SSPX, etc.
Lord Sebastian posted this a few days ago regarding the possible imminent return of the society to communion with Rome. Such a thing is devoutly to be wished, for many reasons. For example, one of the greatest scandals the church gives to non-believers is due to internal disunion. Furthermore, the SSPXers have a very strong sense of the church militant, something that we could use some more of. Finally, and most importantly, those within the Society may be endangering their souls through the schism. For all these reasons, (plus for two others much more personal,) I pray that the Society will indeed return to Rome.
But looking at things within my fallen, human perspective, I am not confident that such a reunion will take place. To understand this, I think we need to go back to the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, to come to grips with the psychology involved. Luther, an intelligent but hard-headed man, saw many abuses in the church (whether there actually were any I don't know, but his writing against the Curia is vitriolic), and like a good pastor, began to teach against those abuses. His teaching, however, was infused with a proto-Cartesian philosophy: a radical separation between the substance of the soul and the substance of the body. For this reason, Luther taught that justification lay in the purification of the soul, or in other words, absolute faith, and that works were simply to condition the body so that it would not "war against the spirit." This is all in Luther's Freedom of a Christian.
The Council of Trent's reaction to Luther was to affirm the unity of body and soul in the human person, and thus to affirm the importance of merit in justification, even as it granted the absolute dependence of the person upon the grace of God. Thus, the Tridentine liturgy, common enough as I understand it before the council, simply universalized those practices that speak to the human person as a unity of body and soul, under the conditions of fallenness but sanctified by the blood of the cross, etc.
Jump now to the sixties. Descartes is no longer the spirit of the age, but rather Heidegger. Heidegger's philosophy is a radical anti-Metaphysics, "pure" phenomenology. Heidegger's project is to de-sediment the philosophical concept of 'being' from the layer upon layer of conceptual encrustation caused by 2000 years of philosophizing. Heidegger thus speaks of Dasein (a fancy term for the human) as the ground of the givenness of things. With Heidegger, there is a radical turn to the subject, away from Being qua divine. I think that the "novel" formulations of Church teaching in Vatican II are a result of the Church's attempt to come to grips with this new extraordinary phenomenon. The Church, and especially Pope John Paul II in his implementation of the council, is attempting to formulate the truths of the faith in a way which accepts the truth in phenomenology, while at the same time affirming the possibility and reality of metaphysics and of theology. It seems to me that this is always how it has been with the church: in the early church, Plato; in the medieval period, Aristotle.
Of course, some in the church took this as an opportunity to reject previous church teaching in toto -- we only need think of contraception, woman's ordination, gay marriage, and so on, not to mention the radical and violent abandonment of the monastery by monks for marriage. This is of course a scandal, but some in the church were scandalized, not just by the abuses, but by the attempt to use the language of phenomenology at all. This is how I characterize SSPX. They are rejecting, not "new" doctrines, but new formulations of old doctrines. They reject the language used, more than they reject the content signified by that language. I suppose that they would not formulate what they do in that way themselves, but that is what they are doing nevertheless.
This has a two-fold problem. First, they do not recognize the value in the new formulations of doctrine. The great advantage of phenomenology is that it reduces everything to experience -- to this extent, I think that all good philosophy is phenomenology. Furthermore, by reformulating the doctrines of faith, the phenomenological method is able to revitalize them and make them present and active within the soul in a powerful and all encompassing way. In other words, the phenomenological formulation of doctrine is in precise continuity with the scholastic formulations of the Council of Trent in this, that both are concerned to address the person as a whole, as a union of body and soul. Just as Trent glorified the union of body and soul, in its response to Luther, so Vatican II stresses the integralness of the whole person in worship, in the communion of saints, etc. The point I'm getting at is that phenomenology provides the church with a powerful means of understanding the person as a unity, over and against the bifurcating influences of the modern world, thereby providing once again a radical (in the etymological sense) ground for the doctrines of the faith. By rejecting Vatican II, the SSPXers fail to see the good that is in the churches appropriation of phenomenology.
