A Vindication of St Pius X on Sacred Music and Perspectives on the Church in Africa

Os Justi Press is pleased to announce a pair of new releases.

First, in the “Studies in Catholic Tradition” series, we have Dr. Patrick John Brill’s The Great Sacred Music Reform of Pope St. Pius X: The Genesis, Interpretation, and Implementation of the Motu Proprio “Tra le Sollecitudini”

Professional singer and choir conductor Dr. Andrew Childs sums it up well: “Dr. Patrick Brill provides thorough and much-needed support for what many traditional-minded Catholics have long known or at least suspected: that St. Pius X’s 1903 motu proprio Tra le Sollectitudini still provides the surest guide for the restoration of Catholic sacred music. Part I of this book provides a detailed commentary on the motu proprio, enlightening for amateur and expert alike, while Part II examines the document’s fate from the time of Pius to today, looking at its canonical force and status, positive efforts of implementation, and the neglect it has suffered since Vatican II. As tradition continues to make crucial gains, it will be books like this that serve as practical guides for restoration.”

The new president of the Church Music Association of America, Fr. Robert C. Pasley, concurs:

“Despite the sorry state of music in the Church today, the official documents of the Church still clearly proclaim that Gregorian chant has ‘first place’ (principem locum) in the liturgy. St. Pius X’s motu proprio is the definitive teaching on this subject. Brill’s book is valuable for Church musicians, an immersion in the fundamentals… A fascinating and important read.”

Music director Jonathan Bading, the coordinator of the massive Palestrina500 festival in Grand Rapids, Michigan, adds:

“St. Pius X’s motu proprio on sacred music is the bravest, loftiest, most exhaustive attempt ever to protect and promulgate the precious musical riches of our Roman Rite. Brill’s work particularly shines by placing this great document in its tumultuous historic context and by thoroughly dismissing the naysayers who attempt to water down the urgency of this holy pope’s directives.”

Dr. Edward Schaefer, musicologist and president of the Collegium Sanctorum Angelorum  notes the timeliness of Brill's study:

“Even though they met with certain challenges, these reforms [of Pius X] supported both the twentieth-century revival of chant and a renewed sensitivity to the importance of music in the liturgy…. Patrick Brill’s study comes at an opportune moment, when Catholics are increasingly rejecting the banality of much of today’s ‘church music.’ Brill’s work conveniently gathers into a slim volume the historical context of Pius X’s reforms, the reforms themselves, their implementation, and the place of these reforms in a Church rediscovering tradition. It will be a standard resource.”

Lastly, music professor and author Susan Treacy points to its practicality:

“An indispensable volume for every Catholic—musician or not—who wants to understand the sacred music of the Church.… Provides a detailed exegesis and history of Pius X’s 1903 motu proprio on sacred music Tra le Sollecitudini, as well as the subsequent history of Catholic liturgical music through the aftermath of Vatican II.… Also offers a plan to help pastors and musicians restore sacred music in today’s Catholic parishes, according to the evergreen reforms of St. Pius X.”

*  *  *

The second new release is in a rather different vein: a collection of essays around the theme of the state of Catholicism on the African continent.
 

The familiar claim that Catholicism is booming in Africa—that it is the one continent where the Second Vatican Council has yielded abundant good fruits—does not square with available data and descriptions, as we discover in the late George Neumayr’s articles on Ivory Coast, a Nigerian Catholic’s analysis of harmful inculturation inflicted on Africans by racially stereotyping European liturgists, Claudio Salvucci’s questioning of the Zaire Use on the basis of Congolese history, and Peter Kwasniewski’s evaluation of the evangelical potency of preconciliar faith, life, and worship. In Africa as elsewhere, traditional Catholicism conquered whole populations and fostered immense cultural creativity. Under the new ecclesiology, new ecumenism, and new liturgy of progressive Western intellectuals, ever-larger numbers are falling away to Protestant sects and deracinating secularism.

What readers are saying:

“Accessible and informative, this agile volume…questions much of the received wisdom about the alleged ‘success’ of the Catholic Church in Africa in the last few decades… Will introduce the reader to an ecclesial reality far more problematic and fractured than the naively optimistic portrayals often found in Catholic publications… An important critique of simplistic accounts of liturgical inculturation.” —Thomas Cattoi, PhD, Angelicum, Rome

“Serves as a welcome corrective foray into a fraudulent historiography…based on eurocentric ideological preoccupations.” —Michael Kakooza, PhD, Eastern Africa

“The entirety of this book, brimming with intelligent observations and illustrated with unknown and appealing historical examples, will trigger conversations that should not be postponed.” —Fr. Federico Highton, PhD, ThD; co-founder of two sub-Saharan parishes

“As a priest celebrating the traditional Latin Mass in East Africa for twenty years, I appreciate your collective work. The Catholic Faith has been damaged by the new spirit of this council in Africa like everywhere else, even if the consequences are not of the same magnitude (yet).” —Rev. Christophe Nouveau, Kampala, Uganda

146 pages, full color, in paperback, hardcover, or ebook.

*  *  *

Both books are available directly from the publisher:

Brill on Pius X | paperback $14.95 | hardcover $21.95 | ebook $9.95

African Catholicism | paperback $16.95 | hardcover $24.95 | ebook $9.95

Or from any Amazon outlet (see, e.g., here and here).

Catholic Folk Piety - A Defense by Philip Campbell

I think our readers will find this video by the ever-wise Phillip Campbell of the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam very interesting (like all his work). It is a defense of Catholic folk piety, which is to say, devotional customs and practices which have arisen spontaneously among the people, and not from the Church’s official rites. He makes a very good point when he repeats an observation of Chesterton (who also had a lot of wisdom to offer on this matter), regarding the attitude of modernism and modernity to such customs. People like to say that all religions look different, but in essence teach the same thing, but the truth is exactly the opposite: all religions look alike, but teach different things, and this in turn provides a very useful way of understanding how folk piety relates to the Church’s liturgical life. I also found useful Mr Campbell’s explanation of why attempts to incorporate such practices into the liturgy in the name of inculturation are so often such an embarrassing failure. 

By the way, Mr Campbell informs me that his ongoing series about the attacks on the sacrament of Confession in the journal Consilium will likely resume shortly. (See the already published parts at these links: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.)  

A Bill To Prescribe Traditional Architectural Styles for Federal Buildings

Beautiful architecture by the people, for the people, and of the people?

Last Wednesday, Rep. Jim Banks, a Republican from Indiana, introduced legislation to codify an executive order by former President Trump that made classical architecture the model for new government buildings, an order which was axed by President Biden. He was recently interviewed on the subject by on Fox News.

The “Beautifying Federal Civic Architecture Act” declares “traditional and classical” architectural styles to be preferred for new Federal government buildings. This offers hope, at least, that we might again see a national culture that is beautiful and is in harmony with Christian values.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Russian dissident, famously said on coming to the US (quoting Dostoevsky) that, ‘Beauty will save the world.’ I would assert that in order to save the world, we must first save America, and that in order to do that, beauty must save America. I write as one, incidentally, who recently became an American citizen, because I want to help save the West through beauty.

Those who wish to see a strong American society rooted in traditional values focus, quite rightly, on the political battles, but can forget at times that this ought to be an urgent cultural battle as well. This is a shame, because a noble and accessible culture of beauty is the greatest ally that those politicians who strive for what is good in America can have. As the British conservative philosopher, the late Roger Scruton, put it, when the world around us is beautiful, ‘it tells us that we are at home in the world.’

When we are at home in the world, our desire is to conserve and develop further what is good, rather than to destroy the institutions of society. Furthermore, beauty inspires in us love for our fellow men, generates a culture of faith and virtue that supports the generation of wealth, and our desire to care for the poor. I have previously written about this principle here.

