Ever since Traditionis Custodes was issued more than 3½ years ago, its defenders have struggled to come up with a rationale for why it was issued at all. This is hardly surprising. The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, in repudiation of which it was written, was the fruit of decades of careful meditation on the Church’s liturgy problem, on the part of one of the finest minds of our times. And the theological and pastoral problems which Benedict XVI addressed with such wisdom and sensitivity are not one whit less real and serious now than they were when he issued it. That is a fact which is not going to change within our lifetimes.
We were told that Pope Benedict’s decision to issue Summorum Pontificum was “above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre.” We were told this, even though Pope Benedict himself flatly stated that this was “absolutely false.”
We were also told that in a survey whose contents have never been revealed, the bishops of the world had alerted the Pope to the grave threat to the Church’s unity which the adherents of the traditional Roman Rite pose. At the same time, we have also been constantly told ever since then that there are very, very few such adherents; so few, in fact that the bishops needn’t worry too much about the sheep whose smell they are acquiring by wading into their midst and giving them a solid thrashing.
 |
| Dangerous counter-revolutionaries threatening the unity of the Faith! |
We were told that it was therefore necessary to revoke the faculties granted by Summorum Pontificum, in order to restore to the bishops their rightful role as “guardians of the (Church’s) tradition”, and the authority over the liturgy which they needed to end this dangerous looming schism. The letter accompanying the newer motu proprio cited paragraph 27 of Lumen gentium to that effect four times, and said to the bishops, “It is up to you to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration, and to determine case by case the reality of the groups which celebrate with this Missale Romanum.” At the same time, their authority to make such determinations was drastically curtailed by the motu proprio itself. And when many of the bishops used the authority still left to them to determine that there was no such danger in their dioceses, their authority was further curtailed by the responses to a supposed set of dubia, and further still by the end-run around Canon 87 enshrined in a rescript two years ago.
We were told that the traditional Roman Rite must be consigned to the dustbin of history, because it is incompatible with the fascinating new ecclesiological insights of Vatican II. We were also told that the Synod on Synodality was still figuring out what those insights were, and would be sure to let us know as soon as it found them.
We have been told numerous times that attachment to the traditional Roman Rite, and to tradition in general, results from various psychological problems, murkily grouped under the conjuring term “rigidity”. But of course, expulsion from parishes is not a merciful way to accompany those who suffer from psychological problems. And all this is done in the name of defending the legacy of Vatican II, which rightly warned against this sad incomprehension and dismissal of the young by the old, and did not put an expiration date on the warning.
 |
| The blessed martyr Rolando Rivi, wearing a classic symptom of psychological rigidity. |
Enter now His Eminence Arthur Cardinal Roche, prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship, even he of the dubia and the rescript. In a fascinating new interview with The Catholic Herald published today, he reveals yet another new explanation of Traditionis Custodes, one which effectively repudiates not just the defenses of it proffered hitherto, but the document itself.
When asked “what advice (he) would give to those who want to remain faithful members of the Church and love the Latin Mass but find themselves restricted in attending,” he makes no mention of the dangerous divisions which supposedly necessitated such drastic action in the first place. Indeed, he tells us that “There is nothing wrong with attending the Mass celebrated with the 1962 missal”, the very point which Pope Benedict himself made in his letter to the bishops of the world accompanying Summorum Pontificum, one of his most famous quotes, because one of his wisest: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too.”
We also learn that in issuing Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis did not act to end the threat of a dangerous looming schism after all, but only to say that the traditional Roman Rite “is not the norm.” Again, this is the very same point that Pope Benedict himself made by calling the traditional Roman Rite, “the Extraordinary Form.”
Now it has to be admitted some of the other things he says about the traditional Rite and its current status in the Church are rather surprising, but such are the ways of the god of surprises. He tells us, for example, that “For very good reasons, the Church, through conciliar legislation, decided to move away from what had become an overly elaborate form of celebrating the Mass.” Of course, few people have as good cause as he to know that the post-Conciliar Rite is what it is, in its very essence, because it rejected and did not fulfill the liturgical legislation, such as it was, of the most recent ecumenical council.
But then in the very next paragraph, he regales us with one of those charming anecdotes about how badly the Mass used to be celebrated before the reform. Apparently, when he served Mass at school, the priest used to charge him with the responsibility of keeping track of the length of his Mass, and if he reached the Last Gospel within 15 minutes, to tug on his chasuble as a reminder that the Mass was supposed to be 20 minutes long. Clearly, the old Mass cannot have been that elaborate…
His Eminence admits what we all know, that this was “something very different from what people experience in the Extraordinary Form today.” Yes, we all know that those who cultivate the Extraordinary Form today fulfill the liturgical wishes of the most recent ecumenical council far more authentically than… this, for example. (Ash Wednesday Mass celebrated yesterday at the church of the Twelve Apostles in Cologne. Things get particularly interesting at 27:30, but be warned: what you hear will not easily be unheard...)
His Eminence then states that “The numbers devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass are, in reality, quite small, but some of the groups are quite clamorous. They are more noticeable because they make their voices heard.” We may prescind from the uncomfortable question as to why the authorities of the Church then pay them so much attention, while ignoring so many and such graver problems that afflict it. NLM is really not about those problems, so I simply make bold to suggest that His Eminence ask himself WHY those who are devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass make their voices heard in its defense, while those who are devoted to the reformed liturgy… um, don’t.
There are a few other chestnuts in the interview, including the perennial favorite that it has more Scripture. But by far the most interesting statement is this: “What interests me is why people get hot under the collar about others celebrating the Tridentine Mass. I think this has been a mistake.” Here again, it is extremely gratifying and edifying to see His Eminence embrace the wisdom of our beloved Pope Benedict, who wrote to the bishops as follows in the aforementioned letter:
“This document (Summorum Pontificum) was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.
In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
This fear is unfounded. …
In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded.”
Indeed.
