I’m going to do my best to defend the Extraordinary Form after the onslaught by John Zmirak, but he’s made it hard. I think introducing the world to two of my Extraordinary Form friends will help.
Yes, that’s right, for those who have followed this (for those who haven’t, you might want to check out some of the other fine posts on this site instead). I’m not going to defend the Novus Ordo against him. I’m going to defend the Extraordinary Form to my aghast Novus Ordo friends who have read John Zmirak’s two columns and wonder at the vitriol of it all.
My friend John Zmirak wrote an interesting column Feb. 17 that compared the form of a Mass to a flag and defended his attachment to the old Mass. His conclusion:
“And by changing back the flag, by taking back our Mass, we are saying: Go back to Hell. Our Church belongs to Christ.”
I responded in an article and I e-mailed him the link saying:
“I feel like the scrawny guy kicking sand in the face of the muscle man, but here:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/answering_zmirak_on_the_mass/
“Now he has replied, and yikes.
John starts: “Tom Hoopes has done me a courtesy rarely afforded tradition-minded Catholics: He has stooped to address my arguments, instead of airily dismissing them as the sad obsessions of half-wits, bag ladies, and yellow-eyed anti-Semites with dirty fingernails.”
… and then continues by airily dismissing my arguments as the sad obsession of a half-witted hopelessly lost Novus Ordo flunky he calls “Bridey” (he literally calls me only that throughout his post). Then he contradicts the fundamental points of his first column.
This set his com-box supporters shivering with delight at his incredible debating prowess.
Well, as the old saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. It would be truly foolish to expect at this point to pretend to engage John Zmirak in a discussion.
As another blog wrote: “He’s defending against arguments Hoopes nor made nor intended, but it’s a wonderful, artful polemic and persuades me never to make an argument against John Zmirak in public.”
Exactly so. It’s fun stuff. It’s just self-contradictory, unfair and insulting. So I will do my duty and answer, but then I’m done.
One germane item does emerge from Zmirak’s column: He discloses that he once waxed poetic about the very analogy I’m making, so I have cut and pasted that into my original post to shore it up.
Otherwise, John’s second article is a classic bait and switch.
What he promised to do in the original column was explain to the orthodox, Church-loving faithful “the apparent fixation traditionalists have on restoring former elements of the liturgy and other Catholic practices that are not essential, and resisting innovations that are not inherently evil.”
He elaborated: “Why insist on external things, like kneeling for communion on the tongue, male altar servers, and the priest facing the altar? None of these, I’ll admit for the 5,000th time, is essential for sacramental validity or credal orthodoxy; isn’t being a stickler on such issues a wee bit pharisaical, even prissy?”
Then he elaborated even more, by taking specific issues off the table.
I took him at his word; all that was off the table, and we were looking with purity at the question: “Why do you people care so much about externals?”
I responded to the argument he left on the table by saying: “Um, not to put too fine a point on it, but the form of the Mass is not at all a flag.”
I proposed a different analogy, comparing our communion at Mass with the spousal union of husband and wife:
“As important as [the conjugal act] is as the ‘source and summit’ of their marital relationship, their behavior and relationship will start to look warped if they make sex the ‘center and preoccupation’ of their relationship. Their marital relationship will start to be tense and unhappy and the very unity the act is supposed to affirm will become tenuous and fragile.
“It’s the same with the Mass. . . .”
My point was clear: “Obsession with inessentials distorts.” I hastened to say that most Extraordinary Form folks I know don’t obsess about externals, but that John’s column “comes perilously close.”
I faced the great John Zmirak himself, on the ground he laid out.
Then he cheated. He shifted the ground in several important ways. Let’s count them:
1) The importance of the Eucharis
In Column No. 1, John says he understands how communion in the Novus Ordo is itself valuable:
“Having come from churches that didn’t have the Eucharist, and remaining through God’s grace flush with gratitude for the sacraments, many converts really don’t understand what the rest of us are nattering on about. … We owe these good people an explanation.”
I agree with that John. The Eucharist is a blessing, even in the Novus Ordo. So there was nothing to argue.
