We thought you might want to read the full text of this perceptive analysis of current developments in the blog Messa in Latino. Of course, the story of the oppositon of the three FSSPX bishops to reconciliation between the FSSPX and Rome has since been eclipsed by the emergence of the far more significant opposition of Benedict’s own bishops – both in and outside of Rome. We hope to bring you further information on this too.

(In his introduction, the author refers to the coup de theatre of the last few days with the publication of the letters between Msgr. Fellay and the other three bishops of the FSSPX.  He thinks that all concerned knew that there was a good chance that these letters would be published, and he is very happy that this has happened, because it clearly shows the very real split in the Society that he has spoken about in the past. He then offers his analysis of the situation.)

The situation was already quite clear before the exchange of those letters:  The Fraternity of St. Pius X finds itself in the apparently enviable position of being confronted with a Pope that, in essence, supports it entirely.  ‘We will not discuss whether first the Mass of the ages will have to be set free and the excommunications revoked’ said Msgr. Fellay.   This has happened.  ‘No canonical accord without first deep discussions as equals’.  And there have followed theological discussions at the highest levels during two years (and not thirty years as predicted, with wishful thinking, by Msgr. Tissier de Mallerais.)   ‘There is a need for a structure that guarantees the freedom of action of the Fraternity’ and, even if this point is still to be made clear,  Fellay himself understands that on the part of  Rome this has never constituted a problem.

This attitude of Benedict XVI has taken away from the Fraternity every alibi.  But if the Pope has conceded everything, why is there so much agony in the body of the Fraternity itself?  Why on earth does the very same Msgr. Fellay himself write –but this was already clear to any attentive observer—that he would have preferred to remain indefinitely in the status quo, in which the Fraternity pays lip service respect to the power of the Pope, but in fact acts as a small autocephalous church?  Not certainly (or at least not only) to be able to be at the helm of an entity that, in fact superiorem non recognoscet. But above all because Msgr. Fellay knows very well that the moment of truth will be also a moment of trauma and internal fighting. This is what he, most understandably, would like to avoid at all costs.

Induratum est cor of a significant part of the representatives of the Fraternity, as happens inevitably in all dissident groups.  It is a sickness that is called sectarianism.  Jokingly, I said that for a long time that certain elements in the Fraternity would reject with horror a doctrinal preamble that contained even only the words “Credo in unum Deum”, for the sole reason that it comes from Rome.

The scolding letter written by the bishops Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson and Galarreta serves only to confirm this impression.  Read it attentively:  you do not find in the letter criticisms (which in this case would have been constructive, or at least worthy of attention) of the specific passages of the Preamble, or of the proposed canonical solution, or something similar.  No, sir: the argument put forth is dogmatic and without a direct appeal:  the Pope is a “subjectivist”, that is, he does not believe in the objective reality of the truth of faith; as such he is able to welcome into the pantheon of Conciliar Catholicism all the sensibilities and opinions, even if contradictory, since each is ‘true” only relatively within its own ambience.

Now, to affirm these things about the Pope, about this Pope, who has made the battle against religious relativism (the consequence of subjectivism) the basis of the plan of his pontificate right from the homily of his inauguration Mass,  is not even a caricature (which presumes always a partial basis in truth): it is a turning upside down of the facts and of good sense.

As Msgr. Fellay well responds to this point to his brother bishops, the Church is horribly disfigured, but, on the other hand, one cannot wait in an ivory tower in the hope that she will recover. It is necessary to participate in the battle to heal her ills; and also when her ills have passed,  other new ones will arise.  The life, not only of the individual Christian, but of the whole mystical Body is permanently militia—a fighting action against the Hydra always rising from evil and heresy. 

One should not fail to notice, in general, the dignified and analytical tone of the letter of response of Msgr. Fellay and his assistants, which contrasts with the sloganeering of his opponents.  The letter from the FSSPX headquarters seems written not only to quiet internal dissension by the force of reason, but also to furnish, thanks to its style that is studiously measured and reflective and insistently referring to the sensus ecclesiae,  a preventative weapon for the Vatican when it will have to find how to make the reconciliation with the episcopate palatable.   The apparent silence on this question can be the result of a hopeful skepticism about the outcome of the talks, but it can also be the prelude to a tempestuous rebellion at a critical moment.

What will happen now?  In these final days, the Lefebvrian barometer is registering a turn towards fair weather.  In the months immediately following the delivery of the doctrinal Preamble, those against the accord prevailed, and Msgr Fellay himself could do no better than to delay as long as possible a response.  This caused in the “Romans” a certain feeling of impatience, and also some hardness of position that certainly did not help him in his difficult position of the intermediary. But if the antipapal resistance in the Fraternity organized itself, cementing the positions of the three bishops with those of the Superior of the powerful French district, Cacquerary (who still in the editorial of the last issue of Fideliter describes Benedict XVI as a prisoner of “profound and grave illusions” about the conciliar “new religion”),   there have arisen positions of several Superiors of districts in  favor of a reconciliation.  First among these is the German Schmidberger, who was also the first successor of Msgr. Lefebvre at the head of the Fraternity.  Together with him stand the Superiors of the United States, Holland-Belgium and Asia.  Above all there is the important support of Abbé Simoulin, who in full knowledge of the case—at that time he was the rector of the seminary in Écone—has overturned the reason for which it was necessary for Msgr. Lefebvre to refuse the Roman offer (of reconciliation), revealing that that refusal in 1988 did not depend at all on doctrinal disagreements, but only on the practical questions about the naming of his successor.

Fellay himself must have shrewdly figured out two things.  The first:  that Rome would not allow him to wriggle out of the problem any longer (as he would have preferred) and that he would have to decide on the basis of yes or no.  The second:  that in the case of a negative response to the accord, he, solely from the fact of having conducted the negotiations in a “moderate” way,  would end up quite rapidly dismissed and, probably, even purged from a Fraternity setting out on the road of extremism and self-ghettoization.  This is a real risk, as Msgr. Fellay writes:  ‘This incapacity to distinguish leads one or the other of you towards an absolute hardening.  This is serious because this caricature is outside of reality and will lead logically in the future to a real schism.  And perhaps that fact is one of the reasons that is pushing me to not delay any longer to respond to the Roman requests.’

The exchange of letters that ended up on the Internet in effect expresses two things. On one side, the very strong fear of the three recalcitrant bishops that the accord will indeed be reached.  On the other side, the sense of surety that Msgr. Fellay has acquired by this time. Up till now he seemed instead more similar to “King Tentenna” (ed. note:  a king who could not make up his mind) that to Clausewitz.  Thisnew sense of security is seen clearly from how he does not worry about addressing his confreres with strong accusations (of sedevacantism,  lack of faith in the supernatural, insubordination for direct opposition to his leadership).

The problems tied to the doctrinal preamble seem, in effect, resolved.  So affirms Msgr. Arrieta, the secretary of the Pontifical Council for the interpretation of legislative documents (the dicastery that you can be sure is preoccupied with the next problem: the definition of a canonical structure)  An indiscretion that was revealed to us (take it as such, but I assure you that it is reliable) that the last response of Msgr. Fellay, in which he accepts the famous Preamble but with some significant modifications, before being sent officially to Ecclesia Dei and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was sent directly, via Msgr. Georg, to the Pope, who did not raise any objections.  This was one way to be sure that some zealous Roman functionary, perhaps because of an excessive affection to the text of the Preamble originally prepared by his dicastery, would not raise problems.  So we are able to wait for Wednesday with confidence, when the CDF is scheduled to tell what their response is to the FSSPX.

With the subject of the doctrinal preambles out of the way, we will pass on to truly serious matters, which are, naturally, the juridical questions.  On one side: what will be the destiny of the Fraternity in case of an internal split: whether in terms of numbers, or in terms of the ownership of the structures and the centers of the apostolate (on this point, however, I hazard a guess that the internal schism—which may happen—will be substantially circumscribed and probably will not involve all the three bishops:  there does not seem to me to be a great desire to create a sort of  a “Lefebvrist refoundation”.)

On the other hand, the question of the canonical structure arises.  Personally I am convinced that this may be the only point on which the FSSPX would have every reason to refuse the accord, if they were not to obtain a canonical exemption from the diocesan bishops.  But on this point, and on the solutions that are impending, I am postponing to a later post, because I realize that I have already bored you enough for today.

Enrico

Translated by Fr. Richard Cipolla

Original: http://blog.messainlatino.it/2012/05/la-tormentata-storia-delle-relazioni.html

Undoubtedly most of you have been following the story of the (anticipated) reconciliation of the FSSPX and the Vatican.  The latest most authoratative report expects an announcement on Pentecost weekend. At first reports were circulated that an announcement would be made immediately upon receipt of acceptance by the FSSPX of the “preamble.” Then we heard that there would be a delay of some weeks until the response could be “studied.” Of course this has played into the hands of various parties seeking to derail the process.

