Todd, of Catholic Sensibility, ventures into deep waters with this post on Traditionalists. I started responding to his last post in the teeny-tiny 1K comment box, but I found I had way too much to say. Thus, I brought the discussion here.
Todd has succeeded in shocking me with this comment, "St Joan's is not yet in schism, unlike many communities that pray the 1962 Missal". This statement reveals a clear bias in favor of novelty over stability. It is amazing how, though he claims to "take exception to an extremist approach to liturgy", he gives tacit approval to one, while vilifying the other.
Some readers may not know that there is a fine line between SSPX and FSSP. The former is in schism and the latter is not. Lumping them together and thus blurring the distinction does a disservice to readers who may not be familiar with the nuances of the relationship between them. Further, it simultaneously disparages an entire group of the faithful, in full communion with Rome, and arguably among the most devout Catholics around.
Todd doesn't realize that praying the 1962 Missal is not a cause of schism. The Pope certainly would not have endorsed it in Ecclesia Dei if it were. Read the Holy Father's words: "respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962". But Todd, of course, thinks this is irrelevant, and that he is free to brand such people as extremists.
Yes, there are some who refused to adopt the Novus Ordo after the Council. But today, the vast majority of traditional Catholics have little or no recollection of the pre-Conciliar Mass. Their decision to look back to 1962 is not due to some romantic ideal of days gone by, but rather as a reaction to runaway progressives who abhor stability. Those liturgists who keep on progressing, with no definitive goal in mind, end up being subsumed in the dominant culture rather than transforming it.
It is true that extremism can lead to schism, yet Todd says that St. Joan's is not in schism. But I wonder if he would consider Spiritus Christi to be in schism? To me, it seems the only difference between them is that the latter has tossed all caution to the wind and revealed their true intentions.
Todd says, "There is no question that Catholic liturgy has a long way to go to achieve the ideals of Vatican II and the Liturgical Movement. But the answer is not to balkanize the Church and succumb to the modern secular notion of 'a choice for everyone'." And I agree with him, but that applies at both ends of the liturgical spectrum. It seems to me that, while he would deny the rightful aspirations of the traditionalists, he has nothing but praise for even radical progressives, where just about anything goes.
Todd's appreciation, for what was recommended by the Council Fathers to be changed in the Liturgy, is right on the money. It's unfortunate that he becomes tone deaf whenever the discussion arises as to what was supposed to remain the same. I know, Todd says that there was no pre-Conciliar chant in American Churches. Well, I was not around, so I can't verify that statement. Regardless, the Counciliar document on the Liturgy, backed up by post-Conciliar instructions, are clear that chant is to be a staple in all Roman Rite parishes. Once the foundation is in place, we can talk about what other ornamentation is permissible. But let's get first things first.
"Some readers may not know that there is a fine line between SSPX and FSSP. "
I would have a minor quibble with this statement -- there is a BROAD line of demarcation, Paul.
To be wary of faithful devotees of the 1962 missal because schismatics also use it is ludicrous. One might as well have argued 40 years ago (as I'm sure many did,) that because many not in communion with the Pope of Rome used English language hymns, Catholics should not use them; because satanists use free-standing altar tables Catholics should not use them. Anyone else’s usurpation of a form legitimately used by Catholics is immaterial.
(I should add, my knowledge of satanic practice is not empirical, but derived from bad old black and white horror films. No insult to actual satanists, living or dead, is intended, nor is any genuine belief on my part that they engage in human sacrifice implied, and I recognize their right to freedom of religion in a pluralistic society.)
There has been a movement to keep Catholics from attending traditional Latin Masses. This movement has simply failed. Many people, particularly those who make a living from the Church don't like the fact that it has failed, but honestly, that does not matter. More and more traditional Masses will be offered and more and more Catholics will attend them. Perhaps we will see reforms of the Novus Ordo to make it more traditonal and devout, and that would be a good thing. I think this is already happening, and many people don't like that either. Again, that does not matter. I just posted a story about the return of the traditional Latin Mass to Detroit that is just the latest example of the failure of "progressives" (including a Fr. Shirilla) to keep tradition from Catholics.