The neo-Marxist theorists who have steadily gained control of the institutions that influence culture in the West understand this well. They have nothing but disdain for the common taste, and for decades, they have deliberately sought to further their political goals by promoting a contemporary culture of ugliness, despair and death, in order to spark revolutionary and destructive anger directed against the America of the Founding Fathers. Beauty raises our hearts and minds to God, and in so doing, reinforces our desire to live by American values, which are rooted in Scripture and Judeo-Christian values. The Marxists know this, even if many Christians seem not to. Accordingly, the Marxists push ugliness, because they know it undermines traditional values. Their architecture of despair distracts our gaze from ‘heavenly things’, as St Paul puts it, and hence from an adherence to objective truth, leaving us vulnerable to manipulation by false propaganda.

The brutalist US Dept of Health and Human Services, the Hubert H Humphrey building. This speaks directly of the disdain that the elites who push this style have for those whom they serve. It says, ‘You may not like it, but we know better than you, as with everything else we do.’

I was delighted therefore to see in December 2020, right at the end of his term, that President Donald Trump (not a man popularly associated with high culture) issue a barely noticed Executive Order mandating that federal buildings should adopt the traditional American style of classical architecture. I wrote about it at the time as a move that would set a standard for American buildings that could be a visible symbol of the traditional American values of faith, freedom and justice. At last, I thought, at the highest level, we have a move that recognizes the importance of culture in preserving and promoting American values, which are rooted in Judeo-Christian values. “If the EO survives the next administration, it will, contrary to what it’s critics on the left claim, likely encourage creativity, authentic originality, and a new richness in architectural style that can be the driving force for a beautiful American culture that speaks authentically of its past and directs us hopefully to its future.”

It turns out that was an important ‘if’. Within a month of Joe Biden becoming President, the EO was scrapped.

Now, thanks to Rep Jim Banks, there is a proposed bill that seeks to do the same, and which adds more detail and direction to the original mandate. For example, as his press release tells us, it specifies that: 

“The term ‘traditional architecture’ includes classical architecture; and the historic humanistic architecture, including Gothic, Romanesque, Pueblo Revival, Spanish Colonial, and other Mediterranean styles of architecture historically rooted in various regions of America, the bill states. 

The bill denounces modern, ‘brutalist’ styles of buildings made popular in the 20th century, defined as a ‘massive and block-like appearance with a rigid geometric style and large-scale use of exposed poured concrete.’ Buildings should instead be modeled after ‘Greek and Roman antiquity’ like the U.S. Capitol and the Supreme Court. 

Banks said his bill aims to restore respect for the beauty of traditional American culture. 

A 2020 poll from the National Civic Art Society found that 72% of American respondents prefer classical and traditional design for federal buildings. Justin Shubow, president of the National Civic Art Society, said he is fully behind Banks' bill. 

"It is crucial that the design of federal buildings reflects the preferences of ordinary Americans — namely, that such buildings be beautiful, uplifting, and designed in a classical or traditional style.”

I am hoping that this bill might make progress, and even if not made law, might set the standard for how legislation can have an impact on the culture. 

Setting an example that will drive a wider American culture of beauty. 

On the whole, I believe that the culture is not created from the top-down, but from the bottom up. It is a pattern of how ordinary people interact and behave. So it is appropriate that a federal bill limits its attentions to the aspect of American architecture that it should properly be concerned with, that is federal architecture. This way, its influence beyond that is by example only. If people like what they see, they will be inspired to follow suit in the building design that they have an influence over. 

The Supreme Court building

Architecture for the people, not the elites 

This bill reflects a proper government concern for serving the people. If the views of ordinary people were taken into account, then I am pretty sure there would be no modernist architecture ever. (I am using modern in a broad sense to mean those styles that arise from a conscious rejection of Western tradition). A poll referred to by the drafters of the bill indicated that classical was the preferred style of the public and of federal workers - those who will actually have to look at and work in the buildings. This does not surprise me. In my experience of decades of talking to people about art and culture, it is the many - ordinary people (who don’t consider themselves members of the cognoscenti) who prefer traditional designs. On the other hand, it is the few - elites who are inclined to tell us what we ought to like - who advocate modernist designs, and who dominate the teaching institutions that form the architects who go on to design such buildings. 

A move that will encourage originality and creativity 

One argument that I am sure will be used against the bill is that it will stifle creativity. In fact, in my opinion, the opposite will happen. It will encourage a richer and more authentically American diversity of beautiful architecture than that produce by modernist architects.

As a rule, in art, if you define limits to creativity in one direction, creativity finds room for maneuver in other directions. Rather than being a prescription for sameness and sterility, it is exactly the opposite: a mandate for beautiful creativity and variety. 

History confirms this. Some of the most admired architectural styles began as attempts to copy the past. Without deliberate intent from the architects, their work was a product of the time and place in which it was created as well. So, for example, the High Renaissance classical style began as an attempt to recreate the classical style of the ancient Romans and Greeks. It quickly became its own distinct form of classicism known as Palladian architecture and in turn morphed into English Georgian and the American colonial style.

Continue Reading this Article. . .

Inculturation: A Wrong Turn - Part 5: More on the Africanism of the Zaire Usage, and the Failure of Inculturation

This is the conclusion of a guest essay on the problems of inculturation in the liturgy, written by a Nigerian Catholic, whom we thank profusely for sharing it with us. Here are the links to the previous parts: part 1; part 2; part 3; part 4. The entire essay may be downloaded as a PDF here.

Besides the “invocation of ancestors” and lively singing and dancing, other unique features of the Zaire Usage that have been held up as genuinely African include the role of a liturgical announcer, which parallels the role of a town crier in many African communities, and the placement and nature of the penitential rite, “whose structure is inspired by the African palaver.” [85] The last two innovations are drawn from the social organization and operation of African communities. There is no doubt that the Church’s liturgy and organization have been influenced and have influenced the structure of secular government over the course of history. [86] However, the services of town criers were certainly not restricted to African communities, nor were they ever employed in Africa or anywhere else for the moderation of the religious function of the community in the capacity of the “liaison between the priest and the assembly” [87] as stipulated in the Zaire Usage. In traditional African religions, as in many other religions of the world, past and present, the priest or priestess is the liaison between the people and the deity. An “official” role for the town crier or “announcer or herald, who is neither a religious nor a priest” [88] beyond the marketplace or street corners and well within the shrine of the gods, is unheard of, and cannot even be imagined.

Touching the placement and nature of the penitential rite that was said to have been inspired by the African palaver, it is obvious that parleying and reconciliation need not belong exclusively to Africans. Neither should the liturgy be tinkered with in order to teach history lessons or re-enact social practices long obsolete. [89] Overall, it is hard to see anything genuinely African and at the same time genuinely relevant to the liturgy in the two organizational innovations in the Zaire Usage, but it is not hard to see a common thread in the novelties: the weakening of the ministerial priesthood in favor of lay participation. The “announcer” innovation does this overtly while the allusion to the African palaver in positioning the penitential rite approaches the same goal more covertly.

The failure of Inculturation and insights from this failure

If inculturation or liturgical adaptation seeks to help the local population pray in a way which, while being natural to them, has been purified and elevated by the light of the Gospel and the Christian civilization, then inculturation, as has been practiced in Africa with the Zaire Usage its apex, has been an unqualified failure. This same conclusion applies to inculturation implemented in other parts of the Catholic world. The relevant data cited earlier showed that no modern effort at liturgical inculturation has invigorated the local Catholic population or accelerated the conversion of non-Catholics. On the contrary, in every part of the world, various sects and false religions are snatching souls at alarming rates from the fold of Christ.

One thing that must be clear from the failure of the recent efforts at inculturation across the Catholic world is that true inculturation, like any genuine cultural advancement, knows of no central committee of experts and elites working out an on-the-spot program of revision or innovation. A genuine culture grows organically. It borrows; it always does; but only that which has grown organically and stood the test of time. It survives and flourishes by establishing clear demarcations between the various aspects or levels of life in the community, without disconnecting these. The demarcations erected by genuine cultures are “semi-permeable,” i.e., they allow the exchange of refined elements between the cultural levels. In a balanced culture, each level grows naturally, influencing and being influenced by the other levels, but in such a way that the cultus, theology and/or ultimate philosophy of the people have the final and binding say in what is uprooted or allowed to grow.

