What the Difference in Disagreements Can Teach Us

In the world of the usus antiquior, we find certain disagreements. Here are some examples:

• whether orchestral Masses (e.g., Mozart’s) should be performed, or whether they run contrary to the spirit of the liturgy;
• whether to follow exactly the Solesmes rhythmic markings or to incorporate the findings of chant paleography;
• whether the people should sing the Mass Ordinary together with the choir;
• whether a Gothic chasuble is better, worse, or equal to, a Roman fiddleback;
• whether to remove the chasuble before preaching, or only the maniple;
• whether buckled shoes are worth reviving or may be considered an affectation;
• whether this much lace is too much lace.

Such disagreements, I think all would agree, are about relatively minor matters, in the grand scheme of things. At their fiercest, such disputes might be compared to boxing or wrestling; at their mildest, to chess or culinary tastes. Everyone agrees about the essentials: the Mass is a true and proper sacrifice; the universal tradition of ad orientem worship and the Western tradition of the Latin language are ever to be retained; the Ordinary and Propers of the Mass are always to be recited or sung, and if sung, normatively in Gregorian chant; the Roman Canon is the heart of our central act of worship, and like the heart’s beating, it takes place in silence, hidden within; the sanctuary, which represents the holy of holies and the court of heaven gained by Christ the High Priest, is off limits to all but ordained ministers and the men or boys who are deputed to substitute for them; the awesome mystery of the Holy Eucharist is to be received kneeling, on the tongue, in an attitude of utmost humility and adoration, from hands specially anointed for the purpose of consecrating, carrying, and giving the Lord.

We might compare such differences as there are to the performance of a stately piece of Baroque music, where musicians ornament the music in various ways, but according to the conventions of the period and the indications of the figured bass. Two performances of Bach’s St. Matthew Passion or Handel’s Messiah may vary in many details, but it is still obviously the same music, with the same words, in the same order, and with largely the same impact.

In the world of the Novus Ordo, we also find disagreements—indeed, quite a number of them. Here are examples:

• whether the Mass is primarily to be understood and enacted as a sacrifice or as a meal;
• whether the language used should be the age-old Latin, a “sacral” vernacular, or a contemporary vernacular;
• whether traditional sacred music should be employed a lot, a little, or never, with modern popular styles in its place;
• whether the priest in accord with bimillenial tradition should offer the Mass facing eastwards, or rather facing the people;
• whether the priest should pray the only traditional Roman anaphora, the Roman Canon, or choose another one from the menu;
• whether Mass should be recognizably the same throughout the world or radically inculturated;
• whether women should serve in as many liturgical ministries as possible, or the tradition of men only in the sanctuary should be retained;
• whether lay people should handle the true Body and Blood of Christ, or whether, in keeping with the entire Catholic tradition, only bishops, priests, and deacons should do so;
• whether this sacrosanct, august Mystery of the Flesh and Blood of God should be placed on the tongues of kneeling faithful, or into the hands of people standing in line.

It is not difficult to see that the number, nature, and magnitude of disagreements in this realm vastly exceed those found in the traditional realm. These disagreements, let us be honest about it, are more like warfare between countries. The sides are embedded in their trenches; they fire away with belligerence and take no hostages. Indeed, if someone in 1950 had been given a list of the disputed points above, he would have reasonably assumed that it was an accurate statement of disagreements separating Catholics from Protestants, or believers from modernists.

This monumental contrast between the two worlds should give us pause and prompt serious reflection. How does this welter of deep disagreements across the board about the lex orandi of Paul VI (and, therefore, inevitably, about the lex credendi of the People of God) square with the consistent teaching and practice of Paul VI’s namesake?

The Apostle Paul placed much emphasis on unity, not only in matters of doctrine but also in matters of practice, where he urged conformity with tradition: “The things which you have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, these do ye, and the God of peace shall be with you” (Phil 4:9). “We charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us” (2 Thes 3:6). “Fulfill ye my joy, that you may be of one mind, having the same charity, being of one accord, agreeing in sentiment” (Phil 2:2). “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment [in eodem sensu, et in eadem sententia]” (1 Cor 1:10). Or, in the words of St. John: “Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent” (Rev 3:3).

Which of the two worlds we have discussed better embodies the apostolic advice to receive the tradition gratefully and wholly, and thereby be at peace; to withdraw from the disorderly who walk not according to tradition; to have one mind, in one accord speaking the same thing, walking by the same judgments?

