The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionFrock coats and fiddle back vestments
by Eugene Cullen Kennedy on Jul. 08, 2010
John Allen reports that in a forthcoming papal equivalent of an executive order, Pope Benedict XVI will initiate a "liturgical movement" that, with unintentional irony, he terms "new" even though it is old enough to be appraised on "Antiques Road Show." Allen concludes that the pontiff, invoking the mantra of "continuity," wants to "restore what (he)… and like-minded observers believe was lost in the post-Vatican II period." In short, this is the latest move to "reform the Reform" of Vatican II.
Is there a parallel with the events that took place a century ago as the shadow of World War One fell across Europe? The last great autocrats, the lookalike cousins who ruled England, Russia, and Germany, wanted continuity as well as they struggled to restore monarchical structures that were being swept away by the incoming tide of modern times. In George, Nicholas, and Wilhelm, Miranda Richards describes the Kaiser's brutal striving to preserve the click heels militarism that emerged from Bismarck's uniting Germany in the previous century. Russia's Tsar Nicholas chose to ignore the modern world and the restless millions seeking better lives and more freedom, feeling that it was the assembling crowd's fault when his soldiers fired on them in his palace square. His duty, he was blindly confident, was to preserve the divine rights of emperors by exercising them constantly. He ignored the thousands of casualties as his armies were humiliated by the Japanese and when they destroyed his Pacific Fleet he ordered his Atlantic Fleet to sail to the Far East to exact revenge on what he considered a lesser nation. The Japanese sank that fleet too.
The tsar, wishing to wave away modernity, moved his family out of St. Petersburg to live at Tsarskoe Selo "in a world apart" where the tsar never spoke "of the war or the internal state of his country." He recreated the universe he loved of imperial protocol and trivial occupations while a ten foot high barbed wire fence rose around the vast compound. Such troubles as existed in Russia were caused by "workers" who had been "duped" by "the traitors and enemies of the country." The well mannered tsar let reality drift by like a passing summer storm while his wife, Alexis, contemptuously declared that the "illiterate Russian" was simply not ready for "freedom of thought." The answer, the Romanovs were divinely certain, lay in crushing the new age and its demands and returning to the autocracy that God had placed in their hands.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
After King Edward VII died in 1910, his son, George V, dismissed modern times and their complications by decreeing a retreat to the Victorian Age. To the despair of his ministers, he also concentrated on the emblems of a lost and gone way of life, sending corrective notes to politicians who entered Parliament in anything but the frock coats that had been popular in the 1890s. He forced his wife, Queen Mary, who longed for fashionable clothes, to wear "the constricting toques and bustles and corsets of a late-Victorian lady." Longing "for the certainties of his grandmother's world, he returned the court to the staidness of the 1890s."
A hundred years later, Pope Benedict XVI struggles to renew and restore the hierarchical or monarchical model of the church. Sure that the problems are not the clogging rust from the corroding hierarchical structures, he has announced the creation of a new Vatican department dedicated to tackling what he calls "a grave crisis" in which Europe and North America are facing "the eclipse of the sense of God."
Meanwhile the victims of sex abuse by clergy are the counterparts of the masses waiting for the tsar to respond to their suffering as they wait in St. Peter's Square for the pope to respond more fully and effectively to theirs. Benedict seems unsure of what to do as criticism mounts for his seemingly passive management of the problem as a German archbishop or a top Vatican official. One of the central parts of his program is the restoration of the hierarchical forms that are falling like space debris all around him. Having given Archbishop Lefebvre and his pre-Vatican II longings considerable leeway, Benedict now advocates traveling back in time to undermine Vatican II's monumental liturgical reforms, claiming that he is just restoring "continuity" with the imagined glory of a a Gone With the Wind age of Catholic life.
He is calling for fiddleback vestments instead of frock coats, and the team the Vatican has sent to investigate the American nuns -- who are a true glory of the Church -- may want them to slip into the armored suit habits of irretrievable times. Meanwhile, as victims of the sex abuse scandal still wait below his windows, weeping as uncomforted as Rachel, this week the pope made a trip to the small central Italian city of Sulmona, to venerate the relics of Pope St. Celestine V who, Catholic Culture.Com reports, resigned from the papacy five months after his election in 1294. Benedict also blessed a new fountain at the Vatican in honor of St. Joseph, to whom the pope is said to have great devotion. He also announced plans to move shortly to his summer retreat at Castel Gandolfo.
At the same time, something called "The Pope's Cologne" hit the market. It is based on the "private formula of Pope Pius IX," who reigned for what seemed like the whole 19th century, condemned everything modern, and left us with the doctrine of infallibility and the unfinished business of Vatican I. The product is described as an "aristocratic, Old World cologne with surprising freshness." No doubt the tsar used it too.
[Eugene Cullen Kennedy is emeritus professor of psychology at Loyola University, Chicago.]
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Kennedy's column, Bulletins from the Human Side," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add Kennedy to your list.
NO ONE could ever say it any
NO ONE could ever say it any better than this psychologist!!! Deo Gratias!!!
Pax. Aristophilos
It always strikes me as funny
It always strikes me as funny when someone condemns nice vestments as somehow attacking Vatican II.
Because if there's one thing that the 2nd Vatican Council demanded, it was that all priests' vestments must, from then on, look like cheap rayon tablecloths that someone lifted from the lobby of a Motel 6.
These same people will spend possible $1000 or more on a single shot wedding dress that does NOT look like a tablecloth, of course. But hey, that's different: It's for THEM, not for God.
