This evening I attended a
lecture given by Cardinal
Godfried Danneels,
archbishop of Malines-Bruxelles, Belgium on the topic of "Liturgy, 40 Years After Vatican II" hosted by the Catholic University of America's School of Canon Law. His lecture was "first in a series to honor Monsignor Frederick R.
McManus" (more information at the
CUA website
here).
The lecture was well attended (I'd estimate about 180-200 people), and he was given a very warm reception before and after his talk. His lecture, I understand, was based upon a recent article of the same title that he wrote and published in
America magazine. That article, sadly, is only available to subscribers.
Cardinal
Danneels, it should be noted, has been known to hold some controversial positions,
as his Wikipedia page quickly summarizes.
Adoremus Bulletin
notes another in more detail. Certainly, the state of liturgical pracice in Belgium is very grave. I'm scared to find the exact statistics, but I believe church attendence is below 10%
. Liberal media organizations expressed hopes during the last conclave that Cdl. Danneels would become Pope.
For my part, I did agree in general with much of what the Cardinal had to say on a theoretical level, though I imagine I would tend to part ways with him in many particular questions. I present below my hastily-scribbled notes from the lecture's content.
I was also able to ask the Cardinal a question after his lecture requesting his comments on Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio
Summorum Pontificum. I've included my understanding of his response at the end of this posting.
His main points:
One of the motivations behind the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council included a desire to bring the minister of Mass from a situation of distance to proximity. And that the congregation would more actively participate in the liturgy and reserve personal devotions for non-liturgical circumstances.
Belgium, he said, began the liturgical reform movement in the early 1900s.
The return to the vernacular in liturgy, he said, was a return to the practice of the early church. Where celebration was practicedusing the native tongue of the people.
At the same time, however, People must not fall into the temptation of "owning" the Liturgy instead of serving it.
"Liturgy", he said, "is first God's work on us before it is our work on God."
Liturgy has been made more difficult in the modern age because we no longer live in a culture of contemplation.
Liturgy suffers from "unintelligiblity" by the faithful for several reasons, including ignorance of the meaning of words, as well as woeful lack of catechisis in the bible. Furthermore, the bible originates in a Mediterranean agrarian culture which is no longer the norm for most technological western societies.
The inadequate short term solution to these challenges included the introduction of non-biblical terminology. These additions made matters worse from the perspective of intelligibility.
The solution to the problem of unintelligiblity is that we must learn the terms used in the celebration. Symbols taken from agrarian cultures, as such, need not be mysterious to the congregation. Rather, we must make a dedicated effort to understand these references within their context. Liturgy, simply put, must be explained, and this explanation must transcend the actual celebration of Mass. A comprehensive catechetical project is essential if people are to appreciate what is being done and said in Mass.
(In one of his best insights), the Cardinal noted that liturgy as it is often practiced does not allow sufficient place for silence nor time for contemplation. He said that times for silence are provided within the rubrics, but are usually foregone in the interest of keeping things moving.
Similarly, repetition is an essential pedagogical tool of the liturgy. While more present in the old rites of liturgy, the novus ordo eliminated useless repetitions to the detriment of spiritual gain.
As a counter-balance to the problem of unintelligibility, the natural symbols used in the liturgy (fire, water, bread, wine, chrism, etc.) are relevant to all cultures and must be used to their fullest! At the same time, much of the context for these symbols have been lost, so here to a re-training is necessary.
In deeper philosophical waters, the Cardinal made the point that "understanding" of the liturgy is deeper than normal human apprehension/cognition. The mysteries of the faith must be lived, experienced and gradually unfolded. Many of the reformers made the error of trying to instantly reveal a certain mystery present in the Mass, without appreciating the need for contemplation and reflection.
What is to be done? First, we must realize that certain elements of the liturgy are immutable. For instance, the sequential procession of proclamation of the word, response by the people, and invitation to the liturgy of the Eucharist seem to be a universal "given" of how man is to worship God.