Well, in Column 2 John crushes me … by reversing himself and now decrying the “destructive options” in the Novus Ordo Mass such as: “ambiguous Eucharistic prayers” and “handing out Communion like a movie ticket.”
He promised to respect Novus Ordo Communion in Column 1, and sneered at it in Column 2.
2) The validity of Vatican II and the Norvus Ordo.
In Column 1, John concedes: “Adopting Lutheran or Anglican language in the Mass probably didn’t cause the current crisis of belief in the Real Presence, and cutting such language by eliminating all but the First Eucharistic Prayer might not do much to resolve it.”
Yep. Do a search. He really did say that. And I agree.
But Column-2 John doesn’t agree.
He waxes poetic about the martyrs who opposed the sacrilegious Anglicans: “It’s not for nothing that Catholics during the Counter-Reformation marched (heavily armed, to prevent sacrilegious attacks) in Corpus Christi processions through hostile Calvinist towns. The Eucharist itself was those brave Catholics’ banner, and I for one am not ashamed of them. Is Bridey?”
This is bait and switch and sucker punch all wrapped up in one.
His first column calls the form of the Mass a flag, and is careful not to malign the Novus Ordo Mass or communion. Now he asserts that the flag is the Eucharist itself. And he impugns my Eucharistic devotion, with no evidence.
I thought I was arguing about inessentials with Column-1 John. The John from Opposite World showed up in Column 2, swapping essentials for inessentials.
3) Aesthetics
In Column 1, John promised aesthetics isn’t the reason he cares about inessentials: “One visit to a Sunday Latin Low Mass without music, recited soundlessly into a marble altar, should put that idea to flight.”
So I took him at his word. We weren’t arguing aesthetics. That was off the table.
But in column 2, aesthetics and female altar servers (which Column-1 John called a non-essential) is the first place he goes: “At least we Trads aren’t scarfing down lame Catholic knock-offs of already-pitiful Christian ‘rock,’ or training our daughters to be altar servers for the next World Urban Youth Day . . . bless their hearts.”
Yes, I was foolish … for believing Column-1 John was really taking that off the table.
4) Latin
In column one, John claims he’s keeping Latin off the table: “While the universal language of the Church is still to be revered for all the reasons that Vatican II prescribed in Sacrosanctum Concilium, it isn’t Why We Fight.”
In column 2, the Latin — the right Latin — is one of the essentials:
“As Michael Davies noted long-ago, the Anglican and Lutheran-inspired changes in the Novus Ordo Missae in the original Latin were intended by the committee that crafted them to fudge the differences among the churches — in the hope that an ecumenical liturgy would promote Christian unity.”
Boy, I walked right into that one. By believing John.
5) Even the Ordinary Form itself.
Column-1 John says the Ordinary Form or Extraordinary Form isn’t the point: “The liturgy is miraculous, but it doesn’t work like magic: Rev. Teilhard de Chardin had said the Tridentine Mass for decades even as he invented Catholic Scientology; conversely, his sometime housemate at New York’s St. Ignatius Loyola, the holy Rev. John Hardon, obediently switched missals with every tinkering that came to him from the bishops.”
But Column-2 John helpfully clarifies what he’s talking about when he says “And by changing back the flag, by taking back our Mass, we are saying: Go back to Hell. Our Church belongs to Christ.” The Hell Mass here is: “the Ordinary Form as ordinarily celebrated, in some 99.9 percent of parishes outside Vatican City.”
Yikes. Column-2 John sends “back to Hell” probably every Mass you’ve ever been to.
The silly way John branded me “Bridey” then swept back onto the table everything (except nostalgia) that he had taken off of it has caused friends to tell me it was stupid to start the discussion at all.
Yes, yes, yes! It was stupid. I was stupid. I wish I never had.
But worse, it has caused one to tell me: “Now you know to avoid that nasty little tribe.”
That I can’t abide. Because I know too many Extraordinary Form guys who are, well, extraordinary.
I meant what I said in my column:
—The Extraordinary Form Mass is a giant blessing for the Church after the Council.
—I believe my traditional Mass friend who wants to write an article about her experience called “Surprised by Beauty.”
—I believe that “Most of us — in both the Ordinary and the Extraordinary camps — know the externals should be right, but don’t obsess too too much about them”.
But I didn’t mention two of the most impressive Extraordinary Form guys I know.
I’m sure they don’t want to be named here, given the reaction I’m getting from the com-boxers in their community. I’ll make them as anonymous as possible. I’ll just say one is a guy who through an apostolate has given my family and many others a gift that will bear fruit in 1,000 ways throughout our lives. He has one of the finest families I’m personally aware of.
He is a man fed by the Extraordinary Form — deeply, truly appreciative of it — but, like most, not obsessed by it. So is the other man I’m thinking of who is making an incredible, large scale contribution promoting character formation.
These aren’t weirdoes hanging out at the “muttered Mass” at the “insane asylum” John Zmirak describes; they are robust Catholic men putting the faith to work in the world.
Which, to my mind, means they are Catholic men of our times — and men of the Church of all times.
They know what I know: The Church is our mother. She can be trusted. She understands the problem with the liturgy, and she has made it a major priority.
The Church is heading in the right direction. My extraordinary friends know this; I suspect John Zmirak knows it too.
Together, as a Church, we have much to be proud of.
Catholics have founded seven new universities in the past decade faithful to the magisterium, and have renewed many more along canon-law-mandatum lines. We are the Church of World Youth Day, which is changing the trajectory of countless lives. And not just that; we are the Church of the National Catholic Youth Conference, whose 20,000 teens marched in Eucharistic procession through Kansas City in November.
Because of those colleges, and because of our youth movement, the most recent generation of young men formed by the post-Council Church are increasingly choosing the seminary. The Major Superiors of Women Religious, an organization formed by Pope John Paul II, is rapidly growing, and is populated by habited orders of nuns (ordinary and extraordinary formers) whose members’ average age is 35. Their vocation crisis, as they remind us on their fundraising letters, is that they don’t have enough space.
Our Church’s ordinary and extraordinary formers are at the heart of the pro-life movement that has dramatically turned around the numbers such that a majority of Americans now call themselves pro-life. We are a Church of a revitalized body of bishops who are coming up with practical ways to promote life ... and the sacraments and Catholic truth. Even Time magazine noticed “Confession’s Comback” in our Church. Extraordinary formers and ordinary formers keep the perpetual adoration chapel going in my parish and in more than 800 others, a number that continues to grow.
We’re one Church together. And we’re not “going back to hell” – we’re headed, we pray, to the Heavenly Form liturgy where Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa and Cardinal John O’Connor await us, in the Father’s house.
Comments
Post a Comment
WAIT! ONE MORE THING
John in a comment said he felt insulted by two questions in my piece: One was in the subhead. The question “Wave Your Freak Flag High?” was directed to John and it was lighthearted – he does cultivate an offbeat image—but I apologized to him for it. Its unfortunate implication was that I think the Extraordinary Form freaky. I do not, and apologize to its devotees for it, too.
The other question he objected to—he said it amounted to an attack – was “Why do you wave your Mass around and wear it like a badge?”
This I find myself less repentant of. Zmirak can dish it out in heaps. But he feels attacked if I pose a question?
Setting all of the fine points aside, what I find disturbing is when those who support the Extraordinary Form feel it necessary to insult the Novus Ordo Mass. I recall one supporter once describing the Novus Ordo as a “tv dinner” and the Extraordinary Form as a lavish feast. I find that insulting to Christ in the Eucharist, who is one and the same in both forms. Individuals have every right to attend the form in which they are most comfortable, but lets refrain from feeling we have to denigrate one to prop the other up.
Exactly my point. But please realize that not all Extraordinary Form folks are like that—not by a long shot.
The Extraordinary Form is hugely important to the Church; don’t let anybody’s attitude diminish that.
It seems pretty consistent to me.
1) John writes about how changing externals is bad, like changing a flag.
2) Tom writes about how a flag is a bad analogy.
3) John writes about how Tom wrote a bad response.
4) Tom writes about how John wrote a bad response.
It seems that the only topic not discussed is John’s original thesis about why it is bad to change externals.
I usually go to the Extraordinary Form on Sundays, and the Ordinary Form when I have time during the week.