The example of antebellum Irish American society

The musical organization of Irish Catholic parish life in pre-war United States provides us a good example of a natural ordering of community life, showcasing organic development, natural demarcations, and the flux of refined elements between the cultural segments over time. The five distinct musical categories, evidence of natural demarcations, which existed in this community, may be described as liturgical, devotional, sodality, social, and home music. [90]

Liturgical music, which is usually in Latin and following the norms of the universal Church, is at the heart of the community and used exclusively in solemn liturgical ceremonies. Next is devotional music, which could be in the vernacular, but of style and text suitable for religious use. Devotional music may feature in “low” Masses or other liturgical or extra-liturgical ceremonies. The sodality music category included not only the music that is used in pious associations in the parish, but also the music produced by political clubs, parochial schools, and other interest groups that meet or are organized under the auspices of the parish. The music in this category is usually in the vernacular and may vary substantially in style and subject. The various forms of music employed in Catholic public events such as St Patrick’s Day celebrations and other cultural events are here described as social music. Social music is typically in the vernacular and the style is dictated by popular taste. At their homes, Catholics made music for purposes of devotion, amusement, and education, which may be in the vernacular or in Latin.

(Young people in Ireland sing the Sanctus of Fauré’s Requiem.)

It should be noted that the category of devotional music is a hybrid of sacred and secular music with elements of the former predominating. The secular elements may predominate in the sodality music, which is also a hybrid category. These hybridizations are evidences of the natural exchange occurring across the musical demarcations. The overall musical organization was profoundly successful in inculcating and transmitting the Catholic Faith and the Irish traditional culture – as much of that culture that could be re-lived in a foreign land. The community joyfully and profitably “sang the ‘music of the Catholic Church’ and the songs of Thomas Moore, Samuel Lover, and the ‘national airs of Ireland’ ” [91] in Latin, Irish, and English. Both sacred and secular music performed by the Irish Catholic community attained professional excellence and attracted huge crowds of people, Catholics and non-Catholics, in audiences when performed at Mass or concert. [92] There was no incentivization of bad music by forcing it on helpless parishioners under the guise of liturgical adaptation. [93] Naturally, but not without some controversies, cross-pollination between music categories abounded, with the local hierarchy of the Catholic Church serving as the ultimate arbiter in sacred matters and popular taste the arbiter in the secular. [94]

The Irish Catholic music life in pre-war United States clearly shows that to engage the cultural depth of a local population, there is no need to replace Latin with Gaeilge or Igbo or to substitute Catholic pieties with druidic or animist rituals. Even before the migration to America, and this for centuries and in the face of the most brutal persecution, Ireland held fast with love to the truth and liturgy of the Catholic Church expressed mostly in Latin. This language and discipline that was described as “dead” and “foreign” was certainly alive and familiar to the Irish soul. So great was Ireland’s loyalty to the Traditional Latin Mass that men and women, literate or unlettered, were willing to, and many in fact did, give up everything, land, culture, and life for the joy of “Introibo ad altare Dei.” [95] Shockingly, such an undaunted Catholic will as was Irish that “survived dungeon, fire, and sword,” [96] did not survive liturgical inculturation and disciplinary accommodation to contemporary cultures. [97] It follows then that while inculturation is made to pass as an innocuous and beneficial practice, the overwhelming evidence shows that it is a life-threatening invasive procedure with no known case of holistic success.

Conclusion

The inescapable conclusion from our brief survey is that whether in Ireland, Nigeria, Brazil, the Philippines, the USA or any part of the Catholic world, modern inculturation was a wrong turn for the Church and for civilization. “And if you have taken a wrong turning,” C. S. Lewis remarked, “then to go forward does not get you any nearer [to your goal].” [98] This is common sense. “If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road…” [99] What we must do cannot be simpler and more concrete. And we know what the right road to walk back to is. In Microsoft’s Windows, it used to be called the “Last Known Good Configuration” option. In the Catholic Church, that configuration has always been the Traditional Latin Mass and its associated liturgical disciplines. The least any bishop can do is to give the Traditional Latin Mass a chance after the letter and spirit of Summorum Pontificum. Let us start there generously and see the dry bones rise again! [100]

NOTES (numeration continued from previous articles)

[85] Conference Episcopale du Zaire quoted by Chase N. P., 2013, 6, 1, p. 33

Continue Reading this Article. . .

Inculturation: A Wrong Turn - Part 4: The Zaire Usage and False Africanism in the Liturgy

We continue with the fourth part of this guest essay by a Nigerian Catholic on the problems of liturgical inculturation. The first two parts were published earlier this month (part 1; part 2; part 3).

Returning to the Zaire Usage and drawing from our discussions above, we are compelled to admit that the excited singing and dancing at the Vatican on the First Sunday of Advent in 2019 that made such glowing headlines in the global media were neither a unique African religious/cultural expression nor were they the most dignified actions at the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. Dancing as a liturgical or devotional exercise has existed in many societies, African and non-African, and in several of these communities, including traditional Jewish and Christian communities, reverence for the divine has meant that such expression of excitement was kept away from the most sacred action of religion or the principal cultus. Many traditional African religions extensively employ the emotion of fear to elicit and maintain religious fervor. [74] Practitioners are strictly obliged to offer sacrifice and libation or suffer grave consequences. [75] Such stringent obligation requires for compliance, and confers on the associated religious service, a stern and terrifying outlook. Hence, the attitude of “respectful distance” in dealing with the sacred that is practiced in traditional African societies. [76]

This fact was graphically related by Chinua Achebe in his novel Things Fall Apart [77], from which it is evident that nothing could be more out-of-place, even downright “sacrilegious”, than a smiling and swaying worshipper, dancing to the tune of rhythmic joyful music, at a sacrifice or divination service in the shrine of Agbala or Amadioha or any of the other Alusi or deity of traditional Igbo religion.

The cover of the first edition of Things Fall Apart. (Fair use file from Wikimedia Commons)

But how then did the notion of lively singing and joyous dancing become so intimately connected with the religious expressions of Africans in modern times if such behaviors, in that context, are alien to the indigenous religion? We must look for the root of the rhythmic dance music not in the cultus of the African people but in their secular cultures or social tradition. In marked contrast to the petrifying scene of divination painted by Achebe, his description of a village wrestling contest showcase the delightful and lively atmosphere we have come to associate with African religious sentiments. [78]

Thus, rhythm, excitement, and frenzy, those supposed iconic marks of African religious expressions, are in fact “the unmistakable wrestling dance – quick, light and gay [79], ” or the overriding sentiments of other social functions that are only tangentially related to the traditional religion rather than typifying it. Interpreting Achebe in Things Fall Apart, one readily comes to the conclusion that while Africans may be extravagant in their joy when at play, they have the tendency, or rather intuition, of assuming a more or less severe and somber air when they pray. Africans understand that prayer is not, and should not be a joke. Furthermore, Achebe contrasted the gravity of the pre-colonial Igbo people in religious matters with the jovial mood of evangelical Protestantism as follows:

“Then the missionaries burst into song. It was one of those gay and rollicking tunes of evangelism which had the power of plucking at silent and dusty chords in the heart of an l[g]bo man.” [80]

Protestantism is an attempt to demystify and popularize the Catholic Faith. It is the removal of elements which offend contemporary sensibility, and the injection of accessible and “respectable” notions. Such popularization amounts to secularization, the turning away from the divine to the human. This is why the Protestantization of Europe was only a step away from its secularization. Similarly, the identification of native African cultus with secular African cultures in the popular psyche, the identification of how indigenous Africans pray with how they play, and the transfer of these playful ethos (rather than the prayerful) into Catholic liturgy as inculturation constitute genuine liturgical popularization and secularization. It is the direct parallel of introducing rock music or operatic singing into the liturgy in the United States or in Italy in the name of inculturation. Such actions merely trivialize and secularize the liturgy, stripping it of its mystery and solemnity.