Furthermore, those charged with the celebration of the liturgy must be given instruction. He said that much space is given for artistic expression, musical talent, etc, but very little - indeed, almost nothing is expected in terms of competence and liturgical wisdom.
Another good point: Liturgies, he said, are too short. There is not enough physical time for the liturgy to work in us. Eastern liturgy (and he was full of praise for the Eastern rites) understands that man, especially in the modern world, needs sufficient time to remove himself from his daily cares and enter into authentic contemplation of the divine mysteries in order to spiritually participate in and benefit from the Word and Eucharist.
Liturgies rely to much on the spoken word as a way of focusing our mind. Little emphasis is given to authentic symbol (and here again, he had praise for the traditional Latin Mass).
He also said liturgy does not involve the body enough, it at times is understood falsely as a purely-intellectual pedagogical moment instead of a complete participation of the whole human person. Here, the sensory aspect of liturgy must be fully employed: all five senses should be engaged in the liturgy.
Liturgy, the Cardinal said, is an end in itself and should not be sublimated to ulterior purposes. Here is explicitly named the tendency to treat homilies as bulletin boards where the faithful were apprised of current situations in the parish, petitions, etc.
Liturgy must be experienced as well as taught. The Church Fathers, he said, understood that mystagogical catechisis followed upon the completion of all initiation rites. Up to that point, they primarily gave moral instruction and an instruction of the Sacrament they were about to receive.
Connecting this previous point with what he said re: the senses. He said "the eyes of the heart must be open" as well as the light of the mind.
In describing some of the chief temptations of modern liturgical practices, Cardinal Danneels said that liturgy must never become a pretense for mere self-expression. Most of all, liturgists must experience good liturgy. Using a metaphor, he said that all good composers listen to music, all good painters visit museums, so too all good liturgists must themselves experience good liturgy.
In describing the difference between ritual and ritualism, he noted that anthropologically-speaking, man naturally creates ritual. However, in the divine liturgy, it is God who has invited man to his liturgy. It is not a human feast or celebration.
The presider is crucial to the praxis of liturgy. The presider must be humble. He must not look at his homily as the "high point" of the Mass. So too, an equal portion of time (at least) must be given to the liturgy of the Eucharist as to the liturgy of the Word.
Explaining further what he said re: the senses, the Cardinal was very outspoken about the need for real symbols at Mass. A wooden cross must be wooden. The linens must be true linen, (and this got a good laugh): "artificial flowers have no place in a Church or especially at the altar!" The liturgy of the word should be accompanied by symbols that reveal reverence to the word of God: this includes candles and incense. He even made the claim that ideally the Church should be naturally lit as opposed to using artificial lights.
The sense of smell, he said, is especially neglected when incense is not used. Here again, the Eastern chuches are "ahead" of Roman practice with their emphasis on fragrance. Paraphrasing, the Cardinal mentioned that there is no point to the symbolism of chrism as bring about the fragrance of Christ if the catechumans can't smell anything.
The fundamental symbol, of the liturgy, he concluded, is the human body. The eyes are a human being's primary sense organ, and should be stimulated by beautiful images within the Church, etc.
As a historical aside, the Cardinal noted that through much of the history of the Church younger children were asked to perform the readings at Mass. This was done because children generally do not take public reading as an opportunity for theatrics. A child, in this sense, is a very transparent instrument for the word of God to reach our ears.
Regarding the controversial topic of Inculturation, the Cardinal had very good things to say. He noted, foremost, that there are limits to incluturation, and that some cultural practices and traditions simply cannot be brought into the liturgy without doing violence to it's essential status as the fit worship of the Father.
After the conclusion of his comments, three questions were allowed. I was able to ask the first question and asked his Eminence to comment upon Pope Benedict's recent Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. I was unable to scribble notes on his response, but from what I remember, this is what he had to say in summary:
The University of Detroit Mercy is "a Catholic university in the Jesuit and Mercy traditions."
|
links to this post
Fr. Z
Today 
