Peter A. Kwasniewski

The Once and Futrure Roman Rite: Returning to the Traditional Latin Liturgy after Seventy Years of Exile

2022 TAN Books, Gastonia, NC

It’s no exaggeration to say that Peter Kwasniewski is the most energetic advocate of the traditional Roman Rite in America today. We have covered his many lectures and conferences on the site since 2015;  he is a familiar presence on the internet.  The books he has written or edited just since 2018 have been remarkable both in quantity and quality. In addition to all this, Dr. Kwasniewski is active as a church musician. Thus, his knowledge of the liturgy, both in the West and the East, is based in large part upon his own practical experience.  

The Once and Future Roman Rite is the most complete summary of Kwasniewski’s thought and advocacy on behalf of the traditional mass, for which he makes a passionate case. Dr. Kwasniewski’s tone can be intense, engaged, colloquial, even argumentative. He does not pretend to be a disinterested observer. But in this regard is St. Augustine’s City of God any different ?

The author first sets forth tradition as the governing norm in Catholicism. Tradition is not static but is, as the Newman explained, always involved in a process of organic development. Dr. Kwasniewski argues, however that the Novus Ordo can in no way be viewed as an organic development of the Roman rite. Its content has been largely changed and the basic features of the rite have been altered as well. Dr. Kwasniewski further argues that the traditional Latin mass and the divine liturgy of the East are much more closely related to each other then either of them is to the Novus Ordo. Kwasniewski profoundly disagrees with Pope Benedict’s “two forms of the Roman rite” solution of Summorum Pontificum – if that is to be understood not just as a political solution but as a statement of liturgical theory.

Kwasniewski finds support for his conclusions in a series of key addresses by Pope Paul VI between 1965 and 1969. Our author quotes them in full instead of taking selective passages to support foreordained conclusions. It is very clear from these documents that Paul VI  viewed the new mass as superseding the old, that it represented a revolutionary change, and that even the earliest so-called abuses (such as universal use of the vernacular or the discarding of Gregorian chant)were intended and modeled by Paul VI himself. This completely undermines the theories of conservative Catholics and other “reform of the reform” advocates who wish to dissever the Novus Ordo as it was created and imposed in 1969 from the conciliar documents themselves or from the post-conciliar magisterium of the popes.

Dr. Kwasniewski proceeds to a definition of a liturgical rite. He finds that the Novus Ordo is in no way the same as the Roman rite because:  the Roman canon is not used, mass is not offered in Latin, the liturgical texts are not recited or chanted, most of the prayers of the Latin mass have been eliminated or extensively reworked and reordered, a multi-year lectionary has been introduced, the calendar of the saints has been a severely reduced,  the traditional offertory  has been eliminated, mass is not said ad Orientem, the liturgy is celebrated in a sequential manner,  and the communions of the priest and of the faithful are mingled. Note that this description fits the Novus Ordo as it is usually celebrated, not unusual adaptations in favor of Catholic tradition such as we find in the Oratory churches in the UK.

Indeed, for Kwasniewski the presence (or absence) of the Roman canon is decisive.  A memorable chapter of this book is the author’s detailed analysis of the text of the canon and the theological meanings of each sentence. Kwasniewski argues that this ancient text inculcates a whole series of  theological truths that are downplayed or even absent in the Novus Ordo, e.g., that the Church’s unity and her other perfections are gifts for which we must pray to God; that the sacrifice of the mass is offered for Catholics who hold the true faith and they are its beneficiaries; that faith and devotion are prerequisites for participating in the mass; that we are protected by the intercession of the saints; and that there is divine predestination (only not in the Calvinist sense!). And the optional version of the Roman canon found  in the Novus Ordo – which is rarely used – has been altered in significant respects. Dr. Kwasniewski devotes a whole chapter to the fate of the mysterium fidei (the mystery of faith) in the Novus Ordo.

Dr. Kwasniewski believes the liturgical aberrations of today did not start with Vatican II and Paul VI but with the revision of the Holy Week ceremonies under Pius XII. For it was then, after 1948,  that the great themes of the liturgical revolution first received concrete application. It was with the changes to the Triduum that the modus operandi of centralized liturgical renewal was first consolidated.

In this book, depending on the subject,  Dr. Kwasniewski takes up the role of a theologian, a liturgist,  a historian, or a spiritual advisor. Parallel to his main arguments, he touches on a multitude of other issues and facts.  In so doing,  Dr. Kwasniewski is not afraid to clear up errors and misinterpretations that have gained currency among traditionalists – even if they support their cause.  This book is a gold mine of facts and arguments for the traditionalist seeking to better understand his own position and to respond to his adversaries.

The overall conclusion that Dr. Kwasniewski draws should be obvious: to adhere fully to the traditional Latin mass. In a sense, the pontificate of Francis has been liberating. The Catholic traditionalist no longer needs to feel any residual obligation to be a politician  –  the pope has clearly rejected that possibility. Thus, the only option remaining is to “do the right thing,” without any fear or hesitation. But wasn’t this conclusion already foreshadowed in the Heresy of Formlessness by Martin Mosebach (who has written a superb foreword to The Once and Future Roman Rite). When I reviewed Heresy almost twenty years ago what struck me was the universal application of the author’s arguments. The traditional mass was no longer merely an aesthetic pleasure, or a concession sought for by a small minority – it was a vital rule of faith than should be extended to the whole Church. So it is with Peter Kwasniewski. The traditional liturgy needs to be restored in full to the Church so that the Faith may flourish once again.   

When I heard the other day that the “pope emeritus,” Benedict XVI, had become seriously ill, I searched through what I and others had written about him over the years. But it was especially the illustrations to these writings,  the pictures of Benedict himself,  that I found moving. From the years of his papacy there were so many images of a kind, friendly, smiling man. In his dress and demeanor, he perfectly represented the dignity of his office as well as his own personal modesty. It contrasts with the disturbing images, deeds and revelations that emanate almost daily from the Vatican under the regime of Benedict’s successor.

A Theological Leader

In the 1950s Joseph Ratzinger commenced a career as an academic – always his first love. Early on he became involved in the progressive circles of the Catholic Church in Germany. He acted as part of the team that pushed through the documents of the Second Vatican Council. In retrospect,  Ratzinger never conceded any issues with his advocacy at this time, never felt any remorse at the effects of some of those decisions. Yet, he had been one of the movers in the revolution in the Church. At about this time he even took up a teaching position side by side with Hans Küng in Tübingen.

Very shortly thereafter, however,  his path diverged from that of the German Catholic establishment. By the late 1960s, as his major theological works were published,  he came to be seen by the orthodox minority of the German Church as a potential theological savior. Already people were turning with hope to him to find spiritual leadership in the midst of the growing chaos within both the Church and society.

By the 1980s he had emerged as the most articulate defender of the Catholic tradition within the establishment (and the hierarchy). In books such as the famous Ratzinger Report he acknowledged the damage inflicted upon the Church by disregarding Catholic tradition in the liturgy. This was a breath of fresh air. Indeed, Joseph Ratzinger was by far most effective as a theologian and spiritual writer. I know people (and have read of more) who have been inspired and even transformed by the reading of his books. His influence on priests was remarkable.

But in the 1970’s and 80’s he found papal favor as well, first from Paul VI,  and then from John Paul II.  For, as his “conservative” admirers had already discovered,  he seemed to offer both loyalty to the Council and reverence for Catholic tradition. In 1977 he was appointed to the prestigious see of Munich and was also made Cardinal. 

As Bishop and Vatican Prefect

We find, however, that Ratzinger early on encountered difficulties in a position requiring leadership and management skills. The best that can be said about his five years in Munich was that he was little different, both for better and for worse, than his colleagues in the German episcopate. Some of the decisions he took at this time later came back to haunt him (e.g., regarding a specific abusive priest or the “Catholic Integrated Community”). 

In 1982 he was appointed to the Vatican as the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (and chief theological adviser to John Paul II). He remained in this office for the next 23 years. Both in his public statements and in behind the scenes advocacy he worked for the preservation of Catholic faith –  in theology, morality, and liturgy. 

As a professor in Germany,  Joseph Ratzinger had already attracted the hostility of the Church progressives. Their animosity intensified drastically during his service as prefect and, thanks to the media, spread far beyond the borders of his homeland.  The media depicted this kind, gentle and scholarly man ludicrously as a merciless authoritarian in contrast to the outgoing, warm personality of John Paul II.  A near riot would be staged against a lecture Ratzinger gave in New York. 

It seems that Joseph Ratzinger had sought neither elevation to the see of Munich nor his subsequent appointment to the Vatican. It is reported that he tried to retire from his Vatican office several times. Certainly, at the Vatican he insisted on continuing, in addition to his administrative duties, his scholarly writing and the interaction with his circle of students.  I get the sense from accounts such as those of Seewald that he remained isolated in the Vatican, failed to develop the contacts and networks necessary for getting things done in such an incompetent bureaucracy, and that the actual management of the affairs of the Church rested in other hands. He could not necessarily restrain John Paul II even in theological matters (e.g., the first Assisi meeting).

The Pope

Accordingly, it must have come as the greatest shock of all to Joseph Ratzinger to have been elected Pope in 2005. Benedict XVI,  in his Christmas address of that year, signaled that he wished to promote a shift in the culture or attitude of the Catholic Church and her relationship to her own past.  Famously, he advocated  a “hermeneutic of reform…in… continuity,” distinguishing it from a “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture.”  Yet, in practice, his implementation of this vision was extremely limited and fragmentary.  As for the liturgical reform of the reform, for example, Pope Benedict made only some timid gestures in the matter of the arrangement of candlesticks and crucifix on the altar and continued to promote exact translations of the liturgical texts. On the administrative level, he addressed some of the more egregious situations bequeathed to him by his predecessor ( such as the matter of Fr. Maciel and the Legionaries of Christ) and tried to start a reform of the curia and its finances.

Pope Benedict’s limitations as a leader became increasingly evident. His selection of associates in the Vatican was just as erratic as that of his mentor John Paul II; his management decisions were often inexplicable. His official statements could be disappointing; his encyclical on the economy had several luminous paragraphs, apparently written by him, buried in pages of meaningless verbiage. His political sensibility, in both theory and practice, was limited. Although a man of great musical and artistic sensitivity,  Benedict now and then celebrated Masses wearing vestments or accompanied by music of an ugliness and incompetence that were scandalous even in the opinion of  progressives. Pope Benedict found it difficult or impossible to directly confront opposition inside or outside of the Church  – even that in his own Vatican. On at least one occasion,  Benedict‘s own staff forced him to abandon his own decision – an abortive deal in 2012 for the recognition of the FSSPX. When the files are opened,  I would not be surprised to discover that this specific incident first led Benedict to consider resignation. 

Yet, in one case Benedict by his personal engagement overrode intense internal opposition  –  the hostility of the Vatican bureaucracy, the mainstream religious orders and much of the hierarchy –  to finally give freedom to the Traditional Mass. The implications of this were profound.  Benedict undoubtedly sensed that the prohibition of the Traditional Mass was only one aspect of an attempt to cancel (as we say today) the entirety of Catholic tradition. Furthermore, by assigning  the initiative for obtaining Traditional Masses in the laity, Benedict was putting his finger on the monstrous failure of the Catholic hierarchy,  bureaucratic or progressive or both, to respond to the needs of the Church today. It was even perhaps the first step in a reform of the centralized, ultramontane structures of the Church.  Associated with this action, Pope Benedict partially regularized the status of the FSSPX. Thus, Benedict sought to end the exclusion of Traditional Catholics from the Church and heal the resulting tragic divisions.  Yet Pope Benedict would not go further – he would not celebrate the old liturgy publicly as pope.

The Resignation 

After his election as Pope, the animosity to Ratzinger that had been building for decades exploded into outright hatred on the part of the clergy, academics and the secular news media. The assault on the pope now took on international dimensions as well. He was depicted as a fanatic, a persecutor, a mindless disciplinarian. He was indicted for triggering hatred towards Islam, for advancing “holocaust deniers,”  for trying to restrict birth control (condoms). No matter what he did, he encountered the same relentless drumfire from the media.

Clearly, insidious clerical circles, both inside and outside the Vatican, were also conspiring against him. His own butler betrayed him. Of course, we do not yet know the full story of what exactly happened in the Vatican in 2010- 2013, but it seems that Benedict finally had convinced himself that he could no longer effectively govern the Church. You don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to conclude that the pressure of an organized and treacherous opposition in his pope’s own curia played a decisive role in the pope’s stunning decision to resign.

It was a shattering blow to the Church and to Benedict’s personal mission of reconnecting the Church to her own Tradition. With the election of Pope Francis, moreover, the “pope emeritus” Benedict soon had to witness a regime coming to power that set out to undo everything he and John Paul II had done to preserve or even recover Catholic tradition. By his resignation, Benedict had jeopardized the labors of decades. As in the case of his actions during the Second Vatican Council,  however, Benedict was unable to acknowledge publicly that he had done anything wrong by resigning.  

As “Pope Emeritus”

In retirement, Pope Benedict resided in Rome for almost another 10 years – longer than the period of his active pontificate. Again, we do not know the details of all that happened during this period.  I don’t think we would be very wrong, however, to surmise that Benedict provided support, either directly or through his mere existence, to the forces trying to slow down the Francis revolution. The most obvious example of this was the book Benedict co-authored with Cardinal Sarah which undoubtedly played a role at derailing –  for the time being –  Pope Francis’s push for a married clergy and female deacons. Some very plausibly think that this incident was the genesis of Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis’s subsequent attack on the Traditional Mass – and accordingly on Benedict himself. Characteristically, as a media uproar ensued upon publication of this book, Benedict immediately tried to dissociate himself from its co-authorship.

The relentless hounding of Benedict by the media and the official Church continued throughout his retirement.  The new pope’s minions celebrated Francis as a liberator, as the new John XXIII, with Benedict playing the role of Pius XII. Benedict lived to see his sole major legislative accomplishment, Summorum Pontificum, abrogated and the reasoning behind it misrepresented by Pope Francis and his academic and media followers. A book was published (with some discrete Vatican input) depicting Benedict as an effete, eccentric aesthete obsessed with lavish vestments and ceremonies. In early 2022 there was yet another all-out attack on Ratzinger in Germany, this time in regard to how he handled the case of an abusive priest while archbishop of Munich. The renewed rage of the German media and the “German Catholic Church” against Benedict knew no bounds – a poisonous atmosphere to which Benedict contributed by various gaffes and misstatements.  Indeed, legal action was initiated against Benedict to obtain a kind of declaratory judgment against him for his management of this matter ( the case was dropped on December 31 after Pope Benedict’s death) 

Even after his death, the castigation of Pope Benedict continued.  The (official) German Catholic media seemed to damn him with faint praise (amid the obligatory platitudes). But we are also told, for example,  that he was a reactionary, that his theology no longer has any influence in the official German theological world.  In the United States,  the secular media accompanied the announcement of his death with sound bites summarizing Benedict’s reign as a series of scandals or describing his primary accomplishment as worsening ecumenical relations. 

A Spiritual Man in a distressed, fossilized Church

As a bishop, as prefect of a major Vatican Congregation and especially as pope,  Ratzinger’s accomplishments were more limited than his intellectual talents and spiritual vision would have led his many supporters to expect. Yet, this negative assessment is not at all the whole story. His pontificate may not have been successful; but were those of Paul VI,  John Paul II, and the current incumbent any more so?  In many respects, Benedict’s papacy appears to have been more positive than theirs. We have referred to his public style and external image –  dignified yet modest – forming such a contrast with the ceaseless self-promotion of Benedict’s successor (and predecessor)! We have mentioned his willingness to give to the laity the initiative in reclaiming the Traditional Mass – as opposed to issuing decrees from on high addressed to the clergy. And with Summorum Pontificum he took a courageous decision which his immediate predecessor had been unable to make. For, as a rule, John Paul II was content to adopt a passive, laissez-faire attitude to governing the Church. Paul VI and Francis, in contrast, have indeed been capable of taking actions that have shaken the whole Church. However, they could do this only because they enjoyed the support and prompting of the ruling secular powers of our day. 

Pope Benedict’s significant presence in the Church did not disappear with his resignation. We get a sense of the hidden influence that the “pope emeritus” exercised by comments after Benedict’s death in German–language media, both Catholic and secular. It is there asserted that now Pope Francis will enjoy greater scope of action, that he at last will be able to speak more directly on issues. The NZZ (one of the two main German-language newspapers) even entitles an article: ”After the death of Benedict XVI Pope Francis is now, for the first time, sole pope.”

The difficulties Benedict experienced as pope were not, however, primarily attributable to his acknowledged lack of leadership and management skills. For the fundamental faults of Benedict’s papacy were not personal to him but institutional. In my view,  the real issue of the Church is the need to respond to the spiritual void that had developed in the West since the 18^th century and to reconvert the people to the Faith. Yet, this intuition of the need for spiritual change and renewal contrasted sharply with the establishment’s simultaneous commitment to the “system” of the Church with all its attendant weaknesses:  bureaucratic complacency, lack of transparency, the avoidance of unpleasant problems,  eagerness to reach an easy accommodation with the world and its ideology.  

This contradiction became even more glaring under Pope Benedict, a man endowed with genuine intellectual and spiritual gifts. More than most Catholics,  he sensed that the Church was at the point of a great transformation – even a great trial or purification.  Yet, at the same time, he remained the quintessential man of the establishment: loyal to the Council,  devoted to academic bureaucracy, always taking great pains to avoid conflict (and the appearance of conflict)within the Church and trying to maintain a public facade of unanimity and harmony. To balance an intensely spiritual, dramatic, almost apocalyptic vision with complacent, even conformist practice was an impossible task, inevitably doomed to failure. But it was a failure Pope Benedict shared with whole Conciliar Church! The defects of Pope Benedict were shared by many; his virtues only by a very few.

There are far more enduring aspects to Benedict’s legacy. I see them every day in the great renaissance of the Traditional Mass movement, made possible by Summorum Pontificum. It is heartening that many priests and young people rediscover the full Tradition of the Catholic Church. These priests, religious and laity are now standing firm in their faith in the face of renewed attempt by the current Pope to exclude them from the Church and to eliminate Catholic Tradition. All this was a made possible by Summorum Pontificum, its implementing regulations,  and its predecessor indults. Pope Benedict either issued these or, as prefect, was involved in their creation. Moreover, it was Benedict’s ( or Joseph Ratzinger’s) writings that had helped to create broad awareness within the Church of the significance of liturgical issues in the first place. 

Outside of traditionalism in the strict sense, Benedict’s legacy also continues to inspire.  So many still discover “orthodox” Catholicism by reading the theologian Ratzinger’s works and addresses.  Benedict also authorized the Ordinariate of the Anglican patrimony which is enjoying success in some regions.  Even the reform of the reform seems to retain its adherents! We owe an immense debt of gratitude to Benedict for all this. In future generations the spiritual and intellectual legacy of Pope Benedict,  I am confident, will continue to be studied and flourish.

UPDATE: A clarification or correction to the statement above on the German legal procedure against Benedict. Although it had announced the legal action would be terminated upon Benedict’s death, the court said later that the case will continue against Benedict’s “heirs.” No such “heirs” have been identified, nor has any property of Benedict’s been found in Germany. So it is very unclear what will happen next. The entire purpose of this proceeeding is to rehash in public allegations embarrasssing to Benedict (or now, to his memory); monetary damages are reported to be precluded by the applicable statute of limitations.

The denigration of Benedict in his own homeland continues even after his death.

Below are relevant links from katholisch.de (in German).

Landgericht Traunstein: Verfahren geht gegen Erben Benedikts weiter.

Amtsgericht ermittelt vorerst keine Erben von Benedikt XVI.

As the nature of the policies of Pope Francis became clear, American conservative Catholicism quickly found itself in a grave dilemma. No other tendency within the Church had placed so much weight on loyalty to the papacy as the ultimate criterion of Catholicity. Yet the new pope, while insisting on absolute loyalty to his person, systematically rejected or reduced to a nebulous ideal everything for which the conservatives had fought: ”life issues” (especially opposition to abortion), alliances with evangelical Christianity, their opposition to socialism, liturgical abuses, “LGBT” and the entire progressive Catholic agenda. The pope regularly coarsely denounces revered conservative champions. (EWTN, for example, is claimed to be “doing the work of the devil”). And in the greatest humiliation of all for the conservatives, a hail of disparaging remarks and insinuations continued to shower down from Francis’s entourage on the Catholic Church in America and on the United States in general. All this commenced, of course, years before Francis launched his war on traditionalist Catholics. But even amid this campaign, in word and deed, Francis and his sycophants continue to make clear that all adversaries of the Left are also their targets. 

The conservative movement has been searching for a response. To their credit, few were able to follow the example of clerical institutions like Opus Dei and celebrate the steps the pope is taking against them. Instead, some conservatives simply withdrew into silence. Others surreptitiously shifted into a quiet alignment with the positions of the traditionalists, their erstwhile adversaries. Still others denounced the ever-increasing number of outrages in the Church while avoiding mentioning the Pope’s role in them.  I myself considered that, in view of this, conservative Catholicism had reached the end of the road, that from now on the landscape of the Catholic right would be dominated by traditionalism.

