Which Way Benedict? Edicts on the Mass
I'm not Roman Catholic, but I am a very interested bystander. I respect this church that is the bearer of Christian tradition and is the fountain out of which the Protestant Reformation emerged. Although there are those who believe that there has been a pure "non-Roman" Christianity that goes back uninterrupted to the New Testament era, that seems like a non-starter to me. Because this is, as far as I'm concerned, part of my heritage, I'm very interested in the direction the church is taking and will take in coming years.
As a Protestant of progressive tendencies, the choice of Joseph Ratzinger to succeed John Paul II, wasn't thrilling. I was hoping for a Latin American, to tell you the truth. But in many ways the choice of Ratzinger is probably what JPII would have wanted. They were of similar mind and Benedict carries on JP's tradition, even if he does so without the charisma the late Pope had. In the interest of my curiosity about what makes Benedict tick I'm reading David Gibson's The Rule of Benedict (HarperSanFrancisco, 2006). I'll report on it when I'm done.
As a Protestant of progressive tendencies, the choice of Joseph Ratzinger to succeed John Paul II, wasn't thrilling. I was hoping for a Latin American, to tell you the truth. But in many ways the choice of Ratzinger is probably what JPII would have wanted. They were of similar mind and Benedict carries on JP's tradition, even if he does so without the charisma the late Pope had. In the interest of my curiosity about what makes Benedict tick I'm reading David Gibson's The Rule of Benedict (HarperSanFrancisco, 2006). I'll report on it when I'm done.
But, the point of this post concerns Benedict's recent edicts on the use of the Latin -- Tridentine Mass. Vatican II opened the doors to creativity and embraced the vernacular as a way of speaking to new generations. The 1960s saw a flourish of new masses, but for some in the church this was not a welcome change. And so, Benedict, seemingly in love with that which is old is giving not just permission but encouragement to a return to that old mass. He sees it as a mending of fences with disaffected traditionalists, but his critics see it as an attack on Vatican II. As a non-Catholic, it's really none of my business what another church does liturgically. But, as someone interested in ecumenism and interfaith dialogue this does raise questions about the direction of the largest Christian community in the world. Of course, from my perspective, colored as it is by a belief in an open table, anything that moves farther from interconfessional sharing at the table is unfortunate. The LA Times article raises an additional issue. The Jewish community is concerned by this move because the traditional Mass, though it has had the worst of the anti-Jewish statements removed still calls for the conversion of the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy. They would like to see this dealt with by the Pope, lest it sour Catholic-Jewish relationships. So, we will wait to see what this decision brings to the ecumenical and interfaith tables.
For more on this decision you can the article in the LA Times.
Comments
The Latin Mass is not a "throwback jersey day" at the local MLB park. It is a work of the Holy Spirit, to glorify our Savior. The discription of this glorification can be found in Gospel of John chapter 6.
Cephas
Speaking admittedly as a non-Catholic, I would say that the spirit of Vatican II is dead, but I don't think that Benny was the one who killed it. His two predecessors (not counting John Paul I, who wasn't pope long enough to matter) had already done it in.
Hans Kung pointed out that the Catholic Church, despite its pretensions to never reversing itself on matters of doctrine, actually reversed itself on its stance towards people of other faiths. It used to proclaim that "there is no salvation outside the church", but Vatican II, in a spirit of John XXIII's ecumenism, said that this just wasn't true. But Vatican II should have been only a starting point towards a great flowering of reform in the church. Instead, the popes who came after him initiated a period of retrenchment and even retreat from that spirit.
What the Catholic church does matters because it is large and influential. Kind of like what Trudeau said about Canadians with respect to the US--it is like sleeping next to an elephant. The Catholic Church is a big elephant in Christianity and in the politics of many nations in the West. So even non-Catholics of faith are necessarily interested in what the Pope does.
Your comments about the "spirit of Vatican II" in particular are quite misguided. John Paul II was conservative, actually far more conservative than this Pope, but he implemented the reforms of the Council fairly faithfully. Have you actually read the documents of the Council? Do you have any sense what the "spirit of Vatican II" actually is?
In the case of the old Mass, which I love deeply and revere, the Good Friday prayers are indeed a huge problem. A few clergy in our jurisdiction use the old Mass, and all of us remove these prayers. I, too, wish the Pope had made changes there in the motu proprio, though it's quite possible these changes will be coming from Ecclesia Dei or some other dicastery before the motu proprio is implemented in September.
However, the effect on the Roman church right now will be minimal. Any parish that uses both uses (the Pauline missal of 1970 and the missal of Bl. John XXIII of 1962) will NOT be able to use the old Holy Week rites. So the prayer for the conversion of the Jews will not be heard in those parishes. That will be the vast majority of places -- most groups that want to use the old books exclusively, such as the Priestly Society of St Peter or the Institute of Christ the King, are already using them exclusively and have been for years or decades.
In any case, I've read most of this Pope's theological work available in English and have followed him fairly closely as Pope. My sense is that he is quite moderate. Certainly he is far to the left of John Paul II, though it doesn't look that way because Benedict lacks flair. To be honest, this is what a progressive Pope looks like. He has slowly built up appreciation for the ministry of women and has appointed some very powerful laywomen in the Vatican. Unlike JP2, he has appointed bishops for their holiness and ability to find reconciliation, not on the basis of doctrinal orthodoxy. He has stepped back from some of JP2's interfaith and ecumenical commitments, which is something I grieve, but on many other matters he is making very slow but very real progress.
Your comment about picking bishops for reasons other than orthodoxy would indeed represent an improvement over John Paul II. I was not aware that he had done that, although it is doubtful he will be pope nearly as long as his predecessor was, so his impact will probably be minimal in comparison to what John Paul II's in having a long term impact on the direction of the church.
Overall, though, the idea that Benny is progressive seems a little hard for me to swallow, given the active persecution of church progressives under his tenure in his previous position--people like Matthew Fox and Hans Kung, whom I respect and who were mistreated by the church.
In any case, Benny does seem to have a serious problem with sensitivity. Did Benny ever actually apologize for his insensitive remarks concerning the Indians in Brazil? Did he actually say, "I'm sorry that I said that, because I was wrong?"
I'm hopeful about Benedict's impact still. He won't be Pontiff as long as JP2, but if one of the Cardinals he has created becomes Pope next time (I keep hoping Bruno Forte will get the red hat -- he's a very progressive guy that Benedict seems to have a soft spot for), we might never have a Pope who was created Cardinal by JP2. It's a dream, anyhow. :-)
I'm not sure about Benedict's native American comments -- they were insensitive and hurtful and not merely a dumb mistake like the Islam comment (for which he did, it seems, seek reconciliation). His interfaith stuff is a nightmare, however much I might love him as a theologian.
As for progressive theologians -- it might look awful, but he was actually a far more pastoral "Inquisitor" than many. We see news stories about this or that person being censured or sanctioned, but the punishments are typically among the lightest possible. It's not ideal, certainly. (He has also been far more pastoral as pontiff than he was as the Grand Inquisitor, because he understands the Pope is not a doctrinal enforcer. He actually had Hans Küng over for lunch and discussed the future of the church -- they're friends, though they disagree.)
I see what you mean about not being able to see him as progressive. It was about a year and a half into his pontificate that it hit me, "This is what progress looks like -- and man, is it slow!" I suddenly remembered all my Western civ courses and talking about how slowly the Roman church moves. But it is there. I don't think the sky would fall or the church collapse if Rome started ordaining women or letting gays and lesbians marry, but a huge number of them clearly do think that. Unfortunately, it's up to Protestants, Independent Catholics, and others to do the prophetic stuff on these issues while Rome takes its time. :-(
If anything disproves papal infallibility, it has been the election and subsequent conduct of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI
As someone who was (twice) the lone Protestant in a Catholic university religion department, I care a great deal about the direction of the Church of Rome. When I remember what this man did to Leonardo Boff, Jon Sobrino, and so many more, I get worried. When I see what he is doing to the interfaith legacy of John Paul II, I get knots in my stomach.
I miss Paul VI and I am sorry we lost our chance to see just what kind of pope John Paul I could have been. But when the Cardinals passed over the chance for an African, Asian, or Latin American Pope for this Hitler youth turned inquisotor-lite, I have to think they were breathing too much of their own incense.
I have the deatils on my blog here
Unfortunately, I think you're mistaken. The FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, et al., do use these rites during Holy Week even now. The motu proprio only seems to restrict them for private Masses (I think Fr Neuhaus is wrong here -- it will probably take some canonists to get a definitive answer, though).
However, as I mentioned in my earlier comment, any parish using both sets of books (new and old) will be barred from using the 1962 rites during holy week anyway, because no parish gets to have multiple Good Friday services. So the prayer will only be heard in parishes where it is already heard -- in parishes staffed by traditionalist orders and the handful of diocesan parishes dedicated exclusively to the old missal.
I am praying that before the September implementation date this prayer will be eliminated or substantially changed for good. Most Independent Catholics already eliminate that prayer when using the 1962 books.
No one is advocating harm to the Jews in praying for their conversation. The catholics aren't lining up suicide bombers. Let the people pray to God what they believe.
The Jews shouldn't be telling the catholics what to pray. A prayer for conversion is not antisemitism. It's just a different theological system.
The problem is that the Catholic Church is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, they claim to want to pursue interfaith dialogue and respectful dialogue with Jews and others. In order for that to possible, though, there has to be a philosophy of mutual respect. Praying for the conversion of Jews doesn't jibe with that. And Jews have a particular reason for being sensitive on this issue, given the centuries of oppression at the hands of Christians,