The Liturgical Spectrum

[Crusader]

Given the election atmosphere, it made me think a bit about the political spectrum model we all hear about sometime in our lives.

Most people are familiar with this model to some degree. True “moderates” are directly in the middle, “liberals” to the left and “conservatives” to the right. There are several steps on each side of the moderate position culminating in anarchism (no government) to the extreme right and socialism (communism) to the extreme left.

Many people feel the extremes of anarchism and socialism are polar opposites when in fact they are quite similiar. The political spectrum is not a straight line with two extremes, but a circle or ring with anarchism and socialism butted-up to one another. This also places both extreme positions as far away from the moderate position as possible.

I think this same model can be accurately applied to the Church, particularly when it comes to the liturgy. A perfectly orthodox Catholic would be the moderate of the political model. There would be different states on both the right and the left, culminating in self-described “progressive Catholics” to the extreme left, and “traditional Catholics” to the extreme right.

Both are as far away from the orthodox Catholic position as possible – without being in schism or heresy. Both are also right next to one another on the liturgical spectrum ring.

It is this model that makes me chuckle when progressive or traditional Catholics attack one another – for they could not be closer in their beliefs and their distance from orthodox Catholicism…

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Crusader:

I think this same model can be accurately applied to the Church, particularly when it comes to the liturgy. A perfectly orthodox Catholic would be the moderate of the political model. There would be different states on both the right and the left, culminating in self-described “progressive Catholics” to the extreme left, and “traditional Catholics” to the extreme right.

Both are as far away from the orthodox Catholic position as possible – without being in schism or heresy. Both are also right next to one another on the liturgical spectrum ring.

It is this model that makes me chuckle when progressive or traditional Catholics attack one another – for they could not be closer in their beliefs and their distance from orthodox Catholicism…

Crusader, orthodoxy has to do with right belief, in other words, the acceptance of the Church’s doctrine, as this definition from Merriam-Webster dictionary says:

Main Entry: 1or·tho·dox [%between%](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?orthod06.wav=orthodox’))
1 a : conforming to established doctrine especially in religion

Thus, preferring the Tridentine Mass, or thinking the allowance of communion in the hand is not a beneficial practice would not make one unorthodox as long as one did not reject a dogma of the faith.

If I am understanding the way you are using the word orthodox correctly, an orthodox Catholic would be one who not only accepts the dogmas of the faith, but also accepts the prudential decisions of the Church in regards to the liturgy as good and beneficial.

I suppose my question is if your definition of orthodoxy is “static” or objective?

In other words, if the liturgy practices approved by the Vatican after the Second Vatican Council are good and beneficial, are those who say they have not all been good and beneficial therefore “unorthodox” or very far away from orthodox Catholicism?

Thus would Cardinal Ratzinger, Fr. Aidan Nichols, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Dom Alcuin Reid, Monsignor Klaus Gamber and others who have forthrightly made criticisms of the liturgy promulgated by Pope Paul VI thus be very far away from orthodox Catholicism?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But can we view someone as being orthodox when they say that things the Church approves of are not good and not beneficial?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

ByzCath:

But can we view someone as being orthodox when they say that things the Church approves of are not good and not beneficial?

ByzCath, I think that is a very good question. In response, I posted a link on this very question where I quote from Dietrich von Hildebrand’s book, “The Charitable Anathema”. Here is the link:


And this goes to my question above. If we cannot view someone as orthodox who questions or does not believe many of the liturgical changes and officially approved liturgical practices since the Second Vatican Council have been beneficial, does it then follow that we ought to view people such as Cardinal Ratzinger or Dietrich von Hildebrand and others as unorthodox or very far away from orthodoxy?

 

[Crusader]

Brennan Doherty:

Crusader, orthodoxy has to do with right belief, in other words, the acceptance of the Church’s doctrine, as this definition from Merriam-Webster dictionary says:

Main Entry: 1or·tho·dox
1 a : conforming to established doctrine especially in religion

Thus, preferring the Tridentine Mass, or thinking the allowance of communion in the hand is not a beneficial practice would not make one unorthodox as long as one did not reject a dogma of the faith.

If I am understanding the way you are using the word orthodox correctly, an orthodox Catholic would be one who not only accepts the dogmas of the faith, but also accepts the prudential decisions of the Church in regards to the liturgy as good and beneficial.

I suppose my question is if your definition of orthodoxy is “static” or objective?

In other words, if the liturgy practices approved by the Vatican after the Second Vatican Council are good and beneficial, are those who say they have not all been good and beneficial therefore “unorthodox” or very far away from orthodox Catholicism?

Thus would Cardinal Ratzinger, Fr. Aidan Nichols, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Dom Alcuin Reid, Monsignor Klaus Gamber and others who have forthrightly made criticisms of the liturgy promulgated by Pope Paul VI thus be very far away from orthodox Catholicism?

