Dipping into the substack well of fodder again, someone recently posted a lengthy meta-critique of the Liturgy Wars. Overall, it represented a call for civility. I commented on the article something to the extent that we ought not be having liturgy wars at all, and that we owe a duty of obedience to the Church, a fact which has become something of a hobbyhorse of mine.
The commenter replied to me suggesting there are three ancillary questions to the liturgy wars which are pertinent:
There should be no need for discussion as to the validity of either form of the mass in the Roman Rite. But, there are many other related discussions that do need to occur. Among these: 1.) The nature of Sacred Tradition, 2.) The value of aesthetics within the liturgy, 3.) The exact nature of Papal Authority as regards the liturgy, etc
Here, I will attempt to address the ancillary questions–but out of sequence because I do what I want.
3. What is the exact nature of Papal Authority as regards the liturgy?
The Pope is the highest possible authority on Earth. His is the last word on final say, when he invokes papal infallibility. On all other matters, insofar as they are not contradictory to the Dogmatic teachings of the Church–that is to say, insofar as they are true–we owe a duty of obedience. Catholic liturgy is well within the scope of Papal Authority, so in my view the Pope has the authority to modify the liturgy and provide guidance as to its conduct. He has some limitations imposed upon him by past councils and doctrine. The Pope cannot abrogate completely the Latin Mass, for example, nor can he change the Mass to something irreverent or heretical.
Let’s consider a negative example, though. Suppose the Pope did not have the authority to amend the liturgy. What is the extent of this? There are A LOT more liturgies than just the Latin and Novus Ordo. There’s the Maronite rite–an Eastern-style liturgy in communion with Rome. There’s the Ge’ez rite of Ethiopia. The Anglican Ordinariate. What shall we do with these liturgies? If you moved to Ethiopia, would you insist upon the Latin Mass among all the Ethiopians? If so–why is this different?
The core fulcrum of this whole discussion is what’s up with Traditionis Custodes which specifically plays the Latin against the Novus Ordo. While this is rude and offensive to fans of the Latin, insofar as Papal Authority is concerned it is not out of his scope. There are plenty of other liturgies in other languages that are unaffected. Would it be better to have some consistency from the top about the liturgy? Yes. Was Traditionis Custodes a poorly executed maneuver? Yes. Was it morally or doctrinally wrong? No. Not obviously, anyway.
1. What is the nature of Sacred Tradition as regards the Liturgy?
Let’s side-step the words in this question for a moment and get to the intent. The Latin Mass of the 1962 Missal is older and most Catholics for most of Catholic history would have been familiar with it. I don’t know how old the Ge’ez rite is nor the Maronite, but the fact is that Sacred Tradition does not appear to be homogeneous. When we talk tradition, the first question should be “whose tradition?”
Sacred Tradition should be changed as little as possible and as it happens, the Latin Mass has not changed in all these years. What is happening is it is being suppressed in favor of a different tradition that is from the Catholic Church and so is no less sacred.
It’s fitting here to remember that we are peasants, and that liturgical squabbles are far above and beyond the scope of our influence or reach or understanding. What would be good is to go to Mass at the Church that we like and invest deeply there. Whatever the liturgy is that is there, make sure it’s something you can stomach. Communicate with the Pastor about what you can do to help safeguard the liturgy you prefer. Give generously in the collections at the Mass that you prefer. And beyond that–stay put. Lay down roots. Don’t uproot every time a decision is made you don’t like. Only the people that weather the storms get to shape the future. The people who leave at the drop of a hat are just more debris in the wind.
2. What is the Value of Aesthetics in Liturgy?
Aesthetics is very important. Aesthetics essentially means “style” or “appearance” or “the look of things”. The liturgy should be beautiful because it is both good and true. A beautiful liturgy is a beautiful offering to God. No Catholic liturgy is truly ugly, but the liturgy that has absent many beautiful accidents is just a less ornate offering to God. It is not an unfitting offering, nor is it an ugly offering.
