This is the second post in a series on the reading of Pope Francis’ Apostolic Letter, Desiderio Desideravi. You can read Part 1 here:
Some more summaries/
Par. 16 The Church needs to relook at Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium to understand the intention of the reform of the Liturgy. This letter is an invitation “to rediscover, to safeguard, and to live the truth and power of Christian celebration.
Pars. 17-21 The liturgy is the most “effective antidote” to the “spiritual worldliness” that is part of the modern condition and attitude. This temptation for the Church to succumb to “spiritual worldliness” is fed from modern versions of Gnosticism and Neo-Pelagianism.
Pars. 22-23 The beauty of the Liturgy should not be an end in itself because that leads to mere exterior rubrics. Nonetheless, the celebration of the Liturgy must be maintained to attention to detail.
Pars. 24-26 Wonder of the Paschal Mystery, with its concrete sacramental signs, is the true attitude to have before the Liturgy, not some vague “sense of mystery” that is a product a pure “interiority” and “empty subjectivity.” The Liturgical act is not at all abstraction, nor does it imply an abstraction, but expresses a concrete sign.
###
I
have not read the entire Letter yet, so I can’t see how bringing up Gnosticism
and Neo-Pelagianism fits into his theme.
Perhaps it will come up later.
The term that is baffling is “spiritual worldliness.” That’s a paradox, isn’t it? Spiritual is speaking about a metaphysical
world and worldliness refers to this physical world. What exactly then is “spiritual
worldliness”? In fairness to Pope
Francis, he does cite Evangelii gaudium
(nn. 93-97) as a reference, which I have not read.
This brings us to what I think is the midpoint of the Letter, not in terms of paragraphs but in terms of development. Other than what I don’t understand fully, I don’t think there is anything I disagree with. The beauty of the Mass should not be an end in itself, and the intent and actions of the Liturgy are not some vague abstraction but a concrete sacramental sign of Christ.
Nothing so far either supports the Novus Ordo over The Traditional Latin, nor does anything repudiate the Novus Ordo over The Traditional Latin Mass. Except for the reference to relook at Sacrosanctum Concilium in paragraph 16, in my estimation far this Letter could have been written by any pope in the 2000 year history of the papacy.
Kerstin
Commented:
Below is the segment from
Evangelii Gaudium: The Joy of the Gospel
Pope Francis is referring to. In so many words he summarizes what he deems
self-serving behavior or attitudes contrary to Christian mission. I highlighted
the sentence on liturgy that jumped out at me in # 95. I am sensing an aversion
to traditional forms of the liturgy. Where does it come from? It seems a little
over the top.
No to spiritual
worldliness
93. Spiritual
worldliness, which hides behind the appearance of piety and even love for the
Church, consists in seeking not the Lord’s glory but human glory and personal
well-being. It is what the Lord reprimanded the Pharisees for: “How can you
believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that
comes from the only God?” (Jn 5:44). It is a subtle way of seeking one’s “own
interests, not those of Jesus Christ” (Phil 2:21). It takes on many forms,
depending on the kinds of persons and groups into which it seeps. Since it is
based on carefully cultivated appearances, it is not always linked to outward
sin; from without, everything appears as it should be. But if it were to seep
into the Church, “it would be infinitely more disastrous than any other
worldliness which is simply moral”.[71]
94. This worldliness can
be fuelled in two deeply interrelated ways. One is the attraction of
gnosticism, a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain
experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console
and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own
thoughts and feelings. The other is the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism
of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to
others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to
a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or
discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby
instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of
opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and
verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or
others. These are manifestations of an anthropocentric immanentism. It is
impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these
adulterated forms of Christianity.
95. This insidious
worldliness is evident in a number of attitudes which appear opposed, yet all
have the same pretence of “taking over the space of the Church”. In some people we see an ostentatious
preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but
without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact on God’s faithful people
and the concrete needs of the present time. In this way, the life of the Church
turns into a museum piece or something which is the property of a select few. In
others, this spiritual worldliness lurks behind a fascination with social and
political gain, or pride in their ability to manage practical affairs, or an
obsession with programmes of self-help and self-realization. It can also
translate into a concern to be seen, into a social life full of appearances,
meetings, dinners and receptions. It can also lead to a business mentality,
caught up with management, statistics, plans and evaluations whose principal
beneficiary is not God’s people but the Church as an institution. The mark of
Christ, incarnate, crucified and risen, is not present; closed and elite groups
are formed, and no effort is made to go forth and seek out those who are
distant or the immense multitudes who thirst for Christ. Evangelical fervour is
replaced by the empty pleasure of complacency and self-indulgence.
96. This way of thinking
also feeds the vainglory of those who are content to have a modicum of power
and would rather be the general of a defeated army than a mere private in a unit
which continues to fight. How often we dream up vast apostolic projects,
meticulously planned, just like defeated generals! But this is to deny our
history as a Church, which is glorious precisely because it is a history of
sacrifice, of hopes and daily struggles, of lives spent in service and fidelity
to work, tiring as it may be, for all work is “the sweat of our brow”. Instead,
we waste time talking about “what needs to be done” – in Spanish we call this
the sin of “habriaqueísmo” – like spiritual masters and pastoral experts who
give instructions from on high. We indulge in endless fantasies and we lose
contact with the real lives and difficulties of our people.
97. Those who have fallen into this worldliness look on from above and afar, they reject the prophecy of their brothers and sisters, they discredit those who raise questions, they constantly point out the mistakes of others and they are obsessed by appearances. Their hearts are open only to the limited horizon of their own immanence and interests, and as a consequence they neither learn from their sins nor are they genuinely open to forgiveness. This is a tremendous corruption disguised as a good. We need to avoid it by making the Church constantly go out from herself, keeping her mission focused on Jesus Christ, and her commitment to the poor. God save us from a worldly Church with superficial spiritual and pastoral trappings! This stifling worldliness can only be healed by breathing in the pure air of the Holy Spirit who frees us from self-centredness cloaked in an outward religiosity bereft of God. Let us not allow ourselves to be robbed of the Gospel!
My
Reply to Kerstin:
I find what you
highlighted, Kerstin, and combined with paragraph 95 very troubling.
Whoa, that's McCarthyism. That's projecting into the hearts of people who are conscientiously seeking the best for the Church. Perhaps he disagrees, but that is more than a mere disagreement. That's looking into the hearts of people and thinking you know what they are all about and concluding darkness. That is mean-spirited. Wasn't he the one who said "Who am I to judge?" Now he is judging negatively what good Catholics do who are trying their best and seeking their best, albeit in a way he doesn't like. There are aspects of Pope Francis that I detest, and this is one of them.
Kerstin
replied:
The inconsistencies become glaring. You can't be taken seriously when washing the feet of prisoners on Holy Thursday and at the same time shove good and faithful Catholics to the curb.
Michelle
Replied:
Although I'm not as
religious and/or learned as most of you, I had read something a little
different in this passage. I took it as a warning to keep aware. The Devil
always warps our best intentions, and I took it to mean that these spiritual
pitfalls exist, be careful! I think I took it this way because I am always
questioning my motives; I do not trust my motives at all. A personal example
that immediately came to my mind: I started wearing a scarf over my hair at
Mass. I don't own a beautiful lacey veil, but I have a scarf. I considered
buying the lace to look more presentable, but then I wondered if I was doing it
for the sake of pride. I stuck with the scarf, and I don't care if it makes me
look silly. I'm not doing it for the other parishioners after all. But then the
plot thickened. I wondered, was I wearing the scarf so that people would think
I was more religious? That really bothered me, and I considered not using it
just in case that was my motive. It wasn't. Then I thought that if I'm
embarrassed by wearing the scarf, humility is good. And then I looked at myself
for the motive behind THAT. Sometimes, not always but sometimes, that looking
for humility can also be pride. Am I explaining my reasoning correctly? I guess
my point is that it's very easy to fall into certain spiritual potholes without
realizing it. I feel as if my life has been one long road of trying to
determine the potholes in the road, and whether or not I'm falling into them.
