COMMENTARY
archBishop roche: “the traditional Mass Must go” But are his reasons theologically sound? n BY JAMES BARESEL Left, Archbishop Arthur Roche, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome; below, Mass in the old rite
T
hose who read the recent public statements made by Archbishop Arthur Roche, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in his attempt to justify the changed regulations for use of the Traditional Latin Mass, cannot fail to be struck by one fact: Even if his arguments are perfectly sound as reasons for the Missal of Paul VI to hold the “ordinary” status they did under Benedict XVI — with the Traditional Latin Mass as an “extraordinary” but permanent liturgical form of the Roman Church — they are nevertheless feeble and unconvincing as reasons for his professed goal of eventually eliminating the Traditional Latin Mass from the life of the Church.
THREE DEMONSTRATIVE EXAMPLES: 1) Speaking to a Swiss television station, the archbishop expressed the opinion that “What was produced in 1570 was entirely appropriate for the time. What is produced in this age is also entirely appropriate for the time.” That might sound plausible if it was merely saying that most people of this age will pray better using the Missal of Paul VI and that therefore it is appropriate for this to be the “ordinary” liturgical form of the Roman Church. But it has no logical bearing on whether it is reasonable or appropriate to allow another liturgy (from a previous age) to remain as a permanent (if exceptional) option for those who pray better using it. 2) In an interview given to Rome journalist Edward Pentin, Roche said that “the liturgy is never simply a matter of personal tastes or preferences.” How does this reconcile with the fact that Catholics are free to choose between attending the Roman, Byzantine, Maronite and other rites on the basis of their personal tastes and preferences? Conformity with certain essential Catholic principles takes precedence over personal tastes and preferences. But since the Traditional Latin Mass and the Mass of Paul VI are both in conformity with 32
INSIDE THE VATICAN MARCH-APRIL 2022
those essential Catholic principles, personal tastes and preferences are a legitimate consideration. 3) In the same interview, the archbishop stated that the “Ambrosian, Gallican, Dominican or the Anglican (Ordinariate)” liturgies are approved “for specific reasons.” No reason is given for why the Traditional Latin Mass cannot remain in permanent (if exceptional) use for other specific reasons. The explanation for such feeble and unconvincing arguments is simple. If the Traditional Latin Mass is theologically legitimate, then it is sensible to allow its continued use (on a permanent basis) by faithful Catholics who prefer it. With rare exceptions, there have only been three situations in which Church authorities have attempted to suppress specific liturgical forms: first, if those affected by the change were content to go along with the change; second, if there was some concern about the orthodoxy of the forms being suppressed; and third, if the suppressed forms had been introduced as novelties. Because of the foregoing, Archbishop Roche has two choices. Either he can use feeble and unconvincing arguments to justify his goal of eliminating the Traditional Latin Mass; or, he can use a claim which would, if true, justify eliminating the Traditional Latin Mass but which suffers from the problem of being heretical—the claim that the Traditional Latin Mass is at odds with Catholic theology. But for Roche to use the latter, patently indefensible claim would constitute admission that his project is grounded in illegitimate motives and aimed at illegitimate ends. Hence his prominent public statements are limited to the feeble and unconvincing. But a little known quasi-public lecture that Roche presented at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in February of 2020 reveals that his prominent use of feeble and unconvincing arguments is duplicitous at best, and mendacious at worst. That lecture was ironically and disingenuously titled
