LITURGY WARS: THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY

LITURGY WARS: THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY

I read the first part here from Andrew Likoudis. I appreciate the balanced view he offers. Here's a few thoughts.

https://wherepeteris.com/the-liturgical-path-of-the-church-after-vatican-ii/ 

"The council’s reforms made the liturgy more accessible and engaging for the laity in many cases."

I'm not sure I agree with this piece here. At the very least, I don't think it's a universal thing. I can see how the Novus Ordo can be seen as more accessible to the vast majority of folks now, perhaps as a reinterpretation of the post concilar reactions of the common folks, by way of our own current present day biases. After all, why wouldn't we assume that having a liturgy in our vernacular language is naturally more engaging and accessible than a mysterious foreign language I don't understand. But I would argue psychologically, and perhaps this has to do with certain personality styles or types, but there's something that draws some people's curiosities when experiencing something not immediately accessible. Just as an example having no clue about Hindu worship and visiting a local Hindu temple, which I've done. Without getting into the issue of whether a Catholic should even have been at a Hindu worship service or not, there really is something that commands some bit of respect, decorum, reverence, in a "sacred space" that has the affectations of mystery and sacrality, even if, of course, it is objectively idolatrous worship.

"The Church today stands at a crossroads. Traditionalists often advocate for either rigid adherence to Sacrosanctum Concilium’s black letter or for rejection of the reform entirely, fearing that too much adaptation can lead to a loss of reverence, identity, and universality."

I don't think anyone who would self-describe as a traditionalist would primarily focus on a strict adherence to Sacrosanctam Concilium. I guess it depends on who you ask. But perhaps the term traditionalist is being used too broadly here to capture several shades of characters and group-think patterns. Starting closer to the center, a traditionalist could be one who simply appreciates and prefers the TLM over the NO. It could also refer to someone who, because they feel the NO could potentially be dangerous for their personal or familial faith, while not rejecting the NO, would not attend the NO for moral reasons. Then there are traditionalists who question the legality of the promulgation of the NO. Then there are traditionalists who question the validity of the NO, while still remaining in communion with Pope Francis. Then there are what some would call more "radical traditionalists", who because they are arguably in a state of schism, are associated with the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), or various independent groups, who may not question the validity of the NO, but would certainly reject attending it. Then there are some folks who move between all these different groups depending on their moods or local TLM climate. 

"It is evident that both Sacrosanctum Concilium and the postconciliar reforms, along with their corresponding guiding instructions, have significantly influenced the Catholic liturgy in our day (though there is much work still to be done). The path forward for the Church might not lie in pitting one authoritative document against another, but rather in finding the harmonious method that respects tradition while embracing necessary progress. This approach will require ongoing dialogue, deep theological reflection, and a commitment to unity within the global Catholic community. As the Church continues to navigate these liturgical waters, it must remain mindful of its rich heritage and the diverse needs of its faithful, always seeking to express the timeless truth of the Gospel in a language that speaks to the heart of each generation."

I think this is a balanced view. Probably very much in line with my current way of thinking. I'll defend my traditionalist friends, if I have to. But I will also defend the NO when speaking to those same traditionalist friends. The NO is definitely the form that I attend 99% of the time, but I will say that, if there was a regular TLM within 5 to 15 mi from me, I would probably exclusively go to that church and that form. But alas, that's not where I find myself, with the closest TLM about 25 miles or 30 minutes away. Unless of course you include the SSPX, which I wouldn't, which is about 6 mi away. If only they were not in the canonical status that they find themselves in.

Traditionalists and the others that are trying to find the best way to move forward in an orthodox manner, seem to always want to universalize their way of thinking. My personal view is that it can be overwhelming to want to work towards the universalization of your personal liturgical worldview. Like the old saying, think globally, act locally, I have found that most of my efforts are best exhausted by influencing folks on a local parish level. To be honest, why should I really care about whether they're using Latin in some remote village in the Philippines? It would be nice, but I'll let those folks fight their own liturgical battles. There's more than enough work on the local scene.

Think globally, act locally.