In this essay I continue to register my thoughts on traditionalism and liturgy, specifically with a discussion of the expressed motives for Pope Benedict’s promulgation of the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum. After this post I plan to take up where I left off with my “Traditionalist Sleight of Hand” essay.
The current biformity of the Roman rite, established formally by the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, is a reality that has existed and has been spoken about as such by Joseph Ratzinger for many years. He has said numerous times that the old form, that is, the Extraordinary Form, was never abrogated. However, the Motu Proprio establishes by way of “universal law” this biformal liturgical discipline, presumably, attempting to stabilize, at least for now, this condition as the liturgical status quo: two forms, one ordinary, the other extraordinary. The motives for this have been variously interpreted, and it seems to me that something parallel but antithetical to what happened in regard to the interpretation of the documents of the Second Vatican Council has happened in respect to the text of Summorum Pontifcum. I hope to make this clear as well as suggest a sound alternative.
The Spirit of Vatican II
Pope Benedict has said that the rupturist interpretation of the Council is based on the idea that the conciliar documents were the result of a compromise. In his well-known Christmas address to the Roman Curia in 2005 he lamented that many people think that in order for the different factions at the Council
to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts (December 22, 2005).
Hence, we understand why the “the Spirit of Vatican II” becomes the necessary obscurantism to throw over every novelty dreamt up by progressives. The conciliar documents do not give the real story. It is the spirit by which it became necessary to create a compromise that shows us the true way. Of course, Pope Benedict completely rejects this interpretation of the Council.
It seems to me that something similar, but as I say, antithetical, has happened in respect to Summorum Pontificum. The document clearly establishes two forms, the novus ordo being the Ordinary Form of the rite, and the vetus ordo, the Extraordinary Form. The document itself and subsequent clarifications (Letter to the Bishops, Universae Ecclesiae) both make it clear that this liturgical discipline is completely in line with the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and in no way “detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions [was the] the liturgical reform. . .” Nevertheless, some have interpreted the document as expressing implicitly some sympathy with positions of the Society of St. Pius X on the Council and its alleged breaches from Tradition. In fact, for example, I have heard it suggested more than once that the pope presently is limited by opposition to the old form of the Roman Rite and therefore has produced a compromise document, with the real intention of eventually making the Extraordinary Form the Ordinary Form and gradually fading out the novus ordo altogether. This is the hermeneutic of rupture applied to the Motu Proprio, or what I call “the spirit of Summorum Pontificum.” I wish to illustrate this by examining the motives for the Motu Proprio as Pope Benedict has actually stated them.
In 2010, Pope Benedict said that the biformity of the Roman Rite is a matter of “internal reconciliation” with the past:
My main reason for making the previous form more available was to preserve the internal continuity of Church history. We cannot say: Before, everything was wrong, but now everything is right; for in a community in which prayer and the Eucharist are the most important things, what was earlier supremely sacred cannot be entirely wrong. The issue was internal reconciliation with our own past, the intrinsic continuity of faith and prayer in the Church (Light of the World, 106).
This is consistent with what he said, both in the Motu Proprio itself and in the Letter to the bishops accompanying it. The old rite was never abrogated, nor could it be, since it is a usage “universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church’s law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith’” (Motu Proprio). Summorum Pontificum is consistent with the provisions of Ecclesia Dei, insofar as both documents aim to provide for the “legitimate aspirations of the faithful,” and “to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter” (“Letter”). In fact, the provisions of Summorum Pontificum are specifically directed to those faithful “who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops” (ibid.). Here the Holy Father acknowledges that this attachment to the old rite arose, to a large extent, due the abuses of the novus ordo:
This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear (ibid.).
Thus, the overarching theme in all of the Holy Father’s stated reasons is “reconciliation.” He speaks of “internal reconciliation with our own past,” and of “continuity of faith and prayer in the Church” (Light of the World,106). He also says that the positive reason for the provisions of Summorum Pontificum “is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church”:
Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden (“Letter”).
I am well aware that my own critique of traditionalism is itself subject to a critique according to the standard of reconciliation. I have often pointed to the irony of touchiness of those who defend the SSPX, and who have naively believed that the Holy See was going to capitulate to their “just” demands to reevaluate the Second Vatican Council. My style and tone has been directed at exposing this irony, and its clear anti-magisterial, and often—at least implicitly—anti-papal attitude. I admit this involves real liabilities, but what is one to do? Most recently, Professor Roberto de Mattei has complained of the resistance offered to Monsignor Gherardini, himself and others, who have expressed their sympathies with the very ideas that have kept the SSPX from returning to full communion with the Successor of St. Peter: “But why is there such aversion from the part of one who is not progressive? Why is there so much focus on the one who defends Tradition instead of unifying all their forces in order to fight those who deny Tradition?”
But this question begs the question and at the same time provides the answer as to why I insist that the use of the term traditionalism is both apropos and relevant. Simply put, traditionalism judges the magisterial teaching according to a personal and contingent opinion about what constitutes Tradition. The whole question for me is whether, when these crusaders ask the Holy Father to prove to their satisfaction that that the Council is in continuity with Tradition, they are indeed defenders of Tradition. Could they possibly be so, when they not only propose to examine such questions academically, but also utilize political pressure tactics as well in order to exact papal compliance with their contingent opinions? If their scientific analysis of the Council is not met with agreement by the Holy Father—indeed, if he continues to resist their positions and maintains his own—are they really the guardians of Tradition? I think these are legitimate questions.
But if the overarching reason for the clear and—at least for the foreseeable future—stable biformity of the Roman rite is reconciliation, then there will have to be a healthy dose of realism on the part of those who are inclined to romanticize about the future of the Church and are intent upon driving the liturgical development into an ideological framework—whatever end of the spectrum they represent. If, as Dom Alcuin Reid argues, the liturgy may only develop in fidelity to Tradition in an organic manner, that is, only within the parameters of its own nature determined by the received Tradition, then everyone will have to accept those parameters, not only as limiting the amount of creativity that might allow development along the lines of pastoral expediency, but as also broad enough to allow for the principles laid down in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
In a lecture given in Rome in 1998 concerning the progress made after ten years of work done on the basis of the Motu Proprio, Ecclesia Dei, Cardinal Ratzinger spoke about those principles as representing the “fundamental rules” by which liturgy is defined, regardless of which form is in question:
The Council did not itself reform the liturgical books but it offered their revision, and to this end, it established certain fundamental rules. Before anything else, the Council gave a definition of what liturgy is, and this definition gives a valuable yardstick for every liturgical celebration. Were one to shun these essential rules and put to one side the normae generales which one finds in numbers 34-36 of the Constitution De Sacra Liturgia (SL), in that case one would indeed be guilty of disobedience to the Council! It is in the light of these criteria that liturgical celebrations must be evaluated, whether they be according to the old books or the new.
The principles from the Constitution on the Liturgy to which Cardinal Ratzinger referred include the following: that “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”; “there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable”; “if necessary, short directives to be spoken by the priest or proper minister should be provided within the rites themselves”; “[p]articular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites”; “[b]ut since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.” From this two things are apparent: 1) that the revised books as they stand, could be different; 2) that the old books could be different as well. But it is precisely this conclusion that sends shudders down the spines of both modernists and traditionalists. And this is not all. These liturgical principles do, in fact, ratify the present form of the novus ordo, celebrated according to the rubrics and the various liturgical directives. Cardinal Ratzinger even says that when the use of the old Missal conforms to the “essential criteria of the Constitution on the Liturgy,” it will both be loved more widely and “no longer be irreconcilably opposed to the new liturgy” (“Lecture”).
Could the two forms be brought into closer conformity with the conciliar principles? Of course they could. What exactly, then, does the future hold in store? I personally do not believe we are going to receive the correct answer to that question from the ideologues. Reconciliation is never going to be produced by the grinding stone of ideology. Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the “criterion which the Council established,” for the reform of the liturgical books “invites us all to self-criticism.” The lack of self-criticism, it seems to me, leads some to exaggerate the in se difference between the two forms. Cardinal Ratzinger also wrote:
The difference between the liturgy according to the new books, how it is actually practiced and celebrated in different places, is often greater than the difference between an old Mass and a new Mass, when both these are celebrated according to the prescribed liturgical books (ibid.).
