Saturday, March 12, 2016
CATHOLIC FUNDAMENTALISM APPLIED NOT ONLY TO THE SPIRIT OF VATICAN II BUT THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN
As we all know, progressives think fundamentalism is bad, very bad! Of course they mean it when it comes to traditionalists who are faithful to the Magisterium and decry how the documents of Vatican II have been implemented. Traditionalism for them is fundamentalism and it is nasty, very nasty!
However, the true fundamentalists in the Church today are progressives who have deified not only the documents of Vatican II (all of them, even the pastoral ones) but also its spirit.
They view the documents as a rupture with the pre-Vatican II Church. Of course in the 1960's and 70's anyone who didn't like this rupture and they weren't just traditionalists mind you, was considered a heretic by the fundamentalist left in the Church who placed more value on the documents of Vatican II and its spirit than on Jesus Christ, the Bible and Tradition.
The symbol of fundamentalism as it concerns the reading of Vatican II centers on the manner in which the Mass is celebrated.
Over and over again, we are told by progressive fundamentalist that Vatican II was a rupture from the past in how the Mass is understood.
This is their mantra expressed very well by the Vatican II fundamentalist, Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB:
There is both continuity and rupture between Vatican II and everything that went before. The most important rupture is the way that it implicitly but clearly retrieves a communal liturgy (entire congregation as actors) and rejects “clerical sacred drama which inspires lay people” such as began in the Carolingian era and was in place in 1962. Preconciliar papal documents are moving in the direction that would end up being Vatican II, but they weren’t there yet. They were still trying to make the Tridentine liturgy work a bit better.
The rupture of Vatican II is that they bit the bullet, admitted what the problem was, and went to the radical solution: retrieve the earlier part of the tradition and jettison or move beyond everything in between that is in the way. This still leaves room for continuity (there’s still bread and wine and priest and congregation and [Liturgy of the Word] with Gospel reading etc.etc.). But if you push the continuity ideology and fight against the rupture that really happened, you’ll never get Vatican II right.
My comments: The ideology of Fr. Anthony is breathtaking and manipulative as were the liturgical theologians of the 1950's through the 80's who are now responsible for the miserable state of how the liturgy in the reformed tradition is celebrated today, ie. think southern California.
A communal liturgy is not the antithesis of the 1962 Missal and its predecessors. It is implied in the Missal itself although in practice may have been lacking in some places in the world. There is no reason for the congregation not to be able to participate in the spoken and sung responses of a 1962 Roman Missal Mass. And there is no reason to force the congregation to respond as long as the principles of active participation are present, which means understanding and sharing in the offering of the one Sacrifice.
It was not Vatican II that "admitted what the problem was, and went to the radical solution" because Sacrosanctum Concilium is a very conservative albeit reforming document. It called for minor changes to the 1962 Missal. The greatest error though were the terms such as "noble simplicity", "useless repetition" and "some vernacular but maintain the Latin."
It was Pope Paul VI's committee on the reform of the Mass and other liturgies, "Consilium" that "admitted what the problem was, and went to the radical solution:"
Noble simplicity was interpreted in a fundamentalist sort of way by going backwards to the early Church's liturgy, prior to a complete understanding of it that had developed organically over the course of centuries and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and Tradition) and stripped it down to the basics. It would be like a Scripture Scholar saying that the Gospel of John, the last of the four Gospels to be written, has too much complicated theology and accretions, so dump it and just keep the Gospel of Mark! This ideology applied to the Mass is hogwash!
I would suggest that what Sacrosanctum Concilium was referring to in terms of "noble simplicity" was the Pontifical Solemn Sung Mass of bishops and perhaps to the Solemn Sung Mass in general, but certainly not to a parish High Mass or Low Mass! The fussiness and complexity of a Pontifical Mass in the Extraordinary Form could be a turn off to many people who are traditionalists when it comes to the Liturgy.
Useless Repetition was interpreted as eliminating the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar with its double confiteors, shortening the Kyrie from three to two tropes, eliminating the double communion rite for priest and then laity and eliminating the three fold "Lord I am not worthy..." as well as eliminating the Last Gospel.
But then more useless repetition was added with the refrains sung over and over again for the Responsorial Psalm and Communion Antiphon. The Agnus Dei in some places added additional tropes to "cover the action" of the Breaking of the Bread into additional plates and Pouring of the Precious Blood into additional chalices.
Some vernacular but maintain the Latin was completely twisted to mean having an all vernacular Mass or all all Latin Mass in the Ordinary Form. Within five years, Latin in practice was completely eliminated from most parish Masses and the Ordinary Form Missal allows this in practice although Latin in maintained in an all Latin Ordinary Form Missal and a hybrid of vernacular and Latin is allowed but most parishes don't know a lick of Latin today thanks to progressive fundamentalist liturgists.
I would say that Latin is the culprit in preventing a goodly number of people from being completely engaged in the Liturgy. One could still have the 1962 Missal completely as it is but allow for the vernacular and in an all vernacular 1962 Missal, there would be the same amount of participation if not more by the congregation as in an OF vernacular Mass.
I still contend that the Roman Missal that is the Ordinariate's Divine Worship, the Missal is what Vatican II envisioned for the Liturgy, not what the normal Latin Rite has, which is what Pope Paul VI's ideological, fundamentalist committee Consilium desired for the Mass.
The only fault I find with the Ordinariate's Missal (apart from the Anglican Use elements that could easily be eliminated for general Ordinary Form use) is that there isn't an official mandate for the use of Latin in any part of the Mass.
I would suggest that the Gloria, Kyrie, Sanctus, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei be mandated to be sung or spoken in Latin and everything else in the vernacular as an option, which means Latin for everything else could still be chosen. Then one would have a non fundamentalist Roman Missal desired by Vatican II!