Traditionis Custodes - A Letter

 

Dear A-,

I hope you are having a good summer. I was sorry not to be able to get up to visit our Virginia relations- between the new baby, and going on college visits with the eldest(!), we have been extremely busy this year. It's no excuse, however, for how long we are between visits and it's up to me to remedy it. We really do miss you all, especially for the sparkling conversation. The Internet brings us together virtually now in some semblance of conversation, and I thought it would be easier for me to get my thoughts together- and very disjointed they seem to me- to underscore why I am of the position that Traditionis Custodes is a bad motu proprio. 

To start with, as I said in my reply to you elsewhere, we are not parishioners at a TLM church. Our church has the most reverent Novus Ordo in town, and we love the people and the priest, so it is a good home for us. The only TLM is celebrated at a parish across town that also celebrates the NO, and the only Mass is at 5pm on Sundays which is too burdensome for us. Since bringing in the TLM, that parish has grown substantially and it attracting people from an hour away. What is it about the TLM that people are drawn to- is it just the aesthetics? No, I think it is much more than that, and I believe Pope Francis thinks so, too. 

But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” (DV 8). A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council,[14] and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church. 

To the Holy Father, this is all about Vatican II. I think so, too. But it matters a lot what we mean when we say we are talking about "Vatican II". 

None of my TLM friends (I would say about 25% of my personal circle) deny the authority of the Council of Vatican II- at least, they have never denied it to me, what they hold in their heart is another matter. But they often talk disparagingly of "Vatican II", in the sense that the rupture in how the Catholic Church thinks of itself originated with the closing of the Council and the liturgical reforms that followed. And this is the sense that Pope Francis means, too. He is for the rupture and entire "Vatican II Project" to remake the Church according to the secular, modern world. This is why "accompanying" non-Catholic groups and providing "pastoral care" for what is obviously gravely sinful behavior is encouraged, but traditionally-minded Catholics who have read anything from before Vatican II are an existential threat. 

When I started to dig into the Faith more, and started to read encyclicals and documents from previous Ecumenical Councils, what I found was shocking- clarity and truth! An entire way to live as a Catholic that was foreign to me, with manifold devotions, a liturgical calendar that really lived the life of Faith throughout the year. A time when you could go to any Catholic Church and participate in the same liturgy, with the same prayers and the same form, anywhere in the world. And I was angry, furious at what had been stolen from me, and my family and the entire Church. Functionally speaking, Catholicism post Vatican II is a different religion than what it was before. 

And yet, and yet. Perhaps the single most salient point about the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, the difference that makes all the difference, is the understanding of the Church about the protection of the Holy Spirit and the timelessness of its Truth. How do faithful Catholics square this conviction with the present state of the Church?

Archbishop Marcel Lefevre made the decision that the new Mass was a corruption of the Roman Rite, and the documents of Vatican II themselves included error- things that could not be squared with the deposit of Faith. In many ways, he was an admirable person, but in this he went too far and exceeded his authority- he was ultra vires in proclaiming a condemnation of the Council. And so, his Society down to this day routinely tells their laity that it is not acceptable to fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending a Novus Ordo Mass! This is why I would never join a SSPX chapel, despite the fact that I believe (and so does Francis, apparently) that their orders are valid and so is the Mass they celebrate. I know a few people who don't feel the qualms I do- they say, well, I don't agree with that but it's a valid Mass so... 

Unfortunately, this line of thinking does exist among a portion of the TLM-loving people, and some of the loudest voices are big on the internet. Taylor Marshal probably tops this list, and he has played a very dangerous game in his criticisms of Vatican II, stepping up to the line and crossing it occasionally. I know he attends an FSSP church, but he uses a lot of argumentation straight out of the SSPX. Pope Francis undoubtedly has been told by his Cardinals about this sort of content on the Internet, and perhaps told that this is the view of most people who attend a TLM parish. That's not true in my experience, and I hope Marshall and his group understand their culpability here. 

