Liturgy and the Mexican Standoff

A "Mexican Standoff" usually involves equally armed people, which is not the case here. The Vatican has cannons, whilst the SSPX has peashooters.

From One Peter Five

By Aurelio Porfiri

"We can affirm with certainty and with magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.”

I do not know whether you share this impression, but when one looks at the current situation of the liturgy, it seems to resemble that of a “Mexican standoff.” This expression, perhaps coined in the nineteenth century, refers to a situation in which three or more contenders hold each other at gunpoint in a state of great tension, where anyone may emerge as the winner or the loser.

Of course, in our case not all the “contenders” are on the same level. There are those liturgists who view the liturgical reform of Vatican II as a break with the past, inspired by the hermeneutic promoted by the so-called “Bologna School.” Unfortunately, this interpretation has prevailed for decades, even though it is intrinsically false. Then there is a minority that embraces the hermeneutic of continuity, according to which the liturgical reform promoted by Vatican II should not be seen in opposition to the Church’s liturgical and musical tradition. These people, often viewed with suspicion, are frequently voices crying out in the wilderness. Finally, there is the traditionalist world, which relies on the rite that preceded the so-called “Mass of Paul VI.” This too is a minority that seeks to carve out a space for itself within a Church that, at least in words, claims to be inclusive.

Unfortunately, the situation sees the first group maintaining an ideological approach to the liturgical reform that prevents them from recognizing problems and admitting failures, which makes it difficult to sustain healthy dialogue with supporters of the hermeneutic of continuity and with traditionalists. Everything is viewed through a lens that prevents a calm assessment of the problems that have nevertheless arisen over these decades. When one has the opportunity to speak privately with some of these defenders of the current situation, one does hear admissions of the serious and unresolved problems of the liturgy; publicly, however, it seems that the official line must be defended, and that one cannot deviate from it. Pope Francis, who did not consider the liturgy among his priorities, somewhat reinforced the ideology of these people, especially with a speech on 24 August 2017 to participants in the Liturgical Week organized by the Centro di Azione Liturgica, in which he said: “After this magisterium, after this long journey, we can affirm with certainty and with magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.” These were “clear words spoken with determination,” as the liturgist Corrado Maggioni said in an issue of the Rivista di Pastorale Liturgica. Certainly, this was a demanding statement, one that seems to bind even his successor Popes, which appears at the very least peculiar, since one cannot exclude the possibility that a future Pontiff or Council might wish to promote a reform of the liturgy that significantly modifies the current reform or even, absurd as it may sound, returns to certain earlier ritual forms.

Unfortunately, this rigidity on one side translates into rigidity on other sides as well. It is somewhat similar to what happens in the geopolitical sphere: if one country re-arms, others feel compelled to do the same. From what I have observed in these years, it is evident that some seek in every possible way to preserve the post-conciliar paradigm, taking the word “paradigm” in the sense given by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). This attempt at preservation gives rise to a whole series of paranoias that affect anyone who questions the official narrative.

Let it be clear: this post-conciliar paradigm is not the liturgical reform of Vatican II itself, but rather a drift away from it—an interpretation that has moved far from what the Council’s own documents suggested.

In reality, if I were to describe the current situation accurately, I would certainly see it under the sign of paralysis, and here the image of the Mexican standoff proves useful once again. I do not believe that a Pope can resolve a problem so deeply rooted in the Church, even though the more pragmatic approach of Leo XIV, compared to the barricade-style approach of Francis, can certainly help to ease tensions.

Certainly, the news coming from the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X could lead one to foresee an increase in tensions with the traditionalist world, due to the announced episcopal ordinations without pontifical mandate scheduled for the first of July. And yet I believe that Pope Leo XIV will be able to find an approach that safeguards his legitimate prerogatives while not losing the relationship with a reality that, in the Church’s current situation, is very significant.