In a recently released statement, the prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of Faith, Archbishop Muller, commented on the heresy of the "traditionalists" and the "progressives."
He seems to promote a middle ground, or a proper balance between the extremes, with the key point being acceptance of the Second Vatican Council.
It made sense to me until I began to compare the most visible, accessible aspect of the differences between these groups: the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, the traditional form that was in use prior to the Second Vatican Council, and the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite as practiced in most parishes I've attended.
The Mass most commonly offered in our parishes bears little resemblance to that of pre-Councilliar times, this in spite of the Second Vatican Council's document on the liturgy which clearly established a base line that is not discernible in the Mass as offered in most parishes.
We can go through a short list of practices which fly in the face of those original documents and which represent a definitively progressive influence:
- Latin in the Mass: Latin was supposed to be retained in the Mass. Although it's the language of the Church, one can rarely find Latin being used in the Ordinary Form. The progressive liturgists won with the argument that "active participation" is easier when the entire Mass is said in the vernacular.
- Gregorian Chant: While it is making a comeback in some quarters, it has disappeared from the Mass in most parishes. Again, the progressives employed the principle of "active participation," and, again, danced around actually educating the laity in Gregorian chant in favor of songs that might be easier for them to sing.
- Mass orientation: Since the earliest days of the Church, Mass was said facing east. This is called ad orientem, or "to the east." In the early days, this most often meant the priest and the people were facing the same direction. This soon became the practice of the Church, regardless of the orientation of the church. Without any document to support the move, most churches destroyed their old altars, moved in an “altar facing the people,” and the priest began saying Mass facing toward the people. Another progressive victory.
- Liturgically correct hymns: Many traditional Catholic hymns, often in the name of ecumenism, were taken out of hymnals and no longer sung at Mass. Again, a progressive victory.
In most liturgical areas, the progressives have had their way, normally using the strategy of disobedience then asking for permission; for example, girl altar servers, using the laity for the distribution of Communion, and Communion under both species.
If the archbishop desires balance, then his admonition begs the question: what is the standard by which we measure balance? In all fairness, the Mass of our average parish bears little resemblance to the Mass of the centuries leading up to the Second Vatican Council. The orientation is towards the people, not towards God. The emphasis is on community and active participation, not on uniting the prayers of the faithful with those of the priest in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of Mass.
Again, how to measure "balance" when balance left the building nearly five decades ago?
I believe the answer to be in the original documents of the Second Vatican Council read, as they were meant to be read, through the light of tradition. There must be a re-assessment of Mass orientation, of the music, of the architecture, and of the art used in churches. This cannot be done at the parish level.
In our given time, in this endeavor specified by Archbishop Muller, balance can only come through the Second Vatican Council illuminated by the light of tradition and not by the desires of an influential progressive movement that, in the real sense of effecting Catholic life and identity, has held sway for so long now.