Kennedy could try reading the 2nd Vatican Council documents. They are freely available HERE.
Pete, fiddlebacks are not
Pete, fiddlebacks are not really the problem - emphasis though on a return to them is a sign that the they are seen as a solution and not the distraction from a return to the simplicity of Jesus' teaching. "Love God abd your neighbour as yourself."
I could not disagree with you
I could not disagree with you more.
This irrational fear so many have that "OMGOMG!!! They're tearin' up mah Vatican 2!!11!" seems so silly (No, PMR, I'm not saying that's what you're doing. I've seen it pretty much everywhere though.)
The suggestions of "wouldn't it be nice if we tried to make sure we have the best vestments we can for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" is made and people start saying stuff along the lines of "It's a return to CLERICALISM!!!!". This is a silly as saying that a reintroduction of good manners, decency and respect for ladies that our secular culture has in general lost would mean the reintroduction of DUELING!
Can too great an emphasis be placed on objects? Of course. But we can also err the other way. I have seen in my life, in the many parishes I've been to (including Ukrainian Rite) pretty much none of the former, but I have seen LOTS of the latter.
Great example. I'm glad you
Great example. I'm glad you are here.
Pete Yes, vesting in general
Pete Yes, vesting in general somehow is against 'the (mythical, of course) spirit of VII'.
Not doffing the chasuble, wearing a rainbow stole, wearing commercial dress (except of course when Fr McBrien wants the credibility it gives him when he appears on CNN), somehow that is not meant to send a message. But sticking with the Church's traditions and documents of VII - where JP the Great was a participant and BXVI was a peritus - that is wrecking this great project of the post VII church.
I mean, how one can look at the loss of faith, empty houses of formation, the sexual abuse crisis, polka masses, 'liturgical' dances, insipid translations, ad naseum and say 'Wow, this all needs to be preserved; VII was a rousing success' is really hard for people who are not from that generation to fathom.
It's like the Breazhnev Doctrine of the old USSR, where a country would not be allowed to leave the USSR sphere. No matter how awful things got or how much the people clamored for change, it must be kept in amber. Ditto most of the changes associated w/ the 'spirit of VII'
As for the sisters, no doubt they are the Church's treasure. Hence the Hierarchy is trying to help them figure out: "Where have we gone wrong. Why are our mainline orders so irrelevant. Why don't we attract new members, like the neo-traditionalists do (Psst: CARA's (Georgetown Univ) August 2009 report has some of the answers, including a richer liturgical life, living in community and - horror! - habits. Yes, how patriarchial, retrograde and immature). Since growth is the only sign of life, it is an excellent question for the orders (men and women, but many of the men's orders HAVE ALREADY UNDERGONE A VISITATION): What went wrong? How to aright the ship?
Fact is, the Hierarchy is probably acting selfishly, as the orders have a %9 bn unfunded liability, a key part of which is due to the lack of new members. The Hierarchy is on the hook, are the only friend the sisters have at the moment and are doing their level best to help the mainline orders to save themselves before they go the way of the Shakers.
Do you feel better now,
Do you feel better now, Anonymous Scrantonian, that you have once again spewed the same bilge with all the same distortions on everyone here? You took a rather worthwhile discussion and hijacked it for your own hysteria-filled need to be heard. Valid points were being raised and responded to, but then you had to impose a narrow and uninviting statement of your "facts" that served no useful purpose. You could have added well to the discussion. Why didn't you?
OHthor Not sure what you'r
OHthor Not sure what you'r objecting to. Mr Cullen writes that tradition is turning away from VII. I note that there's nothing wrong w/ our Catholic traditions, and note that the progressives have a Brezhnevian view on never taking one step back from the 1970s, despite all evidence. I quoted CARA.
Seems I added quite a bit to the discussion.
OHThor Reread my post to see
OHThor Reread my post to see where I had gone wrong. How's this for snarky 'he terms "new" even though it is old enough to be appraised on "Antiques Road Show." Hmmm...
Mr Kennedy wrote: "In short, this is the latest move to "reform the Reform" of Vatican II" So I outlined the disaster that befell us w/ the Spirit of VII movement. The John Jay data tell us that 68% of abuse is coterminal w/ the period from JXXIII to JPI's papacies. I compared the need of the progressives to keep every jot/tittle of the post VII Church in amber, no matter the clamor from below. Well Mr. Kennedy, some of us faithful sense the need to reform the reform. The data is on my side, which is why I think you reacted badly.
Now you might say that my Breshnevian comparison was snarky. But the Brezhnev Doctrine was real and has a stronger methaphoric paralell than the difficult to follow comparison of BXVI to the Tsar and English king.
I mean, this sentence could be straight from the Brezhnev Doctrine: "Benedict now advocates traveling back in time to undermine Vatican II's monumental liturgical reforms, claiming that he is just restoring "continuity" with the imagined glory of a a Gone With the Wind age of Catholic life"
I only wish Mr Kennedy could clue us into what those 'monumental liturgical reforms" could possibly be! Rather than berate me, perhaps you'd like to take on that challenge?
Finally, I noted that men's houses of formation already had two visitations, and that the Hierarchy is the best friends the dying orders have. Data from the USSCB and on the LCWR web site state the obvious: The LCWR is dying on the vine, is facing a $9 bn unfunded liability. The Hierarchy is trying to help them. All ttat Mr Kennedy offered was "investigate the American nuns -- who are a true glory of the Church -- may want them to slip into the armored suit habits of irretrievable times"
Well, fact is that Georgetown's CARA has done research that shows orders w/ habits are attracting members. Priests in commercial attire like Fr McBrien don't quite cut it. Priests in fiddlebacks vs priests who doff the chasuble. There's plenty to chew on.
