Cupich on "Dilexi Te" and What It Means for Liturgy!

Fr Zed deconstructs Cardinal Stupich's latest attack on Tradition that was published on the official Vatican News site. Where is Pope Leo?

From Fr Z's Blog

Card. Cupich’s essay on Dilexi te!  In the NEWS section of Vatican.va.

Cupich’s op-ed reflection on Dilexi te offers yet another example of what happens when ideology substitutes for theology and historical revisionism obscures fidelity to the Second Vatican Council.

His argument pivots on a false equivalence: that “noble simplicity” in liturgy equals solidarity with the poor.

From this shaky premise, he proceeds to draw sweeping conclusions about the purpose of the Council and the nature of the post-Conciliar liturgical reform.  What results is not so much a coherent theological meditation, but rather more a justification for the decades-long desacralization of Catholic worship in the name of social relevance.

I should observe that no one I can think of with respect will not take seriously the Church’s perennial teaching about the poor (based on the Lord’s own Matthew 26:12 and Matthew 25:40) and treat a papal document about the same with due attention.  That is a given.  What is objectionable is how Card. Cupich weaponized Dilexi te for his own agenda: disdain for the most marginalized of Catholics in the Church today: those who desire traditional liturgical worship.

Also, no one who has a solid foundation in, say, the Fathers of the Church will deny that there is, in fact, a connection between the Church’s liturgical life and care for the poor.  As Leo XIV quotes in Dilexi te 29 onward this is evident.  For example, an early Father, Justin Martyr, said that “it is not possible to separate the worship of God from concern for the poor.”

So, the issue one should take with Card. Cupich is not about whether or not there is a link between the Church’s (and smaller units, parishes, families, individuals) worship and the Church’s (ditto) care for “the poor”.  How to care for the poor is a contingent point about which people can have different solutions.  The issue is justifying perpetrating imprudent and even sacrilegious changes to our many centuries of liturgical sacred worship – which has a superb track record – in the name of social relevance.   Modernism in its essence is the reduction of the supernatural to the natural, the transcendent to the immanent, the vertical to the horizontal.

As a foretaste of what Card. Cupich is pushing for, you might look at this Chicago parish’s video from Sunday.  HERE  This is probably what he has in mind for what post-Conciliar liturgy should be like… otherwise he would suppress it.  Right?

Let’s have a look have an in depth look at the op-ed, with my emphases and comments.  His lofty position elicits a close reading and careful pondering of his words, does it not?

Cardinal Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, reflects for Vatican News on Pope Leo XIV’s first Apostolic Exhortation. In his meditation he recalls the words of Saint John XXIII before opening the Second Vatican Council: the Church must be the Church of all and “particularly the Church of the poor.”

By Cardinal Blase Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago

Of the many insights gained from reading Dilexi Te (DT), I was particularly struck by Pope Leo’s observation that “The Second Vatican Council represented a milestone in the Church’s understanding of the poor in God’s saving plan,” and that this milestone shaped the entire direction of the Council and its reforms.

[Hang on.  “entire direction”?  The Council Fathers spoke of the poor, yes, but primarily in the context of Gaudium et Spes 1-3, 27, 63-72 and Lumen Gentium 8, etc., where poverty is seen in the light of the Incarnation and the Beatitudes, not as an organizing hermeneutic for the entire Council.  It is a leap from acknowledging Christ’s preferential love for the poor to saying, as Cupich will soon (below) approvingly quote Leo XIV (cf. 84) quoting ultra-liberal Card. Lercaro, that “the mystery of Christ in the Church… is in a particular way the mystery of Christ in the poor” and “in some sense the only theme of the Council as a whole.” Lercaro’s claim is flashy but it is also historically and theologically off the mark. The Council’s overarching theme as Pope John XXIII and later Paul VI made abundantly clear, was the renewal of the Church’s understanding of herself as sacramentum salutis, the universal sign and instrument of salvation. To reduce that mystery to socio-economic concern is to substitute the Gospel for a manifesto of liberation theology avant la lettre.   John XXIII in “Gaudet Mater Ecclesia” said “The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine be guarded and taught more efficaciously.”  Back to Cupich…]

He [Leo XIV] notes that while the theme of the poor was only marginally alluded to in the preparatory documents, Saint Pope John XXIII called attention to it in a radio address a month before the opening of the Council, stating “the Church presents herself as she is and as she wishes to be: the Church of all and in particular the Church of the poor.”

