Chairman's Blog
The only expression of the Roman Rite?
 |
| A Low Mass celebrated after the 2019 LMS Walking Pilgrimage to Walsingham, in the Medieval Slipper Chapel. |
The practical fall-out from Traditionis Custodes will be making itself felt for some time to come. In some places it has already been devastating; in others, it appears it will be minimal. The theological fall-out, however, threatens a profound problem on a different plane. This arises from the claim made in Article 1 of the document, and repeated in the accompanying Letter to Bishops, that “the liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”
The official English translation which I have quoted is actually a poor rendering of the Italian expression, “l’unica espressione”, which means the only expression. The document is claiming that the only Missal which expresses the Roman Rite’s lex orandi, its “law of prayer,” is the reformed Missal.
The Church’s law of prayer, her lex orandi, must correspond to, and indeed determine, her law of belief (lex credendi): that was the claim of Prosper of Aquitaine when he coined the phrase in the 5th century. Prosper was making the point that if you want to know what people believe, then look at how they express themselves in prayer. If they genuflect at the reference to the Incarnation in the Creed, of if they kneel to receive Holy Communion, this tells you something: Arians will refuse to do the first, and Lutherans the second. A Missal is a “law of prayer” in the sense that it sets out a way for people to pray, and we would expect Catholic Missals to give a theologically correct law of prayer and Arian and Lutheran ones to give theologically erroneous ones. What, then, can it mean to say that the Roman Rite has only one law of prayer, and that this is the one expressed in a particular Missal, and not in another, in a document which allows both to be used in the Church?
Last Call for the LMS Walking Pilgrimage to Walsingham: deadline, 23rd August
LMS AGM and High Mass in Westminster Cathedral: photos
Today, Saturday 14th August, the Latin Mass Society held its Annual General Meeting. Among other things I gave talk which can be heard on Soundcloud here (37 minutes): Traditiones Custodes: What difference does it make?
Fr Whisenant's address to the AGM was excellent and we will be releasing a recording soon. The music was lovely, and we would like to record our thanks David Greely, who was directing.
Are Canonisations Infallible? A new book of discussions
I am a contributor to an important new book collecting essays on this topic: are Canonisations infallible?
The chapters are arranged in a certain order: historical and doctrinal overviews (chapters 1–3), in-depth investigations by Thomists (4–7), a vigorous defense of the non-infallibility thesis (chapters 8–9), and specific concerns raised by more recent situations (10–15). That being said, the chapters do not have to be read in any particular order, and those who are looking for the fundamentals of the debate may wish to prioritize 2–3, 7–9, and 11.
Dr Kwasniewski writes more about it on Rorate Caeli.
Table of Contents
1 The Church Triumphant and
the Rules of Canonization Today: Jean-François Thomas, S.J.
2 The Cult of Saints in the Catholic Church: José Antonio Ureta
3 History and Role of the “Devil’s Advocate”: Phillip Campbell
4 The Infallibility of Canonizations: A Revisionist History of the Arguments: William Matthew Diem
5 Infallibility and Canonizations: A Disputation: Thomas Crean, O.P.
6 A Reponse to Fr. Crean: William Matthew Diem
7 Canonization and Infallibility: Msgr. Brunero Gherardini
8 The Authority of Canonizations: John R.T. Lamont
9 The Infallibility of Canonizations and the Morals of the Faithful: John R.T. Lamont
10 Approaching the Subject of Canonization: with Careful Steps: Fr. John Hunwicke
11 The Canonization Crisis: Christopher Ferrara
12 True and False Saints in the Church: Roberto de Mattei
13 On the Proposed Canonizations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II: Roberto de Mattei
14 Animadversions on the Canonization of Paul VI: Peter A. Kwasniewski
15 Walking into a Trap: Joseph Shaw
Get it on Amazon: UK here; USA here.
Latin for Clergy: 80% discount from the Latin Mass Society
To respond to Pope Francis’ challenge that those celebrating the ancient Latin liturgy should ‘possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts’ (Traditionis Custodes 3.4), the Latin Mass Society is pleased to announce a special online course designed to assist the clergy to improve their Latin for liturgical use.
'After Traditionis Custodes': Podcast
 |
| Dominican Rite Mass in Holy Trinity, Hethe, 2019 |
Today we launch a new season of our Iota Unum podcasts, to publish weekly.
German Professor criticises Traditionis Custodes
My latest on LifeSite.
Professor Helmut Hoping, Professor of Dogmatics and Liturgical Studies at the University of Freiburg, has written a strongly critical article on Pope Francis’s Apostolic Letter Traditionis Custodes, in the respected German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) on July 28. The article, in German, is unfortunately paywalled, but I have seen a translation.
Pope Francis claims in Traditionis Custodes that the reformed, post Vatican II Missal is the “only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Missal” (not, as the official English translation had it, merely the “unique” expression). Hoping points out that in 2015 Pope Francis promulgated the Missal of the Anglican Ordinariates, Divine Worship, which describes itself as a “legitimate adaptation” of the Roman Rite, and that only last year, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a decree on the Extraordinary Form, Quo Magis, which described it as a the “other form of the Roman Rite”. Somehow, between February 2020 and July 2021, the Holy See has radically transformed its understanding of what constitutes the “Roman Rite.”
Another oddity Professor Hoping points out in Traditionis Custodes is Pope Francis giving bishops the “exclusive” right to manage the celebration of the older Mass, he then commands them to “follow all the instructions of the Apostolic See,” setting out various limitations on what they may permit.
Hoping continues:
“But it may not be quite so easy to put an end to the old Mass. It is appreciated by many because it protects [worshippers] against the personal creativity with which many priests today assemble the Mass, disregarding the norms of the Missal of Paul VI and the right of the faithful to a liturgy celebrated in accordance with the applicable Roman Rite. With its evolved ritual structure, the old Mass resists attempts to de-sacralize it. This makes it attractive to believers with a sense of the holiness, beauty and objectivity of Christian worship, including, increasingly, young people. Not that the renewed liturgy could not be celebrated worthily and according to the rubrics. However, it is often difficult to perceive, in parish Masses, their character as a sacred act (actio sacra). It was the promotion of this idea which was the object of the liturgical reform, which found its first expression in the Missal of Paul VI (1970).”
Read the whole thing there.
Ruff and Shaw on Traditionis Custodes and the Reform
"The question of whether it’s appropriate for the Church to prohibit the previous rite is identical to the question of whether Vatican II’s statements on the liturgy are legitimate and correct – and I think they are."
"He [Pope Francis] did not say that the 1962 Missal has no lex orandi, or is opposed to the Church’s lex orandi. The 1962 Missal reflects the Roman rite’s lex orandi to the extent that it reflects the Church’s liturgy as found in the 1970 Missal.""the primary argument of TC is not a pragmatic one about whether or not traditionalist communities are guilty of the vices Pope Francis names. Even if traditionalist communities are coexisting in perfect peace with the rest of the church, Francis’s primary argument is that their liturgical practice is not in line with the Church’s intentions."
The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.
A reply to JD Flynn's attack on Cardinal Burke
 |
| Cardinal Raymond Burke in London, celebrating Mass for the Latin Mass Society in Corpus Christi, Maiden Lane 2019 (photograph by John Aron). |
Cross-posted from Rorate Caeli.
In the Pillar, JD Flynn criticises ‘the siren voices calling for disobedience, or casting into doubt the authority of the Vicar of Christ’. He has earlier quoted Cardinal Raymond Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and Bishop Robertus Mutsaerts, but he leaves it to his readers to connect what he quotes them as saying with ‘calls for disobedience’ and ‘casting into doubt the authority of the Vicar of Christ’. This seems on the face of it a serious injustice, and a failure to give these individuals the respect due to their office and indeed to every Catholic, who has a right to his good name: see Canon 220.
For readers such as myself to be expected to examine the quoted remarks and look for possible support of these serious allegations is ridiculous and an invitation to uncharity. Flynn does not even give us a clue which of the three is implicated in these two alleged offences. Indeed, it might even be that Flynn would, if challenged, refer us instead to the unnamed others he vaguely refers to in the course of the article. However, the insinuation remains, it is serious, and it should be withdrawn.
To illustrate, a reasonable person reading this article would conclude that ‘casting into doubt the authority of the Vicar of Christ’ is a reference to the remarks quoted from Cardinal Burke in the article:
“Can the Roman Pontiff juridically abrogate the UA?” Burke asked.
The cardinal concluded in the negative, positing that the pope’s authority does not allow him “to eradicate a liturgical discipline which has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier.”
This is then linked to an interpretation of His Excellency’s remarks by a CNA author. Flynn does not express an opinion as the truth of this interpretation, and yet feels justified to make his insinuation.
In point of fact, Cardinal Burke’s remarks are not a denial of the authority of the Papacy, but a comment about what that authority means. I would be interested to know if Flynn would regard as a rejection of the authority of the Vicar of Christ these words of the then sitting Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, one Joseph Ratzinger (The Spirit of the Liturgy (2000)):
After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. … The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity.... The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.
It is a commonplace among theologians that the power of the Vicar of Christ is not arbitrary or despotic, but given for a specific purpose, a purpose which conditions the matters which it governs and also the way it can be used. The Church’s own tradition of Canon law allows for the fact that some practices are simply not uprooted by legislation against them and become legitimate with the passage of time (Canon 24.2); that bishops can lift universal disciplinary obligations from those under their charge for the good of souls (Canon 87.1); and that, in the final analysis, the salvation of souls is the supreme law (Canon 1752).
The power of the Vicar of Christ must be understood within this context, and not the context of a modern, positivist conception of the law, which would make the Pope into a dictator or even a slave-master. When Cardinal Burke directs our attention to the correct context, he is doing a service to all who love and respect the Office of the Papacy.
Latin Mass: no hysteria. A reply to David Gibson
First, the pope has not prohibited priests from saying Mass in Latin
Unlike under the other points, Gibson is unable to illustrate this with any quotations or links to people saying what he alleges supporters of the Traditional Mass are saying. Perhaps someone should point out to him that these Catholics are actually acutely aware of the difference between 'banning the Traditional Mass' and 'banning the Latin Novus Ordo': rather more sensitive than he is, in fact.
“If you like the Latin Mass, you can keep the Latin Mass, because the Missal of Paul VI is the Latin Mass,” Adam Rasmussen, an adjunct professor of theology, wrote at the blog Where Peter Is.
This is aimed at John Allen in Crux, which is interesting given Allen's stature as a non-ideological journalist and the balanced nature of his article. If Allen thinks Peronism is a useful category, Gibson needs to do more than just quote Michael Sean Winters and, heaven help us, Robert Mickens, in reply.
And this is the third and perhaps biggest misconception – that Pope Francis is throttling some burgeoning traditionalist revival
Interestingly, after Summorum Pontificum there was a big surge, and this was followed by a bit of consolidation. But in the last three years the speed of growth has picked up again. Quoting a 2016 article by Mgr Charles Pope, as Gibson does, is not exactly up to the minute news, is it?