But as a consequence of this, the SSPXers fall into a second and more dangerous error. Because of their insistence upon the language of Trent, they become legalistic, concerned with words more than with the meaning behind words; concerned with the form of liturgy rather than the spirit in which the liturgy occurs. Because of this, because they insist on the formulations of doctrine and worship which came about as a response to Luther, they become subject to Luther's own criticism. Luther accused the church of believing that people could be saved by works without faith. SSPXers, psychologically, fall subject to this critique, to the extent that they fail to realize that it is the spirit with which worship occurs which makes worship valid. Let me stress, I do not think that the effects of Vatican II have been positive here in a practical way in many, many churches through out our land. But the point is that by insisting on the Tridentine formulations, of doctrine and of worship, SSPX has lost the spirit that lives within them. They have become a society of works without faith. This is of course in a literal sense true: for they lack faith in the Holy Spirit to guide the church when it meets in an Ecumenical council. But it is also psychologically true: for they lack the ability to think radically (again, in the etymological sense) about their faith.
Lets consider the example I mentioned before on Flyte's blog. Receiving Holy Communion in the hand. I've heard many Society members say that this is an abomination against the Lord. There is of course Biblical support for this. Someone or other (I can't remember who) touched the Arc of the Covenant (not even the Lord, but simply the throne of the Lord) to keep it from falling over, and was immediately struck dead. But let us consider this a bit more fully. It is of course indubitable that in the early church people received Holy Communion in the hand. There is definite textual evidence to support this. If this is the case, then it cannot be that receiving Holy Communion in the hand is a sin in itself. The church as such cannot permit its members to commit mortal sin! If you don't believe this, you don't believe in the church. But if it's not a mortal sin by nature, then it's only a moral sin by convention. But who has the power to make such conventions? The church. ("What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, ...") So if the church says that it is acceptable to receive on the hand, then it's acceptable. By asserting that this is a mortal sin, SSPXers demonstrate their inability to think radically about their faith, to think about what worship is.
What can in fact be adequate to God? God has become incarnate, He sacrifices Himself for us on the Altar daily. Is there anything which is adequate to that mystery? Let's be more explicit. Is there anything external which is adequate to that mystery. "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise" (Ps. 51:16-17). What makes the sacrifice of the mass acceptable to God is the spirit in which it is offered. A humble and contrite spirit. That is what justifies every jot and tittle of the form of the liturgy. I can see someone receiving on the hand because they hold the Host to be of little value; I can also see someone receiving on the tongue because they are proud like the Pharisee. Which, on the basis of the externalities, is better? Neither. Both are justified by the spirit in which they are done, and both are an abomination when done in the wrong spirit.
This all finally comes down to obedience. There is a great danger in being more holy than the church. If the church permits something, it is permitted. It is not permitted sort-of, or permitted only for those who would be in moral sin otherwise. It is permitted. To be a member of the church demands that one accept the things permitted by the church as permissible. This is a great test of obedience, for every one of us, not just for the SSPXers.
Why has God allowed the church to permit so many things which seem counter to good prudence to you and I? There is of course no way to answer that question really till the final judgment, but this is how it strikes me. We live in a world which rejects all claims to validity unfounded on evidence. Modern physics is the highest science, precisely because it has the strongest methodological claims to evidentiary support. Reason, and in particular, reason grounded on evidence, is the single judge between the factual and the unfactual. The corollary to this is that all authority is questioned. The modern world admits no authority (of course, it implicitly accepts millions of authorities, like physicists, for example, but it pretends that it isn't).
So here we are, members of a church founded on authority, where the authority figures are making what seems to you and me poor prudential decisions. I take this to be God's way of testing his followers, as we are forced to choose between Him and modern skepticism. Will we choose our reason, our judgments about the way things ought to be, or will we choose to follow the church, even when it seems like things aren't really being worked out all that well? SSPX chose the first; I choose the second.
My mother, drunk or sober, my mother.
posted by Whiskey at 3:01 PM
9 Comments:
Great Blog, Whiskey. Thanks. But what do you do when phenomenology is carried to an extreme in the Church, and tradition is trumped by 'experience'? How do we get back to our roots when folks' hackles rise at the mere mention of Latin?
Thank you for your clear enunciation of the facts, Whiskey. The philosophical context is especially helpful since all the ideas are hard to get one's mind around when one hasn't been studying it for the past several years.
I agree that SSPXers err in following the letter without the spirit, but the Tridentine mass is nonetheless more attractive as a literary work of art than the novus ordo--those letters seem more appropriate to the spirit, in other words. Also, how does the novus ordo reflect the new, phenomenological emphasis better than the old Roman rite?