Indeed, the drift to traditionalism – or at least the openness to traditionalist thought – among conservatives has continued to progress. But I was a bit hasty in my expectations regarding the demise of the entire movement. After more than nine years of the reign of Francis, conservative advocates have returned to the secular media – as conservatives, but without the pope. They champion conservative Catholic issues – sometimes now even including the right to attend the Traditional Mass. But they are forced to argue without the benefit of reliance on authority. Let us look at some of their recent products.

Michael Warren Davis speaks of “us trads.” 1) He writes of the beauty of the Latin Mass. But what is exactly his position?  Although Davis claims to be a “trad,” his positions resemble much more closely those of a Catholic conservative. According to Davis:

As many of you know, there is a powerful clique of Catholic bishops who oppose the Traditional Latin Mass. ….Last year, Pope Francis published his apostolic letter Traditionis Custodes. It gave those anti-TLM bishops the excuse they needed to beginshutting down their Latin Mass parishes in their dioceses. 

That is the last reference to Pope Francis in Davis’s article. I don’t think many people would characterize the relationship between Traditionis Custodes  and the subsequent actions of the bishops in this manner.  The bishops’ enforcement actions are clearly the intended result of Traditionis Custodes and indeed reflect some coordination with the Vatican.  Of course, Davis earlier had propagated the utterly erroneous notion that Pope Francis had once been indifferent or even favorable to the Traditional Mass.

Naturally, Davis thinks whatever is happening now is largely the fault of the traditionalists themselves:

No doubt they (the anti-Traditional Mass bishops – SC) would cite the army of bloggers, vloggers, and Twitter trolls who devote themselves to castigating the hierarchy. And it’s true: some of these traditionalists say things about the pope that would make Martin Luther blush. So, if your only exposure to traditionalist Catholics came via the internet, you might agree that TLM is a bad influence.

Look: I’m the first to admit that there are problems in the Latin Mass community… I’ve bent over backwards to give our bishops the benefit of the doubt. 

I even have a soft spot for Cardinal Gregory…I have to believe that he truly loves Jesus Christ and His holy Church.

Why does Davis “have to” believe that?  Is he Gregory’s confessor? As he has done in the past,  Davis is denouncing those he is claiming to defend – and whose rights have been violated – while “bending over backwards” to excuse the establishment. 

So why does Archbishop Gregory do what he does?

There’s only one answer that makes any sense. Cardinal Gregory doesn’t understand the desire for beauty in worship.

So, you see, Gregory is just aesthetically challenged. Davis has a profound misunderstanding of Catholicism if he thinks all these people who sacrifice so much to attend Traditional Masses do so primarily because of the aesthetic experience. 

George Weigel, the grand old man of Catholic conservatism, argues in The Wall Street Journal for the “necessary” Vatican Council 2) However, he also signals his dissent from the views of the circle of the bishop of Rome:

Contrary to the claims of those votaries of Pope Francis who claim the Council instituted a “paradigm shift” in the Church’s self-understanding, John XXIII did not convoke Vatican II to reinvent Catholicism.

Pope Francis’s views on the subject are not explored further in this article.  But Weigel devotes paragraph after paragraph to the claimed original vision of John XXIII.  But how then did the problems of today’s Church arise? Weigel does, after all, frankly acknowledge the current catastrophic situation. According to Weigel, this is the fault of those (unnamed) individuals who abandoned John XXIII’s original intent to embrace secular modernity uncritically. In fact, much of Weigel’s article is a covert critique of the interpretations and policies emanating from the Vatican today. In this regard, it’s remarkable that Weigel does not mention the name of Paul VI. 

The traditionalists are, nevertheless, still utterly mistaken:

The more radical Catholic Traditionalists of our day seem to imagine that the Catholic bastion of the mid-20^thcentury could have sustained itself indefinitely. Thoughtful assessments of Vatican II and its legacy must acknowledge that the pre-conciliar Catholic past was more brittle and frailer after two world wars . and more vulnerable to the cultural tsunami of the 1960’s than some nostalgic traditionalist imagine. 

Weigel’s “thoughtful assessment” is just the usual list of calumnies against “radical” and “nostalgic” traditionalists as well as gratuitous assertions about the past.  I don’t think anyone on the traditionalist side today imagines that the pre-Conciliar Church was perfect.  But to make the claim – as George Weigel does – that the problems after the Council are (at least in large part) attributable to the debility of an already feeble structure seems to contradict empirical studies (such as those of G. Guchet ) and, in the case of some of us, the evidence of our own eyes. George Weigel seeks to disassociate himself from the “votaries“ of Francis yet his rhetoric here is virtually indistinguishable from theirs.

But in Weigel’s view what are the points of light of post-conciliar Catholicism? Where has John XXIII’s vision been realized sufficiently to support Weigel’s claims that the Council has been, at least in some places, a success? Weigel cites the progress of the African Church. But Africanization and the growth of the Church on that continent had been underway well before the Council – didn’t a certain traditionalist Archbishop have a key role in that? And under Francis hasn’t the African Church been regularly portrayed as an “adversary” of the Conciliar establishment? Then, Weigel speaks of the movements within the Soviet bloc and the emergence of John Paul II in Poland as fruits of the Council and specifically, of  the Declaration on Human Freedom. But Poland under Cardinal Wyszynski was viewed in the Cold War years as one of the most retrograde Churches, not as an exemplar of implementation of the Council.  John Paul II was after all the product Poland’s conservative, nationalist, even clerical Catholic culture. And when Weigel writes of the “self-liberation” of the Eastern bloc from communism I think that is more than a little exaggerated. Overall, Weigel can only assemble a highly selective and factually questionable historical summary to back up his narrative. 

We have covered in an earlier post a third example of conservative journalism: the announcement of the new Institute of Human Ecology at Catholic University – also published in The Wall Street Journal. 3) The  author, Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, however, focusses not on conflicts within the Church but on the Church’s potential role on politics and the secular world ( a subcategory of Catholic conservative thought).  In this article, too, the current pontiff and the hierarchy (except for Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles) are noticeable by their absence. Apparently the “dazzling intellectual tradition of the Church,” supposedly offering so much potential benefit to our world, is not necessarily best represented by the Church’s current leadership. 

Finally, Ross Douthat has written the most interesting of the pieces we are considering – dealing with the anniversary of Vatican II. 4) Douthat expressly claims for himself the title of “conservative.” His contribution, however, compared to those of his peers shows the greatest understanding of reality and departs farthest from prior conservative orthodoxy. He freely concedes that the Council has been, on its own terms, a failure. He acknowledges the problematic nature of the reign of Francis. Indeed, the very existence of  Pope Francis illustrates the failure of the conservative Catholics’ attempts over the years to contain the Council to a restricted and fixed set of provisions. Yet, like Weigel,  he declares that  the Council was “necessary.” Furthermore, it is “ irreversible.” I believe, though, that Douthat has na understanding of that word very much more nuanced than the Vatican’s. (Historical events, of course, can never be “undone.”) Nevertheless, these two terms serve to remove the Council from all rational inquiry. It is transformed into a scientific fact or even an article of Faith – much like Pope Francis’s statement in his letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes that to doubt the Council is to doubt the Holy Spirit. Thus, whatever Douthat’s reservations about the current state of the Church and its leadership may be, at the end of the day he defers to the irrational authority of the Council – even in the face of its failure. There is no way out.

This brief review shows that conservative Catholicism lives on even if deprived of what once was its most essential feature: reverence for papal authority. These conservatives of today acknowledge, to a greater or lesser extent, the post-conciliar disasters and losses. They can regret the persecution of traditionalists. Whether openly or not, they diverge in many respects from the current party line of the Vatican and do not rely on (current) papal authority. And at least in the case of Ross Douthat, they can even admit the failure of the Council itself. Yet despite all these insights,  the Traditionalists remain adversaries for them. Instead of seeking further reconciliation with the defenders of Tradition, these conservative authors inevitably take refuge in dogmatic assumptions which allow a return to the principle of institutional authority, at least in some attenuated form: Davis’s bishops acting in good faith, Weigel’s necessary Council as defined in the era of Pope John XXIII; the “dazzling Catholic intellectual tradition” of Picciotti-Bayer; and finally, Douthat’s necessary and irreversible, even if failed, Council.  Regardless of the continuing rapprochement between the two parties under the relentless pressure of Pope Francis’s regime, the divergence between traditionalists and Catholic conservatives regrettably remains intact.

1. Davis, Michael Warren, “Politics of Reason and Beauty,” The American Conservative (Sept. 29. 2022)
2. Weigel, George, “What Vatican II Accomplished,”  The Wall Street Journal (Oct 1-2, 2022)
3.  Picciotti-Bayer, Andrea,  “Counterfeit Catholicism, Left and Right,” The Wall Street Journal, ( 9/23/2022). My review is at “The Dazzling Catholic Intellectual Tradition” – the Institute for Human Ecology at Catholic University.”
4. Douthat, Ross, “How Catholics became Prisoners of Vatican II,” The New York Times (October 12, 2022)

We read much about the “Synodal Path,”  the “Synodal Church,” the “Synod on Synodality” and “synodality” itself.  Few, however, seem to have noted the remarkable agreement among all the actors involved in these events. The German Synodal Path supposedly was the product of the unique nature of the German Church: bureaucratic, historically antagonistic to “Rome” and enjoying the benefits of the Church Tax. Yet similar recommendations were soon forthcoming in France and Ireland. Then, the allegedly “conservative” Church of the United States issued its own “national synthesis” which has a surprising resemblance to the  positions taken by the Germans. For example, the USSCB summary found among the main issues facing the Church:

Closely related to the wound of polarization is the wound of marginalization :

Those who experience marginalization, and thus a lack of representation in the Church, fall into two broad groups.16 The first includes those marginalized who are made vulnerable by their lack of social and/ or economic power, such as immigrant communities; ethnic minorities; those who are undocumented; the unborn and their mothers; people who are experiencing poverty, homelessness, or incarceration; those people who have disabilities or mental health issues; and people suffering from various addictions. Included also in this group are women, whose voices are frequently marginalized in the decision-making processes of the Church: “women on parish staff said they felt underappreciated, underpaid, not supported in seeking formation, worked long hours, and lacked good role models for self-care.”17 The second group includes those who are marginalized because circumstances in their own lives are experienced as impediments to full participation in the life of the Church. Among these are members of the LGBTQ+ community, persons who have been divorced or those who have remarried without a declaration of nullity, as well as individuals who have civilly married but who never married in the Church. Concerns about how to respond to the needs of these diverse groups surfaced in every synthesis. 

Persons who have been divorced, whether remarried or not, often feel unwelcome within the Church. 

The hope for a welcoming Church expressed itself clearly with the desire to accompany with authenticity LGBTQ+ persons and their families. …In order to become a more welcoming Church there is a deep need for ongoing discernment of the whole Church on how best to accompany our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters. 

