Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Liturgical hegemonism and sola fideism

For decades many Catholics who have chafed under abusive indignities and often blasphemous irreverences associated with the post-Vatican II liturgical experiments have suffered a kind of exile. Many of these were particularly attached to the traditional Catholic Mass passed down to them from previous generations, and they found the subsequent decades a nearly unimaginable trial. They were effectively deprived of the freedom to worship God according to the Catholic traditions of their forefathers as far back as anyone could remember. After enduring decades of indifference to their plight and hostility toward the old Mass by many clerics and fellow-Catholics, these exiles received with gratitude the Holy father's Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum (July 7, 2007), which effectively provides for much broader freedoms in celebrating the old Mass.

Yet not everyone is pleased. From the 'left' wing of Catholicism, traditionally known for its championing of the ideal of diversity and difference, comes Fr. Richard McBrien, who tells us that "Pope Paul VI had made it clear that Vatican II's reform of the Mass was not to establish a second parallel rite," suggesting that the Novus Ordo was intended to replace the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass. "Paul VI was convinced that the existence of two rites [the Novus Ordo and the 'Tridentine'] within the Roman Catholic Church would be divisive." (National Catholic Reporter, 8/3/07, emphasis added)

Pope Benedict has, of course, answered these sorts of predictable objections, which he clearly anticipated in his Motu Proprio and accompanying letter. The fear that the expanded use of the old Mass "would lead to disarray or even divisions," Pope Benedict says, "strikes me as unfounded." Furthermore, he responds also to the claim that the Novus Ordo was intended to replace the old Mass by stating emphatically that Pope John XXIII's 1962 Missal "was never juridically abrogated." (emphasis added)

From the 'right' wing of Catholicism, on the other hand, traditionally known for its enthusiastic support of Church teaching, comes George A. Kendall, suggesting that love of the old Mass is a form of idolatry. He writes: "This deprivation [the suppression of the old Mass] is, it seems, a means by which God can work with us to bring us to greater spiritual maturity [via the Novus Ordo and its contemporary incarnations], forcing us to live by faith alone without the comfort of beautiful liturgy." ("The Old Mass and the Purgative Way," The Wanderer, 7/19/07; emphasis added)

This sort of objection to the wider restoration of the old Mass, of course, is amply dispelled by Pope Benedict's repeated emphasis on the importance of beauty and holiness in the liturgy. "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," he states, "but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form [the old Mass], felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them." Further, he expresses the hope that "The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. 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."

McBrien's desire to see the old Mass replaced by the new is not only at odds with the declared intentions of the Holy Father. It is a species of hegemonism ironically at odds with the left's traditional celebration of diversity and difference within the Church. Kendall's opposition to the old Mass as a form of idolatry and his suggestion that the deprivation of the beautiful and reverent old Mass is "purgative" -- fostering of a "spiritual maturity" born of "living by faith alone without the comfort of beautiful things" -- is not only at odds with the views of the Holy Father. Like non-liturgical forms of Protestantism, it is a species of sola fideism ironically at odds with the incarnational sacramentalism of Catholic liturgical tradition, suggesting that outward forms are adiaphora -- things that don't matter -- or even that faith is best fostered in an environment devoid of sacramental beauty, dignity and reverence.

[Tip of the hat to Dale Vree, editor of New Oxford Review. Both the statements by Fr. Richard McBrien and those by George A. Kendall are quoted in Dale Vree's editorials in "New Oxford Notes," New Oxford Review (October 2007), pp. 14-15).]

No comments: