Monthly Archives: May 2007

Organic Development

There’s been some discussion on my Periodization of the Liturgy piece over at Young Fogey’s place. One of the key issues is the discussion about whether the Roman Novus Ordo (the post-Vatican II mass) can be considered an “organic development” from the Tridentine Mass.

Not being a Roman, of course, I don’t have a dog in that hunt nor a lived experience of both (I’ve only ever attended one TLM, though many NOs). Where the question comes home to roost for me is with the American ’79 BCP…. Is it an organic development from the ’28?

And to push the envelope further–What’s the relation of the American ’28 to the English 1662 through the 1559 to the 1552 to the 1549?

Needless to say Laud’s would have to fit in there as well…

All that is to say, with the tangled webs of Anglican liturgies, what does it mean to talk about continuity and organic development?

Periodization of Liturgy

NLM has a post up that includes bits of an interview with Msgr. Schmitz, vicar-general of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest–a traditionalist group in the Roman church committed to the use of the Tridentine Mass.

Here’s a snippet that struck me as interesting:

Some of the faithful, however, are alarmed by the popular revival of the Old Mass. “They argue that what the “neo-trads” refer to as “the Mass of always” is in fact the product of the Middle Ages, whereas the liturgies that emerged following the Second Vatican Council are connected with the older, patristic heritage of the third or fourth centuries.

“Very well,” Mgr Schmitz returns with a hint of frustration. “This distinction between historical periods is not a Catholic thing to do. I believe that the Holy Ghost is present in every age and in every period of the Church.

“To divide the history of salvation into little drawers that you yourself label with certain qualities is a very narrow view of the history of the Church. As a matter of fact, we are not medievalists, we are not concentrated on the third century or the 17th.” Very well, but what then can we make of the last 40 years of Catholic worship? Does the Novus Ordo not also belong to this organically evolving Church? “We don’t exclude anything,” Mgr Schmitz answers gently. “We simply want to open the window, so that the wind of tradition, the good Roman Catholic tradition, can blow through into what has often become a rather stale atmosphere.”

I agree with many things in the interview but my views on the liturgy and its history part ways from Msgr. Schmitz on the issue of distinguishing between historical periods. Rather, I’d contend that it is very important for our continued effective proclamation of the Gospel that we pay close attention to historical periods.

“Organic development” is mentioned here–whether that phrase began with Msgr. Schmitz or the interviewer I can’t tell (and haven’t had a chance to read the original article). Development necessarily means change over time. Furthermore, as I understand how the Holy Spirit works in the Church I believe that the Holy Spirit directs certain changes at certain times to respond to the needs that arise among God’s people at those times. IF this theological understanding is correct, then several things necessarily follow from it.

  1. Liturgy should not be static. A completely static liturgy is a liturgy that is not listening to the truths that the Spirit teaches. Don’t misread me, though–I’m no fan of liturgical change for the sake of change. Continuity is critically important because liturgy is a big part of the practical process of formation that inculturates us into being the people of God. Start messing around with that too much and you mess with our identity. Rather, change should happen slowly, deliberately, organically, with good order, and with much testing of the spirits.
  2. Historical ages have certain corporate characters based on the events, people, etc. that molded them. As such, some are more alike than others. If the Spirit has taught the church through the liturgy in the past, then it behooves us to examine the epochs and consider what parts of our age are congruent with others. What are the spiritual vitalities and malaises of our age? How do they mirror those of other ages? How did the liturgies of those times and places speak the Gospel to curb the vices and encourage the virtues of the Church? Note that I’m not saying that we capitulate to the Spirit of this Age (or any age…) Rather, we observe how the Holy Spirit has interacted with the various spirits of the ages, sometimes moving in parallel, sometimes issuing sharp rebukes (and often doing both at the same time as well as a myriad other things…).
  3. One of the ways that the Spirit works is through the work that we do, carefully combing through the tradition to observe how the Spirit has worked in the past, then considering how these ways aid us in our current proclamation of the Gospel. The Spirit works in us as well as through impersonal forces. Thus, as people of liturgy–people who craft liturgies, yes, but more so as people who use and are formed by liturgy–we are called to the work of cooperation which can only happen with the triple spirits of openness to the Spirit, humility about our projects, and a passionate desire for the mutual up-building of the community.

So, as I see it, change is inevitable. But it should be deliberate, steeped in the tradition and open to who God is calling us to be–not merely our own frenzied changes or our capitulation to whatever fancies happen to be current.

We have to take historical periods seriously–because what is at stake is nothing less than the principle of Incarnation. An ahistorical understanding of the Church and its liturgies smacks of Docetism. The Spirit does not choose to encounter us in a vacuum but in the messy realities of our lives, of our ages, of our history and it is precisely there, then, that we must find the Spirit’s footprints to direct our ways.

U2charist Review

Seeing this post at AKMA’s reminded me that I hadn’t posted my thoughts on the U2charist… We–the whole family–attended one a week or two ago at a diocesan event. M in particular wanted to study it in that it relates to a particular liturgical interest of hers. Here are a few things I/we found:

  • Neither one of us got to attend the whole service. Why? Lil’ H was being cranky… She wanted to wander around as she’s working on the whole walking thing. It was also in the late afternoon–naptime. This could just be a personal thing but we were not the only ones in the narthex with small children. Think about it demographically–the people you want to attract to a thing like this are of the age to have children–small ones. Furthermore, having kids is one of the reasons people of our demographic return to church. It’s doubly important, therefore, to attend to the issue of small children in worship with this service. Childcare is not necessarily the answer, either. If “inclusivity” is one of the hallmarks of the event (which is what I took away), what’s the just rationale for excluding a certain slice of the baptized?
  • The U2 music was only in place of congregational hymnody–no liturgical elements were replaced/displaced by it. Thus, it was a normal Rite 2 Low Mass, but with other congregational music. I found that interesting.
  • I liked singing along to the songs. You could definitely tell from a quick glance around who knew the U2 catalogue and who didn’t.  What I discovered, though, was that during various songs I wasn’t thinking about their lyrics but about the situations, people, and places with which I associate with them. These were very powerful memories–but not necessarily ones conducive to prayerful attentiveness.
  • I was glad that it wasn’t a Sunday morning service–because it wasn’t a typical Sunday morning experience that would nourish and nurture over the long haul. M said she thought it would be a good thing maybe quarterly for a peace/social justice/world hunger kind of event. I agreed. But–they used the propers of the week. Why? To my mind, it looks and feels like a votive mass. I seem to remember seeing in some book (Occasional Services? Priest’s Handbook?) propers for a votive mass for Peace/Social Justice. (it stuck in my memory because I had to shout down the Old Oligarch [the archetypal crusty conservative] embedded in my soul that wanted to reject such things out of hand as unnecessarily partisan.) If it seems like and is appropriate as a votive mass, do it that way!
  • On the way home asked Lil’ G what she thought. In terms of music, she has been raised with traditional church music and knows the basic chants; she also sings along to The Cure and AFI. So, trying not to bias the question, I asked her if she liked the music we normally hear in church, the music we heard today at the U2charist, or both. She thought about it for a minute, and said both.

So to summarize, I found it an interesting experience. I liked the parts of it that I participated in, but it’s not something I would either seek out or go to on a regular basis. I think its true liturgical home is as a votive mass to draw attention to a particular issue on an occasional basis (and in saying this I imagine this may well have been its original intent.) Musically, pop music is problematic to my mind because of its secular location and all the mental/memory baggage that goes along with it. Furthermore, I wouldn’t call this a pop music mass either because it only appeared at spots for hymnody; none of the liturgical chants were replaced (or even appeared…).

Dissertation Lock-down

I met with the department yesterday and laid out my plan for completing the dissertation… I have a stretch of roughly 20 weeks this summer between semesters and that’s when it needs to happen. As a result blogging will slow–or at least will take a noticeably 10th century turn.

I have to get through grading and I do hope to put out the promised trial liturgy page (…and my entry for the Common Prayer carnival…and the carnival itself…), but then all spare brain cycles will be devoted to the dissertation.

Things will also continue to appear at the Episcopal Cafe. In fact, there’s one over there now…

Schism Update

There’s been a lot going on in Anglican circles these days that I haven’t felt up to reporting. But I do feel the need now to put three points of data in relation to one another.

First, notice who is not on the steering committee. No +Duncan…no +Iker…no +Schofield…no +Beckwith…

Now, notice who is on it. As Brad Drell rightly points out, all of the people who signed the “Windsor” letter ordain women.

What does this mean? It’s too soon to tell. The way I connect the dots, though, it would seem the FiF dioceses may be trying to leave, aligning themselves with Nigeria. But something smells fishy here; ++Akinola is a protestant…

I have always contended that the groups aligned against the current Episcopal leadership are only aligned in what they are against–not in what they are for–and that this does not bode well for their continuation as an organized structure. I would not be surprised if this latest bit of news does not herald the end of the Network as we know it.