Five Unlikely Scenarios

One thing that has really interested me over the years is that Catholics have very differing views on how things will play out in the future.

The future is a very illusory thing. It is often invoked as a solution to all our problems, even as the past is castigated as their source. When faced with the break down of the liturgy, or the nonsense coming out of Rome, it is comforting to think, "It won't be this way forever. Someday a future pope or council will fix all this. God won't abandon us."

And no doubt, He won't. There will be periods of reform. The Church always reforms herself. And we know from divine revelation that the Church wins in the end. This is why I am not a total skeptic about the problems in the Catholic world - why I do not give in to ultimate despair. Essentially, why I continue to be Catholic. I know how this story ends. We all do. Christ and His Church will triumph.

But over the years I have listened to a lot of Catholics talk about what this triumph looks like, and I have realized that it is drastically different for people. For example, I personally believe the Church will triumph in the end, but I have never assumed that this triumph will take the form of some kind of general social restoration. Other Catholics see it differently; they see the vindication of the Church as essentially bound up with a kind of restoration, not only of the Church's social influence but of her ancient rites and customs as well.

I have always been a kind of pessimist in this regard. I have never assumed any future pope or council will totally undo everything. At best, I have held out hope that they would mitigate some of the more serious problems. I do believe in the future there will be a shift back towards tradition within the Church; what that shift looks like, I could not say.

Don't mistake me - I would like a total restoration, but I just don't see it as feasible in light of history and where we are going. But my essential view of the future is it gets worse and worse and worse until the world burns. God's grace may spare us certain calamities, but not all. The wheat has to be sorted from the chaff before the end, and this process is unstoppable. This is just my opinion, so I grant I could be totally wrong about it.

In this post, I am examining five scenarios I have heard bandied about by Catholics who hope the future is going to be better. In each case, I think the proposed scenario is much too overly optimistic and vain to pin ones hopes on. I then will present two alternative scenarios which I find more realistic.

1. A Future Pope Will Condemn Pope Francis

What some vainly imagine will happen: Many Catholics are extremely confident that some future traditional pope will call out and condemn the most egregious acts and statement of Pope Francis; extreme variants have this future pope condemning the acts of pretty much the entire post-Conciliar papal Magisterium. Some envision an ecumenical Council formally condemning the acts of the modern popes.

What could possibly happen: If there is a shift back towards tradition, it is conceivable that a future pope will issue decrees that call out some of the problematic statements in previous papal teaching and issue documents with the specific aim of correcting these previous problems. Benedict XVI once said Nostra Aetate was a weak document, and also complained that Gaudium et Spes was too uncritical in its acceptance of modern progressivism. Of course, Benedict was referring to conciliar documents, not papal teaching; and Benedict, despite these criticisms, never did anything to correct the imbalances he noted. It is conceivable, however, that a future pope might call out the errors in the documents of Francis or other post-Conciliar popes and actually issue documents meant to balance them out or correct them.

What is most likely to happen: People who bank on either of the two above scenarios happening don't understand how bureaucracies work. When a new chief comes in to assume control of a bureaucracy, he has to be able to manage and work with the bureaucracy, otherwise he can't get anything done. To accomplish that, there is a strong sense that his own legitimacy depends upon showing a continuity with what has come before him. A new leader wants to appropriate the strength and momentum of the bureaucracy, and to do that he has to be able to show, in some ways, that nothing has changed - that differences are just a matter of style or emphasis. A leader of a bureaucracy is very hesitant to openly contradict or overturn what a predecessor has done because he does not want to undermine the strength of the very office he holds. And he does not want to create a precedent that may lead to his actions being overturned in the future. This is why the most likely scenario is that the problematic statements of Pope Francis will simply never be addressed. They may not be quoted or cited in future sources of doctrine, but they will not be repudiated or corrected. The Magisterium of the future will simply put their hands in their pockets and hum and skip along like the Franciscan pontificate never happened. Future theologians will be left to puzzle out how (or if) Francis' teaching has a permanent place in the deposit of faith while the Church's highest theological authorities will be deafeningly silent on the matter. But no pope is going to want to openly overturn anything done by a previous pope; he will feel like he is undermining his own authority.