BTW: Mr Kennedy just discovered "the Pope's cologne"? Tough call for Mr Kennedy to say that "Benedict also blessed a new fountain at the Vatican... He also announced plans to move shortly to his summer retreat at Castel Gandolfo. At the same time, something called "The Pope's Cologne" hit the market"
B/c that product has been around for a number of years. Ouch.
I know I feel better. In
I know I feel better. In fact, Pete and AS are among the better debaters on this site and regularly win their verbal jousts as evidenced by the general lack of comments following theirs. Well done gentlemen; somewhere Mr. Chesterton is smiling.
Don't know how you and the other NCR regulars can use the phrase "hysteria-filled need to be heard" without busting into hysterical laughter. The only reason this site exists is to allow you and your comrades to fill pages upon pages with the hysteria-filled self absorption of PVII "thought" ;-). Ever heard of buyers remorse? I suspect that many young Catholics are wondering whether they can get a refund into the PVII Catholicism their parents bought into. I know I am.
Sirach: I disagree with your
Sirach: I disagree with your comment about Pete and AS winning through their verbal jousts. Christian faith is an experience with the risen Christ, not an effort to bowl people over with words! In Scripture, Jesus modeled the use of few words!!!
I refuse to be swallowed up by all the verbage of Pete, AS and others. I scroll down and read other comments.
Young Catholics, as I once was, need to gain maturity through reflection of their experiences in addition to learning theology, doctrine, etc, and being in dialogue with a spiritual director.
Due respect (and in my own
Due respect (and in my own defense), one is not able to 'bowl over' with words on a blog. Bring data to bear, and to raise inconvenient truths.
Perhaps that's what you object to, hearing the other side? Which, as I can tell, is part/parcel of reflection on experience.
Anonymous, Vigorous debate
Anonymous,
Vigorous debate has a long history in the Church, even as far back as the apostolic age; re Peter and Paul during Paul's visit to Jerusalem. The People of God should encourage and welcome meaningful debate over substantive items. Besides, you can't help but admire well formed thought and argument regardless of which side it represents. At the same time, it's naive to think that any web site posting will be as concise or powerful as Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address so don’t be so quick to scroll though what you may not like. Take home message: you should be willing to wade through a mountain of worthless oyster shells to find a pearl of great price, and as I recall, scripture tells what to do once you find the pearl.
I’m afraid I can’t agree with your position regarding young catholic formation. To paraphrase St Peter: To whom shall we go to find authentic guidance in theology, doctrine, etc? Go back and look at stock footage of the generation of the sixties in their youth and their willingness to be mentored in the faith. “Never trust anyone over thirty” was the cry from the barricades, wasn’t it? It takes some gall to suggest that we should now kowtow to the social and religious libertines of the sixties regarding the acquisition of “wisdom”. They trashed their inheritance, demanded that the world subject itself to their whims, and now expect respect from their heirs? Fat chance of that ever happening. Any respect you and they may garner will have to be earned through our jaundiced eyes that understand clearly that our parents are among the most self centered people to walk the earth. Again, to whom shall we go? If anyone, it will be our pre-VII grandparents. They seem to have lived more Christ-like, less selfish and holier lives.
One last thing, despite being a combat veteran with a hell of a lot of “real life” experience in the humanity’s gutter, I’m not so arrogant as to think that I have enough life experience to merit significant reflection. I’ll get back to you when I’m seventy or so and face full of wrinkles; that is if I’m blessed to live that long as a defender of the People of God from the scourge of Islam.
Anonymous, Vigorous debate
Anonymous,
Vigorous debate has a long history in the Church, even as far back as the apostolic age; re Peter and Paul during Paul's visit to Jerusalem. The People of God should encourage and welcome meaningful debate over substantive items. Besides, you can't help but admire well formed thought and argument regardless of which side it represents. At the same time, it's naive to think that any web site posting will be as concise or powerful as Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address so don’t be so quick to scroll though what you may not like. Take home message: you should be willing to wade through a mountain of worthless oyster shells to find a pearl of great price, and as I recall, scripture tells what to do once you find the pearl.
I’m afraid I can’t agree with your position regarding young catholic formation. To borrow from St Peter: To whom shall we go to find authentic guidance in theology, doctrine, etc? Go back and look at stock footage of the generation of the sixties in their youth and their willingness to be mentored in the faith. “Never trust anyone over thirty” was the cry from the barricades, wasn’t it? It takes some gall to suggest that we should now kowtow to the social and religious libertines of the sixties regarding the acquisition of “wisdom”. They trashed their inheritance, demanded that the world subject itself to their whims, and now expect respect from their heirs? Fat chance of that ever happening. Any respect you and they may garner will have to be earned from a jaundiced projeny that understands clearly that its parents are among the most self centered people to walk the earth. Again, to whom shall we go? If anyone, it will be our pre-VII grandparents. They seem to have lived more Christ-like, less selfish and holier lives.
One last thing, despite being a combat veteran with plenty of “real life” experience in humanity’s gutter, I’m not so arrogant as to think that I have enough life experience to merit significant reflection. I’ll get back to you when I’m seventy or so and sport face full of wrinkles; that is if I’m blessed to live that long as a defender of the People of God from the scourge of Islam.
Actually, OHthor, Anonymous
Actually, OHthor, Anonymous Scrantonian hit many valid nails on the head. Open your heart for once and you may be able to understand.