On the one hand,  we have First Things, various representatives of Opus Dei and John Allen advancing the idea that Rome should impose a new requirement that the FSSPX “accept the Council”  or repudiate “offensive thinking” prior to any reconciliation. Of course such new demands would torpedo any such reconciliation (and rightly so) and that is the intent of those proposing them.

 On the other hand, in an entirely foreseeable repetition of events three years ago, a party within the FSSPX  apparently close to Bishop Williamson  has disclosed correspondence showing the extent of the internal debate and disagreement within the FSSPX. But the move had the merit of placing before the broader public this luminous response of Bishop Fellay. I was struck by this passage:

First of all, the letter (of three FSSPX bishops distancing themselves from the current negotiations)indeed mentions the gravity of the crisis gripping the Church and precisely analyzes the nature of the ambient errors that pullulate in the Church. Nonetheless, the description is marred by two defects in relation to the reality in the Church: it is lacking in a supernatural spirit and at the same time it lacks realism.

Doesn’t the second sentence precisely describe the operation of the hierarchy of the Catholic church nearly everywhere today? Her bishops function as secular leaders – depending on the predilection of the local culture, as businessmen, government bureaucrats, politicians or “media figures.” Yet at the same time these non-religious managers are entirely devoid of any sense of realism, worldly or otherwise – consider the ultra-short term focus of the innumerable diocesan “realignment” plans in the US. It is distressing to see related deficiencies, if in a weirdly different way, among the bishops of the FSSPX :   a totally secular, historicist view of the Church combined with tactical incompetence.  The  poisonous influence of this world thus arises in the midst of those who thought they were preserving themselves in purity from the surrounding wasteland.

Yes,  one could despair reading the draft letter of the three FSSPX bishops (or even more so, the recent outrageous statements  by Ravasi & Co on the pro-life front or the reports of the  successful  derailing of the much ballyhooed review of the orders of American sisters ).  But fortunately,  we must always keep in mind that Someone Else is involved as well, as Bishop Fellay points out to his episcopal brethren:

I was surprised to learn today that Msgr. Eugene Clark had died on April 11, 2012. At the Month’s Mind Mass celebrated at his old parish of St. Agnes, Fr. George Rutler preached this moving sermon:

 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathrynlopez/2012/05/remembering-a-priest-who-knew-christ-knew-the-cross/

 Strange – we hear the surprising news of Monsignor Clark’s death just as we were  reminiscing about the beginnings of the recovery of liturgical Tradition in New York City in the 1980′s.  If the Novus  Ordo Latin Mass had debuted at Our Lady of Vilna and  the Traditional Mass – deliberately scheduled outside of Sunday –  at St Ann,  it was at St. Agnes under Msgr. Clark that  the regular Sunday Traditional Mass returned to the city. It has been celebrated at that parish ever since. Now in the 1980′s at St Agnes Msgr. Clark had gathered about him a number of priests who in one way or another were laboring for the preservation and restoration of Catholicism in New York.  Father George Rutler was one of these priests.  The parish became the focus of  wide variety of initiatives and apostolates, Traditionalist or (mostly) otherwise. Dare I mention our own minor contribution:  a Catholic reading club that met a number of times in the St. Agnes rectory? Although I do not think that Msgr. Clark was himself a committed proponent of the  Traditional liturgy, he nevertheless made its recovery possible. Msgr Clark also  worked for the artistic restoration of St Agnes church and later for its rebuilding.

After Msgr Clark moved to St Patrick’s  and made some very precise and provocative  statements about the moral ills afflicting our country today,  I knew he was a marked man. Disaster was not long in following. Msgr. Clark was quickly dropped by his neoconservative fan club. It was a tragic end to the career of  a man who had certainly taken positions over the years not conducive to  ecclesiastical preferment.

Now I would concede that there were serious  issues about some of the personalities and policies at St. Agnes in the 1980′s. And the rebuilding of St. Agnes  fell short of what should have been accomplished. Nevertheless, with all its failings and mistakes, this was the beginning of a recovery of Tradition and even of  the sacred within the New York Archdiocese itself.   And as the Germans say, Aller Anfang ist schwer. We owe Msgr Clark an immense  debt of gratitude for that beginning.

Hinter dem Großen Orient
Freimaurerei und Revolutionsbewegungen
By Lorenz Jäger
(Karolingerverlag, Vienna/Leipzig, 2nd Revised Ed. 2010)

It is a pity that no more than a handful of American Traditionalist Catholics have become acquainted with the esteemed Karolingerverlag of Austria. This publisher is an amazing source of works traditional, brilliant and arcane: from a picture book of portraits of all the Holy Roman Emperors to the complete works of Nicholas Gomez Davila in German translation. Hinter dem Großen Orient: Freimaurerei und Revolutionsbewegungen (“Behind the Grand Orient: Freemasonry and Revolutionary Movements”) is a major addition to their catalogue. The author is the noted German scholar – and guest of the Society of St Hugh of Cluny in Connecticut last year – Lorenz Jäger.

We need to remind American readers that although Freemasonry in the US may be a declining force limited to certain regions and social strata quite the opposite is true elsewhere in the world. Francois Koch, who authors La Lumiere the Masonic blog of the magazine L’Express in France, states “Une certitude: le monde maçonnique est toujours en expansion. Plus de 160 000 frères et sœurs en France.” (One thing is certain: the Masonic world is still expanding. There are more than 160,000 brothers and sisters in France.) Just the fact that a leading French news magazine feels the need to sponsor a blog on Masonic news – corresponding to the Vaticanista blogs of the Italian media – demonstrates the significance of the craft in that country. We are not dealing with any mere social club.

Dr. Jäger focuses on one “denomination” of Freemasonry – that of the Grand Orient of France. This is the most resolutely political of the Freemasonic sects and the first to be officially open – to put it mildly – to atheism. But Dr. Jäger’s book is not really a history of the Grand Orient. Rather it focuses on the repeated links of continental Freemasonry – usually deriving from the Grand Orient of France – to revolutionary politics. The lodges sometimes provided ideological support and at other times direct organizational leadership of the revolutionaries. All this is most carefully documented and researched by Dr. Jäger; the usual carping about “conspiracy theories” finds no support in this book.

It is quite a story – from the role of foreign Freemasons in the French revolution to links with early communism. Freemasons fought side by side with the French communards in 1871. They played a significant role in the founding of the First International – although relations with Marxists quickly soured. Kerensky and the clique that overthrew the Czar in 1917 were members of the lodge. And we find that the “young Turks” who staged a revolution against the sultan, led the Ottoman Empire into World War I and launched the massacre of the Armenians and other Christians were also brethren. That is doubly curious because at that same time the Italian lodges were leading Italy into a disastrous war on the side of France and England.

Dr. Jäger devotes considerable space to the Masonic ties of German and Jewish revolutionaries active in France 1830-1848 and later- as well as to the Masonic membership of the intellectual leaders associated with the Weltbühne (a left-wing publication in 1920’s Germany). Now the significance of this – which German readers would immediately understand – is that the doctrines of these revolutionaries – unsuccessful as they were politically in their day – have become a key element of the quasi –totalitarian ideology of the current Federal Republic of Germany.

This brings us up to the present. Freemasonry for much of the Twentieth Century was upstaged by communism as a revolutionary force. Yet the fall of Soviet Communism, the “strange death of Marxism” (Paul Gottfried) in Western Europe and the “march through the institutions” of the 1960’s radicals resulted in Grand Orient Freemasonry reemerging more potent than ever. Dr. Jäger documents their new role in France as conscious promoters of the “culture of death.” Already in the 19th century the introduction of cremation instead of burial was a specifically Masonic initiative. (Pope Paul VI and the Church would later capitulate on this issue) At least as early as 1963 Freemasons were agitating for the unrestricted right to birth control in France – their efforts crowned with success in 1967. Later, introducing “rights” to abortion, sterilization, artificial insemination and euthanasia became the main focus – along with the consolidation of the secular society – of Masonic activity in France.

So on whatever front Freemasonry has been active over the last three centuries there has been one constant: the opposition of Freemasonry to the Catholic Faith and the political and social institutions of Christendom. Freemasonry’s war on the political order allied with the Church was concluded successfully generations ago. The battle – up till now also usually successful – to extirpate the remnants of Christian society and morality continues to the present day. Dr. Jäger’s book is a powerful key to understanding what is going on.