There was a desire for stronger leadership, discernment, and decision-making roles for women – both lay and religious – in their parishes and communities. 

Synodal consultations identified that more work is necessary to welcome diverse cultural and ethnic communities. 1)

This consensus extends not just across borders but up and down the chain of authority in the Church. The archdiocese of Philadelphia, for example, produced its own statement pf priorities completely in accord with those mentioned above.  Artwork arising out of those sessions in Pennsylvania was subsequently republished by the Vatican. In Rome, Cardinal Mario Grech has defended the German Synodal Path against is critics in other hierarchies.

Finally, the continuity extends across time as well as space. In 1976 the famous Call to Action conference was held in Detroit with the support and participation of senior members of the American hierarchy. In substance, its characterization of the issues facing the church resembles closely those of the synodal reports of today. 2) In Germany, the Würzburg synod held between 1971 and 1975 anticipated in many respects the current Synodal Path.

The number and specificity of the demands or proposed actions vary among these declarations, conferences and “processes.” But the underlying issues that are identified are generally the same. How can we account for this extraordinary unanimity? After all, hasn’t the Church throughout the world and over recent decades been characterized by tensions between conservatives and progressives, traditionalists and liberals? Yet, when the Church undertakes a project to “listen” to its base, only one perspective emerges, only one set of priorities is deemed worthy of comment.

One obvious fact is that in all these meetings, conferences and sessions the same people and the same institutions are involved. They are the bureaucrats who in fact run the Catholic Church, regardless of post-Conciliar talk of an empowered laity, subsidiarity or synodal government by the bishops. They include the teachers and administrators at the Catholic educational institutions, the journalists of the Catholic press, the members of the mainstream religious orders, the administrators of dioceses, the staffs of national episcopal conferences and the leadership of catholic organizations of every kind. The Roman curia, along with its related and subordinated entities, is itself one of the foremost examples.  Note that the administrators of the Church include (or form close alliances with) many not officially in the Church’s employ. Members of the “engaged” or ”activist” laity, for example, can be counted among the partners of the bureaucracy. Other allies have found a home as teachers or students at secular universities and divinity schools.  The publication perhaps most representative of the views of the Roman Catholic bureaucracy – the National Catholic Reporter – was specifically founded in the 1960’s outside the formal perimeter of the Church.

The make-up of the bureaucracy has shifted over the years – there are far fewer priests and nuns today in comparison to 1976 or 1966 – but that has hardly diminished its role. Most of the few religious sisters that remain no longer serve in schools or hospital but as administrators of one kind or another. Jesuits today rarely are able to staff their own schools and universities but direct and decisively influence their lay disciples who manage these places. 

The actual number of administrators has undoubtedly steadily increased.  Many bishops and diocesan priests also have come to understand their function to be links in a bureaucratic chain. Moreover, the bureaucratic tide is daily conquering new territory. Pope Francis has just decreed that laymen and women can lead Vatican congregations and dicasteries. A woman has just been appointed as akind of “deputy vicar general” in a German diocese. 3)

These bureaucrats and their hangers-on are the ones who select the issues to be addressed in the synodal process and formulate the “solutions” for them. Not even the ”1%” supposedly surveyed in the synodal process has had any real say in the matter.

This institutional stability is linked  with ideological uniformity. The ascendancy of the ecclesiastical bureaucracy, although its roots reach much further back, is really the product of Vatican II. For it was in the wake of the Council that the functionaries were empowered to assume the direction of the Church. They internalized and perpetuated the basic twofold nature of the Council: a revolutionary reaction against all forms of the past in Catholicism, combined with total openness to the norms of contemporary society. It’s easy to see how seductive such a message is for modern administrators. As against the laity and “reactionary” elements of the clergy they could pose as bold innovators in an ongoing, endless process of change. In relation to the  powers of secular society – both in and outside of the state – they could appear as accommodating fellow citizens of modernity. Therefore, at all times the Church bureaucracy has remained the guardian of the progressive vision.

These continuities in structure and belief within the Catholic Church reflect the consolidation of the modern civil society of the West and of its ideology. As in the case of the Church, the cultural and structural unity of the secular world extends over all Western societies (cf. Thomas Molnar’s Atlantic Culture). Moreover, just like the Church bureaucracy, the secular power elite includes both state (governmental) and private institutions and players. The Church operates within this society, and after the Council explicitly has looked to it for guidance. In secular society too, there has been continuity in ideology since the 1960’s, even if developments steadily assume a more and more extreme form. The “woke” ideology dominant today would have exceeded the expectations of all but a fringe of extreme radicals fifty years ago. But on such issues as support of unrestricted abortion the secular establishment has been consistent over the decades. 

Now the controlling influence of secular society is evident not only in the political and moral positions adopted by the Church administrative functions, but also in the very fact of the bureaucratic ascendancy within the Church. For is not the introduction of the managerial revolution one of the hallmarks of the contemporary world? Political conservatives have long lamented the deep state, impervious to political control and following its own agenda. A whole literature has arisen on these developments in the American educational system, where at every level the rate of growth of administrative staffs far exceeds that of both students and teachers.

Continuities of institutions, people, and ideology – all embedded in a supportive secular society – explain why the progressive Catholic vision has been so resistant to change – and now directs the synodal process. Catholic conservatives and traditionalists have been slow to understand or acknowledge these facts. Years ago, James Hitchcock wondered why conservative priests turn “middle of the road” or even progressive on becoming bishops. Others were amazed at how little headway the ideas of Popes John Paul II and Benedict seemed to make in the Church. The fact of Catholic bureaucratic continuity helps to clarify the situation. For those who dispute the consensus expressed in the synodal documents it will be insufficient to write grand speeches and articles and otherwise engage in intellectual debate. They must accept the necessity of relentless conflict with a concretely existing establishment holding all the power.   It’s a struggle that, in the short term, has no immediately foreseeable resolution.

In the long term, as we know, the outcome will be quite different.

1. “National Synthesis of the People of God”
2. Miceli, Vincent P., “Detroit: A Call To Revolution In The Church, ” Catholic Culture (1977).
3. Coppen, Luke, “Rome silent on German diocese’s appointment of lay ‘vicar general representative,” The Pillar ( Oct. 14, 2022)

I first encountered Daniel J. Mahoney when I reviewed his 2018 book The Idol of Our Age.  There he expressed guarded criticism of Pope Francis but still felt the need to “balance” his negative comments. In an article written for National Review two years later Mahoney was far more direct in his characterization of Francis. Today Mahoney is speaking out loud. After cataloguing with prophetic urgency the Vatican’s misdeeds in theory and practice,  he concludes:

 Today, papalotry is not an option for faithful Catholics. To fundamentally “change the Church,” as Francis surely intends, is to undermine her authority and her very raison d’être. The Catholic faith is not the religion of humanity, and the Holy Spirit is not an agent of the Historical Process, no matter what some Catholic progressives think. As with the Arian crisis of the fourth century, when most bishops succumbed to heresy, the task of Catholics is to defend the truth unalloyed. We owe the papal office filial respect. But no pope is an oriental potentate. His “private judgment” cannot take precedence over the moral law, the apostolic inheritance, and the unchanging teachings of the Church. Today, alas, unthinking papalotry reinforces theological and moral subversion. Self-deception of this kind only lead to the abyss. At this critical moment, Catholics have an obligation to see things clearly.

Mahoney, Daniel J., The Church over the Abyss. (Americanmind.org 9/20/2022)

Now Daniel Mahoney has done significant scholarly work on the legacy of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn for whom he professes great admiration. Pope Francis and Solzhenitsyn – these are mutually exclusive personalities:

“either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.”

Curious – I had just reacquainted myself with how another thinker, Thomas Molnar, had in 1980 been inspired by Solzhenitsyn (as opposed to any of the representatives of the official Catholic Church) in formulating his thoughts on the relationship of Church and State. Rod Dreher too has moved from the self-satisfied, quietist Benedict Option (2018) to a Solzhenitsyn-inspired assault on the current apocalyptic state of the West as exemplified by Live not by Lies: a Manual for Christian Dissidents (2020). That transformation includes increasingly savage attacks on Pope Francis – for whom, by the way, Dreher had initially expressed admiration. For Dreher’s current views see, for example, “Pope Francis, McCarrick and Maciel” (The American Conservative, 5/29/2022). The prophetic voice of the great Russian writer lives on!

State and Church, “libertarian” and “truth-oriented” government – these topics once again stir up controversy. In the United States, by 1960,  Catholics were fantasizing that conflicts over such issues were, for them, a thing of the past. Since then, the government of the United States at Federal, state, and local levels has increasingly adopted policies overtly hostile to Christianity; thus, the debate – in the context of actual political conflicts – reemerged. On the practical level, we might cite the development and successes of the vast pro-life movement; in the realm of political theory there is the esoteric and specifically Catholic “integralist” discussion.

I think it might be of interest to turn back to Thomas Molnar (1921 – 2010) to shed light on the subject. He was a thinker who frequently dealt with the roles of both state and Church.  One of his few (the only?) books to have been reprinted in English since his death is The Church and the State: The Catholic Tradition as an integral Element of Western Political Thought (Cluny, 2018) – originally published under the more accurate title of Politics and the State: a Catholic View (Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago 1980).

I would not suggest this work as an introduction to Molnar’s thought. Much of it is the author’s critical confrontation with schools of thought from which Molnar seeks to distinguish the Catholic tradition – like the main strands of “conservative” political science in his day (Federalist, Straussian and “Voegelinian”) or an array of post-Thomistic political thinkers of the past, from Marsilius of Padua to Hegel. One does not find in The Church and the State the originality of Molnar’s pioneering works of the 1960’s such as The Decline of the Intellectual (1961) or The Counter-Revolution (1969). Nor do we encounter the passionate intensity of his increasingly savage dissection of the liberal ”civil society” now dominant in the US and Western Europe, as set out in a whole series of books such as Le Modèle Défiguré: L’Amérique de Tocqueville à Carter (1978) or The Emerging Atlantic Culture (1994). And a much more detailed discussion of the post-Conciliar Church can be found in The Church: Pilgrim of Centuries (1990). In contrast, The Church and the State has a more disengaged, abstract character. Many of Molnar’s arguments and opinions seem to me to be only sketched out or to presuppose the reader’s familiarity with his other works. Perhaps Molnar’s heart wasn’t in this book.  Whereas the other works previously mentioned focus on very concrete political, cultural, or historical situations, in 1980 the question of the relation of the Catholic Church – as it existed after the Council – to contemporary American state and society was of necessity highly theoretical. 

