Here is a very nice and thoughtful piece – it is precisely correct – by David G. Bonagura, Jr. on Pope Benedict’s three steps toward liturgical education: celebrate the Mass well, inspire a renewed look at the reformed liturgy, and liberalize the old form of the Mass. The first and third are accomplished – and these are helping to build support for the second.
26 Replies to “Benedict’s Three-Step Process of Liturgical Education”
Comments are closed.
Liberalize or "liberate?" I think the 1962 Missal needs reform. Adjusting one Good Friday Prayer just won't do the trick. Sacrosanctum Concilium needs to be applied to the so-called extraordinary form–it's as simple as that.
As for step two, Pope Benedict is no liturgist. We need a much wider range of theologians and scholars looking at ongoing renewal, not looking backward.
The pope is hampered by some very weak theologians in the curia, especially in the area of liturgy.
"As for step two, Pope Benedict is no liturgist."
What a breath-taking declaration, Todd; care to elaborate?
todd benedict is the first pope in my memory that in fact DOES understand the liturgy. perhaps because you dont agree with him might explain your absurd notion? (because it is absurd and you know better)
i wrote earlier but it was probably deleated (and should have been)
Todd
the extraordinary form should be revised…how? to look more like the movus ordo?
the pope isnt a liturgist? really? if the bishop is the head liturgist in his diocese then what is the Pope?
Benedict isnt an expert on liturgy? really? all his books on liturgy are ramblings of someone who doesnt know what hes talking about? really?
Todd, where do you come up with this stuff?
don roy
Perhaps it’s best that the Holy Father is no liturgist. As Thomas Day, quoting an anonymous source, wrote, ‘the modern liturgical expert [is] ‘an affliction sent by God, so that those Catholics who have not had the opportunity to suffer for their faith might not be deprived of the opportunity to do so.’”
Well, David, that explanation has a certain charm, a certain (I can't speak French.) But Todd IS a bona fide, guar-on-durn-teed liturgist, so I, for one, will cheerfully await his explanation of the Holy Father's lack of credentials or abilities as a fellow liturgist.
(Not holding my breath.)
Speculation might compel one to wonder if Todd heard the lecture inwhich the definition of "leiturgos" considered a change of preposition, ie. "work OF the people" to "work FOR the people." If so, doesn't everyone know that Benedict is not a "people" person, but an aesthete academic. Problem solved.
That's as close to snark as I ever get; and I'm feeling guilty already….
'Sacrosanctum Concilium needs to be applied to the so-called extraordinary form–it's as simple as that.'
Agreed, mostly. Problem is, that hasn't happened yet, at least not on any regular basis.
At the FSSP parish in which I serve as MD, I marvel at the fact that we are, musically speaking, closer to the wishes of SC and MS than almost any other parish in the diocese. Its four-hymn (song) sandwiches, 95% vernacular, and spoken responses as far as the eye can see.
While I'm no traditionalist, I've come to the conclusion that the OF needs more reigning in and practical reform than does the EF.
And I guess I'll take questioning BXVI's status as a liturgist more seriously when I see people in prominent groups here in the US make as much headway toward realizing SC as the pope has.
Until then, a familiar pattern continues. That is, when liturgists criticize the pope, it means he's doing something that resonates with the faithful, something blatantly (shock!) Catholic. Their efforts are a lot like constantly adjusting a radio dial, with the prominent feature being drab old static. Meanwhile, the pope is honing in on one station, and the result is more coherent and beautiful, and much closer to the explicit desires expressed in SC.
Anyhoo, I have long read and admired the current pope. He gets the average Catholic's need for continuity, identity and true renewal in their worship of God. And, kudos to him, BXVI is actually allowing that to happen through the example of the liturgies in which he's celebrant. Its so encouraging.
Mary Ann Carr Wilson
Todd,
What is a liturgist?
"Sacrosanctum Concilium needs to be applied to the so-called extraordinary form–it's as simple as that."
Actually, if and when the typical bishop wants to see the actuosa participatio of SC realized in his diocese, he probably has to attend a traditional Latin Mass. Not for nothing is it quipped that Vatican II has done more for the EF than for the OF.
Sacrosanctum Concilium needs to be applied to the so-called extraordinary form
Todd,
The problem is that the newer form, the illiberal manner of its imposition and practice associated with it drove the older into a self-protective corner from which one could not realistically expect to see organic development. The Holy Father's intent and reforms seem to be as much concerned with this as they are with the rupture with tradition evident in practices associated with the new form.
"Care to elaborate?"
Sure. As a bishop, he inherits the title of principal liturgist of his diocese, namely Rome. So he is, in fact, a liturgist by title.
His academic specialty is dogmatic theology, and I believe he did his thesis on Augustine. In my reading of the Ratzinger Report and on his recent writings on liturgy, I don't see a particular competence there. He seems to be a prayerful man, devoted to the liturgy, but his discussions on the altar cross, for example, show a priest more concerned with devotional peripherals than the actual discipline and theology of liturgy.
I don't offer this observation as an insult. He is the pope. He is also a brilliant man. But that doesn't imply he has an extensive intellectual competence beyond his areas of expertise.
As for Ian's question, a liturgist possesses an academic and experiential competence in the liturgy.
As for this:
"Not for nothing is it quipped that Vatican II has done more for the EF than for the OF."
I agree. If I had an intentional minority worshipping in the modern Roman Rite, I'd do a lot better than the occasional celebrations seen here and there. Advocates of the TLM have great freedom not to be concerned about liturgy and other apsects in modern Catholic communities. If it were all restored to them, we'd have another Sacrosanctum Concilium within a decade. Or we'd have the small church, getting smaller some seem to advocate.
My bottom line is that Pope Benedict has misread the signs of the times. He's hampered also by deep incompetence in the curia, notably in the CDWDS. So far they've spent over a decade zeroing in on English. No other vernacular has been touched, really. The German bishops sent back their funeral rites.
Even if this "process" were intentional, it has floundered in both content and especially in its execution.
so, todd your saying that the entire reform of the reform is incorrect and that the model for catholic liturgy is seen in the average parish "celebration". the extraordinary form should be reformed along those lines.
ok nuovo-bugnini, ill bite,
exactly how would you do about reformimg the old mass?
.
Thank God for Pope Benedict, who has moved the Church forward, toward a more authentic understanding of tradition, against the wishes of the liturgical reactionaries, who would have us permanently stuck in the theological and liturgical ethos of late 1970's.
"so, todd your saying that the entire reform of the reform is incorrect …"
Not incorrect. Misguided.
" … and that the model for catholic liturgy is seen in the average parish 'celebration'."
No, I wouldn't say that either. The model, if found in a parish, would be the best a parish can muster. Not average.
Todd, I'm sure you're getting tired of hearing that you don't know what you're talking about. 🙂 But putting aside any political things, or even the fact that he's Pope now… you don't really understand the scope of Ratzinger's work. He's not just some theologian. He's one of the Church's great and wide-ranging minds who provide deep insight into everything they touch, out of the analysis and synthesis a whole lot of deep and wide-ranging study of all the great sources, not to mention contemporary sources. He doesn't write articles out of his butt, much less books.
He didn't just study Augustine (or just study Bonaventure, his other student research topic). He has the whole history of the church in his head, and he loves nothing better than to show how it all fits together and illuminate one era by another.
And he was there at Vatican II, and knows the mind of the Council Fathers. He's been pretty much everywhere in the Catholic world and seen pretty much everything people have deployed since the Council. He's said or gone to Mass with pretty much everyone who's big in Catholicism, including all the movers and shakers among liturgists.
It's difficult to see how anyone could be more qualified to make sure that liturgy and doctrine are one Catholic whole, unless you're hiding the Fathers and Doctors of the Church in your bathroom. 🙂
So yeah, he's one of the great liturgy scholars and pundits of our day, and he's a great theologian, and now he's making policy too. Liturgists are going to study him for a long time, just like theologians will.
If it makes you feel better to complain about his lack of attendance at diocesan workshops or the kind of schooling you had, I suppose you can do that, but it's like complaining that the guy who won the Nobel Prize in Physics went to a high school that didn't have a physics class, or that the heads of most seminal software and computer companies never took computer classes. When somebody has the knowledge and the praxis and makes important original contributions to a field, nobody cares how that person got there. You just study his stuff, that's all.
