The Mass and Modernity

 By   Fr. Jonathan Robinson

 (Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2005)

The literature on the Catholic mass in its current forms – modern, Latin, Traditional – is legion. Works which try to situate the current state of the mass in a broader philosophical and historical context are very few.  Fr. Jonathan Robinson has undertaken that task in “The Mass and Modernity.” The author approaches the issue primarily as a philosopher. But he is also a priest and a founder of the Toronto Oratory.  Those familiar with the Church in England know how – on the whole – the Oratory took the lead over the years on preserving the form of the Catholic liturgy and theology. This author thus is no mere academic theorist but an actual practitioner of what he speaks. I therefore approached this work with high expectations. However, let me state at the start that this text, although easy to follow, shows a certain wordiness and lack of polish. It often reads like an unedited transcript of a lecture.

In the first section of “The Mass and Modernity”, the author reviews the work of seminal thinkers of the modern age.  Fr. Robinson is clear on the anti-Christian element inherent in the enlightenment and its offshoots. He shows how, in the thought of a succession of philosophers and ideologues, God was repudiated outright, reduced to a residual concept or transformed into a “projection” of the community.  And these concepts -especially an emphasis on “community” derived ultimately from Hegel – exercise a direct influence on modern theories of the liturgy. Fr. Robinson’s text is strewn with interesting observations that cry out for more development. He discusses, for example, the problem of how these non-Christian influences actually impact the Church – not through a direct reading of Hegel or Kant but by “osmosis” from a culture that has absorbed their influences. I should also mention Fr. Robinson’s discussion of “civil society,” its relationship to the Church and how the Church cannot be reduced to a component of it.

Fr. Robinson next reviews various contemporary thinkers who have responded to the challenge of modernity and its relationship to the Church. Fr. Robinson himself has no illusions on the fundamental opposition between modernity and Christianity. He makes a far more subtle analysis of the status of religion in modern civil society than many other thinkers of the “Conservative Catholic” stripe. For example, the relentless activity of the churches in the US does necessarily indicate that the faith is flourishing under democracy. A more sophisticated analysis of American civil society by “layers” reveals that its leading elements are all relentlessly anti-religious. Fr. Robinson also considers and rejects “postmodernism” as a potential ally of the Church against modernity: in reality it perpetuates elements of the enlightenment case against religion.

Fr. Robinson devotes much space to his heroine, Iris Murdoch. Although not a Christian, she argued forcefully for a kind of Platonic “transcendence.” But perhaps more interesting to our readers is the discussion of the “Catholic” Charles Taylor. A kind of court philosopher to the Conciliar Church, he expresses in a clear and radical way what others in the hierarchy and Catholic academia merely hint at. For Taylor, “modern liberal political culture” has realized in a much more real way the values of the gospel (equated with “universal human rights”) than did the Catholic confessional states of the pre-enlightenment past. Those who fought against the Church for the enlightenment were advancing the cause of true Christianity.  This line of thought is related to Pope Benedict’s recent remarks that the seeds of modern democratic states are to be found in the gospel. We see then, that in one very influential school of thought, the Church of Vatican II is not merely open to modern state but positively divinizes it. The role of the Church, according to Taylor, is to hand over the gospel values to the more effective administration of the modern state. Fr. Robinson, although respectful of a hometown hero, is forced to point out the incompatibility of this vision with Catholicism.

How do these philosophical considerations apply to the liturgy? In the third section of his book, Fr, Robinson develops a theory of the liturgy as God reaching out to His creation and then drawing all things back to Himself: “exitus-reditus.”  To support his analysis, Fr. Robinson draws on Dionysus the Areopagate but also on the more modern concept of the “Paschal Mystery” (as Fr. Robinson understands it). It is heartening to see this restoration of the thought of Dionysus. Indeed, Dionysian thought emphasizes the hierarchical nature of the liturgy, in extreme contrast with exclusive focus on the unstructured  “community” prevalent today. Fr. Robinson writes passionately of the need to restore movement (ritual) and symbolism to the mass. And well in advance of Pope Benedict’s “hermeneutic of continuity” Fr. Robinson denounced “ the philosophy behind the changes (to the liturgy)  which seems determined to emphasize novelty over continuity” (at 310)

When we get to the concrete application of his principles, however, Fr Robinson gets cold feet. The “Novus Ordo” must be retained, a priori. This book predates Summorum Pontifcum and most clerical conservative writers still felt the need to carefully distinguish themselves from the Traditionalist outcasts. There are a several pages of not very well articulated disparagement of the Old Rite.  According to Robinson, restoration of this Rite is neither feasible nor desirable.  We must, after all, take account of “parish realities.” As to the specifics: The celebrant ought to face east for the Canon. One or two Latin masses “at regular intervals” would suffice to promote return of the sense of transcendence. There should be more traditional music – Fr. Robinson concludes this recommendation is not inconsistent with the magisterium – and  better translations of the liturgical texts  too. Perhaps his criticism of the three year cycle of readings is the most “revolutionary” element of  Fr. Robinson’s “Reform of the Reform” although what his suggested changes to the lectionary would be remains unclear. Throughout these passages, Fr. Robinson is compelled again and again to acknowledge the superiority of the “Old Rite” over at least the currently practiced version of the New.

“Much ado about nothing” – but then the advocates of the “Reform of the Reform” often find themselves in such impasses. The contrast could not be greater between this book’s drastic, even apocalyptic descriptions of the disasters of modernity and the feeble reaction. For, if one really was convinced that:

 “ Present liturgical practice has in fact reinforced a good deal of the anti-God initiatives and false teaching about community. In this way the liturgy has exemplified and deepened modern trends that are destructive, not merely of liturgy , but of the Catholic world view itself.” (at 307)

Would not the only possible Christian  response be a radical assault on the offending practices, cost what it may?  But let us ignore much of  the final pages of this book. On the whole, Fr. Robinson has provided us with a very  impressive updated philosophical apologia against the poison of modernity as it specifically impacts the liturgy. It remains for traditionalists to implement the obvious antidote.