As we are about to experience the election of a new leader for the Roman Catholic Church, I have been reflecting on the papacy of Benedict XVI. Like many others, I was shocked by his decision to resign the papacy. At the same time, I was delighted with his decision, and not simply because I was glad to see him depart. Rather, I think this was one of the most significant acts of his papacy. Here was a Pope willing to admit that he no longer had sufficient good health and energy to carry on in this most important ministry in the Catholic Church. He was willing to say that the papacy is more important than the person who is presently holding the office. He was comfortable breaking a 600 year practice of pope's holding on to the office until death.
I hope that Benedict's decision rings out as a loud and clear message to all in positions of leadership in the Church and beyond. I hope others get the message that no one is more important than the position they hold in the Church. I hope this leads to more leaders experiencing the freedom and humility to step down and let others take over their positions. This needs to be said not only to popes but also to bishops and priests as well as women and men in positions of leadership in the Church.
Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, gave a different message. He chose to continue his papacy despite his illness and frail health, being a suffering Pope until he died. I think there is a value in being a witness to one's faith in the midst of suffering. I am not sure it ought to be associated with someone in such a high position of leadership in the Church. John Paul II could have resigned when his health became frail and continued to be a witness to faith in the midst of suffering. I think the position of leadership in the Church deserved someone who was able to continue to lead and make decisions from a stance of good health and clear thinking. For that reason, I admire Benedict's decision more than John Paul II's decision.
Regarding the rest of Benedict's papacy, I will remember him for his publication of two wonderful encyclicals, "God is Love" and "Charity in Truth." He chose to publish at the very beginning of his pontificate an encyclical extolling the message that the God we believe in is a God of unconditional love for all people, indeed a God passionately in love with all of us. Given his background as a strong defender of Catholic doctrine, I found it reassuring that he would begin his ministry with such an encyclical. I believe it sent an important message to all people as to what is paramount in our Church, a message that is overlooked by far too many people.
The encyclical,"Charity in Truth" was powerful in that it continued a long line of papal encyclicals presenting a powerful message of Catholic Social teaching, going back to Leo XIII encyclical "Rerum Novarum" in 1891. Benedict's encyclical was so strong in espousing the dignity of labor, worker's rights, the common good and the subordination of personal profit to the needs of others that some critics claimed that Benedict was affected too much by liberal influences in composing the encyclical.
Therefore these critics felt free to pick and choose what parts of the encyclical they accepted.
On the other hand, I will also remember Benedict in a not positive way for what he has attempted to do with the liturgical renewal of the Second Vatican Council, especially with the celebration of the Eucharist. Along with many others, I was deeply disappointed with his decision to allow for the celebration of the Eucharist in the pre-Vatican II format. Even worse was his statement that Paul VI had not abrogated that way of celebrating Eucharist when he issued the Vatican II Order of Mass.
We have words of Paul VI himself stating his reason for not wanting the pre-Vatican II way of celebrating Mass to continue. In a meeting he had with a friend, Jean Guitton,
Paul VI was asked why he did not allow the so-called "Missal of 1962" to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers who rejected the new Order of the Mass. Paul VI replied "Never. This Mass so called of Saint Pius V, becomes the symbol of the condemnation of the council. I will not accept under any circumstances the condemnation of the council through a symbol. Should this exception to the liturgy of Vatican II have its way, the entire council would be shaken. And, as a consequence, the apostolic authority of the council would be shaken." This quote is taken from a wonderful book on the liturgy of Vatican II, written by Massimo Faggioli.
Besides making clear that Paul VI did not want the pre-Vatican II Mass format to be used any longer, this passage gives a clear reason for Paul VI's position. He saw the new Order of Mass of Vatican II as expressing the theology of the Council so to reject it was also to reject Vatican II. That is precisely what the Lefebvre followers wanted.
Benedict XVI gave them and anyone else who requested it permission to use the pre-Vatican II Mass in an effort to draw them back into union with the Church. That was not enough for the Lefebvre followers so they did not return to the Church as a group.
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church now has these two quite distinct ways of celebrating Mass and each offers a different view of what the Church is.
The Vatican II form of celebrating Mass focuses on the entire community gathering to celebrate the Paschal Mystery of Christ made present. Clergy and laity join together,
facing one another and each has a legitmate role in the celebration. The use of the language and the customs and culture of the people is used to encourage active participation. This participation also is encouraged through the reception of Communion under the forms of bread and wine. The theology of the prayers, especially during the Triduum of Holy week is more sensitive to our Jewish brothers and sisters. The theology of the Mass is the theology of Vatican II.
The pre-Vatican II form of celebrating Mass focuses more on people worshipping God with the priest facing away from the people, praying in Latin. Participation of the laity comes in a much more silent way or by reciting responses in Latin. Involvement of the laity is limited to the male altar servers, assisting the priest. Communion is not offered under both forms. The prayers of the Missal speak more of the theology of pre-Vatican II days.
Sadly, as a result of this decision by Benedict, which was not supported by many bishops througout the world, we have the present situation of two quite different ways of celebrating Eucharist and at the same time two different understanding of what liturgy and the Church is truly meant to be.
As we now wait the election of a new Pope, we can hope and pray that someone who is totally committed to the renewal that was fostered by the bishops of the Church in an ecumenical council, Vatican II, will be chosen, guided by the Holy Spirit. Who that person will be is anyone's guess as I write. My hope is that he will be someone like Blessed John XXIII, who has the openness to the Spirit and the courage to make decisions that will truly promote the common good of all.
No comments:
Post a Comment