To all the responders - and
To all the responders - and AnonymousScrantonian - of my post (and I am sorry I am so late in posting this) I would simply say that I wrote what was clear to me and that I encourage everyone to do the same. I often object to how some bloggers here phrase their responses because it takes the form of attacks rather than "talk." That was what I reacted to here. And I do find some of what AS writes as quite enlightening and interesting, when done in a manner one can listen to, even when it is very different from my own perspective.
I feel sorry for someone so
I feel sorry for someone so trapped in miserable circumstances to make such claims as vestments of "cheap rayon tablecloths" being demanded by Vatican II. What nonsense.
mbflynn Um, I beleive it's a
mbflynn Um, I beleive it's a metaphor, based on the experience that many of us have had in teh Post VII church.
I'll add that there's no reason we have to attend Mass in Church's that are modelled on auditoria. VII absolutely did not banish the tabernacle or the beautiful high altars. But the iconoclasts of VII went and destroyed them, anyhow.
Mahoney comes to mind (auditorium) as does Weakland (wreckovation)
Pete the greek on Jul. 08,
Pete the greek on Jul. 08, 2010.
You stated:
"It always strikes me as funny when someone condemns nice vestments as somehow attacking Vatican II.
Because if there's one thing that the 2nd Vatican Council demanded, it was that all priests' vestments must, from then on, look like cheap rayon tablecloths that someone lifted from the lobby of a Motel 6.
These same people will spend possible $1000 or more on a single shot wedding dress that does NOT look like a tablecloth, of course. But hey, that's different: It's for THEM, not for God.
Kennedy could try reading the 2nd Vatican Council documents. They are freely available HERE."
------------------------------------------------
As usual, Pete, you miss the forest for the trees. Vestments like so many other things in the Church, symbolize a reality beyond the actual vestment. It signifies visually what is occuring at the altar. Priests regally vested look like kings approaching the altar. Are the priests supposed to represent Jesus---who stated that his kingdom is not of this world? Are the priests supposed to look like (to use a Victorian Age term) foppish dandies?
You have stated that the vestments in all churches look like cheap rayon tablecloths. You have not been in all churches even in one state---never mind the entire world. Not all vestments are cheap looking. However, if the vestments were really to be like what Jesus wore or the Apostles---it would be simple homespun robes.
The fiddle-back vestments make priest look like beetles when they wear them. And all the fancy lace, brocade----hardly what Jesus or the Apostles would wear.
"Vestments like so many other
"Vestments like so many other things in the Church, symbolize a reality beyond the actual vestment."
- That is EXACTLY my point.
"Priests regally vested look like kings approaching the altar. Are the priests supposed to represent Jesus---who stated that his kingdom is not of this world?"
- You mean are they supposed to represent Jesus, who is the King of Kings? Yes. Do you know what each garment in the vestment set symbolizes?
"You have not been in all churches even in one state---never mind the entire world."
- I have seen my fair share in several states. Most telling was at the cathedral of my old home town. I have a priest friend there who has a very nice (but wouldn't say REGAL) set of old vestments from the 1930s that he FISHED OUT OF THE DUMPSTER BEHIND THE CATHEDRAL when they decided to switch to tableclothes (and yes, they DO look like tablecloths). But you're right, I'm sure Jesus would totally approve of such waste.
"However, if the vestments were really to be like what Jesus wore or the Apostles---it would be simple homespun robes."
- I find it wonderfully selective of how people here resort to the 'but Jesus never wear that!' argument. Jesus also said the first Mass in an 'upper room'. Based on this, I await the calls from the readers of the NCR to sell all churches and cathedrals (the old ones in Europe of course being products of craftsmen who mostly did their labor for free to make something beautiful for God) give the money away and have all masses in garages and hotel rooms. Afterall, Jesus never said Mass in a Cathedral! Jesus was also never married, so I'm sure there will be a mass movement of divorce and demand for total celibacy for everyone too.
Once again, I point to the people I've seen who show such disdain for those who would like to see nice vestments used, but would grow angry at the thought of being told that they shouldn't have the best for their daughter on her wedding day. Do we do the best for our daughter, and put God second?
You all are right: Vestments are NOT everything. I am not trying to say that they are. I'm just sick and tired of people who see older, beautiful things like the green Mass set I mentioned above and think: "This is trash." For me it is like tearing out the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and putting in a contractor grade drop ceiling, because hey, Jesus never told us to paint the ceiling, did he? Where is that in the Bible?
Pete the greek on Jul. 09,
Pete the greek on Jul. 09, 2010.
You stated:
("Vestments like so many other things in the Church, symbolize a reality beyond the actual vestment."
- That is EXACTLY my point.)
And my point is----the Pope is trying to turning the Liturgy into Regal Pomp and Circumstance affair. People are stratified again as they were in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance. Only the Royality(priest/arch/bishop/cardinal) should be there at the altar---put a separation between him and the people. By the way, in JP II's mind---this was correct thinking. In Polish the word for 'laity' = earthy--dirt. And, therefore, they should have NO PLACE at the altar.
("Priests regally vested look like kings approaching the altar. Are the priests supposed to represent Jesus---who stated that his kingdom is not of this world?"
- You mean are they supposed to represent Jesus, who is the King of Kings? Yes. Do you know what each garment in the vestment set symbolizes?)
First of all, it was the OFFICIAL CHURCH basking in its new status as State Religion in the Roman Empire,that described Heaven as being set up like the new temporal order. It didn't know for sure anymore than anyone else on earth what Heaven is really like.
