Chairman's Blog

The Superiors General of the Fraternity of St Peter, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, and a number of other Superiors General of priestly institutes and religious communities attached to the Traditional Mass (including three communities of women), have issued a joint letter in response to Traditionis Custodes. Here it is, on the FSSP website. It is addressed to the Bishops of France, not, as some have assumed, to the Holy See.

As befits such a document, it is carefully worded. In principle, Traditionis Custodes creates an impossible situation for the signatories. They are founded on the charism of the Traditional liturgy, and the Letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes tells us that it is the intention of the document that in the longer term this liturgy should entirely disappear. Furthermore, the justification for this given in the Letter is that the clergy and faithful (who are not distinguished) are detached in some sense from the unity of the Church.

The argument which needs to be made to the Bishops of France at this point is thus a delicate one. Negatively, it should be obvious that to strike a defiant attitude, to threaten disobedience to Traditionis Custodes or the Bishops, or to suggest that they might go over to the Society of Pius X, would serve to confirm the purported justification of Traditionis Custodes. It would be directly counter-productive. 

On the other hand, to make a direct argument against Traditionis Custodes, to insist that it should be rescinded, is pointless, because the French Bishops do not have the power to do that. To make such an argument to the Holy See would be pointless in another way, because there is absolutely no chance that an important document such as this would be cancelled, or modified in a significant way, by the very Pope who promulgated it, so soon after its publication. 

Instead, the statement approaches the problem in two ways. First, it emphasises the key-hole of concession offered by Traditionis Custodes and the Letter, through which the Traditional Mass can continue to be celebrated: time. Traditionis Custodes gives the French Bishops (like all bishops) the right to permit the Traditional Mass now. It is now that it needs to be permitted if the spiritual life of the Traditional Institutes, and of Traditional laity, is to continue as before. No limit to this time is set by the documents. The first thing to secure, then, is that the Traditional Mass will continue.

The second approach is to draw attention to a very serious problem created by Traditionis Custodes. In confirming the establishment of the Institutes and communities represented by this statement, the Holy See has over the years since 1988 allowed and encouraged men and women to commit themselves by vows to lives of a particular character: as do all priests and religious. A fundamental aspect of this character for these particular religious associations is the Traditional liturgy. If this liturgy is to be abolished, the vows and commitments made to these associations would become impossible to fulfill.

The implications of this fact are not drawn out. It is for the French Bishops to ponder the problem as they apply Traditionis Custodes. They must implement the legislation with regard to the good of souls: as it is when they apply any aspect of the law of the Church. For those bishops inclined to be sympathetic, this consideration will be a powerful one.

To summarise, what this statement does is to try to create a space in which the French Bishops may, without disobedience, make possible in practice the continuation of the life the of the Priestly Institutes and communities and of lay Catholics attached to the Traditional Mass. The Latin Mass Society did the same thing, in a some different way, when we issued our Canonical Guidance on Traditionis Custodes.

------------------------------

Taylor Marshall, a man I usually ignore, has insulted the signatories of this statement, as lacking the "brave and bold" spirit which, he claims, animated the late Archbishop Lefebvre. He is, in a video far too tedious to link to, claiming that they are cowards.

This is a contemptible accusation, which reveals Marshall to be, as I expressed it on Twitter, an ignorant fool. I stand by that judgement, and I call on Marshall to apologise to these good men and women, who have a fearful responsibility both to their professed members, and also, in most cases, to the lay faithful for whom they have pastoral care.

Marshall appears to imagine that the Superiors General should react to their complex situation with the subtly of some Hollywood action-hero: an attitude, in fact, completely at odds with the historical reality of Archbishop Lefebvre himself. What, Marshall seems to be asking, would Rambo do? What would be the reaction of some knuckle-headed character played by Mel Gibson? Well, if he wants to base his understanding of ecclesial politics on Braveheart, he should remember the advice given by the Duke of Argyle (in the 1995 film) to the young William Wallace: "First learn to use this" (pointing to his head), "and then I will teach you to use this" (lifting his sword).

It is an interesting fact about social media that some people who witnessed Marshall's insult of the Superiors General, and my own criticism of Marshall for making this insult, concluded that I was the one to be blamed for dividing Traditional Catholics. This is an attitude completely detached from reality. The restoration of the Church is carried out through the sacraments offered by Traditional priests, and through the lives of prayer and sacrifice represented by the Traditional Institutes and communities, not by monetised social-media clicks. We need to show solidarity, in this moment of crisis, with the Superiors General, not with the man who likes to remind his viewers "I'm just a dad with a webcam".

To the Superiors General, I say: genuine Traditional Catholics have your back. If this separates me from Taylor Marshall and his more deranged fans, so much the better.

Support the Latin Mass Society

These are by the photographer and videographer Peter Jones, who runs the One Of Nine YouTube channel.