The world-acclaimed Missa Luba, “an African setting of the Mass sung in Latin,” [81]  originally performed by a Congolese choir under the direction and inspiration of Belgian priest Guido Haazen, was developed entirely from tunes drawn from the Congolese repertoire of traditional folk music rather than from the stock of religious music. Why? Maybe this is because the religious music is largely unpopular or largely undeveloped. These two possibilities are derivatives, I think, of the extreme austerity of native African religious disposition. We do not thereby inculturate the Mass in the Congo when we ask the Congolese to pray as they would play. We merely trivialize and secularize the sacred function. Missa Luba was a huge success in several concert halls in Europe and across the world, and rightly so, because it was an innovative composition for concerts, a novel exhibition of African rich secular music tradition. It was not intended, nor was it suitable, for use as prayer at Mass, just as operatic settings of the Mass are unsuitable in Italy or in any part of the Catholic world. This thought was more fully developed in St. Pius X’s Tra Le Sollecitudini, which declared:

“Among the different kinds of modern music, that which appears less suitable for accompanying the functions of public worship is the theatrical style, which was in the greatest vogue, especially in Italy, during the last century. This of its very nature is diametrically opposed to Gregorian Chant and classic polyphony, and therefore to the most important law of all good sacred music.” [82]

To maintain the effective and necessary demarcation between the playground and the sacred ground, St. Pius X insisted that musical compositions “which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces.” [83]

There is hardly any doubt that Missa Luba and other African musical compositions of the Mass contributed to the development of the Zaire Usage. [84] Today, whether in a Mass celebrated according to the Zaire Usage or any other inculturated forms of the Roman Rite celebrated in Africa, music in the Missa Luba style, or forms much more unrestrained and theatrical, have become normative. While it is true that in some instances such inculturated liturgical services do afford some opportunity for prayer and union with the Sacrifice, I have many experiences in several parishes across Nigeria in which the sacred function was reduced to almost a mere jamboree, especially during fundraisers such as Uka bia nara Ngozi, Harvest Thanksgiving or Seed Sowing, etc. Unfortunately, such fundraisers within the Mass are increasing in frequency and excesses in many parts of Nigeria.

The disturbing secularization of the liturgy that goes with inculturation bridges the gap Achebe noted in Things Fall Apart between native African stern approach to religion and the happy-clappy mood of Protestantism, especially the Pentecostal camp. It should be noted that the popularization introduced into the Mass under the guise of inculturation is often behind the latest trends in Pentecostalism, whose raison d’être is religious secularization or rapprochement with the zeitgeist. One result of this state of things is that Catholics unsatisfied with half-measure popularization in their parishes stream into one of the up-to-date Protestant congregation. Hence, inculturation is arguably the main reason why Catholics in Nigeria defect to Pentecostal or Evangelical groups.

NOTES (numeration continued from previous article):

[74] Wielzen, D. R., 2009, p. 43

Continue Reading this Article. . .

Inculturation: A Wrong Turn - Part 3: Common Assumptions about Inculturation

We continue with the third part of this guest essay by a Nigerian Catholic on the problems of liturgical inculturation. The first two parts were published last week (part 1; part 2.)

Having completed our short overview of the propositions usually advanced in support of inculturation, and seen how unfounded these assertions are; we will now briefly explore the foundations of a number of scholarly and popular assumptions connected with inculturation in general and African religiosity in particular.

I. Mutual enrichment

We will start off with the common talk about the mutual enrichment of the local and universal Church that necessarily results from inculturation or liturgical adaptation to particular communities. Without denying the salutary effect of genuine liturgical adaption and the beauty of ordered diversity, it is important to remind ourselves of the other reality: we cannot have our cake and eat it too. Keeping the victual metaphor, it is to be expected that one who has always drunk coffee will likely contribute little to a discussion on tea tasting. Likewise, to the extent and in the respect that a local Church adapts a unique practice, to that extent and in that respect is she decoupled from the universal practice of the Church. As discussed earlier, diversity per se is not an evil; on the contrary, it may be a great good, especially if there were legitimate grounds for it. Nevertheless, for the wellbeing of the polity, such deviations from the universal should be the exceptions rather than the rule. Liturgical uniformity, on the other hand, by building a liturgical bridge, as it were, between two or more cultures and nations with different temperaments and persuasions, does result in mutual enrichment of the Church’s communities, as the history of the Church give ample witness to.

As a case in point, the Carolingian kings only desired that their kingdom pray as Rome did, but in their humility, they not only granted their people a share in the heritage of Rome, the principal See of Christendom, but afforded the Gallican rite the unique opportunity of substantially enriching the ancient Roman Use itself. The resulting Frankish-Roman liturgy became the liturgical and disciplinary patrimony of the Church in the West. [58] This liturgical tradition and the associated disciplines and principles produced Western civilization, and not the other way round. [59]

Charlemagne’s Palatine Chapel at Aachen. Image from Wikimedia Commons by Horst J. Meuter, CC BY-SA 4.0

The Christian Faith as expressed in the Roman Liturgy and discipline, in its original or hybrid forms, has had as much efficacy in civilizing the pagan and primitive tribes of Europe as it could have in civilizing the pagan and primitive tribes of Africa, if it is allowed to work its way into the fibres of the cultures of the latter as it did in the former. Unfortunately, a hasty effort at the “Africanization” of the Liturgy, sometimes driven by ideologies antithetical to the Faith, and often times without any objective evaluation of the impact, has stalled the salutary effect of the Latin heritage in Africa. A relevant example that presents itself is the Zaire Usage’s close association with the Congolese dictator Mobutu [60] and his aggressive and sometimes anti-Christian cultural agenda, which included the abandonment of his Christian name.

II. Liturgy and culture

The opinion that non-European liturgies are required for the preservation of non-European cultures is the second popular assumption for our examination. It is interesting to note that many Africans and other non-Europeans who clamour for an African or non-European liturgy to preserve or rescue African or other non-European cultures from Westernization, have themselves, alongside the vast majority of people living today, embraced much of all secular Western cultures – language, technology, philosophy, government, entertainment, etc. Their coldness towards, or outright rejection of, the Traditional Latin Mass and other traditional Catholic devotions deprive them of the necessary counterweight to the toxic effects of the post-Christian Western cultures they have adopted. At any rate, do we have any concrete evidence that the Latin Liturgy poses any threat whatsoever to the positive culture of any nation?

We can readily examine this question with reference to a nation that has had a long Catholic history. St. Patrick’s Ireland is a good candidate having always being outside the Roman Empire and its pre-Christian civilization. [61] Certainly, the Roman Liturgy, for all the many centuries it was prayed in Latin by the Irish people, did not destroy the Irish culture; on the contrary, it nurtured it. Latin did not displace Irish, but English did. [62] In the same vein, Latin has never been a threat to the Igbo language, but English is. And this is not because English is taught in school or sometimes used in the church, but principally because Igbo is no longer spoken in many Igbo homes, no longer the Mother tongue; making it the liturgical language does not help. The English language may indeed threaten the identity of the Igbo people, but post-Christian Western values, torn as it were from God and from the natural law, pose a more mortal and infernal danger. A largely sentimental revitalization of traditional Igbo customs and its incorporation into the liturgy stand little chance in stemming the surging and sophisticated onslaught of the decadent West. Western culture became dysfunctional and corrosive by rejecting the traditional Catholicism that nurtured it; it can be tamed and harnessed for the well-being of any society only if it is reconnected to holy Mother Church, its wellspring.

(The first episode of a series broadcast on Irish television in 2007 called “No Béarla”, Irish for “No English”, in which a man tries to make his way through daily life speaking only Irish, with less success than one might imagine, given that the study of the language is compulsory in Irish schools.)

III. The roots of the traditional Catholic liturgy

The third popular assumption for consideration is really a common oversight. In the frequent discussion of inculturation today, it is evident that many have lost sight of the fact that the traditional Catholic liturgy and discipline is a product, to the extent that it is man-made, of societies with values and hopes much closer to the indigenous people of Africa, Asia and Latin America than to post-Christian Western societies. It was the product of customs that value the family, respect life as a gift from God, dances and claps in its joys, and shares the sorrow and fears of neighbours and strangers. In an effort to identify a distinguishing and central African value as a basis for building a “theological model of inculturation,” one African theologian claimed for Africans the eminent exhibition of hospitality. The apparent suggestion, perhaps, is that Europeans are less hospitable. Another countered the proposition only to advance Africans’ eminent sense of communion or “covenant” with people and nature. [63] The individualism of modern Western societies may de-emphasize personal responsibility towards neighbours and strangers, but such an unsocial disposition does not reflect the values of the Church nor the cultures from which the Church elaborated her liturgy and discipline.

IV. Africanism in the liturgy

We will say something here about the stereotypical association of African worship with dancing, drumming, clapping, and other bodily gestures [64] and its alleged incompatibility with silence, reflective prayer, and solemn forms of singing/chanting, because these latter, it is claimed, are religious expressions proper to Europeans. That a form of liturgical dance is still preserved in the ancient Abyssinian Rite of Ethiopia [65], but nothing of that kind exists in the Latin Rite, may seem to support the common supposition that dancing and other dramatic gestures of joy are, in relation to the West, genuine and exclusive African religious expressions. In reality, however, “[r]itual dance was not foreign to the old European Church,” [66] and about a century after the Ethiopian rite was fixed [67], St. Teresa of Avila and her nuns executed “sacred dance in the choir, singing and clapping … in the Spanish way, but with … holy reverence.” [68] As would have been the case in old Europe, it should be noted that liturgical dance in the Ethiopian or Coptic Liturgy is a feature of certain open air processions or celebrations recalling the famed Davidic dance, and has no place in the Mass. In fact, the Eucharistic sacrifice in the Ethiopian Rite, as a sign of profound reverence, is performed in secret, away from the gaze of the lay faithful. This tradition is reminiscent of the obsolete practice of dismissing catechumens before the Eucharistic sacrifice in the Latin Rite [69], the widespread custom of installing iconostases in Eastern rite churches, and, to some extent, the discontinued Mediaeval practice of setting up of rood screens in Western churches. Consequently, Africanism played no role in preserving in Ethiopia certain practices long out-dated in the West.

The Psalmist invites all nations to clap their hands and “shout unto God with the voice of joy;” [70] elsewhere, “let them praise his name in choir [dance].” [71] Practising what he preached, King David famously danced ahead of the procession of the Ark of the Covenant. His actions were emulated down the ages by Ethiopian priests and European nuns. However, such excited displays are out of place in the Jewish temple worship at Jerusalem, in the Jewish synagogue worship across the world (from which much of Christian Liturgy developed [72]), or during traditional Eucharistic worship in Ethiopia, Europe, and the rest of the Christian world. Just as Elijah recognized the Lord not in the commotions of a strong wind, earthquake, or fire, but in the “whistling of a gentle air” and then covered his face in reverence [73]; so Christ often went away from the crowd to a quiet place, alone or with his disciples, to pray.

The note of reverence and solemnity that characterize the Jewish and Christian liturgies, especially when this involves direct communion with God in one shape or form, exist in various degrees in many non-Christian religions, including African Traditional Religions. In the latter, it sometimes takes the aspect of extreme secrecy, elitism, gravity, and even terror. At any rate, liturgical dance is not an African singularity but a universal phenomenon, which is however excluded from the most solemn religious activity in Judaism and Christianity, as well in certain Traditional African Religions.

Concerning the place of silence and contemplation in African religious experience and expressions, it should be noted that every human being can laugh and cry, and they know the experience that is neither crying nor laughing. Like lamentation and mirth, silence is a universal language that cuts across cultures and creed. Everyone knows what silence is – even the little baby that screams at Mass intent on disrupting the quiet he or she senses and is thrilled to pierce. It is equally true that all human beings are capable of introspection and reflective thought. In some cultures or civilizations, these habits are so developed that mysticism or philosophy becomes noticeable. In traditional sub-Saharan African cultures, meditation and thought are largely employed to reach out to the world of the spirit or to resolve pressing social and personal problems. Hence, philosophy is rather poorly developed, while mysticism is largely better developed.

Granted, the traditional African mystical experience is different from the Catholic notion of mysticism, but so was the mystical expression of other uncultured nations in the distant past that were brought under the Christian light. Hence, I am a little embarrassed to have to argue for a place for silence in the African culture or in any other human culture. It is therefore not true that the silence and sombreness of traditional Catholic piety, especially in the Traditional Latin Mass, is incompatible with the African temper. It is rather condescending to hold such an opinion. Even when singing in the vernacular, Africans do not always produce “throbbing dance music.” I vividly recall my experiences of weekday Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in Igbo in a neighbourhood village church during my undergraduate days in Nigeria. Usually, the sun was then just about to rise, the church poorly lit and poorly furnished, and without drumming, clapping or swaying, these poor villagers sang, mostly from memories and from the heart, the rich mysteries of the Faith in a simple and edifying form that has much in common with the decorum, balance, and prayerfulness of the Church’s Gregorian chant.

A Pontifical Mass celebrated at the ICRSP Apostolate in Libreville, Gabon, by His Excellency Basile Mvé Engone, bishop (now emeritus) of Libreville, in 2012.

NOTES (numeration continued from previous article)

[58] Duchesne, L., Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, 1904, p. 102-104

Continue Reading this Article. . .

Inculturation: A Wrong Turn - Part 2: Common Claims of the Proponents of Inculturation

We continue with the second part of this guest essay by a Nigerian Catholic on the problems of liturgical inculturation. The first part was published yesterday.

The first part of this essay ended with an outline of three common claims made by the proponents of liturgical inculturation:

(1) That efforts at reform which require the Church to prioritize direct and reciprocal engagements with particular cultures through legislation and experiments are not only necessary for the flourishing of the Church, but also for its survival.

(2) That such engagements constitute a return to the primitive practice of liturgical independence in the early Church, and which continues to exist in Eastern rite churches.

(3) That before Vatican II, the Church sanctioned and operated a largely hegemonic policy that demonized, discredited, and destroyed non-European cultures and imposed on the local population Western principles and practice of Christianity. We continue with an appraisal of these claims.

1. The necessity of inculturation

The first assertion, the prioritization of direct and reciprocal engagement with cultures for the survival and flourishing of the Church, has been repeated in documents of episcopal conferences and scholarly publications, although no data has ever been adduced for its substantiation. Maybe that is because all available data seem to prove the opposite, namely, that inculturation is destroying, rather than promoting, the Catholic Faith. For instance, as liturgical adaption is energetically implemented in the Catholic world, the global number of Catholics fell below the population of Muslims for the first time in history. [35] Detailed statistical data on every measurable aspect of Catholic life in the US, Canada, and some European countries showed a precipitous decline following the policies of rapprochement with contemporary cultures and sensibilities in the wake of Vatican II. [36] The significant inroads made by various Protestant groups in Catholic Latin America on the heels of widespread liturgical adaptation and the ascendency of Liberation Theology clearly shows that the Catholic decline cannot be explained by general societal secularization.

An evangelical church in Catholic Brazil. (Image from Wikimedia Commons by the Igreja Apostólica Plenitude do Trono de Deus; CC BY 2.0)

Although today Catholicism continues to grow in sub-Saharan African countries like Nigeria, the increase is due largely to population growth, but accompanied by substantial attrition in favour of the Pentecostal branch of Protestantism. In contrast, in the years prior to inculturation when the liturgy was almost entirely in Latin, Catholics in Nigeria were witnessing a phenomenal increase “in the region of 10 per cent per year”! [37] The picture that emerges from reviewing the available data is that in every part of the Catholic World, inculturation has been associated with abysmal decline in Catholic vigour.

