3 minute read
A NEW PAPAL DOCUMENT PROVOKES CONTROVERSY
by Inside the Vatican staff
By now, gallons of ink have been spilled in an effort to come to grips with Pope Francis’ July 2021 motu proprio (“on his own initiative”) letter to the world’s bishops placing new and dramatic restrictions on the celebration of the pre-1970 Mass (variously called the “Traditional Latin Mass” — TLM, or the “Extraordinary Rite” as it was christened by Benedict, or the “usus antiquor” — UA).
Many progressive commentators have hailed the Pope’s act as a welcome corrective to what they see as pernicious divisiveness in the Church, fueled by attendance at the Traditional Latin Mass.
Many others have vigorously criticized the move, saying that the reasons the Pope puts forth for curtailing the traditional Mass are woefully inadequate compared to the harms of depriving a growing body of TLM adherents of the Mass they have come to love. (The majority of those who attend the TLM are no longer older people who grew up with the rite, as was the situation under John Paul II when he first expanded its availability.)
Some also point out that making the Traditional Mass disappear altogether — taken, by friend and foe alike, as the apparent goal of the Pope’s instruction — would harm the Church herself. Severing the patrimony of the Church’s liturgy of at least a thousand years, probably much longer, in one fell swoop — as if the Church’s relevant liturgical history only began in 1970 — is hard for many Catholics, lay and religious, to swallow.
Pope Francis, perhaps acting on the basis of information that may or may not be accurate, seems to lay a large amount of blame for traditional-vs.-progressive conflict at the feet of those who worship at the TLM, accusing them of, in the main, “rejecting Vatican Council II.” It is a blanket accusation that many find puzzling, even incomprehensible.
Vatican II, a pastoral, rather than doctrinal council, happened — and its goal of re-presenting Cathlic doctrine to the world in terms modern man could understand may or may not have been successful. There are some who argue that there were documents crafted during the Council that were ill-advised, and/or poorly worded. But the word “accept” seems misplaced here; there were no new teachings that required the religious assent of the faithful, no dec - lar ations of belief that were not already believed before the Council.
And far from being hotbeds of anti- Vatican II sentiment, many Traditional Mass communities would only be thrilled to see the actual liturgical directives in the Council documents followed (for example, the Council document Sacrosanctum Concilium, No. 36, gave pride of place to Latin in liturgical celebrations, saying, “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (§ 1).
The sad fact is, many who became interested in the traditional Mass did so because of abuses that crept into their local liturgical celebrations, (falsely) defended on the basis of “following Vatican II” (or its “spirit”). Pope Francis himself laments these liturgical abuses in his motu proprio. In a letter to the world’s bishops accompanying Traditionis custodes, Pope Francis said that he was “saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides.”
“In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that ‘in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions,’” the Pope wrote.
Many Catholics are now waiting to see if Pope Francis will attack progressive liturgical abuses — arguably more numerous and more entrenched over the past five decades since Vatican II than any abuses by the minority of traditionally-minded Catholics could ever be — with the same vigor with which he is reprimanding those who choose to attend the Traditional Latin Mass.
In the following pages, we sample some of the reactions to Pope Francis’ Traditionis custodes that have appeared since its July 16, 2021 publication.
