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.

†††

Poll for Alaskan Catholics re: The Extraordinary Form

Summorum Pontificum, Universæ Ecclesiæ, and The Archdiocese of Anchorage

Alaskans: I have a set of questions for you regarding the Extraordinary Form, or the Mass in the Usus Antiquior, that I would like your input and 'votes' on. Please let friends and others know about this and have them weigh in, as there are serious doubts (by some) as to the the desire of this form of the Mass in the Archdiocese of Anchorage.


Part I: The Tridentine Latin Mass - Attendance and Availability.
Knowing that currently, the only Mass in the Roman Rite, that is celebrated in the Extraordinary Form (in the Archdiocese of Anchorage) is on Friday Mornings at 9am in Eagle River please let me know your habits and desires.

• Have you attended a Tridentine Latin Mass (TLM) in the Archdiocese of Anchorage? If so, when & where?
• Would you attend the TLM if it was offered at a parish near you, during the weekend (Sat. evening or Sun. morning)?
• If the TLM was offered during the weekend, how often would you attend, as compared to the Ordinary Form?

Part II: Distance and Location

• Would you be willing to regularly attend the TLM if it was offered at a parish that isn't your current parish?
• How far would you be willing to travel to go to a Sunday (or Saturday) TLM?
• How much more willing would you be to attend a TLM regularly at your parish as opposed to another? (At what point does distance/time enter into this?)

Part III: Other Sacraments

• Do you desire the availability of celebrating the Sacraments (aside from Mass) in the Extraordinary Form? If so which ones?
• Would you have your children celebrate the Sacraments of Initiation in the EF at another parish if it was offered, even if couldn't regularly attend the TLM due to lack of availability?
• Did you know that Summorum Pontificum states that: "Art. 9. § 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it."?

I want you to comment in the box below or if you want to be more discreet please email me: [angelsdefendus [at] gmail [dot] com].

Along with your comment, you do not have to leave your name, but please let me know what parish you attend. I will not be disclosing any personal info, I am inquiring to parish location for the purposes of interest. Please spread this around Facebook and email, the more responses we get the better; this also means that the more specific your are the better. My overall goal is to gather as much information as possible as to the support and desire for the Usus Antiquior here in the Archdiocese of Anchorage.

†††

Universæ Ecclesiæ: My First Thoughts

Cardinal Levada

On Friday, Universae Ecclesiae was officially published by the Vatican. Specifically, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei published the instruction for all Bishops. The purpose was to clarify and instruct on the implementation and application of the Pontiff's Motu Proprio: Summorum Pontificum. In other words, it was effictively a memo to Bishops to help implement the use and celebration of the Mass in the Usus Antiquior - The Tridentine Latin Mass. The Vatican is very proper and diplomatic, so to cut through all the "diplo-speak" the instrutction was published to remove blockades that Bishops and dioceses have used to prevent the implementation of Summorum Pontificum. NB: If you want to skip me "setting the scene" and just want my commentary please skip down to "Section II & III."

the letter...to the instruction

•••••†•••••

Let's first consider what the memo, that accompanied the instruction, describes as its purpose:

It also reaffirms the purpose of the motu proprio, divided into the following three points: a) To offer all faithful, the Roman Liturgy in its most ancient usage, considered a precious treasure to be preserved; b) to achieve and really ensure the use of the forma extraordinaria to those who request it c) to favour reconciliation within the Church. (ref. n. 8).

To me there are two big takeaways  in the memo/letter. The first being that the words "precious treasure" are used to describe the Extraordinary Form. The second is that this "Instruction" has as a goal "to achieve and really ensure the use of the forma extrordinaria to those who request it." This clearly is a statement of redundancy, which says "without saying" that such an effect unfortunately did not come out of the publication of Summorum Pontificum.

intro to the instruction

•••••†•••••

So then, now that we know the purpose let us look at some of the provisions of the instruction. Because this post and topic could become philosophically thick, and even technically cumbersome, I will start with a few presuppositions. First, general knowledge and understanding of Summorum Pontificum are necessary to understand this post. Second, the implementation and use of the Usus Antiquior are different in every place. Many of my thoughts will be based on the fact that Alaska, especially the Archdiocese of Anchorage, has but one Roman Liturgy that is celebrated in the Usus Antiquior. (For more info on the Extraordinary Form please see my recent post.)

As for the instruction itself, paragraphs n.1-n.8 are an introduction to the history of Summorum Pontificum and the basic purpose of the instruction. It is important to note, that in n.7, there is a restatement from Pope Benedict and his Motu Proprio:

"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture. What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful."

I think this is a very salient and important point. The fact that no "contradiction" between the two forms of the Liturgy exist. In fact, there is a reaffirmation that the Extraordinary Form is not only allowable, but goes beyond that and is actually co-equal with the Ordinary Form. I don't think it is a stretch, but a proper interpretation of this passage.