The same teaching is consistently given from the early Fathers through the Middle Ages down to the modern period. The Council of Trent says much the same:

This holy Synod with true fatherly affection admonishes, exhorts, begs, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God, that all and each of those who bear the Christian name would now at length agree and be of one mind in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord; and that mindful of the so great majesty, and the so exceeding love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His own beloved soul as the price of our salvation, and gave us His own flesh to eat, they would believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His body and blood with such constancy and firmness of faith, with such devotion of soul, with such piety and worship as to be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread... (Session XIII, ch. 8)

In the culminating lines of Pope Pius XII’s famous encyclical on the liturgy, Mediator Dei—which makes for eye-opening reading, as one sees how brazenly the teaching on almost every page has been contradicted by the course of events—the pontiff declares:

May God, whom we worship, and who is “not the God of dissension but of peace” (1 Cor. 14:33) graciously grant to us all that during our earthly exile we may with one mind and one heart participate in the sacred liturgy which is, as it were, a preparation and a token of that heavenly liturgy in which we hope one day to sing together with the most glorious Mother of God and our most loving Mother, “To Him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb, benediction and honor, and glory and power for ever and ever” (Apoc. 5:13). (Mediator Dei, n. 209)

This is from 1947, one year before Annibale Bugnini, joining the Vatican’s commission for liturgical reform, began his slow ambitious climb to prominence and ultimate hegemony over the Hamletesque Montini.

A reader once wrote to me:

People wedded to the new liturgy have narratives and they become invested in them, especially as they get older. To concede the superiority of the traditional liturgy would mean having to rethink more aspects of that narrative than they are ready to do, especially as it would involve admitting to being wrong for a long time about things of great importance. It is a shame, because the traditional Roman Rite is fully the heritage of every Catholic, yet so few avail themselves of it. 

When all is said and done, the only narrative that can make sense for a Catholic is continuity with his own heritage, with stronger allegiance to that which has been of longer use. Received forms and practices have intrinsic value, according to the mind of Christ and the Church; they enjoy the privilege of seniority, settled reception, and proven efficacy. So, while one might be wrong in one’s “take” on this or that aspect of one’s heritage (the disputed questions listed at the top of this article), one will never be mistaken in principle for adhering to tradition. Whereas the moment one abandons this compass, one is in a ship afloat at sea, with no established route and no guarantee of arrival, confined with passengers who are confused, restive, and strongly at odds about what to do next. I prefer being a passenger on the ship that knows whence it comes and whither it goes, and has all the means for a safe and speedy journey—with the guarantee of fraternal harmony and amicable differences along the way.

Dom Mark Kirby on Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi

Fr. Kirby (right) with a monk and a mascot

Dom Mark Kirby, the Prior of Our Lady of the Cenacle Monastery (a.k.a. Silverstream Priory), has written a brief but magnificent meditation on the unbroken and unbreakable triple cord that binds lex orandi or the law of our praying with the lex credendi or law of belief and the lex vivendi or the law that governs our way of living. He rightly notes that these three are not democratically interchangeable but follow a definite hierarchy.

1. The lex orandi is the enactment of the sacred liturgy; it is composed not only of texts, but also of the whole complexus of sacred signs, gestures, and rites by which, through the mediating priesthood of Jesus Christ, men are sanctified and God is glorified. The sacred liturgy itself (being the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the other sacraments, the Divine Office, and the various rites and sacramentals found in the Church’s official liturgical books) is the Church’s theologia prima. It is in the sacred liturgy and though it that the Church receives her primary theology. The primary theology of the Church is a gift received from above, according to the word of Saint James: “Do not err, therefore, my dearest brethren. Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration” (James 1:16–17). The Church’s primary theology is not something invented by learned men; it is found in the givenness of the liturgy, the primary organ of the Church’s authentic tradition.
          2. The lex credendi is the articulation of what is already given, contemplated, and celebrated in the lex orandi. The Church’s doctrine emerges in all its shining purity — in the veritatis splendor — from the wellspring of her liturgy. Catholic doctrine, the Church’s theologia secunda, is the fruit of her liturgical experience. The sanctuary precedes the aula of theological discourse; the altar confers authority upon the academic chair. A theological discourse at variance with the lex orandi will be flawed and lifeless. I am sure that His Eminence, Cardinal Burke, would agree that when he speaks of the doctrine of the Church, he is referring to the authoritative teaching that is grounded in, and shaped by, the liturgy of the Church, her lex orandi.
          3. The lex vivendi is the Catholic moral life, a life quickened by the theological virtues, a life in obedience to the divine commandments, characterized by the cardinal virtues, illumined by the Beatitudes, enriched by the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, and displayed in the Holy Spirit’s Twelve Fruits. The lex vivendi pertains to all that teaches men to live rightly, to every ethical and social question, and to the pursuit of that holiness that already we contemplate in the saints set before us by the Church.

Read more...

