A Bumpy Ride for Traditionalists

Since the start of 2021 overt attacks on Traditionalism have multiplied. Recall the entirely negative “Summary” of the French bishops’ reports on Summorum Pontificum, Bishop Robert Barron’s diatribe against “fierce” Traditionalists and most recently the attacks by Thomas Reese SJ suggesting that the use of the Traditional Mass be banned outright. What is noteworthy is that all these assaults were launched by prominent members of the Catholic administrative or media establishment. Furthermore, these critics of Catholic Traditionalism enjoy other significant connections. Thomas Reese’s contribution, for example was first published in Religious News Service (RNS) a secular platform for officially approved views to be disseminated by the mainstream media. And Reese made his remarks on the old mass in the context of other recommendations very much aligned with the objectives of the Synodal Path in Germany (such as female clergy).  

Now some on the right chose to ignore these statements or questioned their legal significance. I think this is very short sighted. Catholic bishops and especially Jesuit priests hardly ever make statements out of a disinterested love of truth. These comments would never have been made if the authors had not been sure of an at least benevolent reception on the part of both their colleagues and in Rome. I might be missing something, but I don’t recall reading any statements in support of Summorum Pontificum or Traditionalism from similarly situated sources in the hierarchy or Catholic media. 

Let’s look at these comments and try to synthesize them. In so doing I hope I am not being unfair: the liturgical ideas of Thomas Reese and those of Bishop Barron are not exactly the same. I do not intend to focus on the contradictions and preposterous assertions of the three “indictments ” – which are evident of the face of these documents. Rather,  I would like to consider not so much what they authors are saying about Catholic Traditionalism but what they are saying about themselves. What do we learn about the features of the Catholic Church in 2021 from these various “position papers” ?

First, this Church is authoritarian. Bishop Barron is concerned about opposition to the Council and to the Pope. No attempt is made to make the case for either, or to convince opponents  – the immunity of Council and Pope from criticism is presupposed. Similarly, the French bishops’ Summary takes the existing liturgical establishment in France as a given not needing any further defense or explication.  Unquestioning loyalty to the existing “system” and to the ecclesiastical authorities is expected. 

Second, in the understanding of especially Reese the liturgy is a created thing, an administrative product. It is something that can be altered or abolished at the will of the clergy. This understanding is in stark contrast to Joseph Ratzinger’s initial horror over the Novus Ordo introduction in 1969 which he saw as destroying the notion of the liturgy as something pre-existing for us, not created by us. Of course, Summorum Pontificum, reflecting these insights,  defined the old liturgy as something that could not be abolished. Certainly the understanding of the Eastern Orthodox is very similar. 

Third, unity is posited as an absolute value. The Summary of the French bishops obsessively emphasizes the danger of disunity: the horrors of different liturgical calendars, different liturgies,  different ecclesial understandings etc. Bishop Barron sees himself as part of a great center set off against “beige Catholics” on the one hand and Traditionalists on the other. 

Fourth, the Church of Reese,  Barron and the French bishops’ Summary is lawless. Thomas Reese feels empowered by the Council to disregard not just Summorum Pontificum but also Ecclesia Dei and much other legislation authorizing the traditional rite. And what precedent is there for a rule excluding persons below a certain age from attending a rite of the Church?  The French bishops’ Summary does the same: “The FSSP, by celebrating exclusively in the extraordinary form, poses a problem for diocesan life and this practice is contrary to the sense of the Motu Proprio.”(without citing any authority for this assertion) Do not these authors, however, have the best of authority in the practices of Pope Francis, who has systematically disregarded customs, canon law and liturgical rules from the beginning of his pontificate? Only in the last few months, for example,  we have seen Francis impose restrictions on the celebration of the Mass, including the Traditional Mass, in Saint Peter’s in Rome,  disregarding all procedural and substantive church law. 

