Posted on 07/16/2024 11:25:08 AM PDT by ebb tide
Those who have such an attitude towards the past will also demonstrate care for what they receive as an inheritance from their ancestors: the rite, the worship, and, above all, the faith transmitted through the mediation of Holy Tradition. They do not look towards the future except after they have carefully and respectfully learned all that has been passed down from the past.
When preparing some articles about the liturgical revolution as reflected in the modification of the Holy Altar’s form and position, I discovered an article published in the Jesuit magazine America eight years ago. Written by Father John F. Baldovin S.J., it reflects a forma mentis (i.e., mindset) that is common to all neo-modernist “theologians.” What particularly caught my attention, however, is a fragment that is practically identical in essence to the attitude illustrated by the recent interview given by Andrea Grillo. Here is the fragment in question:
“As the church historian Massimo Faggioli has frequently and astutely argued, liturgical reform is an interpretive key to the whole of the council. A reversion to the pre-conciliar position of the priest at Mass would be a profound signal that the forward steps the church took in Vatican II are in question. I suspect that a good number of people who make the ad orientem argument are in favor of just such a reversal.”[i]
Evidently, Father Baldovin speaks as if the liturgical reform is not only “an interpretative key to the whole of the council,” but also a kind of irreversible fate. This way of expressing himself is in full agreement with the authorities at the Vatican. It is enough to quote certain words of Cardinal Parolin to clarify everything instantly. Here is an excerpt from a news article on the official Vatican News website:
“Answering the question, ‘What will happen with the reforms undertaken by Pope Francis?’ Cardinal Pietro Parolin insisted on the need for prayer and patience, and said that discernment will indicate, at its own pace, ‘how to continue and what to make institutional.’ Although some people might worry – or hope for – reversals, the Holy See’s Secretary of State said, ‘Precisely because it is the action of the Spirit, there can be no U-turn’.”[ii]
As I have already stated in other articles, progressive reformists are absolutely convinced of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that guides them. Even if they do not necessarily invoke this inspiration for themselves, they believe that the Holy Father has an extended charisma of infallibility (according to the famous thesis of Albertus Pighius), which covers all his thoughts and speeches – even the improvised interviews given on the plane. Perpetually inspired by the Holy Spirit, he can never be wrong. This is why the reforms proposed by Pope Francis are and must remain irreversible. And what His Eminence, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, calls a “U-turn” cannot happen (of course, for those who think this way, such an example of a “U-turn” was the apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum by Pope Benedict XVI; we know how it ended: irreversible).
It is like those advertisements where the latest product is necessarily the best. In contrast, from the past can come only obtuseness, backwardness, rigidity, and especially the horizon of restrictions that impede present happiness – such as Church prohibitions on contraceptive practices and usury.
Although I believe that most readers are familiar with Andrea Grillo’s opinions from his interview given to the site Messa in Latino,[iii] here I will mention just one of his most radical and decisive statements. It expresses, much more explicitly and radically than Fr. Baldovin, the critical attitude towards those who, through their attachment to the Roman Catholic Liturgy, question the unique direction established by the Council and followed by the Vatican:
“To be faithful to Rome, one must acquire a ‘ritual language’ according to what Rome has communally established. One is not faithful if one has one foot in two shoes. Having demonstrated this contradiction, the merit of Traditionis Custodes is that it re-establishes the one lex orandi in force for the entire Catholic Church. If someone tells me he is faithful at the same time to the Novus Ordo and Vetus Ordo, I reply that he has not understood the meaning of tradition, within which there a legitimate and insuperable progress that is irreversible.”
All those who still wish to participate in the Roman Liturgy codified by Saints Popes Gregory the Great and Pius V are, for Andrea Grillo (as well as for Cardinal Parolin), infidels to the liturgical evolution inspired by the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium of the Church during and after the Second Vatican Council. From his perspective, which is shared by Fr. John F. Baldovin S.J. and Pope Francis, nothing and no one can oppose this evolution. Even the smallest attempt to argue differently is viewed by them with utmost suspicion. Identified, as we have seen, with the dynamic manifestation of the Holy Spirit in history, progress is – as A. Grillo says – “irreversible.” The same word has been used by Pope Francis himself on various occasions. Probably one of the most significant of these was the 2017 meeting with a group of Italian liturgists, when the Holy Father stated the following:
“After this long journey we can affirm with certainty and with magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.”[iv]
From this perspective, intolerant of dissenters, there is only one way to move forward under the guidance of the Holy Spirit: by accepting it and reflecting on the reasons for the liturgical reform. That is all, nothing more. No critical discussion is possible. For any critic of the liturgical reform is, in fact, unfaithful to the Second Vatican Council and the Popes of the last decades; he is unfaithful to the Holy Spirit Himself. This is their deep and firm conviction.
