Were the reformers of the 1960s theological illiterates and liturgical birdbrains? One would like to think not, yet that is how it looks after immersing oneself in centuries of tradition
Aug 17, 2023·edited Aug 17, 2023Liked by Peter Kwasniewski
Last month we were blessed to go to a diocesan High Mass in Toledo (Spain), to the Iglesia del Salvador. This church is over 900 years old and, since 2009, the TLM is celebrated there daily. It is a small but magnificent church with a beautiful altar and holy priests (he pastor had just attended this year's Covadonga pilgrimage). It was breath-taking, it was beautiful, majestic, reverent...the homily was solid theology. I was so happy to see there is Catholic blood still left in my homecountry's veins! When we came back to the US and I was talking to a NO friend about the TLM I told her, that now that my eyes have seen beauty, nothing else will satisfy my soul. Nothing less is worthy to be offered to God. I am in love with the Mass, with our Catholic faith. My soul is in love.
It is disheartening to read about how "tradition" can be selectively resourced to cover a multitude of liturgical misapplications. Was there no tradition before the 8th century? Isn't returning to the source, the patristic past, a worthy initiative? Many liturgical practices of the historic Church are not lost to the mists of time, and serve as reasonable restraints to Baroque excess. Many of the theological Fathers of the 2nd Vatican Council, Congar and Danilelou being just two, are not birdbrains, but, rather, represent a tradition celebrating gospel simplicity of a far more ancient provenance. Too many gestures make too much "noise" that disturb the sanctifying impact of informed silence.
In reality, there was a slow development of the Roman liturgical tradition, in which (yes) there were layers added to the original. That is what happens in any living tradition. It happened in the Byzantine East too, but it's fashionable to praise all things Eastern; only the West is afflicted with self-hatred. Why was such elaboration never deemed wrong, until the Protestant reformers and the Enlightenment rationalists decided they knew better? "Evangelical simplicity" is, more often than not, a modern construct of those who are uncomfortable with mystery, opacity, ineffability, and complexity.
As a theological "birdbrain," it would seem to me that anything. that helps the priest--and us, to grow deeper into the love of Christ and to worship Him with heart and soul, would surely expect the body to do its part also. So, whether it "developed" in AD40 or AD800 , doesn't it make perfect sense for loving souls to WANT to mark themselves with the greatest symbol in the world?
You are all way more generous in your assumptions. If after all these years no attempt to correct these misapplied changes has been attempted, let alone implemented, (approval of the TLM as a parallel 'liturgy' does not count, IMO) then I can only assume these 'changes' were intentional.
Last month we were blessed to go to a diocesan High Mass in Toledo (Spain), to the Iglesia del Salvador. This church is over 900 years old and, since 2009, the TLM is celebrated there daily. It is a small but magnificent church with a beautiful altar and holy priests (he pastor had just attended this year's Covadonga pilgrimage). It was breath-taking, it was beautiful, majestic, reverent...the homily was solid theology. I was so happy to see there is Catholic blood still left in my homecountry's veins! When we came back to the US and I was talking to a NO friend about the TLM I told her, that now that my eyes have seen beauty, nothing else will satisfy my soul. Nothing less is worthy to be offered to God. I am in love with the Mass, with our Catholic faith. My soul is in love.
That's exactly how I feel as well.
Circling back to this post. It's great!
Where is the hyperlink in the final paragraph supposed to lead? It seems to be broken.
It was supposed to be this one:
https://traditionsanity.substack.com/p/divine-drunkenness-mystical-madness
I updated the link. Thanks for pointing that out.
You're welcome.
Unfortunately, it looks like all of the hyperlinks in this post are broken. Not sure if it's limited to just this article.
It is disheartening to read about how "tradition" can be selectively resourced to cover a multitude of liturgical misapplications. Was there no tradition before the 8th century? Isn't returning to the source, the patristic past, a worthy initiative? Many liturgical practices of the historic Church are not lost to the mists of time, and serve as reasonable restraints to Baroque excess. Many of the theological Fathers of the 2nd Vatican Council, Congar and Danilelou being just two, are not birdbrains, but, rather, represent a tradition celebrating gospel simplicity of a far more ancient provenance. Too many gestures make too much "noise" that disturb the sanctifying impact of informed silence.
In reality, there was a slow development of the Roman liturgical tradition, in which (yes) there were layers added to the original. That is what happens in any living tradition. It happened in the Byzantine East too, but it's fashionable to praise all things Eastern; only the West is afflicted with self-hatred. Why was such elaboration never deemed wrong, until the Protestant reformers and the Enlightenment rationalists decided they knew better? "Evangelical simplicity" is, more often than not, a modern construct of those who are uncomfortable with mystery, opacity, ineffability, and complexity.
Thank you so much Peter.
As a theological "birdbrain," it would seem to me that anything. that helps the priest--and us, to grow deeper into the love of Christ and to worship Him with heart and soul, would surely expect the body to do its part also. So, whether it "developed" in AD40 or AD800 , doesn't it make perfect sense for loving souls to WANT to mark themselves with the greatest symbol in the world?
You are all way more generous in your assumptions. If after all these years no attempt to correct these misapplied changes has been attempted, let alone implemented, (approval of the TLM as a parallel 'liturgy' does not count, IMO) then I can only assume these 'changes' were intentional.