This lecture of the Cardinal is, obviously, pre-papal and fourteen years old, but the use of the principle of “continuity” vs. “rupture” by Joseph Ratzinger goes back at least to 1985, when The Ratzinger Report was published, if not before (35; see also, “The Final Report of the Synod of Bishops,” 1985, 5). Liturgically speaking, Ratzinger/Benedict has been and continues to be intent on maintaining and promoting “intrinsic” and “internal continuity” with the past, that is, with Tradition. He continues to resist casting the history of the Church in pre- and post-conciliar terms:
This schematism of a before and after in the history of the Church, wholly unjustified by the documents of Vatican II, which do nothing but reaffirm the continuity of Catholicism, must be decidedly opposed. There is no ‘pre-‘ or ‘post-‘ conciliar Church: there is but one, unique Church that walks the path toward the Lord, ever deepening and ever better understanding the treasure of faith that he himself has entrusted to her. There are no leaps in this history, there are no fractures, and there is no break in continuity. In no wise did the Council intend to introduce a temporal dichotomy in the Church (ibid.).
The insistence on a dichotomy Pope Benedict describes as a “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” (December 22, 2005). In respect to the Council it is the error of both modernists and traditionalists, who both resist the reconciliation that Pope Benedict wishes to bring about. This reconciliation is not a Hegelian dialectic, nor is it some kind of compromise. This is precisely what the Holy Father proclaims it is not. Pope Benedict maintains the line he has held since at least the 80’s: “contradictions and oppositions . . . originate neither from the spirit nor the letter of the conciliar texts” (“Lecture”). “Innovation in continuity,” “combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels” is a necessary requirement for reform. A measure of discontinuity is manifestly a characteristic of any change, but in respect to the Council “after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned” (December 22, 2005).
Cardinal Ratzinger has suggested that the real liturgical dichotomy lies in the fact that the advocates for the hermeneutic of rupture tend to wave the two forms of the Roman rite as flags for “two different spiritual attitudes.” The liturgy must either be celebrated “in the vernacular and facing the people,” with “a great deal of freedom” or “in Latin, with the priest facing the altar, strictly and precisely according to the rubrics” (“Lecture”). The one flag represents an adaptation to needs of modern man, and the other a maintenance of Tradition; or seen inversely, the one represents a capitulation to Protestantism and Modernism, the other, a refusal to recognize that the Middle Ages have ended. Ratzinger goes on to say that this dichotomy is fostered by the viewpoint that “a particular set of externals [phénoménologie]” are essential “to this or that liturgy, rather than what the liturgy itself holds to be essential” (ibid.).
In his preface to Dom Alcuin Reid’s book, The Organic Development of the Liturgy (2005), Cardinal Ratzinger writes something that at first glance seems contrary to this point, but actually tends to confirm it:
[P]eople might reduce the “substance” [of the liturgy] to the matter and form of the sacrament and say: Bread and wine are the matter of the sacrament; the words of institution are its form. Only these two things are necessary; everything else is changeable. At this point modernists and traditionalists are in agreement: As long as the material gifts are there, and the words of institution are spoken, then everything else is freely disposable (11; emphasis mine).
On the one hand Cardinal Ratzinger in 1998 says that the liturgy is dichotomized by spiritual attitudes that fixate on respective external markers. But in 2005 he says that modernists and traditionalists are united in their reduction of the substance of the liturgy to the matter and form of the sacrament. I believe the way to understand this is that the arguments of both modernists and traditionalists are positivist and focused on describing the externals of the liturgy only within their ideological framework. Validity of the sacrament is not the issue, except for the most radical of the traditionalists. But for most modernists and traditionalists liturgy is a kind of means for social, cultural and spiritual engineering. It is also a kind of posturing in respect to what they insist authentic Catholicism must look like.
Biformity and Unity
Of course the fact that neither side is willing to admit the existence of continuity, and that, therefore, unity is impossible, is largely due to the liturgical abuses that have run rampant for fifty years. But note that Benedict’s acknowledgement of this problem has not only led him to issue the Motu Proprio, but to continue to argue for the existence of continuity. Undoubtedly, one of the greatest obstacles to unity on this matter is continued modernist insistence on fooling with the liturgy and traditionalist harping on the problem and blaming the Council for it. I admit, this is a real problem for my argument, and I suspect will constitute the bulk of responses to this post from those who are sympathetic to traditionalism. It seems plausible that the habitual abuses of the liturgy are linked to the form of the rite itself. My short and anticipatory response is “I am not the pope, and the conciliar and postconciliar popes deny that the abuses are linked to a defective rite.” The longer answer is this post itself. I hope it is read in context, and reread, if necessary.
Liturgy by the Numbers
But if, as Cardinal Ratzinger has said, this dichotomization and loss of unity has been occasioned by “two spiritual attitudes” rooted in externals, then we are dealing with a rather materialistic kind of spirituality. That oxymoron actually has intelligible content. Anyone who has been a devout Catholic for any length of time has seen spirituality subjected to weights and measures and mathematical calculations. We have all probably attempted to do it, and to some extent it has its place. Liturgical prayer, for example, can be quantified in terms of orations, crosses, genuflections and sacramentals, just as mental prayer can be quantified in terms of its length, number of points of meditation, resolutions and manner of physical posture. The conciliar principles concerning the liturgy pointed to by Cardinal Ratzinger can also be quantified, in terms of the relative quantity of Latin as compared to that of the vernacular, the relative simplicity, the number of repetitions, etc. I do not think many would suggest that such considerations are negligible. The question is “are they finally determinative spiritually?”
Father Chad Ripperger, FSSP argues for the superiority of the Extraordinary Form on the basis of a tally of extrinsic merit, that is, by a comparative analysis of the two rituals. He states that the merit of the Mass is determined intrinsically, that is, by the value of Christ’s offering itself, and extrinsically as determined by the merit of the celebrant and participants, as well as by the character of the church building, appurtenances (decora) and the rite itself. While these are valid considerations in themselves, when utilized for the purpose of propaganda, they subject the spiritual merit of actual Masses to mathematical analysis. I actually have had someone admit to me that the superiority of the vetus ordo was mathematical, that is, that is involves more prayer and therefore is more pleasing to God.
Puritanism and Ritualism
During and after the Council the amorphous “Spirit of the Council” was defined liturgically by means of its opposition to the Traditional liturgy, its transcendence and verticality. James Hitchcock points to many examples of liturgical tomfoolery, especially during the phase of immediate implementation of the Council’s liturgical mandates. He quotes the future Archbishop of Milwaukee, Fr. Rembert Weakland, saying that the liturgy should no longer convey “a feeling of infinity or eternity or the world beyond — an experience of man approaching God that is unique to that moment,” but “is to be primarily the communal sensitivity that I am one with my brother next to me and that our song is our common twentieth-century situation . . . ” Of course, this was not the mandate of the Council, but the assumption that whatever represented the “impulse toward the new” (cf. Benedict XVI, December 22, 2005), was the true “Spirit of the Council.” In this way the liturgy, perhaps more than anything else became the flag, the banner waved on high, for the “spiritual attitude” of modernity, modernism, progressivism, horizontalism and secularism. The celebration of Mass entirely in the vernacular and only facing the people became perhaps two principle external branches of the new liturgy—neither one of them mandated by the Council—upon which were hung the ornamentation of modernity in the form of liturgical abuses.
Prior to the Council many involved in the Liturgical movement warned against this potential development, as a kind of liturgical puritanism that downplayed ritual. But some of them, like Father Louis Bouyer, while not failing to point out this danger, also warned against the opposite extreme, a kind of ritualism rooted in a mummified traditionalism (Hitchcock). The one extreme horizontalized the liturgy and left no room of the sacred and for reverence. The other petrified the liturgy and left little room for organic development that legitimately fostered the active participation of the faithful. The interesting, aspect of this, however, is the way in which both extremes are represented by a particular set of externals that must be rigidly followed, and both of them are based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the Council, namely, that it is a rupture from the past and from Tradition. One faction has followed the “Spirit of Vatican II,” and the other now claims a mandate from the “Spirit of Summorum Pontificum.”