Ten Popes who Shook the World
By Eamon Duffy
(Yale University Press, New Haven, 2011)

Prof Eamon Duffy is by a now well known figure even on this side of the Atlantic. His work falls into two categories. The first is a series of scholarly works which have revealed to us the liturgical, popular piety and social life of 16th century English Catholic Church before and during its near destruction – certainly as a national faith – by the Reformation:The Stripping of the Altars; Fires of Faith; the Voices of Morebath; Marking the Hours: English People and Their Prayers. The second consists of more popular works for the “public enlightenment” on history, theology and politics covering the entire course of Church history: Saints and Sinners; Faith of Our Fathers – and the present slim volume. In these latter works, Prof. Duffy appears as a dedicated advocate of the positions you would associate with The Tablet, America, Commonweal and The National Catholic Reporter. Naturally, this has endeared him to the BBC, for which he has functioned as an approved spokesman on all things Catholic. Ten Popes who shook the World is in fact largely a transcript of broadcasts on the history of the papacy given by Prof. Duffy in 2007.

The very title raises apprehension – does it not presage an entirely secular analysis of the papacy in line with the author’s liberal views? Moreover, the choice of popes in this volume appears debatable if secular significance is the requirement for membership: no Julius II, Sixtus V or Urban II? But Prof. Duffy quickly tells that he in fact not using “impact on the secular history” as an exclusive criterion. Rather, he has selected ten popes who took actions which had a decisive effect on the history of the Church – especially on the role of the papacy within the Church – or of the world.

Readers expecting a full if miniature biography of each pope will be disappointed. Prof. Duffy outlines briefly the age in which each described Pope lived and then generally focuses on a single aspect or act of each covered pontiff. Paul III is one exception and I think it not at all surprising that the description of this Pope of Prof. Duffy’s beloved 16th century is by far the most complete and nuanced presentation in the book. The descriptions and judgments of Ten Popes who shook the World follow closely those of Prof Duffy’s earlier, more comprehensive work on the papacy, Saints and Sinners, and I find myself repeating much of what I wrote years ago in a review of the first edition of that work.

The first “pope” covered (Prof Duffy allows that his status as such to be controversial) is St Peter. Now Prof. Duffy believes that there was in fact no “pope” or “bishop of Rome” in that city until well into the 2nd century. He also cites approvingly the view that the papacy as we find it today is not an “organic” development from an original apostolic seed but the by-product of successive, random historical events and forces – especially the French Revolution. Given this belief, I would have expected the author, in the interest of candor, to have spelled out more clearly that the historical and theological foundations of the authority claimed by the popes (and the bishops for that matter) are factually bogus. And would not this conclusion be of decisive importance for the entire discussion that follows?

From St. Peter, Prof. Duffy takes the reader on a vast sweep through history from the end of the Roman Empire through to the Renaissance, covering Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Gregory VII, Innocent III and Paul III. What is said here is often succinct and insightful. But the narrative does suffer at times from the author’s attempts to show the “relevance” of the actions of these pontiffs to the contemporary secular world of the 21st century Western Europe: the Tome of Leo the Great helped to establish the ‘”freedom of human beings” (p. 47) and in Gregory VII’s struggles over lay investiture “human freedom took one small, uncertain step forward.” (p. 69). Crusading under Innocent III is of course questionable. And Cardinal Pole figures as a member of an alleged “soft left” (p. 87) around Cardinal Contarini that is contrasted with a Cardinal Caraffa dedicated to the inquisition and only “converting or killing” the heretics. To some extent this contrast existed – but of course under Queen Mary Cardinal Pole was himself not averse to employing force (Prof Duffy recently published a book dealing with this subject).

But a more strictly ideological narrative commences with the beginning of “modern times.” With the coming of the French revolution in 1789 “the fundamental values of Western democracy received their decisive expression”. “In theory Catholic Christianity had no quarrel with these noble ideals; indeed, many of them evolved out of Christian affirmations about the dignity and equality of human beings before God” (p. 94) ( It would thus seem that the French Revolution had at least as strong a claim to a divine origin as the papacy itself). What the Church needed was “a dialogue with the modern world.” (p. 100) But Pius IX, a man of limited intelligence surrounded by advisors urging him to extremes, issued only blanket condemnations. Cardinal Newman appears here through selective quotation exclusively as an opponent of the developments in papal and ecclesiastical authority between 1846 and 1878. From Pio Nono we move to Pius XII who is considered exclusively in relation to the accusation of “silence” in the face of crimes against the Jews in World War II. Duffy’s conclusion: guilty as charged!

Fortunately with John XXIII a new era dawned. Here Duffy strikes a new, hagiographic tone: Pope John was holy, he was humble, he worked to save the Jews. And most decisively, he called the Second Vatican Council “whose priority was pastoral care for a needy world, not the maintenance of the barricades which the Vatican had been throwing up ever since the French Revolution.” (p.121) For “Catholicism before Papa Roncalli had many strengths but it was overwhelmingly clerical, seeming both afraid and dismissive of the world around it, and though many of its people were warmly human, as an institution it existed in the deep freeze.” (p. 125) Moreover, Pope John also opened up relations with the communist world and “reversed Pius XII’s Cold War policy.” (p. 122) It was all a great gift to the Church and humanity, although Duffy does concede that John XXIII would have been horrified by some of the “fruits” of the council (including the loss of Latin).

The final pope considered is John Paul II. This biography, like that of Paul III, differs from the rest in its “multi-factor” approach. The hagiographic tone carries over here. John Paul II was “the most remarkable man of his time,” “the greatest man to occupy the chair of Peter for centuries” “the most intelligent holder of the office for centuries” etc. Yet a closer examination yields a more nuanced approach. On the plus side for Duffy, Pope Wojtyla apologized for “the sins of the Catholic Church against human dignity” “Catholic atrocities” and ‘Christian anti-Semitism.” (p. 133). “Ignoring worried advice from Cardinal Ratzinger” ( p.133) he inaugurated the Assisi gatherings. But Pope John Paul II also undertook to establish an assertive papacy at the heart of Catholicism to remedy the growing problems in the Church. He would seek to establish direct pastoral contact with Catholics everywhere. He allegedly appointed to the episcopacy and the Vatican “repressive” prelates and “defenders of strict and sometimes blinkered orthodoxy” (pp. 130, 132) We don’t know about that – but we can only agree with Duffy’s characterization of “the Pope’s evident lack of interest in management or institutional reform.” (p. 132) Perhaps John Paul II’s most significant legacy was his role in the fall of communism in Poland. But Duffy rightly points out that he did not cause the fall, rather he acted as a catalyst. Then there is the factor of John Paul II’s personal celebrity: “an equivocal legacy for the Church.” (p. 136) Given these qualifications, the reader might wonder at the effusive praise for John Paul II in this account – until one understands that Prof. Duffy elsewhere has contrasted Pope Wojtyla favorably with the “altogether smaller figure” of his successor.

Now Prof Duffy is aware of and records facts that might call into question key points of the narrative above. The French Revolution soon launched into a bloody anti Christian persecution. The anti-Catholicism of the 19th century Italian opponents of the papacy was evident. The reign of Pius IX witnessed such an expansion of the Church and of the religious orders that he could be considered “the most successful Pope ever.” (p. 96) In contrast, the results of Vatican II were decidedly mixed: “the reforms did not deliver the success many had hoped for. In the upheavals of the 1960’s Catholics shared the general collapse of confidence in venerable institutions and ideas. Thousands of priests, monks and nuns left to marry, recruitment halted….” (p. 128). Yet these facts do not shake Duffy’s story or even prompt him to explain them away.

What is the significance of all this? Why is this book published in 2011? Why would you purchase this volume, when for roughly the same money you can acquire Saints and Sinners by the same author, with much the same views but much additional valuable information besides? Perhaps the answer is the small BBC logo on the back cover. For this book testifies that not only does the revolutionary vision of the 1960’s remain clear and intact, but that the Catholic liberals dispose of the strongest possible secular allies in the media, government and education. “Don’t tread on me!” is this book’s unmistakable message to Pope Benedict and anyone else considering a reform, however tentative, of the Church.

But apart from its role in immediate Church politics, this book reveals a more fundamental issue with the liberal world view, which posits the regime of contemporary Western European “modernity” as an absolute value to which the Church must adapt itself. Indeed, to some extent modern democracy is claimed to have its origin in revelation itself. Now these views are by no means limited to progressives or Prof. Duffy – indeed, even the present pontiff on occasion has made statements in this direction. The question, is, however, how this revolutionary historical philosophy is compatible with a religion in which revelation was closed 2,000 years ago? A religion whose governing institutions also date back to that time (or, as Prof. Duffy would probably say, the 2nd -5th centuries AD)? Prof Duffy, in words echoing Macaulay, describes the epic of the papacy – surviving empires, dynasties and states over the ages to come down to us in the present time. (p.9) But how is this institution reconcilable with a modernity claiming to be the “end of history” and demanding absolute conformity? It is this unresolved contradiction that is at the heart of Catholic liberalism – and of the last Council itself.