Section II & III: The Ecclesia Dei and the "Norms"

•••••†•••••

Section II is n.9-11. This notes just reaffirm the role of the PC Ecclesia Dei as the competent Vatican body to oversee matters related to the Usus Antiquior. Section III is specifically about the norms relating to the Motu Proprio. Without going through the notes point by point, I want to highlight just a few, and share my thoughts. For a more thorough analysis of the entire instruction see Father Z in which he discusses some of the notes individually.

My Commentary:
As for the Norms, the first thing that jumps out at me is the fact that there are little to no "restrictive" notes. In other words, all the notes, for the most part, are clarifications and instructions on how to make the Mass in the Usus Antiquior more available to us the faithful. Instructions from the Vatican are clarifying documents, so it isn't as if these positive statements are the standard, it just so happens that this instruction is more positive towards the original document than negative. This is specific to this instruction, and not typical of all instructions.

Some blogs have downplayed the fact that very little new information has come out of this instruction. Their "take" is that this document is not forceful, and it isn't that important because of the lack of anything "new" coming from it. These blogs are the type that are not generally supportive of the philosophy and belief behind Summorum Pontificum.

The other thing that I find interesting is the way that the Vatican went about saying what they did say. This is especially true in terms of the coetus fidelium and Sacerdos idoneus, or the "group of faithful" and the "qualified priest." Many roadblocks have spawned out of the ambiguity of these two terms between 2007 and now. What number of faithful was required and what was a "qualified" priest? This instruction makes no bright line rule for the former, and is very precise on the latter. I think this is a statement to the fact that Bishops should take all steps possible to provide the Mass in the Usus Antiquior to those faithful that present a desire for it. I think what is very significant in these provisions is the fact that any priest may present themselves and be competent to celebrate this Form. On top of this, when the faithful request this form of the Mass, there is an urging by the Vatican that the Bishop utilize means to provide a competent priest for such celebration.

There are a few big additions to this instruction. The most obvious is the fact that the Triduum is to be allowed in the Usus Antiquior, even in places where the Ordinary Form is used. This means that there is no primacy of place belonging to the Ordinary Form - based on the fact that the Holiest of Holies is to be celebrated in the manner that all faithful desire it. The other addition, is really a reaffirmation - that Confirmation is to allowed to be celebrated in the Usus Antiquior. This means that not just Confirmation but also Confirmation along with all other Sacraments. This is the case because Confirmation is the one Sacrament that requires the Bishop, to whom this instruction is written.

my thoughts on the practical effects of the instruction - in places like Anchorage

•••••†•••••

Anchorage is not unlike other rural and lightly populated areas. There are a few people spread over large areas of land, with few clerical resources aka priests. The biggest impediment used to prevent the implementation of the Extraordinary Form in our area, as is the case in others, is the lack of priests competent to celebrate the Mass. Because Alaska depends on visiting, mission, and shared priests requests are not denied per se but instead explained away by the fact that "no priests are available" to learn and celebrate the Mass in the Usus Antiquior. 

Unfortunately, this instruction doesn't solve this problem per se, although it should. It urges the Bishops to facilitate means to instruct priests in the Extraordinary Form or facilitate other means to implement the Extraordinary Form  to those faithful that request it. I worry that this little bit of "wiggle room" will provide enough slack for Bishops to find a reason "not to have" the Usus Antiquior. A perfect solution for an area, like where I live, would be to have a group of faithful request the Mass in the Usus Antiquior and have the Bishop train a priest or have a priest visit so that their is someone in their area capable of celebrating Mass in the Extraordinary Form. A more extreme solution would be an order like the FSSP creating a chapel and apostolate here.

Overall, I think this instruction is a great thing and positive, I just wonder how much of an affect it will have in a place like the Kenai, or other rural area where there is a group of faithful, but there are those unwilling to do what is necessary to provide the Mass in the Extraordinary Form. There are lots of ways to prevent a coetus fidelium from being given the opportunity to celebrate the Roman Liturgy according to the Usus Antiquior. I pray that all Bishops and priests will prayefully consider the will of the Vatian, the Pope, and the Church to facilitate and make available this precious treasure. 

†††

Universæ Ecclesiæ & Alaska

Currently, in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, there exists only one Mass that is celebrated in, what some call, the Tridentine Rite also called the "Extraordinary Form" or "TLM". (It is also sometimes referred to as the 'Latin Mass' but this is confusing as the Ordinary Form or Novus Ordo can also be said in Latin.) This Mass is Friday mornings at 9am in Eagle River at St. Andrew's Church. The celebrant is Father Thomas Brundage. To my knowledge the only Sacrament celebrated in the Tridentine Rite is the Mass. To be clear, the Mass is celebrated in the usus antiquior in a second parish within the Archdiocese.  This Mass is in the Dominican Rite and is celebrated Saturday afternoons at Holy Family Cathedral at 4pm. (It used to be a TLM as well, before switching to the Dominican Rite since the Cathedral is overseen by Dominicans.)

