For Benedict XVI, who taught us solemn and humble by his great and silent example...
Solemn is not the enemy of humble
by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
March 21, 2013
Thanks to Father Z for sharing this illuminating passage from C. S. Lewis, passed along to him by a priest friend:
From A Preface to Paradise Lost
by C.S. Lewis
This quality will be understood by anyone who really understands the meaning of the Middle English word solempne. This means something different, but not quite different, from modern English solemn. Like solemn it implies the opposite of what is familiar, free and easy, or ordinary. But unlike solemn it does not suggest gloom, oppression, or austerity.
The ball in the first act of Romeo and Juliet was a ‘solemnity’. The feast at the beginning of Gawain and the Green Knight is very much of a solemnity. A great mass by Mozart or Beethoven is as much a solemnity in its hilarious Gloria as in its poignant Crucifixus estt.
Feasts are, in this sense, more solemn than fasts. Easter is solempne, Good Friday is not. The Solempne is the festal which is also the stately and the ceremonial, the proper occasion for pomp - and the very fact that pompous is now used only in a bad sense measures the degree to which we have lost the old idea of ‘solemnity’.
To recover it you must think of a court ball, or a coronation, or a victory march, as these things appear to people who enjoy them; in an age when everyone puts on his oldest clothes to be happy in, you must re-awake the simpler state of mind in which people put on gold and scarlet to be happy in. [Not without reason, we say we say we dress up in our 'Sunday best'.!
Above all, you must be rid of the hideous idea, fruit of a widespread inferiority complex, that pomp, on the proper occasions, has any connexion with vanity or self-conceit.
A celebrant approaching the altar, a princess led out by a king to dance a minuet, a general officer on a ceremonial parade, a major-domo preceding the boar’s head at a Christmas feast — all these wear unusual clothes and move with calculated dignity.
This does not mean that they are vain, but that they are obedient; they are obeying the hoc age [doing now] which presides over every solemnity. The modern habit of doing ceremonial things unceremoniously is no proof of humility; rather it proves the offender’s inability to forget himself in the rite, and his readiness to spoil for every one else the proper pleasure of ritual.
I'm glad others are doing the talking that I wouldn't be able to do without sounding petty or partisan, or worse, disloyal to the Pope for not being 100% approving of everything he has said or done in this first several days as Pope... I have omitted from the following blog entry the first couple of paragraphs about misplaced hysteria by the right about Pope Francis's liturgy and on the left about his positions on ethical and moral issues, and in general, against the categories of left and right, or progressive/liberal and conservative to get to the point...
In defense of Benedict XVI:
The diametric diatribes
March 21, 2013
...I have been reading a lot of material for a week now, and I have noticed a pattern that is becoming increasingly annoying. In an attempt to promote the new Holy Father (a virtuous act indeed), there are those who have set him in deliberate opposition to our beloved Benedict XVI. The message seems clear: Pope Francis = Good, Pope Benedict = Bad.
We would do well to remember that, while their styles are different, when it comes down to the essence of the office, there is more continuity than rupture between the 265th Successor of St. Peter and the 266th. That was in part the point of yesterday’s post on papal environmental precedence.
[One can cite the many occasions on which Benedict XVI advocated that man has a duty to safeguard Creation, so it is truly offensive,literally ad nauseam, the way MSM - and even many Catholic pundits and prelates - have been falling over each other in their collective self-willed amnesia to report on Pope Francis as though he had been the first Pope to ever articulate principles that are fundamental to the Catholic faith, or to ever have been 'simple and humble'.] The pitting of Francis and Benedict can be seen in a few noteworthy categories.
First, the pundits will say that Francis is a model of humility. There is nothing wrong with this of course, except for the unspoken suggestion that Benedict was not. Humility comes in many forms. The manner in which Francis brought tens of thousands of pilgrims to the point where you could hear a rosary drop and asked them to pray for him was impressive, and humble.
[Was that any different then from the practice Benedict XVI introduced for the minute of silence that follows the Gospel reading and Communion, whether the Mass is held i St. Peter's Square or in the Basilica or anywhere else - not to mention the silence of Eucharistic Adoration he led for a million young people in Cologne, 800,000 in Sydney, one and a half million in Madrid, and no less impressive though smaller gatherings in London Malta, Prague...? I hate to sound petty, but in none of those occasions did he ever ask the moment of prayer and silence for himself!]
That does not, however, minimize the amount of humility shown by Pope Benedict XVI over the course of his pontificate. The mere fact that he recognized his inability for continue governing the Church provides ample evidence. In doing so, he has essentially disappeared to a life of quiet contemplation. This example of humility is something from which Cardinal Mahony could learn something.
