A reply to Shawn McElhinney:
“Authentic Traditionalism is not found in externals Jeff. It is akin to an authentic observation of the Law which Our Lord commanded and which those who were obsessed with external rituals (i.e. Pharisees) did not react to well.”
Catholicism requires externals, Shawn. Lex orandi, lex credendi. But I don’t recall anyone here advocating a restoration in externals alone. Indeed, the compromised externals we are living with today signify a catastrophic decline of belief.
“This is not to say that those attending the Latin mass are Pharisees of course; however, the attachment to externals to the extent many of them have is not spiritually healthy.”
Shawn, you’ve got to get out of the habit of arguing with some un-named SSPXer in your past when you’re talking to me. I know scores of traditionalists, and I can’t think of one who has an “unhealthy attachment to externals” at the expense of spirituality or the life of grace.
Our liturgy is like the clothes we put on. If I dress like a slob, chances are I think like a slob and otherwise act like a slob. True, one can be fooled by externals — but in general the exterior signifies the health of the interior.
“The Church has finally returned to a more traditional practice of varying liturgical usages by dioceses -with control of the macro format in the IGMR.”
I think we should try to stay focused here. Varying liturgical usages are not the issue. If the Church, in her pastoral wisdom, permits a diversity of ancient rites in various lands that’s fine with me. But there is nothing traditional about varying liturgical usages when one of them is seriously compromised. And of the 29 rites (or thereabouts) in the Catholic Church, only one is thus compromised.
“The problems experienced to some extent include (i) the breakdown in traditional understanding of obedience to ecclesiastical authority -and this is just as much the self-styled “traditionalists” as it is anyone else who ignores the Vatican’s directives and (ii) the bishops having to find their feet again as regulators of the liturgy in their dioceses.”
I disagree. The problems of the Novus Ordo stem from a crisis of faith, plain and simple. The liturgy was diluted because the Faith was thought to be too rigorous and exacting. The repetitions and the kneeling and the gestures were reduced because they were deemed too ascetic. The reformers wanted a religion with less to believe and less to do.
“There is also the authentic understanding of local customs being introduced which is something the Church for four centuries unwisely wanted nothing to do with but is nonetheless a very traditional understanding of unity in plurality liturgical expression.”
History seems to tell a different story. The Church converted nations — even continents — when she had a comparitively uniform and inflexible liturgy. Mission-field results today, with all the supposed benefits of “inculturation”, are meager by comparison. Indeed, today we find the largest and most vigorous traditionalist groups in the Third World – a witness to the universal appeal of the Tridentine Rite. In retrospect one would have to say that Catholic Church’s previous liturgical inflexibility was very wise indeed.
“I know many people who in reality are functionally ashamed to be Catholic and they manifest this in refusing obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and to the diocesan bishop in communion with him.”
When your diocesan bishop is himself ashamed to be Catholic, what’s a Catholic to do? Shut up and get to work on that rainbow banner for the inclusiveness workshop? I can imagine that explaining the antics of Fr. Feelgood to one’s children gets old after a few years. I’m not defending schism, but a little sympathy is in order here.
“They live their lives in a separation from the universal church in a land of make believe.”
I don’t judge them so harshly. Their degree of “separation” is not something Rome has been very clear about. In the case of some, it may be the only means available of living a recognizably Catholic life.
“Reality though is that the Church has been going through a rough period and this is not aided by Donatist-like flights of fantasy into isolation.”
Well, the memory of what authentic Catholicism used to look like needs to be preserved somewhere.
“We are called to be salt and light and to put that light on the lampstand (cf. Matt. v,14-16). Unfortunately that is what a lot of even the Indult goers do -they functionally put that light under the bushel basket.”
It is important to recognize the severity of the present crisis. If you’re going to put your light on a lampstand, you need to make sure you have a light to begin with and that your flame is not extinguished by the surrounding environment. You need priests who preach the hard truths. You need confessors who take holiness seriously. You need a liturgy that is worthy of the God you adore. You need a community of like-minded Catholics to exert a little peer-pressure when necessary. You need all the graces of the Church’s sacraments and sacramentals. In short, your “light” depends upon more than just your own personal good intentions. The indult-goers understand this and are in the process of giving themselves and their children the formation they never had. In the meantime, they’re not hiding themselves — but they are sometimes purposely hidden by diocesan functionaries.
Jeff: “Expect the liberals and the modernists and the innovators to go on liberalizing and modernizing and innovating with impunity.”
Shawn: “If they do, it is more crosses to bear. Compared to the agony of Him who sweat blood in Gethsemanie and died on the cross, the occasional sappy hymn and the like are pretty minor irritants.”
They are destroyers of souls, not “minor irritants”.
Jeff: “Meanwhile, find a refuge from the madness and prepare yourselves and your children for the coming restoration.”
Shawn: “This is mythology Jeff. The most that can happen is that the Indult will be expanded to every dioceses in the world eventually – and of course this is something we all should pray for.”
“The most that can happen”? Says who? If Rome could virtually abolish the formidable Tridentine Rite overnight, it can do the same with a liturgy that is absurdly unstable and barely established. We’ve seen bigger surprises in the last forty years. Still, I do appreciate your prayers for the universal indult. We’re beggars and we’ll gladly take whatever bones are thrown our way.
“The kind of restoration you speak of would be tantamount to denying once again the truth that the Tridentine ‘restoration’ was far from the restoration to ‘the pristine norm of the holy Fathers’ that Pius V claimed it was.”
I don’t think that’s the issue at all. The Tridentine will be gradually restored in the West because it better represents the immutable Catholic Faith. Furthermore, the Novus Ordo Missae is still on trial. It isn’t working. It is in a state of perpetual “reform”. The continual tweaking and fidgeting has Catholics disoriented and confused. At some point, Rome will finally say “enough is enough”.
“The Revised Missal is a much more authentic restoration to this laudable goal but of course is not without its problems as well.”
That is a debate for liturgical scholars, not for me. In any case I think the move to “restore” liturgy to some pristine form of early church worship is misguided at best. More often it is a cover for mischief. The Faith has developed and the liturgy has organically developed with it over the centuries. The Tridentine Rite is the crown jewel of this authentic liturgical development. (You do believe in development, don’t you?) Yet what we see in the new rite is not liturgical development, but undevelopment. It is a retreat from the orthodox clarity of the Tridentine.
Of course, you and I have been at this for some time and pretty much know each other’s respective positions. And if I know Shawn McElhinney, you will reply with a massive treatise that would take me a half-a-lifetime to refute. I do appreciate and welcome your comments here. Thank you, and God keep you.
Leave a reply to Notes On Restoration