Pluralism is not Relativism
One of the things I’ve noticed is that many people assume pluralism is the same thing as relativism. This cannot be the case. Pluralism does not say everything is equal. What it does suggest is that there is value in a variety of views and traditions. Pluralism can recognize distinctions in degree and kind. But it also sees the problem of an absolute monism which constricts like a tyrant the human person into an abstraction of truth constructed by the human mind.
Our monetary situation in the United States is pluralistic. Each dollar bill is of the same value. But then there are also five dollar bills, twenty dollar bills, etc. We have a plurality without making cash worthless or assuming all kinds of denominations are of the same value. Relativism would say the one, five, and twenty dollar bills are equal. Pluralism says they are not, but recognizes the value in the one even if it is not the twenty. Pluralism would also recognize the fact of counterfeit currency, while relativism would suggest there is no such thing. Finally, pluralism understands that what is printed on currency might change, to suit the needs of the times, without it changing the actual value of the currency.
This is a good way to understand the liturgical tradition of the Catholic Church. It’s not monistic. It doesn’t assume only one as “the best” (if it were, the best would have to be at the Last Supper, which, alas, is quite far from what any liturgy is like today). Of course this doesn’t mean any and all things are acceptable. Allowing for variety and distinction is not the same thing as saying all things are permissible.
The external conflict East and West over relatively minor liturgical matters should show us exactly the problems of assuming one tradition or way is “the best” and anything different is “bad” or merely to be “tolerated.” Whether or not the bread used should be leavened or unleavened was seen as a dogmatic issue, and both sides charged the other of heresy and liturgical abuse over something so minor. Anyone who reads the debate between the 11th and 15th centuries will find similar kinds of arguments as one reads in liturgical wars today. Florence did everyone a service by over-riding the debate and pointing out that there can be a plurality of ways within the Church without making either form “superior” or “inferior.” As Vladimir Solovyov says, “It is a natural and proper thing to love and cherish one’s own, that which is native.”[1] No one disputes this. But what he further states must also be kept in mind, “It is only necessary to recall two things here: first, that it is not possible to impose one’s custom on those for whom it is not their own, and second, that there is in the world something more exalted than that which is one’s own or someone elses’s, and that the actual place for this more exalted thing is in the ecumenical church of God.”[2] That is, we must be willing to acknowledge the good which the Church proposes, even if it counters our desires.
But this is not to mean there is to be no input by us. Surely that is one of the things the Church has made abundantly clear. Liturgy is meant to be worship of the people. They are to bring themselves and their creative abilities to use in that liturgy. And there, we can find some liturgical celebrations better than others: not because of the form of the liturgy, but because of what the people bring to that form.
[1] Vladimir Solovyov, “Byzantinism and Russia,” in Freedom, Faith, and Dogma. Trans. Vladimir Wozniuk (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2008), 221.
[2] Ibid., 221.
Comments are closed.
Now, a couple things. It is clear, there will be debates as to values within pluralism. Trying to understand the relative relationship of different things is difficult.
Second, a practical example of pluralism in the Church, where the Church says “yes” to many possible positions is that of whether or not one should kneel during the consecration. Some people say “you must kneel or else you are showing no respect.” This is an example of custom where they assume their interpretation of an action as being universal. But this is not the case. The East stands. We see it as a thing of respect to stand in attention. When I am at a Roman Liturgy I kneel, and find it is a good thing. When I am at my Byzantine Liturgy, I stand up and find it a good thing. Neither is better. Both are good. But it is because of the spirit behind the action which makes it good.
Amen. One will read Catholics on the net denounce dancing and percussion instruments in liturgy and yet God’s word in the psalms affirmed both….Psa 149:3 “Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp.”
Ideally there would be more than two types of liturgy in each geographical area…more than the Latin/English duality. Unfortunately some areas have one priest covering 4 parishes in one Sunday out in some Western states….so the ideal and the real are very separate in this area of reality.
Bill,
Agreed. The difficulty of having to go to many parishes limits what a priest can do (even if they would like to try other things).
I would love to see more Native American style liturgy done; but you and I both know how controversial that can be. On the other hand, I also think other traditional forms (Ambrosian, Mozarabic, et. al.) would be nice.
Finally, I would love to go to a Chinese-Rite Mass.
Being scripture conservative but not tradition
conservative… makes me long for the Last Supper format in which people talked to each other (I smiled when you mentioned it…and lived it long ago in a Catholic commune wherein the priest asked each person their take on the reading e.g. in a circle setting of chairs). That format took place in Corinthians but then was damaged by stratification as to cliques based on affluence, personality and by rowdiness caused by bringing their own meals and drink especially to the service. The last supper had drink present but had a leader who brooked no folly which was absent in Corinthians. Gradually perhaps in the face of repeats of the Corinthian chaos, the solution became one person talking and hundreds silent unless reading aloud with all serendipity closed…so that if the Holy Spirit cannot speak through the homilist in question, everyone is bored…hence the present attendance stats in part. And far into the future, there will be some kind of synthesis since the Church must know she is partly losing millions of people in Latin America to variants in which people feel more intimate and affirmed. Rome is always worrying about the extreme right traditionalists schisming as they have done periodically for centuries….”faithful Catholics” then committing a worse sin against unity than the sins they worry about. That has caused Rome maybe to not worry enough about losing a larger group in Latin America.
Bill,
Well, I’ve never understood the “only one best” perspective when people support something which Jesus didn’t do. St Thomas More once wrote about changes in liturgy and how no one follows the rules from the Last Supper (he said how could there be fasting beforehand, if it is at a supper?!). He isn’t against the changes but uses it to point out how history allows for them, and it isn’t always an issue of “more or less” piety but cultural issues.
I’ve never seen a Last Supper style liturgy. Interesting to hear something was tried. And yes, it is clear the cliques which developed helped cause the end to agapes (plus the Gnostic abuses of them).
I am slowly doing more study on the history of liturgy (for a project I want to do soon) and, while I’ve studied it in part before, I am really getting an ever better sense than before how varied it can be. But people really want a simple view of history.. some people still believe Peter’s liturgy for his short time in Rome was more or less the Tridentine!
Henry – Are you familiar with the Zairean Mass?
Michael,
No, that is not one I am familiar with.
Henry
Yes…you hit on the essence yesterday in another thread. First the world wars as you mentioned there and I would add: a present world made frightening due to every tragedy being reported hourly in the media. People in a frightful world want religion to be the place where there are no surprises…nothing complicated….where they follow only….what Arnold Toynbee in his “Study of History” saw as the over mimetic within Catholicism. But that mimetic overdrive leads to not wanting the cross in their lives also…because each deep cross is brand new in a way and requires the part of us that is not sheerly mimetic. And so the mimetic people gradually sense that and show up as stats of being those who no longer showing up at liturgy. We need a think tank at Rome working constantly on such problems rather than Rome hoping an individual author may or may not research it in depth somewhere in academia. We have no structure as to researching our problems and too much structure in a Mass that has no place for the audience speaking at all.
Bill,
Tell me about it. The other day I was more or less accused of heresy when I told people that the Church doesn’t have an official declaration/teaching of the interpretation of Christ’s words on the Cross when he said, “My God, My God why have you forsaken me?” The person told me in no uncertain terms “we must follow the Church’s teaching” and in my response to no defined teaching he quoted the Catechism about having to follow undefined doctrine! He didn’t get “undefined doctrine” is a category which doesn’t mean anything which has not been said.
Henry – The official name is the “Roman Missal for use in the Dioceses of Zaire” or something like that, which shows where Rome is coming from… :)
Michael,
Have you studied much of the Asian situation? IMO, what happened in India is the foundation for such problems today.
To be fair, this is an age of relativism, and we got here via pluralism. So it’s reasonable to be a little cautious. But I’m not talking about liturgical matters.
I like the monitored boards we’re writing on, but they do have one drawback. Sometimes the articles or comments from the supervisors address issues that aren’t showing up on the threads. I can only speculate on the inspiration for this article.
Pinky
Inspiration for things I write tend to come from many sources.
Not a whole lot, Henry. I am about to read a book by a bishop from the Philippines that reflects on his experience in his diocese and at the Asian Synod. I was hoping to include material from the Synod in this first comp I’m preparing on the theology of the local church, but I’m probably going to save it for my second comp.
Henry
We learned nothing from the bad wording of the Council of Florence’s depiction of damnation for all those who did not return to the body of the Church prior to death. So therefore we were free to produce its equal in LG 25′s “religious submission of mind and will”…without telling the folks that in Church approved seminary moral theology tomes (Grisez/Way of the Lord Jesus vol.1/page 854) we would describe the exception which less than 1% of Catholics will ever read. Which omission will lead to future schismatics since schism is about overstating authority levels in the first place. Prepare to be insulted by three year converts from fundamentalism who would die for LG 25 in its true but non supplemented form within the Council…the supplement and completion of the thought being in imprimatured and nihil obstated books that post date the Council and that no one buys.
Ergo the NT says to not let a bishop be a recent convert lest he be puffed up.
Henry, I wasn’t trying to insinuate anything. This article just reminded me of some things from the “Liturgical Misconceptions” thread. Context can help in understanding an author’s thinking. That’s all I meant.
When we talk about “pluralism” in contemporary democratic societies and “pluralism” in the Church, I think we are talking about fundamentally different things.
Pluralism in society comes about because of basic freedoms granted everyone in a democracy–the right to free association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. While the Church once took the position (regarding society) that “error has no rights,” democracy as we know it says that error does have rights:let a thousand flowers bloom and let the democratic process and the “marketplace of ideas” sort out which flowers smell sweet or not. The assumption behind secular pluralism is not a principled philosophical relativism, perhaps, but it is undeniably a practical or working relativism.
Arguably the Church hierarchy should be open to greater freedom within the Church (regional, personal, academic), fostering greater “democracy” in a variety of ways, and yet unlike a secular democratic government it is definitely in the business of discerning and positively working against “error” in belief and practice; and as Catholics we recognize the God-given authority of our leaders while also recognizing (I hope) that all their words and decisions at all times may not be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
We don’t need “pluralism” in the Church. Leaders and followers, we need to behave in all we do more like Christ, with humanity, humility and charity–and that will look for all the world as good as “pluralism,” and better!