Second, when it comes to things liturgical, there has been some confusion in the terms “humble” and “simple.” By now we are all mostly aware that Pope Francis came out onto the loggia not donning the papal mozzetta, the red shoes, the gold pectoral cross, and the rochet. We have also seen the same simplicity in the papal Masses.
It is clear that whereas the Benedictine liturgies had elements that were more ornate, Masses under the reign of Francis are proving to be simpler. Yet we should not confuse the latter with “humble”, and we certainly should not mischaracterize the former as “prideful.”
In fact, it takes a good amount of humility to recognize that the Mass is not of our own making, that it comes with a rich history of sacred actions and sacred objects. When one steps into an office, one assumes those things that go along with the office.
The beautiful vestments, liturgical objects, and the precision of detail used by Pope Benedict are all indicative of his submission to the Mass as a reality that is greater than him. In that sense, they are very much an example of the former pontiff’s humility.
Even extra-liturgical vestments can provide an example of personal humility. Last week, Creative Minority Report was the first to write about a comparison that many have been making ever since the announcement of Pope Francis: that of Downton Abbey’s Matthew Crawly. When Matthew arrived at Downton, being the simple country lawyer that he was, he couldn’t fathom having maids wait on him and a valet dress him, and he even railed against the “size” of Downton as something altogether unnecessary. Patrick Archibold explains:
Yet, Lord Grantham counseled him that while all this grand tradition might seem purposeless, it was not. He explained to Matthew that these traditions meant something, not only to the people blandished upon, but to the people who provided the service and to others as well.
Lord Grantham explained to Matthew that when he dismissed it all as useless, he was dismissing the value of lives and livelihoods spent learning the craft and the legitimate pride taken in hard work and diligence. He suggested that the service of the servants served not only their masters.
Over time, Matthew began to realize that their was some truth in Lord Grantham's words and being a kind and considerate man, he pondered it. Perhaps his insistence on simplicity was just another form of pride? Perhaps in accepting his new role, the truly humble thing to do was forgo his preference for simplicity, self-reliance, and plainness? In accepting his new role, he had a responsibility to others for whom these things meant a great deal.
And so, in an act of humility and kindness, Matthew asked his valet to help him dress and said, "Would you be so kind as to pick me out a pair of cuff-links." The valet smiled from ear to ear. Good Matthew had never been so humble and so self-effacing as when he accepted the assistance and adornments expected of his new role.
Simplicity is not the same as humility. The former can be humble, but it can also be prideful, much as the “trappings” of the papacy can be used with either pride or humility.
I believe in my heart that both Francis and Benedict are humble men - they are certainly holy men, and it is hard to be one without the other - but that humility stems neither from the Franciscan simplicity nor the Benedictine attention to liturgical detail
[or respect for the tradition of the Papacy!].
Rather, the humility in both cases has its source, as does any virtue, in the human heart. Let us not forget as well that Pope Benedict was adverse to having people kiss the papal ring. He made an attempt to stop this at the beginning of his appointment, but eventually adopted a Matthew-Crawly submission to the desire of the people to venerate the Vicar of Christ.
With regards to the “trappings” of the papacy, Amy Welborn recently wrote,
What that expert [who had said "Benedict was a clothes horse"] fails to recognize was that Benedict’s attention to papal garb was not about vanity – I mean – really. It was about what he was always about: history And not history as a museum, out of an antiquarian interest, but as a link from the present to the past.
The red shoes – so maligned even by Catholics who should know better – are a symbol of blood. Blood , people. The blood of the martyrs and the blood of Christ on which His vicar stands, and through him, all of us. Popes – yes, even John XXIII and Paul VI – wore them until John Paul II stopped. Then Benedict reinstated them. That is, he humbled himself before history and symbol, and put the darn things on.”
Another paragon of humility right now is Msgr. Guido Marino. Here is a man who was brought in because of his experience and knowledge of the Sacred Liturgy precisely because he was of the same mind as Pope Benedict. He now finds himself in a situation serving a Pope who does not see everything the same way. This is not meant to be a criticism of the Holy Father, but merely a statement of fact. It is clear that Marini and Francis are not on the same liturgical page, and yet Marini serves. He is still the quiet man behind the scenes. That too is humility.
About a week ago Cardinal Mahony displayed once again his lack of understanding of all things humble. He issued a series of “tweets” that read, “SIMPLE is IN, extravagant is out!! Pope Francis is doing more for proclaiming Jesus Christ than thousands of 'professionals' – praise God! ... So long, Papal ermine and fancy lace! Welcome, simple cassock and hopefully, ordinary black shoes! ... Mass with Pope Francis: moving from HIGH Church to LOW and humble Church! What a blessing that we are encountering Jesus without trappings!”