So we have the response to the question of reconciling the changes in the Church post Vatican II from one side- that there can be no reconciliation. What about from the opposite side? Let's hear it from Massimo Faggioli, one of the most influential boosters of the Francis papacy.

The Second Vatican Council or Vatican II (1962-1965) was the most important event in the history of the Catholic Church since the Protestant Reformation and the Council of Trent (1545-1563). But is it still relevant? It is a fact that Vatican II took place in a now distant past: during the optimistic world of the 1960s, from the perspective of a very Euro-Western theological culture, and by an all male, celibate council. But Vatican II is still very relevant for at least three reasons.

The first reason is that Vatican II refocused the way Christian theology is done both academically and magisterially. Most importantly, it changed the daily theology of all Catholics around a threefold path: first, the reading of the Scriptures (constitution Dei Verbum on revelation); second, the discernment of the “signs of the times “ (constitution Gaudium et Spes); third, the access to one’s interiority and to the “colloquium” with God in solitude and in the liturgy (costitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the liturgy). Vatican II has a “generative grammar” that is rooted in the modus agendi of Christ himself (declaration Dignitatis Humanae), its modus conversationis (Dei Verbum) – that is, how Jesus relates to and lives with others, and Jesus’ way of being poor and humble (constitution Lumen Gentium on the Church).

The second reason Vatican II is still relevant is that it is a part of the living tradition of the Catholic Church, and a council of the conciliar tradition of the universal Church. And yet, it embodies a non-traditionalist teaching. Vatican II follows Trent and Vatican I, but it rephrases the whole tradition in a way that gives priority to the Gospel. The whole tradition is re-read in light of the Gospel. Vatican II is not a paradigm, a set of propositional statements. Vatican II is a paradigmatic way of doing theology, it is about the way the Catholic Church teaches: collegially, ecumenically, challenged by the Gospel, listening to the signs of the times, and distancing itself from the theological-political status  quo.

The third reason Vatican II remains relevant is that the pontificate of Pope Francis (and the Catholic Church that Pope Francis represents – representation in the sense of incarnation, imagination, and vicarial representation ) cannot be understood without Vatican II both as a body of documents and as an act, a way of being Church.

I particularly love the fact that he believe is it reasonable to doubt the "relevance" of Vatican II because it was attended by "an all-male, celibate council." Too perfect. 

"Rephrases the whole tradition," yes. "... that gives priority to the Gospel," is a much trickier assertion. In what way did the prior "tradition" not give priority to the Gospel? Was there a contradiction between the Gospel and the Church? Faggioli seems to think so. "Listening to the sign of the times," and "It changed the daily theology of all Catholics," is certainly the goal of what Faggioli is calling Vatican II- in his mind and the mind of the generation that ushered in the changes to the Church after the Council. "A way of being Church" is a strange locution that I have only ever heard from Protestant ministers and represents their corrupted ecclesiology. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, so what's all this talk about a "way of being"? 

This is emblematic of the modernists who overhauled the Church- Vatican II was a deliberate change to the "tradition" of the Church, as they understand it. It brings in a whole new theology, language and symbolism. The language they use is bizarre, sounding like it means something but what? "Vatican II is a paradigmatic way of doing theology, it is about the way the Catholic Church teaches: collegially, ecumenically, challenged by the Gospel, listening to the signs of the times, and distancing itself from the theological-political status  quo." What does this even mean? Do you still have to repent of your sins to gain heaven? Or is this question not answerable? It's not quite New-Age Bullshit Generator bad, but it's close. 

And so, somehow, the Novus Ordo must replace the Tridentine Mass, because this crowd views it as a vehicle to bring the program to fulfillment. Here's a widely circulated article from recent times before the motu proprio and explains how.

Trigger warning: Jesuitical nonsense!

