Fr Anthony Ruff at the blog Pray, Tell comments on Traditionalism, American-Style by Massimo Faggioli ( Commonweal Magazine)
Extracts:
In Faggioli’s telling, there are two sides in things liturgical. Either one supports Vatican II and the reformed liturgy to the exclusion of the preconciliar liturgy, or one shows greater or lesser openness to the preconciliar liturgy, which seems to be equated with opposition to Vatican II. This way of dividing things up was more or less the position of Paul VI, and it seems to be the position most compatible with the directives of Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Lionel : There is a choice when we are aware of the False and Rational Premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. We no more will have the present polarisation.Since there will no more be a poltiical and schismatic interpretation of Vatican Council II being the only choice. It is because the liberals and traditionalists are interpreting Vatican Council II without the Rational Premise we have all this confusion.
_____________________
But that doesn’t mean that everyone behaves themselves today by aligning with one or the other side. It would be interesting to explore further the mindset of those people who don’t fit neatly in either camp – those who, for example, happily worship primarily with the Vatican II liturgy, but don’t see the preconciliar liturgy as particularly bad or harmful and don’t mind attending it at times.
Perhaps these people are mistaken: the case can be made, and has been made ably by many, that the preconciliar liturgy is incompatible with the large advances made by the Second Vatican Council in ecclesiology and liturgical theology and inculturation and all the rest. What to do, then, with those ambivalent Catholics who do not see the incoherence of their liturgical sensitivities?
Lionel: The large advances were made with Vatican Council II interpreted with the Fake Premise.When the Rational Premise is used there is no break with the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before Vatican Council II. There is no more a new ecclesiology.
______________________________
The number of such Catholics may be small, but they are overrepresented among younger clergy and laity, which means their influence, for better or worse, will likely increase in coming years. One can only hope that Francis is able to inspire these folks to adopt his and Paul VI’s interpretation of Vatican II, but that remains very much to be seen.
Lionel: This will be difficult because over time Catholics will realize that Pope Paul VI's interpretation of the Council was non traditional because of the False Premise. If he had used the Rational Premise there would be no break with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc). So Catholics will ask themselves why should they use the irrational interpretation of Vatcan Council II when a rational option exists which is traditional and not in schism with the past Magisterium ?.
___________________________
But Faggioli’s primary concern is not those whose somewhat conservative-leaning liturgical sensitivities impair their full acceptance of Vatican II. His focus is on the traditionalists who are most hostile to Pope Francis. And Faggioli calls out Benedict XVI for his role in setting up the current divisions these traditionalists are fomenting:
“(T)he rupture that Benedict XVI created in advancing liturgical traditionalism (see 2007’s Summorum Pontificum) and in his policies on Vatican II is something today’s traditionalists can exploit—and they do.”
In my view, and I don’t think Faggioli would disagree, Benedict XVI made a tragic miscalculation. He did not see that the liturgical infelicities and abuses in the manner of celebrating the postconciliar liturgy (Richard J. Neuhaus spoke of the “silly season”) were already in a process of self-correction by the 1980s and 1990s, and that the liturgy of Paul VI was beginning to come into its own as a beautiful and reverent celebration of the entire community. A sort of liturgical “re-Catholicization” was happily underway, but now, at its best at least, rooted in the genius of the reformed rite.
Benedict was still reacting to the liturgical problems of the 60s and 70s and thought, oddly, that the existence of the old liturgy would somehow improve the way the reformed liturgy is celebrated. We should take Benedict at his word that he accepted the so-called “ordinary form” of the Roman rite. He was never in the traditionalists’ camp, however much they appealed to him. He was in fact passionate about a more worthy celebration of the liturgy of Paul VI. His manner of getting there was questionable. If anything, Summorum Pontificum slowed down the process of “re-Catholicization” of the Pauline liturgy by pushing people into two opposing liturgical camps, thereby making defenders of the Pauline liturgy (the much larger camp) more defensive about the status quo.
Faggioli’s piece in Commonweal helpfully portrays the liturgical divide between those who fully accept Vatican II and those who do not. I hope my comments here help fill out the picture by also taking into consideration those who fall somewhere in between these contrasting positions. With their divided loyalties and their idiosyncratic understandings of Vatican II, they are a group to be taken seriously.
Lionel: When the Council is interpreted with the Rational Premise the Council is ecclesiocentric, traditional and Feeneyite. There is no more be the present ambiguity which comes with the False Premise.So the Synods in future will have to accept an ecclesiocentric Vatican Council II without the New Theology. They will either have to reject or accept Vatican Council II. There will no more be room for the present liberalism. The present liberals will not be able to cite the Council to support their modernist theology since the False Premise will not be there.This will also affect their understanding of the liturgy. Since even at the Novus Ordo Mass there ecclesiology will have to exclusivist. There will not be any other rational choice. -Lionel Andrades
awr
https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2021/11/24/faggioli-on-u-s-traditionalism-a-response/
Traditionalism, American-Style
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/traditionalism-american-style?utm_content=buffer31891&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twi
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment