The Holy Ghost never gaslights.

 

Amy Welborn has been publishing regular essays about how the trope of "the spirit is doing a new thing!" is frequently an exercise in both political power-grabs and weaponized, spiritual bullying. 

It has been exceptionally worthwhile, and the latest installment is here.

In her latest post, she emphasizes that, despite all of the cooing moderns do into the mirror, we are fundamentally the same people as those who traversed this vale of tears before we were literally pushed into the light of day. 

We are so different, it seems. Our lives are radically different.

Aren’t they?

Yes? No?

I maintain, fundamentally, no. Fundamentally. Of course our external circumstances impact us profoundly. I’ve long believed that widespread relative prosperity and mobility have had a deep impact on the way that human beings understand themselves and the spiritual journey. Carl Trueman’s The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self takes on these changes from a different perspective, and I largely agree with his assessment. Me, sitting here in Alabama, knowing that if I wanted to spend the money, could get on a plane and fly across the country – and then be back home tomorrow and can instantly communicate with friends around the world – is a life quite different from the woman of the past who might never have left her own village.

So yes! The externals have changed, the framework has changed, the assumptions have shifted.

But

Also no.

And that no is the reason we can read two-hundred year old novels, four-hundred year old philosophical works, eight-hundred year old plays and three-thousand year old epics and still see ourselves.

It is a shock to the system, really, the first time a young person reads the first book of Augustine’s Confessions and sees such a wildly familiar landscape, even in the strangeness of it all: she sees parents who don’t understand, parents who don’t get along, career expectations, temptations succumbed to for unknown reasons, other temptations succumbed to that leave one empty in the end, ways to waste time, education that becomes less vital the more it’s required, and of course, questions. Question after question after question. 

* * *

I have written before that as a teacher – both in the classroom, at home, and in my writing – I have long taken it as my responsibility – and great pleasure, in fact – to help students and readers dig through the initial strangeness of history, of literature, of theology and spiritual writing, of the lives of the saints, and indeed, of Scripture itself – to understand what is essentially and even eternally true there and to see that the questions posed in these works and traditions are, indeed, the same questions they grapple with. They are not alone. They are not the first to wonder. Which should, indeed, come as a tremendous relief, and a moment of yes, communion across space and time.

So the question – yet another question – remains, stubbornly. And I would pose it regularly, if I could, in person.

Why is it permissible to reflect on and benefit from the wisdom, truth and beauty in every corner of the history of the People of God and even outside of its boundaries – except in the ancient liturgical prayer of the Church, actually being prayed?

Emphasis in original.

As I said at the beginning, it is part of a recurring series, so work your way back through her blog posts on the topic--starting with this one. 

Her thinking through of the issues should be compared to the most recent corporate bishop-speak on Why We Must Flush All Of That. For example, take the Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago, Blase Cupich. In a blog post at Pray Tell, he explains why we all must move on, get with the Vatican II paradigm shift, embrace the break with the past and obey his pope-given pastoral authority.

Which will sound more like "authoritah" when he tosses the Latin Mass-goers out on their arses in a few months. 

He'll probably let that type have Christmas. Probably.

But this is the same guy who literally locked the FSSP out of their parish during Holy Week in 2002, so...don't bet more than your couch cushion change on it.

In return, he "may" (his word) let you have some of that equally-outdated chant crap, bits of dead language or even an additional minute or so of silence. This last most likely carefully dispersed throughout the service so as not to offend the Chief Liturgist of Chicago. If you're not bustling about like Martha, you're doing it wrong.

Of course, any parishes that do so with the Latin, etc., will be watched with the hairiest sets of eyeballs in the Windy City when they so do.

The Archbishop being who he is, he can't help but say something fatuous even as he drops heavy-handed "pastoral" thunderstorm warnings.

A second guiding principle the pope addresses in TC is that there has to be a solid unequivocal recognition on the part of all Catholics that the Second Vatican Council and its reforms are not only an authentic action of the Holy Spirit but also are in continuity with the Tradition of the Church.

Emphasis in original.

How about "no"? And "wrong"? 

Throughout history, the Holy Ghost has only guaranteed that the collected batches of mitred men and their clerical advisers gathered at ecumenical councils--who have run the gamut from capital-s Saints to perverts and heretics--will not irretrievably screw things up. 

More to the point, He certainly does not guarantee that, post-council, a much smaller group of men appointed by the pope, also running from saintly to godawful, will correctly synthesize what that larger group may or may not have wanted.

What He did guarantee is that what Catholics receive from their altar (or whatever else it might be called these days) continues to be the Eucharistic Christ--Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Because, really--it takes about five minutes of research to discover that what the Smaller Group of Guys produced wasn't really what was expected. For example, all vernacular, all the time! wasn't the idea, according to one of the liturgical periti writing as the Council was in session:

It is noteworthy that this question was the most discussed in all the debate on the liturgy. Eighty-one speakers were heard. Their opinions take up more than 100 solid pages. Three tendencies were manifested: 

Some wanted no concessions to the vernacular; some wanted permission to say everything in the vernacular for all who want it; some wanted to maintain the basic principle of Latin, but also to open the door noticeably to the vernacular tongue. The majority were of this middle view, which was that followed by the schema. 

Thus the way of prudence and of apostolic boldness were amicably united. The Second Vatican Council, officially introducing bilingualism into the life of the Latin liturgy, takes a memorable stride in history.

So much for "what the Council wanted," as monolingualism became the norm in 1970. Sounds like the authentic voice of the Holy Spirit was gagged, not heard.

But, of course, noting that the Emperor's floppy bits keep popping out makes one borderline schismatic and definitely out of tune with the new thing.

Naturally, then, I will push one more button. The Cardinal points to the new calendar, with "Hey, new saints!" 

I will respond by pointing to the commentary of Fr. Louis Bouyer, the most eminent liturgist on the Concilium that promulgated the spirit-protected, in-continuity-with-Tradition-honest new liturgical calendar:

I prefer to say nothing, or so little of the new calendar, the handiwork of a trio of maniacs who suppressed, with no good reason, Septuagesima and the Octave of Pentecost and who scattered three quarters of the Saints higgledy-piddledy, all based on notions of their own!

Because these three hotheads obstinately refused to change anything to their work and because the Pope wanted to finish up quickly to avoid letting the chaos out of hand, their project, however insane, was accepted!

"In continuity with the Tradition of the Church," huh?

Yo tengo muchas preguntas, arzobispo.

In the final analysis, it does not matter if the Cardinal is aware of the problems with his argument (such as it is). 

The facts are easily discoverable, and the desire for something more rooted will not go away. No matter how much he and those of like mind try to resolve the issue with a toxic mix of brute exercises of authority and patronizing rhetoric. Ordering people to move on is like ordering them to shut up--it does not work, long term. 

When you throw in the reality that your institutional credibility hovers around that of telephone scam artists from Hyderabad, it guarantees that only bad things will happen.