 

Support the Latin Mass Society

In thanksgiving for the easing of the Covid regulations, allowing us to have this event, I decided to do two new things, personally. One was to do a pre-pilgrimage, walking from Cambridge to Ely: extending the pilgrimage backwards. The other was to do the walk in a kilt. So there I am, above, looking a bit the worse for wear outside the Catholic Shrine on the final day: photo courtesy of Peter Jones. (The rest in this post are mine.)

 Cross-posted from Rorate Caeli.

A number of American writers claim that Traditionis Custodes should spur priests to make their celebration of Mass more reflective of the liturgical tradition. Others commentators, including a number of bishops implementing it, apparently think the opposite.

Those in favor of the first interpretation can cite a couple of passages from the Letter to Bishops which accompanied Traditionis Custodes. Pope Francis quotes Pope Benedict complaining about liturgical abuses—“unbearable distortions”; later he remarks:

Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements.

The Roman Canon being Eucharistic Prayer I in the reformed Missal.

The two most influential American blogs defending Traditionis Custodes, Pray Tell and Where Peter Is, have accordingly taken this line. Fr Anthony Ruff of the Pray Tell blog writes:

The goal is that the entire Roman rite celebrates the liturgy of Vatican II in all the spiritual profundity and sacrality which remains to be discovered in the 1970 Missal, so that there is less reason for people to seek out the 1962 alternative.

Terrence Sweeney on Where Peter Is calls for more celebrations of the Novus Ordo in Latin and with “proper liturgical garments, fully celebrated liturgies, processions, and yes smells and bells,” a celebration that is “richly traditional”.

By contrast, the bishops who have been most prominent in implementing Traditionis Custodes are not encouraging their priests to make their celebrations of Mass any closer in spirit to Traditional Mass: quite the contrary. The Bishops Conference of Costa Rica, for example, in what seems like an inversion of Pope Francis’ words about continuity quoted above, warn against “any element coming from the ancient form”. One bishops has actually suspendeda priest for celebrating the Novus Ordo in Latin.

One American diocese, Rockford, Illinois, whose Vicar General Monsignor Eric Barr has written defending Traditionis Custodes, in 2017 bannedpriests from celebrating the Novus Ordo facing east, facing same direction as the congregation, in the traditional manner, despite this being permitted by the rules of the Novus Ordo.

The French bishops, whose reporton the spread of the Traditional Mass in their dioceses became public early this year, felt that “when elements are introduced into the OF they are more sources of tension than of enrichment.” What sort of “elements” did they have in mind?

Use of old vestments, and the use of black as a liturgical color. The adding of Signs of the cross. Veiling of statues in Passiontide. Blessing of the water at the Offertory. The sacring bell, communion plates.

In the Novus Ordo the bell is explicitly allowed as a “local custom” and black “where it is the practice” (General Instruction of the Roman Missal 150 and 346 respectively); the use of the Communion plate (paten) is actually required (Redemptionis Sacramentum 93).

The use of the more traditional options which exist in the Novus Ordo is sometimes called “the reform of the reform”. Fr Ruff and others like him think that this is more important than ever, because it show the continuity between the reformed Mass and the earlier liturgical tradition; liturgically progressive bishops, on the other hand, think that the reform was right to relegate these practices to the status of mere options, and thinks the actual use of these options is a retrograde step.

Pope Francis has, in fact, made his own position quite clear. He famously brokethe liturgical rules by washing the feet of a Muslim female on Maundy Thursday in 2013. Whatever one thinks of his action, it did not give an example of strict adherence to norms.

In 2015 he was reported as follows, after a long meeting with the priests of Rome:

The Pope noted that there are priests and bishops who speak of a “reform of the reform.” Some of them are “saints” and speak “in good faith.” But this “is mistaken”, the Holy Father said.

In 2016 he reacted negativelyto Cardinal Robert Sarah’s encouragement of the celebration of Mass facing east. Earlier this year priests were bannedfrom celebrating individual Masses in St Peter’s in Rome, and forced to concelebrate in Italian instead.

Taking all this into account, there is no justification for reading Traditionis Custodes as a call for making celebrations of the Novus Ordo more traditional. On the other hand, the Traditional Latin Mass is still allowed wherever a local bishop gives permission. Indeed, the only way for a priest to celebrate an individual Mass, or a Mass in Latin, at St Peters’ side altars, is now in a limited number of slots allocated to the Traditional Mass. Pope Francis and his allies among the bishops seem to prefer a situation in which the Traditional Mass is the only alternative to progressive-style Novus Ordo celebrations. This polarization of liturgical options has precisely the effect feared by Fr Ruff: it gives people greater reason to seek out the Traditional Mass. Pope Francis’ liturgical policies may in the end do more to promote attendance at the Traditional Mass than to discourage it.