Amazing isn't it---that Jesus choose to be born in poverty and live in simplicity. But the it was the CHURCH, which envisioned Jesus as KING of KINGS---therefore it devised all the garments into which the priest was to be vested. And it devised/created the rationale why the priests wears what he wears---the alb, the cincture, the amice (for those who still wear it), the chasuble, and the maniple (which most priests no longer wear).
Pete, I've known the names of the garments and their symbolism since I was an eight year old. And as a teen-ager, I used to help the Sisters in our parish, who were sacristans, and who put in all the hours that went into laundering, starching, and ironing these garments as well. We ironed all the creases into the altar cloths, too (had to have three cloths on the altar---two straight ironed---and the third that showed---creased).
And all of this was to, again, separate the laity from the clergy. And during the Middle Ages and early Renaissance---the laity also were in church according to class. Royality and nobility in front, rising middle class in the middle and the peasants in the back. Again---the Official Church's construed concept of ROYALITY. A far, far cry from the the example of Jesus.
Two things, 1. You ignored
Two things,
1. You ignored the entire second part of the post you responded to.
2. Your problem is that you view everything as a struggle for power. Let it go, man.
And as for not letting the laity near the altar, are you telling me that all altar servers are either priests, bishops and cardinals? I didn't know they were ordaining 12 year olds these days!
Love your analysis of Little
Love your analysis of Little Bear's expectation for mass environment. To be consistent with her scholarly expectations (and the actual circumstances of a poor itinerate preacher and his followers), we should notify all our bishops that from here on, mass will be celebrated exclusively in the end room on the second floor of a Motel 6 of their choosing.
Frankly, vestments don't
Frankly, vestments don't symbolize anything to me. Nor do a lot of other tangential things in church.
I guess I'm not really all that impressed or moved by symbolic stuff. It's hokey.
So, do uniforms worn by
So, do uniforms worn by police, white coats worn by physicians, tuxedoes worn by grooms and gowns worn by brides not mean anything?
If liturgical vestments and these other garments don't symbolize anything, it is because you haven't taken the opportunity to learn what they mean.
Professor emeritus Kennedy remarks that the bishops "may want them (sisters) to slip into the armored suit habits of irretrievable times." Perhaps he should tell the Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist, and similar faithful, fully habited, growing congregations of women religious, that the times are irretrievable? The times which are irretrievable are the 1960s and 70s. The Church is moving forward, in continuity with the great councils - yes, including VII - into a new age of holiness.
We are a sacramental people
We are a sacramental people for whom symbol is a central part of our life. It is where we experience and name the sacred in our experience. Regal vestments are symbolic as one blogger has already indicated of a nobility that Jesus rejected. He criticized those in his age who pranced about in phalacteries et al. There are other symbolic acts that today's well adjusted priests reject but carry out anyway as a symbol of loyalty and good order. For example, the priest received communion alone and before everyone else is both impolite for someone convening the assembly of believers around the table. Can we imagine Jesus eating first and saying, "I am first because I am the Son of God"? No, rather he emptied himself taking the form of a slave AND because of that God highly exalted him. Or asking a humble priest to receive solely from his own chalice and having everyone else receive from the other chalices. Why? To symbolize the centrality of the priest! Priests don't want to do that and the one's that do we could do without. Once again the terrific speech by the Redemptorist and courageous bishop of South Africa points to something else entirely. Rubrics in themselves are not important but when they symbolize and try to restore the clericalism that we outgrew and which has gotten the Church into so much trouble, then I think it is time to say no. Pope Pius X gave the "masses" back the Eucharist by encouraging people to receive whenever the Eucharist was celebrated. John XXIII gave the masses back the liturgy and taught us how to convene the assembly of the faithful for the Eucharist. Benedict is right to try to reach out to those who believe but have been driven away. But the "reform of the reform" is just an attempt to try to return to a bygone era in all the wrong ways. The bygone era we should return to is captured in the Acts of the Apostles in community and a variety of roles and gifts exercised as in Galatians, not in fiddle backs and or by reintroducing a clericalism that is certainly Roman but not Christian or Catholic. There are too many good priests who are genuine and non-clerical for whom this will make their ministry more difficult.
"For example, the priest
"For example, the priest received communion alone and before everyone else is both impolite for someone convening the assembly of believers around the table."
- Your statement here shows you have little idea what the Mass actually IS. HINT: The point of Mass is not to give out Communion to everyone. Try again. Seriously. Read what the Mass actually IS and you will understand. You can do so HERE.
The Church is just plain
The Church is just plain missing a golden opportunity. They could make a ton of money if they sold copies of these retro unies to the faithful. They have at least 1700 years of retro unies and a global following. I bet Nike or Reabok would be glad to advise them. I sure wouldn't mind a cut for coming up with the idea. I can see it now, pews filled with folks wearing fiddle back t-shirts in papal colors.
Couldn't have said it better
Couldn't have said it better myself. If Catholics truly believed in the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist then they would understand why we would use beautiful and "Give all you can for God" vestments instead of the tacky and the "I guess this is good enough" vestments.
Ave Maria
Marvelous article, Professor
Marvelous article, Professor Kennedy. I almost hate myself for pointing out that you've mixed up your Romanovs slightly. Tsar Nicholas's wife was Aleksandra, born Alix von Hessen und bei Rhein. Alexis, or Aleksei, was their son.
Will this Pope also restore
Will this Pope also restore the maniple while fiddlebacking? I pray that B-16 follows the example of his predecessor Celestine and resign as quickly as possible, retire to some far away monastery and atone for the ecclesial sins of pride and arrogance.