His comment on cultivated appearances and self-service brought all of this to
my mind.
Of course, what do I know? I could have so easily misread the thought behind his words.
My
Reply to Michelle:
Perhaps that's what he
means Michelle, but still why should that be "hiding behind the appearance
of piety" as he says. Those are good and honest emotions and thoughts,
with humility and a striving to try to be holy as your immediate thoughts came.
I don't see anything wrong with either wearing the scarf or feeling insecure
about the scarf. As long as you're honest before the Lord, I don't see any
criticism in which ever way you went. Both were honest thoughts and you were
discerning what was best.
I think at the bottom of my anger with that statement of Pope Francis is that he is judging people who have honestly discerned what they feel is holy. I could understand if he was upset if those people were trying to impose that level of holiness onto others, but that's not what he's saying in those paragraphs. In those paragraphs he is judging the discernment itself and judging them for it.
Michelle
Replied:
Most people attend Mass as "themselves". Especially on Good Friday! It seems that those of us there are only attending for Him, and because we want to be there for Him. However, humanity is humanity. There will inevitably be those portraying themselves as pious, but they are decidedly not. I hope that you understand that I am not finger-pointing. I am not pious or holy, though I long to be. I'm not about to point the finger! But we all come across duplicity in every form and walk of life. Perhaps this is what he warns against. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt. But again, I don't know!
My
Comment:
Now that I'm over my
anger, I'm still trying to figure out what spiritual worldliness is and how
Gnosticism and Neo-Palagianism factors in. In fact this muddies the water even
more. I don't have a clue.
OK, I don't want to belabor this. Perhaps I should give him the benefit of the doubt too. He is certainly not great at articulating clearly.
###
Some key quotes from paragraphs 16 through 26.
From Paragraph 16:
I want the beauty of the
Christian celebration and its necessary consequences for the life of the Church
not to be spoiled by a superficial and foreshortened understanding of its value
or, worse yet, by its being exploited in service of some ideological vision, no
matter what the hue. The priestly prayer of Jesus at the Last
Supper that all may be one (Jn 17:21) judges every one of our divisions around
the Bread broken, around the sacrament of mercy, the sign of unity, the bond of
charity.
From Paragraph 17:
On different occasions I
have warned against a dangerous temptation for the life of the Church, which I
called “spiritual worldliness.” I spoke about this at
length in the exhortation Evangelii gaudium (nn. 93-97), pinpointing Gnosticism
and neo-Pelagianism as two versions connected between themselves that feed this
spiritual worldliness.
The first shrinks
Christian faith into a subjectivism that “ultimately keeps one imprisoned in
his or her own thoughts and feelings.” (EG 94) The second cancels out the role
of grace and “leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism,
whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyses and classifies others, and
instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in
inspecting and verifying.” (EG 94)
These distorted forms of Christianity can have disastrous consequences for the life of the Church.
From Paragraph 19:
If Gnosticism intoxicates us with the poison of subjectivism, the liturgical celebration frees us from the prison of a self-referencing nourished by one’s own reasoning and one’s own feeling.
From Paragraph 20:
If neo-Pelagianism intoxicates us with the presumption of a salvation earned through our own efforts, the liturgical celebration purifies us, proclaiming the gratuity of the gift of salvation received in faith.
From Paragraph 21:
Paraphrasing Sacrosanctum Concilium: the Liturgy is the priesthood of Christ, revealed to us and given in his Paschal Mystery, rendered present and active by means of signs addressed to the senses (water, oil, bread, wine, gestures, words), so that the Spirit, plunging us into the paschal mystery, might transform every dimension of our life, conforming us more and more to Christ.
From Paragraph 22:
The continual rediscovery of the beauty of the Liturgy is not the search for a ritual aesthetic which is content by only a careful exterior observance of a rite or is satisfied by a scrupulous observance of the rubrics.