Nevertheless, the Church and the State, like any book of Molnar’s, offers a wealth of insights. The author, in marked contrast to our current integralists, avoids proposing “solutions” or a specific course of action. He is aware of the limited applicability of precedents from the ancient or medieval world to the unprecedented secular age of modernity. Yet he insists on the superiority of the Catholic philosophical tradition in analyzing the role of the state. Not unexpectedly, Thomas Molnar proposes the synthesis of ancient and Christian thought achieved by Thomas Aquinas as the standard for a Catholic view of the state.

This book is in fact largely a defense of politics and the state (as the original title implies). Both are natural to man. Indeed, the state derives its authority either directly or indirectly, through the people, from God. Yet, after Christianity, the state can no longer demand from the individual citizen total loyalty such as did the Greek polis. Similarly, although monarchy remains the preferred form of government – certainly in Aquinas’s judgment –   in Christendom the state also incorporated democratic features. 

The Church has an objective that is supernatural and primarily directed toon the salvation of each unique, individual person. Now the state is (or should be) oriented towards the temporal common good. It needs, however, the presence and cooperation of the Church to achieve these ends. But the Church as an incarnate institution also needs the state. Molnar views the two realms as coexisting in harmony. One is not subordinated to the other – but for the integrity of both a link must be maintained. Otherwise, despite its ever-growing size, the modern state drifts aimlessly, in subjection to the forces of contemporary civil society (the non-state, non-Church institutions). What form this connection should take and how is to be reestablished Molnar does not tell us. The Church’s “temporal power” or the overtly political linkage of “throne and Altar” from the age of Christendom have little or no relevance today.

”In contemporary pluralist societies, the power of the Church can only moral and spiritual, but it must so emphasize the moral and spiritual domain that it should be evident that society’s integrity and survival depend on it. The result would be a modicum of mundane power as well…..” (p.141)

Moreover, Molnar asks how the Church can impart moral direction to the state, when it too is in subjection to the same secular ideologies that dominate the state and society? At the level of the local national hierarchies, complete doctrinal confusion reigns – both in Molnar’s day and today. Molnar is somewhat coy on the role of the papacy.  But it is interesting – given his later views on the subject – that he does seem mildly optimistic in regard to the initial actions of Pope John Paul II.  It’s indicative, however, of Molnar’s overall judgment on the Catholic Church in 1980 that the contemporary Christian thinker he quotes most often in this book is not a pope, bishop or religious but Aleksander Solzhenitsyn (not Roman Catholic at all). 

For according to Molnar, it is above all through the action of the lay faithful that Christian influence on the state will be exercised. Moreover, Molnar sees a leading role for the laity in saving the Church as well. Indeed, as in many other issues, he was prophetic!  In the very year this book was published the Solidarity movement took off in Poland, And hasn’t the United States Catholic laity – collaborating with many others – achieved what was called impossible, the reversal of Roe v. Wade?  Counter-cultural Catholic political movements are active at this moment in Hungary, Poland and even Italy. I don’t need to tell the readers of this blog about the role of the laity in the traditionalist movement. With the exception of Solidarity, all these movements faced a hierarchy and Vatican that were ambiguous or even hostile to their aspirations.

Perhaps The Church and the State is too inconclusive and tentative in its conclusions – this book is no “manual” for action. But Molnar was aware of the complexities of politics and life, and of the chaotic situation both of the Catholic Church and of Western state and society circa 1980. 42 years have not improved matters. On the contrary – Molnar’s narrative of the dire moral challenges facing the Church from a state that has been subordinated to contempoary secular society reads like it had been written yesterday! And perhaps just clarifying the issues and freeing the discussion from the clutches of hostile ideologies is itself no mean achievement.

(I have been working on the following post on and off for months. First it was “Eight Months Later,” then “Ten Months Later” and now the first anniversary of Traditionis Custodes has passed!  My “writer’s block” was occasioned by the difficulty of saying anything new and a distaste for certain of the events I must describe. But, for what it’s worth, here are my thoughts.)

What has Happened so far.

More than a year has passed since Pope Francis issued Traditionis Custodes (“TC”) on July 16, 2021, in which he declared war on Catholic Traditionalism.  He aimed to isolate the Traditionalist faithful – priests and laity, young and old – from the rest of Church, to penalize and eventually eliminate them.  TC was followed by regulations issued by close allies of Francis – whatever their ecclesiastical position might be – Archbishop Roche, Cardinal Cupich, and Rome’s Cardinal De Donatis (although the latter, like some other former “friends of Francis” is reported to have very much fallen out of favor) These edicts radicalized the provisions of TC, imposing new and onerous burdens on clergy and laity. All these actions, like TC itself, were couched in contemptuous and hostile language. It is a campaign of unprecedented violence in recent Church history. 

Yet, the celebration of the Old Mass and the other sacraments continued unmolested and uninterrupted in so many places.  Traditionalists celebrated Holy Week this year – even in dioceses like Rome and Chicago where the most stringent anti–traditionalist measures had been first implemented.  Traditionalist priests and deacons continued to be ordained. Traditional Catholic pilgrimages, events and conferences in Chartres, San Francisco and elsewhere have proceeded on schedule. Many bishops were understandably reluctant to unleash a liturgical war in their dioceses regardless of the Pope’s urging. 

Already last February the TC onslaught experienced its first official reverse when Pope Francis announced the exemption of the FSSP from TC’s restrictions on the celebration of the Traditional Mass and the other sacraments. There were even vague indications that this decision would be incorporated into canon law – whatever meaning that has in today’s Church – and extending it to the other Ecclesia Dei (“ED”) communities. This was a clear about-face for the Vatican. Let us recall that the opening shot of Pope Francis’s war against Catholic Tradition – even before the promulgation of TC – was the dissolution of an FSSP apostolate in Dijon, France. 

That “break in the action,” however, appears to me to have been a temporary tactical move on the part of the Pope. A confrontation with the ED congregations this Eastertide was simply too early on the schedule. More recently the Vatican has resumed its attack on Traditionalism with redoubled intensity.  Several American dioceses this year have restricted or even abolished the traditional mass, in some cases reversing previous statements, either delegating the “dirty work” to subordinates or, in one case (Savannah), to the Vatican itself. 

Most significantly, the anti-Traditionalist campaign has now invaded dioceses where Traditionalists have had a long-standing presence. Cardinal Cupich has ended the apostolate of the Institute of Christ the King in Chicago (the location of their American headquarters!).  Cardinal Gregory, like Cupich, a special protégé of Pope Francis, has terminated the Traditional masses at the six parishes of his Archdiocese at which it was celebrated. And now, the neighboring Arlington diocese, with one of the most significant traditionalist presences in the United States, has also imposed similarly drastic restrictions. We hear ominous muttering regarding restrictions in our immediate area as well.

It is reliably reported that Francis’s nuncio in Washington is directly involved in these actions, even threatening bishops with deposition if they are recalcitrant. We have heard that every request by priests to celebrate the Old Mass, forwarded to Rome pursuant to TC, has been rejected with Francis’s personal participation. The pope continues to conduct an aggressive publicity campaign against Traditionalists – exemplified by the rabid, insulting denunciations in several interviews during his just-concluded visit to Canada. The war against Traditionalism preoccupies the pope and, increasingly, the entire Roman Catholic leadership.

But of course, the Vatican’s war is not confined to liturgical “Traditionalism” but extends, in varying degrees, to the entirety of Catholic Tradition. For the Pope’s denunciation of “restorers” and “restorationism” is by no means limited to adherents of the Old Mass. And the progressive forces in the Church have been quick to seize the advantage of Pope Francis’s favor. The so-called “German” synodal path with its deviations from Catholic theology, sacramental discipline and morality is now spreading to France, Ireland, Italy and beyond. “Abuses” in the celebration of the Novus Ordo continue unchecked. A confrontation is ongoing between large sections of the American episcopate and Catholic progressive forces – both in secular society and in the institutional Church – regarding concrete, not verbal, opposition to abortion.  Most recently, building on the precedent of Amoris Laetitia, there is agitation emanating from the Vatican itself for “revising” Humanae Vitae. In all these cases Pope Francis either explicitly condones the progressive developments, says nothing about them, or offers nebulous, contradictory and non-binding guidance.

What is the meaning of this?

It has been asserted that opposition to “The Council,” the New Mass and the authority of the Pope prompted the Pope’s motu proprio. By “The Council” I mean the totality of the changes made between 1962 and 1978, whether found in the Conciliar documents themselves, in the texts of implementing legislation (like the Novus Ordo) or in the officially sponsored or tolerated practice of the Church. I think Pope Francis has the same understanding of these words. Let us examine what the turmoil unleashed by TC reveals about each of those pillars of the Catholic establishment.

Starting with the Novus Ordo, to judge from the need the Pope feels for a war against Traditionalism and the available public data on Catholic participation in the sacraments throughout the Western world, the Novus Ordo liturgy has clearly and completely failed to revitalize or even stabilize Catholicism. Periodic attempts to combat “abuses” have not gained general acceptance.  Well before TC, Pope Francis had expressly prohibited even the term “reform of the reform.”  Indeed, the TC war against Traditionalism includes measures designed to confirm the Novus Ordo as a break with the past. So, for example, contrary to the liturgical texts, in several dioceses priests now need permission to say the Novus Ordo ad orientem. In other places the interpolation of older elements in the Novus Ordo has been specifically prohibited. Of course, from the first days of his pontificate Francis has arbitrarily disregarded liturgical rubrics, thus himself establishing a clear “hermeneutic“ of the new liturgy. 

Second, TC and its implementation enable a whole new generation of Catholics to experience what “The Council” was in actual practice. Just as in the 1960’s, the Church is coercing liturgical changes, tolerating and even encouraging doctrinal confusion, denouncing her own allegedly corrupt past and the recalcitrant lay faithful and finally initiating the friendliest dialogue with the avowed enemies of the Church. (such as the Communist regimes) Passages of Francis’s documents are virtually identical to those of Pope Paul VI. In both eras the papacy and clergy pose as the enlightened leaders guiding the Church out of a dark past. 

Traditionalists and especially conservative Catholics have tended to very much underestimate this aggressive, destructive ideological thrust behind “The Council.” The self-understanding of “The Council” was that of a break with a corrupt and antievangelical past – in liturgy, in government, in discipline and even to some extent in theology. If internally “The Council” was revolutionary, externally, it was completely conformist to the culture of the modern Western world. These have remained the ideological constants of “The Council” – even if the conciliar advocates subsequently diverged greatly on what form the “Conciliar“ Church would take.  To believe that these convictions would dissipate with time, or that some type of lasting peace could be achieved with such an ideological movement was in retrospect wishful thinking. Similarly, in arguing for Traditionlism it is useless to point to the youth of Traditionalist congregations, their new apostolates, their many vocations or just the financial contributions they make to parishes or dioceses. Against ideological thought appeals to reality are without effect. 

