The extraordinary nature of the current crisis in the Church is revealed, in the present case, by the fact that a community whose essential characteristic is the desire to be faithful to the Pope — and the Society of St. Pius X regards itself as such — faces a tragic choice: either obey the Pope, and thereby be forced to accept uncertain and unclear aspects of doctrine and liturgy, or disobey the Pope in a matter of grave importance, such as the consecration of bishops, with the sole intention of preserving the means to pass on the faith and the liturgy in their full integrity — as a service to souls, and thus to the entire Church, including the papacy itself.
In this, he is talking specifically about members of the Society. People have pointed out that when considering Traditional Catholicism as a whole, the parameters are different.... at least, in the prioritization of full communion with Church and Pope along with the liturgical and doctrinal concerns:
The dispute is not that the SSPX prefers the traditional Latin Mass, because many other groups in full communion with Rome celebrate it as well....but that the fraternity rejects the post-conciliar liturgical reform in ways the Vatican says call into question its acceptance of the Church’s authority.
This post, by a Traditional Catholic, is from 2012 -- he makes roughly the same point, which indeed is logically hard to dispute, though Traditionis Custodes changed the parameters to some extent (and incidentally re-legitimized the SSPX, though this was probably not the intention of the motu proprio):
This question is actually ground zero of where Traditionalism stands today - and I emphasize today, because though things may have been different before 1984 (Quattuor abhinc annos), or 1988, today the SSPX cannot in any way claim to be the sole custodians of the 1962 Missal. There are numerous societies and fraternities in existence who use the 1962 Missal and are in good standing with Rome; the FSSP are the most well-known, .... the Christi Pauperum Militum Ordo (Order of the Poor Knights of Christ), the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, and other such groups. Beside these, since Summorum Pontificum, use of the Traditional Latin Mass has been exploding all over the western world. ...Many more parishes are beginning to offer the Extraordinary Form.
Most notably, though, the letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes linked doctrinal and liturgical issues even in Ecclesia Dei Catholics, the ones that were inside the fold of the Church.
A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.”
In other words, after the motu proprio, those who loved the old liturgy were (so I read it) almost by definition suspect in their doctrine and fidelity. He did say "many", not "all", and some permissions continue -- the ones that preceded Summorum Pontificum, basically -- but the presumption of innocence shifted.
Where am I going with this? I actually think Traditionalism IS about the liturgy, in the broader definition of the word, where it includes ancillary practices and intentions. Liturgy is etymologically work of the people. There are some distinctions to be made here, and this article makes them..... basically, that in the Church the many are gathered into the One, and it is the One through whom the liturgy is offered and through whom it is mediated.
But I'm focusing on the place where myself -- all the selves of the "many" -- intersect with this liturgy. ANd this involves not only the mass itself but our whole lives and everything we do and think.
The postconciliar Church wants to focus on the primacy of Christ and the Mass as the source and summit of faith. But in fact, this was not a post-conciliar revelation. It's possible that some kids grew up before the Council not hearing much about Christ or the Mass. It's possible, but I have looked through a lot of older books and I think you would have to TL:DR almost every catechical or devotional resource in order to come away with the impression that the Church didn't pay much attention to Our Savior or to our Sacraments.
On the other hand, I've read lots of post-conciliar books and materials, and the more they emphasize Christ and the Mass, the more traditional they tend to be. This goes for homilies and hymns in the Mass itself, as well.
Often, to those of a more "traditional" bent, the complaint with the modern Church is with inconsistencies between what is professed and what is practiced. These abound, and many of them strike at the very core of the laity's stake in the liturgy. This issue is real and whereas perhaps once people thought only the older folk were "attached" to the Tridentine mass, nowadays it's clear that for the most part, at least in the US, it is mostly the older folk that are sentimental about the typical folksy mass we've inherited from them. Hardly anyone else is a fan.
To me it seems clear that Benedict XVI's essential insight inspiring his motu proprio -- that the different strands of liturgy needed to come together and intertwine -- is still a thing. I think one thing that needs to be done is to regularize the new mass much more than has been done. I recognize that this is a reach goal, partly because the very principle of the reform seems to have been to make a mass that would take on the coloring of the culture around it. This is one of the inconsistencies between profession and practice I mentioned.
However, I've been to enough masses in dioceses that have a place for both TLMs and NO masses, to see encouraging signs in the NO masses. Increased reverence, better music, and so on. My guess is that traditionalism will go away when it is no longer needed, but it will be needed in its essential features so long as the Church is still struggling to digest the legacy of the Council.
No comments:
Post a Comment