2. The Novus Ordo will be Abolished

What some vainly imagine will happen: The abolition of the Novus Ordo is the perennial wet dream of traditionalists. And rightfully so! So much of the destruction of the Catholic faith in the past fifty years has been bound up with the new liturgy. In most trad fantasies, the Church suddenly comes to its senses. Prompted by the Holy Spirit, the zealously traditional future pontiff and episcopate will scrap the Novus Ordo entirely and implement a return to the Traditional Latin Mass throughout the Latin rite. Possible variants include the Novus Ordo being declared heretical or invalid.

What could possibly happen: The vision of Pope Benedict XVI was that the two "forms" of the Roman rite should "mutually enrich" each other, a view Cardinal Sarah has recently endorsed in a plan he called "liturgical reconciliation." If the traditional movement continues to gain steam, it is possible that the traditional rite begins to "enrich" the Novus Ordo. We may see future tinkering with the Novus Ordo to bring it back more to something like what the Council Fathers intended. It is possible that a restoration of Gregorian chant sees the Church's historical music actually taking pride of place, as Sacrosanctum Concilium envisioned. We could see some of the options of the Novus Ordo removed, for example, some of the Eucharistic canons, or the celebration ad orientem made mandatory, or communion kneeling on the tongue become more or less universal again. Of course, this also means the Traditional Latin Mass may also have to suffer "enrichment" from the Novus Ordo, which is a major (and valid) complaint against Cardinal Sarah's opinion. Although, if we were in a situation where the traditional Mass was popular enough to start to really influence the Novus Ordo, it is unlikely that the worst elements of the Novus Ordo would be injected into the Extraordinary Form. It is possible that over time - and I am talking a century - the Novus Ordo could blend into something that looked and felt quite similar to the Extraordinary Form in its externals but of course retained the essential structure and lectionary of the New Mass.

What is most likely to happen: Neither the abolition of the Novus Ordo nor the transformation of the Novus Ordo into a quasi-Extraordinary Form entity are extremely likely. What is more likely is that the Novus Ordo will simply continue on as it always has. It will bend a little here and there based on the whims of the current pontiff. Under Benedict it grew more traditional in some places; under Francis anything goes again. But it will essentially remain unchanged. However, the Traditional Latin Mass will continue to gain traction. Unless Summorum Pontificum is positively abrogated, it is likely to continue to attract the youth. We will see a kind of cross fading between the two forms - as conventional Novus Ordo parishes continue to decline (in some cases precipitously), offerings of the Traditional Latin Mass will increase. Eventually we may have a situation globally akin to what we now see in France, where there is a thriving traditional movement existing side-by-side with a moribund, dying Novus Ordo establishment. But I don't see the Novus Ordo ever formally being abolished. The Novus Ordo is here to stay.

3. Vatican II Will Be Overturned

What some vainly imagine will happen: At some future date, another solemn Ecumenical Council will be held in which the documents of Vatican II will be completely nullified or abrogated. This is theoretically possible (it is argued) since none of these documents make binding theological definitions. In some scenarios, it is actually imagined that Vatican II will be declared no true Ecumenical Council at all. The documents of Vatican II will be publicly and entirely repudiated and possibly condemned as formally heretical.

What could possibly happen: If there is a future shift back towards tradition, clarifying documents could be issued that interpret the documents of Vatican II in the most traditional light possible. This sort of thing happened in 2007 when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an brief interpretive document on the phrase subsistit in in Lumen Gentium, directing that this teaching should be interpreted in continuity with the traditional understanding that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ. Athanasius Schneider has called for a similar authoritative interpretation of various aspects of the Council. If the Church hierarchy globally should ever begin to shift in a more traditional orientation, we could possibly see more clarifications of this sort that attempt to bring harmony between tradition and Vatican II (Related: What is the Hermeneutic of Continuity?).

What is most likely to happen: Like it or not, most Catholic prelates, even conservative ones, do not think there is any fundamental problem with the documents of Vatican II. Most hold the theory of the "hijacked council", or a version of "good council-bad implementation." What will most likely happen with the documents of Vatican II is...nothing at all. We could potentially see a few key phrases of teachings from the Council find their way into the perennial sources of faith. Perhaps Gaudium et Spes comment that without the Creator, the creature becomes incomprehensible; perhaps some of the ecclesiological statements of Lumen Gentium. Possibly a statement from Dei Verbum. But really, besides the two Constitutions, much of the conciliar corpus is unmemorable. As has occurred in the past with other ecumenical councils, a few kernels will be repeated and remembered and the rest of the Council documents - with all their wordy verbosity - will fall into obscurity. That is not to say they will be abrogated; rather, they will be superseded by new documents. These documents will probably be of a slightly more traditional bent (in the same way Benedict XVI was slightly more traditional than John Paul II), but they will not evidence any truly radical departure from the essential teaching of Vatican II.