These comments, according to Pope Leo, spurred theologians and experts to give the Council a new direction, which Cardinal Lercaro, the Archbishop of Bologna summed up in his intervention of December 6, 1962. [So now we are are all, from Leo XIV down, about Lercaro?  Fr. Louis Bouyer, a close friend of Pope Paul VI had this to say about Cardinal Lercaro who was officially in charge of the Consilium:

Unfortunately, on the one hand a deadly error in judgment placed the official leadership of this committee into the hands of a man who, though generous and brave, was not very knowledgeable: Cardinal Lercaro. He was utterly incapable of resisting the maneuvers of the mealy-mouthed scoundrel that the Neapolitan Vincentian, Bugnini—a man as bereft of culture as he was of basic honesty—soon revealed himself to be.]

He [Lercaro] stated: “The mystery of Christ in the Church has always been and today is, in a particular way, the mystery of Christ in the poor….this is not simply one theme among others, but in some sense the only theme of the Council as a whole. ” [?!?]

Lecaro later commented that in preparing his intervention he came to see the Council differently: “This is the hour of the poor, of the millions of the poor throughout the world,” he wrote. “This is the hour of the mystery of the Church as mother of the poor. This is the hour of the mystery of Christ, present especially in the poor.” [This – mind you – is “the hour of Lercaro”, not of the Council. This affirms a preferential place for the poor, but it does not reduce the entire Council to that single theme. The Council documents concentrate primarily on the mystery of the Church, the sacraments, revelation, the liturgy, and the Christian’s place in the world. Cupich’s Lercaro-inspired reduction of the Council’s purpose to “poverty-solidarity” constitutes a non sequitur and a selective reading of the Council’s agenda. Going on…watch the slight of hand.  Cupich next ties this “hour of the poor” to the reform of the liturgy. He will soon suggest that the Council’s call for “noble simplicity” was not, as he puts it, “antiquarianism or simplicity for simplicity’s sake,” but a means of embodying the Church’s solidarity with the poor. Back to Cupich….]

It is in this context that DT [Dilexi te] offers a particularly revealing comment that provides us with a fresh understanding of the Council Father’s reform of the liturgy.  “There was a growing sense of the need for a new image of Church, one simpler and more sober, embracing the entire people of God and its presence in history. A Church more closely resembling her Lord than worldly powers [even though today she more resembles a NGO, more worldly by far than anything seemingly royal] and working to foster a concrete commitment on the part of all humanity to solving the immense problem of poverty in the world.”  [See where he’s going?]

In other words, the noble simplicity that Sacrosanctum Concilium pursued in calling for the restoration of the liturgy was not just some antiquarianism or simplicity for simplicity’s sake. Rather, it was in tune with this “growing sense of the need for a new image of the Church, one simpler and more sober…” [Repeating the phrase doesn’t strengthen the position. But get this next part…] The liturgical reform aimed at allowing God’s activity for us in the liturgy, particularly the Eucharist, to shine forth more clearly.  [“allowing”?  What had God been doing in the Church up until the Second Vatican Council’s sudden revelation about “the poor” and how that is the point of sacred worship?] The renewal of our worship was pursued in keeping with the Council Fathers’ desire to present to the world a church defined not by the trappings of world power [again?] but marked by sobriety and simplicity, [again?] enabling it to speak the [sic] people of this age in a way that more closely resembles the Lord and allowing it to take up in a fresh way the mission of proclaiming good news to the poor.  [Hang on.  Jesus just used blunt language everyone understood, right?  No chance of misunderstandings.  Never mind people often observed that they didn’t understand (cf. John 6).  And there is the Lord’s use of “Amen! Amen!” a unique style of speech that meant to emphasize the solemn importance of his words. This repetition, which only Jesus is known to have used in this way, solemnly signaled His divine authority and the absolute reliability of his statements. In the Gospel of John, he uses it 25 times to preface significant claims.

Meanwhile, the Council Fathers explicitly rejected the idea that the liturgy should imitate secular forms or reflect the aesthetics of poverty. They sought intelligibility, not impoverishment. Cupich’s rhetoric about “sobriety and simplicity” conflates the evangelical virtue of poverty with aesthetic minimalism.  This is an inversion that betrays the very spirit of the Roman Rite, whose solemnity has always expressed divine majesty, not bourgeois ostentation.

Let’s pay the game again for the zillionth time.  He linked the reform of the liturgy to Lercaro’s “hour of the poor” vision and says the call for “noble simplicity” in the liturgy  in Sacrosanctum Concilium was primarily intended to express solidarity with the poor and de-emphasize “worldly powers.” But the actual text of SC itself sets a very different emphasis:

“The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.” (SC §34)

The emphasis here is on comprehension, clarity, brevity and avoiding useless repetitions. Regardless of what one might think about those aims, it does not explicitly tie noble simplicity to social justice or solidarity with the poor. Moreover, as a real expert on liturgy, my friend Fr. Uwe Michael Lang, CO, commented:

“The ‘noble simplicity’ of the Roman Rite must not be confused with a misunderstood ‘liturgical poverty’ … which can lead to the ruin of solemnity, foundation of divine worship.” HERE

Therefore, Cupich’s inference — namely that sobriety and simplicity in the liturgy were primarily social-symbolic gestures of solidarity with the poor — is a category error, conflating liturgical form and social mission.  Back to Cupich…]

The liturgical reform benefited from scholarly research into liturgical resources, [Like the research which got major points wrong such as dominant ancient versus populum worship and widespread Communion in the hand?] identifying those adaptations, introduced over time, which incorporated elements from imperial and royal courts. That research made clear that many of these adaptations had transformed the liturgy’s aesthetics and meaning, making the liturgy more of a spectacle rather than the active participation of all the baptized for them to be formed to join in the saving action of Christ crucified.  [This is a classic post-conciliar anachronism. Sacrosanctum Concilium §34 calls for “noble simplicity” so that the rites may “be within the people’s powers of comprehension,” not so that the Church might appear less “imperial” and more “proletarian.”]  By purifying the liturgy of these adaptations, the aim was to enable the liturgy to sustain the Church’s renewed sense of herself, which St. Pope Paul VI noted in his address for the opening of the Council’s second session was in keeping with his predecessor’s inspiration in calling the Council, “to open new horizons for the Church and to channel over the earth the new and yet untapped spring waters of Christ our Lord’s doctrine and grace.”  [Cupich claims that many adaptations of the liturgy derived from “imperial and royal courts” and thus turned worship into “spectacle,” which the reform needed to purge. Yet the classical liturgical historian Josef A .Jungmann in Missarum Sollemnia (The Mass of the Roman Rite) presents a far more nuanced picture of the Roman Rite’s development:

“The monumental greatness of the Roman Mass lies in its antiquity which reaches back to the Church of the martyrs, and in its spread …” (op.cit., I,165)

He shows that many ceremonial features grew organically in the Christian tradition, not simply borrowed from palaces for power display. Cupich’s almost dismissive portrayal of “imperial” liturgical forms thus risks caricature rather than honest historical engagement. On the other hand, research shows that the Novus Ordo was an artificially, rather than organically produced product of committees.  Experience shows that it was suddenly and even brutally imposed causing enormous damage.  Joseph Ratzinger wrote (Collected Works, Ignatius Press 2014):

What happened to a great extent after the Council has quite a different significance: instead of the developed liturgy, some have set up their self-made liturgy. They have stepped out of the living process of growing and becoming and gone over to making. They no longer wanted to continue the organic becoming and maturing of something that had been alive down through the centuries, and instead they replaced it—according to the model of technical production— with making, the insipid product of the moment.

For more on how the it was a “fabrication” go HERE.  For the sake of space let’s stipulate that individuals can make a total wreck of any liturgy, Vetus or Novus.  However, the Novus is more open to abuse.  It is also open to respectful use, as my personal experience at St. Agnes in St. Paul bears out.]

It [I think “it” is “the Council”] was also designed to empower the Eucharist to once again, as St. Pope John Paull [sic] II stated in his Apostolic Letter, Mane Nobiscum Domine, to be “a project of solidarity with all of humanity”, making those who participate in it [the Eucharist, I think] “a promotor of communion, peace and solidarity in every situation. More than ever,” he continued, “our world (troubled)…with the spectre of terrorism and the tragedy of war, demands that Christians learn to experience the Eucharist as a great school of peace, forming men and women who, at various levels of responsibility in social, cultural and political life, can become promotors of dialogue and communion.” [Did I miss concern for “the poor” in there?  Let’s go on…] The saintly pope concluded in a way that foreshadows the teaching of Pope Leo by noting that it will be “by our mutual love and, in particular, by our concern for those in need [“need” means a lot more than just physical poverty (cf. Mother Teresa’s Noble Prize speech HERE] (that) we will be recognized as true followers of Christ (cf. Jn 13:35; Mt 25:31-46). This will be the criterion by which the authenticity of our Eucharistic celebrations is judged.”  [Cupich writes that the Eucharist is “a project of solidarity with all of humanity,” quoting from Mane nobiscum Domine (though his quotation is partial). He thereby implies the Eucharist is first and foremost about horizontal solidarity and social action. But the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia by Pope John Paul II insists otherwise:

“For the most holy Eucharist … contains the Church’s entire spiritual wealth: Christ himself, our Passover and living Bread.” (EDE §1)