Here’s where it is important to be careful. The Latin Mass is objectively beautiful. It is also objectively more beautiful than the Novus Ordo. That doesn’t mean that it is better for souls because any valid Mass is good for souls. We don’t want to become aesthetic gluttons–snobs–we want to focus on what is important. What is the important thing about the Mass? It is the Holy Scriptures. It is the Eucharist. That’s really it–the two liturgies within the liturgy. Are you getting fed? If yes, nothing else matters. Nothing else should matter.
In Conclusion
Liturgy Wars are really preference wars, but we have no say and no influence and it’s all a big hubbub over nothing. Go to Mass where you like. If you prefer the Ge’ez rite, go there. If you prefer Latin, go there. If you prefer English, go there. Choose your language, choose your liturgy, and go there. Invest deeply. Focus on the things that matter. Don’t forget to love your neighbors–they are prodigal sons too, just trying to make sure they have found the right home.
AMDG
Times-Dispatch of Vichy Earth 
“Sacred Tradition should be changed as little as possible and as it happens, the Latin Mass has not changed in all these years. What is happening is it is being suppressed in favor of a different tradition that is from the Catholic Church and so is no less sacred.”
It’s not that the TLM is being suppressed, it’s that it’s being deleted. You can’t delete what belongs to Tradition (capital T) no matter who you are. The current moves are similar to Pope Francis saying “the Maronite Rite is cancelled, you must be Romans now.”
And thus, the reason why there’s a “war” is because Rome is doing the opposite of: “If you prefer Latin, go there.” Thus we fight!
LikeLike
Here’s how a peasant can fight the Liturgy War: Find a TLM, attend it unfailingly, and give generously in the collections every Sunday. That’s it.
If we believe that the Church is indefectible and that it has metaphysical plot armor (I can’t link but I wrote an article by this name you should look up), then the TLM will not and cannot be deleted.
But that’s kind of my point, I am not even arguing that the TLM qua expression of faith is uniquely worth fighting for. If the Pope suppressed/deleted the Novus Ordo then there are many more people who would be equally outraged at the suppression/deletion of their preferred liturgy. The source of outrage boils down to preference.
This is where obedience comes in. If we trust that our Shepherd is feeding us what we need to be fed, then what is the fight over? If you prefer TLM go there. If Pope Francis tries to delete the TLM (he is metaphysically incapable of accomplishing it, I believe) then God will treat him with perfect justice at the judgement seat.
All that we, as lay people, as peasants can do is find a pasture where the grass is greenest and stay put. Second guessing the shepherds can only lead to trouble. Fighting our brothers and sisters in Christ over liturgical preference can only lead to trouble.
LikeLike
If this boils down to “preference” than you’re right. But it’s not preference. How long have you been going to the TLM?
LikeLike
I don’t attend a TLM. I have attended a TLM, but didn’t have one proximate enough to be practical for fulfillment of the Sunday obligation.
If it’s not preference, what is the reason lay people should be up in arms about the liturgy? What about that reason can lay people directly control?
That’s my point: Scale outrage to the level of influence. I have no influence. I am not outraged. If I was a priest, maybe I would be more outraged.
LikeLike
OK. Thank you for sharing. I did not pose the question to downtalk you or anything.
The reason I ask is that it takes a while to see how far the Novus Ordo has drifted away from the TLM. There are differences I didn’t notice for years.
Fr. Z has a great metaphor for the two masses. Paraphrasing, the Novus Ordo is bread. Is it a food? Yes. Can you eat it? Yes. Does it sustain you? Sure.
On the other hand, the TLM is a royal feast of rib roast, mashed potatoes with gravy, grilled asparagus, glass of Chianti, and a creme brulee to top it off. Is it food? The best! Can you eat it? How can you not! Does it sustain you? Of course!
Now imagine the Pope comes along and says, “Catholics are only allowed to eat bread.” If you’ve eaten bread your entire life, you shrug and move on with your life. However, if you’ve been nourished by roasts & such, you would be up in arms, too.