2. Identification of today’s inculturation with the practice of ancient Christians

The second contention, that inculturation or active liturgical adaptation today was identical with the practice of primitive Christians, can only be defended by a selective reading of Church history, an interpretation that is even opposed by some proponents of inculturation. [38] As doctrines and the liturgy were spread orally by the first Christians, it is to be expected that improvised and non-standard liturgical formularies would be the norm. With time, liturgical improvisations gradually morphed into structured usages, “[u]sages developed by slow degrees into rites; rites expanded into” [39] more complicated ceremonies, and finally fixed formularies were adopted. Such an organic development in vastly different environments is bound to introduce much diversity in the set liturgical formularies. The next and commonly overlooked stage of the liturgical history is marked by unification. Smaller Christian communities generally adopted the formularies of the great metropolitan Churches of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. This process continued until “the uses of Rome and Constantinople [had] almost absorbed the rest.” [40] Thus, liturgical uniformity was favoured not only in the West but also in the East. However, the East with a greater number of ancient sees, heterodox separate churches, and culturally alienated communities, does project a liturgical face much more diverse than does the West.

Although the Church rejoices in the diverse legitimate liturgical and disciplinary traditions that Providence has engendered in her bosom, it is not expedient for her to go about actively seeking to create more diversities in her liturgies and disciplines any more than a multilingual country proud of the diverse tongues of her citizens will necessarily benefit if she goes out of her way to create new languages. If left to its ordinary course, i.e. if communication is unimpeded, nature will produce uniformity in a body, whether this concerns heat in a piece of metal or the dialects in England or the liturgical traditions in a Western or Eastern ecclesiastical province. Such unity flows not only from the exigencies of nature but also from the Providence of the God of nature. [41] We may thus begin to appreciate how unnatural and contrived rampant inculturation and liturgical adaptations are in a world that now practically exists as a “global village.” [42]

Solemn Pontifical Mass in the Roman Rite celebrated in Nigeria in 2010 by H.E. Gregory Ochiagha, bishop emeritus of Orlu. Bishop Ochiaga passed away in December of 2020.

However strong the natural case for uniformity is, and however congenial it is for the wellbeing of a polity, the Church at no time in her history countenanced a blanket condemnation of liturgical diversity. When it is for the benefit of souls, the Church has been willing to sanction deviations from her normal liturgical practice. We see this clearly in the story of the saintly brothers, Sts. Cyril and Methodius, the Apostles of the Slavs. Unfortunately, this historical event is often erroneously presented as an example and justification for liturgical diversity understood as a good in its own right. [43] Nothing could be further from the intention of these apostolic brothers as St. Cyril’s defense of his actions before the pope showed. “[W]hen I was unable to help those people with the salvation of their souls in another way, God inspired me through this means, by which I have won a great many of them for Him.” [44] Clearly, St. Cyril understands that liturgical and disciplinary adaptation is the exception that may sometimes be helpful, rather than the rule that must always be followed. [45]

Even after the codification of disciplines enacted by the Council of Trent and right up to the eve of Vatican II, the Church granted dispensations from her established liturgical norms in favour of local customs when she judged such concessions beneficial for the salvation of souls. [46] Hence, at no time in her history did the Church foreclose beneficial adaptations of her liturgies and disciplines; but the pursuit of adaptations and diversities in everything and everywhere as a rule to be invariably followed is novel.

3. Hostility to non-European cultures

The third affirmation, the alleged hostility of the Church to non-European cultures before Vatican II, has many troubling and distorted sides to it, not the least is its uncharitable generalization and ingratitude for the missionaries who left all they cherished and gave all and themselves for the salvation of strangers. It is easy today to lose sight of the enormous sacrifice a nineteenth-century European missionary made in leaving the comfort and security of home for the uncertainties of life and death, say, in a tropical jungle in Nigeria infested with malaria. There and elsewhere he must set himself not only to cure spiritual ills but also treat the bodies and educate the minds of children and adults, even when the vast majority of the beneficiaries are not even Christians. [47]

The many today that charge these missionaries and the hierarchy that directed them with insensitivity to the culture and people evangelized, cannot account for the sacrifices and achievements of these missionaries and the papal teachings of the time that guided them. For instance, Pius XII is on record to have instructed the missionary to “consider the country he is going to evangelize as a second fatherland and love it with due charity.” [48] The pope continued:

For the Church, when she calls people to a higher culture and a better way of life, under the inspiration of the Christian religion, does not act like one who recklessly cuts down and uproots a thriving forest. No, she grafts a good scion upon the wild stock that it may bear a crop of more delicious fruit. [49]

Similar exhortations for missionaries to love the people they evangelize and to respect, build on, and harness for good their cultures and heritage were issued by Benedict XV, Pius XI, and St. John XXIII, all before Vatican II, [50] and following in the ancient trail of St. Gregory I. [51] Therefore, the common accusation of systemic utter disregard and contempt for the cultures of native populations often hauled at missionaries who laboured for the Faith before Vatican II is without merit and in bad taste. [52]

A Catholic missionary in China wearing a “jijin”, a custom which was given papal approval, and was apparently adopted from the forms of hat worn at the imperial court. This is a classic example of traditional inculturation in action, having been so adopted because within Chinese culture, not having one’s head covered was a sign of “humiliation and scorn.”

Culture misunderstood

The second quotation from Pius XII above underscores an important fact about culture too often confused. Since each culture was developed under more or less unique circumstances to solve human problems within a given context, no two cultures are wholly comparable. In this respect, no one culture is better than another. [53] However, if we look upon culture as civilization or human achievement, “that total process of human activity and that total result of such activity,” then one culture may be more advanced or civilized than another. [54] It should be noted that a more advanced culture is not the inevitable consequence of the higher intelligence of a particular people relative to another group. Civilization grows largely by “the diffusion of cultural traits,” i.e., the borrowing of ideas and techniques by one group from other groups, which depends on the accident of opportunities (or, speaking more correctly, Providence) and the willingness to assimilate. [55] The Church in building the Christian civilization drew from the greatest achievements of civilized Asia, Africa, and Europe, which she harmonized and elaborated by the principles of revealed truth. [56]

Hence, it is genuinely retrogressive and deleterious both to the Church’s mission and the civilization of non-European communities to place the Church, even with respect to her human elements, on the same level as every culture of the world, however primitive. Sadly, there are some who in their effort to promote inculturation demand that the Church embraces “powerlessness” by denying her civilizing power and heritage among nations. [57] And others who hold that non-European communities should as a rule prefer their own cultures to the traditional norms and practices of the Church. In other words, these communities are being asked to re-invent the wheel, to evolve from a more or less disordered foundation a process the Church has long completed and perfected – as far as completion and perfection goes this side of heaven.

NOTES (numeration continued from previous article):

[35] Associated Press, retrieved on August 20, 2020 from https://www.foxnews.com/story/vatican-islam-surpasses-roman-catholicism-as-worlds-largest-religion

Continue Reading this Article. . .

Inculturation: A Wrong Turn - Part 1: Introduction and Background

We are grateful to a Nigerian Catholic for sharing with us this essay on the problems of liturgical inculturation, which we will present in five parts.