Liturgical Fact Finding
To support this thesis, traditionalists use the historical analysis of the Council and its aftermath. Annibale Bugnini, his probable membership in the Freemasons, his firing by Bl. John XXIII and his soon after reappointment by Paul VI are invoked as clear proofs of the protestant and modernist engineering of the novus ordo. Michael Voris, for example, reinforces these proofs by the testimony of an unnamed source that had private conferences with Paul VI and knew him to be a man of weak character and will who was easily manipulated (25:19-25:46). The Ottaviani Intervention is often invoked, as it is by Voris, as an accurate analysis of the novus ordo itself indicating that the changes constitute a clear rupture with Tradition:
The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient (emphasis mine).
The Intervention was the work of twelve theologians under the direction of Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and Cardinal Antonio Bacci. It was a critical study that called into question the liturgical reforms then in force in 1969. The Intervention has been widely publicized; for example, for many years it was in print through TAN Books, although that does not seem to be the case any longer. What is not nearly as well known is the existence of a private letter to a priest from Ottaviani (in the public forum since 1970), in which the Cardinal declares his satisfaction with the clarifications offered by Paul VI and his conviction that “no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized.” He goes on: “As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing” (See Likoudis, Whitehead, The Pope the Council and the Mass, 143, 144). Furthermore, in the same year Ottaviani made also the following statement:
The beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cut—the legitimacy of the origin protects and guards them against the infiltration of errors . . . The purity of and unity of the faith is in this manner also upheld by the supreme Magisterium of the pope through the liturgical laws (see ibid.).
Those who invoke the “Ottaviani Intervention” as proof that the novus ordo was poisoned from the beginning and was acknowledged as such by those immediately around the Paul VI, rarely if ever make reference to these subsequent statements of Cardinal Ottaviani, Michael Voris among them.
During the late 60’s and 70’s, many writers, some of whom I personally admire a great deal, such as Dietrich Von Hildebrand, critiqued the new rite mostly contra the ideologues who had an influence on the implementation of the Council. Von Hildebrand wrote: “Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ ‘The Screwtape Letters’ had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not have done it better.” One can see from his essay “The Case for the Latin Mass,” that his critiques were in no way limited to simply abuses of the new Missal. However severe the critiques of those who responded to the postconciliar liturgical implementation as it was happening in the early years after the Council, it should at least be noted that the context of such observations is different now, fifty years after the Council with the reform of the reform underway, and the current occupant of the Chair of St. Peter continuing to support the liturgical changes mandated by the Council.
Certainly, the historical analysis of the postconciliar period with the relationship between liturgical changes and the crisis of faith is legitimate. And it appears that the Church is permitting a certain plurality of opinion in respect to this analysis. After all, this is a question of history and not doctrine of the faith. But when the historical analysis leads to ideological solutions that diverge from the consistent direction in which the Holy Father is leading the Church, then it seems to me that we are dealing with another matter.
For example, Michael Voris believes that it is perfectly legitimate to call into question whether the novus ordo and the liturgical schema of the Council out of which it proceeded was a rupture from the Tradition of the Church, and therefore, although valid as a sacrament, is not really authentic Catholic Worship (29:23-29:43). Granted, there is plenty of literature answering this question in the negative, argued mostly on the basis of the historical analysis. However, Voris further claims that Pope Benedict’s reason for call for the reform of the reform is to counteract the danger to which the faithful are exposed by attending the novus ordo (31:40-32:54). It is clear he is not referring merely to abuses of the new liturgy since he prefaces his remarks by hammering home a sharp distinction between the validity of the novus ordo which he clearly affirms, and its status as “authentic Catholic worship,” which he emphatically questions, to the point of suggesting that it might be harmful to one’s faith. It should be noted that Michael Voris presents himself as fully in accord with Benedict XVI and has never, as far I know, identified himself as a traditionalist.
The Reform of the Reform
The actual position of Joseph Ratizinger/Benedict XVI is rather more complex than the ideologues would grant. The reform of the reform is not actually a kind of creeping traditionalism, that is, an “impulse toward” the old derived from a reading between the lines of the Motu Proprio. It is true, however, that the Cardinal has had some rather severe words for the novus ordo, mostly for the abuses of it, but not entirely restricted to these.
Growth vs. Fabrication
Those criticisms might be summarized as a repudiation of liturgical changes that are manufactured out of thin air or a result of an inorganic manipulation of the liturgical tradition. This first of all applies to the way in which “the spirit of Vatican II,” that is, the “impulses toward the new,” led to wholesale rejection of the principles laid down by the Council. Hence, the Mass was no longer viewed as a sacrifice during which both priest and the faithful face the rising sun, and the liturgical language which tended to verticalize the celebration was completely rejected—not in favor of a just and needed use of the vernacular, but in view of horizontalizing and eliminating any reference to the transcendent; on the contrary, invoking every pretext to justify unfettered creativity, a complete disregard for the rubrics, and a jettisoning of every expression of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. Likewise, the very just and needed emphasis of Sacrosanctum Concilium on the active participation of the faithful was “fatally narrowed” (The Ratzinger Report, 127) to signify the call for everyone to be “doing things” rather than call to a deep personal and contemplative participation in the prayer of the Church. The Council mandated none of this.
Beyond this Cardinal Ratzinger has leveled qualified criticisms of the way in which the new liturgical books came into existence, saying that they appeared to be “put together by professors,” and not as a result of “a phase in a continual growth process.” He said: “I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather than with that of continuity within a single liturgical history” (Feast of Faith, 87). In his preface to the French edition of The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Klaus Gamber (1992), Ratzinger’s criticisms are more stinging and appear to support the position of Gamber, which is that the new liturgical books could be revised to reflect more accurately the principles laid down by Vatican II, and hence, be drawn more fully within Tradition. In that preface, he contrasts the Western understanding of liturgical development with the Eastern notion that the liturgy is a “reflection of eternal light,” and then writes:
What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced—as if it were a technical production—with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.
This statement might be taken in one of several ways: as pertaining simply to the abuses of the new Mass and not to the new books themselves; as pertaining to the very novus ordo itself as codified in the Missal of Paul VI; as pertaining to the manner of presentation of the books, as the work of professors and not as organic developement. I suggest that the meaning of the Cardinal is nuanced, tending toward the third option, because his earlier statements and those of his pontificate suggest that he is not denigrating the novus ordo as such. Again, to be clear, both before and after his 1992 preface for Gamber’s book, his remarks indicate that he favors the new liturgical books, even if he hopes for some revisions.
In fact, the principle that motivates his criticisms of the new liturgical books is organic development, and not in any way an argument for a mummified liturgy. In fact, he suggested in 1981 that those who refuse to accept the liturgical reform mandated by the council are operating on “a faulty view of the historical facts.” The Cardinal declared that the Missal “both before and after Pius V . . . was subject to a continuous process of purification” and “continued to grow and develop” (“Lecture”). Furthermore, he said that subsequent editions of the new books
will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer (ibid.).
This is hardly a reason to count the novus ordo as a break with the liturgical tradition; on the contrary, it is an affirmation that the actual books in use in 1981, the Cardinal considered to be in actual continuity with the older books. In fact, in the Letter accompanying the Motu Proprio the Holy Father clearly reaffirms, both the wisdom of the conciliar mandate and the actual liturgical books for the Ordinary Form, if only the rite is celebrated according to the books in the light of Tradition and with the enrichment of the Extraordinary Form:
The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.
Of course, none of this even takes into account the positive steps taken forward, in English speaking countries, with the new translation of the Missal of Paul VI. In this respect, the Holy Father has said: “The new translation of the Roman Missal, which is the fruit of a remarkable cooperation of the Holy See, the Bishops and experts from all over the world, is intended to enrich and deepen the sacrifice of praise offered to God by his people.”
