Thank you for this article. I have a lot of complicated thoughts, but I see your main point being that the discussion needs to be respectful and aimed at productive problem solving and mutual understanding.
At my substack, while I don't directly address the liturgy wars, I promote a "Peasant" mindset which was born out of my own anxiety about the liturgy wars (among other things). The idea is that we ought to scale our concern to our level of influence.
I used to follow Fr. Z very closely. He is a great writer and taught me about a lot as it pertains to the liturgy itself. What I found I did not like was the amount of anxiety he was creating (unintentionally) among the laity. People would write to him deeply concerned about the amount of water their priest was pouring into the chalice, or deeply concerned about their priest stumbling over certain words, or not saying them loud enough. This strikes me as unproductive.
This level of concern and second-guessing from the laity is unproductive because it lacks a sense of propriety, obedience, and charity.
Propriety I would describe as the proper relationship to ones superiors. By superior I mean someone who is in place to lead us. Priests are the leaders of parishes and it is their responsibility to care for and instruct and nourish the laity with spiritual goods. A layman closely examining how the priest pours water into the chalice is not respecting the proper role of the priest and is taking upon himself the responsibility of stewarding the liturgy at the parish.
There *is* a rubric for the proper amount of water to put in a chalice, and there *is* a place for the laity to be aware and vocal about gross excesses or negligence on the part of the priests, but to my mind it is improper for the laity to be uncharitably scrutinizing every act and deed. It creates a void of trust--the lay folk don't trust their priest to do things properly; the priests may come to resent the lay-folk for bringing well intended concerns to their attention. There's a breakdown here. I would advise laity to be aware of how things should look and be aware when things deviate significantly from that. Priests are and should be trained in the proper minutiae of Mass and should take their responsibility seriously. In 99% of cases I would say they do, and in a few cases the problems are bigger than the water in the chalice.
There's a deficiency in obedience as it pertains to the liturgy wars because the Church says that the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass. The laity do not have the right to decide what is valid and what isn't. They have a right to mobilize themselves to seek out the liturgy they prefer; they have a right to suggest to a priest that there should be a Latin Mass at their parish. That's it, as far as I see it. Out of respect for the Church Hierarchy, we should be aware as laity that our reach stops where the Church authority starts. We would get more spiritually out of obediently enduring a Mass in a way we do not prefer--than in trying to tell our priests, bishops, etc that they are wrong. When I entered the Catholic Church, I said, "I believe and profess all that the Catholic church teaches, believes, and proclaims to be revealed by God." The Catholic Church believes and teaches that the Novus Ordo is valid. There are some who say it is not valid--they are wrong. There are some who argue contrariwise that the TLM is outdated and no longer valid--they are wrong too. This error is avoided by obedience. Trust in your priests and bishops to be aware of all the relevant challenges. If you feel deeply convicted about this issue, talk to your priest and ask how you can help. They may tell you something constructive, they may tell you to do nothing. But orient yourself towards serving your priest, or finding a priest whom you can be comfortable serving.
There's a deficiency in Charity insofar as some group of Catholics have ceased to see some other group of Catholics as brothers in faith. Perhaps these examples are far outliers but it is important to address. Latin Mass is beautiful. Novos Ordo can be moving too. The Church teaches that both are valid, so why fault someone with seeking the sacraments at a place the Church tells them it is OK to go?
Tradition is good, but obedience is better. Trust that the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from error, which it can and does. Pray frequently for priests and bishops and more vocations. And do what you can to help your brothers to love and serve the Church obediently. Then we don't need liturgy wars--we would have obedience, and through obedience to the Church and her mandates, we would have peace among the disparate liturgies.
I fully agree with you here. There should be no need for discussion as to the validity of either form of the mass in the Roman Rite. But, there are many other related discussions that do need to occur. Among these: 1.) The nature of Sacred Tradition, 2.) The value of aesthetics within the liturgy, 3.) The exact nature of Papal Authority as regards the liturgy, etc.
You are certainly correct, that we need to be weary of battling unnecessarily outside of our sphere of influence, but also as you say, there are many, many lay people and clergy who are confused about this situation. Discussion can help clear up *some* of this confusion -- but ultimately, the final decision is up to the Magisterium.
I know that Misseo Dei is not geared towards these types of liturgical debates, so I will not attempt to have said discussions in this forum. The above article, as you rightly observed, is to ask us all to change the tenor of these discussions.
I think the liturgical wars are inevitable because history is repeating itself. I.e. the leftists after Vii tossed the traditional types to the curb without concern for their sensibilities, and now they're doing it again. To me, the obvious answer is just to separate into 2 rites, give us our own bishops, and leave us traditional leaning types alone. We can't have conversation because they won't allow it, as censorship is their m.o. It's the same playbook as what just happened with Covid and various aspects of several medical-treatments-that-shall-not-be-named-here. In reality, a lot of traditional types won't talk amongst themselves either though, so while I support your plea for open conversation, I'm not terribly hopeful.
This is spot on, great article!
Thank you!
Well done!
Thank you, Judson!
Thank you for this article. I have a lot of complicated thoughts, but I see your main point being that the discussion needs to be respectful and aimed at productive problem solving and mutual understanding.
