A Layman's Reaction to the Paper of Fr. Anscar J. Chupungco, OSB

A simple layman like me dares not to presume to know more.  But reading the paper delivered by Fr. Anscar J. Chupungco entitled "Liturgical Studies and Liturgical Renewal" on the occasion on the launched of the Broken Bay Institute, I was moved to blogged my reaction.  And here it is. Please bear with me.  This are just my honest opinion.

On saying that the twenty years of Vatican II was the springtime of liturgical renewal...

Most of us agree that there is a need for a liturgical renewal.  But my perception is that the liturgical reforms after the Second Vatican Council went far beyond the intentions of the council.  All of a sudden, many tried and tested usages were abolished or neglected.  When we were growing up we were made to think that Latin was obsolete.  And that was the line of thinking I had before I discovered the traditional liturgy.    As I was growing up in the seventies I have observed the following: (1) The disappearance of the ancient hymns and chants and now replaced with contemporary music akin to pop;   (2) The demolition of the high altars and the communion rails. (3) the Disappearance of tried and tested devotions and popular piety, (4) the disappearance of the confessionals, etc... and many other things too painful to recall.   How can the promoters of the novus ordo described the seventies as springtime. Does anyone today speak of springtime after the fruits of the drastic "reform" of the 70s??? or was there really ever a springtime?  Why were the reformers too eager to discard so many things?  Have they not thought of the value of the practices they abolished?  Were the practices associated with the pre-Vatican II deemed abolished?  


I am for the reform of the reformed.  I think we must go back to the real intention of Vatican II.  The speculation of the scholars and the fads of the time have been harmful to the church.  The church should not march with the times.  The Church must influence the times.  The church as a divinely instituted unit is called out from this world.  The eternal kingdom is the vocation of the church.  This world will never love Christ nor his church.  It has persecuted Christ and the Church.  Thus our liturgies must truly express that heavenly vocation.    

“The agenda is, to all appearance, an attempt to put the clock back half a century. It seems to conveniently forget that since Vatican II, the Church has been marching with the times, acknowledging the changes in social and religious culture, and adopting new pastoral strategies.”

I would opine that Fr. Chupungo missed the point of Pope Benedict’s agenda for liturgical reform.  I wish he would have read carefully the letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops of the world.  The reason for the reform of the reformed is stated very clearly by the Holy Father thus: “Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. (emphasis supplied)  I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion.  And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.” (From the Letter of the Pope accompanying the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.)  


The apostles were men who turned the world upside down.  They changed the culture of the Roman Empire. And not vice-versa.  The martyrs of the early church period willingly spilled their blood for Christ as a testimony.  Thus it was said that the blood of the martyrs were the seed of the church.  The theological giants of the medieval ages such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas endeavored to established the church with the sound teachings and combat the heresies of their times.  So today popular culture should not dictate what the church should do but that the church should be faithful in witnessing so that she could be an influence that would change culture to make it conform to the values of the gospel.  But when worldly popular culture influences the liturgical culture then that is something serious to think about.


Thus, the "reform of the reformed" of the ROR as it is called is meant not to turn back the clock but rather it is an attempt to connect the present with the past.  The deposit of faith is characterized by continuity and not rupture.  Because it is impossible to say that the practices of the past which has nourished the church for centuries all of a sudden would be forbidden or stopped.  If that happens there is a rupture.  Like an umbilical cord that connects the infant with the mother, continuity in tradition connects us with the life and spirituality of the church.  If only we read the documents of the Second Vatican Council in the light of tradition that there will be a realization of the good fruits.  We should consider Vatican II as part of the ongoing tradition, one among the many ecumenical councils of the Church and not a supra council that will supplant the other councils.  It is a pastoral council meant to guide the Church and not to teach a new doctrine.

“It is regrettable that today the word “inculturation” is spoken in some Church quarters in whispers and muffled voice.”

This is because inculturation as interpreted by some has led to unwanted creativity that has serious consequences for the dignified celebration of the Eucharist.  For example what about those young people dancing during the offertory and even during the consecration. Are these practices part of the liturgy??? Do they have traditional precedence or are these simple innovations purposely done to effect a feeling of "enculturation"?   For almost 400 hundred years of Christianity in the Philippines I have never heard that dancing was part of the Roman Ritual accepted by the Native Church.  Thus indeed no one will attempt to speak in loud voice about enculturation.  Yes its right, it has to be spoken in whispers and muffled voice because the deformation in the liturgy caused by innovations done in the name of enculturation is an embarrassment.   In the first place why introduced innovations when the Roman Liturgy and ritual has been assimilated and accepted by the native church?  Why would people speak about enculturation in hushed voices?  Perhaps because it has lost its appeal.  Perhaps "enculturation" is just one of the many "theological fads".  Thus we should discern the spirit of the times and not immediately accede to it.  We don't march with the times, we seek to influence the times so that by doing so we fulfill the Great Commission given to us by Christ - to make disciples of all Nations.  Christ did not tell us to dialogue  with the world.  Christ commanded us to preach the Gospel and to make disciples of all nations, and to wait for Him until He comes in glory.

“Will Latinised English make the liturgy more awesome? It will certainly sound mysterious, but will it be more prayerful? Will the silent recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer, preferably in Latin, evoke more vividly the Last Supper of Jesus? Is receiving Holy Communion on one’s knees and on the tongue more reverent than receiving it standing and in the hand? Will the priestly role of mediation be reinforced by praying at the altar with the back to the assembly?”

The purpose of direct translation is not to make it awesome.  The purpose is to make the rendering of the original text faithful to the original.  Because interpretative translations can cause problems especially in matters of faith and belief.  Direct translation will safeguard the integrity and meaning.  In the ecclesiastical province where I belong (Archdiocese of Caceres, the Bicol Translation has been revised to conform to the orginal and it is now being use and no ordinary faithful complains.).  Receiving communion on the tongue is the ordinary form or manner of receiving communion.  While receiving in the hand is the indult.  The irony is that the indult has now become the ordinary.  Let’s remember too that gestures can enhance the solemnity and it is our outward expression of faith.  Some faith groups outside of the Catholic Church receive communion in the hand because they do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  But for us who believe in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist must by all means show it by our gestures.  Our gestures are not only personal but it is our public affirmation and declaration of faith.  So when I receive communion in the tongue and kneeling, I adore the True God, like St. Thomas we say “My Lord and My God.”  When the priest turns his back on the assembly, he is leading them towards Christ, the hope of the resurrection.  Hence priest and people are directed to God.