The Party Line

GeronimoRumpelstiltskin: me either, personally.

The best reason I can figure for that difference between unruffled me and the kerfluffled many is that I’m a convert. So I learned about Vatican II by reading the documents, before I converted, and asking myself, “Can I sign on to this?” And I found those documents often very compelling, and right in line with the direction taken by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. So I look at these recent events and say (with you), “What’s the big deal?”

But an awful lot of Catholics came to the Vatican II material in a very different way; especially for cradle Catholics, they grew up hearing the magic phrase “Vatican II” as the Council That Changed Everything—because that’s how, in far too much of the Church (especially in the U.S.), that seems to be how Vatican II was interpreted. But Pope Benedict’s recent documents are—quite intentionally—challenging that interpretation of the Council. So for these folks, who are invested in the interpretation they grew up with (they almost have to be—how do you question an ecumenical council?), these new statements are forcing a rethink of their whole understanding of the Catholic Church. If you’ve spent your whole life thinking of yourself as Catholic and suddenly here’s the Pope telling you that Catholicism isn’t what you thought it was—well, that’s enough to kerfluffle anybody.

My best guess, at least.

Peace,
–Peter

Peter,

You hit a number of things right on the head. Still, I can’t help but look rather quizically at those making all this fuss.

You wrote “But Pope Benedict’s recent documents are�quite intentionally�challenging that interpretation of the Council.” My take on Il Papa’s position is that the Council, in regards to the new Mass, went a little too far, and thinks the Latin Mass should be brought back into the mainstream of the liturgy. He didn’t, however, abolish the new Mass, or raise the Latin Mass to be the normative Mass, he just reintroduced it to co-exist alongside the new mass. As I said in my first message, I really don’t see the Latin Mass taking up more than 2 slots on any given weekend, and think having both forms of Mass available is terrific. So I really can’t see what outcry is all about.

You also wrote “If you’ve spent your whole life thinking of yourself as Catholic and suddenly here’s the Pope telling you that Catholicism isn’t what you thought it was�well, that’s enough to kerfluffle anybody.” That’s exactly how Catholics who grew up pre-Vatican II felt in the aftermath of the Council. However, the shift in Catholic liturgy and culture post-Vatican II was much more dramatic, and on much more of a tremendous scale, than your local parish offering 1 or 2 Latin masses a week. So now, instead of “traditionalists” being forced to accommodate a tsunami of innovation, the “progressives” are finding that they must accomodate a few raindrops of tradition, and they don’t like it one bit.

As for myself, I have never pined away for the Latin Mass (I’m a cradle Catholic, but born after VII), but don’t see anything wrong with it either. What I find objectionable in all the fuss being made is that the same “progressives” who make quite a habit of praising their own “tolerance” and “appreciation of diversity” are showing precious little of it when it comes to a couple of Latin Masses said every week.