I realize and fully agree that submission to Holy Mother Church is THE thing here, and I will always do that. Ought we lay aside discussion of the old mass, then? Is that the appropriate response to the late liturgical changes?
This has been a fruitful discussion. Thanks, everyone.
Whiskey is right, and his response is well thought out. This question ultimately has little to do with the particulars of the mass, but with the question of obedience. Judas questioned Christ concerning the costly oil used to welcome him, stating that it could be sold for a good sum and the money given to the poor. Of course Judas was a thief and a liar, but his criticism does make rational sense. Was Christ being indulgent? Was he making the right prudential decision? Christs response is a difficult one to swallow. "The poor you shall always have with you..." It seems almost callous. It was directly after this that Judas sold Christ out. How could he follow a Messiah he would have to correct from time to time? This over-conservatism is also a main ingredient in the pride which led to Judas' suicide. He could never forgive himself. How could he respect a God who would "go easy on him?" All this is to say, our standards should be the church's. It was given to her to be protected from error, so that we might have clarity in our hope. It was not given to us, to be protected from error because it is ultimately unnecessary for us to have clarity in our knowledge.
Annie: I think the obvious thing to do in such a case is to point out what the norms for the liturgy actually are. The Church has explicitly said that Latin is the language of the church. This has never been denied, and those who deny it or act as if they deny it are to that extent separating themselves from the teachings and practice of the church.
Regarding tradition and experience, I think these are only in opposition when one falls subject to something akin to the Cartesian dualism. Authentic lived experience is rooted phenomenologically in tradition. Heidegger calls this the "thrownness of being" -- we exist in a world that is pre-given, pre-determined in definite ways, which we have no control over. For example, that I have the particular parents that I do, etc., and most importantly, that I belong to a church which stretches back in time all the way to Christ. Authentic religious experience is always radically grounded in tradition. To separate oneself from one's tradition is akin in this way to separating the soul from the body. We mentally separate two things which in reality cannot be separated.
Sebastian: I think that what the Church saw as a shortcoming in the old rite was the tendency to formalism -- a kind of separation of spirit and word. In my opinion, this may in fact have been the case, but does not seem to be a necessary effect. However, assuming that that was indeed what the church perceived to be the flaw in the old rite, then the changes in the novus ordo gain a certain sort of reasonableness. Speaking broadly, the new mass is a simplification of the old mass: the parts are the same, but much of the symbolism of the old mass has been removed. The desired effect of this is to enhance the participation of the congregation in the worship of the Lord. Here, I don't mean that the people have more to say, or that they stand up and sit down a lot, but that they can be actively engaged in the sacrifice as their sacrifice. The problem of a surfeit of symbols is that, lacking understanding of many of them, we abdicate responsibility for all of them and place the reality of the sacrifice all on the priest. It is commonly said that prior to Vatican II many people would pray the Rosary during mass. Of course the church encouraged people to be engaged in the mass, but many people would not.
So, the novus ordo is the attempt, as I understand it, to bring the spirit of the congregation into as full a unity as possible with the reality of the sacrifice of the mass.
But does this happen? Did the changes have the effect that was hoped? In my human wisdom I shake my head and wonder. When priests teach that contraception is acceptable, when what you hear from the pulpit is that this or that miracle in the Bible didn't really happen, what can you do but weep?
Yet on the other hand, I suppose this is always how it has been. The church has never been free from turmoil, from inner strife, from bad priests and bishops, from sin in its members.
So, regarding the old mass, I think that it is an error to put our hopes in the idea that the church will figure out someday that the whole novus ordo thing was a mistake and revert to the old mass. I also think it is unlikely that the church will allow parallel versions of the same mass to continue indefinitely. This, like I said on your blog, seems to me to contradict the very meaning of the word "rite." So what options are left for the old mass?