4. The Bishops in Union with the Pope Will Consecrate Russia

What some vainly imagine will happen: A future pope, moved by the message of Fatima and convinced by the calamitous state of the world, will recognize the need for a consecration of Russia specifically according to the directives of Our Lady of Fatima. The pope in union with the bishops of the world will consecrate Russia - Russia alone and specifically - and an era of peace will be ushered in, the orthodox will be reconciled, and all manner of marvelous things will happen because of obedience to Our Lady.

What could possibly happen: The above scenario is very unlikely, as it would require future popes to admit that the actions of previous popes were errant or insufficient, which is highly improbable. Also, it requires a pope who takes Fatima seriously enough to break the Vatican's ostpolitik and risk harming "diplomatic" relations with the Patriarch of Moscow, which is also a big no-no. More likely is a scenario where the previous consecrations of "the world" to Our Lady are periodically renewed. For example, I can see a 50th anniversary commemoration of John Paul II's 1984 consecration in 2034, in which "the world" is again consecrated to Mary, similar to the consecration of the world made by Pope Francis in 2013. Just as the original Jubilee Year of 1300 became something that was repeated and became institutionalized, so we may see periodic renewals of the consecration of "the world" to Mary, none of which will mention Russia but which will all somehow be done "in the spirit" of Fatima.

What is most likely to happen: Nothing at all. As time goes on, the message of Fatima will be seen more as a general, feel-good sort of vague thing; devotion to Fatima will be reduced to just "loving Mary" and will get away from anything specific. Lots of flowers. Lots of feeling good. Lots of "On This Day O' Beautiful Mother," but nothing else really. It's eschatological content will wither and be forgotten, even by conservative popes/prelates.

5. A Restoration of Global Catholic Monarchy

What some vainly imagine will happen: After some future calamity - or alternately, perhaps during an "Era of Peace" ushered in by the Fatima consecrations - there will be a massive conversion of the world to the Catholic faith and global penitence. Reinvigorated by a new found devotion to the Kingship of Christ, Catholic monarchy's will be restored throughout much of the Christian world, perhaps with a sort of restored Holy Roman Empire ruled by some crusty scion of the House of Hapsburg. The social Kingship of Christ will be totally restored.

What could possibly happen: After some future turn of events upon which we can't speculate, some areas with a high population density of Catholics could see the rise of some Catholic strong-men dictator types, rulers who are autocratic but whose power is mitigated by their Catholic piety. I am talking about people like Portugal's Salazar or Englebert Dollfuss. These will not be monarchs, however, but authoritarians whose rule would be a far cry from a true restoration of Christ's kingship. At best, they will restore the social position of the Church, at least externally, and will enact laws reflective of some aspects of Catholic social teaching. But it will be difficult for them not to slip into the characteristic pitfalls of dictatorship.

What is most likely to happen: The slide of society towards liberalism will progress unabated until the Second Coming of Christ. As time goes on, there will be no more devout Catholics in positions of authority nationally, at least not such that they can wield any real influence. There will be no general social Catholic restoration of any sort. What restoration there occurs will be in little social niches, small communities, personal networks, etc. (No, please do not spam a bunch of quotes from obscure 17th century blesseds about the Great Monarch, nor do I want to hear about Fr. Ianuzzi's books).

Anyhow, that's my take on things. I may be totally wrong. I hope I am. What do you think?

Critiques of the "Brick by Brick" Mentality

Brick by brick. Remember that? "Brick by brick" was quite the thing during the previous pontificate. I remember one popular priest-blogger was extremely fond of the saying and kind of popularized it among traditional minded Catholics. I must confess, I haven't heard so much about "brick by brick" lately, though...