Thus, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in no way calls into question the reforms mandated by the Council, but rather calls for a two phase reform of the reform: 1) put an end to “unauthorized fabrication;” 2) determine what was excessively “pruned away” from the tradition “so that the connection with the whole history may become clearer and more alive again” (God and the World 415-16).
Thus, whatever criticisms he might have of the new liturgical books, he does not believe the absence of the needed improvements proves fatal or justifies the suggestion, for example, that Michael Voris makes, namely, that the novus ordo in its current form is a rupture from Tradition and is not, in fact, authentic Catholic worship. In fact, Ratzinger has qualified his negative remarks on a number of occasions, including in Feast of Faith where he registered the criticisms noted above (German original published 1981):
[A]s far as its content is concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular (87).
To summarize: since the 80’s, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s position on the matter is consistent—if nuanced. He fully supports the reforms of the Council and believes the principles articulated in Sacrosanctum Concilium should also be applied to the celebration of the Extraordinary Form. Further, he believes it needs to be made clearer that both the old and new books are part of one unbroken Catholic Liturgical Tradition. His criticism of the post-conciliar liturgical implementation extends from the manner in which the new liturgical books were produced, to the manner in which changes occurred, to the way they were abused. He further maintains a number of criticisms of the books themselves, such as the inorganic and hasty transformation of the liturgical calendar, silence in the wrong place, such as after the homily, the lack of silence in the right place, especially during the Eucharistic Canon (cf. Feast of Faith 81; The Spirit of the Liturgy, 210, 214). Pope Benedict has and continues to teach that the reform of the reform involves the end of liturgical abuse and a reassessment of lost liturgical treasures, which includes liturgical plurality and implies an internal reconciliation with the past; hence, his support of the biformity of the Roman Rite. It is clear, however, that his reform of the reform belongs neither to the “Spirit of Vatican II” nor to the creeping traditionalism represented by the “Spirit of Summorum Pontificum.”
Social Aspects and Pastoral Prudence
But there remains another obstacle beyond the task of showing that the Council was not the cause of the liturgical chaos and the task of avoiding “spiritual attitudes” rooted in a dangerous externalism. It is a question of persons and personalities and the vices associated with relativism and private judgment. In his Roman lecture of 1998, Cardinal Ratzinger, admits that such “wholly extrinsic” circumstances factor into the problem and “go further back than any theology.” In God and the World (2000), Joseph Ratzinger referred to the uncharitable manner in which those attached to the ancient liturgy were treated:
Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her at present if things are that way (416)?
As Benedict XVI, in the “Letter to the Bishops” accompanying the Motu Proprio, he again defends, with qualification, those attached to the Extraordinary Form:
It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence [i.e., of the bishops] will be an incentive and guide for improving these.
Lepers and Outcasts
Traditional Catholics, especially those attached to the old Mass, have certainly had more than their share of marginalization and isolation. Ratzinger/Benedict’s words and actions over many years have expressed a genuine pastoral concern for them. The liturgical changes in the period immediately after the Council were implemented too fast and without the precise pastoral consideration so much a part of the Council’s true spirit. For those upon whom the false spirit was being imposed, who did not want to feel compelled to obey “the Spirit of Vatican II” when they knew that the inventions of that spirit were simply not mandated by the Council, there was no pastoral consideration.
“The dictatorship of relativism,” as the term may be applied to implementation of conciliar liturgical reform, in fact, does “not recognize anything as definitive;” its “ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.” Ironically, the movement that advocated the greatest application of freedom and creativity to the liturgy, would hear nothing of dissent and would brook no such thing as pluralism of thought and practice. Anything that could be labeled pre-Vatican II was deemed “pointless” and contrary to the “Spirit of the Council,” which favored, it was believed, every “impulse toward the new,” no matter how disconnected or contrary it was from the conciliar documents.
Unfortunately, there is still more irony in the reactionary and “counter-revolutionary” movement to turn the ecclesiastical clock backwards. Modernists and traditionalists are strange-bedfellows in their rupturist interpretation of the Council and in their common commitment to reject pastoral considerations. The modernists do this in the very name of being pastoral. Anything old and venerable must go because it is old, stuffy, and inhibiting. The traditionalists do this because in their view pastoral charity is a compromise with the truth, and because the counter-revolutionary traditionalist guard is elitist and convinced that it knows what is best for everyone else. It is true, the modernists still seem to maintain a fragile but tenacious status quo, but the traditionalists are on the move and making ground, largely, I think, because Pope Benedict’s attempt at reconciling with the SSPX is misinterpreted as sympathy for their anti-conciliarism.
Indeed, the Holy Father is being very generous when he says “that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition” (December 22, 2005). I take this to mean that attachment to Tradition ought in no way imply that one is anti-pastoral or anti-conciliar, or otherwise guilty of having little or no consideration of Catholics who have no attachment to the older liturgy. Those who have experienced and continue to experience ostracization and isolation would certainly understand what it is like to have a liturgy they are unfamiliar with jammed down their throat, or have mere contingent opinions, not in conformity with the Council, spouted continually like dogma. Right? I think there is a huge measure of good will on the part of the Holy Father, in spite of the continual pronouncements of the SSPX and other traditionalist organizations.
If one believes that this assessment of the risks of the traditionalist position is exaggerated, I recommend reading “The Gnostic Traditionalist” by Thaddeus Kozinksi. (Unfortunately, there is a small subscription cost.) Kozinksi describes “gnostic traditionalism as follows:
As I see it, it is the unwillingness or incapacity to take a step back, to adopt a Socratic stance toward one’s commitment and allegiance to the traditionalist narrative and critique of the post-conciliar Church, which may be a true narrative and accurate critique, but, nevertheless, is a narrative and critique that doesn’t come to us from the Magisterium, and so does not require submission by divine Faith.
Both the “Spirit of Vatican II” and the “Spirit of Summorum Pontificum” are merely contingent personal opinions to which no one has any moral obligation to grant assent. Even more, Benedict XVI has rejected both of these spirits in principle and practice as expressions of the hermeneutic of rupture. It seems to me that we would do well to heed what Joseph Ratzinger said in his 1998 lecture:
The authority of the Church has the power to define and limit the use of such rites in different historical situations, but she never just purely and simply forbids them. Thus the Council ordered a reform of the liturgical books, but it did not prohibit the former books. The criterion which the Council established is both much larger and more demanding; it invites us all to self-criticism.
We just need to remember that this self-criticism must work in both directions. We must be willing to examine the contingent opinions registered in favor of and against particular liturgical reforms. We must be willing to criticize in ourselves whatever “spiritual attitude” prevails, and whatever “particular set of externals” to which we are attached, because both attitudes tend toward rupture and both of them are lacking in true and necessary pastoral charity.
Pluralism not Uniformity
The path forward cleared by Pope Benedict is a true and generous pluralism, one that rejects the polarized spiritual attitudes and their ideological underpinnings. The reform of the reform is a “New Liturgical Movement” that has the benefit of both the principles laid out by the Council and of a clear view of the mistakes made in both directions in the wake of the Council. The fiftieth anniversary of the Vatican II and the upcoming Year of Faith afford us the opportunity to start again in a spirit of self-criticism.
Throughout the years, Pope Benedict has argued for the internal reconciliation of the Church with its past and for the biformity of the Roman Rite, noting that ritual pluralism is nothing new in the Western Church in which there have always been various expressions of the Western Rite (for example, the Ambrosian, the Sarum, the Braga, and the Dominican Rites; see for example “Lecture”). In Feast of Faith he says plainly: “Catholicity does not mean uniformity” (123). In his 1998 Roman lecture he also made explicit reference to an idea proposed for a New Liturgical Movement, seeming inspired by the “Oxford Declaration,” which he explicitly mentions. That declaration is fundamentally pro-Vatican II, though it is certainly not ostrich-like in respect to the current state of affairs:
Our liturgical heritage is not a superficial embellishment of worship but should properly be regarded as intrinsic to it, as it is also to the process of transmitting the Catholic faith in education and evangelization. Liturgy cannot be separated from culture; it is the living font of a Christian civilization and hence has profound ecumenical significance.