From the 1960’s onward, the Catholic educational institutions, mainstream religious orders and, depending on the diocese, the hierarchy and a great percentage of the lower clergy as well absorbed this vision of “The Council” regardless of what was in fact happening. So, although, over the decades, Traditionalists, even with papal support, were expanding their presence in churches and parishes and celebrating more and more splendid masses, there was a continuing, relentless opposition – often fanatic – from the established religious orders,(especially but not only the Jesuits), the Catholic colleges and news media, much of the hierarchy (especially in Europe) and the more ideologically committed among the clergy and the laity.  I could tell of a whole series of unpleasant encounters with such forces just in our little apostolate in the New York area over the last 15 years.

It is revealing that, even though only a minority of the clergy actively desires to become persecutors in Francis’s war, TC has nevertheless achieved some significant early results, compared, let us say, to Humanae Vitae, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, ED or Summorum Pontificum. For TC, in contrast to these previous papal actions, is aligned with the above vision of ”The Council,” the institutional Church and indeed the demands of the “modern” world.

Third, none of this would be possible without the ultramontane constitution of the Roman Catholic Church. For TC rests entirely on the authority of Francis. He has made no attempt to convince traditionalists or anyone else of the correctness of his course – instead offering only slogans (“there’s no turning back!”) and personal invective. 

Pope Francis is doing exactly what previous critics of the Catholic Church – Protestant, Orthodox, and agnostic – had always claimed the ultramontane papacy would do.  Francis has sought to manage the Catholic Church in the United States, if necessary even down to the parish and individual level.  He intervenes directly in the American political process with “Catholic” politicians (Although these earlier critics could hardly have imagined the direction the Pope’s interventions have taken!).  The Pope has substituted his magisterium for Catholic Tradition, including the notion that this magisterium or “living tradition” can reverse the treatment of matters already settled by Tradition or prior magisterium.  Francis-friendly commentators explain that the Pope, after all, can do whatever he wants. 

But the most reprehensible aspect of TC is that the Catholic Church is once again resorting to coercion in spiritual matters.  We hear of “reeducating” Traditionalists, of subjecting them to lectures, of requiring statements of adherence to the Council and the New Mass from congregations and individual priests. Rights and institutions of many years standing have been summarily revoked.  As for those who may drop out of the system, one establishment commentator explains that Francis does not necessarily need to show concern for those he harms or “leaves by the wayside.” Recent utterances of the Pope betray a truly paranoid fear of Traditionalists infiltrating the Church. A pervasive dishonesty dominates Church documents and the official Catholic media. The regime of TC obviously resembles more and more the spirit of past and present totalitarian societies – the last two decades of the Soviet Union come to mind.  

The current regime of the Catholic Church of course gives the lie to the endlessly repeated statements, in the Vatican II documents and elsewhere, regarding lay participation, dialogue, freedom of conscience, subsidiarity, etc. I certainly hope no one in the Catholic Church is laboring under the illusion that TC will increase the prestige of the papacy or the Catholic Church in this un-evangelized world!  Especially since this is occurring while the practice and understanding of the Catholic faith among the laity are at an all-time low, the number of Catholic priests, religious and of Catholic institutions continues its downward plunge, corruption of all kinds at the Vatican and elsewhere is rampant and the Church appears totally confused and conflicted about her Faith and mission. The results of TC for the institutional Catholic Church will be dire!

What are the Traditionalist faithful doing – and what of the future?

More important than any protests, publications or hierarchical (in)action, Traditionalist priests and laity must continue to celebrate the Mass and the other sacraments. If I can trust the evidence of my own eyes – and some local data recently released – participation at Traditional Masses in my immediate neighborhood has increased since TC – as indeed has been the case ever since Francis ascended the papal throne.

Courage has not been universal among Traditionalists, however. Some have despaired of the institution under the current circumstances. The canons regular of St. John Cantius in Chicago (who do not benefit from ED protection) immediately ceded to the demands of Cardinal Cupich. Their pastor wrote, as they prepared to celebrate this year’s Holy Week in the Novus Ordo:

This year, things may appear to be different. But the marvel is beheld not merely in what we see, nor how the liturgy is celebrated.

If that statement is true, why did they ever resume celebrating the Traditional Mass in the first place?

Yet most Traditionalists have strived to preserve their liturgy and the other sacraments. In dioceses where bishops have forcefully implemented TC, public protests are beginning (these have already been underway in Paris for a year). And after some initial waffling last summer in France, it seems the ED communities are insisting on the rights granted to them in their founding charters. Depending on the course of events, Traditionalists will have to organize more effectively and build up networks within and outside of the official Church.   I already read of clandestine masses being celebrated.  Experience gained negotiating official restrictions during the Covid panic will help here. The FSSPX, which providentially rejected a Vatican offer in 2012, will also necessarily play an important role.

Catholic Traditionalists must continue to speak out forcefully for the truth and against the Pope’s actions. TC has triggered an unending stream of articles and books. Going beyond merely recycling polemics, this outpouring of commentary should help Traditionalists understand better who they are and what they stand for.  In this search for understanding they are assisted by many non-traditionalists and even non-Catholics.  Many intelligent non-believers are horrified by the self-destructive cultural movement initiated by Francis and seek to comprehend what is going on in the Catholic religion. Similarly, many non-traditionalists – the “Catholic conservatives” – are dismayed by the wholesale assault on all aspects of Catholic Tradition, and especially on the legacy of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. As in the case of the FSSPX, in the face of this crisis it is time for all of us to set aside the grudges and rancor of the past.

Catholic Traditionalism is the voluntary dedication of the ordinary faithful to the fullness of Christian truth. They understand that the objective truths of the Catholic Faith are more completely and precisely embodied in the Traditional liturgy. They are not individualistic or charismatic but follow an objective discipline.  Their motivation is not aesthetic, emotional or the product of some personal “attachment,” but the preservation of the Faith for themselves, their families and ultimately for the whole Church.  That is why they have sacrificed so much: the long journeys many must make to attend a Traditional liturgy; the burdens they must assume to homeschool their children or educate them at independent Catholic schools, the disfavor and repression directed at by them in dioceses, parishes and schools that they must sustain. 

The institutional Roman Catholic Church, which thinks only in secular political, ideological and materialistic terms, cannot understand such dedication. Pope Francis and his friends talk of “ideological” and “rigid” laity and young priests, of Traditionalists only “following fashions,” and of “restorationism” (itself a secular political concept).  For a further example of this materialistic outlook, consider Bishop Michael Burbridge of Arlington, who implicitly justifies his restrictions on Traditionalists by claiming that “approximately 2.5% of local, Mass-attending Catholics … prefer this liturgical form.” (“Where two or three are gathered together in My name…”). But it will be exactly from among such minorities that, God willing, the future recovery of the Church will proceed.

The Road from Hyperpapalism to Catholicism: Rethinking the Papacy in a Time of Ecclesial Disintegration

By Peter A. Kwasniewski

2 Vols.

(Arouca Press, Waterloo, ON, 2022)

It’s remarkable that a book from an author on the Traditionalist spectrum features a title contrasting “hyperpapalism” and “Catholicism” – implying a conflict between at least some aspects of the Church’s governing structure and the Christian religion itself. Such titles have been almost innumerable on the progressive side since the 1960’s – e.g., Infallible?: An Inquiry (1971) and Can we save the Catholic Church? (2014) (both by Hans Kueng). Yet those on the right were until recently perceived as being necessarily staunch supporters of the Church’s post-1870 constitution. For example, Peter Kwasniewski quotes the “ultramontanist” Cardinal Antonio Bacci on the papacy, in a remarkable passage originally published in 1959: 

There is in the world… one man in whom the greatness of God is reflected in the most outstanding way of all. He participates in the authority and in a certain sense in the personality of Christ. This man is the vicar of Jesus Christ, the Pope….. His power extends to the ends of the world and is under the protection of God, who has promised to confirm and heaven whatever he will decree upon earth.  His dignity and authority, then, are almost divine.  Let us bow humbly before such greatness. Let us promise to obey the Pope as we would Christ…. We cannot dispute or murmur against anything which he teaches or decrees.  To disobey the Pope is to disobey God. To argue or murmur against the Pope is to argue or murmur against Jesus himself. When we are confronted with his commands, we have only one choice – absolute obedience and complete surrender. (Hyperpapalism Vol. 1 at 24)

Now perhaps we could dismiss some of these statements as quaint exaggerations emanating from the pen of a professional Latinist and curial courtier undoubtedly inspired by the panegyrics that past ages addressed to emperors, rulers and, yes, popes. Yet I think there is a declining but still not inconsiderable Catholic population that accepts these statements as literally true.  I am not sure, however, whether Cardinal Bacci was accurately describing the situation of the Catholic Church even in 1959. And as it later transpired, Cardinal Bacci himself, like the arch-ultramontane Cardinal Louis Billot, SJ, before him, was unable to support all the twists and turns directed by papal authority.  (Bacci, on the promulgation of the Novus Ordo; Billot, on the condemnation of Action Francaise). So, a potential conflict between the ultramontane papacy and, not just so-called “dissenters,” but also the defenders of orthodoxy themselves has been long present. 

But with the advent of Pope Francis a much wider section of Catholics has become aware of this calamitous dilemma – the possibility (the reality?) that the highest ecclesiastical authority, claiming direct divine authorization, may no longer be proclaiming the Faith.  For the present pontiff has directly linked progressive political ideology and theology with an unprecedented assertion of papal power.  Since July 2021 Traditionalists have been designated as the official adversaries of the Vatican. But, as Philip Lawler points out, conservative and even “orthodox” Catholics now find themselves the targets of Francis and his team – indeed, they had become “enemies of the Pope” and even “tools of the devil” even earlier than the traditionalists. (“The Pope indicts ‘restorationism.’ I plead guilty.” Catholic Culture, 6/23/2022)

 In Hyperpapalism, Dr. Kwasniewski squarely confronts the situation of the Church today. Hyperpapalism is a major addition to the ever-growing critical literature now appearing on the crisis in the Church. (I should mention that I have known Dr. Kwasniewski for some years and have collaborated with him on several projects. Indeed, works familiar to me are cited in the first footnote of this book (Hyperpapalism, Vol 1 at xi).

The work is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 (“Theological Reflections on the Rock of the Church”) deals with the papacy itself. It defines the nature – and limits – of the pope’s authority.  A historical review shows how exaggerations and abuses crept into the governance of the Church. The author addresses various objections raised by conservatives still troubled by any discussion of papal authority. He rebuts the sedevacantist “temptation,” that seems to emerge in any such discussion. Dr. Kwasniewski’s prose is clear and understandable but also forthright and direct. I’m sure those qualities will be appreciated by the ecclesiastics (including Pope Francis) whose drastic statements have so exacerbated the crisis.  