Since the promulgation of  Summorum Pontificum, the Catholic Traditionalist movement has left the ecclesiastical “skid row” (Prof. Robert Spaemann) and has been gradually entering, tentatively and with setbacks, the Catholic mainstream. Even some of the “crown jewels” of the Church have seen at least one Traditional mass: e.g., St. Mary’s in New Haven, CT , St. Joseph’s in Bronxville, NY, University Church at Fordham, NY, the upper Church of the National Shrine in Washington. And, at least in the greater New York area, solemn high masses are regularly celebrated on major feasts  -  in one or two locations  even every Sunday.

This liturgical renaissance has attracted an ever-growing following of the young and religiously committed and their growing families. At Traditional masses nowadays the average congregation is often substantially younger than that of the “ordinary form” Novus Ordo services! These new adherents to Tradition often wonder: how did this come about? How did the Traditional liturgy disappear, who kept it alive in deed and memory during the intervening years and how was it revived?  At a recent conference sponsored by this Society Prof Luc Perrin offered an informative review of French Traditionalism. A reader in the Forum Catholique asked if an equivalent essay existed for the US.

I offer the following sketch as an attempt to give some answers and to point out lines of inquiry for the historians of the future. The reader should take these notes as the personal reflections of an observer. I disclaim any inside knowledge and recognize that this can only be a preliminary undertaking. I have structured the post – Vatican II story of Traditionalism roughly according to decades – although this is no more than a handy convention to impose order on a chaotic flow of events. For example, if I call the period 1975-1985 the era of “Conservative Catholicism,” I am well aware that the first clear manifestations of this school of thought date back to 1968/69 and continue right to the present day.

 I ask the reader’s indulgence on an additional matter. In the “era of good feeling” after Summorum Pontificum,  we  Catholics – Traditionalists , conservatives and the Church establishment -  have been  enjoined to cultivate mutual respect,  which indeed  in many cases is happening.  Regardless of the current situation, however, one must speak honestly of the past.  I cannot avoid setting forth the sins of the Church establishment any I more than I can conceal the limitations of both those who struggled so valiantly in the Traditionalist cause and their “conservative Catholic” contemporaries.

Finally, I limit myself to the broad outlines and the main movements with which I am familiar. Certain “Traditionalist” or quasi-Traditionalist movements and individuals, such as the “sedevacantists,” or the independent priests, are covered briefly or not mentioned at all because (a) they remained tangential to the Traditionalist mainstream and (b) I have very little information to provide on their activities.

1. The Era of “Triumph”: 1965-1975

The Second Vatican Council and its reforms hit the American church like a tidal wave. Catholics today cannot realize –  or have forgotten –  how sudden the changes were: the abandonment of Latin, the reorientation of the altars, the intrusion of protestant hymns and alleged folk music. And all this was years before the adoption of the Novus Ordo in 1969.  At the same time a chorus of voices within the Church arose that challenged the basics of Christian morality, the rules of the religious orders, and the hierarchy of the Church. These intellectual movements quickly took on physical form:  the fasting rules were softened and then virtually abandoned, churches were gutted and renovated across the country; nuns progressively simplified their habits and then ditched them altogether. The first signs of disintegration in the priesthood, religious orders and schools soon followed.

Certainly, among the mass of the laity in this country there was little understanding of these changes. Yet at the same time there was virtually no resistance. The “renewal” had been ordered by authority; that was the end of the story for most American Catholics. There was no American equivalent of the Don Camillo tale in which the congregation – led by the village communist  –  rises up to block the introduction of a new saint by a visiting priest. Indeed, the really interesting aspect of the American Traditionalist movement of the first years after the Council was that there wasn’t any. The wave of renewal rolled on without confronting organized opposition. Those isolated souls who expressed disagreement with the one or the other change on whatever grounds – or who  just sought an explanation of what was going on – were confronted and quickly suppressed. The implementers of Vatican II were not disposed to justify their actions to anyone.

There were exceptions to the general conformity. Scurrilous poems circulated in the pews  lampooning the new order. On a more serious note,  even while the  Council was coming to an end Father Gommar dePauw ( from Belgium himself) announced his opposition to the new order – and maintained his loyalty to the Old Mass and its public practice throughout the years to come.  In so doing he founded a chapel and launched an energetic publicity campaign in defense of Tradition. Other independent priests did likewise. But the most significant manifestation of American resistance to the innovations was intellectual, rather than practical.

L. Brent Bozell launched Triumph magazine in 1966. Its origins dated back to a 1962 split of Bozell with William F. Buckley and National Review – thus, even before the Council. Bozell and his allies were concerned at the drift of American conservatism to uncritical support of capitalism and the “American Way”.  They  revolted against  American conservatism’s  abandonment of the struggle against the social and intellectual pathologies of modernity in order  to form a common front against communism and to support  liberal (in the original sense) democracy and economics. Prof.  Perrin has pointed out the critical role of existing “networks” in France growing out of pre-conciliar struggles as providing the foundation for Traditionalist resistance. In this one instance, a similar grouping also existed in the US.

To undertake the struggle against modernity, Bozell assembled for Triumph a rare group of writers: Thomas Molnar, Frederick Wilhelmsen, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Warren Carroll, Gary Potter and many others.  Triumph embarked upon  a searching critique of developments within the Church while always remaining aware of the interweaving of the ecclesiastical with politics, society, culture and the economy. Uncompromisingly (and at that time, thanklessly) orthodox,  its very name challenged Catholic progressivism, with its hatred of the “triumphalistic” Church of yore. 

The insights this magazine offered were endless.  Triumph rightly predicted that the conservatism of National Review would end in a variant of the “liberalism” it had been created to oppose.  Triumph was the first – 40 years before Alcuin Read –  to expose the doings of the “liturgy club” in demolishing Catholic worship. And years before Roe v. Wade the editors not only wrote against abortion but  conducted the first direct actions against the abortion industry.  Needless to say, Triumph offered the first detailed critique of the Novus Ordo upon its appearance. Before the terms “neoconservative” and  ”paleoconservative” existed Bozell and company dared suggest that the so-called American experiment could be deeply, inherently flawed.

But the most obvious observation we can make regarding  the Triumph generation – as basic as it may seem to the readers of this blog – was that they were right.  At a time when the entire official Catholic publishing world was  either celebrating the achievements of the Council or pushing for further radical change, Triumph  revealed the dark aspects, warned of the developing catastrophe. It is the analysis of the contributors to Triumph – not that of the clerical establishment and its in-house press – that  has subsequently proven to accord with reality.

Not all of their judgments, however, were equally sound. Triumph celebrated the publication of Humanae Vitae as a glorious turning point for the Church, as the vindication of papal authority after the post- Conciliar chaos. Now, said the editors, it was time to rally around Pope Paul and join the counterattack that he had commenced. In this they were grievously mistaken. They had declared the war over when the struggle had just begun – as the liturgical revolution took off, as the transformation of the “American Catholic Church” from  passive conformism  to active progressivism gained momentum with the knowledge and at the direction of the Vatican.  Triumph’s newfound uncritical enthusiasm for the Vatican stood in all too obvious conflict with the facts recorded in its own pages. I  have always believed that this inherent contradiction – just as much as  the health problems of its editor-in-chief – led to the publication’s untimely demise in 1974.

So Triumph disappeared. To this day no Traditionalist successor publication  has surpassed it in depth, sophistication and intellectual courage.  And none has enjoyed the same universal recognition in American Traditionalism  Yet,  Bozell and his team had not labored in vain.  The seeds of an eventual revival were planted in the minds of both the surviving contributors and their current and future readers. And the magazine remained as a fond memory. For example, one afternoon, years later, my studies in the library of a certain secular law school  were interrupted by a crash. A distinguished professor of law, getting on in years and at the point of retirement, had fallen at his desk. As I helped him to his feet, I noted that the professor – whom I had not even suspected of  being a Catholic at all – had been engaged in carefully cataloguing his precious back issues of Triumph.  We looked at each other and smiled….

Mosaics in narthex of St. Bartholemew’s, New York, by Hildreth Meiere

Museum of Biblical Art
1865 Broadway
(at 61st Street)
New York, NY 10023
Finally, New York gets a chance to see the first exhibit on the work of an artist whose vast output is ubiquitous in and around this city – yet who has somehow until now not been seen fit for serious study. We have previously covered the Catholic artist Hildreth Meiere, her artistic achievement and the revival of interest in her work. Hers is an oeuvre that tens of thousands see but ignore daily. The concise exhibit at the Museum of Biblical Art offers an introduction to her work. That is difficult indeed in the case of an artist who concentrated on large scale public commissions – mosaics, murals, metalwork, windows – for churches and office buildings. What we see is a selection of sketches and models- including full scale mosaics – and then photographs of the finished works. Quite a few of these are in the city or its surroundings so the visitor can immediately follow up with field work of his own. St. Bart’s, Temple Emmanuel, Fordham University Chapel, St. Patrick’s Cathedral – Hildreth Meiere seems to have received commissions from everyone in the 1920’s – 1940’s. And those are only the religious commissions – the current exhibit does concentrate on this aspect of her work.