The former editor of America Magazine began by calling for the incorporation of contemporary culture in the Catholic Church’s liturgy, saying that the various bishops’ conferences should “gather scholars, poets, musicians, artists and pastors to develop liturgies for their specific cultures.”

Liturgy becomes “boring and dies” if “out of touch with local culture,” he declared.

The Jesuit also offered his own solutions to face the vocations crisis in large parts of the Church, suggesting that the liturgy no longer be the place only for “celibate, male, full-time employees,” and opening up the sacraments of anointing of the sick and confession to deacons or even the laity.

Reese bemoaned what he described as clergy focusing “exclusively on the consecration” while “ignoring” the actual meaning of the prayer. More important than the act of consecration, by which the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, was the “transformation of the community into the body of Christ so we can live out the covenant we have through Christ,” wrote Reese.

“The church needs more and better Eucharistic prayers based on our renewed understanding of the Eucharist,” he declared. After mentioning a desire for “more biblical language,” the former columnist for the National Catholic Reporter called for Eucharistic prayers focusing on the “church’s concern for the poor, or for justice, peace, healing and the environment.”

What we need is definitely changes to the Consecration to make sure everyone knows Climate Change is Real, Guys. And this guy gets bored pretty fast, so keep the changes coming. 

So those are really the two extremes- unfortunately, one of those extremes happens to control the hierarchy of the Church. Both sides appear to agree that "Vatican II" demands these changes, and the only difference is whether you support or reject it. 

Stuck in the middle are you, and me, and most Catholics who are trying to make sense of this situation. We must believe in the validity of the Council, and yet we must not accept that the Church has been made into something new, and resist those who are working towards those ends.

Bringing this back to why people love and revere the TLM (finally), I think there are many reasons. They long for the beauty of the Form, the theology of it is harmonized with the Tradition of the Church, and the other people in the pews share their commitment to the moral life required by the teaching of the Church. Lots of times, there is no reverent Novus Ordo Mass in their area. But I think for many people it is a refuge, too. Maybe they can't make sense of the changes in the Church, there is too much conflicting opinion and unresolved contradictions, they don't know who they can trust. But the TLM is a sure thing, passed on from age to age. You can trust it. You know that it is right worship of the Lord, that the prayers it uses have stood the test of time, that the formulations have been tried and are true. During the TLM, one can forget about the crisis in the Church, if just for one hour. 

Traditionis Custodes intrudes on the life of Faith for these people. Now this refuge is being threatened, taken away. It feels like spiritual abuse from a father who should love them. They just love the old Mass, the ancient rite of the Church, why is this worthy of rebuke?

This is why, on the other forum, I lamented that this will surely drive some people to the SSPX- after all, it totally vindicates their position, doesn't it! Well, no. But the combination of hurt and dismay at the actions of the Pope may cause people to forget their convictions. 

Personally, I don't think we can solve the crisis in the Church without another Council, under new management. We must both destroy and affirm Vatican II- we must destroy utterly the project of the people for whom Vatican II was a cover story for their operation to turn the Church of Christ into an NGO at peace with the Spirit of the World. And we must affirm the validity of the actual Council of Vatican II, correcting anything that might be unclear or troublesome, as the Church has done with other Councils throughout history. 

And answers to the question about the Roman Rite must be clearly proclaimed- in what sense is the Novus Ordo simply a form of the Roman Rite? Or is it truly a new Rite itself, so many changes having been made. I would be perfectly happy to have the Novus Ordo become the American Rite, used side by side with the old Roman Rite, celebrated by all priests in this country equally, the Roman Rite restored to its status as the universal rite of the Western Church. Or revert the words of the Novus Ordo to match those of the TLM, and harmonize their calendars and feast days. This is above my pay grade, but the end result should be clarity about what these two liturgies are. 

That's my best first stab at this topic, which has occupied my thoughts constantly since last Friday. I would love to hear your thoughts on this, and I will publish it here, or not, as you like it. 

With love, 

Martin