From Paragraph 24:
The encounter with God is not the fruit of an individual interior searching for Him, but it is an event given. We can encounter God through the new fact of the Incarnation that reaches in the Last Supper the extreme point of his desiring to be eaten by us. How can the misfortune of distancing ourselves from the allure of the beauty of this gift happen to us?
From Paragraph 25a:
When I speak of astonishment at the paschal mystery, I do not at all intend to refer to what at times seems to me to be meant by the vague expression “sense of mystery.” Sometimes this is among the presumed chief accusations against the liturgical reform. It is said that the sense of mystery has been removed from the celebration.
From Paragraph 25b:
But if the astonishment is of the right kind, then there is no risk that the otherness of God’s presence will not be perceived, even within the closeness that the Incarnation intends. If the reform has eliminated that vague “sense of mystery,” then more than a cause for accusations, it is to its credit. Beauty, just like truth, always engenders wonder, and when these are referred to the mystery of God, they lead to adoration.
From Paragraph 26:
Wonder is an essential part of the liturgical act because it is the way that those who know they are engaged in the particularity of symbolic gestures look at things. It is the marvelling of those who experience the power of symbol, which does not consist in referring to some abstract concept but rather in containing and expressing in its very concreteness what it signifies.
###
So if you pull out the progression of thought in these paragraphs, and now that I understand what he means by “spiritual worldliness,” I think I understand what Pope Francis is getting at. Let me see if I can outline the progression of thought.
From:
[I want the beauty of the Christian celebration and its necessary consequences for the life of the Church not to be spoiled by a superficial and foreshortened understanding of its value or, worse yet, by its being exploited in service of some ideological vision, no matter what the hue. (16)]
To:
[On different occasions I have warned against a dangerous temptation for the life of the Church, which I called “spiritual worldliness.” (17A)]
To:
[These distorted forms of Christianity can have disastrous consequences for the life of the Church. (17B)]
To:
[The continual rediscovery of the beauty of the Liturgy is not the search for a ritual aesthetic which is content by only a careful exterior observance of a rite or is satisfied by a scrupulous observance of the rubrics. (22)]
To:
[How can the misfortune of distancing ourselves from the allure of the beauty of this gift happen to us? (24)]
To:
[[The reformed Liturgy] is said that the sense of mystery has been removed from the celebration. (25A)]
To:
[But if the astonishment is of the right kind, then there is no risk that the otherness of God’s presence will not be perceived, even within the closeness that the Incarnation intends. (25B-1)]
To:
[If the reform has eliminated that vague “sense of mystery,” then more than a cause for accusations, it is to its credit. (25B-2)]
To:
[It is the marvelling of those who experience the power of symbol, which does not consist in referring to some abstract concept but rather in containing and expressing in its very concreteness what it signifies. (26)]
###
So do you follow that? He is saying that The Traditional Latin Mass leads to “spiritual worldliness” because it is an empty shell (perhaps that’s too strong) of aesthetics which distances us from truly experiencing Christ. If “empty shell” is too strong a phrase describing Pope Francis’ characterization of the TLM, perhaps a more accurate way of phrasing it would be that TLM evades the concreteness of encountering Christ. Either way he says it “can have disastrous consequences for the life of the Church.”
Now, I prefer the Novus Ordo over TLM, but let me be clear I do not support Pope Francis’ thinking and logic here. (Perhaps one day I will put together why I prefer the NO, but it’s not something I can just throw together.) This is actually subjectivism on his part, thinking that this is what is going on in the hearts and souls of those who love TLM. Where is the evidence for this? Did he talk to proponents of TLM? In all my encounters with people who attend and love TLM, I have never suspected that they do not encounter Christ concretely. Never. And what disastrous consequences for the Church? TLM in its Tridentine form has been going on for 500 years, surviving the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, modernism, and contact with peoples beyond European cultures. It’s taken 500 years for the disaster to occur?
No comments:
Post a Comment