How shall we define the "brick by brick" mentality? "Brick by brick" is an interpretive paradigm used to ostensibly find positive trends in the bleak world of post-Conciliar NuChurch. It is not a particular set of principles so much as a way of looking at things, a kind of hermeneutical schema for making sense of current events in such a way that is favorable to Catholic Tradition. Essentially, though we see the forces of chaos and dissolution raging everywhere about us, we can discern a certain thread of continuity in the actions of the hierarchy and the sovereign pontiffs which should give traditionalists consolation. Yes, brick by brick acknowledges that we are in dire straits, but there is grounds for good hope because the fallen building is being slowly restored. "Bricks" are being put back into place - in the form of a decent episcopal appointment here, a promising statement friendly to tradition there; a quality snippet from a homily or document on this side, a few photos of cardinal so-and-so wearing traditional vestments on that side. These charming little nuggets are strewn out on the table and assembled to form a coherent trajectory of action that is supposed to exemplify some hidden "strategy" of the Pope and Magisterium to restore the Church to sanity. Granted, we never really hear what this strategy consists of in its entirety, but we are to confidently assume that the Princes of the Church have her best interest at heart and ever so slowly, brick by brick, the edifice is being raised up. Therefore, we can be fundamentally optimistic about the way things are going; we are certainly not there, but we are at least on the way.

This, as far as I can tell, is the crux of the "brick by brick" approach to the modern Church. It is not a terrible position to take; in fact, many priests and laity I respect tremendously see things this way. It is good to have a healthy optimism, and inasmuch as is possible, we should think well before thinking ill. Even so, optimism does not mean we shut our eyes to evident problems, and while "brick by brick" is not a not series of propositions as much as a frame of thought, as mentioned above, certain default assumptions do flow from it. I have reflected on "brick by brick" for seven years now, and it is precisely the assumptions it takes for granted that I have come to question.

Therefore, I present my five critiques of the "brick by brick" mentality.

I. MISPLACED GRADUALISM. In the first place, "brick by brick" tends to incorrectly assume that we can licitly move from evil to good along a gradualist spectrum. There are many things wrong with the Church. Duh. Some of them are just a matter of lesser goods being preferred to superior goods, like when a priest uses Eucharistic Prayer 2 instead of the Roman Canon. Many problems, however, are a matter of positive evils and abuses being preferred over any good whatsoever. In this category would be theologians clamoring for recognition of same-sex unions, bishops giving a pass to Pro-Abort politicians, lay people standing up around the altar at the consecration or lay-homilies, retreat centers promoting New Age practices with the blessing of the local bishop and so on - you know, all the abuses the existence of which probably turned most of you reading this into Traditionalists.

Now, brick by brick would not deny these things are problematic; it would, however, insist that we should be patient with these sorts of problems because this is a complicated matter and change comes slowly. The important thing is that we are moving in the right trajectory. I mean, look! The pope mentioned the devil twice in his homily. That's good news, right? And here's some beautiful photographs of an FSSP Mass is Portsmouth. Isn't that gorgeous? And lo! There is Bishop So-and-So using the Benedictine altar arrangement. There is still a lot of work to be done, but we don't want to spoil the whole thing by coming off too whiny. We should be thankful we are on the right path and give these other things time.

So, aside from the question of whether "time" will heal these wrongs (see Section II below), this approach seems to forget that while it is licit to move from a lesser good to a higher good on a gradualist spectrum, it is never licit to propose a gradualist time frame for moving from evils to goods. Evils need to stop immediately. If we truly believe in the evil of many of these abuses, anything less than an immediate cessation is unacceptable. I would rather have the New Age retreat house shut down and forego the Benedictine altar arrangement; I would rather the Pro-Abort politician be denied communion or excommunicated and forego seeing pictures of the beautiful FSSP Mass; I would gladly never read or hear another homily from the pope if we could get the progressive theologians dealt with. That would be the right way to handle this. Unfortunately, we just get token gestures while the real abuses go unchecked year after year, decade after decade.

II. TIME EQUIVALENT TO PROGRESS. Next, I cannot help but thinking that perhaps "brick by brick" assumes a modernist conception of time as equivalent with progress? That if we just allow enough time to pass, things will automatically get better? After all, the problem was not created overnight and it will not be recitifed overnight. One brick at a time, here a little, there a little. But never fear! There is a grand plan, and ultimately the Church is in the process of restoration. Just. Need. More. Time. 