That’s what’s going on here.
As to the laity’s involvement, we do have strength in numbers, see evidence below:
P.S. this is MusingMind’s husband 🙂 love your work
LikeLiked by 1 person
No downtalk perceived! Welcome to the blog, Mr. Mind! I appreciate yours and your wifes contributions to the comments, thank you very much for reading!
You highlight some really important things, and some really difficult things. Again, my hobbyhorse has been obedience and I think I take a somewhat radical view on the subject. I know this is perhaps a Scoot-specific idiosyncrasy, but it is illustrative of Whats Up With The World (TM).
Here is the important thing: The Mass Feeds. When you boil it down, that is the most important part of Mass. Liturgy of the Word, Liturgy of the Eucharist. In an absolute pinch, Priests don’t even need an ornate Church–they have travel kits. My priest before I moved offered a Mass on a hike with the young adults of the parish. We are fed. The Desert Fathers had traveling priests visit their hermitages and offer Mass for them as well.
Here is the difficult thing: Christ frequently and repeatedly refers to us as Sheep–and not in any degrading or diminutive sense, but in the sense that we rely entirely on Christ for the provision of our needs. By entirely I don’t mean “mostly”, I mean every moment of every day, every atom in our bodies, every (good) desire in our hearts comes from God. This dependence is extremely hard to grasp. And when we are confronted with it, it is extremely difficult to be grateful.
A scriptural case study: after Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt, they were sustained on Manna from Heaven. Manna was not a rich feast but it kept them going. In the desert, this was a sign that God loved them and wanted to nourish them. God could equally have sent a rib-roast banquet every morning with the dewfall, but these meager rations reminded the Hebrews who it was who delivered them and the hunger in their bellies should have reminded them what is important: that the Lord provides. We know from recent Sunday readings that they grumbled and wanted new signs and proofs that God had not abandoned them. We know that a journey that was supposed to take only 40 days ended up taking 40 years while God had to repeatedly, carefully, and lovingly teach the Hebrews that His love was unfailing.
You may have pulled out the parallel I am making now, but let me make it explicit. We are sheep that have been fed a rich, beautiful feast–like the prodigal sons brother who stayed loyally by his fathers side, and enjoyed all of the fruits of that loyalty and none of the hardships that the prodigal son endured. If our shepherd takes away some of the blessings of this feast, and we must persist on meager rations, should that not give us clarity in our minds what about the Mass is important? Should that not teach us that–hey, we can (and already know how to) offer a much more fulfilling feast than this?
You are absolutely right, that having been fed by such a feast as you describe, only to have it replaced with meager bread and water rations, you would naturally be up in arms. But what if the Holy Spirit is trying to teach us–all of us, not just those who worship at a TLM specifically–a lesson? What if the Holy Spirit is trying to get us to answer the question “What is it about the Mass that is important?”
Your video is one Hambone and I have spent a lot of time chewing over. In the one sense, yes strength in numbers–but the Church is not democratic. Christ is our King, and the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ”–Vicar shares a root with “Viceroy” and means “second in command” or “deputy”–The Pope is the steward, the King while the King is away. The subjects to the King will always have strength in numbers, but a numerical majority does not make one right. If the Pope hands down an order–any order–that is at best morally good or at worst not evil, and it is a lawful order for the Pope to give, we have a duty to obey. We ought to give wide latitude to what constitutes a lawful order, especially from the Pope.
I don’t vote, because I don’t believe in democracy (another hobbyhorse of this blog). If my bishop said unequivocally “All Catholics in the diocese must vote” then I would vote–I owe the bishop my obedience, he is the deputy to the Pope after all and the duty of obedience flows down from God.
All this to say that–the laity ought to take their cues from the priests and the other Church leaders. Barring the doors to a Church is bad. Did the bishop order it, or the government? If the bishop, shouldn’t the priests have obeyed? If the priests obeyed but winked and nodded to the laity, is that really obedience?