Perhaps more significant for the current state of affairs is the call for pluralism:
We call for a greater pluralism of Catholic rites and uses, so that all these elements of our tradition may flourish and be more widely known during the period of reflection and ressourcement that lies ahead. If the liturgical movement is to prosper, it must seek to rise above differences of opinion and taste to that unity which is the Holy Spirit’s gift to the Body of Christ. Those who love the Catholic tradition in its fullness should strive to work together in charity, bearing each other’s burdens in the light of the Holy Spirit, and persevering in prayer with Mary the Mother of Jesus.
In fact, Stratford Caldecott one of the organizers of the event that produced the “Oxford Declaration,” notes that during the proceedings of the conference Fr. Mark Drew
requested the lifting of much of the current restrictive legislation and its replacement with creative permissive legislation. Don’t fear anarchy, he said. Anarchy is what we have already. The law of the Church has been so widely disregarded that it is now in disrepute: if respect for law is to return there must be an end to the pretense that everything is under control.
Caldecott notes: “It was an extreme position, but an important one.” In any case, whether or not more anarchy is in the best interests of the Church, Joseph Ratzinger has rejected a “top-down” approach to the reform of the reform. In God and the World he says that the reform of the reform “ought in the first place to be above all an educative process, which would put a stop to this trampling all over the liturgy with one’s own inventions” (416). He also says that an effort like the New Liturgical Movement, insofar as it actually touches the lives of Catholics, is “a matter of an impulse emanating from people who celebrated a living faith” (ibid.):
If out of this a kind of movement develops from within and is not simply imposed from above, then it will come. And I believe that here in the new generation there is already a move in this direction (ibid.).
What the Motu Proprio has provided is more opportunities, not fewer, and a way of going forward, not backward. Neither the “Spirit of Vatican II,” nor the Spirit of Summorum Pontificum will take us anywhere except in more and ever narrower circles of frustration and bitterness.
Even in respect to the manner in which the most solemn celebration of the liturgical tradition is preserved, we must understand that it should be not a matter of subjective considerations, tinted by spiritual attitudes and ideologies, but of objective considerations. Summorum Pontificum, article 3, provides an opportunity, not a mandate, for religious communities to adopt the Extraordinary Form “often, habitually or permanently.” Joseph Ratzinger has written that a “non-subjective criterion” needs to be found to “permit the possibility of the old Missal.” He says that this is something that could easily be done in monastic communities whose very existence is based on the mandate to celebrate the liturgy in the most solemn fashion possible. He also notes that certain religious orders, like the Dominicans, have had their own special rite, so that it would make sense that such religious orders were committed by their nature to a specific form of the Roman rite. He mentions also the possibility of other religious communities and priestly fraternities following this path, on the basis of objective, and not merely subjective considerations (Joseph Ratzinger, Teologia della Liturgia, Opera Omnia Vol. II, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 757, translation mine).
What Pope Benedict does not recommend, in any context, parish or religious community, is an arbitrary top-down approach, without sufficient education, based on gratuitous interpretations of the Council and his teaching, that is, on the basis of the “Spirit of Summorum Pontificum.” If there is to be some legitimate pluralism and even a measure of give and take on what truly constitutes the liturgical use that is most pleasing to God, it will have to respect this pluralism and the very nature of the contingent opinions that are thus represented.
But this is a problem for the elitists of both stripes of “spiritual attitudes” and “particular sets of externals.” Revolutions and counter-revolutions are run by elitist ideologues, by the gnostic intelligentsia, the social, cultural and spiritual engineers of either the “new world order,” or the “old world restoration.” Fr. Chad Ripperger, would make every priest an evangelist for his personal and contingent opinions on the relative merit of the two forms:
Yet, to answer the question of whether the old rite of Mass is more efficacious than the new is of paramount importance. It is the point of departure between priests of the respective rites, since each holds that he is saying the Mass that is best for the faithful. Nevertheless, the question is a key one since, in the end, whichever ritual is more meritorious ought to be the one that the Roman authorities encourage.
This is precisely what Pope Benedict is not saying and not mandating. This kind of externalism and, in my view, partisan elitism needs to end. It is not the opinion about which form of the rite is better that I object to, but the manner in which a top-down solution is encouraged. Pope Benedict, the Supreme Pastor of the Church, favors organic development and liturgical pluralism, not a socially engineered uniformity at the hands of elitists and authoritarians.
Those who are sympathetic to the strong words and actions of the SSPX and the likes of Michael Voris had better be clear of what is really going on. Recently, Bishop Fellay said that the Society would just have to wait for the Vatican to catch up, that the reunion talks for now do not leave much to hope for in the immediate future:
I am persuaded that in ten years things will look different because the generation of the Council will be gone and the next generation does not have this link with the Council. And already now we hear several bishops, my dear brethren, several bishops tell us: you give too much weight to this Council; put it aside. It could be a good way for the Church to go ahead. Put it aside; forget it. Let’s go back to the real thing, to Tradition.
I continue to wonder at the naïveté of some of the contemporary liturgical and anti-conciliar enthusiasms coming from the traditionally minded who would never attend an SSPX Mass in this present state of their irregularity. The anti-conciliarism, explicit and implicit, is not of God. Christ has given us a pope, not only as a Teacher who is infallible in certain circumstances when he speaks on faith and morals, but also a Pastor who has the charism of governance in a way that only the Vicar of Christ has it. The cultivated doubt as to whether or not he is infallible in his pronouncements on the liturgy is a red herring promulgated by ideologues and elitists with an agenda.
Rebuilding the Church
As a Franciscan I can appreciate an analogy made by Joseph Ratzinger in The Spirit of the Liturgy. It is very architectural in an ecclesiastical way. Pope Benedict compares liturgical reform to the restoration of a beautiful but whitewashed fresco. Franciscans have been tasked by Holy Mother Church since the beginning of the Order in the 13th century to protect the edifice of the Church from destruction. St. Francis rebuilt three Churches at the beginning of his vocation, as a sign of the more critical way in which he and his sons would work for the “rebuilding of the Church.”
The Cardinal writes that the liturgy of the earlier part of the 20th century was like this undamaged but obscured work of art that had been covered over by generations of whitewash. (How ironic, considering this is exactly what happened to beautiful ecclesiastical and liturgical art after the Council.)
In the Missal from which the priest celebrated, the form of the liturgy that had grown from its earliest beginnings was still present, but, as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer.
But, he says:
The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us. But since then the fresco has been endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various restorations and reconstructions.
He goes on to tell his reader, as Jesus told St. Francis, that this beautiful work of art “is threatened with destruction.” Something must be done. But that something, he writes, is not to once again use whitewash,
but what is imperative is a new reverence in the way we treat it, a new understanding of its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not become the first stage of irreparable loss.
For this we have the Second Vatican Council to look to, not in suspicion, but for guidance, because as the Pope reminds us in the words of another great Franciscan, St. Bonventure:
“Opera Christi non deficiunt, sed proficiunt”: Christ’s works do not go backwards, they do not fail but progress.
This is an excellent work which must be read and re-read many times! I may not agree with every conclusion you have made here… but it does not matter. You capture the heart of the Holy Father and what he is presently doing and has been doing all along. And you dispel any wrong assumptions about his motives quite clearly by using His Holiness’ own words.
It will take at least a month for me to digest all of this… as I think I’m going to have to reread it at least two more times. But there is nothing in this which is a dialogue stopper or an affront to reason or Faith.
In your essay you mention an isolation felt by those who have an attachment to the EF. I guess in my observation/experience by association with some who favor the EF it seems that this is by choice. What are your thoughts?
By the way, thought you all might be interested in this!
Vatican City, Mar 12, 2012 / 12:25 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Catholic Church added 15 million new faithful in 2010 and the number of priests continued to steadily increase for the tenth straight year, according to the latest edition of the pontifical yearbook.
I cannot comment much on the various motives. I would say, to be fair, that the attachment of some of the faithful to the old Mass has not been met with pastoral consideration. This is truly a form of isolation. Pope Benedict has been sensitive to this.
But in respect to traditionalist tendencies, I believe that the “remnant” mentality easily serves as a rationalization for positions that cannot be reconciled with fidelity to the magisterium.