The definition is axiomatic…

“Thinking” is different than “saying”

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

ByzCath:

But can we view someone as being orthodox when they say that things the Church approves of are not good and not beneficial?

Do you really mean to imply that someone who questions the wisdom of allowing, for example, drum sets and polka bands in the liturgy has rejected a doctrine of the Church?

 

[DaveBj]

Andreas Hofer:

Do you really mean to imply that someone who questions the wisdom of allowing, for example, drum sets and polka bands in the liturgy has rejected a doctrine of the Church?

What would be the reason for keeping them out–the fact that they are an innovation? There was a time when pipe organs and polyphony were innovations.

(Just playing devil’s advocate–I’m not ready for a polka mass yet. )

Dave Bj

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Crusader:

The definition is axiomatic…

“Thinking” is different than “saying”

The reason I mention people like Cardinal Ratzinger or Dietrich von Hildebrand and the others is because they have not only forthrightly criticized the liturgical changes and approved practices after Vatican II, they have written it down.

I only came to know what they thought because I read what they wrote.

 

[Crusader]

The fact remains that the ultra-conservative “traditionalists” stand right next to the ultra-liberal “progressives” on the liturgical spectrum…

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Crusader:

The fact remains that the ultra-conservative “traditionalists” stand right next to the ultra-liberal “progressives” on the liturgical spectrum…

Okay. Then I suppose according to your definition we need to consider those who have criticized the approved liturgical reforms since the Second Vatican Council such as Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Ottoviani, Dietrich von Hildebrand and others as ultra-conservative “traditionalists” who stand right next to the ultra-liberal “progressives” on the liturgical spectrum.

Of course I do not see how ultra-conservative “traditionalists” stand right next to ultra-liberal “progressives” on the liturgical spectrum since they are usually going in opposite directions as far as emphases. Particularly since there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the practical decisions of the Vatican as the Vatican does not enjoy infallibility when it comes to prudential decisions.

 

[Crusader]

Brennan Doherty:

Of course I do not see how ultra-conservative “traditionalists” stand right next to ultra-liberal “progressives” on the liturgical spectrum since they are usually going in opposite directions as far as emphases. Particularly since there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the practical decisions of the Vatican as the Vatican does not enjoy infallibility when it comes to prudential decisions.

Not so.

Like the political spectrum, both extremes are the furthest away from orthodoxy as they could be – and that places them right next to one another.

It’s laughable to suggest that abuse or dissent is somehow “OK” because it comes from a “traditionalist” mindset…

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Crusader:

Not so.

Like the political spectrum, both extremes are the furthest away from orthodoxy as they could be – and that places them right next to one another.

It’s laughable to suggest that abuse or dissent is somehow “OK” because it comes from a “traditionalist” mindset…

I am not talking at all about “abuse”. No one has the right to abuse any liturgy, whether old or new.

Also, I am not talking about dissent. The word dissent, particularly in a Catholic setting, applies to doctrine, not fallible prudential decisions of the Vatican. Here is a partial definition from Fr. John Hardon’s Pocket Catholic Dictionary:

DISSENT, DOCTRINAL. The theory that a professed Catholic may legitimately disagree with an official teaching of the Catholic Church…

therealpresence.org/dictionary/adict.htm%between%

Here is the definition of orthodoxy according to the same dictionary:

**ORTHODOXY. **Right belief as compared with heterodoxy or heresy.

You seem to be elevating prudential decisions of the Vatican on the liturgy to the level of revealed dogma. Thus, anyone who disagrees with one or more of these prudential decisions is far away from orthodoxy or engaged in dissent.

And of course it becomes rather incongruous (or odd) to think of Cardinals Ottoviani and Ratzinger, past and present heads of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as liturgical dissenters.

If you were talking about actual heresy (and I know you stated you are not) on the right or left I could see your point. It would be just as bad to oppose the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception on the progressive side as it would be to deny the Office of the Papacy on the schismatic side. Then both would be near each other even though they opposed two different things.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Crusader:

Not so.

Like the political spectrum, both extremes are the furthest away from orthodoxy as they could be – and that places them right next to one another.

It’s laughable to suggest that abuse or dissent is somehow “OK” because it comes from a “traditionalist” mindset…

First, I’m not sure where you got this idea that spectra must be constructed circularly. This is only done when positions mesh into another, which is NOT the case when it comes to liturgical innovation. A traditionalist is in favor of very little to no innovation, and in present circumstances feels there has been too much. A moderate favors a moderate amount of innovation, and feels things are progressing about right. A progressive favors a large amount, and presently feels even more needs to be done. Please, how does this place the two extremes closer to one another than each is to the center?

Also, the assertion that criticism of liturgical practice is necessarily bound up with doctrinal dissent is ludicrous, and you have yet to actually present an argument for such an outrageous claim.

 

[Crusader]

I have heard “traditionalists” rant and rave about altar railing being removed (even though the normative way to receive communion is standing), lament the ability to receive in one’s hand, the advent of female altar servers, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. because they feel their ideas are better than what the Church actually directs…

What’s funny is they believe their positions are somehow different (and “better”) than those that applaud receiving in their hands while standing and the use of female altar servers.

