As the tentative and notably uncelebratory observations of the 60th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council wafted around the internet the other day, I was struck again by the phenomenon of commenters of a certain age (around my age and from my milieu, so I recognize their sort) keeping a desperate grip on the fantasy that the Mass of Paul VI, the Novus Ordo, can never be left behind -- that it is a permanent fixture.
They think this even though the Novus Ordo itself was imposed with cataclysmic sudddenness, which certainly implies that it could as readily be changed back. Despite the obvious reality that the whole Roman Catholic world worshiped according to the 1962 Missal when it was promulgated, they insist that today's (virtually) universal practice of worship in the new form is decisive to its permanence, and they call it a fantasy to think otherwise. But theirs is the fantasy!
Permit me to wonder if their commitment to this dream-that-is-a-nightmare perhaps arises from their investment, academic or otherwise professionally, in the workings of the modern church -- even in their opposition to its worst manifestations. Some of them work for bishops. Some work at universities in which their positions depend on the status quo. Some depend on publishing houses that arose to offer a much-needed conservative voice in a time of turmoil but have not responded to unfolding events, culminating in Traditionis Custodes, appropriately.
Whatever the provenance of their loyalty, it is a kind of tribe, going by different and formerly respectable names (such as "the Reform of the Reform"), in which their prestige finds a home. But of course, Christianity cares nothing for prestige. To follow Christ means to follow the Truth. Perhaps they are and were wrong; perhaps they did their best at the time and now information that changes one's position, or ought to, has been revealed. But they are having difficulty admitting it.
They reserve to themselves the right to criticize the state of things. They often lament the situation in the church, a situation so dire that most of it is hidden even now. But they also hold in contempt those who, with ample evidence regarding the machinations of the past 60 years, seek to restore Tradition and rescue our precious Church from the continual process of liturgical and doctrinal destabilization. That is, they are angry at those who are not content just to deplore but seek a remedy. These traditionalist critics by necessity attack the fantasy of the permanence of this regime of change, and for that they are dismissed as fools.
The Novus Ordo defenders, who as far as I can tell have found rare bunkers (call them bubbles if you prefer a less besieged metaphor) where they are somewhat insulated from irreverence, can't face the internal contradiction of their position. Nor do they demonstrate much pity for those not able to find the same sort of refuge.
This state of denial makes them testy and causes them to reject factual arguments with contempt and ad hominem attacks, or to cheer on those who do so even if they themselves refrain, which speaks to some private conversation amongst themselves (to which I too have been privy, back in my Reform of the Reform days) that is even more extreme.
This attitude is dishonorable. They should either go all in on all the sequelae of the imposition of the Novus Ordo, along with accepting the virtually universal episcopal acquiescence of the decline, or they should face the conclusions of the evidence before their eyes and change their minds. They should not play both ends against the middle and cling to the juvenile pleasure of complaining without being willing to change.
Honor requires following logic to its conclusion, regardless of how that leaves one in worldly terms.
You can read more about why I say all this here, about Asking the Right Question:
"The liturgical situation, made so (uncharacteristically) clear by Pope Francis, leaves us then with no choice. We simply cannot accept a liturgy that has within itself the mechanism to become ever more banal and worldly, and the custodians of which demonstrate that they consider it to be in rupture with the past."
I’ve been thinking lately as well about different versions of the Bible. Different object, still essential to Christianity, similar logic. This happens in all Christian denominations. A generation is about 25 years, that’s the time it takes for people to grow up and mature, if we ever do🤔(?). In the time since the council a host of new translations have appeared, each claiming to be more relevant to the present era and more faithful to the Greek New Testament. Better for modern man than Douay or King James and their predecessors. Remember the vaunted Good News for Modern Man, CEV (Contemporary English Version) or J. B. Phillips Bibles? To go back a little further remember the Goodspeed or Weymouth Bibles. How many of those have you read lately? They will always have their adherents, yet their popularity wanes and generally disappears. The Great Bible predates DR and KJV, yet survives in the psalms of the Book of Common Prayer. Douay-Rheims and King James will be around long after all those better, newer, modern, “more relevant” versions have disappeared into the mists of memory. They will survive, answering why is a complex yet simple solution, they appeal to the goodness of the soul. The old Mass will survive for the same reason.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it is lazy of me to think this, but I have come to a point where I've recognized that nothing we will do will ever be worthy enough for God - we want to bring Him our best, of course, but that is the best we can do, and all this debate on the liturgy is above what I can handle in my current state of life. I remember reading a post on 1P5 within the last few years, from someone who usually attends the TLM, talking about how they attended Triduum with the 1955 missal, and how much better *that* was than the 1962 missal - what will ever be considered good enough? How can I know? To this mother of many littles trying to keep some semblance of order in the pews, I'm not sure if I can muster the energy to split hairs on liturgical preferences. (although we are blessed with lovely, reverent NO Masses in our area, which I'm sure contributes to my willingness to surrender for the time on this point)
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I will never stop trying to figure out why TC promotes the NO as unifying us in the Mass when the NO promotes so many options and preferences, and the TLM...doesn't. Wouldn't that be more unifying?
I certainly agree with the thought that we can't do more than we can do. We really are at the mercy of the bishops, and we have to find the best place, considering, and then buckle down to worship, as you say.
DeleteThis has been my attitude as well, although since I can write about it in my own little way, I do.
You hit on a good point with your final comment. And that point goes to the issue of "preference" and even what you say above, about the previous missal being better than the subsequent (TLM) one. It all sounds like such inside ball, a matter indeed of splitting hairs, but once you sort it out you realize that it's about a decade-long tinkering project that resulted in the establishment of something that is just always up for grabs -- and that reduces everything to "preference"...
But yes, what can we do?
I guess my point here is that if the influential commentators I'm speaking of dug down and took hold of their integrity instead of hypocritically criticizing everyone (trads and NO abuses both), the bishops might begin to feel the pinch.
It's a question of solidarity -- solidarity of the pundits with the mom of many, wrangling her littles in the pew, and knowing that the current situation is not likely to favor them remaining Catholic. Which is not acceptable.
Were you not in this tribe just a short while ago? Don't give up on these people, they need the same kind of coaxing you did.
ReplyDeleteI say that in the post.
DeleteBut I was brought up short by realizing what it is I'm saying here -- that I didn't want to commit to the possibility that the NO needs to be scrapped. (I'm NOT saying it's not valid.)
I'm sorry to say it, but it does seem that George Weigel is in this crowd. We have been so indebted to him for many first-rate contributions to serious conversation on postconciliar Catholic life, too. It is inexplicable that he cannot see that the "hermeneutic of continuity" only works if there is a JPII or BXVI at the helm, and if the project of Summorum Pontificum had been allowed to continue. Truly, this was a conclusion I also resisted for years and years. But we cannot deny now that the whole liturgical "reform" was in fact not only a rupture, but a downright rejection -- not only of Catholic worship and piety, but also of the theology that undergirded it. May Weigel have the grace to see it, too. As it is, he becomes increasingly embarrassing to read on this topic, sort of like a believer in phrenology discussing clinical depression.
ReplyDelete