi intellegendi vivendi Domini Iesu
fidem. Ita profecto proxime illa ad christianam accedit Occidentis traditionem
quae eadem nascitur aliturque fide. Tamen legitime atque insignite ab illa
differt, cum proprium habeat sentiendi percipiendique morem christifidelis
orientalis, ac propterea nativam aliquam rationem suae colendae necessitudinis
cum Salvatore.’) Cf. also Orientalium Ecclesiarum 5: ‘[this
Council] solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of
the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in
accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are
praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the
character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of
souls.’ (‘Quamobrem sollemniter declarat, Ecclesias Orientis sicut et
Occidentis iure pollere et officio teneri se secundum proprias disciplinas
peculiares regendi, utpote quae veneranda antiquitate commendentur, moribus
suorum fidelium magis sint congruae atque ad bonum animarum consulendum
aptiores videantur.’)
[17] Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph,
Cardinal Ratzinger) “The Theology of the Liturgy” in Alcuin Reid (ed.) ‘Looking
Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger: Proceedings of
the July 2001 Fontgombault Liturgical Conference’ (Farnbrough: St Michael’s
Abbey Press, 2003) pp18-33, p20
[18] Notably, in the recently
published calendar, the Season of Septuagesima, the Ember and Rogation Days,
and the Octave of Pentecost.
[19] Orientale Lumen 11: ‘tota sua cum
persona’
[20] FIUV Positio 2: Liturgical Piety
and Participation 9
[21] Orientale Lumen 8: ‘Captivos hodie
saepius nos temporis praesentis esse sentimus: quasi si notionem homo amiserit
sese esse particulam alicuius historiae praecedentis et subsequentis. Huic
magno labori, quo contendit quis ut se inter praeteritum collocet futurumque
tempus cum grato sane animo tam de acceptis quam de donis postmodum
accipiendis, clarum praestant Orientales Ecclesiae sensum continuationis, quae
sibi Traditionis atque eschatologicae exspectationis nomina sumit.’
[22] Orientale Lumen 20: ‘Certe, hodiernae
menti videtur vera coniunctio fieri posse aliorum plene observata dignitate,
dempta simul illa opinione universos mores et consuetudines Ecclesiae Latinae
pleniores esse et aptiores ad rectam doctrinam demonstrandam;’
[23] Orientalium Ecclesiarum 24: Eastern Catholics are to promote unity
with other Easter Christians by, among other things, ‘religious fidelity to the
ancient Eastern traditions’ (‘religiosa erga antiquas traditiones orientales
fidelitate’).
[24] Il Padre, incomprehensibile 21
[25] Letter to Bishops accompanying
the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum:
‘This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every
effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity
or to attain it anew.’
[26] Ibid.
[27] The Zenit news
agency reported from Rome on 29th August 2007, as follows. ‘Benedict
XVI’s move to allow for wider celebration of the Roman Missal of 1962 has
received a positive reaction from the Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow. “The
recovery and valuing of the ancient liturgical tradition is a fact that we
greet positively,” Alexy II told the Italian daily Il Giornale. Benedict XVI's
apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum,
published in July, explains new norms allowing for the use of the 1962 missal
as an extraordinary form of the liturgical celebration. “We hold very strongly
to tradition,” he continued. “Without the faithful guardianship of liturgical
tradition, the Russian Orthodox Church would not have been able to resist the
period of persecution.” ’
[28] Il Padre, incomprehensibile 24: ‘These interventions felt the
effects of the mentality and convictions of the times, according to which a
certain subordination of the non-Latin liturgies was perceived toward the
Latin-rite liturgy which was considered “ritus
praestantior.” This attitude may have led to interventions in the Eastern
liturgical texts which today, in light of theological studies and progress,
have need of revision, in the sense of a return to ancestral traditions.’ Cf. Orientalium Ecclesiarum 6: On the
Liturgical rites proper to the Eastern Churches: ‘Besides, they should attain
to an ever greater knowledge and a more exact use of them, and, if in their
regard they have fallen short owing to contingencies of times and persons, they
should take steps to return to their ancestral traditions.’ (‘Haec omnia,
igitur, maxima fidelitate ab ipsis Orientalibus observanda sunt; qui quidem
harum rerum cognitionem in dies maiorem usumque perfectiorem acquirere debent,
et, si ab iis ob temporum vel personarum adiuncta indebite defecerint, ad
avitas traditiones redire satagant.’) The Instruction Varietates legitimae makes a similar point about the history of the
liturgy of the West (17): ‘During the course of the centuries, the Roman rite
has known how to integrate texts, chants, gestures and rites from various
sources and to adapt itself in local cultures in mission territories, even if
at certain periods a desire for liturgical uniformity obscured this fact.’ The
footnotes to this passage give examples of features of the Roman Rite adopted over
time in response to local conditions, and magisterial responses to such
developments.
[29] Il Padre, incomprehensibile 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ends
