At the wonderful The Catholic Thing you will find an opinion piece by a priest writing under a penname (to avoid the Eye of Sauron as is only correct). The piece is entitled “The ‘Polar Unity’ of the Two Forms of the Roman Rite”. The writer is “a North American priest who teaches in a seminary, does parish work, and celebrates both forms of the Roman rite”.
The article has strengths and weaknesses.
Here is the precis.
The writer argues that Benedict XVI’s distinction between the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form should be understood not merely juridically or pastorally, but theologically, as a “polar unity” within the one Roman Rite. Its core claim is that the two forms are not rival rites, but complementary expressions of one lex orandi, consistent with Benedict’s broader “hermeneutic of reform in continuity.” To defend this claim, the writer uses Hans Urs von Balthasar’s distinction between the Marian and Petrine dimensions of the Church: Marian meaning contemplative, receptive, bridal and the Petrine meaning apostolic, juridical, governing. He proposes that the Extraordinary Form tends to embody the Marian accent of the Church: silence, adoration, ritual density, transcendence, and the primacy of divine action. He says the Ordinary Form tends to embody the Petrine accent: intelligibility, proclamation, pastoral accessibility, missionary outreach, and audible participation by the faithful. Both forms contain both dimensions, but each gives one accent greater visibility. On this reading, Benedict’s aim in allowing both forms was to preserve the Church from reductionism, that is, the Roman Rite should not be flattened into either pure sacral reserve or pure pastoral functionality. The writer says the two forms could “mutually enrich” one another in that the Ordinary Form could recover sacrality and silence while the Extraordinary Form could benefit from more scripture readings and pastoral attentiveness. He says that liturgical authority remains Petrine, but authority should serve liturgical memory and mystery rather than erase them. His conclusion is that the coexistence of the two forms symbolizes the Church’s refusal to eliminate fruitful tension. Contemplation and mission, silence and proclamation, gift and governance belong together in Catholic worship.
He ignores the miserable effects of Francis and his mandarins and doesn’t mention Traditionis custodes, a kind of damnatio memoriae. They don’t really exist in the article except in between the lines, that is, Francis made things so bad that something must be done. That might be a weakness in the article… or a strength, depending on the level of disdain one has for and opinion of the validity of the 2021 legislation.
The article is thoughtful and plainly animated by a desire for peace. That is welcome. Its weakness is that it depends more on a speculative framework than on demonstrated liturgical reasoning.
Its central move is to interpret the two forms of the Roman Rite through, as mentioned above, a Balthasarian polarity, assigning one a Marian/contemplative accent and the other a Petrine/pastoral one. Such categories might spur some reflections, yet they can also be so broad that they explain almost anything. I think the writer would have to establish from the texts, rubrics, history, and theological content of the orations of the two missals that one is predominately Marian and the other Petrine. He asserts it, but does not demonstrate it. I grant that he wasn’t offering a monograph: TCT has a word limit of about 1000, after all. The writer also admits that both rites have both dimensions to some extent.
The article succeeds as a meditation and as an appeal for charity. It is less persuasive for understanding the two missals through this two-fold lens.
The piece tends to idealize both forms by describing them according to their best intentions rather than their actual historical performance. The Ordinary Form is presented as envisioned by Sacrosanctum Concilium and celebrated “according to the mind of the Church,” which is fair enough. However, that shields the argument from the practical objections that usually emerge in post-Conciliar liturgical debates, such as the massive failure of the Novus Ordo to support all the sectors of the Church’s life as demographics and other indicators plainly show. The result is that the article risks being true at the level of aspiration while sidestepping the empirical questions.
From my point of view, when the Novus Ordo is celebrated more according to the Roman liturgical tradition, the better it is. Of course that begs the question: Why not just use the Vetus Ordo, if that is the case. The writer is trying to get at the “why” with his Balthasarian categories. Moreover, I think the “mutual enrichment” of the people in the pews tends to go mostly in one direction. Once people get the Novus Ordo in a more traditional celebration, they then will migrate over to the Vetus Ordo, just as the young graduate from lesser to more complicated and nourishing food.
This is a good contribution to those who are well-informed and able to discuss these matters thoughtfully.