But is it true that time will make true reform more feasible? I don't think that's the case. Reform is brought about by persons, persons who are connected with the Tradition of the Church. Every day that goes by without authentic reform, the gap between the present and the authentic Traditional praxis of the Church grows wider and wider. Right now the gap is about 45 years; how much demand for reform will there be when that gap is 60, 80, or 120 years? In the Anglican revolution, there was a powerful movement to return to Catholicism in the years immediately after Henry's innovations; the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536 and the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549 are two prime examples. But how much a demand was there to return to Catholicism in 1605? In 1689? What about in 1715? By this time, Catholicism was but a distant and despised memory and everybody had gotten used to Anglicanism. If reform does not happen soon, the Church's Tradition will be a distant historical memory. Sure, groups like the FSSP, The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest and the SSPX will keep Tradition alive - as well as the multitude of parishes that celebrate the Traditional Mass - but as more and more time elapses between the present and the era when the Tradition was universally accepted, it will have less and less relevance to new generations, just as Catholicism had very little relevance to an Englishman living around 1715.

Was there a better chance of reunion with the Protestants in 1525 or today after five centuries has elapsed?

I know us trads like to console ourselves by thinking time is on our side; the same priest who popularized brick by brick was also fond of saying that in time the "biological solution" would solve the problem of our older, liberal bishops. But is putting more time between ourselves and the pre-Conciliar era really an ultimate boon for our side? I mean, really? I'm not so sure it is. Therefore, I call into question whether or not time is on our side in this struggle.

III. TAKE IT SLOW? Brick by brick pretty much assumes that we have to take the reform slowly in order to do it right. If we don't, we could confuse people, offend people, and the whole thing could backfire on us, and that is  bad, mkay?

But who says? When did we all agree to that premise? I would simply ask, "Where was the moderation and careful approach when the original reforms were instituted after the Council?" Did the liberal reformers care about offending people or confusing the faithful when they ripped out the High Altars, removed the sacred images and relegated the Tabernacles of the world to closets? It was that quick; Friday the High Altar was there, and Monday it was gone. The 24th Sunday after Pentecost of 1970 Mass was said in the Missal of 1962; First Sunday of Advent seven days later and everyone's on the Novus Ordo. Bam. Done.

It can be objected that the quick implementation of these reforms is what caused so much mischief to begin with. Well, that's a cop-out because it dodges the question of the nature of the reforms altogether, placing blame instead on their pace. But what we all tend to forget is that the progressive reforms of the post-Conciliar era - for all the chaos they caused - were ultimately successful. The progressives wanted a horizontalized liturgy, and they got it. They wanted a democratized Church, and they got it. They wanted an end to papal centralization, and they got it. They wanted inculturation, and they got it. They got everything they wanted because they knew what they were after and were bold enough to reach out and take it.

If reforms can be brought about that quick in an errant cause, there is no reason it cannot be brought back that quickly in a righteous one. I understand that is is always easier to break down than to build up, but still...if the Magisterium were in earnest about fixing anything, it should not take forty-five years to undo the damage of ten.

Would there be disorders? Could such a swift restoration 'backfire'? Sure it could. And ultimately, there is no thoroughgoing "top-down" solution to our difficulties (see here). Yet we'd be foolish to disregard the restoration of Tradition because of fear of a hypothetical 'backfire' after Tradition is already restored. If we have to have problems either way, I'll take problems with Tradition than problems without it.

IV. DISREGARDS CONTRARY TRENDS. Suppose the tenuous connections between the positive nuggets strewn out on the table the way a person assembles a jig-saw puzzle are not completely arbitrary; suppose the brick by brickers are correct in their identification of a thread of positive movement in the modern Church. Even if this were true, the thread of positive movement is so thin, so small, and so inconsiderable compared to the massive contrary movement towards apostasy and liberalism that it is intellectually dishonest to make any claims about the trajectory of the Church as a whole based on it.

If you want to know which way traffic is moving, you judge this by the direction most cars are driving. You certainly do not look at the one or two cars here and there that are driving off the main road against the flow and make a judgment based on them. That would be not only foolish, but inaccurate. You judge direction by the trajectory of the majority. Similarly, you cannot latch on to positive developments within the tiny traditionalist community and use them to make sweeping generalizations about the Church whilst ignoring massive trends to the contrary.