The second volume (“Chronological Responses to an Unfolding Pontificate”) is a review of the papacy of Pope Francis from the year 2013 onward. It depicts the conflicts between Catholic tradition – including the Scripture itself – and the words and deeds of the Pope that have squarely raised the issue of the scope of papal authority discussed in the first volume. Dr. Kwasniewski emphasizes the theological and moral aspects of the Francis pontificate. But a cursory review of the same period in a source like Sandro Magister’s Settimo Cielo blog, which concentrates more on administrative, governance and personnel issues would produce an additional, even lengthier list of abuses!  Indeed, Magister recently has published an article on this very subject. This illustrates the depth of the problem.  The second volume is largely a chronological arrangement of material previously published online. As I wrote regarding another book, this has the advantage of capturing the immediacy of the flow of events.  

Let me single out two passages that particularly struck me. In Vol. 1 Dr. Kwasniewski describes his personal journey from “ultramontanism to Catholicism” quoting his own youthful writings on the subject. (Hyperpapalism, Vol 1 at 6-7) They reveal the revived pro-papal enthusiasm promoted in conservative circles during the reign of John Paul II. Tragically, those who had climbed on the papal bandwagon found themselves disowned, not just later by Pope Francis but in part even under John Paul II himself (the Assisi conferences, the Legion of Christ scandals….).

In volume 2 the author takes to task The Pillar online news service. Now The Pillar has featured incisive reporting of uncomfortable facts extremely damaging to the reputation of the Vatican, individual American bishops and the American Catholic establishment in general. At the same time, however, regarding matters of policy its writers often affect an obsequious, deferential attitude to ecclesiastical authority. In Is the Pope the Vicar of Christ or the CEO of Vatican, Inc. Dr. Kwasniewski castigates The Pillar for its article on the arbitrary deposition of the bishop of Arecibo in Puerto Rico. In that article, , after enumerating at length the theological difficulties connected with this action, The Pillar nevertheless concluded that, after all, the pope has the power to do whatever he wants. (Hyperpapalism, Vol 2 at 266-71) 

What will be the outcome of all this? That we cannot predict. Any “restructuring” of the Church and the Papacy will be the product of future events – but is not the course of history is the hands of Divine Will? In the meantime, this book will serve as a resource for the afflicted Catholic. It will help him maintain confidence in his faith and tradition in the face of official persecution. It will provide a wealth of arguments aginst his adversaries. And perhaps it will give him hope for better days – for he will realize the current state of the Church is not the final “end of history.”

Histoire des Traditionalistes

By Yves Chiron

(Tallandier, Paris, 2022)

637 pages

At long last we have a major history of Catholic Traditionalism. We should offer thanks to Yves Chiron, author of a vast series of works on modern Catholic history, for providing us this much needed account. Chiron’s review is by far the most thorough work on the history of Traditionalism available today. For anyone who wants to explore the roots of Traditionalism, I would highly recommend this book.

For Traditionalism has developed from a fringe phenomenon that both the Church establishment and the media could safely ignore, to a force having a major impact on life of the worldwide Church. Isn’t the best evidence of this presence the declaration of war against Traditionalism issued by Pope Francis? For the Pope and the Vatican judge Traditionalism, and none of the other adversaries in and outside the Church today, as their mortal enemy.

Histoire des Traditionalistes concentrates almost exclusively on French Traditionalism. That is not really a disadvantage, for it was in France – or at least the French-speaking world – that the Traditionalist movement was born and reached maturity. It was only later that other countries-most notably, the United States, joined France as focal points of Traditionalist life. But it was in France that the first Traditionalist critiques were written, where the first leaders like Archbishop Lefebvre arose, where the FSSPX, its allied institutions, and later the Ecclesia Dei communities were established. It is in France where great public events like the Chartres pilgrimages take place.

As someone who has written a history of the Traditionalist movement in the United States – a situation in many respects far simpler and more straightforward than France – I can appreciate the magnitude of Chiron’s accomplishment. For he has chronicled, relying heavily on primary sources, a diffuse movement extending over some seventy years sharing the same overall “spirit” but with many different and various directions, objectives, leaders and organizations. It was illuminating to read for the first time the full background of so many legendary figures. And the author concludes this book with an extremely valuable 125-page biographical dictionary of (mainly French) Traditional Catholics. 

Yves Chiron devotes considerable space to the early years to help us understand how the movement arose. He delves back even before World War I. His narrative only reaches the Second Vatican Council on page 125! He usefully points out that not all Traditionalists had their roots in the “Maurassian” (Action Francaise) movement – although some certainly did (like the great Jean Madiran) Others spent World War II and the occupation in the Resistance. He shows the origins of future conflicts in the struggles of Catholic thinkers against the leftward drift of the Catholic Church in France after World War II. Thus, the initial clashes were over political, economic and theological – not liturgical – issues. These first conflicts prompted denunciations of “integralists” by the clerical establishment. Out of these debates arose leaders, publications and organizations that were soon put to a much more severe test. For an American analogy, one thinks of William F. Buckley’s Mater non Magistra (punning on the title of the 1961 left-leaning encyclical of John XXIII) and the initial focus of the Triumph magazine team.

The battle intensified during and after the Second Vatican Council. For it soon seemed that the whole doctrinal structure of the Church was collapsing. It was now that Archbishop Lefebvre started to assume an ever-greater role. And it was now that the Church establishment took its first repressive measures against Traditionalism. But the real turning point was the promulgation and imposition of the Novus Ordo. Archbishop Lefebvre and others were inspired to take direct action to preserve the Traditional Mass. The organized Traditionalist “resistance” was born. Chiron sets forth in detail the role of laity, secular priests and members of religious orders in the developing struggle.

Although it is not the primary focus of his book, in passing Chiron reveals much about the dysfunctional operation of the ultramontane Church. The work of devising the Novus Ordo was conducted by a committee of experts reporting directly to Pope Paul VI, bypassing the responsible functions in the Vatican. At no time prior to the 1980’s was there any real attempt by the establishment in Rome or France to “dialogue” with the Traditionalists. The actions of the French (and Swiss) bishops were limited to bureaucratic edicts and condemnations. It is no wonder that such bitterness arose in the relationship of Traditionalists and the hierarchy.

The main motive force behind Traditionalism in France became Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his Society of St. Pius X. The “dialogue” between him and the Vatican increasingly becomes the main theme of this book. Now our author seems to be of an irenic bent – sympathetic to Traditionalism, but also anxious to maintain good relations with the Pope and the hierarchy. This accords with the author’s mild, dispassionate, at times almost noninvolved style.

So, for example, when Archbishop Lefebvre felt compelled to ordain priests for his society (in 1975) and later to consecrate bishops, Chiron quotes abundantly from other followers of Traditionalism that advise against these steps. Of course, if Lefebvre hadn’t taken these decisions, there hardly would be any Catholic Traditionalism today. And in these years, he was not alone in feeling the necessity of taking drastic acts contrary to authority. Consider the seizure of St. Nicolas-du-Chardonnet in Paris! It remains a Traditionalist parish to the present day.

I do have some reservations regarding this magisterial work. Although I approve it in principle, the focus on France, with marginal references made to Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States, does have its limitations. I have quibbles, for example, with some of the author’s implied judgments on developments in the United States. Father Gomar DePauw was a great pioneer of Traditionalism on these shores already in the 1960’s; he did not, however, found a nationally significant movement. The fact that Una Voce United States handed the Pope a petition in 1994 does not at all imply that it was speaking for U.S. Traditionalists as a whole (as their own petition makes clear!). Like other French Traditionalists who have written about the situation in America, Chiron ascribes too much importance to sedevacantism. Although that tendency is perhaps stronger here than elsewhere in the world, it in no way plays a leadership role among American Traditionalists.

Yves Chiron makes persuasive arguments and often reaches convincing conclusions (although I might not agree with all of them). He at times, however, falls into the mere reproduction of contemporary statements and petitions, without interpretative commentary, as if these were the essence of what went on in historical reality. But that is where the historian’s judgment is required.  In a work of history, we look for not the mere recital of facts, but the author’s interpretation of them.

Chiron’s book lacks at times a wider historical context. The struggles of the Traditionalists did not occur in a vacuum but in the larger Church. At all times after the Vatican Council the Catholic Church in Europe was in a state of chaotic decline, bordering in certain places on total collapse.  France is one of the leading examples. This dire situation is what motivated the Traditionalists. The lack of this context puts the Traditionalists in an unfavorable light, making them appear obstinate, aggressive and belligerent. Yet they were only reacting to the wasting away before their very eyes of the faith that they loved. A principled man often appears strident and opinionated compared to those indifferent or conformist.

Chiron also does not fully convey the militancy of the “Conciliar” establishment. From the 1960’s to the present day the Vatican, the episcopate and a large percentage of the clergy and religious lived through a revolutionary “conversion” to the “Council” abandoning much or all of a Tradition now understood as a barrier to the faith. Pope Paul VI’s discourse on the benefits of sacrificing the Catholic culture of the past is exemplary. And much of the laity (that minority who continued to frequent the churches, that is) followed the path of their spiritual leaders. This explains the animosity, even the hatred, felt by all these forces – and not just formal “progressives” – against Catholic Tradition and especially the Traditionalists themselves. It is the origin of the Church’s readiness to use coercion and intimidation against Traditionalists – but not against opponents allied with the secular establishment. For if you have given up everything in pursuit of a dream which has not materialized you do not look kindly on someone who, by his words or life, is reminding you of that fact. This is even more so when the governing powers of this world are applauding you at every moment. Again, Chiron’s failure to highlight these tensions and passions within the wider Church puts the entire Traditionalist struggle in the wrong light. I would admit, however, that many Traditionalists themselves have been reluctant to admit the truth about these divisions within the Church.

I regrettably have more significant reservations about the final two chapters on Popes Benedict XVI and Francis – particularly the last. These two also seem to have been written in a more summary manner than the rest of the book. This is a shame, because the motu proprios and other accompanying actions of Popes Benedict and Francis are the most crucial events of the post-Conciliar period regarding Traditionalism. As to Pope Benedict, I don’t think the author fully captures the significance of Summorum Pontificum. Perhaps that is because the embedding of Traditionalism in the ordinary life of the Church that Benedict’s motu proprio intended and, at least in some places, accomplished, had its greatest consequences not in France but in the United States. Chiron’s account of the final breakdown of negotiations between Benedict’s Vatican and the FSSPX in 2012 is both blander and more favorable to the Vatican than my previous understanding of the facts.  Regardless of this, Chiron very accurately points out that at the end of the day Benedict was unable to achieve a full reconciliation of the FSSPX, just as he was utterly incapable of making any progress on the liturgical “reform of the reform” he supposedly favored.