How is the maniple an
How is the maniple an arrogant vestment? The maniple is the vestment of priestly service. Why would anyone be scared of a ribbon worn on a priest's left arm?
Oh Yea, he's restoring the
Oh Yea, he's restoring the maniple! Go B16!! How in the heck is a maniple a sign of pride?!?! It's a sign of the sweat, tears, and hard work it is to give your life to the church!!! That's hardly prideful!
I agree. This was an
I agree. This was an excellent column.
Personally, I think Professor
Personally, I think Professor Cullen is a one who doesn't want to change. He has dug his feet into his old world and will not move forward by allowing others to walk on equal footing with him and the old guard. I suppose it's all how you perceive it - that's my perception.
Look, I hate gaudy weddings
Look, I hate gaudy weddings and quinceaneras and proms just as much as you or anyone. It's my fondest ambition to have the cheapest, shortest funeral since Mozart was carried in a reusable coffin to a public lime pit. So, when I tell you I agree with Profesor Kennedy, I hope you'll at least credit me with consistency.
Pomp is never more absurd or offensive than when it covers rot -- or when one can reasonably surmise that covering rot is one of its purposes. Right now, the Church is rotten. We've seen that in the way Vatican officials have reacted to the allegations of sex abuse. They've blamed everyone from the world in general, to the media, to gays to impersonal social forces like secularization and the un-Geist of Vatican II. The one group they've spared is themselves. Not being any kind of expert on ecclesiology, I've no idea what should be done about that, much less what can be done. What I do firmly believe, however, is that neither they nor their junior field agents deserve any extra layer of frippery.
You may say you want to get
You may say you want to get rid of pomp, but what you really want is to get rid of ritual. Which is really the same argument Kennedy is making. This has nothing to do with the sex scandals (by the way Pope Benedict has placed the blame on himself and on the offenders as well as those things you mentioned)nor is it covering anything up. It is about stripping the ritual, which is an absurd notion because ritual is a part of what it means to be human. Here are a couple of quotes on ritual, one is by G.K. Chesterton the other is by John Lennon. Can you guess who said which? No googling....or is it googleing?
"Ritual will always mean throwing away something: destroying our corn or wine upon the altar of our gods."
"Rituals are important. Nowadays it's hip not to be married. I'm not interested in being hip."
No, ritual's fine. Honest.
No, ritual's fine. Honest. You'll never catch me arguing that a Mass should resemble a tailgate party. But whenever I sense someone to distract me from a hideous temporal reality by evoking a perfect transcendent reality, I smell a rat. And that's what's going on here. By garbing themselves in extra finery, churchmen are pleading to the faithful: "Listen, forget what twits we are as individuals. Think of us instead as alter Chrsti, as successors to apostles." Sorry, pal, but I'm not ready for that. My eyes are firmly fixed on the man behind that curtain.
I assume by churchmen you
I assume by churchmen you mean priests? So basically you are saying that every priest is a fraud? Or are you simply alluding to the fact that all people are sinners, including ordained ministers. If it is the latter, I agree. But still that has nothing to do with how the liturgy is celebrated, nor does it have anything to do with liturgical vestments. The idea of a priest as alter christus is used in reference to their sacramental function. Not to their person. Your "man behind the curtain" is Jesus himself. I think you need to focus less on the priest, and more on what he doing up there on the altar.
To tell you the truth, I wish
To tell you the truth, I wish I could. Those of my friends who have managed to stay sanest through the re-emergence of the crisis did it by focusing on the meaning of the Mass, not the presiding priest. And you're right, of course: not every man in a collar is Cardinal Sodano -- plenty are pastoral, prayerful, fun, witty, whatever.
But still, let's face it: historically, respect has tended to spill over from the role to the man. Fancier vestments will only enhance that effect, which I'm quite sure is part of the point. As I said before, that feels like a con job, a very slick power play. Now, I should probably point out that certain recent events in my diocese have soured me on the local hierarchy, even more than the pedophilia stuff has soured me on Rome. I won't pretend my reactions are objective, or even fair. But they are, as of this writing, mine.
...Is that not one of the
...Is that not one of the huge advantages of the older form of worship? The priest faced toward God along with the people; he was not the center of the visual field. The priest himself was downplayed to a degree. Yes, the office of priest was highly exalted and had an almost exclusive focus upon it in the old rite (probably too much in some ways), but part of that also ended up making it irrelevant if it was Fr Bob or Fr Anthony or whoever.
I do not want to return blindly to the old days, but I am not objected to exploring what was lost during a tumultuous moment of history due to (understandable but ultimately foolish and wasteful) zeal.
That's a very intriguing
That's a very intriguing argument. I haven't really formed my own opinion yet, but I'll definitely keep those points in mind when I do.
You forgot to mention that
You forgot to mention that the pope also blamed the "evil one" who, John Allen informed us, is the devil. Oh wait, the pope didn't blame the evil one for the abuse itself, but for the coming to light of the abuse when it did, thus spoiling the grand climax of the year of the priest.
Great article Dr. Kennedy you
Great article Dr. Kennedy you have cleary establish the leadership of the Church as belonging the 19th Century and maybe even the Middle Ages. Pete the Greek sorry to hear that you do not think that the suggestions of Vatica II about what priest should wear was a good idea. I do not know if you have read any of the research about Jesus and his early followers. Jesus himself did not wear fancy or expensive clothing. He was not one of the Jewish Priesthood, but a poor Jewish preacher who brought the message of love and caring for you neighbors. I imagine if Jesus appeared at the Vatican when the Pope, Cardinals, and bishops are all dressed up in their "new vestments" he would be appalled by the vision of wealth. Jesus never said that his Church should be for rich people only.
