(Editor’s Note: Below is a response from Dr. Gabriel Radle to James Monti’s treatment of his work in his “Restoring the Sacred” column in our September 8 issue. Following that is Mr. Monti’s reply. We thank both gentlemen for their commentaries.)
+ + +
Dear respected members of the editorial board of The Wanderer,
With great disappointment I read in the September 8th edition (page 3B) James Monti’s article, “Restoring the Sacred . . . On Bended Knee Within The Holy of Holies.”
I was not disappointed because of his advocacy for the esteemed posture of kneeling in adoration of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Rather, I was shocked by the characterization that he made of me.
Mr. Monti’s article was written in response to my own study of a canon promulgated by the first ecumenical council of Nicaea:
“Embodied Eschatology: The Council of Nicaea’s Regulation of Kneeling and Its Reception across Liturgical Traditions.”
Part 1 (published in Worship 90, July, p. 345-371): https://www.
academia.edu/27569618/Embodied_Eschatology
_The_Council_of_Nicaeas_
Regulation_of_Kneeling_and
_Its_Reception_across_
Liturgical_Traditions_PART_1_
Part 2 (published in Worship 90, September, p. 433-461): https://www.academia.edu/28628980/Embodied_Eschatology_The
_Council_of_Nicaeas_Regulation_of_K
neeling_and_Its_Reception_
across_Liturgical_Traditions_PART_2_
Mr. Monti not only misinterprets the very point of my article; he describes it within a framework of criticisms that misrepresent my character. Most alarming is that Mr. Monti’s criticisms of my work were published after reading only the first half of my study, since the second half of my article had yet to be published at the time. Thus, he also did not properly contextualize what he read with the article’s second half.
The fact that The Wanderer, the oldest lay Catholic newspaper in North America, allowed such criticisms into press without verifying Mr. Monti’s claims reveals a disappointing absence of editorial oversight. In order to make you aware of the circumstances, I will list for you some of Mr. Monti’s claims and how they compare to what I actually wrote:
1) Mr. Monti: “. . . the campaign to eliminate kneeling during the Mass has taken its lead from liturgical publications of a certain ilk.”
Prior to discussing my study, Mr. Monti introduces his article with these condemning words. However, my own article was not dedicated to the elimination of kneeling. It was a historical study of canon 20 of Nicaea (which forbade kneeling on Sundays) with the aim of understanding how and why different liturgical traditions ceased to follow (or continue to follow) this rule. (For the record, I am a Roman Catholic who regularly kneels at Mass, although this personal fact was beyond the scope of the article, which was a historical study of different liturgical traditions, including Catholic, Lutheran, Coptic, and Eastern Orthodox, among others).
Furthermore, not once in either of my articles do I encourage individuals to disobey Church teaching. The intention of my study was to show how the history of teaching on posture has changed and to raise questions about why certain postures were considered more important at different historical time periods. I personally see theological value in canon 20 of Nicaea. However, I also believe that it must be properly contextualized. Regardless of my personal belief about its value, it is not my place to mandate liturgical posture for the Catholic tradition, or any other Christian tradition for that matter.
2) Mr. Monti: “What these critics really mean is that by remaining on their knees during the consecration the laity can’t look and act like concelebrants in the confection of the Eucharist.”
Once again, Mr. Monti states something that has nothing to do with my article. (Again, for the record, as a Roman Catholic, I do not believe that that the roles of clergy and laity are identical.) Perhaps Mr. Monti has other scholars in mind when he says this? Regardless, the fact that he states these things before discussing my article misleads the reader into associating these attitudes with my own study and character.
3) Mr. Monti: “In his article . . . the liturgist Gabriel Radle argues that kneeling during the Mass, and in particular kneeling during the consecration, arose in rather awkward contradiction to the ancient observance of standing for the liturgy on Sundays and during the Easter Season. He presents as the centerpiece of his assertion Canon 20 of the Council of Nicaea (AD 325), which called for the universal observance of standing while at prayer on Sundays and throughout Eastertide.”
Mr. Monti is confused here. The point of my article was not to discuss the history of kneeling at the Mass and to use canon 20 of Nicaea as an argument against kneeling. On the contrary, my article is a historical study of canon 20 of Nicaea, full stop. The fact that kneeling in adoration was one of the liturgical phenomena that led to the abandonment of canon 20 in some liturgical traditions (although not all — for example, many of the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches still follow this canon) is the reason that I discuss the history of kneeling at Mass in the Middle Ages.
4) Mr. Monti: “Regarding the question as to whether the Nicaea canon precluded kneeling during the consecration, two medieval texts reveal that such kneeling arose at an early date. . .”
This is precisely my point. While I did not have enough space within the limits of my journal articles to discuss the entire history of kneeling at Mass (my study was broad enough by covering seventeen centuries and multiple liturgical traditions), I did try to challenge previous scholarship which incorrectly affirmed that kneeling arose only in the 13th century. Had Mr. Monti read for example footnote 25, or p. 357, he would have seen that clearly. Influential Western scholars too often affirm that kneeling in front of the Eucharist is a thirteenth-century invention, and the medieval Latin manuscripts show clearly that kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer is a much older phenomenon, at least in some areas. Mr. Monti and I agree on this point.
5) Mr. Monti: “It should be obvious that the Fathers of the Nicaea Council would never have intended their decision to become an obstacle to expressions of adoration on Sundays or during the Easter Season.”
It is clear that for the ancient Fathers of Nicaea, an absence of kneeling was not considered an absence of adoration. The facts that I present in my article show that the early Fathers of the Church regularly practiced kneeling, but they also felt strongly that one should refrain from kneeling once per week on the day of the Resurrection. The issue was not about whether to kneel (which everyone did), but rather when it was or was not considered appropriate to the liturgical character of a day or season. The very fact that canon 20 was written shows that kneeling was a normal prayer posture for early Christians, even if one that they thought should be refrained from on Sunday. The point of my article — especially the conclusion, which Mr. Monti did not read because it had not yet been published — was precisely to discern why this issue was so important to early Christians, and why it is still important to many in the Christian East. Catholics of the Roman Rite are often particularly sensitive to the issue of kneeling precisely because of the difficult history that accompanied debates on eucharistic theology during the Reformation. The point of my article was precisely to explore the issue of canon 20 in a broader perspective beyond the modern Catholic vs. Protestant tensions, and discern how different Christians across the ages have related to the ancient tradition of standing on Sundays. As Pope St. John Paul II taught, “breathing with both lungs” — learning about and encouraging dialogue between the Eastern and Western liturgical traditions — can allow Christians to better understand and live out their faith.
6) Mr. Monti: “Those perhaps hankering for the ‘good old days’ of fourth-century Christianity ought to be asked whether they would want us likewise to return to segregating women from men on opposite sides of the church as was prescribed in the Apostolic Constitutions.”
Mr. Monti seems to imply I desire some supposed (impossible) return to fourth-century liturgy. We can never return to any period of liturgy, whether 4th, 12th, or 19th century. The liturgy is always dynamic; it is always the liturgy of today. The Church professes its liturgy to be the paschal mystery of Christ offered and received anew each time the Mass is offered. The liturgy manifests the intimate relationship between God and his people, who gather together as one body and together receive the life-giving body of Christ. Such a relationship cannot be static. Thus, the Mass will always be the Mass of today, uniting Christians to the eternity of God. The Church proclaims it has her mission to live the Mass to the fullest, namely, to celebrate it with the greatest dignity and glory, and live out the mission of the Mass — i.e. the sanctification of the world — after the Ite, missa est has been pronounced.
In the same passage, Mr. Monti assumes that I am opposed to gender segregation. This is ironic considering that some of the traditions that uphold canon 20 to this day are also the liturgical traditions that segregate men and women. (For the record, I do not support gender segregation in my own Roman Rite, but I am certainly not one to disparage the practice for those Eastern Christians — including many Eastern Rite Catholics — who may find it beneficial to their prayer tradition).
7) Mr. Monti: “And curiously the nostalgia of certain liturgists eager to cite ancient practices doesn’t extend to Eucharistic Prayer I either. . .”
For the record, I love the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I). These concluding remarks once again were maybe intended for other liturgists? Regardless, the implication is clearly that I am apparently the type of person who would oppose this ancient Mass text. This is false.
8) Mr. Monti: “. . . adoration and its outward manifestations are not elements alien to early Christian eucharistic theology that were artificially imposed upon the Church’s liturgy by medieval minds.”
Never do I claim that kneeling as adoration was artificially imposed upon the Church’s liturgy by medieval minds. I cite plenty of examples of kneeling in the Bible and in ancient Christian documents. Once again, Mr. Monti seems to assume what I am stating in my article, as opposed to attentively reading what I write. Had Mr. Monti read my conclusion, he would have seen that I affirm that kneeling in adoration is an honorable human expression before God, and the ancient Fathers of the Church who decided not to kneel on Sunday were very much aware of this. Biblical and ancient Christian sources agree on the appropriateness of kneeling as a prayer posture. At the same time, many early Christian texts were explicit about when kneeling was most appropriate. My article is much more nuanced.