Miss Geri, thanks for the clarification. I should have been explicit in what I meant to say, which was that, from outward appearances, they are virtually indistinguishable. This is why those who don't know them tend to lump them together.
I was in a FSSP community for several years, and I saw the distinction from the inside, through my relationship with friends who made the leap back into the arms of Rome. The fact that I am not there now has nothing to do with doctrine, nor with the Mass itself, but an altogether unrelated matter.
Peace, all.
I hardly think the criticism of the 1962 Missal is "extremism." First, that Missal was deemed in need of revision by a near unanimity of the world's Catholic bishops in 1963. Second, while I understand some people can have important (and valid) issues with how the Mass was revised (I'm not without such feelings myself) I don't think the solution is to "Go your own way," as St Joan's or the schismatics do. Third, there is always the option for Catholics to pray the 1970 Missal in Latin. Without indult. Without permission from anyone. Granted, I know that few enough clergy are willing to learn to preside in Latin, but I place the blame squarely on priests who have opted for the 1962 Rite over the 1970. They should certainly make the 1970 Missal a priority. By ignoring it, they exacerbate the divisions within Catholicism.
"Some readers may not know that there is a fine line between SSPX and FSSP."
I know the distinction, and the line is rather thicker than "fine," but that perception does not hold for most pedestrian Catholics.
"Further, it simultaneously disparages an entire group of the faithful ..."
I do not disparage the group, merely the practice of ignoring Sacrosanctum Concilium. If someone wants to ignore it and go into schism, then with sadness, I let go of the issue.
"Todd doesn't realize that praying the 1962 Missal is not a cause of schism."
I do realize it. But to the ordinary observer, the liturgy was made a rallying point for anti-Council Catholics. The distinction of ordaining bishops without authorization is somewhat lost on most people, who probably think the pope does all that work anyway.
"The Pope certainly would not have endorsed it in Ecclesia Dei if it were."
The pope was probably trying to forestall schism with the LeFebvrites. I can appreciate the effort, even if I disagree with the method, which by the way, didn't accomplish its goal. It was an error.
"Read the Holy Father's words: "respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition ..."
This hardly implies that the 1970 Missal lacks in tradition. Pray the 1970 Missal in Latin. Add the extra prayers the way other parishes add material for Catechetical Sunday or Vocations Awareness Sunday. Feelings do need to be respected. But a degree of liturgical unity (not unifromity!) is more important that emotions. Progressives are often criticized for touchy-feeliness. Who determines when feelings are proper and when they are to be villified? Progressives whine about a CDWS backtracking crackdown. Do you see the similarity?
"Their decision to look back to 1962 is not due to some romantic ideal of days gone by, but rather as a reaction to runaway progressives who abhor stability."
For some, perhaps. But it can also be a political decision divorced from the spiritual notions of sacrifice, unity, loyalty, and respect for true reform.
"Those liturgists who keep on progressing, with no definitive goal in mind, end up being subsumed in the dominant culture rather than transforming it."
I don't know how to react to this. I have definitive goals in my parish. My liturgy committee works on them each year. We assess priorities and work on matters in which we think we can achieve progress. Some recent tasks include fine-tuning liturgical procedures for servers and Eucharistic ministers (alignment with IGRM, don't you know), addressing parishioner concerns about homily input and starting reflection meetings with our clergy, instituting a music ministry committee to expand parishioner (choir members and pew people) input on repertoire. I also have personal goals I set to be accountable to my pastor, my staff colleagues, and my parishioners. While I understand you're upset at this topic, your suggestion here is really unfounded.
"But I wonder if he would consider Spiritus Christi to be in schism?"
Of course I would. Their female clergy have been ordained by an Old Catholic bishop. Additionally, my objection (a personal one) would be that they have not been faithful in the full implementation of Vatican II liturgical reforms. I was a parishioner there until 1988. While my employment as a liturgist was likely going to take me away from Rochester that summer, it was not likely I would have remained much longer in the parish anyway. The staff at the time railroaded affairs and hounded the liturgy committee to the point that all of us had resigned in disgust after Triduum that year. We lost a long-time choir director, a representative on the diocesan liturgy commission, a future priest, and a number of other loyal volunteers, good people all, and no liturgical weak link in the bunch. I was critical of their/our liturgy long before schism, and I remain critical of their approach as well as that of St Joan's.