And again:

“… the Eucharist draws the Church into communion with the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit.” (EDE §53)

These passages emphasize the vertical dimension – worship, adoration and communion with God – as primary. Social solidarity flows from that, not the other way around!  Cupich’s inversion (turning the Eucharist into a social action first) constitutes a theological inversion of the order of ends.  Back to Cupich…]

With the recovery of the ancient sobriety of the Roman Rite the Eucharist is once again the locus of genuine peace and solidarity with the poor in a fractured world.  [Good grief.  Firstly, the jury is still out on the efficacy of the Novus Ordo while the Vetus Ordo has a vast track record of success in nourishing missionary work, apostolates of works of mercy for the poor, the betterment of this vale of tears.  That cannot be disputed.  During the time of the Novus Ordo, many of those efforts have been enervated or have disappeared, and new efforts which have sprung up hardly fill the gap left gaping.   Moreover, “sobriety” in the true praxis of the Novus Ordo over the years (including Chicago)?  Are you kidding?  Compare the relative stumbling around of a suburban parish with the reverent precision of ceremony in any TLM, Low or Solemn.  Which is the more “sober” and “noble” in simplicity?  Another key error in Cupich’s argument is the assumption that liturgical reform is validated by social criteria (solidarity with the poor). The Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy (2001) warns:

“The Sacred Liturgy … can never be reduced to a mere aesthetic reality. Neither can it be considered simply as a means to pedagogical or ecumenical ends. Before all else, the celebration of the sacred mysteries is an act of praise to the Triune God.” (DPPL §2)

While the Directory also states (ibid), “Were the Liturgy not to have its effects on life, it would become void and displeasing to God”, that “effects on life” is in no way limited to the poor.  In fact, the Directory seems to emphasize popular devotions rather than the liturgical celebration of sacraments when seeking to uplift the poor. In any event, any argument that treats the liturgy primarily as a social tool undermines the liturgy’s intrinsic identity as worship, not of the poor but of the Triune God. Cupich’s emphasis on social mission over worship avoids this fundamental point.]

That concludes Cupich.

In short, Cupich’s article is a piece of rhetorical flattery about social-causes cloaked in liturgical language. It falls apart under scrutiny. He skews the Council’s texts and intents, conflates liturgical simplicity with socio-economic symbolism, caricatures the historical liturgy as “imperial,” and inverts the finality of the Eucharist from worship to social action. He forces liturgy to become an instrument of solidarity rather than exalting it as the sacrificial worship of the living God.

The result? A Church celebrated for being of the poor, but one that risks being poor of mystery.

If the poor truly deserve the fullness of the faith, they will find it not in truncated assemblies of social justice, but in the solemn beauty of the Mass.  Cupich seems to treat beauty (a transcendental with truth) as non-essential. Liturgy is thus reduced to social engineering.

On the other hand the poor deserve the radiant splendor of Christ, sacramentally manifested in sacred liturgical worship in which they are free to participate and benefit from interiorly.  What they do not need is a watered-down social-justice aesthetic meant to comfort the middle-class conscience.

Moreover, what is Cupich’s motive here, other than the obvious. Is it to pit one Pope against other Popes?   In that case, we can review what other Popes have said about tradition and solemn liturgical worship.

Pope Benedict XVI — Letter to the Bishops (accompanying his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum), 7 July 2007:

“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”

Pope Benedict XVI — same Letter to the Bishops:

“In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.”

Pope St. John Paul II — Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia (17 April 2003), §48:

“Like the woman who anointed Jesus in Bethany, the Church has feared no “extravagance”, devoting the best of her resources to expressing her wonder and adoration before the unsurpassable gift of the Eucharist.  … 49. With this heightened sense of mystery, we understand how the faith of the Church in the mystery of the Eucharist has found historical expression not only in the demand for an interior disposition of devotion, but also in outward forms meant to evoke and emphasize the grandeur of the event being celebrated. This led progressively to the development of a particular form of regulating the Eucharistic liturgy, with due respect for the various legitimately constituted ecclesial traditions. On this foundation a rich artistic heritage also developed. Architecture, sculpture, painting and music, moved by the Christian mystery, have found in the Eucharist, both directly and indirectly, a source of great inspiration.”

“Noble simplicity” has mostly given rise to churches that look like municipal airports, art and vestments reminding us the left-overs after a Pier 1 store close-out.

About music…

Pius X – Tra le sollecitudini (22 Nov 1903)

“[T]he more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.”

Here’s noble simplicity in Chicago.

This.

BUT… the TLM has to be suppressed. Because!