This is the danger of the “us-against-the-world” mindset. One must better be right about the world view or else the group becomes a sect. It is very dangerous to elevate private contingent opinions to the level of Church doctrine.
Nice to see you back!
Thanks for the kind remarks.
My hope was to clarify in context the very consistent position of the Holy Father.
Marion: As I have mentioned earlier, I returned to the Catholic Church while in my 20’s. I’m now 56. In my years as a Catholic man… I have seen many cruelties forced on Catholics by other Catholics. But the cruelest thing I have ever seen is the way the new Mass was suddenly forced upon people, literally overnight in many cases around the year 1968. I was 12 years old at the time and I remember well the disorientation. The Holy Father tells the bishops in his 2007 letter of that the old rite was “never abrogated”… which means that it was never supposed to have been forbidden by the bishops. But we know that it actually WAS forbidden. That is the error His Holiness was trying to correct in the motu proprio ‘Summorum Pontificum’.
Now, imagine that your mother just died. Imagine that you were told by your parish priest and your bishop that you could ONLY have a Tridentine Mass for her funeral Mass. Imagine Marion, at the same time you were told that you could never attend the Novus ordo again… that from now on only the Tridentine Mass was available to you and the words of absolution in confession would never be spoken to you in English again.
It would be jarring to say the least! But then imagine that within a year you realized that you heard not a single piece of liturgical music in English again. The English hymns which you loved had now been replaced by music totally in Latin that you were unfamiliar with and whose melodies you had difficulty following for lack of familiarity. Alas, you could no longer really sing at Mass.
Add to this many other changes… some even theological in nature which seemed strange, alien… even heretical at times.
Yet this is exactly what happened IN REVERSE in 1968. And it made a whole generation of Catholics very lonely, isolated, disenfranchised, and eventually angry.
I know people like this… they are old and dying off. At least for some… they may actually enjoy the blessing of being able to have the Mass of Ages celebrated at their funeral now. But my point is that these folks have legitimate anger. ‘Legitimate’ in the sense that they were wrongly told by their bishops that the old Mass that they had grown up with and loved had INDEED been abrogated and that all they believed in was now ‘old hat’ and that the Church was NOW changing and that they had better ‘get with it’.
Now… I draw your attention to a paragraph in the letter that His Holiness wrote which prefaces the 2007 motu proprio which liberates the old Mass. He tells the bishops:
“Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it,…”
And then he goes on to tell us that while earlier attempts to liberate the old Mass were intended to minister to the faithful at that time who felt an attachment to the old Mass… that…
“in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.”
My family and I find the Tridentine PARTICULARLY SUITED TO US. The Holy Father is saying that there is nothing wrong with that. I also know young people whose parents are not even Catholic who have demonstrated a preference for the old Mass over the new Mass when given the choice. I will point now that still many bishops put up barriers so that young persons asking for the old Mass are given the run around so that they eventually give up trying to bring about the celebration of the old Mass. The bishop has the power to do this even if he is disobeying the Holy Father. The effects upon the faith of those young people is no different the the effect that this kind of obfuscation had back in 1968.
The good news is that there are now young people who do not remember this painful situation of 1968 because they were not yet born. These growing number of young people accept the Second Vatican Council, as I do, with no exaggerations or diminutions… but they do prefer the Extraordinary form of the Roman rite over the ordinary form of the Roman Rite. My own three children are a good example of this. My eldest daughter and my young son have often remarked to me that the Tridentine Liturgy, in their minds, “more strongly emphasizes the masculine and priestly nature of Christ because of the lack of women on the altar, the mandatory kneeling for communion, the fact that all who serve at the alter carry with them a very serious disposition”. They have also often remarked that the “presence and familiarity of the Gregorian Chant is an aid in praying… especially since they have the words to the Gregorian ordinary’s and propers right there in their missals in both Latin and English”. They will go to a Novus Ordo if we must and not complain (especially if that Novus Ordo is celebrated by certain Franciscans I know in CT)… but if they had their “truthers” it would be a Sung High Mass (Missa Cantata).
Marian: I will never condone the sin of anger… nor attempt to excuse it. But speaking as a person whose parish for nearly 20 years was recently taken over by a “homosexual friendly priest” who teaches that “under certain situations… birth control and homosexuality might be considered a positive good and certainly not a sin”, I can tell you that it is quite easy to harden into a “them versus us” attitude. I know good young Catholic families (that at one time were as orthodox as Fr. Angelo) that now believe the teachings of this pastor over what you and I know is the Catholic Truth on these matters (i.e. “The only real serious sin is judging others… every thing else is up for grabs by way of how your conscience feels about it”). And the lies told from this progressive monsignor have a direct effect on the lives of families that I know and love… and I can see the distancing effect on their now diminishing Marian devotion, decreasing Eucharistic zeal where once there was a fiery young love for Him and a systematic dumbing down of the catechesis upon these beautiful young couples young children. It is truly heart rending!
Aside from all this though is the valid arguments of men like Michael Davies who were Catholics in good standing who rightly pointed out the differences between the old Mass and the New. Davies was always a Catholic in good standing… and yet he makes some excellent points about the “lex-orandi” of this discussion.
I hope this clarifies where much of the anger comes from and helps you understand better what kind of reconciliation the Holy Father is trying to accomplish. True reconciliation is TWO sided. It is important for guys like me to realize how damaging it would be to force the Tridentine Mass on someone who would have difficulty adjusting to it… and likewise it is important for you to understand what happened to a whole generation of Catholics (and is now in many places happening to a new generation of Catholics) who really love and prefer the Usus Antiquior but are being systematically deprived of it illegitimately by their bishops, despite what Benedict has asked of thew bishops.
I guess I admire all the more the people who accepted these changes in obedience to the Church. I do have a difficult time understanding, I guess, because I don’t have the same attachment to the EF, though i do have an appreciation for it as part of the history and tradition of the Church. But the Mass in Latin was certainly not the starting point of the Church; there have been other changes. Additionally, to argue against the OF or the Council by bringing attention to an individual who is not being faithful is similar to what a protestent would say to point out that the Catholic Church is not the True Church. Well, even one of the apostles was not faithful, and we as a Church have a whole history of people falling away, none of which proves the Teachings of the Church to be false. I guess it just hurts me very much to hear comments like the OF is not authentic worship, or defective, etc., because I know many parishes who celebrate the OF with great reverence and so many holy people who attend the OF, among them the very admirable young men who are seminarians in our diocese. I love the OF, and Jesus is truly present in the OF. I just never anticipated that being associated with the FI meant that I would continually encounter this anger against the OF. I think I understand that this is probably not the right place for me.
Please don’t see these difficulties as a reason to abandon your Marian calling. I believe the FIs are one of the few communities who are facing this issue head on; and this often means that the blood of some may heat up even to boiling point.
It is truly in these moments that we are called to practice virtue, maybe even heroic virtue, and to remind ourselves and others of the central aspects of our faith, which have little to do with preferences for the OF or EF.
I encourage us all to stay praying a novena (at Least!) of rosaries for peace and unity in the Church over this issue, because truely many souls are confused and at risk.
Thank you for your words of encouragement and your call to prayer. I am defending what the Church holds as Sacred.
19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.
I will continue to defend the Church against those who would make such disparaging remarks against that which the Church holds Sacred. BOTH Forms are SACRED.
“I will continue to defend the Church against those who would make such disparaging remarks against that which the Church holds Sacred. BOTH Forms are SACRED.”
We are in total accord; I would happily give my life (with the help of God’s grace) in defence of all that is true, sacred and licit in the holy Church; beginning with defending the Holy Father and his right, which is given to him by his unique Petrine charism, to decide all that is best for the Church, and for those under his care.
I, myself have been told that I am TOO much of a “Papist”, but I would much rather love the Pope TOO much than risk not loveing him enough.
This indeed is a painful situation for all who love the Church, but I know souls who are so called “Traditionalists”, who claim to love the Church, but end up doing nothing but critisizing Her; a great number of these souls have unfortunately bought into the philosophy and ecclesiology of Bishop Fellay and his followers, and that is that problem, these soul are followers, as they were meant to be, sheep following a shepherd. The problem is that the shepherd, wether he is aware of it or not is leading them over a precipise and into an abyss.