The exhibit does take us into some unfamiliar ground. Like the monumental former Passionist monastery of St. Michael which still towers over Union City (it is now in the hands of Korean Protestants). Meiere did a number of frescoes there and then contributed additional work after a disastrous fire in the 1930’s. These works depart from her usual manner of that period and seem inspired by the visionary style of Tiepolo. Then, there is the case made to house a book of remembrance in St Thomas, Fifth Avenue: the two angels adorning it are painted in the most classic Art Deco style but in almost surreal, glowing color. In addition to this case, a few altars are the only complete originals on display. These do include, however, two portable altar triptychs – part of a whole series painted for the US military chaplaincies during the Second World War. It seems that in those unenlightened pre-conciliar days it was felt that even masses in the field should be surrounded by at least some elements of beauty.

Artists will enjoy the detailed presentation of the various media in which the artist worked. Meiere was of course extremely sensitive to the requirements of the different techniques and materials. Consider, for example, her description of the effect of the changing sunlight during the course of the day on the appearance of a golden apse mosaic as being of the essence of this medium. We find that many of the mosaics pre-1939 and after World War II were in fact made to her requirements by a firm in bad old Germany. (The instructions on a diagram for installing the mosaics in the dome of the St. Louis cathedral are partially in German).

After World War II Hildreth Meiere still received commissions from some very prestigious clients: St. Bart’s again, St. Louis Cathedral, the Washington National Cathedral. It seems to me, though, that the élan of the earlier decades was lacking (although the colors of the St. Louis cathedral mosaics are marvelous!). Perhaps that was because in the post-war stampede to modernism her work had fallen out of the favor of the critics. But all who are interested today in the interaction of religion and art – and how these could be mutually enriching even as late as the 1940’s – should make it a point to visit this exhibit. And then get out and take a good look again at the marvelous but forgotten works in situ all about us!

Regarding this year’s Davos World Economic Forum and the free admissions granted to certain figures: “About 200 academics… are also offered free admission. And about 20 religious leaders, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana (who is said to be considered among the candidates to be the next pope) make the list.  Andrew Ross Sorkin, “Free Matchmaking at a Setting in the Alps,” The New York Times, January 24, 2012.

The Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace issued last year its report: “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority”, having as its central recommendation the establishing a “public Authority with Universal Jurisdiction.”  The reactions of the various camps of Catholicism were predictable: John Allen positively squealed with delight and immediately elevated Cardinal Turkson to his Papabile list. John Thavis of Catholic News Service defended the Cardinal and pontificated on the deference Catholics should owe to the pronouncements of his Council. (Papal directives and legislation on, for example, contraception, higher education, religious orders and the traditional liturgy may be disregarded by the leading lights of the “American Catholic Church” at their discretion but the pronouncements of the Justice and Peace Council demand the highest respect). On the other hand, “Conservative Catholics” like George Weigel were outraged. The continuity of Turkson’s document with Pope Benedict’s teaching was challenged; the authority of documents issued by his Council called into question.  

Now I felt some of this criticism of Cardinal Turkson’s authority was unfair. After all, the Catholic Church has never endorsed the regime unfettered capitalism. And, going well beyond the position of traditional Catholic social doctrine, popes since John XXIII’s encyclical Mater et Magistra have sought to reach an accommodation with the political left on economics.  Pope Paul VI and his successors have been effusive in their praise of the United Nations. Recently, hadn’t Pope Benedict himself called for a global financial authority “with teeth in it”? (The Vatican was silent on this subject, however, when the Pope was invited before an International Criminal Tribunal).

I don’t need to do more than mention here some of the  substantive objections raised last year by critics –  including  some in the  the Vatican. That to propose the creation of a one world state is precious little help to policy makers working on the Euro and other current financial crises of the moment. That Cardinal Turkson gave no consideration to the adverse effect on the economy of factors such as the decline in the birth rate which Catholic doctrine should shed light on. That the vision of a universal public Authority stands in stark contrast with traditional teaching on subsidiarity (It is amusing to see how the Council argues it is implementing the principle of subsidiarity by proposing its exact opposite – one often encounters similar verbal gymnastics in corporate life).

But it seems to me the most cogent objection is that the one world authority already exists. It is called the United States.  Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the United States had become the “hegemon” of world economy and politics.  And it is under the direction of the forces controlling the United States that the specific economic abuses of the last 20 or more years have flourished.  The “hegemon” did not restrain these forces, on the contrary it actively supported their activity and global expansion (e.g. into Russia). And those nations which have avoided the financial and currency crises to a greater or lesser extent did so only because they did not jump on the globalist bandwagon in one or more key respects. That includes everything from the Canadian banking system to Great Britain’s retention of the pound sterling over the Euro to the “controlled economy” policies of China. It seems that these national initiatives were more successful than the global ones; why does Cardinal Turkson think that his one world Authority would be more successful than the United States has been?

Cardinal Turkson concludes his report with an anomalous exegesis of the Tower of Babel in Genesis. For Turkson, this is a summons to overcome by the “spirit of Pentecost” the effects of the division of man into multiple languages and nations and restore the unity of mankind. But we find in the curious and rare Demonologie of Egon von Petersdorff a discussion of this very question – with exactly the opposite conclusion. For that author interprets the “second fall of man” at the tower of Babel as a warning against all attempts to reestablish a world empire (or a world language). (Egon von Petersdorff, Demonologie, Vol I at 209-212 (Christiana Verlag, Stein am Rhein, 1982). Perhaps von Petersdorff gives more deference to the doctrine of original sin than Cardinal Turkson does! We should perhaps add that writers such as Vladimir Soloviev (Three Tales of the Antichrist) and Malachi Martin (Windswept House) would not at all be surprised at forces in the Vatican endorsing a unitary world state.

Indeed, the proposals of Cardinal Turkson are not at all anti-establishment, counter-cultural or in line with “occupy Wall street.”  They are exactly what the controlling academic and media elites of the West have been propounding for decades and reflect the ideology of the dominant political power in the world today. This is true not just of the “one world Authority” proposal but of the other specific ideas the Council for Justice and Peace endorses – such as the financial transactions tax. All this is eminently secular, completely in accord with the dictates of Western civil society. That’s why we read today of Cardinal Turkson’s all expenses paid excursion to Davos.

 What would be revolutionary in the long run would to return to the Church’s own social teaching.  For the Church’s authentic teachings have received remarkably little attention in recent decades. Certainly the Archdiocese of New York and the diocese of Bridgeport, in the epicenter of world finance, have maintained strict radio silence on the subject.  To discover the meaning today of concepts like usury, subsidiarity and a just wage, to explore the role of the family and of the community – that could be the inception of  more profound changes than the protesters of last year could ever imagine!

Photo: Gus Chan, Plain Dealer

Truly things in the Church get more and more bizarre! Today Bishop Lennon of Cleveland presented an apologia of the financial results of his closing of 50 parishes in the Cleveland diocese: the disposition of the properties and monies. (http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/01/cleveland_catholic_diocese_sha.html) But it was the location of the bishop’s news conference that was truly startling: a “decommissioned” Catholic parish, St. Hedwig, that now functions as a museum of Catholic art from terminated Cleveland parishes. This is the unique “Museum of Divine Statues.” (http://museumofdivinestatues.com/html/mission.html)

The Museum of Divine Statues was created to restore and care for art from destroyed Catholic churches. The museum’s resident restoration artist, Louis McClung, restores each statue to its former splendor. MCclung’s own position regarding recent aesthetic and liturgical developments in Catholicism is clear:

“Lou McClung can’t forgive the Catholic Church for the 1960s. During those turbulent years the Vatican approved sweeping changes to make Catholicism look modern. “They took away the Communion rails, they painted over the murals on the walls, they threw the statues in the garbage,” said Lou.” (http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/25798)

When he heard the diocese was closing more than forty churches, McClung sprang into action, obtained the right to one of the closed parishes, scrapped its 1970′s conciliar decor and founded the museum.The saved art is then displayed in a “contemplative atmosphere.” The Museum is intended to honor the contributions of artists and the religious context of their art. And to preserve these works for another generation Truly an admirable mission! But it is a Twilight-zone event that the ordinary of the diocese then holds a news conference in said museum celebrating his dissipation of Cleveland’s treasures. Indeed, many objects of art from closed Cleveland churches are available for purchase from the approved diocesan vendor:http://www.church-inventory.com/index.php

See this amazing gallery, at times depressing, at times outrageous, by Gus Chan of the Plain Dealer: . http://photos.cleveland.com/plain-dealer/2011/11/lou_mcclungs_museum_of_divine_10.html

The question of what constitutes a coetus fidelium (“group of the faithful”)
One of the issues that had become contentious after the promulgation of the Motu Proprio was the determination of what constituted a group of the faithful. The instruction establishes that a “group of the faithful” can be said to be existing in a stable manner, according to the sense of art. 5 § 1 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, when it is constituted by some people of an individual parish who, even came together after the publication of the Motu Proprio, by reason of their veneration for the Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, and who ask that it might be celebrated in the parish church or in an oratory or chapel; such a “group” can also be composed of persons coming from different parishes or dioceses, who gather together in a specific parish church or in an oratory or chapel for this purpose.(35) For this group the Instruction does not establish a number of members so it could be very small. The Instruction affirms also that in sanctuaries and places of pilgrimage the possibility to celebrate in the forma extraordinaria is to be offered to groups of pilgrims who request it as mandated in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 5 § 3, if there is a qualified priest.(36) Common sense indicates that group of pilgrims going to a shrine should be accompanied by a priest capable of offering the extraordinary form.