On the First Sunday of Advent in 2019, Pope Francis celebrated Mass for the Congolese community in Rome at St. Peter’s Basilica using the Zaire Usage of the Roman Rite. A news piece published on several outlets titled, “Joyous Congolese dances, songs enliven St. Peter’s Basilica” [1] reported the event at the time. The report did not fail to contrast the scenes of jubilation and dance “with the solemnity of most religious ceremonies at the Vatican.” The Zaire Usage is said to stand on the summit of the program of liturgical adaptation ushered in by Vatican II. [2]

Other than the cheerful swaying, waving, and dancing to rhythmical music, which many have considered the genuine characteristic of African religious experience, in contrast to the more sombre traditional Catholic liturgical piety, the Zaire Usage exhibits other novelties, of which the most contentious has been the invocation and veneration of ancestors. Who may become an ancestor, what sort of power is exerted by these ancestors, and what does it mean (objectively and subjectively) to venerate them are some of the persistent questions which are not readily answered. One author has described the ancestors as “the wise, brave and old parents (men and women) who in the time of their human existence have brought honor to their families and descendants.” [3] Another related various opinions on the power and influence of ancestors on the living. [4] Perhaps because ancestors are variously understood, the Congolese Episcopal Conference limited the ancestors invoked in the Zairean Use to those “of the right heart, which are under the merits of Christ.” [5]

The defenders of the doctrine of the “invocation of ancestors” are generally unwilling to reconcile the “ancestors of the right mind” with the saints as one would think of them on All Saints’ Day. Rather, they content themselves with merely justifying the cult of ancestors by the cult of the saints and in so doing signify a divide between the two. [6] Once the ancestors are in fact separated from the saints, the justification for the former, built on the latter, becomes shaky; the two prove to be at odds. For instance, whereas Christ, “the firstborn of every creature,” [7] is the first in the line of saints, for some He does not even qualify as an ancestor, since only those who “died at a ripe-old age” [8] and were not “cursed by the gods” as to die young [9] can be so regarded. Are traditional African societies not broadminded enough to honour not only their elders but also their heroes and achievers, whatever their age?

At least one African scholar John S. Mbiti answers this question in the negative, claiming for dead African children and young adults reverence from the living. [11] Chinua Achebe, in his critically acclaimed fictional work, Things Fall Apart, a tragic novel renowned for its fidelity to the authentic habits and customs of the Igbo people before and during the early days of European colonization, informs us that Africans are not invariably ageists.

Age was respected among his people [the Igbos], but achievement was revered. As the elders said, if a child washed his hands he could eat with kings. [12]

We will have reasons to return to Things Fall Apart in the course of this discussion, but for the moment it is worth noting that Achebe and Mbiti squarely contradict those who insist on an Africanism in which long life is the necessary basis for venerability. Such a narrow mind-set is obviously at variance with Revealed Truth. [13]

When controversies surrounding reincarnation, whether it is nominal [14], partial [15], or full [16], and how these conflicting beliefs intersect the ancestral cult are brought to the fore, the rite of the “veneration of ancestors” in the Zaire Usage or other proposed revisions of the Roman Rite become even more disconcerting. In this respect, the words of our Lord to the Samaritan woman, “You adore that which you know not,” [17] takes on a new and pressing significance. I shall attempt to show further on that the “veneration of ancestors,” though the most concerning doctrinal innovation in the Zairean Use, is not the only problem that arises from inculturation as understood and practiced in the Church today. In order to do this effectively, I will briefly evaluate the root, nature, and the fruits of Catholic inculturation in recent times.

Liturgical adaptation in Vatican II.

Vatican II is credited with laying the foundation in the Catholic Church of inculturation as the term is understood today [18], although the term did not occur in any document of the council. Sacrosanctum Concilium of Vatican II, while stipulating the revision of liturgical books, provided “for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved” while envisaging an “even more radical adaptation of the liturgy.” [19] The promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae and the liturgical adaption enjoined by Sacrosanctum Concilium and extolled by St. Paul VI were quickly implemented all over the world. This led to the almost complete disappearance of the immemorial Traditional Latin Mass, and the disuse of the Latin language and Gregorian Chant in favour of local languages and native music. The widespread adoption of elements of local piety and festivities, including dancing and clapping as well as popular music cultures such as afrobeat, rock, Yé-yé, etc. soon became normative in different parts of the world. [20] In addition, liturgical and disciplinary abuses of a more grave nature were not uncommon. [21] These liturgical novelties were justified on the ground that they lead to the “full and active participation by all the people” in the liturgical life of the Church, which Sacrosanctum Concilium held as the “aim to be considered before all else.” [22] Nevertheless, the celebration of the Novus Ordo in the more reverent style of the traditional Catholic liturgies continued in some places.

Adaptation outdated and inculturation extolled

Although the program of liturgical adaptation formulated in Sacrosanctum Concilium was welcomed enthusiastically and implemented optimistically across the Catholic world, its provisions have since been declared too restrictive and inadequate for modern evangelization. Many have voiced their dissatisfactions with the alleged superficial impact of liturgical adaptation allowed by Sacrosanctum Concilium, which they claim only incorporated certain local symbols and practices in the liturgy, but left the cultural depth of the people unengaged. [23] Consequently, they opted for the policy of inculturation, which has been widely described as the “incarnation” of the Gospel into a particular cultural context, and touted as the effective scheme for the evangelization of modern societies. [24] The process of inculturation is said to involve “the Christianization of culture and the culturing of Christianity.” [25]

The popularity of inculturation seems to stem from its advocacy of a two-way traffic of influence between the universal Church and a local culture, such that the Gospel does not only permeate and transform the culture in question, but is itself permeated and enriched by the culture. To realize this outcome, proponents of inculturation insist on a “dialogue” between the Church and particular cultures exercised on the firm grounds of reciprocity. [26] That is, the Church must be ready and willing to be transformed as much as she is eager to transform the cultures of the people she evangelizes. In the same way St. Paul VI sanctioned liturgical adaptation, St. John Paul II gave his support for the inculturation of “the whole of Christian existence — theology, liturgy, customs, structures” on the condition that nothing that is “of divine right” or an element of “the great discipline of the Church” is compromised. [27]

Conditions of inculturation ignored

There are already troubling signs in some quarters that the condition for inculturation demanded by the pope had gone unheeded. Some Catholics are now openly calling for the syncretization of the Roman Liturgy with religious elements borrowed from non-Christian religions, [28] and there is even a scholarly paper that claimed, approvingly, that such syncretic worship is a regular feature of a particular Catholic parish in Nigeria. [29] I would have been inclined to dismiss such an account as altogether improbable if not for a similar incidence closer to home. The parish priest of my village in Nigeria stirred much apprehension and confusion a few years ago when he publicly advocated for Catholics to return to elements of the traditional non-Christian religion. He followed this general invitation away from the Catholic Faith with a call for practitioners of the local Traditional African Religion to participate in the life of the Church without renouncing practices and opinions incompatible with the Church’s teaching. Only an episcopal intervention that ousted the priest in question brought the scandal to an end.

Meanwhile, some scholars are making a case for the abandonment of inculturation altogether in favour of interculturation because the former, they claim, “does not fully take into account the complicated reality of the interaction between Christian cultures and other cultures and religions.” [30] To “discover the intercultural face of God residing in the midst of diversely constructed human cultures and religious perspectives” [31] was declared the objective of interculturation. Is this not a call for the direct embrace and approbation of the idolatrous cultus of non-Christian religions and the complete relativization of Revelation? It seems obvious that the hierarchy of the Church cannot now validate interculturation without risking a formal approval of syncretism and pantheism.

Common claims of the proponents of inculturation

Although there is an obvious disagreement on which term – adaptation, inculturation, interculturation, or some other piece of academic jargon – best describes the movement, supporters of the accommodation of various aspects of the life of the Church to local practices (which I will refer to interchangeably as inculturation or adaptation) are more or less in agreement on a number of points.

(1) That these reform efforts requiring the Church to prioritize direct and reciprocal engagements with particular cultures through legislations and experiments are not only necessary for the flourishing of the Church but also for its survival. [32]

(2) That such engagements constitute a return to the primitive practice of liturgical independence in the early Church, and which continues to exist in Eastern rite churches. [33]

(3) That before Vatican II, the Church sanctioned and operated a largely hegemonic policy that demonized, discredited, and destroyed non-European cultures and imposed on the local population Western principles and practice of Christianity. [34] These claims deserve an appraisal, which we will undertake in the second part of this essay.