Well, I will again state what I said in the post above: what the church permits is permitted. This is not simply true of the wackier parts of the church, but of the extremely traditional parts of the church as well. For this reason I disagree with Flannery regarding the Latin mass. There is nothing wrong, objectively (subjectively is an entirely different matter of course) in attending the Latin mass. It is accepted as valid by the church: therefore it is valid. Furthermore, the church no longer demands that one attend the church which serves your parish; therefore there is nothing wrong (objectively) with never attending a novus ordo service either. Therefore, one can go where one worships best. And one can explain why one worships better there to others. But one cannot claim that what moves them to worship there better should be taken as normative for the church as a whole, unless the Church itself declares those practices normative. Does that clear things up?
Just for clarification's sake, I did not say that I thought there was something objectively wrong with going to the Tridentine mass. I did say it was incredibly harmful to have such an enormous split within one Rite--that of the ultra-traditional and the ultra-trendy.
Obviously there is nothing wrong with going to the Tridentine mass, because the Church allows it. I haven't read the documents, but they say that this allowance was never meant to be permanent. And I think that it will probably be better (better within two goods!) when there are richly celebrated Vatican II masses to take the place of the Tridentine mass.
That said, thank you for giving the philosophical background for the liturgical changes of Vatican II.
How do we get back to our roots when folks' hackles rise at the mere mention of Latin?
Well said. I have made it one of my personal goals in life to change this abhorrent phenomenon.
Overlyconscious posted this, but I think Blogger must have eaten it, so I'm reposting it.
Admittedly, I have a few bones to pick but most would be unhelpful for the discussion. I would, however, like to comment on the Heideggerian pathology:
"With Heidegger, there is a radical turn to the subject, away from Being qua divine."
I have been thinking about this very thing lately, albeit outside of the context of Heidegger. He is certainly the spirit of the age and with good reason but a slightly different one than you articulate. (I will try to keep this short.) The Platonic/Aristotlean metaphisics as a grounding for theology is precisely right and that is the reason (to fast forward greatly) the Dasein was an appealing idea for H. Let me flesh it out a bit.
The metaphysics of P./A. concieved God's essence, fundamentally, as BEING. Fair enough, the distinctions between the philosophers, fundamentally, is the analogy of BEING to being (us, rocks, etc.). Who thought what here is not important, rather how they thought about God and, consequently, how St. Thomas et aliud thought about God affected the perspective of God. Take St. Thomas, he was finally concerned with God's Being, the quiddity of God. In order for the five ways to work, we assume a similarity of God's BEING to man's being, and lest somebody misunderstand me: similarity does not mean same in order that similarity be similarity there must be a difference (think: specific). Of course, we both know this, we were in the same class at TAC. But it is neccesary to spell out for my next point.
Differences will often turn into dichotomies -justly or not. This is what happened with BEING and being. Eventually BEING was became so distinct that it was divorced from being and -viola- Heidegger. To simply discuss the quiddity of BEING turns it eventually cold. If BEING is a cold and distant then God is. And a cold and distant god is not a good god for religion and is certainly not the God of Scripture. Hence, if there is no warmth from above, we must find it in our selves, the Dasein.
All of this for just one simply point. If I understand the schism properly (forgive me if I don't, being "the seperated brethren" that I am.) then the two forces opposed are what I and you, in different ways have laid out. If it is a matter of language, this is no small difference because language betrays perspective. These opposiing perspectives find their to be a dillemma between the Heidegger and (say) St. Thomas. I deny the dillemma and say change the calculus. Rather than dealing with metaphysics and Being, particularly the whatness of God, deal with the "whoness" of God. Scripture is not a metaphsyical text book, it is about a Personal God (i.e., a God who has personhood not a god of the individual) who acts in history. God reveals Himself through his acts, warmly and affectionately. Man cannot find him slugging through distinctions between being and essence. Character traits, like my mother's trustworthness has more weight and meaning than her participation in "motherness" or some such rot.
(I didn't keep it short, sorry).
As Mr. Pelletier (an amazing pro-life Dad living in Fort Worth) says:
"Don't be holier than the Church."
For me, it's always been a clearcut case of obedience....thanks for the philosophical history, Whiskey. It makes a lot of sense.....and brings out the age-old problem of people not being comfortable with change, period.
As an Aristotelian-Thomist, phenomenology is tough for me philosophically, and a few of my friends who graduated from college with me tried to go to the JPII institute in DC and had a hard time....
Besides the fact that I haven't tried to follow an argument like this in...oh, maybe....10 years?
Thanks for the brain strain.
;)
Post a Comment
<< Home