Cyril, It is amazing that
Cyril,
It is amazing that Jesus' Apostles and those that followed them misunderstood the message of Christ in such a drastic way as to establish a Church with a hierarchy, with ritual, and even...gasp...vestments (remember the Gospel about the wedding garment? Proper dress for ritual was very important to Jesus' time). Its a good thing that you came along to straighten us all out. Because we all know, if a priest wears a proper vestment he is most likely incapable of loving his neighbor, of working tirelessly for the poor, and he probably also hates puppies.
But your logic that Jesus never wore a vestment so we shouldn't either is air tight. Come to think of it, Jesus never posted on a message board either, so we should probably shut this thing down as well. Quick, somebody find me proof that Jesus ate sushi, because that is what I'm having for dinner...
Cyril, I'm impressed that you
Cyril, I'm impressed that you know what Jesus would think. Perhaps you don't realize that His seamless garment for which the Roman soldiers cast lots was quite a luxury item. I'm quite sure that Jesus would look approvingly on His Church, lovingly worshiping Him with beauty and dignity. That same Church which is the largest provider of aid to the poor through out the world.
Always entertaining when
Always entertaining when non-theologians struggle to express themselves on liturgical matters, somewhat akin to theologians ineptly delving into Eugene's field of psychology. Thanks for the biased and poorly drawn analogy with George, Nicholas and Wilhelm.
I wonder if Mr. Kennedy has
I wonder if Mr. Kennedy has actually read the documents of Vatican II. There never was this magical and radical break with tradition that he and many others think occurred. In fact, Vatican II took us even deeper into the heart of our tradition by delving deeply into the theology of the Early Church Fathers of the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic period. Vatican II never sought to create something new, it sought to reclaim as it's heritage a rooting in Apostolic faith that had in many ways been stifled by a rigid manualism. It's about time that some of the radical liturgical abuses that took place after Vatican II were restored. Just because the Council took place in the sixties doesn't mean the Church was surrendering to that decade's libertine spirit.
Perhaps, Anonymous, it's more
Perhaps, Anonymous, it's more than the documents of V-II you should be reading. There was a history that led up to the making and in the making of them. That history included that of the then-contemporary world and of the church in or versus to that world. All must be taken into account when one pontificates about a radical or non-radical break with the "past".
But Joan, that is precisely
But Joan, that is precisely my point: the documents don't exist in a vacuum but rather are born out of the development of theology and liturgy. The liturgical movement of Romano Guardini and the Belgian monasteries and the Resourcement Theology of Fr. Henri de Lubac and others was exactly a rediscovery of the Apostolic past. However, at no point was the theology influencing the documents of Vatican II advocating an abandonment of medieval and scholastic theology. The calling of the council was discussed in the days of Pope Pius XII before the cultural milieu of the sixties. My point in writing was that we can view any council in isolation but rather as a continuous development of magisterium and theology under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
To Joan and Anonymous: your
To Joan and Anonymous: your postings here are what keeps bringing me back to these blogs. Thanks to both of you for your thoughtful and informed contributions. Others here should take note, as it would raise the level of discussion tenfold.
What an insightful piece of
What an insightful piece of research and how on target.
What bothers me, is that we, the CHURCH, have to just sit and watch it all happen. All the power still resides in ROME.
The Emperor's New
The Emperor's New Clothes...fantastic article!
A few years ago, we went to
A few years ago, we went to see the Vatican exhibit of arts and artifacts that were on tour across the US. We started off at the beginning of the Papacy with St. Peter's sandals made of palm or rushes or something and a dark brown rough tunic, made out of something resembling hopsacking. As time passed, the Popes got into fancier and fancier dress. Chalices became encrusted with priceless jewels. Vestments were of very intricately hand woven tapestry, probably by women, who would go cross-eyed trying to do this very fine needlework by hand in poor light. By the time we got to the end of the Exhibit with artifacts of Pope John Paul 2, it was beyond imagination to see how far the outerware and rings, and chalices had gone from St. Peter's handmade straw sandals and his coarse tunic to what the Papacy uses today. Jesus said not to take a spare tunic along, when he invited the men who were to become His apostles. What would Jesus say about all this hoo-hah and fol-de-rol today? Jesus might even say to sell what you have and give it to the poor. I have no idea where the Papcy is headed, but this seems out of control to me. BJP
We go on without them. Most
We go on without them.
Most Catholics I know are building Church on their own, working with loose structures and clerics who give them free rein to bring parents into the coaching process of educating their children in the Faith and respond to the Spirit's call in their neighborhoods and homes.
Benedict's retrograde liturgical meanderings are mostly lost on them, if they even pay any attention to what he or our local bishop says.
We go on without them.
I await the day when a Pope
I await the day when a Pope wears trousers!
like so-called "catholic
like so-called "catholic nuns"?
Why not?
Why not?
I bet he does... so far as I
I bet he does... so far as I know, no first world priest doesn't wear pants under his cassock.
Fr. Eugene Kennedy's article
Fr. Eugene Kennedy's article prompted a resounding "Amen!" after every paragraph! Wow! The parallels drawn from 100 years ago fit the current papacy so well. Priests look ridiculous in those fiddlebacks. Even in the 1950’s, except for a few older Order priests, parish priests generally had adopted the graceful, flowing gothic style of chasuble. Many priests wore vestments from "The Guild of the Holy Rood," housed in St. Benedict's Monastery, Spencer, Mass. (I am not familiar with the tablecloths from Motel 6, referred to in one of the comments.) But I do know that the gorgeous tasseled stoles made at Spencer, Mass. from tapestry and other lustrous fabrics were a magnificent accompaniment to the liturgy.
