Sometimes I think progressives and traditionalists pick particular arguments in order to avoid confronting the fact we actually are talking about two different Catholic Churches with two really different world views. It's much easier to write the notion that some of us are Vat II Catholics and some are Vat I or Trentan Catholics-which I have personally done-than it is too admit these are really two fundamentally different views of the Church. This recognition will become more obvious as discussion heats up around the coming changes in the Mass scheduled for this Advent. These changes are about a whole lot more than lousy English translations. They really are about the kind of redemption story the Mass itself tells.
There was a comment along these lines to the latest Eugene Kennedy NCR article that I found really interesting. Too bad it was from an anonymous commenter because it really deserves a better attribute. It focuses on the writing of Joseph Ratzinger circa 1966:
For a little bit of irony, consider the following extracts from Ratzinger’s book “Theological Highlights of Vatican II”, published in 1966. (Paulist Press Deus Books). (It’s a fascinating little text, although probably out of print.) Providing background to the 1964 Vatican II discussions on liturgy,
Ratzinger describes the liturgical reforms of the Council of Trent in the following terms (pp86–87):
“The main measure [of the Council of Trent] was to centralize all liturgical authority in the Sacred Congregation of Rites, the post-conciliar organ for the implementation of liturgical ideas of Trent. …
the fate of the liturgy in the West was now in the hands of a strictly centralized and purely bureaucratic authority.
The authority completely lacked historical perspective; it viewed the liturgy solely in terms of ceremonial rubrics, treating it as a kind of problem of proper court etiquette for sacred matters. (this is a great descriptive line.) This resulted in the complete archaizing of the liturgy, which now passed from the stage of living history, became embalmed in the status quo, and was ultimately doomed to internal decay. The liturgy became a rigid, fixed and firmly encrusted system; the more out of touch with genuine piety, the more attention was paid to prescribed forms.
We can see this if we remember that none of the saints of the Catholic Reformation drew their inspiration from the liturgy.” (Part of this also had to do with the fact that laity were only allowed to receive communion on Easter Sunday, a situation which was really difficult for lay people like St Thomas More who attended and witnessed Mass daily, but that was as far as he was allowed to go.)
[After discussing this point with respect to John of the Cross and Theresa of Avila, Ratzinger continues as follows:]
The baroque era adjusted to this situation by superimposing a kind of para-liturgy on the archaized actual liturgy.
Accompanied by the splendor of orchestral performance, the baroque high Mass became a kind of sacred opera … The entire performance seemed aimed at a kind of festive lifting of the heart., enhanced by the beauty of a celebration appealing to the eye and ear. On ordinary days, when such display was not possible, the Mass was frequently covered with devotions more attractive to the popular mentality.
Even Leo XIII recommended that the rosary be recited during Mass in the month of October. This meant that while the priest was busy with his archaized liturgy, the people were busy with their devotions to Mary. …”
This quote sent me off to find other quotes of Ratzinger's from his other writings of this time period and I stumbled across a traditionalist critique of the 'heretical' Joseph Ratzinger that pretty much sums up the difference in the intellectual approaches to the Church pre and post VII:
For example, in 1966, the progressivist Father Joseph Ratzinger rejoiced that in the Council's document
Lumen Gentium,
"the title of the text no longer referred in scholastic fashion to the 'nature of the Church,' but rather spoke of its mystery."
Here's what's happening. Before the Council, we spoke precisely of the "nature of the Church," which had a strict definition. Now, instead, we speak of the "mystery of the Church." Before the Council, we spoke of the unchangeableness of Sacred Tradition. Today, however, we talk about the "mystery of living tradition." This is a semantic tactic to introduce confusion.
The progressivists take our defined certitudes and refer to them as "mysteries." Once they do this, they can do anything they want with the terminology, and open the door to their novel theological concepts.
And what were some of those defined certitudes that were turned by novel theological concepts? Well, when it came to the Mass, which is now defined as the Pascal mystery, they were these changes:
"By affirming that Christ did not die on the Cross in order to satisfy the debt of punishment demanded by Divine justice offended by sin, the theology of the Paschal mystery openly contradicts a truth of the Catholic Faith as taught by the Council of Trent." In fact, "the infallible teaching of the Church, chiefly expressed in the text of the Council of Trent, obliges us to consider the vicarious satisfaction of Christ as one of the principal truths of our Faith." That is, Christ's sacrifice satisfies the justice of God, offended by sin. (Truthfully, I have not bought this concept in a long long time.)
"By making the sacrificial aspect of the Mass flow from the memorial dimension of the Mass, the theology of the Paschal mystery calls into question the teaching of the Council of Trent in this area. The Council of Trent's infallible teaching in this area is that "the Mass is a
vere et proprie [truly and properly] a visible sacrifice." [This teaching is defined dogma and can never be subject to change or updating in the name of a "deeper understanding."]. This makes "the emphasis placed by the theology of the Paschal mystery on the
memorial aspect of the Mass unacceptable." (This memorial aspect is referencing the idea that the Mass is a memorial meal rather than a re enactment of a blood sacrifice.)
"By relying upon a new concept of sacrament, the theology of the Paschal mystery shows itself to be very dangerous to the Catholic Faith. By favoring heterodox theses on more than one point, this theology shows itself to belong to the modernist theology condemned by Pope St. Pius X."
"The doctrine of the Paschal mystery, with its serious doctrinal deficiencies is, then, at the origin of the liturgical reform. That is why one cannot say that the reformed rite of Mass of 1969 is 'orthodox' in the etymological sense of the word: it does not offer 'right praise' to God."
(if a person buys into the sacrificial appease God in order to avoid hell kind of Church, the whole notion of mystery in relationship to the Church is heterodox.)
For me the whole problem with any idea of the 'reform of the reform' is exactly the returning to the Trentan concept that the Mass is the reenactment of a blood sacrifice of atonement, rather than an incredible gift of spiritual life in the context of a meal. There is an enormous difference between the concepts of Jesus sacrificing Himself to appease God the Father for my sins, as opposed to offering a free gift of spiritual life.
It's not just a matter of how one views the Mass. It's also a matter of what one thinks of their humanity and how they view their God. I could never quite do the mental gymnastics required to hold the two ideas of God as our Father and font of unconditional love as taught by Jesus, with the idea of God demanding the sacrifice of His own son to make ammends for human sin. That's not precisely unconditional love and not very demonstrative of loving parenting. By today's standards it's about as abusive as a parent can get.
I've frequently wondered if the masochism and lack of appreciation for the worth of humanity that was built into the Trentan Church didn't fuel a lot of the clerical abuse crisis. Couple that with the mostly gnostic attitude towards sexuality (and material reality in general) and one does have the foundational matrix for some seriously pathological behavior and a whole lot of miserable people willing to do what ever they are told to do to avoid eternal damnation.
Those days are long gone for the vast majority of educated people in the West. But I still wonder what happened to one Joseph Ratzinger that he's pretty much reverted--Caritas En Veritate being mostly an exception to the reversion. If he thinks his own reversion is something other than an isolated exception to the rule, he's mistaken. People who move beyond static certitude almost never ever revert. Catholicism has spent the last forty years enculturating it's adherents into a different view of Jesus and humanity and it's been done through it's central ritual act. People are not going to revert, but they might revolt. This is not just a matter of changing some words to better reflect a form of archaic ritualized Latin. It's about taking the mystery out and putting the certitude back. It won't work well, and of that I'm pretty certain.