The problem with the original article, as you note, Father, is that it relies on assertion rather than on demonstration: and the assertion is manifestly false. The author’s claim is that the ancient liturgy was deficient in the realm of mission, evangelization, and motivation of the whole body of the faithful to accomplish the works of the Church. So deficient, in fact, that a wholly-reworked liturgy was useful and perhaps even necessary to accomplish these goals.
But, I challenge: what was the missal brought by Augustine to Canterbury in 597 AD? Or the Mass said by Boniface when he crossed over to preach to the Frisians? What liturgy was attended by the new converts of the ever-expanding limites of Christian Europe in Bohemia, Poland, Lithuania? What liturgy sustained the efforts of Francis Xavier, Matteo Ricci, Jean de Brebeuf? What ecclesiastical environment prevailed during the long and fruitful ages when great lights like Catherine of Siena and John of God founded hospitals and schools?
So much for the positive account of the ancient Roman liturgy. But someone might counter: “Isn’t it possible that the New Mass has benefited all these efforts?” A priori, perhaps it’s possible. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to hold, given the evidence of the last half century, that the Novus Ordo has brought material improvement to the Church’s missionary work and engagement of the faithful. On the contrary: almost every metric that has been studied shows a precipitous and calamitous decline.
As you say, Father, the “enrichment” all seems to flow in one direction.
Regarding your final point, Father, that mutual enrichment tends to work in one direction–a bit of a ‘sed contra’ from your native place.
Up here in St. Paul, we certainly have the old form, despite all the restrictions–I can think of three places off the top of my head. However, only one of those is Vetus Ordo-only, and it’s the more traditional Novus Ordo parishes that have significantly more vitality. For myself personally, I used to attend the Vetus Ordo on occasion, but three factors have led me to no longer make much of an attempt to do so:
1) The big reason: I had twice been on deck to assist at weddings at the FSSP parish in Minneapolis, but the first time I was rejected by the pastor (who did not reach out to me directly, but made the groom be the bearer of bad news) because he didn’t want an ex-seminarian serving as subdeacon (resulting in a High Mass instead of Solemn High for want of clerics/seminarians). The second wedding I was only scheduled to serve at, but I was rejected (by the same fashion) because I was not a member of the parish. Having served and subdeaconed before, this seemed very contrary to what you’ve spoken of many times on this blog: Teach people, invite them in, guide them! [Your problem, then, is with the priest.]
2) With a toddler, it’s SO much easier to enter into a Mass where I don’t have to follow along with a written guide, and Latin enunciation among clerics is often not where it needs to be for me to follow. [Another problem withe the priest, it seems.] My wife, also, has found the Old Mass to be fruitful only on an occasional basis.
3) It’s not very available, and there’s no clamor for more times/places up here. The vast majority of people in my circles want traditional elements (whether possible, like ad orientem, or not currently possible, like the old offertory prayers), but do not want the Vetus Ordo as the only way. [In your circle.] So, there’s just so much more community in the NO parishes, which makes living a Christian life easier. [A separate issue, but a substantial one. I’ve heard it before.]
Just wanted to share these thoughts–I’ve been reading the blog for at least twelve years and found it very fruitful in many ways, but sometimes posts lack substantiation (analogous to how the author of the piece you’re commenting on doesn’t cite any prayers etc).
I suspect that my impressions and thoughts are doomed to sound like one very skeptical of anything past 1950. Or at least past 1965. I thus hereby plead guilty to being what many will view as being…an old-fashioned grouch. So be it.
I give him credit for trying, yet the means he uses, seem to me rather…troubled. As you say, he distinguishes between the two forms of the rite in terms of one being Marian-dominant, the other Petrine-dominant. On the whole though, this distinction seems to me…forced. As I read through it, he basically admits that the traditional Mass focuses more on silence and prayer, the modern Mass more…audience participation. …I guess…. For me, this creates a real problem. It strongly implies to me that the vast majority of faithful have little need for serious prayer, have greater need for community. Yet I cannot name even one person I have met who didn’t need the degree of prayer and silence posited by the traditional Mass. For that matter, I have never seen an indication that focus on “community” precisely aided anyone in particular in embracing faith of any sort, Catholic faith in particular.
I do not think it very likely that the average parish will continue to thrive if we treat the Mass as though it were a secondary event. If we behave as though the Superbowl has greater import, …our churches will continue to shrink, because we give them too little value.