NOTES:

[1] D’Emilio F., https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/joyous-congolese-dances-songs-enliven-st-peters-basilica-67415780, retrieved 14 August 2020

Continue Reading this Article. . .

Bugnini, Roche, Grillo, and Inculturation Overdrive

Not the Zaire usage?

The term “inculturation” is certainly one of the favorite buzzwords of progressives. We have heard it mentioned for decades. It was the original rationale for updating or modernizing the liturgy: the old liturgical rites (so it was said) are excessively beholden to and redolent of past ages, and modern people clearly need a recognizably modern set of rites, sleek, direct, patent, simple, comprehensible, action-oriented, etc. The fact that they did not ask for such rites is only a sign of their habitual modesty and passivity, but the scholars were capable of divining hidden intentions that a grateful laity subsequently recognized and welcomed as if these had proceeded forth from their own breasts. It was also claimed, although the impression of hocus-pocus was a little too strong to ignore, that remarkably these modern qualities were the very same as those that early Christians prized in their rites, about which we have almost no records but of which German scholarly reconstructions could achieve the highest verisimilitude.

For a time, such futuristic fantasies took a back seat as the Church under Benedict XVI hunkered down to restore a modicum of dignity to the new rites and began to restore the old ones, at first only here and there, and over time nearly everywhere. The pulsing drumbeat of inculturation died down for a time, and one might have thought it had gone extinct. But, like a rare species of poisonous frog sighted in the remotest part of a rainforest, it has returned with a vengeance in the form of soon-to-be Cardinal Arthur Roche, a most unlikely proponent of flexibility and exoticism.

In an interview with the Spanish Catholic magazine Omnes, he said the following:

On this subject, I have often said to the bishops that we have spent the last fifty years preparing the translation of the liturgical texts; and now we must move on to the second phase, which is already foreseen by Sacrosanctum Concilium, and that is the inculturation or adaptation of the Liturgy to the other different cultures, while maintaining unity. I think that we should start this work now. But I would like to point out that today there is only one [other Novus Ordo] liturgical “use,” not a “rite,” and that is in Zaire, in Africa.
          It is important to understand what it means that Jesus has shared our nature, and in a historical moment. We have to consider the importance of the Incarnation and, if we can say so, of the action of grace being incarnated in other cultures, with various expressions that are completely different from what we have seen and appreciated in Europe for so many years.

Are we surprised, then, to hear similar language, yet less diplomatic and more aggressive, in the self-appointed czar of the reformists, Andrea Grillo? In a reflection he posted for the one-year anniversary of Traditionis Custodes, Grillo writes (as quoted by Luke Coppen of The Pillar):

It is about releasing the true energies of ritual language (verbal and non-verbal) as the culmen et fons [summit and source] of all the action of the Church. Today this happens no longer primarily in Latin and in a rite of priests and not of the assembly, but in many languages whose cultures have entered, for 60 years, into the common patrimony of the great ecclesial tradition. A Church that wants to ‘guard the tradition’ must not be afraid of the different cultures with which we can experience faith and express our creed today. This ‘communal table’ will be able to make it possible to assess the limits of what has been done so far and boldly take the way forward on the level of verbal and non-verbal languages. A great construction site can open up: for the tradition of guarding by walking forward, not backward. 

When I read such things, my mind wanders back a few years to an intriguing conversation I once held with an older priest who had done his liturgical studies at Sant’Anselmo in Rome in the 1970s. He had the rare good luck to be able to go out to lunch one day with Annibale Bugnini shortly before the latter’s fall from grace. My friend told me that Bugnini, a regular raconteur at the table, finally came around to the topic of the liturgical reform.

The mastermind of the Consilium said to him essentially this:

What you need to see is that the new liturgy involves three stages. First, we had to eliminate the old way of doing things. This was mainly the work of the 1960s, and in thirty years’ time, everyone will have forgotten what came before. Second, we had to create something new for the time being: this is what people are calling the ‘Novus Ordo’. But even this must disappear, giving way to… complete inculturation: every liturgy should be made by the community, for its own immediate needs. No liturgical books, just like it was in the ancient church! Even my Mass will disappear, by the year 2000.

Readers familiar with the immediate postconciliar literature will recognize, in this vision, the viewpoint given eloquent expression by Joseph Gelineau, SJ: that the liturgy is a “permanent workshop” (Grillo's “great construction site”). Not deceived by the siren song of inculturation, Dom Hugh Somerville Knapman puts his finger on the inevitable result:

The progressive element among the reforming liturgists saw the 1969 missal as but a stage — a significant one, mind you — in the new project of reconstituting the liturgy as something that contin­ually adapts to the age in which it is celebrated. As we have seen, the result is that the liturgy generally degenerates into reflecting the age rather than speaking to it and sanctifying it. Or more to the point, radical deformations of the liturgy reflect not the face of Christ but the face of the dominant person or clique that imposes them, and so become vehicles not of worship but of narcissism, the cult of self which is the de facto creed of postmodern western soci­ety…. We are rootless and thus heartless, replacing self-sacrifice with self-service, with self as the only moral absolute, its inescap­able subjectivity and impermanence denying the absolutism it demands for itself. Its secondary absolute, novelty, suffers the same inherent flaw.

Here we can see that Bugnini was no prophet. By the year 2000, the Novus Ordo was still plodding along in its thousand vernaculars, subject to widespread abuse and feeble attempts at community customization that never amounted to much more than a presider’s or a committee’s vague and often silly ideas about what a celebration “for us” should look like. In short, one might call it creative mediocrity or mediocre creativity, but it was a far cry from the lunchtime prognostication.

In Roger Buck’s entertaining romp The Gentle Traditionalist Returns, there is a point in the imaginary conversation where a thoroughly modern person objects that GT (i.e., the Gentle Traditionalist) is nothing other than a medievalist, an escapist, a nostalgic. In reply, GT explains why he loves tradition in its totality—from every stage, every place, every period, every culture through which the Catholic religion has passed, not limiting himself to the medieval age but not willing to limit himself to modernity either, particularly because it seems to operate under an oddly reactionary mentality that traps it in a little box marked “Now”:

Well, the medieval era is an important stage in Catholic tradition. But it’s just one stage. Catholic tradition covers 3,000 years—not just modern media culture! It begins with the Old Testament, becomes infinitely enriched by the Gospel, takes in Greek thinking with the Patristic era, develops through the so-called “Dark Ages.” Then comes the medieval era. Finally, the tradition significantly develops in modern times, as well. That, my dear fellow, is the whole point to Tradition—respecting three thousand years of Divine Revelation and dedicated human effort to engage that Revelation. Three thousand years of prayer, thought, study, sacrifice—indeed blood, sweat and tears. But all that, I know, is just three thousand years of encrusted patriarchal baggage to you. (p. 126)
          You see why the destruction of tradition troubles me. One so easily gets enslaved to the present moment. All this “Power of Now” stuff is dangerous, if you ask me. It’s also arrogant. Thousands of years of human insight, human enquiry, human intellectual and spiritual endeavour—not to mention Divine Revelation—thrown to the winds. And why? Because it didn’t jive with the Baby Boomers after the “Summer of Love”? (pp. 129–30)

The liturgy so prized by Roche & Co. is — contrary to their mindlessly-repeated claims about breadth of inclusivity and depth of sources — staggeringly provincial in time and space, reflecting the preoccupations of mid-twentieth-century liturgists of postwar “enlightened” Europe, through whose filtration devices every item of ritual and rubric had to pass.

To the future cardinal, we express our modest and humble opinion: we do not want this Bugninian futuristic indigenous/cosmopolitan self-inculturated workshop. Its first iteration failed, and the current geriatric fad for attempting to revive the mimeographed agenda of the reformers not only fails to enthuse, it positively nauseates most of us who still frequent the pews, study in seminaries, or go in unto the altar of God — unto God who giveth joy to our youth.

(Since this article was first drafted, there have appeared several articles of great relevance to the question of inculturation: see here, here, and here.)