The New English Translation of the Roman Missal: An Important Step in Building the Culture of Life

This past week, I have heard from some who are concerned the Church is wasting time on the new English translation of the Roman Missal when there are seemingly more important problems in the Church, in particular, the fact that many Mass-going Catholics support legal abortion to some greater or lesser degree.

In response to those concerned, one can confidently say: the time spent on the new translation is, indeed, time well spent. The texts used in the liturgy have a direct impact on the moral and spiritual lives of the faithful, and insofar as this is the case, relates to the important matter of building a culture of life.

Liturgiam Authenticam, the instruction on the use of vernacular languages within the liturgical books of the Roman liturgy, expresses how the proper and faithful translations of liturgical texts will flow into the hearts of the faithful having a 'very powerful' influence in their lives:

By means of words of praise and adoration that foster reverence and gratitude in the face of God's majesty, his power, his mercy and his transcendent nature, the translations will respond to the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people of our own time, while contributing also to the dignity and beauty of the liturgical celebration itself.

The liturgical texts' character as a very powerful instrument for instilling in the lives of the Christian faithful the elements of faith and Christian morality is to be maintained in the translations with the utmost solicitude. The translation, furthermore, must always be in accord with sound doctrine.

As well, in 2002, John Paul II spoke of the direct link between the texts used within the liturgy and the Christian life in a letter to the international committee overseeing the English translation of the Roman Missal, Vox Clara:

Since the lex orandi conforms to the lex credendi, fidelity to the rites and texts of the Liturgy is of paramount importance for the Church and the Christian life.

Now, in considering the statements above it is quite clear that the texts of the sacred liturgy are of great importance and should not be dismissed as inconsequential. That said, we should also be clear that this worthy project of re-translating the English edition of the Roman Missal is only one of a series of necessary steps that will bring us toward a more reverent and transcendent liturgy. Matters such as sacred music, sacred art and liturgical orientation are also crucial; further, we need to pursue mystagogical catechesis; all of these assist the faithful in uniting themselves to the sacred mysteries being celebrated.

The sacred liturgy is the source and summit from which all else flows. The newly re-translated texts will contribute to a greater sense of transcendence, drawing the faithful outside of themselves and to God. This in turn is more likely to lead one to conversion of the heart and mind; to a more profound love of God and neighbour. From that, of course, flows the keener awareness of the value and dignity of each human being, and that all life is sacred from conception to natural death.

The sacred liturgy is the foundation for the culture of life. Therefore, rather than the new, and better, English translation being a waste of time, it is precisely time well spent. Time that will help in building a culture of life among the Cathlic faithful, and, further, build up the entire life of the Church.

Related NLM articles:

The Sacred Liturgy: The Neglected Foundation to Building the Culture of Life

Pro-Life News Site Lists the Liturgy as the First Priority in Building the Culture of Life

U.S. Bishops Approve to add Votive Mass in Thanksgiving for the Gift of Human Life

Prefect of the CDW: "The future of humanity is in the liturgy"

Archbishop Chaput Interview Question about the Sacred Liturgy and Moral and Life Issues

It's always edifying to hear from a bishop who sees clearly the importance of the sacred liturgy in the life of the Church and its connection to how the faithful believe and live their lives.

LifeSiteNews.com interviewed Denver's Archbishop Chaput and one of the questions he was asked had to do with the lex orandi; lex credendi; lex vivendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief is the law of living) connection:

LSN: That brings us to a third related issue, I believe, and that is, you are on the bishops committee on the liturgy. How can the way that the liturgy is formulated and presented to the people elevate the sense of the sacredness of every human life and receptiveness to the Church's moral teachings and natural law. There are a lot of small things in the liturgy that may affect how Catholics have a sense of the awesomeness and wonder of God and liturgy is related to what has been happening since the 1960s. Coincident with the decline in the observance in proper liturgy and the abuse of liturgical norms has been this rise in moral relativism and rejection of the Church's teachings by people who still frequently go to Church as many of these [pro-abortion] politicians and leaders do. Is there a relationship that you can see?

CHAPUT: Well, a couple of things. First of all, I think the liturgy as we have it gives us many opportunities to think about the moral issues and life issues. One of the things that was very interesting in the United States in October, was in the week right before our national election, our federal election, we had this passage in scripture " render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's". But I find myself having the opportunity naturally because of the series that the Church presents to us in the three year cycle, to preach on the life issues frequently, so I'm grateful for that. But I think you're right. I think that sometimes priests have felt the freedom to change the liturgy kind of corresponds to their freedom to disagree with the Church's teachings on faith and morals. It's kind of like the individual priest might determine the hierarchy of what's important in the Church and what's true and what is not, and that's not at all what the Catholic Church believes. We need to be faithful to the Church's teachings and I think a sign of being faithful to the Church's teachings is being faithful to the liturgy as it's given to us by the Church.

