By DAVID CLAYTON
(Editor’s Note: David Clayton is a writer on sacred art for the New Liturgical Movement, from which this commentary is reprinted. All rights reserved.)
+ + +
I have heard some express disappointment that there was not enough emphasis on the liturgy in the apostolic exhortation of Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium. It is true that there is little direct reference to the liturgy, and so it might appear at first sight that there is little interest from the Pope on this matter.
I have no special access to the personal thoughts of the Holy Father beyond what is written, so like everyone else, I look at the words and ask myself what they mean. In doing this, given that the Holy Father is for the most part articulating general principles, and given that I am not in a position to ask him directly, I am forced to interpret and ask myself, what does he mean in practice?
And then the next question I ask myself is this: To what degree does this change Church teaching, or is he simply directing my attention to an already existing aspect of Church teaching that he feels is currently neglected?
If I want to, of course, I can choose to look at it the exhortation as a manifesto in isolation and assume that is the sum total of all that the Pope believes; or I can choose to see this in the context of a hermeneutic of continuity. In other words, I will assume that in order to understand this document, I must read it as a continuation of those that went before, and this means most especially the period just before the advent of Pope Francis, that is, the documents of the papacy of Pope Emeritus Benedict.
So unless I see something that contradicts them, I will assume that they are considered valid and important still. If we read it this way, then because he doesn’t have much to say on any particular issue, it doesn’t mean that he opposes it, or even that he thinks it is unimportant, rather it means that he feels that what is appropriate has already been said and so has little or nothing to add.
This is what traditionalists within the Church say that the liberals failed to do after Vatican II. Sacrosanctum Concilium must be read, we have been told (and I think quite rightly) in the context of what went before to be properly understood; and I am given to understand that this is one reason why Pope Benedict XVI encouraged celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass — so the people could learn from and experience of that context, so to speak. I accept this argument fully, and therefore, it seems reasonable to read the writings of the new Pope in this way too.
Now to Evangelii Gaudium and the liturgy. The following paragraph appears:
“166. Another aspect of catechesis which has developed in recent decades is mystagogic initiation. This basically has to do with two things: a progressive experience of formation involving the entire community and a renewed appreciation of the liturgical signs of Christian initiation. Many manuals and programs have not yet taken sufficiently into account the need for a mystagogical renewal, one which would assume very different forms based on each educational community’s discernment. Catechesis is a proclamation of the word and is always centered on that word, yet it also demands a suitable environment and an attractive presentation, the use of eloquent symbols, insertion into a broader growth process and the integration of every dimension of the person within a communal journey of hearing and response.”
So what is mystagogical initiation? What the Pope is saying seems to me be referring to and reiterating what was said in the apostolic exhortation written by Pope Emeritus Benedict, Sacramentum Caritatis. This is headed On the Eucharist as the Source and Summit of the Church’s Life and Mission and was written following a synod of bishops (I don’t know, but I’m guessing the Pope Francis was present). In a section entitled ‘Interior participation in the celebration’ we have a subheading ‘Mystagogical catechesis’ in which the views of the gathered bishops are referred to specifically:
“64. The Church’s great liturgical tradition teaches us that fruitful participation in the liturgy requires that one be personally conformed to the mystery being celebrated, offering one’s life to God in unity with the sacrifice of Christ for the salvation of the whole world. For this reason, the Synod of Bishops asked that the faithful be helped to make their interior dispositions correspond to their gestures and words. Otherwise, however carefully planned and executed our liturgies may be, they would risk falling into a certain ritualism. Hence the need to provide an education in eucharistic faith capable of enabling the faithful to live personally what they celebrate.”
This is so important that the following paragraph was included also: “Finally, a mystagogical catechesis must be concerned with bringing out the significance of the rites for the Christian life in all its dimensions — work and responsibility, thoughts and emotions, activity and repose. Part of the mystagogical process is to demonstrate how the mysteries celebrated in the rite are linked to the missionary responsibility of the faithful. The mature fruit of mystagogy is an awareness that one’s life is being progressively transformed by the holy mysteries being celebrated. The aim of all Christian education, moreover, is to train the believer in an adult faith that can make him a ‘new creation,’ capable of bearing witness in his surroundings to the Christian hope that inspires him” (my emphasis).
I don’t think it is possible to make a stronger statement on the centrality of the liturgy to the life of the Church and the importance of the faithful understanding this and deepening their participation in it. There is no reason to believe that Pope Francis is dissenting from this, in fact quite the opposite — he seems to be referring directly to it and re-emphasizing it. If this is what he doing, then he might be stressing the liturgy in a way that even some Catholic liturgical commentators do not. (Indeed, one wonders if the first step in mystagogical catechesis for many is one that begins by explaining the meaning of the phrase “mystagogical catechesis”!)
I wonder also how many Catholic colleges and universities (I am thinking here of those that consider themselves orthodox) actually make mystagogy the governing principle in the design of their curricula? How many Catholic teachers, regardless of the subject they are teaching, consider how what they are teaching relates to it? If we believe what Pope Benedict wrote (and Francis appears to be referring to) then if I can’t justify what I teach in these terms, then it isn’t worth teaching.
Am I choosing to interpret Pope Francis the way I wish to see it too? Perhaps — I guess only future events will demonstrate if I am correct. However, his papacy so far seems to support this picture: While there are some new things, I have read nothing that that explicitly rejects anything that developed during the previous papacy. In fact, the signs seem to indicate the reverse: He has broadened and strengthened the mission of the Anglican Use Ordinariate and I have read articles in the New Liturgical Movement web site that tell me that he has rejected direct appeals from deputations asking him to ban the Extraordinary Form; celebrated the Mass ad orientem; celebrated Mass in Latin and so on.
His personal preferences may not be precisely the same as mine in all regards, but in his reinforcement of general principles, I don’t hear anything that tells me that the views I had two years ago need to be changed in anyway.
So in regard to liturgy, art, music, and even free-market economics (despite the alarm of many), I see nothing as yet that worries me at all . . . quite the opposite.