The hermeneutic of rupture: The reason why modernists hate the Usus Antiquior

For a long time I have always wondered, "Why do modernist¹Catholics hate the Tridentine Latin Mass and other more Traditional practices?" In fact, someone, a more recent convert at my parish asked me this weekend, "Why don't people at our Church like saying the Rosary?" Now this question seems loaded, and in fact it might even be loaded to put it in here like this - but it serves to make a good point: there are those that really, really, don't like traditional practices, but why?

Pope Benedict XVI - Link

I have always had my theories. Some stemmed from deeply analytical reasoning based in social history, theological evolution, and community constructs -in other words I made a bunch of stuff up. But I never had that "Aha!" moment where it all came together in a nice clean package. You know, the kind of nice clean package where it all adds up and makes sense? Sort of like in a movie, where the bad guy has some secret to his guilt, and the good guys are putting together clues, interviewing the bad guy, letting him walk out of the station knowing he is guilty but they don't have that one perfect clue? Do you know what I am talking about? Well I never had that, until now.

Let's go back to my analogy real quick. So in those movies, there finally comes the climatic moment when everything finally adds up. Every director does it a little different, but I am thinking of the version where the bad guy is sitting in a police station or courtroom, acting all smug and full of himself because he knows, that the good guys know, that unless he reveals the secret, he won't be found guilty. Then one of the good guys says something, seemingly harmless which fills the bad guy with two things: fear and anger. Then, in a seemingly incongruent act, the bad guy completely looses his cool and reveals the secret like he is being tortured with hot pokers to the eyes. Crime solved, criminal arrested, case closed.

Well, like I said, I had one of those moments reading a Damian Thompson article.²  Thompson found a thread on the Commonweal Blog, where Bobbie Mickens threw a conniption over Universæ Ecclesiæ. It is a quick humorous take, on a rather silly topic, but inside of this article is that nugget, that reveal, the secret to why those modernists believe in the hermeneutic of rupture. Here is the Mickens comment from Commonweal in Thompson's article from the Telegraph:

Letting aside the dubious validity of Summorum Pontificum for a moment (I’m happy to debate that with anyone in another moment), par. 13 of the newly released Instruction says that diocesan bishops are to “monitor liturgical matters” in their sees “always in agreement with the MENS of the Holy Father clearly expressed by the Motu Proprio”.

The mentality/intention/spirit (you choose the best word) of the Holy Father? What of the “mens” of the Council?

The very fact that the Council Fathers, by overwhelming majority, voted to reform the Tridentine Rite certainly means that – regardless of how one today judges the final result of that reform – the bishops realized that the pre-conciliar liturgy (lex orandi) no longer responded to the ecclesiology (lex credendi) that had developed over the preceding century and came to fruition at Vatican Council II.

Thus, to return to the pre-reform Roman Rite does not correspond – indeed, it is a betrayal – of the “mens” of the Council.

Never in the history of the Church were there two forms of the one Roman Rite. There were various Latin and Western liturgies, which in the post-Trent reform were cobbled into the Tridentine Rite. The Mass of Gregory the Great? The Ancient Roman Rite? Not according to the historical facts. It was as post-Reformation or Counter Reformation liturgy. And it certainly has no place in an ecumenical post-Vatican II Church.

So, if you would kindly pay attention to the yellow highlighted portions of Mickens statement. In there you will find a few things:

1. That the Vatican II council is supreme, even as compared to the Pope.
2. The Church is better served by the council because it was democratic.
3. The smoking gun though is: that Vatican II created rupture and a new Church has emerged - one that is ecumenical and Protestant focused. 

Number three is why modernists hate tradition, especially the Tridentine Rite. You see, I never understood why people would want to stay and claim to be Catholic, but push for things like Female Priests, Homosexual Marriage within the Church, Liturgical Innovation, and other modernist novelties. I thought maybe it was faulty theological understanding. Maybe it was a desire for one specific thing, which had at its root some faulty theological understanding. This comment has made me realize that it isn't that folks want what Catholicism is, they want something different. They want a Protestantized version of Catholicism. To them, the teachings of Catholicism are not rooted in theology. To them, the Faith is malleable and capable of change - through a democratic process. To them, everything is should be Protestant-American centric. 

This is why our Masses look like Protestant Services. This is why our Churches look Protestant. This is why our Homilies sound Protestant. This is why our theology sounds Protestant. This is why our music not only sounds Protestant, but is Protestant in many places.  We are trying to be ecumenical in everything we do. These modernists, whether they are clerical, religious, or lay, have been transforming the Catholic faith into their idea of an American-Protestantesque version of it. Why? Well because when you look at the Protestant faiths across this country - they have beliefs and theologies that mirror what these modernist Catholics push for. Women clerics, "gay marriage", lay administration, democratic bodies of decision making, shifting theology determined by "votes", and "Social Justice" causes that barely resemble their scriptural basis. 

•••••†•••••

Bobbie Mickens, sitting in the police interrogation room revealed the secret. In his fear that the Ancient Liturgy of the Usus Antiquior was finally reclaiming its proper place in the Hermeneutic of Continuity he went batty. You see, the Catholic faith in its true and authentic form, easily seen and experienced in the Sacred 'precious treasure' of the Extraordinary Form, is a testament to the theology and beliefs of the Catholic faith. As Father Z. says:

Faith, doctrine, liturgy, identity are all interlocked. They are facets reflecting the bright core of the same jewel of our beautiful and true Catholic Thing. At the core of the jewel, and any doctrinal formulation or definition which can be taught and memorized and studied, or within in any prayer or oration of our liturgical worship there is a single content convered to us: Jesus Christ, speaking, teaching, revealing, healing, raising, forgiving, saving.

So one of the biggest threats to these modernists is the Liturgy. When we reformat the Liturgy, and thereby the Mass, what we experience changes us. It also then changes how we encounter the Eucharist. This makes us long for and desire for more of the Sacred, which eventually will have an affect on our theology and doctrine. So you see, this is why the modernists fear the Usus Antiquior. It is more than a form of the Mass. This is about theology and doctrine as well. It is also about their existence and belief. Maybe Father Z. is right - Save the Liturgy, Save the World. 

Notes:   ___________________________________________________________

1. I don't like using the term "liberal" here because of the political connotation. I think you get what I mean - Spirit of Vatican II type of people.
2. Some of you may have read the article at Father Z's place.

†††