I rather object also to the hint that missionary lands should see the Novus Ordo, not the traditional Mass. If a native populace believes largely in animism, …we won’t bring them to faith in Christ by accommodating that belief. One cannot believe in animal spirits at the same time as the Holy Trinity.
I am so sick of internet blah blah blah pitting the old and new masses against each other. I love the old mass, but I see that some people have gone beyond a preference for the old to a disdain for the people who want to be close to the pope and share the liturgy he uses today. Indeed, some (especially in the SSPX) need Leo to be even worse than Francis for their own sense of persecution. I believe the term Augustine used was superbia.
These discussions are really terrible for my faith, they make me heartsick. I need to avoid them for a while. A blessed passiontide to all.
I guess the article begs the question: If the old mass was in need of enrichment, why did a church that only had the old mass grow and thrive for 19 centuries, along the way essentially creating Western Civilization as we know it?
I believe the current Holy Father is wise enough to navigate the rocks of the liturgical strait we’ve been cast into by our forebearers.
But a good starting point would be using the papal fanon again. Easter? Maybe? Please?
*sigh*
Ironically, St. Peter would have celebrated a Mass closer in form and aesthetics to the EF than the OF. >_<
Nonetheless, the fact that a priest wrote this article and is trying to "make room" for the TLM in the life of the Church, I very much appreciate. If there's one thing trads are being taught through this TC winter, it's that we need to learn how to engage in conversation about our beloved liturgy without being aggressive. I welcome the conversation!
I had already read the piece, which I think contains interesting ideas, but for me the question remains, that if the Old Mass was in need of enrichment, how is it possible that in the course of nineteen centuries it sustained great missionary zeal and effort, effectively built Western civilisation from rubble and spiritually sustained it, all of which evaporated around the time the Novus Ordo was implemented? Missionary zeal and effort? Not much left of it, these days. Western civilisation? Morally corrupt and in suicide mode.
The trouble with this is that changing either form will not fix things. Instead, you will get people who are attached to the Old-Old Form of the Mass, and now we have three forms to fight over. The Tridentine Mass is a treasure of the Church, and ought to be preserved. (And traditionalist groups need to practice some measure of realpolitik when dealing with the hierarchy.)
@JDBenedictH
To offer some counter points, as a father who has brought 7 toddlers up through the Vetus Ordo, the last two being twins which I had to carry one in each arm, I’ve never had a problem following along with the Mass. Perhaps it’s because I go almost exclusively to the Vetus Ordo and over the years have grown very familiar with the prayers, the movements, and the sense of the liturgy – I never feel lost during the Mass, nor have I ever felt that I was unable to “participate” in the Mass because I didn’t have the missal open in front of me. I would say, again, as a counter point to your current experience in Minnesota, that my experience is likely closer to what the vast majority of Catholics experienced for at least a thousand years prior to Vatican II.
I’ll also say that “community experience” is a hard thing to judge. I know I’ve experienced a lot of “community” in various parishes, some Vetus Ordo only and some that offered both. My experience with the ones that offered both was, at the best of times, many of those who went to the Vetus Ordo gladly participated in parish activities that crossed streams (like a St. Joseph Dinner or parish picnic…etc.). However, few if any of the Novus Ordo parishioners would cross over to participate in events offered by the Traditional community (Confraternity of Christian Mothers, or a Soldiers of the Eucharist prayer group for kids).
Now-a-days it is not the best of times and it’s more difficult to judge fairly. Many Traditionalists feel rejected by their parishes who have kicked them out of the parish building or canceled their Masses. They’ve always had to contend with longer commutes in order to make it to the TLM, which intrinsically makes it more difficult to participate in community events, but fools like me who sold their house to move closer to the parish get to enjoy the bishop randomly cancelling our Mass. And few of our Novus Ordo friends have bothered to write to the bishop on our behalf or offer any kind of sympathy. Some even bad mouth our kids behind our back because we teach our kids the Faith on a daily basis and so the pastor doesn’t require us to send our kids to the already over-crowded Religious Ed program.
So I’d be cautious about condemning a lack of “community” from Traditional groups. And that certainly isn’t a fair metric by which to judge the Vetus Ordo.