V. THE TERRIFYING CRUX OF THE MATTER. Finally, what in my opinion is the strongest criticism of the brick by brick mentality is that it assumes that the Supreme Pontiffs have some 'grand plan' to restore the Church. It necessitates that we believe in some sort of supreme insight the popes have into the current crisis, some lofty vision of how to solve our current problems that we mere mortals are not privy to. Remember Benedict XVI's "Marshall Plan" for restoring the Church? Remember how we were supposed to find coherence in the gibberish of our current Holy Father by "reading Francis through Benedict"?

This is really the terrifying crux of the matter - my dear friends, believe me, there is no plan. There never was a plan. John Paul II did not have a plan. Benedict XVI did not have a plan. Francis sure as hell does not have a plan.

Did JP2 and BXVI occasionally do wonderful things? Of course. Does Francis occasionally say something orthodox? I admit it seems to have happened. But to the extent that John Paul or Benedict or even Paul VI made some truly good moves, it was absolutely not because they had some sort of "master plan" of how to fix the crisis; rather, the opposite was in fact true. Have you ever noticed that the good things about JPII and BXVI were always erratic and mixed in with many negatives as well? In the past I have called John Paul II a "mixed bag"; all the post-Vatican II popes have been mixed bags. This is because John Paul II and Benedict were sincerely conflicted men, torn between a strong, pious pre-Conciliar tradition they cherished nostalgically, but also committed intellectually to the post-Vatican II reforms.

After the Council, when the Church was in free-fall, neither pontiff really knew what to do. They had no plan to solve the crisis they both helped create. Neither seemed to be able to reconcile their pre-Conciliar formation with their post-Conciliar experience. At the best, they seemed to have believed in some sort of vague synthesis of the traditional thesis with the progressive antithesis. Thus occasionally they did something friendly to tradition while other times working to undo it; occasionally they threw traditional Catholics a bone and other times tossed a bone to liberals; sometimes they displayed great care for Catholic Tradition while other times their disregard for it was appalling and devastating to faithful Catholics. I don't think they ever knew how it was going to work out. John Paul II knew that the liturgy of the Eucharist had to be celebrated with reverence, but he had also committed himself to a particular form of evangelism which required things like the scandalous World Youth Day masses, the animist masses in Togo, etc. Benedict XVI, author of Dominus Iesus, certainly understood the salvific uniqueness of Jesus Christ, yet he also remained committed to a program of interreligious dialogue that brought about Assisi III and gave implicit recognition to Assisi I and II, again scandalizing the faithful.

While the conservatives bent over backwards trying to explain how all these actions were coherently orthodox and the sedevecantists coherently heretical, the fact of the matter is that there was no coherence to these actions at all. The reason Catholics disagree so vehemently about reconciling these contradictory actions is because the pontiffs themselves did not know how to reconcile them. At most they seemed to have shared a vague optimism that tradition and novelty existing side by side would somehow reconcile themselves over time. Remember the "mutual enrichment" of the two forms of the Roman rite? The brick by brickers latched on to the part about the Traditional Latin Mass enriching the Novus Ordo, but recall, the enrichment Benedict envisioned was mutual; it was meant to run the other way, too...

We are discussing brick by brick. Laying brick upon brick presupposes you are working towards constructing a final structure - that you have some sort of blueprint or plan or telos for your actions. My friends, Benedict XVI had no plan. John Paul II had no plan. There is no blue print and there never has been a blue print. The previous two popes acted erratically because their sentiments were erratic. They served two masters and had no idea how to satisfactorily reconcile their conflicting loyalties. Ironically, this is one sense in which Francis is refreshing: having never been formed in the Old Rite, Francis is purely a pope of the post-Conciliar period. Whatever you think about Francis, what you see is what you get. He displays none of the wrestling between novelty and tradition displayed by Benedict and John Paul. Francis is not hampered in his actions by a nostalgia for a period that never meant anything to him.

VI. CONCLUSION. Please do not misunderstand this as an attack on anyone who has held to or promoted the brick by brick mentality. As I said above, I have nothing against brick by brickers. I love brick by brickers. Some of my best friends are brick by brickers. I read the blogs of brick by brickers. But I have come to see that this paradigm is intellectually dishonest and ultimately insufficient for making sense of what's going on in the Church, especially in light of the current pontificate. 

Is the Novus Ordo a New Rite of the Church?

The term Novus Ordo is often used by “traditionalist” Catholics as a sort of pejorative, but it is most interesting to note that Paul VI himself referred to his new Mass as the “Novus Ordo”. [1] In light of this fact, I think we can charitably make use of the term as a means of distinction. But is the Novus Ordo a new rite of the Church?

