I think a part of the issue is that people are so concerned about Vatican II and what happened after, that they’re afraid of the same things happening. This fear, and fear of the unknown, drives a lot of people into opinions. Some traditionalists don’t understand the charismatic movement for example, and they see it as a threat and form assumptions based off of a couple of web sites or author tract they have read. Not knowing that the older custom is having the Tabernacle off to the side is seen as a threat and a modernist invention. Churches modeled after religious orders is seen as a threat and an affront. A lot of these things are based off of recent events that hurt them, or simply not knowing.
As a result, we have some people ignoring Church history. Things like how the Tridentine Mass came from the Franciscans and still resulted in a big change throughout the Church, with very little gradual procedures. Things like the Divine Office which seeped into the secular parish life, and the Divine Office itself being changed.
What happened after Vatican II (again, disregarding liturgy itself for sake of argument) was a massive rupture, and that is a historical fact. I am not “afraid of the unknown.” That does not work anyways, because that argument assumes that what is “unknown” is automatically as good as, or better than, what we already have in a given instance. Additionally, it fails on a second level in this instance because I have known for some time now that having the tabernacle in a chapel (assuming that it is truly dignified) is an ancient practice, so it is not “unknown” to me. I have no opinion on the Charismatic Movement other than that, at least for the moment, I see it more genuinely as a personal piety/spirituality movement more than as a broader attempt to “change the Church,” which I appreciate.
I think what people get stuck on is the fact that they equivocate “rupture with tradition” with “it is unknown to Church tradition.” That is not the case; they mean two different things. Rupture with tradition means that we have these practices in order of development: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I J, K, L; and then all of a sudden, while Church practice is at “L,” someone screams, “Let’s go back to C!” That makes no sense. While C was a venerable tradition in the past, it is not where we are right now. This is further complicated by the fact that someone trying to be wise says, “Well, the Benedictines do C.” That is another flaw in argument. Why does it matter what Benedictines do? We are not Benedictines. Now, does this mean that we can’t adopt C? No! We can. It just means that we have to examine the practice on its OWN merits rather than taking up the practice, “Because we used to do it 1400 years ago,” or, “Because the Benedictines do it.”
It does not matter what the older practice is. That is not my point. My point is that things can’t be justified in parishes with the, “The Religious do it” argument. Nor can things in Religious communities be justified with the, “The parishes do it” argument. That does not mean that Religious and parishes cannot share practices, but it does mean that they should be very cautious unless it works for each
individually on the basis that it
fits in with their respective charisms. The “sharedness” of a practice should be an incidental, not the driving force behind the adoption of a practice. For example, do lay people in parishes pray the Rosary “because the Dominicans do it?” No, they do it because it is a good prayer and it deepens spirituality. That Religious AND people in parishes do it is just an incidental thing, or perhaps you could say accidental. It just is what it is, which is fine.
However, people repeatedly will argue, “The [insert Religious] have done it for 1100 years so it MUST be okay for our parish to do it!” which shows a clear flaw in thinking, and it makes no sense. It necessarily disregards the fundamental differences between Religious and parishes, that these two groups have very different lives and charisms and purposes. That line of thinking automatically refutes even the consideration of any other information, therefore the argument just fails.
My point is not to keep Religious and parish practices segregated. No, my point is that if one considers adopting a practice of the other, it MUST be judged on if it will work best for the Religious group individually or the parish individually, and NOT be adopted “because they do it” or “because it was done 1400 years ago.”
Do you see what I’m saying?
PS: From everything that I have seen, for most dioceses the Missal as mandated for use by Pius V in 1570 wasn’t a very large change at all. That is, the change cannot be compared to what happened after Vatican II. Although I would like to see more historical discourse on that topic.