The acceptance of the Validity and Legitimacy of the ordinary form
The Instructions establishes that “The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.” (37) It is evident that attacking the validity of the ordinary form is a very serious problem because it puts into question the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church. With regards to the legitimacy it regards the acceptance of the power of the Holy Father to reform the liturgy and promulgate a new missal. At the same time we should underline that many faithful who certainly accept the validity and the legitimacy of the Mass of Paul VI have been deeply shocked by the abuses of this form of the Mass. Cardinal Ratzinger points out that, “While there are many motives that might have led a great number of people to seek a refuge in the Traditional liturgy, the chief one is that they find the dignity of the sacred preserved there. After the council there were many priests who deliberately raised “desacralization” to the level of a program, on the plea that the New Testament abolished the cult of the Temple: the veil of the Temple which was torn from top to bottom at the moment of Christ’s death on the cross is, according to certain people, the sign of the end of the sacred. The death of Jesus, outside the City walls, that is to say, in the public world, is now the true religion. Religion, if it has any being at all, must have it in the nonsacredness of daily life, in love that is lived. Inspired by such reasoning, they put aside the sacred vestments; they have despoiled the churches as much as they could of that splendor which brings to mind the sacred; and they have reduced the liturgy to the language and the gestures of ordinary life, by means of greetings, common signs of friendship, and such things.” (38)
These words of the future Pontiff show that it does not constitute a form of deligitimization to make observations on the way that the ordinary form of the Mass is celebrated. Neither it is to formulate suggestions to improve the ordinary form. We can mention here several observations made by Nicolas Bux. He points out that the praying of the canon facing the people contributes to confirm the impression that the Mass is a fraternal meal. He criticizes the total substitution of Latin by the vernacular. The transformation of the altar into a table. Pushing to a side of the Church the tabernacle that it is substituted by the seat or throne of the priest. The abolition of the sacred enclosure of the sanctuary and the installation of the baptismal font in the sanctuary. (39) It is also perfectly fitting to promote that for the Liturgy of the Eucharist the whole congregation including the priest be directed towards the Lord and that is expressed by turning toward the altar, as Fr. Uwe Lang strongly suggests. (40)
In the young when they encounter for the first time the traditional liturgy of the Church there is no question of discussing the validity or the legitimacy of the new liturgy, even many of them may not understand the meaning of these words. What they experience is the sense of marvel with a liturgy that brings them closer to the infinite majesty of God which is a longing that the Lord has inscribed in our immortal souls at the movement of their creation. It is a feeling that it is akin to sense of marvel that the Kievan envoys found when they first entered Santa Sophia. It is also the joy of rediscovering a heritage, of finding their roots, in other words of finding a long lost family. A family is formed by brethren, but also parents and ancestors. A family that would give to them a common heritage and what is more important a common and reassuring future that will be built on a well grounded identity. (41)
Who can be considered a qualified priest? (Sacerdos idoneus)
The Instruction starts from the general principle that “Every Catholic priest who is not impeded by Canon Law is to be considered idoneus (“qualified”) for the celebration of the Holy Mass in the forma extraordinaria.” With regards to the use of the Latin language, the instruction takes a very reasonable position and it requires only a basic knowledge that will allow the priest to pronounce the words correctly and understand their meaning. It will be absurd to require this knowledge of Latin from the faithful as a commentator of the Motu proprio indicates.(42) He insists that the faithful have to understand what is being celebrated. At the same time it will be a praiseworthy activity to try teaching some Latin to the faithful. It also takes a benevolent approach on the knowledge a priest might have of how to celebrate the extraordinary form. “Regarding knowledge of the execution of the Rite, priests are presumed to be qualified who present themselves spontaneously to celebrate the forma extraordinaria, and have celebrated it previously.” This provision puts an end to some excessive requests of some dioceses that through severe testing were trying to limit the priests that could be considered qualified.

Formation
With regards to formation the Instruction has two provisions. Priests who desire to celebrate in the extraordinary form should be offered by their bishop the possibility of acquiring the adequate preparation in this form of the Mass. With regards to seminarians the Instruction reiterates the command of the Code of Canon Law that seminarians should be taught Latin well. The question is to what extent this provision is of the Code is observed worldwide? With regards to the formation in the extraordinary form of seminarians the command is placed in rather weak way because it is conditioned by “where pastoral needs suggest it”.(43)
“In Dioceses without qualified priests, Diocesan Bishops can request assistance from priests of the Institutes erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, either to the celebrate the forma extraordinaria or to teach others how to celebrate it.” (44) If we have the case that a Diocese does not have qualified priests and the Bishop refuses to call priests from the Institutes erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei voiding the right of the faithful to have access to the forma extraordinaria this will be a typical case that could be brought up to the Commission for resolution.

Liturgical and Ecclesiastical Discipline
The celebrants of the extraordinary form must be watchful like many priests in the past to carefully observe the rubrics. In this regard, Universae Ecclesiae is absolutely clear: “The liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria are to be used as they are. All those who wish to celebrate according to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite must know the pertinent rubrics and are obliged to follow them correctly.”(45) Interestingly enough we can see the relation of this article with what it is stated in Sacrosanctum Concilium: “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.”(46) This applies to both the ordinary and the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. Following carefully the rubrics has to be considered a moral obligation of the priest. More so there is an important aspect of the spirituality of the traditional liturgy that connected with this duty. The priest, like Christ, empties himself and does what the rubrics demand from him and avoids inserting his personality in the Mass. As a matter of fact part of the beauty of the traditional liturgy is grounded on the obligation that it has to be celebrated always in precisely the same manner by all priests in all places.
It is very positive that the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae has clarified many points that have been discussed in the last few years, including the obligation of the faithful to receive communion on the tongue, and the requirement that only male acolytes are permitted. The opinion had been advanced that all the laws of the Church that regulated the use of the Missal and the Sacraments in 1962 had been derogated and the revival of the 1962 Missal does not automatically revive those legal norms. The shocking consequence of this interpretation is that altar girls and the reception of Communion in the hand could have been a be a legal possibility in using this Missal. We should also note that even without the instruction that position is clearly erroneous.(47) In a recent letter of May 19th 2011, the Secretary of the Ecclesiae Dei Commission explained to a faithful in England that in accordance with art. 28 of the Instruction mentioned above, the Circular Letter of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments of 1994 permitting female altar servers does not apply to the Extraordinary form. By a similar reasoning communion in the tongue and kneeling is mandated and female readers are not permitted.
The Motu Proprio in its art. 6th had permitted the use of the vernacular for the readings using editions recognized by the Holy See. Art 26 of the Instruction declares that the readings can be proclaimed either solely in the Latin language, or in Latin followed by the vernacular or, only in Low Masses, solely in the vernacular. We should note that the Instruction limits this option of using the vernacular solely to Low Masses.