They are both valid, I agree. I prefer the beauty and solemnity of one over the other, but they ARE both valid.
One observation: In my years of going to Mass in both forms at various parishes, I have seen two major abuses. 1 in Iowa City, Iowa where during the Gospel, several people dressed up as characters from the referenced passages rushed up to the altar and had a roleplaying ‘debate’ with the priest, and then in Liberty Missouri when clowns (yes, ACTUAL clowns. I have pictures from by cell phone camera) had a tea party by the altar before the Offertory.
Both of these took place in the Ordinary Form.
Just sayin…
I loved Zmirak’s articles, due to their sound reasons mixed with original wit. I would recommend, before imputing him of vitriol, that a reader have enough of a sense of humor to be able to separate insults from jokes.
I also find it interesting that though Mr. Hoopes accuses Zmirak of personal attacks, it was his article that first asserted, on the basis of one article, that Mr. Zmirak was obsessed with externals. If writing an article about why something is important equals obsession, I would hate to see what that means for blogger Mr. Hoopes. Hopefully no one will write an article accusing him of being obsessed with having eight children, due to a recent humorous blog post.
But then again, to Mr. Hoopes the Mass is a “very small (but very important) part.” Since the Mass has such small importance to a Catholic, is Mr. Hoopes saying it is silly to write about it at all? How writing a short article equals obsession would be a point I would like to see clarified.
The logic in points 1-5 is so poor, they are impossible to address in a comment box. I think Mr. Hoopes fails to distinguish between discussing the Eucharistic sacrifice itself, and expressing distaste at abuses that are often present (yes, in 99.9% of parishes) that dishonor this great Sacrament that is present to us through the Ordinary Form, which is for many Catholics a large, not small, part of Catholic life, the source and summit of our religion. This is why one can object to “handing out Communion like a movie ticket” without insulting the Mass or the Sacrament itself, as Mr. Hoopes asserts Zmirak does. The following points are too illogical to deserve attention here, though Fr. Z. does a good job on his blog examining them in more depth, if you’re interested.
Readers would be more edified to read Zmirak’s “Bad Catholic’s Guide to Wine, Whiskey, and Song” than arguments such as this.
Protestants changed the externals of their liturgy because they disagreed with the Catholic Church about the theology of the Eucharist—i.e. because they disagreed about the “internals” or “essentials”. They did not make the mistake of thinking that symbolism and externals are unimportant. The Calvinisation of the externals of Catholic liturgical life after V2 fundamentally changed the culture of that life.
We have no trouble seeing the connection between the internal and the external in everyday life. You don’t show up for a job interview unshaven, with dirty hair and clothes, slouching in your chair and greeting the interviewer with a “yo waz’up?” That’s because you know that those externals express what is on the inside—beliefs, values, virtues and vices. Why is it so hard to admit the importance of the internal/external connection in the liturgy?
Sometimes I think that the “externals don’t really matter” crowd have forgotten that we are not angels, that we are flesh and blood creatures. It’s impossible for us to shut out sights, sounds, smells. We interpret and think about the world through this physical dimension just as much as we do through the intellect, probably more so. I find it nearly impossible to attend a Protestant-looking liturgy and to affirm, with conviction “this is still a valid, Catholic litrugy.” Don’t get me wrong—I do believe it. I don’t deny the validity even of sloppy, happy-clappy Novus Ordo Masses. But I affirm it in a purely speculative, lifeless, cold way. I’m sorry, but that’s just how it is. I’m a feeble human being. The more inclined I am to sin, the more I need a full-blooded traditional liturgy to keep me on the narrow path.
Bravo Dennis…explained perfectly…we do need the externals in the Mass. They were created for a reason. The more awe and reverence we can feel and show in the Mass keeps us in the ‘supernatural’ which is what the Eucharist is all about.
Do you meet the President of the US with casual acceptance, (well, maybe obama) or with genuine respect and formality or a ‘high five’?
Oh, and Mr. Hoopes, you would have gained so much more by not picking apart all these silly inconsistencies that ONLY YOU found in the articles by Mr. Z.