One only needs to study a little of recent history ( eg. the ‘old Catholics’) to understand that the SSPX, if thay do not subject themselves completely to the Holy Father, are on the road to offical schism and consequently heresy!
LET US PRAY THAT THIS DOES NOT COME TO PASS!
There are too many souls at risk…
United in Christ, through His Vicar
God bless you, Cephas!
Pingback: A Year of Faith or a Year of Doubt? « Mary Victrix
from Bill Foley
To Marian and to Cephas Maria
I would urge you both to go to the EWTN document library and enter “Gilroy” as the name of the author. You can then read a three-page, brilliant defense of the papal magisterium by the late Cardinal Gilroy of Australia.
You can also enter “Costanzo” as the name of the author; you will then find the best three essays ever written in support of the papal magisterium and Humanae Vitae. The author is the late Father Joseph Costanzo, a brilliant and holy Jesuit.
By the way, Saint Pope Pius X urged Catholics to be proud to be called Papists.
This is the central claim:
Unfortunately, the article lists only examples well before 1992 which state satisfaction and none after 1992. Examples after 1992 provided by the article are wholly on the phenomenon of modernism and radical traditionalism, or that traditionalists are treated as “lepers.”
This instead suggests that Ratzinger developed his own opinions of the liturgical books, which spur him on to continue the “reform of the reform” and encourage celebration of the Traditional Use of the Roman Rite. Indeed, the English-language forwards to the new edition of this book seem to suggest as much. Notably, the book was written some years before 1992. There is ample time, therefore, for the ideas in this book to percolate in Ratzinger’s mind.
Barring additional evidence, the central claim in this article regarding then-Cardinal Ratzinger cannot stand.
Actually, the central claim of my post is that traditionalists misinterpret Summorum Pontificum the same way modernists misinterpret conciliar documents, that is, in an ideological manner, one that is based on the supposition of discontinuity between the preconciliar and postconciliar Church. So the argument goes, that the real intention of Pope Benedict is to undo the postconcilar liturgical discontinuity by a gradual (creeping) restoration of the preconciliar liturgical status. Of course, this is not explicitly stated in Summorum Pontificum. Like the modernist interpretation of the Council, “the spirit of SP” is based on the idea that what is explicitly stated in the document is a compromise between opposing forces. According to this narrative one needs to read the real intention of the Holy Father between the lines.
Based on what you wrote, I surmise that you would find this assertion as problematic as what you misidentify as my central claim. In that case, I would answer in this way:
1.) The starting point for determining the answer to this question must be Sacrosanctum Concilium 34-36, which C. Ratzinger has explicitly acknowledged the principles governing the liturgy as defined by the Church. In his letter accompanying Summorum Pontifcum, Benedict XVI reaffirms these principles as not being called into question by virtue of the motu proprio. This precludes prima facie a simple and wholesale return the preconciliar liturgy as normative for the Church. It also precludes the notion that the preconciliar liturgy must be per se more pleasing to God than one based on the principles articulated in SC 34-36. You might believe otherwise, but unless you have evidence to the contrary you cannot claim Benedict XVI as your authority.
2.) It is not true that I make no reference to more recent documents in which Raztinger/Benedict speaks of his intentions in reference to the EF. “Mutual enrichment” and “internal reconciliation,” are complementary concepts, neither of which implies the intention of restoring the EF to preconciliar status.
3.) I don’t think anyone familiar with the thought of the pope on the matter would deny that he believes that the books for the new liturgy could be improved, and that much that was lost after the Council could and should be restored. But that he subscribes to the idea that the conciliar mandate itself was a betrayal of Tradition or destined to fail of itself (read SC mandates “Bugnini Mass”), is not implied by his critiques of the new liturgy and the contrary is explicitly stated.
4.) In Spirit of the Liturgy (2000) the Holy Father famously supports, at least in principle, the preconciliar discipline of the priest celebrating ad orientem. On the other hand, in the same work, he defends the new cycle of readings, the distinction of place for the Liturgy of the Word from that of the Eucharistic liturgy and the location of the altar nearer the people. In fact, he says what is anathema to many attached the EF, namely, that the Liturgy of the Word is in fact “about speaking and responding, and so a face-to-face exchange between proclaimer and hearer does make sense” (81). More interesting still is his suggestion that the canon neither be entirely silent or entirely audible, but that the silence should be punctuated by the first words of each prayer being read aloud. This corresponds neither to the OF or the EF, but certainly is an argument for his support of liturgical development. On the other hand, it is hardly a call for preconciliar status. No creeping papal traditionalism here.
5.) A brief perusal of Ratzinger/Benedict’s liturgical writing, irrespective of its development or changes, will reveal that Joseph Ratzinger is no ideologue or zealot, but a man of deep thought whose commitment is to an “educative process,” not a predetermined program of action which he intends to implement by stages, while being disingenuous about his real motives. “The spirit of SP” is in a large measure wishful thinking on the part certain individuals attached to he EF who would like it to become the OF. It is very similar to the wishful thinking of the SSPX by which they believed they would obtain canonical status without agreeing to a doctrinal preamble, an illusion they succumbed to because of enthusiasms ensuing from the fact that it had been the pope himself who had originally expressed a desire for reconciliation.
I conclude with words from the pope himself, spoken less than a year and a half ago.
Define “traditionalist.” Do you mean schismatics, sedevacantists, and conclavists only? Or do you include those in union with Rome and the Holy Father?
You can find the answer here.
Consider, please, these remarks in the spirit of “honest academic inquiry” and not a matter of ideology.
To put my cards out in the table: I attend an FSSP Mass, having grown up in Novus Ordo with Latin Propers. I love the Traditional Mass and admire many of the de jure changes in the 1969 Missal. I appreciate and encourage the mandates of the Council, which are something quite different and have not been completely fulfilled. (If the mandates of the Council have been completely fulfilled, then why would additional tweaking or restoration be needed?)
If something — anything — was lost after the Council which should not have been lost, then clearly these “should not have been lost” things are in a separate category than traditions about which the Church is indefectible. These traditions may be apostolic and sacred but are not uppercase apostolic or uppercase Sacred in terms of the deposit of faith. Therefore, it is theoretically possible for liturgies proumulgated by the Holy See to be in a state of rupture from tradition. (Indeed, this was attempted on several occasions, cf. The Organic Development of the Liturgy, by Alcuin Reid.)
This is a kind of Value premise, independent of the fact of whether it has happened in this instance: Whatever his responsibilities to let the liturgy grow organically, the Pope is theoretically able to cause a liturgical rupture.
So far so good?
(This is not probably a point of contention. This is merely an attempt to write in edible portions.)
First of all my statement about to what was “lost” refers to aspects of the new liturgical books rather than to the conciliar mandate. So, no, I do not believe that whatever was lost in the new books indicates that the reforms mandated by the Council could theoretically be in rupture with tradition (lowercase, or uppercase). Furthermore, insofar as this or that particular aspect of “loss” in the liturgical books does not pertain, as you say, to “uppercase apostolic or uppercase Sacred in terms of the deposit of faith,” neither would it be a rupture with uppercase Tradition. I would gather that this is not a point of contention, either. I just want to clarify, and it is important to do so because liturgical rupture with Tradition (uppercase) does imply a betrayal of the deposit of faith, and it is the contention of many traditionalists that there has been such a betrayal. In addition, to say that something was lost is to acknowledge that its absence is regrettable; to say that it is a rupture with tradition (even lower case) is a formally distinct matter. And then again, the question of liturgical abuses is not even touched upon in this discussion.
Further, when considered merely as a hypothetical possibility, if the pope were to have created a liturgical rupture with tradition (even lowercase), what you and I think about the question is never the same as what the pope thinks about the question, in the sense that our opinions remain always just opinions, and his position on the matter is never just an opinion, even if it is not proclaimed infallibly. I say this because of the specific claim of my post and because of your original critique of it. If the pope were to claim that the new Mass was in rupture with tradition in plain Latin, then the matter would be settled, but our merely academic consideration of the possibility of a rupture in a particular instance is just that, merely academic, unless the pope happens to be in agreement in a specific case.
