Roman report: Promoting liturgical peace Diane Montagna on listening to the bishops

Promoting liturgical peace

Diane Montagna on listening to the bishops

In a recent statement calling on Pope Francis to rescind the canonical provisions contained in Traditionis Custodes and the Responsa ad dubia, Bishop Athanasius Schneider held up the example of the second century bishop and Church Father, St Irenaeus of Lyons, whom Francis will soon proclaim a Doctor of the Church, with the special title Doctor unitatis.

The auxiliary bishop of St Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan, urged the Pope to imitate St Irenaeus by promoting “liturgical peace” with the many thousands of Catholics who have been injured and marginalized through the promulgation of Traditionis Custodes.

How did St Irenaeus work for peace? Eusebius of Caesarea tells us that he intervened to talk Pope Victor I out of schism with the bishops of Asia Minor over a controversy regarding the date of Easter. Contrary to Victor’s wishes, bishops and faithful there were observing Easter on the day of Passover instead of the Sunday afterwards. This led Victor to threaten them with excommunication. The bishops of Asia Minor, who had observed this custom since the time of the Apostle St John, would not back down. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, St Irenaeus “fittingly admonishe[d]” the Pope and warned him not to “cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter 24 on The Disagreement in Asia).

St Irenaeus—in alliance with the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates of Ephesus—worked for peace by remonstrating with a pope on a matter far more limited that the suppression of the entire ancient Roman Rite. His example also demonstrates how contrary it is to the tradition of the Church for a pope to act so arbitrarily without religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy (cf. CCC 1125).

In recent months, I published a trilogy of articles containing the collection of quotations from bishops that was included in the report the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith prepared for Pope Francis based on the results of their consultation of the episcopate in 2020. Organized under various headings, the purpose of this collection was to give the Holy Father a well-rounded sampling of what the bishops had said about the implementation of Summorum Pontificum in their dioceses.

Pope Francis, in his accompanying letter to Traditionis Custodes, cited the CDF report as one of the chief motivating factors for issuing the Motu Proprio, telling the world’s bishops: “Responding to your requests” and “in defence of the unity of the Body of Christ I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors.”

Yet what the collection of quotations reveals is that Pope Francis is doing the opposite of what the bishops requested. Let us consider specifically the quotations from the English Bishops that were contained in the CDF report (I have translated the quotations back into English from the Italian and redacted the individual names of each bishop):

Negative assessments about the attitude of certain faithful

“In a negative sense, [the EF] can foster a feeling of superiority among the faithful, but since this rite is more widely used, that feeling has diminished (A Bishop of England, response to question 3).

“There may be a tendency among some of the faithful to see this [the EF] as the only ‘true’ Mass, but I think this comes from the fact that these people have been seen as “odd,” or marginalized. If you try to ‘regularize’ it as much as possible, then these people feel cared for and guided pastorally, and they can be very faithful and loyal” (A Bishop of England, response to question 3).

On the value of the EF for the peace and unity of the Church

“The EF, under the prudent leadership of the Ordinary, has allowed more Catholics to be able to pray according to their desire, and has dispelled the conflicts of before. Its quiet presence should not be disturbed” (A Bishop of England, response to question 9).

Proposals and/or perspectives for the future

“I think it is possible for the two uses, Ordinary and Extraordinary, to coexist. This could be a strength within the Catholic Church. Although we hear a lot from the LMS [Latin Mass Society] and its crusade to change the face of the Church and set the clocks back, my impression in the Diocese is that the strident appeals for the EF have now faded, and that it will find its own (probably quite small) level, so to speak (... ) I would say that formation in the fullness of the tradition of liturgical forms, practices, and symbols is needed, and that these can be open to all in full freedom, and even encouraged, in such a way as to show that the EF is not something to be feared, and that the OF is not to be despised, because it is rooted in tradition” (A Bishop of England, response to question 9).

On the value of the Extraordinary Form for the peace and unity of the Church

“Many of the people who attend are troubled pilgrims and quite suffering, and I think that the ‘normalization’ of their liturgical experience within the life of the Church strengthens the unity of the Church” (A Bishop of England, response to question 9).

On the historical value of the Extraordinary Form

“As Pope Benedict said, we cannot abandon the rite of the Mass that has been used for centuries and say that it is no longer relevant” (A Bishop of England, response to question 9).

Given the Pope’s attempted suppression of the traditional Roman Rite (made on a deliberately false reading of a survey of bishops that he himself had requested) that is fomenting schism rather than fostering unity, we are facing a situation far more serious than that faced by St Irenaeus and the bishops of Asia Minor. This leaves us with the burning question: Where are the saintly shepherds of today speaking up in defense of their flock and of tradition?