ONE OF the stars in the firmament for those who see Benedict XVI as a great restorer of traditional liturgical practices is Msgr. Guido Marini, Pontifical Master of Liturgical Ceremonies. (Pictured below.)
Msgr. Marini, appointed to his post in October 2007, is credited with giving Vatican ceremonies a more traditional look and feel. The spectacularly ugly modern liturgical furnishings used during the days of Paul VI and John Paul II (the dreary, plain chasubles, the bare high altar, the modern “twisted lizard” crucifix) have given way to Baroque miters, elaborate papal thrones, lace cottas, Renaissance altar frontals and embroidered dalmatics. The ceremonial for Masses celebrated in St. Peter’s is now far more elaborate and the tone for everything far more “traditional.”
This shift reflects not merely Msgr. Marini’s ideas on the liturgy, of course, but also those of Benedict XVI, a man of high culture and refined aesthetic sensibilities, who has long lamented many of the developments in the liturgy that occurred after Vatican II.
In January 2010, Msgr. Marini delivered a lengthy address criticizing the effects of the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms. His remarks seemed particularly significant, because one sensed in them an at least implicit awareness that the official reforms themselves — and not merely their application — caused some of the problems he described.
But the solution Msgr. Marini proposes is applying a “hermeneutic of continuity” to the liturgical reform — to maintain that there is no substantial difference between the old liturgy and the new liturgy. “Hermeneutic of continuity” is the buzz phrase, of course, that Benedict XVI uses for his broader theory that Vatican II represented no break at all with previous teaching, but merely continued and developed it.
In a recent interview, Msgr. Marini explained how this notion applies to the liturgy:
The hermeneutic of continuity highlights that in the life of the Church there is an authentic growth in the way in which they do not cut the roots, so that this development includes the richness of its history and tradition.
The phrase “richness of history and tradition” has profound appeal for traditionalists who reject the New Mass and the entire liturgical reform.
But lack of “richness” in the reformed rites is merely a symptom, not a cause. The latter must be sought in doctrinal basis for the Novus Ordo: ecumenism and modernism. The reform did in fact “cut at the roots,” so no hermeneutic of continuity is possible.
The Missal of Paul VI, for instance, contains only 36% of the orations found in the traditional Missal, and of these over half were changed, thus leaving a bare 17% of the prayers as they were before. And these changes and omissions affected the doctrinal content of the prayers. (See Work of Human Hands, 224–45)
In the face of these and countless other details in the New Mass, it is therefore impossible to speak of “continuity” on the doctrinal level.
So, overlaying this rite with lots of the ornate pre-Vatican II externals may look like “richness.” But it is mere camouflage for the doctrinal bankruptcy that lies beneath.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
5 Comments
I ordered the book and hope to receive it soon.
Excellent blog and very good post.
Greetings from Brazil.
Yes, the camouflage of liturgical prettiness among new-conservatives (SSPX, FSSP) hides the doctrinal bankruptcy of the Novus Ordo they support.
However, I feel that it is important to understand that the bankruptcy of the Novus Ordo is not simply doctrinal. It is also a form of intellectual bankruptcy. The “hermeneutics of continuity” is an invention which contradicts a number of fundamental principles by which the intellect is able to function correctly.
One such principle is the Principle of Non-contradiction (principium contradictionis) which is one of the three supreme principles of ontology (suprema entis principia). Stated in our barbarous Saxon tongue, the principle may be stated thus: “The same thing cannot be and simultaneously not be at the same time” (idem non potest esse non-ens et ens).
Transposed in logical terms, the principle may be stated as follows: “The affirmation and negation of the same thing cannot both be simultaneously true” (nequit de eodem affirmatio et negatio simul verae esse).
Now, let’s “plug in” the terms which the Novus Ordo proposes through the “hermeneutics of continuity” in its own words (as Father points out).
Affirmatio: Our new doctrine is just that, a complete break with Catholic teaching (syllabus of Errors overturned, etc.).
Negatio: Our doctrine is not new at all but a perfect expression of Catholic teaching (goes back to early Church, continues Catholic tradition).
Now, according to the Principium Contradictionis, the affirmation and negation given above cannot both be true statements about the Novus Ordo. Either the affirmation or the negation is true, but not both at once.
Therefore, the “hermeneutics of continuity” is nothing other than a fancy neologism which really signifies “the complete denial of the principle of non-contradiction.”
And therefore, the Novus Ordo, with its SSPX and FSSP camouflage, is not only doctrinally bankrupt, but also intellectually bankrupt, a radical form, in short, of anti-intellectualism.
And anti-intellectualism is the very essence of liberalism.
Which makes the SSPX and FSSP two of the most liberal organizations on earth.
Am I missing something in the argument of “hermeneutics of continuity”?
So, because the “hermeneutics of continuity” asserts that both the negatio and affirmatio are true, then that is why it contradicts the principle of non-contradiction.
Correct.
The New Doctrine is either Catholic or it is not. The principle of non-contradiction prevents us from saying that it is both.
But the “hermeneutics of continuity” pretends to be a magic wand which invalidates the principle of non-contradiction.
Wave this magic wand, and you have both a jeans-and-t-shirt Mass in the morning–complete with a Dorito chip and kool-aid communion–and a fancy fiddle-back Mass in the afternoon, all in the same building.
But it’s in the doctrine where the affirmatio finally succumbs to the principle of non-contradiction, since both the Dorito- and bread-eaters are really swallowing one and the same thing: an utterly new and anti-Catholic doctrine whose very novelty must be–and is–rejected by all Catholics everywhere.
By the way, Lefebvrism operates in precisely the same way as the “hermeneutics of continuity” because it both affirms and denies the Protestant character of the Novus Ordo.
Lefebvrism is essentially a “hermeneutic of continuity.”
The Lefebvrist mantra proves this perfectly: “We both seek and do not seek communion with Rome. We are both within and not within the Catholic Church. We are both in rebellion against the Church and perfectly obedient to her. We both affirm and deny Vatican II, etc., etc., etc..”