LSN: I guess it's giving an example of, "we're doing our things here and you do things your way", rather than the loving way the Church has provided for us.

CHAPUT: Yes, that's right.

If the sacred liturgy says "we are here to worship God and follow how He leads us through His Church" then it will follow that the faithful will say "we are here to worship God and follow how He leads us through His Church."

The full text of this interview on LSN: A Conversation with Denver Archbishop Chaput

Related NLM article: The Sacred Liturgy: The Neglected Foundation to Building the Culture of Life

St. Mary's Parish in Norwalk, Connecticut

The following story appeared over on WDTPRS and it seemed to be something that NLM readers would also be very interested in.

There is a new liturgical movement taking place at St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church in Norwalk, Connecticut, and one that can serve as an example and an inspiration for other priests and parishes.

Father Greg J. Markey is the parish priest at St. Mary's parish and has been actively working in the context of the new liturgical movement there since 2003, working to "reform the reform", providing liturgical catechesis, and has also added the usus antiquior to his regular parish Mass schedule.

His mission began by first ensuring that the faithful had a proper experience of the liturgy of the Church -- a necessary, but perhaps under-recognized starting point; the liturgy is, after all, the primary means of the transmission of the Faith to the faithful. He provides further liturgical catechesis through his parish bulletins, classes, as well as the parish website; all important compliments to the action he is taking with regard to the liturgy itself.

Here is one of Father Markey's recent catechetical pieces in the parish bulletin, which will give you a sense of his recent activity:

...Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to liberalize the Traditional Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form) is essential to reconnecting us with our lost tradition, and understanding what authentic worship of God is all about. This Mass was the Mass of our forefathers, of countless saints, and which in its essence dates back to the earliest Church.

Inspired by the Holy Father, I began the Extraordinary Form at the parish every Sunday over a year ago. As your Pastor I wish more people in the parish would understand that we have been given a treasure here at St. Mary’s with this Extraordinary Form, and while the Mass is definitely growing, it is still a disappointment that more people do not recognize what this is all about.

If we look at the full array of Masses here at St. Mary’s, we see that there is a progressive solemnity to each of the liturgies on Sunday, with the 9:30 am Extraordinary Form representing the fullness of our liturgical patrimony. The Ordinary Form at 4:00 pm, 7:00 pm, and the 8:00 am are done reverently, and has the fixed parts of the Mass (Kyrie, Sanctus, Agnus Dei...) sung in Latin during Advent and Lent. The Spanish 1:15 Mass has a beautiful choir which sings the Latin Mass parts all year round. The 11:30 am Ordinary Form of the Mass has the largest volunteer choir, with the Gloria, Credo, and Pater chanted in Latin every Sunday, and at least once a month the entire Mass is done in Latin, ad orientem (facing East). Finally, once again as the fullness of our liturgical patrimony, we have the Solemn High Extraordinary Form of the Mass, with a professional schola singing the Mass parts in Gregorian chant and renaissance polyphony, and a full set of servers.

I encourage people to come and attend the 9:30 am Extraordinary Form so that they will experience what is in my opinion is the fullness of Catholic worship, and which communicates the Sacred to a higher degree than the other forms. The Ordinary Mass is a simpler version of this more ancient form, yet points to this fuller expression of worship.

I ask you to attend a few times because it sometimes takes a little while to appreciate its subtly, beauty and order. Even if you prefer the Ordinary Form of the Mass, your attendance at the Extraordinary Form will at least help you understand our history and the Ordinary Form better.

With all of the liturgical growth here at the parish over the past five years I hope that these two Pastor’s columns would help people to understand the big picture of why I am making these decisions. It is not my own personal whim which motivates me, but my desire to have our parish think and worship with the mind and heart of the Church.

Furthermore I think it more than a coincidence that the crisis in the liturgy over the past forty years coincided with so many other ecclesial crises: the radical decline in priestly and religious vocations, the shrinking and closing of Catholic schools, the breakdown of the family and the growth of the culture of death, the painful clergy scandals, etc. The Mass is the heart and source of our faith. If the Mass is deformed and weak, then so is the rest of the body. As Pope Benedict XVI has written, “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is, to a large extent, due to the disintegration of the liturgy.”

In conclusion, nothing will affect a renewal in the Church and in the culture more than a renewal in the liturgy. The Mass not only expresses what we believe, it shapes what we believe. Come, open yourself to what the Holy Spirit is doing at this point in history, and worship our Lord in the coming year in spirit and truth.

The full text can be found here on the parish website.