The Sovereign of the Narrative

 I have often reflected on the point expressed here in an article by Shaun Blanchard called Traditionis Custodes was never merely about the liturgy:

 Much more than a decree regulating liturgy, Traditionis Custodes is a decisive moment in the history of papal reception of Vatican II.

No single English word encapsulates the concept I am trying to convey, but thankfully the Germans have a word for everything. I believe Pope Francis’ motu proprio is the latest in a long series of papal assertions of Deutungshoheit over the legacy of Vatican II. Literally “interpretation-sovereignty,” to have Deutungshoheit means to have sovereignty over a narrative, which is the power to control meaning. 

... Whatever discontinuities are present in the Francis pontificate, I think we should actually see a document like Traditionis Custodes primarily in continuity with an established preoccupation of the postconciliar popes: controlling the narrative about Vatican II. In fact, controlling or attempting to control the reception, interpretation, and implementation ecumenical councils is a pivotal way (perhaps the pivotal way) in which the early modern and modern papacy has asserted its supremacy within the Catholic Church. Francis’s “bombshell” motu proprio should be seen in this long line of papal attempts to maintain Deutungshoheit vis-à-vis ecumenical councils. These assertions of interpretation-sovereignty stretch back at least six centuries from Vatican II and Vatican I (1870) to the councils of Trent (1545–63) and Constance (1414–18).

 This Deutungshoheit that he talks about, specifically, is what I am interested in here, not so much Traditionis Custodes or the history of the papacy or the Church.

It's hard to find a discussion of the term in English, and I have lost most of my college German.    But "narrative sovereignty" seems extremely explanatory of much of modern philosophical and ideological history, and much of our current "polarization" -- even to the use of the term itself -- can be framed in those terms.

JRR Tolkien seemed aware of it as a craftsman, and I think he would have explicitly referred to the connection of the technique with the concept of subcreation, because God has allowed narrative in His providence, and this is rather counter-intuitive.   CS Lewis points out that when you read non-believers' complaints about God, they often come down to dislike of the fact that God has allowed narrative at all, or else criticisms of the way the narratives play out.   

In fact, and this is not denied in the least but is not explicitly brought out in Shaun Blanchard's article, God has sovereignty over the narrative.   Those popes he refers to above -- presumably they are all trying to reinforce what they think God is trying to bring out.   And you can do this for better or for worse.   Pharoah had his narrative control, and Moses subverted it through the power of God, and God's narrative won.     The Israelites had their narrative of the wilderness experience, and it took a generation or so for it to move closer to the divine narrative.  

 This happens over and over.    As we move towards Palm Sunday and the Easter Triduum in our liturgical calendar, the readings show it clearly.

All the forces lined up against Jesus that culminated in what seemed like defeat, disgrace, and death -- actually resulted in the exact opposite.    What's going on today, bad as it genuinely is, is not new but a participation or playing out of that same key event.   

This doesn't make heartbreak or horror any easier to bear.   Jesus did not accept anesthetization on the Cross or anywhere else.   He experienced all the humiliation and agony.    There are consolations and ameliorations in our lives, often enough, to offset the dreadful moments.   But the paradox that the very terms of defeat become the moment of victory is also real.   

JRR Tolkien did not want to include explicitly religious practices or ideas in his work, and he didn't want to allegorize.   But some of his devices, like eucatastrophe, seem meant to evoke or epitomize his perceptions of how our world operates and on what terms.