Chiron’s chapter on Pope Francis completely misses the mark. The author’s desire to advocate peace between Traditionalists and the Roman Catholic establishment gets in the way of his judgment. Just the title of this chapter “Pope Francis – a Pastor above all” is ludicrous; I wouldn’t use the term “pastor” to describe a progressive ideologue and a tyrant – an extreme version of Francis’s own hero Paul VI. And when Chiron describes Traditionis Custodes as a “regression” compared to the acts of his predecessor, that is the understatement of the century. For it directly contradicts them; the Pope therein explicitly states his desire to annihilate traditionalism. And that is entirely in accord with his prior words and deeds both as Archbishop of Buenos Aires and Pope. Yes, it is true that, generally speaking, the Pope, prior to Traditionis Custodes, had focused his attention on things other than liturgy. But this was only to promote progressive initiatives in morality, theology and politics equally incompatible with Traditionalism. He did grant further legal accommodations to the Society of Pius X – but what does that matter in relation to the Pope’s implacable conceptual hostility to Traditionalism, so abundantly displayed in public, and his repeated measures against individual Traditionalist apostolates? Characteristically, Chiron quotes, apparently favorably, the first craven response of the French Ecclesia Dei communities to the French bishops in August 2021 – positions from which these organizations subsequently entirely departed. To fully explore the impact and implications of Traditionis Custodes, however, would have required Chiron to rethink and largely rewrite his prior conclusions on the reconciliation of the Church establishment and Traditionalism after 1982 – something he was understandably reluctant to do. 

In his concluding thoughts, Chiron summarizes the significant influence, scope and numbers attained by Traditionalism in the world today. And the Traditionalists are unlikely to disappear anytime soon – Chiron himself thinks “some” bishops will apply Traditionis Custodes in a non-confrontational, relaxed manner. Broadly speaking, that has indeed been the experience up till now. Chiron ends his book by quoting Jean Madiran, who describes Traditionalism as a “way of life,” a “profession” a “devotion” and a “state of mind.” All this is very true – in a certain sense! But we would be mistaken if we understood this to mean that Traditionalism is some subjective mood, attitude or emotion. For what motivates Traditionalists is the fight for the objective truths of their religion, for the restoration of the Church and, in the climate of today, even the existence of objective reality about the nature of Man and the world. As Madiran states, this is not just an intellectual affirmation or an ideology but, like Christianity itself, informs and shapes the entire “way of life” of the believer. That is why Traditionalists have been fighting for 70 and more years – as Chiron chronicles in such detail. And it is why they will continue to do so.

Krass

By Martin Mosebach

(Rowohlt Verlag, Hamburg, 2021)

(525 pages)

Krass, Mosebach’s latest novel, is more tightly focused than the “epic” Westend written some thirty years earlier. It is divided into three sections, each with its own style and coloration, much like the movements of a grand musical composition. Their titles reflect that: Allegro Imbarazzante, Andante Pensieroso and Marcia Funebre. The action of the novel is concentrated at three specific points of time – even if the first and last “acts” are separated by two decades.

However, while Westend is restricted to Mosebach’s native German world, Krass roams much further afield – sweeping from Naples to the French countryside to Cairo.  Krass has similarities to Mosebach’s more recent novels. For example, in Krass we find a wonderfully detailed description of a third world culture (Egypt). Mosebach has done the same for Morocco (Mogador), India (Das Beben) and, again, Egypt (Was davor geschah and the non-fiction The 21). This allows Mosebach to make all kinds of contrasts between the world of Europe today and the more permanent (and in a certain sense more spiritual) life of these traditional cultures. Dr. Jüngel, one of the leading personages of Krass, also recalls a certain kind of grasping, manipulative yet ineffectual modern personality encountered elsewhere in Mosebach’s work – such as the German “anti-hero” of Mogador.

The novel commences (Allegro Imbarazzante) in late 1988 beginning, most appropriately, with a magic show in Naples. We are introduced to Ralph Krass, an intimidating German businessman, wheeler-dealer and “macher” whose personality differs in every respect from Eduard Has, the protagonist of Westend. Krass is domineering, imperious, controlling and decisive. He surrounds himself with an entourage of mainly middle aged and older individuals who he has reduced to total dependance. We also meet the second major character of the novel, a younger man, the aforementioned Dr. Jüngel. An art historian, he has made a “pact with the devil,” becoming Krass’s famulus and facilitator. His letters to his feminist wife chronicle much of the doings of the Krass’s coterie. 

It’s an indulgent, carefree life, with Krass providing his retainers lavish food and drink as well as tours, shows and boating excursions in and around Naples. With Jüngel’s assistance, Krass is pursuing the purchase of a villa on Capri – the legendary island of hedonism. He also bent on attaching to his entourage a young Belgian woman, the unfaithful Lidewine, as a kind of mistress. For sex is also a part of the entertainment of Krass and company.

Yet amid the luxury and lavish amusements, some of the characters have disturbing premonitions. Jüngel lectures on the Alexander mosaic in the Naples Archeological Museum and, in particular, on one detail: an image of death. Krass himself, while swimming off Capri, is stung by a jellyfish and is nearly swept away by the current. His intended new villa is a mysterious ruin. And we gather that his business (arms trafficking?) rests on shaky and perhaps illegal foundations. So, the uninhibited lifestyle of Krass – and of Europe today – carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. Et in Arcadia ego! We view the beginning of this unraveling already in the last pages of this section.

Andante Pensieroso takes place in a remote corner of Central France late in the following year. Jüngel has taken refuge in the house of a friend after his world has collapsed. He has been expelled from Krass’s circle, his wife (whom he had left behind to join Krass), has deserted him and he has lost his job in Germany. He is flat broke and for want of a functioning CD player cannot even distract himself with (classical) music. He faces an emotional breakdown and, seeking a way out, desperately tries to contact Krass. It’s a traumatic fall from his previous fantastic, extravagant existence under the direction of Krass.

Yet in his isolation from the stimuli of the modernity, Jüngel is now open to a whole new world of reality.  He perceives more directly the nature that surrounds him. That includes, in a very Mosebachian touch, meaningful encounters with two parakeets, a cat and a white wagtail (an Old-World bird). He visits a functioning monastery, ancient but rebuilt in the 19th century, in which the Latin plainchant is still sung:

The compulsory musical abstinence made me receptive to the severity and sobriety of this chant, for its renunciation of polyphony, atmospheric magic and 3/4 and 4/4 time. One can’t dance around to this music or march to it. Singing here was a higher form of speaking.  The objective appeared to be the purification of the senses from confused emotions. That fit well with the chill of this church that made me shiver after a while – although I didn’t think of returning to the warm air outside.  The half-light in the hall faded away; the two candles that were lit for the singing of the chant still shone as golden dots until a monk returned and extinguished them. Now it was night. (p. 238)

He is befriended by a cobbler, Desfosses, living in a room adjacent to that monastery. Desfosses, like Jüngel, is a refugee from the vicissitudes of modern life – if for other reasons. He is an upholder of older habits and customs, a practicing Catholic and happens to be a devoted fan of Marshal Petain. This man teaches Jüngel the lesson that not one shoe or tool should be thrown away – everything can be repaired and reused. In travels over the countryside the earthy Desfosses shares with the impecunious Jüngel hearty meals (Lievre a la Royale) and potent drinks. 

Jüngel eventually succeeds to getting a call through to Krass who challenges him to go off on his own. A chance remark by Desfosses gives Jüngel an insight into the interrelationship of all things and events. These incidents, along with the “education” he has received in his exile, enable Jüngel to break free from both his dependance on Krass and his grief at his broken marriage.  After this “resurrection” (as he calls it) Jüngel can face life again. 

The scene of the novel’s final act, Marcia Funebre, is Egypt. It’s 2008 – 20 years later. We meet again Krass, but the supremely self-assured “master of the universe” of the past is gone; instead, he is a man desperately attempting to re-establish contact with his former friends in the government to order to stave off disaster. As the novel progresses, Krass is stripped of everything: his business, his money, his hotel room and, confined to a hospital bed, even the control over his own body and finally his very life. The account of his lingering decline is a fearful narrative. Krass’s only consolation is the devoted friendship of an Egyptian lawyer who strangely comes to consider him his “father.” The unselfish Mohammed, like Desfosses a sympathetic if flawed individual, is Krass’s only support in his last days. 

Jüngel and Lidewine also have ended up in Cairo – for different reasons. Jüngel’s “resurrection” in France has unfortunately failed to bear lasting fruit. He has become a professor of “urban studies” at one of the most undistinguished of German universities. He is in the Middle East on a grant and is on the hunt for another. He has lived through two further divorces. Lidewine has taken up the art business of her parents. In Cairo she is pushing the work of a fraudulent local artist – and otherwise continues her promiscuous ways. Jüngel and Lidewine thus remain emblematic representatives of decadent Europe today.

After learning of Krass’s presence the pair set out to find him. Too late – his body has been taken away for burial! In an oppressive and disturbing scene Jüngel and Lidewine roam in the gathering dusk the endless “city of the dead” of Cairo, searching for his grave. But the body of Krass has disappeared completely among the anonymous myriads buried there – as if he never had existed.

Krass thus contrasts the superficial fantasy world of Western Europe, focused on food, sex, travel and entertainment – and, for some people, social climbing by linking up with those holding economic power – with the permanent values of the surviving remnants of Christian culture in provincial France and of the unchanging world of Moslem Egypt. And above all, with the final reality: death. 

Strewn about this novel is the wreckage of Western civilization. Krass’s villa, appropriately named Faraone, is a decayed ruin – just crumbling “stage scenery.” The abbey in which Desfosses resides is, in large part, a not very successful mid–nineteenth century restoration – the original nave had been destroyed in the French Revolution. And a grandiose but dilapidated Cairo apartment to which Mohammed takes Krass is the haunted, empty relic of a half-Western, half-Oriental past. Mosebach enjoys depicting the decrepitude of structures that once were modern. For, as he writes, contrasting the quality of the abbey’s surviving medieval choir with that of the nineteenth century nave:

Ancient things cannot become old fashioned, that which is ancient has learned to wait. Before it, the fashionable continually passes away, even though it is the expression of life. As if only that which has thoroughly died can pass the real test of permanence. (p. 237)

Am I reading Krass in an excessively allegorical manner? Perhaps! In America – after Poe, Hawthorne, Melville and their successors – this perspective is second nature to us. And after all, Krass is not a treatise but a novel with colorful scenes, memorable characters and a fascinating narrative. Yet it seems to me that Mosebach is indeed showing to Europe – and the entire Western world – a great warning sign. He is holding up a mirror so that we in the West can gaze on our own terrible reflection. And is that not, returning to the start of these reviews, also a task of a Catholic writer?