At my substack, while I don't directly address the liturgy wars, I promote a "Peasant" mindset which was born out of my own anxiety about the liturgy wars (among other things). The idea is that we ought to scale our concern to our level of influence.
I used to follow Fr. Z very closely. He is a great writer and taught me about a lot as it pertains to the liturgy itself. What I found I did not like was the amount of anxiety he was creating (unintentionally) among the laity. People would write to him deeply concerned about the amount of water their priest was pouring into the chalice, or deeply concerned about their priest stumbling over certain words, or not saying them loud enough. This strikes me as unproductive.
This level of concern and second-guessing from the laity is unproductive because it lacks a sense of propriety, obedience, and charity.
Propriety I would describe as the proper relationship to ones superiors. By superior I mean someone who is in place to lead us. Priests are the leaders of parishes and it is their responsibility to care for and instruct and nourish the laity with spiritual goods. A layman closely examining how the priest pours water into the chalice is not respecting the proper role of the priest and is taking upon himself the responsibility of stewarding the liturgy at the parish.
There *is* a rubric for the proper amount of water to put in a chalice, and there *is* a place for the laity to be aware and vocal about gross excesses or negligence on the part of the priests, but to my mind it is improper for the laity to be uncharitably scrutinizing every act and deed. It creates a void of trust--the lay folk don't trust their priest to do things properly; the priests may come to resent the lay-folk for bringing well intended concerns to their attention. There's a breakdown here. I would advise laity to be aware of how things should look and be aware when things deviate significantly from that. Priests are and should be trained in the proper minutiae of Mass and should take their responsibility seriously. In 99% of cases I would say they do, and in a few cases the problems are bigger than the water in the chalice.
There's a deficiency in obedience as it pertains to the liturgy wars because the Church says that the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass. The laity do not have the right to decide what is valid and what isn't. They have a right to mobilize themselves to seek out the liturgy they prefer; they have a right to suggest to a priest that there should be a Latin Mass at their parish. That's it, as far as I see it. Out of respect for the Church Hierarchy, we should be aware as laity that our reach stops where the Church authority starts. We would get more spiritually out of obediently enduring a Mass in a way we do not prefer--than in trying to tell our priests, bishops, etc that they are wrong. When I entered the Catholic Church, I said, "I believe and profess all that the Catholic church teaches, believes, and proclaims to be revealed by God." The Catholic Church believes and teaches that the Novus Ordo is valid. There are some who say it is not valid--they are wrong. There are some who argue contrariwise that the TLM is outdated and no longer valid--they are wrong too. This error is avoided by obedience. Trust in your priests and bishops to be aware of all the relevant challenges. If you feel deeply convicted about this issue, talk to your priest and ask how you can help. They may tell you something constructive, they may tell you to do nothing. But orient yourself towards serving your priest, or finding a priest whom you can be comfortable serving.
There's a deficiency in Charity insofar as some group of Catholics have ceased to see some other group of Catholics as brothers in faith. Perhaps these examples are far outliers but it is important to address. Latin Mass is beautiful. Novos Ordo can be moving too. The Church teaches that both are valid, so why fault someone with seeking the sacraments at a place the Church tells them it is OK to go?
Tradition is good, but obedience is better. Trust that the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from error, which it can and does. Pray frequently for priests and bishops and more vocations. And do what you can to help your brothers to love and serve the Church obediently. Then we don't need liturgy wars--we would have obedience, and through obedience to the Church and her mandates, we would have peace among the disparate liturgies.
For more on trusting the Holy Spirit to protect the Church, see this article I wrote on Wordpress here: https://timesdispatch.wordpress.com/2022/10/18/ccclxxxvii-metaphysical-plot-armor/
I fully agree with you here. There should be no need for discussion as to the validity of either form of the mass in the Roman Rite. But, there are many other related discussions that do need to occur. Among these: 1.) The nature of Sacred Tradition, 2.) The value of aesthetics within the liturgy, 3.) The exact nature of Papal Authority as regards the liturgy, etc.
You are certainly correct, that we need to be weary of battling unnecessarily outside of our sphere of influence, but also as you say, there are many, many lay people and clergy who are confused about this situation. Discussion can help clear up *some* of this confusion -- but ultimately, the final decision is up to the Magisterium.
I know that Misseo Dei is not geared towards these types of liturgical debates, so I will not attempt to have said discussions in this forum. The above article, as you rightly observed, is to ask us all to change the tenor of these discussions.
Thank you for your comment!!
good work here
I think the liturgical wars are inevitable because history is repeating itself. I.e. the leftists after Vii tossed the traditional types to the curb without concern for their sensibilities, and now they're doing it again. To me, the obvious answer is just to separate into 2 rites, give us our own bishops, and leave us traditional leaning types alone. We can't have conversation because they won't allow it, as censorship is their m.o. It's the same playbook as what just happened with Covid and various aspects of several medical-treatments-that-shall-not-be-named-here. In reality, a lot of traditional types won't talk amongst themselves either though, so while I support your plea for open conversation, I'm not terribly hopeful.