The twain shall never meet?

Dichotomy

• Catholic Neophilia - everything new is great.
• Catholic Neophobia - everything new is bad.

In fairness, Catholic neophiliacs fear the old as much as they love the new. Likewise, Catholic neophobes fear the new as much as they love the old.

Not everything new is bad; not everything new is great.

Not everything old is bad; not everything old is great.

Now that that's all said, let's move on.

The recent struggles of Latin Mass enthusiasts are so very unfortunate, and unnecessary. How can 'the old' be a threat unless those who consider 'the new' to be so fragile that highly proscriptive measures are imposed (necessary?) to make 'the threat', i.e., 'the old', go away so that the new may flourish?

The following equation is unfounded. It is math that frequently finds a home among neophiles in the blogosphere.

Latin Mass enthusiasts appreciate the older Form, ∴ their preference constitutes a rejection of the new Mass produced by the Consilium convened in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, and thus amounts to a threat.

Many bishops are operating as if the above is a valid construct. It is a distraction.

The following, despite a lack of evidence, has no foundation.

Measures were needed to mitigate a threat to unity, ∴ a necessary restriction of the older Mass and associated sacraments, to mitigate a threat to unity, is justified.

The burden of proof, i.e., the burden to prove the old Mass is a threat to unity, rests with those concerned about threats to unity, the neophiles. Consider that phrase for a moment. The older Mass is a threat to unity. How? The Sacrament of Unity (in any form) is a threat to unity?! The Canon of the older Mass explicitly includes prayers for the Pope and the unity of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, as does the newer Mass. Latin Mass goers I rub shoulders with are committed to unity in the truth, and tenaciously so.

Critics of the old Mass had best be very careful, because the same charge of a threat to unity could be brought against the newer form of the Mass. That is, if its adherents' behaviors are any basis for a judgement of sedition.

Even if we extend the phrase to 'adherents of the old Mass are a threat to unity', the burden to prove such an accusation remains squarely with those concerned about preserving unity, as if unity in the truth is perfectly attainable under the current papacy, or any papacy for that matter. Most Catholics in North America, according to reliable polls, do not believe in the Real Presence. Too cynical? If those polls are to be believed, the vast majority of those who do not believe in the Real Presence attend the newer Mass, if they attend Mass at all. Which is to say, most Catholics do not believe what the Church teaches. No surprise there. Our hope for unity in the truth must rely on God to provide witnesses who call people to fidelity. Communities that do not welcome the Spirit of Truth into their communities may very well find Him and His disciples shaking the dust from their feet as they depart for more receptive territory (St. Matthew 10:14).

There is no reasonable basis to enact prosecution (i.e., restrictions) against the celebration of the older form of the Mass and allied sacraments because those whose behaviour raises concern and merits constraint are:

1. those who are already publicly inclined to wayward thinking and who have already manifested it by creating or joining groups such as the SSPX; and
2. those who are happily in communion with Rome, i.e, the vast majority of old Mass enthusiasts, who have not divided from the Church. Furthermore, given a common passion for Romanitas and historical Catholic identity, it is highly unlikely said loyal enthusiasts of the old Mass ever intend to enter into or promote schism.

To the neophobes: Is the new Mass, i.e., the Third Typical Edition, is 'the new' so much of a threat that you must run it into the ground in order to justify 'the superiority' of the older Mass? 

Sidebar | A brief reminder - ad hominem or a variant is a weak argument in any circumstance. Proving the superiority of one's identity is never well served by running down the character of something or someone else. Effective comparisons measure competing ideas against an objective standard, i.e., reality.

Is there a way to mitigate the rush to judgement which seems to bind so many Catholics in the grip of a fear that blinds Catholics to the action of the Holy Ghost? The widening split among Catholics in the current liturgical skirmish seems to emanate from a split in thinking which exacerbates division which a document like Traditiones Custodes (TC) seeks to address, even if in an imperfect way. Unfortunately, TC has created much confusion and, it must be said again, it increases the possibility of driving away faithful Catholics allied to the old Mass to some splinter group. That some bishops have virtually shut down celebrations of the older Mass is, according to the standard of charity in the truth, untenable. The perception that those who are allied solely to the new Mass are threatened by the growth of Latin Mass enthusiasts, especially younger people habitually attending the old Mass, is not inaccurate. A very poor judgement has been exercised by those bishops who have restricted the celebration of the older Mass and allied sacraments. They have not provided any substantive proof that there is a threat to unity in the Church. This means that decisions are being made in abundance that are arbitrary.

We in the Ordinariate can offer a rubric to our brothers and sisters by which Catholics of differing allegiances might find a resolution that permits a restoration of the authentic liturgical diversity that has happily existed in the Catholic Church since her earliest days. The Personal Ordinariates represent a reminder that liturgical diversity is not only possible but willed by God. That is, if we accept the diversity acknowledged in the Church by, for example, the existence of:

1. Eastern rite sui iuris Churches and their distinct liturgies; and
2. the thrilling diversity of venerable liturgical uses that were acknowledged and accepted by the Council of Trent as worthy of respect and continued acceptance; and most recently
3. the creation of the Personal Ordinariates that - miraculously - provide for the inclusion of pre-Reformation (e.g., Sarum, a liturgical legacy that predates the Tridentine reforms) and post-Reformation liturgical practices found to be worthy of preservation precisely because the Second Vatican Council acknowledged - to a qualified degree - the workings of the Holy Ghost in the liturgical developments in the Anglican experience.