Every time I see Benedict XVI I wonder what else he has in mind to ruin in the church, and which cardinal he will select to help him do it. He can go into denial about the victims of priest-pedophiles, but that will not make them or the problems that killed the innocence of so many thousands of lives go away. Sooner, rather than later, I suspect, B16 will have to face the shameful effects of John Paul II's and his negligence. The pope will no doubt witness his universe self-destruct from within.
It is quite a shame that this "vicar of Christ on earth" has spiritually harmed so many of the faithful by convincing them that the 'old time religion' is the true path to heaven.
Pope Celestine V shoud be
Pope Celestine V shoud be someone NCR would like. He was a monk who resigned due to not being cut out for the administrative work of the papacy, and was then imprisoned (and probably murdered) by the previous/next Pope Boniface VIII. Instead of mocking Benedict's visit to Celestine, you should be praising it and making sure more people know about Celestine.
That's what you want, right? A Church more focussed on God and not on temporal power?
That's what Pope Celestine V represents; that's what you mocked.
Have you ever tried to
Have you ever tried to explain to a class of 17 and 18 year old boys and young men what the fascination with lace, brocade and fiddle backs is with some people in the Church? I thought about it for a few minutes and then gave up - there is no rational explanation. Men in lace just look plain silly.
Oh and for Pete the Greek, I worship in a Franciscan parish and the friars who preside at Sunday Mass are usually well attired in appropriate vestments - no tat here! You should come and visit us down here in Australia. No Hotel 6s either and most of us have read a good bit of Vatican II and beyond!
Great article Eugene! Keep writing.
First and foremost, Vatican
First and foremost, Vatican II was not change for change's sake, not a mere redecoration by people bored with or ignorant of the Liturgy. Vatican II came about because the bishops, most of them appointed by Pius XII or Pius XI, realized that something was very wrong with the Church. They debated, wrote the documents, then went home and instituted the needed changes we call Vatican II. Who should understand the documents better than the men who wrote them?
Thus, it is not that change for change's sake is good, that a return to the old ways is the equivalent of the turn to the news ways.
When I see Pope Benedict, I see a man concerned about a Europe that no longer calls itself Christian. I do not see a man concerned about the triple disasters of World War I, World War II and the Holocaust, all called forth by "Christian" Europe. Nor do I see a man concerned about the ongoing Holocaust in the Congo, financed again by the "Christian" West. I do not see a man concerned about a life style that is turning our planet into a burnt out cinder. I see a man who would be content to condemn my children and grandchildren to a life of back-breaking poverty as long as my grandchildren are numerous and as long as they support a parish priest in relative comfort. If the Catholic Church is meant to build the Kingdom, is the Pope Catholic?
Nothing makes Catholic
Nothing makes Catholic Conservatives laugh louder than the gnashing of teeth by these crazy over the hill Vatican II lefties.Aw poor baby.....dont like Pope Benedicts's revival of reverence in the liturgy,beautiful vestments and his investigation of nuns who think helping the poor excuses their rejection of Church doctrine.Sorry the SS Cardinal Mahony sank a few years ago. Try the Anglican Church down the block lol.
Really? What if "revival of
Really? What if "revival of reverence" in many cases amounts to the mindless re-appropriation of certain items from our liturgical past? What's "reverent" to you may smack of some ill-fated quest to recover the "golden age" of Catholicism to others. And no, the "crazy over the hill Vatican II lefties" aren't going anywhere. If they did, would inarticulate, uninformed wags like you be left to speak for the church? Talk about a sinking ship!
Earth to Anonymous. Not
Earth to Anonymous. Not going anywhere....really? Never trust anyone over thirty; sound familiar....tick...tock. As a population you're dying off and the cultural pendulum is swinging in the other direction....tick...tock. Disgruntled conservatives from other denominations are coming home to take your place....tick...tock.... It's just a matter of time now....tick...tock.
Let's see, "irishryan," where
Let's see, "irishryan," where do you think that this rant fits into Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, better known as 'The Beatitudes?' The Beatitudes are generally thought of as the 'Magna Carta,' or defining document of Christianity.
-irishryan said: "Conservatives laugh louder than the gnashing of teeth by these crazy over the hill Vatican II lefties.Aw poor baby."
*****Jesus said: "Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven..."
-irishryan said: "dont like Pope Benedicts's revival of reverence in the liturgy,beautiful vestments..."
*****Jesus said: " Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
irishryan said: "...dont like Pope Benedicts's... investigation of nuns who think helping the poor excuses their rejection of Church doctrine."
*****Jesus said: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled."
-irishryan said: "Try the Anglican Church down the block lol."
*****Jesus said: "Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep."
P.S. You should do public penance for your denigration of the Anglican Church! Speaking like you do about another Christian Tradition is rude, crude and unlearned.
Associate Perhaps when teh
Associate Perhaps when teh Anglican Church apologizes for its persecution and martyrdom of British Catholics, repays the Roman Catholic Church for stolen properties, and does penance for its role in the Famine then an Irish person might be able to start to heal from the historical misdeeds.
Hold your nose IrishRyan.
Hold your nose IrishRyan. Jesus is about to disgorge all over you.
This article is a string of
This article is a string of sloppy non sequiturs. It could be used in any intro to logic class as an example of what not to do.
Post new comment