This is the kind of thing that deserves rebuke when done by a member of the laity, but it outright shameful and scandalous when done by a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church. Cardinal Mahony owes a public apology to the Pope emeritus for this deliberate snub.
[SNUB??? It's outright calumny! Mahony's revenge on someone he has bragged he did not vote for in 2005, and whose zero tolerance for criminal priests and the bishops who covered up for them led to his unmasking as one of the worst examples of the latter!] We can all only hope that he heeds Benedict’s example of true humility and retires to a quiet life of prayer and contemplation. He would have more time to consider the sins of his past and rid his soul of arrogance.
On a more practical note, many have noted that Pope Francis is refusing a car and walking to many of the appointments he has. Once again, this is commendable.
[Let us not exaggerate. The blogger is falling into the very trap he warns about. Surely, the Pope can do this only within the Vatican! If he were to visit the President of Italy at the Quirinale, or take possession of his cathedra in the Lateran, would he walk? He took a car to Santa Maria Maggiore, after all, which is much nearer. And are we forgetting Cardinal Ratzinger who, for more than 20 years, walked to and from work eveyday, and enjoyed walking around his neighborhood in Borgo Pio?]
In fact, while my own liturgical theology would rather have the “trappings” so eschewed by Mahony, I am completely on board with some fiscal conservatism when its comes to some extraneous aspects of the Church, both at the local level and at the Vatican. I have argued that this simplicity is an example much needed in our world.
I applaud the Pope for this decision, not only for its simplicity, but also because it allows him to encounter more people around the Vatican. Yet again, there is this implication that somehow this is all very “un-Benedict.” This couldn’t be further from the truth.
Cardinal Ratzinger was so used to making the daily walk across St. Peter’s square from his days in the curia that when he was elevated to the papacy, he still made the walk, often stopping to talk with pilgrims. He was so warm with people that the local media didn’t know what to do with their “pit bull” characterization of him. (The reputation, incidentally, was always undeserved, but it was there nevertheless, continually promoted by the media.
[The stories eventually surfaced in the media after he became Pope.]
Keep in mind that in his last several years as pope, Benedict XVI was considerably older and feebler than our new beloved Holy Father Francis. since 2011, Pope Benedict couldn’t make the walk down the nave of St. Peter’s Basilica let alone across the square on foot! name. It is quite unjust to compare the aged Benedict with the youthful Francis. (Okay, maybe “youthful” is a stretch for a man of 76 years, but you get the point.)
The more egregious error is in commending Pope Francis for “departing from the text” of his prepared homilies. “It makes him so much more ‘human’ and not so much of a Vatican robot,” I read on one secular source.
It would do well to recall that Pope Benedict often sent the Vatican translators into a tizzy for departing from his prepared text, and this was not just in the younger days of his pontificate, but continued through his final address to the Roman clergy. On that occasion he delivered an entirely extemporaneous speech on the nature and purpose of the Second Vatican Council, complete with personal anecdotes and a brilliant assessment of history.
While only time will tell, some have suggested that this last address may very well be a large part of his legacy. It was so unexpected and off-the-cuff, that it took four days to get an “official” Vatican translation into English.
I will vigorously defend Pope Francis against the diatribes being leveled at him. But make no mistake about it, I will defend with equal vigor our dear Benedict XVI, whose legacy to the Church will be great indeed, if not fully realized for a couple decades.
For those who are desperately clinging to a 1970s deprived vision of the Sacred Liturgy and who are tragically mistaking Pope Francis’ example as something similar, note well that the liturgical theology of Pope Benedict is here to stay. One need only look at the seminaries to see this.
When it comes to Francis and Benedict, lack of charity in both cases is uncalled for. For my own part, I remain in mourning for what our Church lost when Benedict resigned, but I remain joyful in what Pope Francis brings to the life of faith. I think Darwin Catholic put it best,
One thing that has struck me as I examine my own excitement about every story that comes out about Pope Francis ... is that [nonetheless] there is something deeply appealing to the human person about monarchy.
As a Catholic, I find myself joyful at the new pope simply because he is the new pope. Not because I think there was something lacking in prior popes. I felt the same deep attachment to John Paul II and to Benedict XVI. I was excited that John Paul II hiked and skied. I was excited that Benedict XVI kept cats and played Mozart. I am excited that Francis rode in the bus with the rest of the cardinals and dropped by his old hotel in person to pay his bill. It's not that I prefer one pontiff's personality to another, I simply enjoy ‘getting to know’ these deeply holy men who lead our Church on earth.”
Habemus Papam. Habuimus Papam. Habebimus semper Papam. Deo gratias.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 23/03/2013 00:14]