There is nothing–literally nothing–more countercultural in this day and age than forthright and clear-eyed obedience. The liturgy wars are, in my opinion, born out of the democratization of the laity–we think the Pope must listen to us and that just isn’t the case. He should! I hope he does! But his obligation extends to feeding his flock. The Pope was chosen by the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit must, in some way, will for us to nourish ourselves on bread for the time being.
This has become something of a wandering comment–I may turn it into a post of its own.
Really curious about your thoughts on this! I know I covered a lot of ground, please forgive what has become a lengthy comment!
Thank you again for reading! God bless you and your family!
LikeLike
These are common arguments. I call them the Obedience and the Minimalist positions.
1. Obedience – I’ll defer to Dr. Kwasniewski on this, since he’s probably written 8 books on the subject. The summary is that we have a duty of obedience to Tradition that must be followed in tandem with obedience to the current pontiff. The balance, is of course tricky, since obedience is a moral virtue and thus must be the “golden mean”. The summa has an excellent section that elaborates on this: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm
“Obedience is not a theological virtue, for its direct object is not God, but the precept of any superior, whether expressed or inferred, namely, a simple word of the superior, indicating his will, and which the obedient subject obeys promptly, according to Titus 3:1, “Admonish them to be subject to princes, and to obey at a word,” etc.
It is, however, a moral virtue, since it is a part of justice, and it observes the mean between excess and deficiency. Excess thereof is measured in respect, not of quantity, but of other circumstances, in so far as a man obeys either whom he ought not, or in matters wherein he ought not to obey, as we have stated above regarding religion (II-II:92:2. We may also reply that as in justice, excess is in the person who retains another’s property, and deficiency in the person who does not receive his due, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 4), so too obedience observes the mean between excess on the part of him who fails to pay due obedience to his superior, since he exceeds in fulfilling his own will, and deficiency on the part of the superior, who does not receive obedience. Wherefore in this way obedience will be a mean between two forms of wickedness, as was stated above concerning justice (II-II:58:10).”
2. Minimalist – the idea that as long as the form and matter of the sacrament are present, the Mass is sufficient. I’m drawing your argument to a radical extreme, but follow it for sake of argument. If this were true, Mass would be 2 minutes long, since that’s all it takes, right?
The minimalist argument falls apart because in contrast to obedience, charity is a theological virtue, its object is God, and thus has no bounds. You can’t love God too much or offer Him too much worship. And since the third commandment is a divine law, we are called to fulfill it to the highest degree possible. That’s why Mass has evolved from the catacombs to the cathedrals.
You mention the manna from heaven. It’s true that this bland tasting bread sustained the Israelites, but wasn’t it stored in the Ark of the Covenant, with all of its elaborate gildings, and wasn’t it then stored in the Temple? Reading Exodus it seems God wants the MOST for his worship, not what’s minimally acceptable.
Not to “big bro” again but if you can, try to go to the TLM for a few months, if only as an academic exercise. I’m willing to bet the experience will show you what I’m trying to say.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is fantastic, thank you. Iron sharpens iron, and you’re really helping me explore some of the hidden nooks and crannies of my argument here.
It’s worth noting–I don’t need convincing that the TLM is valuable. That’s part of what makes this conversation difficult for me. I agree that it is superior to the Novus Ordo, really the root of my argument is that if the Church teaches it is valid why are we arguing with the Church? That’s why I argue it’s a preferential debate. If one liturgy is best shouldn’t all of the liturgies in communion with Rome be standardized? Let’s get those Maronites and Ge’ez rites to brush up on their Latin!
Here’s the other angle of my argument: If we take the perspective that we are peasants, subjects of a king and with limited means and resources, how should we discern this? Is receiving bread from the King as much a blessing as receiving a rib-roast feast? It shouldn’t take a Doctorate in Canon Law or a theology degree to parse the doctrines of the Church. The Church says–go to Mass. The closest Mass is a Mass the Church says it is OK to attend.