This is not to say that you can't argue a counterbalance or a lack to his ideas; he'd probably be the first to enjoy such an argument. (And then he'd be the first to synthesize your argument into his stuff. He's like a giant sucking synthesis machine, and he is forever quoting points from people who totally disagree with him. I can't say I've ever seen most academics do that much at all, much less him doing that all the time and at such important points in his most important works. It's freaky.)
"He seems to be a prayerful man, devoted to the liturgy, but his discussions on the altar cross, for example, show a priest more concerned with devotional peripherals than the actual discipline and theology of liturgy.
I don't offer this observation as an insult. He is the pope. He is also a brilliant man. But that doesn't imply he has an extensive intellectual competence beyond his areas of expertise."
Todd, this sort of ignorance and arrogance does not even warrant a response. Your assertion that Ratzinger's theology of liturgical orientation is of a devotional nature is all the proof I need to know that you have no grasp whatsoever of "Spirit of the Liturgy" or of Pope Benedict's liturgical theology.
Please stop spamming this blog with such nonsense.
todd
rest assured this is my last comment and if your intention was to make people upset then at least in my case you have succeeded.
if something is not incorrect then its correct. how can a movement be correct but misguided?
If you are going to pretty much invalidate some pretty basic beliefs (with a certain degree of emotional investment I might add) then you should make sure you have a solid reasoning behind it. So far, i havent seen any.
Please dont repeat the nonsense that created so much chaos at the nlm site.chant cafe deserves better then that..
"if something is not incorrect then its correct."
Not necessarily. "Incorrect" would not be the adjective I would attach to the reform of the reform movement. This is the English language, and I have a variety of adjectives to attach to it. I do think there is much "correct" about it: a dedication to plainsong, a commitment to ars celebrandi, and a goal of excellence.
I stand by my assessment that Pope Benedict and others misdiagnose the signs of the times.
As for the feelings of Chant Cafe readers: I insulted none of you. I criticized a hero of yours. I didn't call him or anyone else the names I saw and see at numerous other sites against other liturgical musicians.
It takes two or more to have a disagreeable conversation. If y'all think I'm posting off the wall, there's a simple solution: ignore it. On the other hand, if Jeffrey would like to invite me to explain in detail some reform possibilities within the TLM, I would be happy to supply a guest post on this site.
Todd,
What particular gaps in the Holy Father's knowledge of liturgical research adversely effect his judgement in matters of liturgical policy and practice?
"if Jeffrey would like to invite me to explain in detail some reform possibilities within the TLM, I would be happy to supply a guest post on this site."
I would like to propose that this debate cease because it is happening in an inappropriate forum; this blog is not intended to be a place of polemical debates, but a place to promote the rites as they are given to us by the Church. We are not here to tell the Church what to do, but to support the work of the Holy Father and the universal Church.
Todd, I think your proposal has missed the mark. Please keep in mind that the purpose of this blog is to promote the liturgy, as it is, according to the norms given under the guidance of the Magisterium, and foster a living love for it. The cynicism chocked into this comment thread is not helpful for the aim. Please keep these things in mind before you decide to comment here again.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I would, though, appreciate an answer to my question, Todd. It concerns a generalisation I've seen made by a number of poeple, and which interests me.
Todd, I believe you hold your powers of elocution and rhetoric as virtually unparalleled in various forums. But, you did not "criticize" one of our heroes; you defamed, libeled, demeaned and injured the person and the Office of the supreme pontiff of the Churc, both of which were divinely constituted by our Savior. That is an insult- an insult to your integrity, not Chant Cafe readers.
Harp all you want about who's holier than thou in the past and present. (You, eg. were not the target of an ad hominem in this thread, not personally.) But your criticism was ill-conceived, unsolicited, and insufficiently defended. I welcome your perspective here; but not at the prices of intellectual dishonesty and malfeasance.
Very well. I offer my unconditional apology. I have given offense here and I withdraw my statements perceived as mean-spirited. I'm willing to respond to questions, but I'll take Adam's suggestion to close this thread, at least my participation in it.
You haven't given me offence, Todd. I'd still be interested in an answer to my question.