Confessions of a Restorationist

“Restoration” is a tricky word. If we are talking about a work of art, that typically involves the painstaking, patient and brutally slow work of removing layers of paint, pollution and other alterations which hide the original beauty of an artist’s creation. If the work is done correctly and with diligence, the result can be absolutely magnificent, like the restoration of the Sistine Chapel a few years ago, or the cleaning of Bernini’s Colonnade in Rome, which now glistens with a blinding white cleanliness. Of course, there are also, for lack of a better term, ‘botched’ restorations, like the infamous ‘restoration’ of Elias Garcia Martinez’s Ecce Homo, which completely defaced the original beauty of the work. Almost all restoration aims at rediscovering a good which has become occluded, whether aesthetic beauty or moral goodness.

‘Restorationism’ to me is an even more tricky word. As an ideology, it is the desire to bring back a state of affairs which existed before. In that case, the operative question in my mind ought to be: what is the terminus ad quem, the goal to which the restorationist strives? Is it a renewal of something which is objectively good or beautiful? Or is it an imposition of an imaginary ‘Golden Age’ or state of affairs which may or may not have existed, and may not even be attainable in the here and now? Is it a search to bring into the present what is always and everywhere good, or is it a Quixotic crusade for the unattainable?

Restoration seems to be an intrinsically positive work. Restorationism seems to be a contingently positive work; that is, contingent upon its end goal. Yet this sort of nuance seems to be completely missing in contemporary Church criticism of this very real movement, brought to the present once again by the Holy Father’s recent critical words regarding “restorationists”, especially in the United States. I would like to humbly, respectfully and thoughtfully unpack what this means, and what it does not mean.

In the decades before the Second Vatican Council, the Church was full of extremely talented, brilliant and devout men and women who were working toward the restoration of the Church, and most especially her Liturgy, a movement which is still called the original “Liturgical Movement”. That movement, which had a parallel movement in the theological resourcement, sought to go back to the Fathers of the Church and the Sacred Scriptures in order to reenergize our understanding of theology. Even if some of the methods were dead-ends, I believe to this day that most of those scholars were sincerely committed to seeking the face of Christ and assisting the Christian faithful in truly understanding the power and the mystery of the Sacred Liturgy. We are deeply indebted to their contributions and writings, even if we do not accept all their conclusions.

In the context of recent criticism, what does “restorationist” in the pejorative sense mean? This is, like so many liberal uses of words, nebulous. Are there some that want to turn back the clock to 1962? Certainly. Are there some that want to turn back the clock to 1570? I’m sure there are at least some. But time for us mortals only moves forward, and not backward. Yet we are blessed with the power of memory and of reason, and any historical analysis of our Church ought to note as objectively as possible what was good and what was bad about the “old days”, and draw wisdom from what our ancestors taught and handed down to us.

What I find most distressing about the criticism of ‘restorationism’ is a lack of nuance as to what type of restoration the Pope is referring; is it an ahistorical, utopian attempt to bring back the past? If he is speaking thusly, I can only reply that such a description is a complete mutilation of what many well-meaning Catholics mean when they aim toward a restoration of those things which were done before the Second Vatican Council. When I talk to many historically and theologically educated Catholics, what I hear is an attempt to restore things like beauty, solemnity and reverence to the Sacred Liturgy. I hear a cry from the heart of the faithful for a full-throated and unapologetic defense of the teachings of the Church from those responsible for her instruction. I have literally seen, often with tears, a profound yearning for a Church which is obedient and in lock step with the commandments of her Divine Master, a Church which desires no idols, and has no God but the Lord of Hosts.

If this is the restoration that the Holy Father and his partisans decry, I cannot do anything but scratch my head in utter bewilderment, because I wonder how my spiritual Father and Brother Priest cannot have the same deep aspirations which I also have. I want to see our Seminaries full, our pews full, our schools full. I want to see holy and happy families. I want to feel the intense sense of adoration filling the Church when the Holy Sacrifice is offered. If that makes me a restorationist, I am guilty as charged.

If this is our operative definition, I glory in being a restorationist. What the Old Rite has and had to offer, is still our sacred treasure and ought to be seen with reverence. When I have gone to visit the catacombs, I emerged from the dark, humid labyrinth, not to raise those ruins to the sun above and to rebuild Roman baths and basilicae, but rather I desire to take with me into the world the steadfast faith of the martyrs, the love of the virgins, the strength of the Confessors. I emerged from that abode of the dead with living faith.