Sooner or later, when those who – out of obstinacy or misunderstanding – reject the idea of liturgical reform are eliminated or enlightened, the universal harmony of a single rite will reign unchallenged in the new (earthly) kingdom of universal fraternity.
All recent actions, crystallized in the apostolic letter Traditionis Custodes (2021), indicate the decision to follow this line of irreversibility of the liturgical reform, which necessarily excludes the existence of an alternative within the context of the Roman Catholic religion. Sooner or later, when those who – out of obstinacy or misunderstanding – reject the idea of liturgical reform are eliminated or enlightened, the universal harmony of a single rite will reign unchallenged in the new (earthly) kingdom of universal fraternity.
What particularly interests me here, however, is the underlying thought process of those who can make statements like the one concluding A. Grillo’s interview:
“Tradition is not the past, but the future. Since the Church and faith are a serious matter, they cannot be reduced to the association of those who cultivate nostalgia for the past.”
The reservation for the past manifested in these words is obvious. Actually, as with the insistent application of the notion of “irreversibility,” it conveys something else: a special appreciation for, on the one hand, the new, and on the other hand, the present and future. Only from these can Good – however it may be – come. It is like those advertisements where the latest product is necessarily the best. In contrast, from the past can come only obtuseness, backwardness, rigidity, and especially the horizon of restrictions that impede present happiness – such as Church prohibitions on contraceptive practices and usury.
Even more so, the past is sometimes associated with obstructing the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in history, while the present and especially the future are open to the greatest achievements of humanity (unity of religions included). Thus, for Baldovin, Grillo, and Pope Francis (and all other followers of the “Spirit of the Council”), irreversibility signifies the positive valuation of the present and future: what we have now is categorically better, hence superior, to what we had in the past. This is why they are absolutely insensitive to the critical statements regarding the bitter fruits of the Council and its reforms. Such recognition would contradict the essential premise underlying the declarations about “irreversibility:” the present and future can only be superior to the past. But for what is new and good to be born, what is past and outdated must necessarily die. Clear enough, isn’t it?
All those believers and thinkers who are faithful to the Christian Tradition fundamentally think in the opposite direction. They assume the postulate correlated with the famous mysterium iniquitatis proclaimed by Saint Paul (II Thessalonians 2:7). This postulate asserts that decay irreversibly accompanies the course of history. Just as the postlapsarian man inevitably ages and dies, all beings and creatures experience a process of aging, degradation, and death.
Those who have such an attitude towards the past will also demonstrate care for what they receive as an inheritance from their ancestors: the rite, the worship, and, above all, the faith transmitted through the mediation of Holy Tradition. They do not look towards the future except after they have carefully and respectfully learned all that has been passed down from the past.
Thus, instead of perceiving an evolution, those faithful to Tradition perceive an involution manifested in all aspects: liturgical, dogmatic, moral, political, etc. On the scale of all history, it is as if they draw all the consequences from the assertion that life and the world in Eden, before the original sin committed by Adam and Eve, were much better than postlapsarian existence. Analogously, the life of the first Christian community, described in the Acts of the Apostles, was far superior to the subsequent eras, just as the periods of the Church Fathers and the Medieval Doctors and Kings were superior to the Renaissance and the Modern world. Of course, I do not speak of ideal, absolute appraisals, but of observations that always emphasize the excellence of origins and pre-Renaissance eras – in spite of the imperfections that existed even then – in comparison with what comes after.
Those who have such an attitude towards the past will also demonstrate care for what they receive as an inheritance from their ancestors: the rite, the worship, and, above all, the faith transmitted through the mediation of Holy Tradition. They do not look towards the future except after they have carefully and respectfully learned all that has been passed down from the past. Additionally, they tend to value inherited traditions much more than the new: this can be seen even in the smallest gestures and preferences.
A well-known acquaintance sought for years a 17th-century Benedictine monastic breviary to replace the new one he used until he saved enough money to buy the old one. Their contents are almost identical. However, the mere fact of praying with a breviary that bears the wax marks of the candles of Catholic believers who prayed three centuries ago symbolizes for my friend an invisible value of great worth: Tradition.
This continuity with the forms of the Christian religion from the past conceals something a (neo)modernist seems unable to grasp. It is about the palpable traces of the manifestation of the same Spirit that animates both my friend’s prayers now and those of believers from three centuries ago. It is a way of discerning the presence of God in history in the form of those “signs” – in this case, a Benedictine monastic breviary – that indicate His perpetual and discrete presence. But it also represents something both significant and important: namely, the concrete proof of adhering to the principle stated by Saint Apostle Paul:
“Brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle” (II Thessalonians 2:14).
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.