Septuagesima versus "Ordinary Time"

The one thing the average Catholic - and even a halfway-informed non-Catholic - knows about Vatican II is that "it changed the Mass". But even today, nearly forty-five years after the close of the Council, Catholics are amazed to learn that many of the elements of the "new" Mass which visibly differentiate it from the "traditional" Mass were either not mandated by the Council or even contrary to Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council's "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy".

I am not alone in asserting that the post-Conciliar reforms - perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to them as "re-forms" - did incalculable damage to the Catholic Church. Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI has expressed himself on this subject many times, both in his years as Cardinal and - less bluntly of course - as Pope. After nearly five years on the Throne of Peter one can readily discern the twin themes of Christian Unity and restoring Catholic Identity in nearly all of his acts. Manifestly he has his work cut out for him.

The liturgical revolution was particularly responsible for shattering a once-unified sense of Catholic identity and decimating the influence of Catholic culture in our societies, both in Catholic Europe and secular America. Although I grew up during these tumultuous years it wasn't until I returned almost exclusively to the traditional Mass about ten years ago that I gradually began to understand how much damage the changes to the liturgical calendar had wrought in these areas.

This morning, preparing to herd the gang off to Mass, I glanced at the calendar and realized that it was Septuagesima, the beginning of the pre-Lenten season which unaccountably vanished some time around 1970. This, despite the Council's instruction that "the traditional customs and discipline of the sacred seasons shall be preserved or restored... their specific character is to be retained, so that they duly nourish the piety of the faithful...", not to mention the five paragraphs in Sacrosanctum Concilium about Lent itself.

The two great feasts of the Christian faith, Easter and Christmas, are both preceeded by seasons of penitential observance and preparation. One wonders whether modern liturgists, given carte blanche, would have have rescheduled them exactly six months apart to "balance" the liturgical year. It's not so far-fetched, nothing was untouchable to these guys*. Thankfully they never got around to that particular "improvement" and so we're stuck with the traditional dates. As such, the interval between Christmastide and Lent can be quite short, especially in a year when Easter is early. Rather than letting us fetch up abruptly at the doorstep of Lent on Ash Wednesday, Holy Mother Church in Her wisdom has given us the season of Septuagesima to help us make a thoughtful and gradual transition into Lent. While individual Catholics do not observe Lenten mortifications during this period, we are gradually reoriented toward the austerities of Lent by the more somber presentation of the liturgy - violet vestments are worn, and both the Alleluia and the Gloria are omitted as during Lent.

It is interesting to note that the Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, retain a three-week "pre-Lenten" period before the beginning of the "Great Lent". There is little question that this tradition, and the Western observance of Septuagesima, both find their origin in early Christian practice. Funny, isn't it, that along with liturgical "renewal" another of the hallmarks of Vatican II was ecumenism? Perhaps one must be a specially-trained liturgist to understand how the practical abolition of Septuagesima serves either to promote unity with the Orthodox or to fulfill the mandate of Sacrosanctum Conclilium to preserve and restore traditional customs and disciplines. As the late Michael Davies might say, "well, it's a point of view!"

In Martin Mosebach's wonderful book The Heresy of Formlessness he referred to the liturgy as "lived religion". I'm not sure the phrase is original to Mosebach, but it's definitely apt. If the liturgy is not permitted to permeate our lives, or if it is drastically pruned of the externals which have for centuries marked the passage of our years, it will fail to inspire us toward the fullest possible appreciation of the sacred mysteries it embodies. In Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye tells us "because of our traditions, every one of us knows who he is, and what God expects him to do". We Catholics are the spiritual descendents of the Jews, are we not likewise entitled to retain - and cherish - the worthy traditions which our Church has given us to help guide us through our earthly pilgrimage?

Our sense of identity as Catholics is impovershed, as is our culture, by the loss of the pre-Lenten season of Septuagesima. We should pray that Pope Benedict's liturgical restoration will ultimately include the restoration of the traditional elements of the liturgical calendar which enrich our lives and draw us closer to God.

UPDATE - There's a nice post on Septuagesima over on the New Liturgical Movement, including an analysis from the estimable Father F. X. Weiser, S.J. which I'd not seen before. (Amongst his other accomplishments, Fr. Weiser was pastor of Holy Trinity in Boston in the 1940's)

*The Consilium - the post-Conciliar body charged with implementing the liturgical renewal - actually considered moving the date of Christmas and also proposed changing the duration of Lent by moving Ash Wednesday to a Sunday! Imagine, singing that well known hymn "Lord, Who Throughout These Forty Thirty-six Days". This "nothing sacred" attitude toward our traditions lives on in the episcopal conferences who have routinely transferred the Feast of the Epiphany to the Sunday between January 2nd-8th, resulting in a generation of Catholics who have no idea that the "Twelve Days of Christmas" has anything to do with the liturgical year...

Some thoughts on the election of Scott Brown...

Massachusetts and the nation are still talking about the special election ten days ago in which Scott Brown was elected to fill-out the remainder of Ted Kennedy's* term. Everyone seems to agree that the voters are angry, but the perceived source of their anger apparently differs depending upon one's preferred ideological prism. The President made the claim, with a straight face, that "the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office". Taken to its logical conclusion, we should thus conclude that the voters of Massachusetts are so blinded with hatred of G. W. Bush that we elected... a Republican to demonstrate our anger? Sorry, even Biden doesn't believe that one.

The punditry, and even to some extent the MSM, are seeing this as an out-and-out revolt against the statist (well, the MSM wouldn't use that word) plans and policies of Obama, Pelosi, et Reid. Undoubtedly there is truth to that, and I believe that it was not only a factor in this race but that we will be seeing it used as a blueprint in many other contests this November. Indeed, the second-best news I heard on election night was that John Loughlin, the R.I. state rep. who has stated his intention to challenge Patches Kennedy for one of the Ocean State's two House seats, had hired three of Brown's top campaign advisers literally as soon as victory had been declared. But I digress.

A few points which seem not to have gotten the attention they deserve:

1.) "It's the terrorism, stupid" - Astoundingly, the President in his SotU failed to refer to the central national security issue of our time except in the most general terms. But much of Brown's campaign, indeed the issue on which he first seemed to catch the attention of the voters of MA, was the handling of enemy combatants, a.k.a. "suspects". Brown was adamant throughout that he opposed trying KSM as a civilian and that he was equally opposed to giving the so-called "Christmas Bomber" access to Constitutional protections. Even here in The Peoples' Republic polls showed that voters strongly agreed with these positions.

2.) "All politics is local" - Tip O'Neill's aphorism is thought not to be applicable in this instance since it was a special election which was in effect nationalized. But even to the extent which this is true, it seems likely that Brown's election was as much a repudiation of Massachusetts Democrats - who have been in charge much longer - as those in Washington. Consider - above and beyond the leftist policies and individual corruption that are the hallmarks of a Northeastern one-party state - the following events of the past several years: the voters approved an initiative petition to roll-back the state income tax but the legislature simply refused to implement it; they twice changed the law concerning Senatorial succession, both times at the request of Sen. Kennedy and both times for the naked purpose of favoring Democrats; and they used a parliamentary trick of dubious legality to prevent the citiznes of Massachusetts from voting on the question of so-called same-sex marriage which had been imposed upon the state by judicial fiat. People here have been getting madder and madder, and the grumbling has been growing in intensity since before most voters had any idea who Scott Brown was.

3.) "You can't beat somebody with nobody" - Alas, this has been the problem in most Massachusetts elections for years. Mediocre - or corrupt - or both - incumbents, ripe for the picking, have been opposed by underwhelming and underfunded candidates, often RINOs, who nonetheless manage to register a 30-35% protest vote from voters who have no idea who they are or what they stand for, other than opposing a sitting Democrat. But Massachusetts has been more congenial territory for Republicans with a bit of name recognition who have some record of accomplishment, e.g. Romney. Had the state GOP nominated the usual sacrificial lamb, the egregious Miz Coakley might yet have been elected.

Hopefully if you've read this far you've found it interesting. Gotta run now, time for #2 son's basketball game. More to come...

*for reasons relating to the so-called "Kennedy Seat" and his own attempts to nominate his successor, the late senator has earned the moniker "The Duke of Chappaquiddick" in these parts.

In Principio...

Perhaps someone who doesn't know me will stumble upon this blog and read this initial post and wonder why the heck I'm here. (One who knows me might well have the same question!) I've often compared certain individuals' blogs to the diaries of exhibitionists, but mine is not meant to serve any such purpose. Nor will it become "a blog about nothing". At present this is merely an experiment to see whether a weblog might be a better alternative than writing dozens of emails to friends each day, sharing links and exchanging thoughts on various subjects both secular and ecclesiastical. So, here goes - duc in altum...