The Vetus and the Novus, as Pope Emeritus Benedict has said, are “two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi” [Law of praying]. Benedict sees that, while there is one law of prayer, it finds two expressions in the one Roman Rite. He says that their relationship is such that it “will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s Lex credendi [Law of believing]. They are, in fact two uses of the one Roman rite.” [2]

From this quote, it seems the question posed is all but answered. And yet, how can Paul VI be correct and Benedict XVI also be correct? Is it a new rite, as Paul VI has said, or is it merely another form of the same rite, as Benedict has said? The two seem to be in contradiction on the matter. Perhaps in order to resolve the conflict we should look more deeply at what a "rite" in fact is.

For Catholics in the West, to speak of the Roman Rite and the Latin Church is synonymous. However, it is important to note that in the East, a “church” refers to a particular people who are legally autonomous, and so they refer to a “church sui juris” (of one’s own right). There are multiple churches sui juris that share a common rite. It may be easier to see in terms of genus (rite) and species (church) - Under the genus, “Byzantine”, there are the species of Ukranian, Melkite, Ruthenian, Romanian, etc., all of whom, while sharing a common liturgical patrimony, are in fact legally autonomous from each other. In addition to the churches of the Byzantine Rite, there are also other rites, such as the Alexandrian, Antiochene, or Chaldean rites, and which are composed of various autonomous churches.

The Eastern Code of Canon Law defines a rite as thus: “A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary heritage, distinguished according to peoples' culture and historical circumstances, that finds expression in each autonomous church's way of living the faith.” [3]

In the West, we have used the word “ritus” to mean something different. Historically, we have referred to the one Latin church sui juris (whose Patriarch is the Bishop of Rome), with many “rites”, or liturgies, attached to it. So, we find that there was once not only the Roman Rite, but the Gallican Rite, or the Carmelite Rite, or the Sarum Rite - in effect, rite and church have the opposite hierarchical structure in the West from what is found in the East! We also use the word to speak of particular liturgical ceremonies, such as the "rite of baptism" or the "rite of communion", etc. The Old Catholic Encyclopedia treats of “rite” in this manner, defining it as “comprising the manner of performing all services for the worship of God and the sanctification of men” - in effect, a particular type of liturgy. [4]

If we take rite to be used in the Western sense, as defined by the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, we would have to say that Paul VI is entirely correct in calling the Novus Ordo a "new rite" of the Church. From this, can we conclude that Benedict in Summorum Pontificum was simply in error on this distinction - that the Novus and the Vetus should most properly be referred to as two rites, and not one? There are many canon lawyers and Bishops, who, following the Pauline definition of ritus, would say that Benedict was simply not a good canonist, that there are manifold problems surrounding the legislation Summorum Pontificum, and use this in order to prevent its implementation. However, to simply do this is not only incorrect, it is to miss the real genius behind the motu proprio given to us by Benedict. Let's take a closer look.

Returning to the definition for the word given in the Eastern Code of Canon Law, we find that in order to refer to something as a rite, we not only have to evaluate the liturgical patrimony, but also the “theological, spiritual and disciplinary heritage, distinguished according to peoples' culture and historical circumstances” in order to make a determination on the issue.

In light of the greater qualifications necessary for the constitution of a rite as laid down by the Code, we should perhaps endeavor not to speak equivocally of the word “rite”, and try to harmonize these two different definitions in order to see that, in fact, Paul VI and Benedict XVI are speaking of the same reality, albeit with different things being signified by the word "rite". In harmonizing the two, Benedict gives us a different word, “use”, as the more proper term pertaining to the various liturgies of the West, since he understands "rite" as having a more broad scope. As “particular liturgical usages” of the Roman Rite, the Vetus and the Novus should witness to the same “lex orandi” of the one Roman Rite. This distinction which Benedict is making between the two forms of the Mass has great implications, far beyond the liberation of the traditional missal, although they may not at first be apparent. These implications, I think, lie in the other qualifications of the constitution of a rite (as given in the Eastern Code), and bear greatly on our question, "is the Novus Ordo a new rite of the Church?"