The Sacrament of Holy Orders
In the regulation that Instruction makes of the disciplines of Holy Orders in the extraordinary form we find two novelties that were not in the Motu Proprio. First, it decides that tonsure, minor orders and the subdiaconate, even if they are maintained, do not have juridical consequences. “As regards tonsure, minor orders and the subdiaconate, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum does not introduce any change in the discipline of the Code of Canon Law of 1983; consequently, in Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, one who has made solemn profession or who has been definitively incorporated into a clerical institute of apostolic life, becomes incardinated as a cleric in the institute or society upon ordination to the diaconate, in accordance with canon 266 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law.”(49) This norm has been criticized as being opposed to the principle recalled in n. 3 of the instruction concerning adherence to “the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition.” This opens an interesting question because minor orders, even if they are not part of apostolic tradition, can be considered part of tradition. At the same time is positive that they can still be given because the recipients obviously receive a spiritual benefit in their path towards the priesthood.
Second, with regards to the granting of the Sacrament of Holy Orders the Instruction establishes, “Only in Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and in those which use the liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria, is the use of the Pontificale Romanum of 1962 for the conferral of minor and major orders permitted.”(50) We can ask ourselves if this norm of the Instruction respects the principle of equivalence between the two forms of the Latin Rite? This norm establishes a limitation that is not contained in the Motu Proprio. At the same time it seems evident that a Bishop wishing to use the Sacrament of Holy Orders could always ask for an indult from the Commission to use it. The above mentioned restrictions would lead to the interpretation that save especial cases like the ordination of a new bishop or an auxiliary bishop of the Personal Apostolic Administration Saint John Marie Vianney this will have to be done in the Ordinary Rite or by seeking permission through an indult.
It should be noted that on October 23, 2011 the Bishop of Frejus-Toulon, Bishop Dominique Rey, ordained a new priest for his diocese using the 1962 Pontifical. The new priest, Fr. Jean Christophe Pelegri, was ordained by Msgr. Rey to the diaconate on May 11 of this year, only two days before the promulgation of Universae Ecclesiae. We might presume that Bishop Rey obtained permission of Ecclesia Dei Commission to do this ordination or that he considers that this norm is not applicable.
The restrictions with regards to minor orders and the granting of the Sacrament of Holy Orders might lead to different traditionalists to petition for the approval of special canonical legislation that should take into account the particular traits of the extraordinary form.
Breviarium Romanum
The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum put an end to a long controversy whether it was licit for clerics that have the legal obligation to pray the Holy Office to fulfil this duty by praying the Breviary promulgated by Blessed John XXIII. It established that it could be rightfully used.
The instruction clarifies that the 1962 breviary has to be prayed entirely and in the Latin language. There are two authorized versions of the 1962 breviary: one containing the psalms of the Vulgata and the other containing a translation made by the Professors of Pontifical Biblical Institute and approved by Pius XII in 1945. It is also called the Bea version because at that time the future Cardinal Agustin Bea was the rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute and had an important influence on Pius XII because he was his confessor. This new translation has some limitations: 1. The classical Latin used in this translation does not match well the late Latin of the Vulgata, of the Fathers, and of the liturgy. 2. The new version could be used only for the full psalms, but not for other parts of the breviary taken from the psalms. As a consequence, the correspondences between the Psalter, the antiphons, the small verses and the responsories became less evident. 3. It is more difficult to sing. For that reasons it is strongly advisable to use the breviary that contains the vulgata psalter.
Laymen should be encouraged to pray the breviary either as a whole or using the key hours like lauds and vespers. Layman also can pray the breviary in the vernacular or use a bilingual edition. They will receive great supernatural benefits and this prayer will lead them to understand better the unity and beauty of the traditional liturgy that forms an integrated whole where the Mass is at the center. At the same time, using the principle of equity, nothing would impede a cleric from using a bilingual edition of the breviary in as much as he uses the vernacular only to improve his understanding of the Latin.
The Sacred Triduum
With regards to the Sacred Triduum the Instruction establishes “If there is a qualified priest, a coetus fidelium (“group of faithful”), which follows the older liturgical tradition, can also celebrate the Sacred Triduum in the forma extraordinaria. When there is no church or oratory designated exclusively for such celebrations, the parish priest or Ordinary, in agreement with the qualified priest, should find some arrangement favourable to the good of souls, not excluding the possibility of a repetition of the celebration of the Sacred Triduum in the same church.”(51) This is an important clarification because some bishops had ruled that the Extraordinary Form was not to be celebrated in any way during the Easter Triduum – from the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday through to Solemn Vigil of Easter Sunday. This is clearly an erroneous interpretation. Article 2 of the Motu Proprio states precisely that a priest can celebrate Masses without the people on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. This clearly should be understood in the context that in neither of the liturgical forms are Masses without the people permitted during the Easter Triduum. The Missal of 1962 is very precise in its rubrics for Holy Thursday, forbidding the celebration of other Masses besides the solemn celebration of the evening Mass in Coena Domini. So there is no basis in law to state that the Easter Triduum cannot be celebrated in accordance with the Missal of 1962 in ceremonies with the presence of the people.

The Rites of Religious Orders
The Instruction in its official English translation establishes “The use of the liturgical books proper to the Religious Orders which were in effect in 1962 is permitted.”(52) A proper translation should state, “Members of religious orders may use their own liturgical books as in force in 1962” This clarification is important because the right of using those books does not belong to the orders, but to the members. So as an example a Dominican priest is free to use either the Roman Missal of 1962 or the Missal of his order that was in effect in 1962.

Conclusions
We are committed to the celebration of a liturgy that gives us a “glimpse of Heaven on earth.” (53) But as true Catholics we do not want to keep this glimpse for ourselves but we want to share it first and foremost with all our fellow Catholics and second with the entire world. The Pope has expressed with dramatic tones the tragedy of the passing away of the faith in many parts of the world. We have to launch again our missionary efforts but we have to be fully aware that without a recovery of our liturgical worship, none of the efforts of New Evangelization will be successful. The Holy Father recently pointed out that to bear witness to our faith; we have to be aware that “it is not by watering the faith down, but by living it today in its fullness that we achieve this.” (53A)

We have to develop the virtue of magnanimity as St. Thomas defines it, “by its very name denotes stretching forth of the mind to great things.” (54) So we have to forgive all the ones that offended and persecuted us in particular within the Church. As Fr. Cipolla suggests in a recent article we have to move out from a bunker mentality and build bridges within the Church. (55)

Cardinal Ratzinger has denounced the “dangerous tendency to minimalise the sacrificial nature of the Mass”(56) One of the causes of this tendency is the passing away of the penitential spirit within many members of the Church. Consequently, the reestablishment of meatless Fridays in England and Wales could help to restore the sense of the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

Much needs to done and still there is long road ahead of us, but we also have to be grateful to the Lord of all that has been achieved in the last twenty seven years since the promulgation of the special indult Quattuor abhinc anno in 1984. The Instruction Universae Ecclesiae is a good step forward that would allow us to move ahead. The name in itself is a valuable program, because it underlines that the immemorial liturgy is a great good not only for the growing minority that benefits from it today, but for the whole Church.

We have to have a profound hope that the liturgy of the Latin Church will be restored. Our confidence comes first and foremost from our certainty that it is the will of the Lord. Second, our confidence also comes from how the process of restoration is moving ahead. We are seeing concrete signs for which we have to be very grateful to the Lord. We have to be grateful to the Lord as Cardinal Domenico Bertolucci pointed out that we are living in the midst of a true and proper reawakening by so many young people, who wish to relive the beauty of the Latin Mass and the greater spiritual fruit derived from it.(57) Third, last but not least, because this restoration is needed to save the souls of the millions and millions that are walking in darkness. We need a great torch to bring them to Christ and in the liturgy we have that light.

1. Instruction Universae Ecclessiae 2.
2. Interview given by Mons. Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Commission Ecclesiae Dei to Nouvelles de France, June 9th 2011. http://www.santuariodivinamaternita.com/Sito/Documenti/110608_monsPozzo_IntervistaNouvellesFrance.pdf
3. Interview given by Mons. Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Commission Ecclesiae Dei to Nouvelles de France, June 9th 2011, cit.
4. http://www.paixliturgique.fr/?force=1
5. http://www.paixliturgique.org.uk/?force=1
6. Blessed John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, “Vicesimus quintus annus” On the 25th Anniversary of the Promulgation of the Conciliar Constitution of “Sacrosantum Concilium” on the Sacred Liturgy, 4th December 1988, n. 14.
7. Benedict XVI, Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia Offering them his Christmas Greetings, Thursday, December 22nd, 2005.
8. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Feast of Faith, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1986, p. 83.
9. Address by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, given July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile before that nation’s bishops. The Wanderer June 22, 2000.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3032&repos=1&subrepos=&searchid=292734

10. Nicola Bux, La crise liturgique, conséquence de la crise ecclésiologique, http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2008-09/09-20/La_crise_liturgique.html
11. Paolo Farinella, Ritorno all’Antica Messa, Gabrielli Editori, 2007, St. Pietro in Cariano (VR).
12. Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, Concerning the Remisission of the Excommunication of the Four Bishops Consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre of March 10th, 2009.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/, 9-02-2011, http://blog.messainlatino.it/2011/09/discorso-del-card-bartolucci.html 9-03-2011.
13. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, n. 2.
14. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, 28
15. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, “Ten Years of the Motu Proprio “Eccleia Dei” Sunday October 24th, 1998 Rome. http://web.archive.org/web/20020702085721/http://www.latin-mass.org/ratzinger.html
16. Blessed John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, “Vicesimus quintus annus” n. 16.
17. Blessed John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, “Vicesimus quintus annus” n.9.
18. Blessed John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, “Vicesimus quintus annus”, n. 11
19. “13. Side by side with these benefits of the liturgical reform, one has to acknowledge with regret deviations of greater or lesser seriousness in its application. On occasion there have been noted illicit omissions or additions, rites invented outside the framework of established norms; postures or songs which are not conducive to faith or to a sense of the sacred; abuses in the practice of general absolution; confusion between the ministerial priesthood, linked with Ordination, and the common priesthood of the faithful, which has its foundation in Baptism. It cannot be tolerated that certain priests should take upon themselves the right to compose Eucharistic Prayers or to substitute profane readings for texts from Sacred Scripture. Initiatives of this sort, far from being linked with the liturgical reform as such, or with the books which have issued from it, are in direct contradiction to it, disfigure it and deprive the Christian people of the genuine treasures of the Liturgy of the Church.It is for the bishops to root out such abuses, because the regulation of the Liturgy depends on the bishop within the limits of the law and because “the life in Christ of his faithful people in some sense is derived from and depends on him”.” Blessed John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, “Vicesimus quintus annus”, n. 13.
20. Redemptionis Sacramentum, 4.
21. Ratzinger, Feast of Faith, cit, p. 81
22. Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, Prefazione, to Introibo ad altare Dei by Elvis Cuneo – Daniele Di Sorco – Raimondo Mameli, Fede & Cultura, Verona, 2008, p. 7.