This is something very difficult for someone like me, because I originally come from an area that not only had several TLMs in my Archdiocese, but had daily ones, as well as the opportunity to celebrate all the Sacraments according to the usus antiquior. In fact, my first Child celebrated her first Mass and Baptism in the Extraordinary Form. So being here in Alaska, where I no longer get to attend Mass in that form makes me long for a time when it might be available. Even more difficult is seeing various Sacraments like Baptism, First Communion, and Confirmation occur with all sorts of Liturgical abuses and modernist silliness.

Universæ Ecclesiæ

» •••••†••••• «

This Friday though, there may be some hope on the horizon. You see, I know in our area there have been two requests for the Tridentine Mass down on the Kenai. Now, according to the Motu Proprio: Summorum Pontificum, this should be more than enough to get a Mass in the usus antiquior here, but apparently not. So the word coming out of the Vatican today gives some definite hope:

Friday 13 May 2011 the Holy See Press Office will make public the Instruction Universæ Ecclesiæ by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei about the implementation of the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" Summorum Pontificum of H. H. Benedict XVI. The Instruction will be published in the afternoon edition of the Osservatore Romano, dated 14 May.

The text of the Instruction - in Latin, Italian, French, English, German, Spanish and Portoguese - will be at the disposal of accredited journalists from 10 a.m. on Friday 13 May, being under embargo until noon. Together with the text of the Instruction, an editorial note will be provided.

From what I have read on other big blogs, especially one fairly well known Priest-Blogger, we should expect to celebrate in a certain manner once this instruction comes out. He explains via picture. I pray that this isn't just wishful thinking. Hopefully this instruction will clear up and strengthen the ability for those desiring access to the Extraordinary Form. If the instruction is as many claim it will be, there will be a call and reason for rejoicing come Friday. As for me, I will save the Veuve Clicquot until I attend a TLM here on the Kenai. When that happens, you can be assured there will be much rejoicing by many.

†††

Feast of the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Haven't been at my computer much the past two days, but I needed to get this info out there as The Seven Sorrows of Mary, especially the Chaplet/Rosary is very important to me. I found this at the St. Lawrence Press Blog:

Today, Friday in Passion week, is the feast of the Seven Sorrows of the BVM. It is of greater-double rite. In the Breviary and Missal the texts for the feast are found in the Sanctoral at the end of March. The liturgical colour of the feast is white.

At Vespers yesterday morning the antiphons, Vadam ad montem etc, were proper to the feast and sung with psalms 115, 119, 139, 140 & 141. The chapter from Isaiah was proper and the hymn was the moving Stabat Mater dolorosa. The antiphon on the Magnificat and collect are both proper to the feast. After the collect of the feast a commemoration was sung of the preceding feast of St. Justin and then of the Passiontide feria. At Compline Te lucis is sung with the Doxology Jesu, tibi sit gloria, Qui passus es pro servulis etc.

At Mattins thee invitatory is proper, Dolores gloriosae etc. The hymn is Sancta Mater, a continuation of Stabat Mater. The antiphons and psalms are proper (the first antiphon Astiterunt, of course is the same antiphon sung at Tenebrae of Good Friday. The lessons in the first nocturn are from Isaiah. In the second nocturn the lessons are from a sermon of St. Bernard. In the third nocturn the lessons are taken from a homily of St. Augustine on St. John's Gospel. The ninth lesson is the homily for Friday in Passion week. The Te Deum is sung. At Lauds the antiphons, Vadam ad montem etc, are proper and sung with the Dominical psalms. The Office hymn at Lauds is Virgo virginum. After the collect of the feast a commemoration is sung of the Passiontide feria.

At Prime and the other Hours the hymns are sung to the special tone of the Doxology: Jesu tibi sit gloria, Qui passus es pro servulis, Cum Patre et almo Spiritu, In sempiterna saecula. At Prime the festal psalms are sung (Pss. 53, 118i & 118ii). In the short responsory the verse Qui passus es propter nostram salutem is sung. The short lesson is proper to the feast Generationem ejus etc.

Mass is sung after Terce. The Gloria is sung, the second collect is of Friday in Passion week. After the Tract Stabat Mater is sung as a sequence. The Creed is sung, the preface is of the BVM with the clause Et te in Transfixione and the last Gospel is of Friday in Passion week.

Private Masses may be of the Friday in Passion week with a commemoration (and last Gospel)of the Seven Sorrows.

At Second Vespers the antiphons, psalms, chapter and hymn are the same as were sung yesterday but the antiphon on the Magnificat is proper. After the collect of the feast a commemoration is sung of the Passiontide feria. At Compline Te lucis is sung to with the tone of the proper Doxology.

In the 'liturgical books of 1962' the Office of the Seven Sorrows has been reduced to a mere commemoration in the Office of the Friday of the 'First Passion Week'. However a rubric in the 1962 Missal allows two Masses of the former feast to be celebrated for pastoral reasons where devotion to the feast exists.

Now in the current calendar we have the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, which combines this feast and OLoS. Wiki has more info in succinct fashion: Feast of the Seven Sorrows and New Advent goes further in-depth: Feast of the Seven Sorrows.

I would still suggest praying the "Seven Sorrows Chaplet" today, what a perfect reason to do so, especially in Lent.

†††