I will never forget once going to Rome with my Father, where we once visited the Necropolis beneath Vatican Hill. After visiting and reverencing the bones of Peter, my Father and I were filled with a profound spiritual awe, that we had tread holy ground, that we had been witnesses to something which has not perished, even though it is buried by the sands of time. When we were coming out and entering the Basilica, all of a sudden, as if on cue, we heard the Roman chant thunder gloriously, Credo in unum Deum, the Nicean Creed of the Mass. What rapturous joy that gave me, to come directly up from the tomb of Peter, the rock on which Christ built his Church, to hear above the full-throated proclamation of the same faith! Such sentiments are noble and ennobling, and will abide with me for the rest of my days.

To say that we do not need restoration today is to deny that at least in part, our Church, and the practice of her faith, has become obscured by sin and by error. For that reason we do not reject the Church, nor the faith. We merely wish for the removal of sin and error, so that the glory and beauty found therein may shine for the faithful and for the world to see. I so wish that some of our leaders who criticize our noble aspirations could understand the love and the joy at the heart of it all, and why it hurts so deeply to be marginalized and accused of being against the Church and her Councils. Could anything be further from the mind and the soul of the devout Catholic? This is no mere lip service; thousands of men and women on almost every continent are involved even now in so many apostolic labors to restore our Church in virtually every endeavor. Many have sacrificed significant material and personal resources in order to put their ‘hand to the plow’ in this sacred and necessary work. We do not seek to destroy the legitimate work of the Council or its teachings. What we object to is the bastardization of the same Council and its illegitimate interpretation, which is not according to the standards of the Church, but of the world.

One may level at us the criticism, “but is not the Papal Magisterium, though, a certain and authoritative interpreter of what qualifies as a legitimate interpretation?” And we would reply, “Yes!” We reply with support of the continuing Magisterium of Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI: in short, all the men who were there at the Council and presided over the reforms. Yes, we affirm and consent also to those pronouncements which are manifestations of the Magisterium of Pope Francis! Yet all these men are not so blind as to not see problems. All reforms are fraught with them. Some reforms at Councils fail utterly. That does not mean we reject the Council: it means we respectfully disagree regarding its implementation. And the means by which we disagree are not prejudice and insult, but rather history, Tradition, Scripture, mysticism, piety; in short, all the tools and methods with which the original resourcement animated the work of the Second Vatican Council. We are restorationists because we are intensely dedicated to the reform of the Church. We are restorationists because the language and worship of the Church is not an appendage to our life, but is its heart. If one disagrees with our arguments, argue with us. Dialogue with us. Reason with us. Engage our minds and move our hearts. Do not dismiss us, do not attack us.

For fifty years after the Council, many of us have held the line against the dissolution of Christian faith and morals against a rising tide of threats. The liturgy above all is our sacred oasis, the mystical spring from which the flock of Christ draws its sustenance. How can we be faulted for wanting to worship God better? There are those among us, numero sed non merito, who have that “form of godliness yet denying its power”, who say they want the restoration we desire, but do not want to see the victory and exaltation of Holy Mother Church, but rather to see her subdued and on her knees before the world, with her mouth gagged and her beauty and honor besmirched.

We are not restorationists because it is an aesthetic choice or an exercise in historical anachronism. We are not restorationists because we like to play dress-up and to pretend it was not 2022. We know very well the evil times in which we live. We know the past was not without its troubles. Yet we wish to bring forth into the troubled world the love, the light, and the power of Christian witness. In that sense, for us, restorationism is not a choice, but a moral obligation. This conviction beats in all our hearts because we are men and women of conscience, and because of our whole hearted allegiance to Christ and all his teachings, imperfectly though we may practice them.

At the same time, let us repent for the ways in which we have not represented well our holy desires, but have allowed them to be obscured with contentious polemics and empty spectacle. If the Pope says he despises our goals, let us show we love him all the more and will return a blessing for a curse. Let us pray for him that he may have his prejudices against us removed from his spiritual sight.

Together let us implore mercy from the Father of Mercies, that even as our internal and external enemies wax in strength, as for us and our houses, we will continue to serve the Lord, and accept no gods before Him.