23. Gabriel Díaz Patri, El Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” y la pacificación de la Iglesia, http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2008-10/16-20/El_MP_y_la_pacificacion_de_la_Iglesia[1].html
L’attività della Santa Sede 2010, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano, 2011, p. 939.
24. “Art. 11. The Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, erected by John Paul II in 1988 (5), continues to exercise its function. Said Commission will have the form, duties and norms that the Roman Pontiff wishes to assign it. Art. 12. This Commission, apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, supervising the observance and application of these dispositions.”
25. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, 9.
26. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, 10.1
27. “GUIDELINES REGARDING CELEBRATION OF THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF MASS Diocese of Great Falls-Billings
Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, (MPSP) article 5.2 notwithstanding, celebrating the Extraordinary Form on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation in parishes of the Diocese of Great Falls-Billings as a regular Mass of obligation is not allowed at this time. [Parishioners in these instances may be drawn away from celebrating at the regular Mass for Sunday or Holy Day].
Indiscriminate mixing of elements of the Novus Ordo and elements of the Extraordinary Form is not allowed. Norms for each form are to be observed correctly [N.B. Instruction on the Application of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum, #24].
MPSP, article 5.3 notwithstanding, celebration of ritual Masses (funerals, weddings, etc.) in the Extraordinary Form is not allowed at this time in the Diocese of Great Falls-Billings. A priest must contact the Bishop in advance to ask for any exception to this policy and demonstrate pastoral consideration by not imposing the Extraordinary Form on a parish in these instances.
Altar Servers for the Extraordinary Form must be properly trained.
N.B.: It is important to remember that the Extraordinary Form generally does not enable full, active participation by the assembly which was called for by Vatican II. While the Extraordinary Form holds a definite place in the liturgical tradition of the Church, it does not meet the spiritual needs of the large portion of Church membership today.”
28. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, 10.2.
29. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, 11
30. Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio Data” on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the Reform of 1970.
31. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, 25
L’attività della Santa Sede 2010, cit, p. 940.
32. Ratzinger, Feast of Faith, cit, pp. 81-82.
33. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, 12. “Can. 34 §1. Instructions clarify the prescripts of laws and elaborate on and determine the methods to be observed in fulfilling them. They are given for the use of those whose duty it is to see that laws are executed and oblige them in the execution of the laws. Those who possess executive power legitimately issue such instructions within the limits of their competence. §2. The ordinances of instructions do not derogate from laws. If these ordinances cannot be reconciled with the prescripts of laws, they lack all force. §3. Instructions cease to have force not only by explicit or implicit revocation of the competent authority who issued them or of the superior of that authority but also by the cessation of the law for whose clarification or execution they were given.”
34. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, n 13.
35. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, n. 15.
36. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, n. 18.
37. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, n. 19.
38. Address by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, given July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile, cit.
39. Nicola Bux, La crise liturgique, conséquence de la crise ecclésiologique, cit.
40. U.M. Lang, Turning towards the Lord – Orientation in Liturgical Prayer, Foreword by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2004, p. 122.
41. Gabriel Díaz Patri, El Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” y la pacificación de la Iglesia, cit.
42. Testo dell’intervista rilasciata a Zenit (20 giugno) dal prof. Manlio Sodi a Antonio Gaspari sul tema: “Ha ancora senso studiare latino e greco?” http://www.oratoriosanfilippo.org/21-06-2011.html
43. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, n. 21.
44. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, n. 22.
45. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, n. 24
46. Sacrosanctum Concilium 22 §3
47. This position even without the Instruction is clearly erroneous for the following reasons:
First, in the Motu Proprio we do not have a revival of a previous rite which had been derogated, but to the contrary, due to the explicit legally binding declaration contained in Article 1 of this law, we have the very strong affirmation that the Missal of 1962 had never been abrogated. As a consequence, all the norms that regulate the way in which it should be used, are now in force. The contrary opinion is not reasonable because it would mean that the Missal would be in existence without the necessary support of all the norms that regulate its use; it is tantamount to affirming that this Missal exists in a legal vacuum. It is abhorrent to any sane legal interpretation of any law to postulate that something should live in a legal vacuum.
Second, we have to consider the basic principle of legal interpretation that states that whoever wishes the principal also desires what is accessory. So if the Supreme Legislator of the Church has decreed that the Missal of 1962 has never been derogated, he is also stating explicitly that all the norms that regulated that Missal were not derogated either. It is evident that the normative corpus that regulates the use of this Missal is an integral accessory to the Missal.
Third, this law like any other law of the Church has to be interpreted in accordance with the hermeneutic of continuity; in accordance with this interpretative criterion, it is evident that the laws that accompanied the Missal of 1962 at its promulgation should guide its way now in the present. To propose that it is legally possible to have female altar servers or to give communion in the hand when using the Missal of 1962 would be a clear case of the hermeneutic of discontinuity which, as I stated earlier, the Holy Father denounced in his address to the Roman Curia.
Fourth, we have to interpret this law like any other law with an spirit of coherence. It is co-natural with the Missal of 1962 that it is highly regulated in such a way that the celebrant of this Mass is always guided by precise and concrete norms and that nothing is left to the spirit of invention of the celebrant. So, it is co-natural with the Motu Proprio that all the legal norms that regulated the 1962 Missal when it was issued, still regulate it now the use of this Missal has been declared to be the right of the faithful.
Fifth, the view that the legal apparatus that supported the 1962 Missal has been derogated is against the spirit of the Motu Proprio, which wishes to preserve the style that governed the celebration of the liturgy in accordance with the Missal of St Pius V and to restore a sense of respectful reverence to divine worship. It is evident that practices such as girl altar servers or communion in the hand are alien to the spirit and style that preside the celebration of the liturgy in accordance with the Missal of St Pius V. Sixth, the erroneous interpretations I have outlined above would be detrimental to one of the purposes of this law, which is to obtain a healing of the divisions that sadly affect the Church in our times. It is evident that such interpretations would not be accepted by different persons or groups (such as the Society of St Pius X) who are currently not in due canonical union with the Church.
48. http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2011/06/ecclesia-dei-letter-altar-girls-never.html
49. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, n. 30.
50. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, 31 http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
51. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, n. 33.
52. Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, n. 34.

53. Blessed John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, Spiritus et Sponsa, On the 40th Anniversary of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy “Sacrosantum Concilium”, December 4th, 2003, n. 16.
53A. Benedict XVI, Address at the Meeting with Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany, Chapter Hall of the Former Augustinian Convent, Erfurt, Friday, 23 September 2011
54. S.T. II-II, q. 129, a. 1.
55. Rev. Richard Cipolla, Still a Landmark, The Traditionalist, Winter 2011, p. 43.
56. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Ten Years of the Motu Proprio “Eccleia Dei” cit.
57. Cardinal Domenico Bertolucci, the greatest living musician of the Church, at a concert where his compositions were played in the presence of the Holy Father in the Apostolic Palace of Castel Gandolfo on Agust 31st made very explicit declarations on the value of the immemorial liturgy of the Church: “Then, the times unfortunately changed. But today, a true a proper reawakening by so many young people, who wish to relive the beauty of the Latin Mass and the greater spiritual fruit derived from it, can be noticed with great satisfaction; this is great, a very great comfort. And it makes us hope for a liturgical future certainly desired by Your Holiness. We thank the Lord, that he may help all those who are working for seriousness in sacred music. I firmly trust that, we the help of God, a true return to the bimillenary tradition of sacred music will take place.” http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/, 9-02-2011, http://blog.messainlatino.it/2011/09/discorso-del-card-bartolucci.html 9-03-2011.