"It seems to me that, while he would deny the rightful aspirations of the traditionalists, he has nothing but praise for even radical progressives, where just about anything goes."
See my last two comments. You need to prove such assertions, my friend, despite how conveniently you can make them or how good it might feel to demonize your debate adversary.
Todd, please see responses to your comments.
"I hardly think the criticism of the 1962 Missal is 'extremism.'"
I did not intend to say that was the case. I used the word "extremism" in the context that you did in a previous comment on your blog, "I do take exception to an extremist approach to liturgy." I was trying to draw out of you whether you believed there is an extreme left as well as an extreme right.
"...there is always the option for Catholics to pray the 1970 Missal in Latin."
I agree. Rather than pushing for restoration of the 1962 Missal, you should interpret my efforts, in general, as pushing for an unadulterated use of the 1970 Missal (Latin or vernacular), with an appropriate implementation of Latin or vernacular chant as its musical foundation.
"It was an error."
You are certainly entitled to hold that opinion. Although, we cannot discount that there may be spiritually more at work here than meets the eye.
"Do you see the similarity?"
Yes, that is a good point.
"While I understand you're upset at this topic, your suggestion here is really unfounded."
It's not that I am against co-ordination among the differing roles involved in carrying out the Liturgy. The problem, as I have stated before, is the impression that the Liturgy is somehow the possession of the people, where *we* decide to put on Liturgy that is meaningful for *us*, while ignoring larger instructions at will, such as the minimum chant repertoire, to which I referred in my post as the "staple" of Roman Liturgical music, and which is consonant with the expressed instruction of the SCDW.
So, it's not what you are discussing in your liturgical planning sessions that is the problem, it's what is not being discussed that I take issue with. And it's not whether or not you have goals. I assumed you would, because you are diligent at what you do. But whether those goals are in line only with the desires of your pastor, yourself and the parish (and maybe even your bishop), or whether you are, of course with pastorally sensitive methods, moving toward the universally-mandated ideal of chant (whether Latin or vernacular) as a foundation for liturgical music. I continue to maintain that, for all the smoke that keeps getting in the way, this is the central issue of our discussion.
"I was a parishioner there until 1988."
I'm sorry you had to experience what you did, and I'm happy to see you have strong reservations about St. Joan's as well. That did not come across in your previous comments.
"You need to prove such assertions..."
Obviously, I have nothing, other than the comments you have already made, to form my understanding of where you stand. I concede there may have been a bit of quantization involved in coming to the conclusion I did, but I still feel justified in doing it, based on your comments to that point in time. As you were making your point about left and right extremism, I tried to draw out of you whether or not you were equally upset with both ends of the spectrum. Your reply was, regarding traditionals, to lump them in with LeFebvrites, which I believe was misleading and unjustified. At the other end of the spectrum, the most you could muster was that they are "not yet in schism". I read that as giving their actions a tacit approval, since they are somehow still within the bounds of not being formally expelled.
Your later comments have clarified your position, but your initial reply was far from balanced. That was why my impression of your beliefs was formed as it was.
"it's not whether or not you have goals. I assumed you would, because you are diligent at what you do. But whether those goals are in line only with the desires of your pastor, yourself and the parish (and maybe even your bishop), or whether you are, of course with pastorally sensitive methods, moving toward the universally-mandated ideal of chant (whether Latin or vernacular) as a foundation for liturgical music."
It seems that if a parish did not already use chant prior to 1962 (or did not exist prior to 1962,) they are excused from even trying.
They wouldn't like it, so the liturgist or music director need not make the attempt to get them to mature liturgically.
Is it the same as with, say, celebrating other sacraments in the context of Sunday liturgy? Since people complain about the extra time it takes to do baptisms during Mass, should we bother? I mean, yeah, it's normative, but really, it ain't necessary, is it? Same with proper liturgical music. If that "dreary old stuff" (quote from my parish liturgist,) bothers people, why would we annoy them with it?
Was it Chesterton who said something about not that it was tried and found wanting, but that it was found difficult and not tried?
By the way, Mr Rex, love your blog.
Good meaty discussions.
My comments regarding Todd and his "Liturgical Extremism" may be found at my web journal here.