Fifth, Reese, Barron and the French bishops are  contemptuous of those who may deviate from the “party line”  and of their motivations. Reese: “The church needs to be clear that it wants the unreformed liturgy to disappear and will only allow it out of pastoral kindness to older people who do not understand the need for change.” The French ”Summary”: “For many of the faithful worshipping in  the extraordinary form the Christian life consists of Sunday attendance without any other spiritual or theological formation. We are far from the Pope Francis’ conception of a missionary disciple.” Barron:  “These arch-traditionalist Catholics have become nostalgic for the Church of the pre-conciliar period.” There is no possibility of dialogue here. No attempt is made to actually “engage” with these problematic Traditionalists to understand what they’re thinking,  let alone reach an accommodation with them. The pre-SP indults were promulgated based on the alleged concern of the Church for those “attached to” the Traditional Mass – such considerations doesn’t seem to play a role anymore.

None of this is new. The understanding of the liturgy (and its artistic and cultural appurtenances) as an arbitrary clerical creation, the authoritarianism, the brusque disregard of legal formalities and of the rights of all those holding other views,  the goal of a quasi-totalitarian unity, the aggressive and hostile attitude towards conservative ”dissidents”-  have dominated from the very beginning of the Conciliar era. To illustrate, I recall that at Georgetown University around 1973 the Jesuit liturgists were insisting on a radical reconstruction of the university chapel – which they of course eventually  achieved. But initially, substantial opposition was led, I recall, by a member of the arts faculty. The Jesuit leading the charge for “reform” informed those assembled at a “town meeting” that, after all,  he didn’t care how many opposed his plans or why – it was the liturgical thing to do and he would force it through. Need I mention that it was an aesthetic disaster and that it all had to redone within a few years?

Our authors’ contributions reveal to us a Church that is fossilized. The same clichés are repeated over and over just as they were in the 1960s: that Traditionalists are old nostalgic people (Reese); that the establishment stands in the center between extremes (Barron); that we need more and more Eucharistic prayers (Reese again) (In the 1970’s didn’t the Catholic chaplaincy at Cornell University offer a book with 50 or so (unauthorized) canons?) Obviously the “Council” means a set of assumptions and rules – an ideology  – that has become fixed and unchangeable. 

Martin Mosebach, in an interview in 2019, enraged the “German Church” when he compared the public appearances of Pope Francis with those of Stalin or Hitler. Yet recently I’ve been reading that the late Hans Küng seems to have repeatedly compared the Catholic Church with the Soviet Union. I think Küng was far more prescient then he ever realized. Because the Church establishment – in its fanatical, uncompromising insistence on  immutable positions which can never be controverted by any appeal to the facts –  is entirely in line with the modus operandi of the Soviet party bureaucracy in its last decades. 

What will be the result of these efforts against Traditionalism? I do not know!  Pope Francis, of course,  could very well impose restrictions of some kind on the celebration of the Traditional Mass and thereby score some easy points with the Church establishment – especially the European hierarchies and the major religious orders everywhere. It would, however, seem odd for the Pope to move on this front eight years into his pontificate – especially with Pope Benedict still alive. And given the developments in Traditionalism since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, I do not know how many Traditionalists would follow him at this stage. And, after all, there is a minority tendency among progressives that tolerates the Traditional Mass (think of  Bernardin!).  

Moreover,  I think our enemies are talking from a position of weakness, not strength. Pope Francis recently has been forced to adopt an ambiguous position on several issues – married priests, women deacons, “synodality”  – because of the German Synodal Path (which he himself, of course, helped to launch) and opposition, both overt and behind the scenes, elsewhere in the Church. Those who would wish to restrict or even outlaw the Traditional Mass may see this as their last chance in this pontificate before Francis dies or some new destabilizing scandal in the Church or the Vatican erupts. And,  before the ever-accelerating decline of Mass attendance, vocations and monetary support by the laity reaches catastrophic proportions. The rediscovered rage against Traditionalists may be only the establishment’s last gasp of despair.