Dear friends, I don’t think that I have the space in order to adequately explicate and argue one way or the other for the answer to this question - perhaps we are still too close in history to the Council to be able to judge such a thing. However, please allow me to make a few observations. After the Council, we were given a new liturgy, formed, not organically, but by a committee of “experts”. The substantial difference between the Tridentine Missal and the Missal of the post-Vatican II reform is sufficient enough for nearly all to agree that the Novus Ordo is in fact a formally new, albeit perhaps materially similar, usage of the Roman Rite.

But not only were we given a new liturgy, we were also given a new Code of Canon Law, adopting the legal language of modern political theory. Furthermore, the seminaries almost universally dropped St. Thomas from their formation programs in favor of modern philosophy and a “new theology” based upon the foundation of these modern philosophies.

In the implementation of all of these changes, an euphoric “spirit” of the Council was adopted as the new path to holiness in the modern world, throwing off the shackles of a “repressive” spirituality obsessed with peoples’ sins and medieval devotions while replacing it with an “all you need is love” sort of spirituality - one which could be summed up by the phrase “who am I to judge” as the modus vivendi for the Church in the modern world.

Fifty years after the Council, we are at a critical time in the history of the modern era of the Church. The answer to the question, “Is the Novus Ordo a new rite?”, I fear, is still very much an open one, and while the friction may rear its head most heatedly in the discussion of the Tridentine Mass versus the Mass of Paul VI, we should take care to have greater reference to the theological, spiritual, and disciplinary traditions in order to resolve the question. Benedict saw that, while a new rite could never be created de jure in the Church, [5] if things did not change dramatically, the West was well on its way to celebrating a new rite de facto.

This, I think, is the real mens behind the legislation Summorum Pontificum, and the particular genius of a Pope who, by his taking part in the reforms of the Council saw the dangers that accompany the adoption of a doctrine of progress. It is for this reason that we need Catholics who are not only devoted to the traditional liturgy, but also to the theological tradition accompanying the liturgy - to do anything less is to live a sort of duality within one’s own soul that will ultimately sow utter confusion and discord.

Benedict proposes that we must understand these new theologies, liturgies, and disciplines in the light of a hermeneutic of continuity. This, of course, is true - it is the only way to maintain the integrity of the one Roman Rite; and with regard to the Mass, it is the only way in which "These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in not any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi'". But especially with regard to those things which do not bear the charism of infallibility, perhaps the surest and most direct path to continuity with the patrimony of the Roman Rite that is given to us in the tradition is to be begin to discern which of those branches of the vine have not born the fruit that had been hoped for, and begin the pruning process, so that the whole vine might begin to bear good fruit once again.

The particular legislative genius of Summorum Pontificum has not yet been fully realized or appreciated - the recent unprecedented moves on traditional religious orders and academic institutions witnesses to this fact. I think that, in light of the particular reality that the Latin Church has found itself in at the beginning of this new millennium, Pope Benedict has shown us that the only way to stave off the natural schism (a “hermeneutic of rupture”) that occurs from two fundamentally opposed philosophical foundations is to be found in forming an intentional relation, a hermeneutic of continuity, between the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo (and their accompanying theologies) as two forms of one rite.

The "auctoritas" [6] that the usus antiquior possesses will become the anchor for authentic liturgical renewal and reform, and, in turn, since lex credendi follows on lex orandi, the renewal of Catholic theology and life will continue to be enriched - proportionally, I would say - by the regularization of the particular theological and spiritual patrimony of the Vetus Ordo into the life of the Church as a whole.

The answer to the original question, “Is the Novus Ordo a new rite?” should be a simple one: “no, of course not!” The means of making this answer true lies in the work ahead, moving forward in faith, hope, and charity, and using the blueprint given to us by Benedict in his theology, his pastoral praxis, and in what will be perhaps the legacy of his pontificate, Summorum Pontificum.

---

[1.] Address of Paul VI at the Consistory for the naming of Cardinals, 24 May 1976.
[2.] Summorum Pontificum, a. 1.
[3.] CCEO 27
[4.] Griffin, Patrick. "Rites." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 21 Jan. 2014 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm>.
[5.] The rites all have their origin in apostolic foundations, and thus, a truly new rite could never legitimately be erected.
[6.] Pope Benedict refers to the “auctoritas” possessed by the Vetus Ordo when he says “What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.” The question of what “auctoritas” the Novus Ordo might possess could be a fruitful subject for future reflection.