This is a willfully dishonest reading of my article, of which the author should be ashamed. It is unworthy of a secular journalist, much less one who calls himself a Catholic and teaches journalism at a worthy Catholic institution. Goaded by wounded vanity, the author has wrenched phrases, even single words out of context and used them falsely to convey an entirely false impression of what I wrote. Yes, this blog post, put simply, is a lie.
Rather than cover this piece with red ink like a freshman comp paper, I will direct the reader to Fr. John Zuhlsdorf’s critical analysis of the exchange: http://tinyurl.com/yagjt8w
I won’t bother asking for a retraction (on top of the apology he had to offer for calling the traditional Latin Mass a “Freak Flag,” an insult which he at once apologize for and pretends he didn’t intend), since in the course of the article, the author had had to back away from every major assertion he made in his original—and end up posing as a defender of Extraordinary Form and those who love it.
I will make just one clarification, to the one substantive point the author actually makes:
Yes, I believe that the Novus Ordo, said facing the people, including the Second, Third, and Fourth Eucharistic Prayers, can be said and heard in a reverent spirit, and are pleasing to God and productive of divine grace. Nevertheless, I believe that these forms of the liturgy are theologically and pastorally inferior, and that priests and laity who realize this should do all that is within their power to promote something truer to the intentions of the Second Vatican Council, and to previous Catholic liturgical tradition. Just as Pope Benedict seems himself to be doing. The fact that he is doing so, and has a body of laymen and priests with whom to work on this service to Christ and His Church, is thanks to the work of many Catholics who at great personal sacrifice—in the fact of ridicule and ecclesiastical threats—were willing to speak out against the imprudent and destructive decisions of a previous Pope, Paul VI. Some went too far, like Msgr. Lefebvre. Most did not.
Many Catholics agree with me, and to call them “Freaks,” the Traditional liturgy a “Freak Flag,” or compare their concerns to that of sex-obsessed husbands, is a sin against both truth and charity. And I’m not going to let people get away with it. By suggesting that when the author did this, he was merely blundering like Evelyn Waugh’s Bridey was the most charitable interpretation I could put on his behavior. I see now that I might have been wrong.
You two (Hoopes and Zmirak)sound like a couple of silly bickering children. This interchange was embarrassing to read and is not worthy of NCR. Now, as I tell my children to do when they bicker, be good boys and give each other a hug and say, “I love you. You are God’s gift to me.”
Thanks, Alyssa. Great practice. Here goes:
John, when I wrote my first piece I was proud to call you my friend. I hope I still can. You have a wit like no other and an expansive knowledge that is dazzling and delightful. Thank you for doing what you do. Alyssa’s phrase fits: I love you and you are God’s gift to more than just me, but certainly to me, too.
Truce accepted. On behalf of long-persecuted, still widely and unfairly ridiculed Traditional Catholics I took umbrage and pureed it with relish, adding more horseradish than the recipe called for. I wish you the best for all the good work you do for the Church, and hope you do indeed explore the riches of the Church’s liturgy in its historic form. God bless you and your family.
I have not read the other article, but know the sounds of the arguments well. For a few years we went to a few Latin Massses, but stopped because of the way the Pope was being talked about and people that went to the Norvus Ordo were being described. We only went there because we were so tired of the abuses at almost every parish we attended (we moved a lot for my husbands job) It seemed no one cared, even the priests, about the pain they were causing so many good faithful Catholics. Since I am 62, I was there when the “floor” caved in after VII and for years blamed it for all the nonsense going on. Then we joined a lay group and found the beauty of VII, and prayed/worked for its tru implementation.
We can truly say things are going in the right direction, but it will take a lot of time. It is easy to go fast down a steep hill, but takes a long time to get back up….
We love the Church and now Christ is with us…..
May Christ’s peace be with us all,
THE TRUCE OF H & Z COULDN’T HAVE COME AT A MORE APROPRIATE TIME, SINCE SUNDAY READINGS ARE ALL ABOUT FORGIVENESS TO THE MAX…
In the spirit of “the Truce” and in honor of the readings tomorrow (and, especially, in order that bloggers and administrators don’t have to spend Sunday monitoring any personal or volatile comments), we’ve closed down comments here. Thanks to everyone who contributed. We’re all glad to see it come to such an amicable end.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.