I am happy to concede exactly what you say. Just as the work of Klaus Gamber is often cited as influential upon the thought of Joseph Ratzinger — would a man write a Preface to a book of criticism if the criticism had not merit? — some new books are certainly going to form the thought of future popes. Moreover, while specialists cannot settle disputes they can flesh out the alternate cases for more sophisticated study and analysis, providing an opportunity for precisely the nuance a Pope needs.
My comments have gone somewhat astray. So this comment is a long comment, because it I’d like to get this out of the way and then talk to you about aspects we both find more interesting. So, for a moment, back to the original criticism, if only to show where the first comment was aiming:
1. Allowing that Cdl. Ratzinger has a nuanced view of the liturgy, how did he come by it? Growth and development, and in a broader way than the Church does.
2. He, because he is not the Church, is allowed to grow and develop in understanding in ways which include changing his mind, yes?
3. Therefore, it is not necessarily useful to use attitudes from 1981 to show how attitudes from 1992 should be interpreted unless there are datapoints throughout the period before and after which may be cited showing no significant change whatsoever. (ORIGINAL CRITICISM)
4. Reading Ratzinger in context includes the immediate context. Especially so because he is not an indefectible tradition but a person who can change his mind.
5. Therefore, if it can be shown that at one point Ratzinger regarded the Reform of 1969 to be “fabrication” it is fair to quote him as such provided the case is not made that this represents the whole of Ratzinger’s thought but an episode in the history of his thought. (Traditionalists you describe, by the definition you use, may make this error.)
The Preface to the 1992 edition of Gamber’s book represents an episode of Ratzinger’s thought:
a. Prefaces are not written to precede nothing, but to precede a book.
b. Prefaces may not indicate a wholesale endorsement of everything included later in the book but they usually indicate endorsement of the broad stroke of the thesis. Certainly, favorable prefaces do not indicate substantial disagreement.
c. Elements of the Preface in question — he died too soon, &c. — seem to show a deeper sympathy with the book than with merely the broad stroke of its thesis. Specifically:
d. Thesis in question: While the Missal of 1962 was a cadaver, that of 1969 is something worse — see: abandoning an ancient cycle of readings, prayer options which make little sense ecumenically or organically — and, needless to say, the implementation of these is something even worse than that.
e. Throughout the sample of the Preface provided on the back cover of Gamber’s book, it seems clear that the organic development was abandoned and replaced with a fabrication. How could this “banal on-the-spot product” refer to anything but the Missal of 1969, which is, more than liturgical abuse, the topic of the book by a man with the “vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness”?
If the Pope does not hold these opinions now, or in 1998, he did, or very strongly appeared to hold them, in 1992.
Therefore, this quote may be used to back up theses like this:
Cardinal Ratzinger at one point very strongly appeared to refer, in a preface written in 1992, to the Missal of 1969 as a “fabrication” and a “banal, on-the-spot product.” This was written to precede a book highly critical of both liturgical abuses and problems inherent with what is now called the Ordinary Form. While his opinions now do not reflect quite this sentiment, certainly to believe that the Missal of 1969 is a “fabrication” and a “banal, on-the-spot product” can be a legitimate opinion formed in good conscience if an eminent Cardinal at one time very strongly appeared to hold this opinion without juridical rebuke.
This is important because some overeager Catholics accuse some non-schismatic traditionalists of “taking Ratzinger out of context” when it is eminently clear that non-schismatic traditionalists are reading him in the immediate context — who wrote a Preface to a book, and what a book. So rebukes pile upon rebukes, and would-be Defenders of the Faith push non-schismatics toward actual schism by hateful “rebuke.”
This is important personally because as I begin to read Lazlo Dobzay, I am becoming of the opinion that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is a brother to the Extraordinary Form, and a half-brother if not an adopted brother, like the Zaire Use or the Anglican Use. The Ordinary Use of the Roman Rite is Roman for pastoral and juridical reasons, but not from those of objective organic content. It appears so far removed in content — ignoring decora or practice for a moment — that it is as closely related to the Traditional, Organic Use of the Roman Rite as some Eastern Rites are.
This is not said from hatred or ideology but from a fidelity to truth. My intellect may be faulty, however, or it may lack some knowledge, so consider this a moment for iron against iron.
There is one more substantial criticism, but one which can wait until this one is tested and found wanting.
To what extent Pope Benedict is now dissatisfied with the new Missal is certainly a legitimate matter of speculation. Gamber is representative, and I concede he is significantly so because of the Ratzinger preface. But as I already stated, Ratzinger indicates in even a more recent book, written only two years after the Gamber preface, that there are elements of the new liturgy that he finds himself in agreement with. In fact, he writes:
You and I, it would seem, only have an argument about the extent to which Pope Benedict would like to see the new books revised or rewritten, not about whether there should have been a reform at all. More accurately, we might disagree on the specific meaning and value of the preface to Gamber’s book.
Your description of your own opinion of C. Ratzinger’s position is carefully worded, and understandably so. In fact, at no time has Ratzinger/Benedict claimed that the Mass of Paul VI, celebrated faithfully according to the approved books, is a “fabrication” and a “banal, on-the-spot product.” What would “on-the-spot product,” mean in reference to the approved liturgy celebrated according to the rubrics? In any case, one cannot claim that Pope Benedict, or any other pope since the Council, has come remotely close to anything like a claim that the current books are in rupture with Tradition. That being said, I don’t question your good faith, or that you, like me, are just trying to get at the truth. I see your argument. I just am not convinced.
I am glad you brought up the problem of piling on. It is a real problem. But it is a sword that cuts both ways. And I am not sure what the answer is, apart from prayer, and some serious virtue—heavy lifting in terms of bearing one another’s burdens. You see the problem is this: one the one hand, the position held by you could also be held by someone who also believes that the Council was a Revolution (traditionalists) and who might not be as open about it as they would be about what they think of the new liturgical books. On the other hand, positions like the one I hold, for example, on religious liberty, can be held also by those who believe the Council is a Revolution (modernists), and not be so open about what they really believe. In fact, once when I argued in defense of Dignitatis Humanae by using the writings of Pope Benedict (in context), I was asked to declare whether I believed all religions were the same. I understand why a person who has some reserves about DH might ask that question. I answered no, but I also asked whether this person believed Pope Benedict thinks all religious are the same. I received no answer. So there it is. What is one to do?
But why would this problem lead a non-schismatic traditionalist to edge toward real schism? Why would one want to escape Pope Benedict because he felt rebuked by someone who thought that questioning the continuity of the new liturgy was not legitimate? I really do understand the problem. But it simply is not a one-sided problem.
It is, as I said, a sword that cuts both ways. There are those who treat people attached to the EF like lepers because they truly do have contempt for the Tradition of the Church. But there are also those who do not want to be around the culture of the EF because they do not like the attitude of many traditionalists toward the Council, the new Mass, and toward Catholics who are not attached to the EF. I know what I am talking about, I assure you. I know also that the opposite is true. No question. There are a good many unbearable people (perhaps I am one of them; I don’t know) who bring disrepute on their dearly held beliefs.
A further complication is that it is an oversimplification to distinguish non-schismatic traditionalists from schismatic traditionalists, just as it is to distinguish non-modernist supporters of the Council from modernist ones. The spectrum enjoys many tones of belief and not everyone in the proper place is frank about where they really stand. I suggest we start at home and clean house. When I am at home I don’t preach about the vices of other congregations. I preach about the vices of my congregation. I would hope for the same charity. Until this happens relentlessly across the spectrum, we have a problem I am afraid that will not get any better. In my view, the argument about which liturgical form we use is secondary to this.
One thing I hope we agree on is that neither the Council, nor the liturgical mandate of the Council was a rupture or Revolution. If so, we can together repudiate both the Revolution and the Counter-Revolution and all the half-lights that go along with the creepy-crawly spirits of the Council and the Motu Proprio. When opinions are flying around as they are today (including mine), it is hard to know who can be trusted. But Peter can be trusted. Even if no one else, he can.