Your comment about Obedience to Tradition is really interesting, but I don’t think it follows from the quoted excerpt. Obedience is properly offered to persons, and tradition is not a person. I would say we are called to have reverence for tradition, which implies a level of deference that I think is what you are getting at when you say obedience. Tradition is a treasured gift which is given to us, not a set of commands to be obeyed. We must do our best to maintain Tradition as well as possible and to pass it on as untouched as possible.
I also 100% agree that the minimalist argument is not the best we can do. I do not agree that because it is not our best, it is wrong.
Let me cut through the gordian knot if I can, because what is causing me difficulty is that I don’t disagree with you on any points you raise, I think I disagree in terms of magnitude. Where this comes out is where we talk about solutions. What do advocates of the TLM want to be the solution? Would abrogating Traditionis Custodes be sufficient? Ought the Novus Ordo be abolished? If the Novus Ordo ought to be abolished, what about the other rites and liturgies that exist within communion with Rome? If we truly ought to offer our best, doesn’t it follow that the best liturgy available ought to be the only liturgy on offer?
What I am looking for in terms of solutions is something which accepts the current state of things and requires growth and change from the faithful, instead of requiring growth and change from the Church. We should conform ourselves to the Church, not the other way around.
And that’s kind of the root–when I converted I said “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God”. The Catholic Church teaches that the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass. That’s where I’m stuck–I can’t see a path around that. The TLM is great and excellent, I agree–but the Novus Ordo is valid. That’s not a strong compliment–it’s like a participation trophy. But it is important where it counts.
So we return to the question: What about the Mass is important? What are the accidents of Mass and what are the essences of Mass? What, if removed, would make the Mass no longer a Mass? What are the accidents of tradition and the essences of tradition? What, if removed, would make it no longer part of tradition?
I genuinely believe the outcome to the liturgy wars is going to be some middle ground. The N.O. went too far in the opposite direction, and gave up too many of the accidents that were instructive to the faithful. I predict we will end up with a liturgy that is vernacular yet preserves some of the best and most instructive aspects of the TLM.
I’ve rambled again, but I am especially curious as to your thoughts on the accidents and essences of Mass and Tradition and where they overlap.
Thank you again for your engagement on this topic! This is very important to the future of the Church so if we can figure it out we can write letters to our Bishops!
LikeLike
“what is causing me difficulty is that I don’t disagree with you on any points you raise, I think I disagree in terms of magnitude”
I get that, and that’s why I don’t just recommended that you go to the TLM for 2-3 months, I want you to go and _live_ the TLM. Only then will you see where all of us rigid rad trads are coming from 😉
When my wife and I met we were attending the new mass. We had zero problems with it, loved it, and didn’t even know what Vatican I much less Vatican II was. We stumbled into the TLM because we heard there was “good music.” Now after going for 3+ years, we see the new mass in a completely different light, and that perspective is only seen when you really _live_ the vetus ordo.
You mention writing letters to our Bishops. As I write this I realize most bishops probably have the same perspective as you – they see the value of the old mass, but don’t grasp the magnitude. Guess why? They haven’t _lived_ the TLM either! The Novus Ordo was promulgated in 1969, so a 75-year old bishop attended in his youth, but the memory is likely erased by 54 years of the new mass. The reason why my peasant perspective is worlds apart from that of the hierarchy is because we’ve been living a different mass every Sunday.
There’s a lot of meat to chew on here, but I’m not sure how much more I can convey with words. The raw experience of living the old mass will show you why this matters to us so much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is fair. You have opened my eyes to the thought that there is more going on here than mere obedience. I will need to refine my thoughts more and do some experiential research to make sure i can speak to the liturgy wars a little more accurately.
I really appreciate this discussion! God bless you!
LikeLike
Likewise. Let me know if I can help at all, I think you can see my email here.
LikeLiked by 1 person