I could have used other examples (there are a ton of them), but I’m convinced most liturgical abuses and dissent come from the extremes which lay right next to one another on the liturgical spectrum ring…

 

[JNB]

Crusader:

I have heard “traditionalists” rant and rave about altar railing being removed (even though the normative way to receive communion is standing), lament the ability to receive in one’s hand, the advent of female altar servers, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. because they feel their ideas are better than what the Church actually directs…

What’s funny is they believe their positions are somehow different (and “better”) than those that applaud receiving in their hands while standing and the use of female altar servers.

I could have used other examples (there are a ton of them), but I’m convinced most liturgical abuses and dissent come from the extremes which lay right next to one another on the liturgical spectrum ring…

The church never mandated altar railings be removed, and Rome told the Bishops to respect the rights of communicants who choose to kneel for communion with 3 letters from the CDW to bishops, also altar girls while allowed were also never mandated by Rome. We have gone though these issues many times of various threads. Things such as altar rails being removed, altar girls, communion under both species started out as abuses, though Rome caved in,.

The problem with you Crusader, is you seem to confuse the difference between what is a norm and what is a liturgical law, and what is allowed and what is mandated. You seem to have a problem with an extreme amount of blind obidience, the type o f blind obidience that is dangerous when those in charge may have questionable theology(and yes, Bishops are not in defectable, much less infalliable).

Crusader, you need to grow up.

 

[JNB]

Andreas Hofer:

First, I’m not sure where you got this idea that spectra must be constructed circularly. This is only done when positions mesh into another, which is NOT the case when it comes to liturgical innovation. A traditionalist is in favor of very little to no innovation, and in present circumstances feels there has been too much. A moderate favors a moderate amount of innovation, and feels things are progressing about right. A progressive favors a large amount, and presently feels even more needs to be done. Please, how does this place the two extremes closer to one another than each is to the center?

Also, the assertion that criticism of liturgical practice is necessarily bound up with doctrinal dissent is ludicrous, and you have yet to actually present an argument for such an outrageous claim.

I honestly think he does not(or will not) see the difference between the redical fringes of traditional Catholics and authentic liturgical movments such as those who want wider use of the old mass and those who want to restore traditional to the current missal(and I feel as do many others restoration of the rails and kneeling for communion is all important). People like me want to work within the church framework to bring restoration to the mass, I have no intrest in fringe movments, I do what is required for me to be loyal to the magesterium and respect church teachings. I do not like the way the mass is typically celebrated in the US, though I do not have a problem with the Novus Ordo if of itself, and I like a reverent mass based in tradition, but my opinion is in no way, shape contraray to church teachings. Someone who only wants to attend more traditional Latin Rite Masses is no different than a Eastren Rite Catholic who only wants to attend Eastren Rite Divine liturgies, they are still loyal to Rome and her teachings.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Crusader:

I have heard “traditionalists” rant and rave about altar railing being removed (even though the normative way to receive communion is standing), lament the ability to receive in one’s hand, the advent of female altar servers, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. because they feel their ideas are better than what the Church actually directs…

What’s funny is they believe their positions are somehow different (and “better”) than those that applaud receiving in their hands while standing and the use of female altar servers.

I could have used other examples (there are a ton of them), but I’m convinced most liturgical abuses and dissent come from the extremes which lay right next to one another on the liturgical spectrum ring…

Well, this is exactly my point. Everything you refer to above are fallible decisions or allowances by the hierarchy. They are not infallible dogma. Thus Catholics can, and in many cases ought, to respectfully oppose fallible practices which seem to not be beneficial or even harmful to the faith. If you think traditionalist arguments for the superiority of the old Mass or against the use of altar girls, etc. are wrong then you certainly have a right to state why you think their reasoning is wrong.

I am not talking about disobedience either. I can’t prevent people from receiving communion in the hand or drag girls down from the altar even if I don’t think those practices are beneficial to the faithful.

If you have not read the excerpts from Dietrich von Hildebrand on the critical difference between belief and obedience here:


please do so.

Also, I don’t even understand why progressives can’t applaud standing and receiving communion in the hand and female altar servers. After all, these things are allowed. And I certainly would attempt to reason with them that these practices are not beneficial to the faithful even if they are allowed. And the positions are different.

Yet the words “abuse” and “dissent” simply do not apply to what you state above unless people were deliberately disobeying liturgical law or refusing to recognize that the hierarchy does have the right to lay down liturgical law

 

[rwoehmke]

I have sometimes had the same vision of the political and religous spectrum, but I am not sure that the word “spectrum” fits. In physics the spectrum is a stright line function that goes from very wide wave length to very short wave length and the extremes just don’t butt together. Perhaps progressives are the very broad waves and the gamma ray end are the nit pickers.