In conclusion, the various negative implications in Mr. Monti’s article are disappointing. I understand where Mr. Monti’s frustration is coming from. I personally know how challenging it can be when individuals (whether priests or parish liturgical committee members) advocate practices that go against liturgical norms. I also appreciate the depth of Mr. Monti’s knowledge of the medieval Western liturgical sources and can relate to his frustration with those scholars who make historical claims (often to justify practices they desire) that contradict what the sources actually tell us. While I understand where Mr. Monti is coming from and trust that as a man of faith his motivations are well intended, his anger here is misdirected at me.
As a scholar of Church history and liturgy, I find that it is important to ask questions about our tradition, in order to have a richer understanding of it. History is informative; it is not normative. We do not have to replicate the past. But we can learn from the past. And to think that ancient Fathers of the Church did not have some deep understanding of canon 20 when they decided to mandate its practice across the Christian world is to not give the Church’s tradition enough credit. I personally believe that there is still great value in many of the Church’s ancient canons, including canon 20 of Nicaea. Yet despite the value that I see in this canon — upheld by the likes of St. Basil the Great, St. Augustine, and medieval popes, among many others — let me be clear: It is not my place to mandate liturgical practices for today. That is the task of the hierarchy (or to whom they delegate such responsibility), and I defer to them.
Mr. Monti is certainly entitled to disagree with canon 20 of Nicaea. I simply ask that Mr. Monti not judge me for wanting to uncover the richness of ancient Christian traditions. It is my sincere hope that Mr. Monti and The Wanderer are more cautious in the future about not presuming the faith motivations, politics, personal convictions, or scholarly opinions of others too quickly and read their scholarship with greater attentiveness to subtlety and with greater charity. Otherwise, you will risk defaming an individual whose only goal is the love of God and the Church.
For my part, while I reject the characterization of Mr. Monti, reading his response has proven to be of benefit, as it reminds me of the deep pastoral sensitivities that underlie issues of liturgical posture, and challenge me to be more comprehensive in my treatment not only of sources, but also of such sensitivities in the future. For this, I thank him.
Respectfully in Christ,
Gabriel Radle
James Monti’s Reply
To Dr. Gabriel Radle and to my readers, I want unequivocally and sincerely to apologize and express my deep regret for having seriously misunderstood the findings of Dr. Radle in his recently published study, “Embodied Eschatology (Part 1).” To begin with, my general comments both at the beginning of my essay and at the end regarding those who oppose the liturgical practice of kneeling during the Mass were not intended to characterize specifically Dr. Radle’s study, but it is obvious from Dr. Radle’s comments above that I failed to make a clear distinction between my general observations and my thoughts regarding his presentation.
I do recall that as I was editing my essay before submitting it for publication, I was concerned about this and made changes in an effort to avoid giving this impression to readers, but clearly I did not go nearly far enough to clarify it.
As for my specific observations regarding Dr. Radle’s study, it is clear from his explanation of his own findings given above that I seriously misunderstood his conclusions. I find highly admirable his above-given affirmations of the importance of kneeling before the Holy Eucharist, the distinction between the liturgical role of the clergy and that of the laity, his love for Eucharistic Prayer I, the Roman Canon, and his unequivocal expressions of deference to the judgment of the Church’s Magisterium. I am particularly sorrowed that Dr. Radle felt that my essay constituted a personal criticism of him as a fellow Catholic — this was never my intention.
Of course this apology on my part comes as too little, too late. I should have devoted more time to considering the nuances of Dr. Radle’s exposition, and yes, I should have waited to read the second part of his study before drawing any final conclusions. The pressures of trying to balance the timely completion of my fortnightly essay for The Wanderer with my other work obligations surely led me in this case to an excessively hasty evaluation of what Dr. Radle had to offer.
Moreover, even in my first reading of Dr. Radle’s study, there were multiple aspects of it that did positively impress me, and these I should have shared with my readers — I had originally planned to present them in my discussion of his findings. These include his insightful corrections to certain assumptions that have been made by other scholars in his field, and his copious and thorough documentation of his sources.
Also, in regard to my reference to the early Christian practice of men and women sitting on opposite sides of the church, it was never my intention to criticize any Christian community that has continued to the present day this venerable tradition and the laudable reasons for it. I had in mind only present-day Roman Rite parishes, where families generally prefer to sit together as families.
In the end, all I can ask of Dr. Radle and my readers is for you to forgive me for my errors and poor judgment in this matter and to pray for me.
James Monti
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress