(In this new year, I thought that I might revisit our “Notes” on the history of Catholic Traditionalism in the United States. We had concluded the series in June 2014 with a review of the first year of Pope Francis. It is now nearly five years later. Where do American (Catholic) Traditionalists stand today?)

Last year, before dawn in the season of Advent, the following scene was reenacted in many parishes.  In the darkness of the church the only illumination is the glow of massed candles surrounding the altar – the priest and ministers preforming the ceremonies are silhouetted against this mysterious light.  A music more somber than usual is heard and in the obscurity the fragrance of the incense seems stronger. Only as the pale light of dawn spreads do the windows, statues and paintings emerge.  It is the celebration of a Rorate Mass during Advent. An old custom, revived in a handful of churches after the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum (“SP”) has now spread everywhere in the Traditionalist world – and, judging from recent photographs, well beyond that. The bulk of this growth has been just in the last four or five years.

The rediscovery of this ancient custom perfectly illustrates the growth and maturity of the Traditionalist movement. Other examples abound: the revival of sung vespers at the parish level, the use of the folded chasuble and, most notably, the celebration of the “pre-1955” Holy Week rites. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to state that today’s liturgical celebrations are in every way more complete and precise than was the case in all but a handful of places before the Council.   Moreover, the atmosphere of legalism, fault-finding, capriciousness and eccentricity that used to characterize discussions within Traditionalism have yielded to a focus on understanding the meaning of the ceremonies and, to the extent resources permit, achieving their completeness and perfection. It is a true renaissance – the “recovery of the sacred!”

The progress of the movement has continued unabated. We see it in the increasing number and quality of the celebrations of the Traditional mass this year. We see it in the ongoing interest of so many seminarians in the Old Rite despite the obstacles often put in their path. We see it in the parishes – usually those who have chosen to celebrate the Traditional mass frequently and regularly – that gather large regular congregations for the Latin Mass.  

A glance at those pews reveals that most of the faithful have come back to Tradition in the last 20 or so years – and many more recently than that. For by now the handover of the cause of Tradition to a new generation is all but complete; in the sanctuary newly ordained priests and youthful ministers are assuming leadership roles. This is not to disparage in any way those (like me!) who had experienced the Traditional Mass prior to the revolution of the Council and who had “fought the good fight” over the long years prior to SP or even Ecclesia Dei. But we must acknowledge that by now a new level of understanding and practice has been attained.

As has always been the case, American Traditionalists do not stand alone.  Scholars, writers, religious and bishops from other countries regularly visit these shores. Developments in the Church outside the United States are closely followed here. The network of websites and blogs which serve as Catholic samizdat continues to perform invaluable services in this regard. It is a strong contrast with provincialism of the average Novus Ordo parish.

A continued benefit of the current Pontificate is the almost complete disintegration of “conservative Catholicism” as writer after writer has been compelled to take a stand against the policies of Pope Francis. Not that these figures have become Traditionalists! But at least the decades-long cold war between Traditionalists and “Conservatives” is now largely a thing of the past. George Weigel may continue to take swipes against “the traditionalist millennial who has no idea why Vatican II was necessary “ – what a bizarre statement indeed! –  but he is now in the minority.

The FSSPX and the Ecclesia Dei communities have continued to make steady advances: increasing numbers of priests and seminarians, new seminaries and new pastoral undertakings. We hear that not all those wishing to become seminarians can be accommodated! It must be said, however, that it is primarily the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest, which has grasped fully the new possibilities open to Traditionalism after SP. Displaying a welcome flair for publicity – restoring magnificent old churches and celebrating splendid liturgies – they haven’t been afraid to reach out to the broader Traditionalist, and even non-Christian world. In contrast, the Fraternity of St Peter seems resolutely bound to the pre-SP world. And even the FSSPX – apparently mesmerized by the never-ending discussions with Rome regarding their full regularization – is keeping a much lower profile than did their founder in the 1970’s and 80’s. 

But additional spiritual resources also have emerged.  The Benedictine monastery of Norcia, located in Italy but with mostly American monks, has exercised a worldwide influence. And that not just within Catholic Traditionalism – do we need to mention its role in a certain widely publicized book on current options for Christians? In the United States itself, a series of female convents and monasteries are now exclusively Tradionalist. The development of Traditionalist contemplative life is a major step forward. 

Not is all rosy in the Traditionalist world – far from it! If anyone thought embracing Traditionalism would free Catholics from the administrative incompetence, materialism, personality conflicts, jealousies and rivalries – great and small, that have dogged the Church for ages – he soon found out otherwise. More specifically to Traditionalism, the celebration of the Old Mass remains under restriction and close supervision in many dioceses in the United States. Seminarians often face hurdles in participating in Latin Masses; some members of mainstream orders who celebrate the Traditional mass don’t want to be photographed or identified. Ecclesiastical favor or disfavor is all very random and often changes month to month.

But, of course, the main threat hanging over the Traditionalists’ heads is the threat of the papacy of Francis. The Pope has continued to denounce them over the years, in uncouth but unambiguous language, as mentally ill and worse.  And the sycophants of Francis, both in and outside of the Vatican, have amplified his words. It has not eluded them – nor their master – that so many of the opponents of Francis’ regime have connections to the world of Traditionalism. 

Outside the United States, the Vatican has struck again and again with utter ruthlessness at smaller Traditionalist seminaries, orders and congregations. In the United States itself, we have the actions of Cardinal Cupich, Bergoglio’s main paladin in the American hierarchy, against the parish of St John Cantius. Moreover, any action the Pope might take restricting the old liturgy would be unlikely to encounter any organized episcopal opposition. For if Bergoglio has demonstrated conclusively one thing over the last six years, it is that, aside from individual exceptions, the hierarchs of the Catholic Church will not oppose anything he says or does.  

Yet, so far, the Pope has not sought to impose any general restrictions on the Traditional liturgy. True, the pope has just abolished the Ecclesia Dei commission, (charged with certain supervisory and appeals functions under SP) but we do not yet know the exact intent of that step. Why this reticence to act? Perhaps, as I surmised in 2014, Bergoglio first has had to deal with other aspects of the progressive agenda that – so it would seem to him – affect the Church more broadly: divorce, homosexuality, married priests, female deacons and even priests, “synodality,” etc. Moreover, at this very moment, the Church’s handling of issues of clerical sexual abuse and homosexuality is generating a crisis even shaking the strongest pillars holding up Bergoglianism– the Western secular media.

Recently certain prominent Traditionalists seem to have lost their heads over this situation, predicting the imminent demise of the Traditional Mass or of SP due to a papal prohibition. I am not so sure! Are not these voices still imprisoned in the Ultramontane world, where everything depends on official support and papal favor? We have seen how American Traditionalism has survived and even flourished in the last five years. And, paradoxically, hasn’t the papacy of Francis had a liberating effect on Traditionalism? A Pope, for example, who so prominently disregards liturgical norms from the earliest days of his pontificate also empowers Traditionalists to “do the right thing” liturgically instead of anxiously pondering issues of rubrics, authority and legality. If the Pope takes some repressive action, I do not know what the reaction of the Traditionalists will be – as opposed to that of the hierarchy. But I do believe that, whatever may come, a movement that by now is so broad in its membership and support will continue, in the ways open to it, the slow but relentless course of renewal and reform.

5. The Era of Pope Francis and an Epilogue; 2013 -?

One again the Traditionalist scene in the United States was rocked by an event from across the seas. Pope Benedict, who had done so much for the cause of Catholic Tradition – without fully embracing it himself – abdicated. It was clear from the start that his successor, Francis, would be a man of entirely different character – had he not been pushed as the main alternative to Benedict in 2005? But what few – aside from a key group of initiates – realized was that Francis was a genuine progressive in the line of cardinals Bernardin or Martini. What had been inconceivable in 1978 or 2005 had taken place: the left wing of the Church had captured its highest position.

If we consider the situation only in America, this development, while unexpected, was not at all totally surprising. For the Church’s progressive wing had not been idle in the years we have followed the twists and turns of Traditionalism. They remained in total control of most religious orders and Catholic institutions of higher education. The Catholic press and the Church bureaucracy were in their hand. And they retained vocal supporters among the hierarchy: Mahoney, Bernardin or Weakland.

Beyond maintaining their position in the ecclesiastical sphere, the Catholic left forged powerful links with the forces of civil society. They developed valuable ties with secular educational establishment. The liberal media (that is, almost all the media) turned to their agitators for “authoritative” commentary on things Catholic; the Catholic hierarchy (including the Vatican) also turned to the National Catholic Reporter as a preferred media outlet. And a new field of activity for the progressives was the overt alliance with the Democratic Party and specifically the Obama administration, counteracting “pro-life” initiatives in and outside of the Church. American Catholic progressivism was a movement that John Paul II and Benedict might attempt to restrain but could hardly discipline, let alone dislodge.

Pope Francis immediately launched a systematic campaign both of accommodation with Western secular civil society and of outreach to the Catholic left. Certainly in rhetoric it is a return to the 1960s, covered in the first installment of this essay. Instead of increasingly respectful treatment Traditionalists now heard themselves denounced by Pope Francis in coarse and contemptuous language. More concretely, at Francis’s direction, the Vatican launched a campaign of annihilation against the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate – a bi-ritual order with a growing Traditionalist commitment. One of the main initial penalties imposed was the de facto abolition of Summorum Pontifcium for these friars. But these actions had little resonance in the United States, given the friars’ limited presence here.

The forces of the American “Conservative Catholics” had very little time to rejoice, however. For Francis and his acolytes immediately moved, in word and deed, even more forcefully against the holiest principles of the conservatives. Francis and his team denounced capitalist economic principles. They called into question or mocked pro-life activity of all kinds. And as one of his most significant new ecclesiastical initiatives, Pope Francis launched a “discussion” clearly aiming at changing the rules of the Church regarding divorce. This last move struck the weakest link in the conservatives’ stance on life issues. For divorce is an unambiguous conflict between the teaching of the Church and one of the nonnegotiable principles of American civil society.

What was the impact of these dramatic developments? We have seen that in the 1960’s the reforms of the Council had been virtually unopposed. The reaction to the current attempted restoration of the 1960’s has been far more complex. True, among the clergy open rebellion is nonexistent. Yet by 2014 a lively Catholic samizdat – the Internet – had arisen. News was rapidly disseminated and critical commentary offered. The Traditionalist Catholic of 2014 had an infinitely better idea of what was going on in the Church – both in and outside of the United States – than his predecessor of fifty years ago. And his experience of 50 years of working around the structures of the “official Church” had immunized him against the progressive revival.

There is above all this remarkable fact: in the first year of Francis the Traditionalist cause in America has actually strengthened. True, certain masses sponsored by “fair-weather friends” have been canceled. But other masses and apostolates have taken their places. Certain prelates have taken the opportunity to settle scores with a movement they always disdained. But others have maintained and even expanded the Traditionalist presence. Traditional masses are still spreading to new locations with full official support. The successful modus vivendi of traditional Catholicism with the Church establishment, inaugurated by Summorum Pontificum, has largely continued. For Traditionalists. the loss of papal support has not produced an existential crisis or a rush to “preemptive obedience” (as the Germans call it).

The situation of the conservative Catholics is much more critical. For Pope Francis has radically challenged their core beliefs on the nature of the papacy, on “life issues” and on the economy. Only a minority (of which George Weigel is representative) attempts to uphold the ultramontane cause in its purity, seeking to prove that Francis is no different than Benedict, John Paul II or Paul VI. Other leading spokesmen have lapsed into silence or have vehemently criticized the utterances of the pope’s inner circle (but not those of Francis himself). Predictably, those who have most directly criticized Francis himself have done so for his statements on capitalism and Israel. We do observe, however, that the pro-life movement is continuing in its accustomed course unconcerned about whether they are “obsessing” or not.

We do not know what the future will bring. We do not know what will happen if Francis extends in some way the actions he has taken against the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate to the whole Church. We also have to consider the long-term effect of the endless stream of statements from the Vatican and of potential episcopal appointments as well. My personal view is that Francis’s actions on other fronts (such as on divorce) are likely to precipitate such a crisis in the Church that the relationship with Traditionalists will remain in the background. It would be just as plausible, however, that a Vatican that suffers a reverse on these other issues would respond by retaliating against ”enemies” – of which Traditionalists would be the easiest and safest targets.

Epilogue

So a movement that first arose out of the religious chaos of the post-conciliar years finds itself established as a fixed, if mostly marginal part of the United States Catholic scene. In a way, Pope Francis should be happy with the Traditionalists; their only method of survival and of evangelization has been by means of example. Without the institutional support of the hierarchy, the Catholic educational system or the religious orders, the Traditionalists built a network for themselves. It is growing not receding. In many, if not most places, a working relationship has been established with the institutional Church. And leadership has been handed over to a new generation of clergy, religious and laity. It is a success envied by Traditionalists in most other parts of the world.

Yet there is also a palpable feeling of dissatisfaction. Traditionalists remain the one group of the Roman Catholic Church that can be officially persecuted. The Vatican has assumed once again a position of open hostility. It seems after so many years and so much effort Traditionalists remain on the outside.

Part of the discontent is the pain of honestly facing the reality of the “Conciliar Church”; the dire predictions of the Traditionalists have only been proved so terribly true. This is a Church where the knowledge of religion among the mass of Catholics borders on the nonexistent; where the practice of the overwhelming majority in key areas of morality is hardly distinct from that of the surrounding population. A Church whose hierarchy seems “obsessed” only with material, secular issues and with arranging their comfortable accommodation with the world. A Church where the pope, the Vatican and the bulk of the hierarchy are able to isolate themselves in a fantasy world free both from the obligation of dealing with reality and from accountability for their actions. A Church that expressly rejects the rational and the beautiful, patronizing instead cretinous “movements.” A Church that is on the path to extinction in the developed world.

The unavoidable issue is that, in view of such facts and given its principles, Traditionalism cannot remain the province of a nostalgic few, of a “remnant” or of an elite following a “counsel of perfection.” Traditionalism can be nothing else than how it was described in the subtitle of Latin Mass magazine: a “movement for Catholic reform.” Not a call back to some past which never existed but a rediscovery and reliving, in all its neglected richness and completeness, of the Tradition of the Church. Living completely the liturgical life of the church is necessarily inseparable from adhering to Christian morality and accepting Christian theology.

There is more than enough to do in rebuilding the Church, but isn’t it also clear that Catholic Traditionalism also has important consequences for the life of the Catholic in the world and in this country? Certainly our secular adversaries think so – that is why Pope Benedict faced opposition not just from within the Church but from sovereign states and from Western civil society in general. It is very important to powerful secular forces in the Western world that the progress of the Traditionalist cause be stopped – the Latin mass is a political issue!

What is the next step for the Traditionalists confronted by both the great promise of their movement and the catastrophic situation of the Church today? There have been many heroic laymen and priests in the American Traditionalist movement; there have been many intrepid writers, journalists and, today, bloggers. And there has been an ever-increasing focus on the liturgy in all its perfection. But I believe to get to the next step, to move to being a genuine reform for the whole Church, the Traditionalist movement needs to acquire what ancient Ireland is reputed to have had when it set out to re-evangelize the West: saints and scholars. Let us take that in reverse order.

Scholars are easiest to develop and train. They need to acquire the tools of scholarship in their various fields without becoming a part of the secular academic establishment, which is lethal. Scholars can preserve and present to clergy and laity the riches of Catholic history, philosophy and theology. They can deal squarely with the unpleasant truths of the past and the present, which Catholics make a habit of ignoring. They will counter the normal Catholic response when confronted by difficulties of all kinds: the flight to the irrational, the blind submission to the world or ecclesiastical authorities.

Saints – that is another matter. The crisis of the Church and 16th-century was result in large part through a new generation of Saints. When, in the 1520s, things were at their bleakest, a soldier, Ignatius Loyola, was reading a book of saints while recovering from a war wound. A little while later John Fisher and Thomas More stood virtually alone against the conformism of the hierarchy of an entire kingdom. Later there were many more: like the mystics Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, the great Archbishop of Milan, Charles Borromeo or the apostle of Rome Saint Philip Neri. But saints cannot be “produced” – they can only be given to us.

Is my vision – scholarship and sanctity added to liturgical perfection – not unlike the Benedictine reform of the 6th century onwards? Does not American Traditionalism need more focus on contemplation as opposed to action? I do believe so! But I would also expect that the Traditionalist movement, which has overcome so many difficulties and challenges to reach where it stands today, will enjoy the necessary divine support to continue and perfect its mission – if we only ask and pray for it.

5. The Era of Summorum Pontificum 2007-2013

On July 7, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. For traditionalists it was a vindication and emancipation that would have been scarcely imaginable a few short years before. For now the Traditional liturgy was acknowledged to be a constituent element of the Catholic faith that had not and could not be abrogated. The Traditional liturgy was declared a right of the faithful. They, not the hierarchy and the clergy, were empowered to request and obtain its celebration. Finally, an avenue of appeal to Rome was provided in the (all too likely) case of conflicts with the local hierarchy.

Less obviously revolutionary but perhaps even more significant in the long term was Pope Benedict’s December 22, 2005 discourse on the “hermeneutic of reform in continuity.” By emphasizing the need to understand the “Council” (there seems to be only one in the Church of today) in the light of the entreaty of the tradition and doctrine of the Church Pope Benedict was (undoubtedly unwittingly) calling the whole Conciliar project into question. For isn’t the driving concept of “Vatican II” the imposition on a suppossedly moribund and retrograde Church of the new truths and vitality proceeding from the modern world?

What was the impact of these momentous developments in the United States? Compared to the spirit and even the letter of the new law it was of course limited. If traditionalists expected the hierarchy to take the initiative to make the traditional liturgy broadly available they would be sorely disappointed. In most cases the bishop no longer “got in the way” of local traditionalist initiatives. In the New York area, for example, it was only a few parishes that immediately and fully “implemented” Summorum Pontificum (“SP”). In most cases episcopal monitoring and authorization continued. As one wag put it, under SP the hierarchy finally discovered the Indult. So Charles Chaput, the newly installed archbishop of Philadelphia, made a parish available to traditionalists – while describing SP in exactly the language of the Indult.

Yet even this minimum was of course a dramatic transformation. The traditional mass now reappeared all over the Catholic landscape, resurfacing in locations previously unimaginable: Jesuit universities, any number of cathedrals, campus chapels, churches of religious orders and even in the parishes of the well-to-do. The mainstream Catholic press now actually began to report traditionalist liturgies and events now and did so in a neutral, even respectful tone. Even the institutions of “conservative Catholicism” which only yesterday had been conducting a war of words with traditionalists now opened their doors – at least partially – to the old mass: e.g., Thomas Aquinas College, Ave Maria university.

But it was the change in the quality of the liturgies that was even more significant than the growth in their number. The traditionalists of 2007 did not aim at recreating some past they had never known but wanted to restore the rites of the Catholic Church in all their splendor. The solemn high mass – prior to the Council a rarity and in the Indult era almost nonexistent – now was celebrated often – in a few places even every Sunday. Solemn pontifical masses became al least in the greater New York area almost an annual event. Vespers, which had disappeared from the American scene – at least on the parish level – even before the Council, here and there now sprang back to life. There was, in all these liturgical efforts, a new insistence on perfection and completeness of the ceremonial, the music, the vestments and the very furnishing and arrangeements of the churches.

There was a significant shift in leadership as well. Spearheading the era of SP was a generation of young priests – in contrast with the predominantly lay leadership of all previous phases of the American traditionalist movement and despite the emphasis of SP on the imitative of lay communities. These priests, born years after the Vatican Council, had no knowledge of pre-conciliar times. In many cases they lacked extensive experience of even the Indult era. They were joined by older priests “young at heart” – ordained well after the Council but unacquainted with anything prior to it. Together, it was a generation that had observed for itself what was going on (mostly wrongly) withe Church and had rediscovered tradition through the example of others, through reading or through – let us acknowledge it- the workings of Divine Providence. They now joyfully responded to Pope Benedict’s invitation. An ever-growing number of seminarians also became interested in the traditional mass. Finally, even the mainstream religious orders – a territory which, except for isolated individuals, had remained off limits to conservatism, let alone traditionalism – now participated at least to some extent in the traditionalist revival. Certain of these orders (like the Dominicans) had their own rites which were now celebrated for the first time in decades.

Not that the “traditionalist tradition” of lay leadership had entirely come to an end. On the contrary: SP saw a new generation of Catholic lay organizations arise. Moreover, the stability of these groupings was far greater than that of their “conservative Catholic” counterparts (and traditionalist predecessors) because of their devotion to the objective liturgical tradition of the Church and their strong links with the existing structures of the Church.

The result was a much greater integration of the traditionalist movement in to the day-to-day life of the “American Catholic church.” There was a new willingness to compromise and to work out a modus vivendi of the various liturgical directions within the church. More and more parishes became in effect “bi-ritual” without awakening the divisive ideological debates of the past. Despite much nonsense written at the beginning, it soon became clear that the old and new rites, the old and new calendars could very well coexist. Recourse to Ecclesia Dei was – in number of respects fortunately – not a constant feature of post-SP life in the United States.

The “fruits of Summorum Pontificum” were not long in coming. For example, Saint Mary’s parish in Norwalk, Connecticut offered both the ordinary and the extraordinary forms. But it was the traditional mass around which the life of the parish soon oriented. Terhe soon followed greater involvement of the laity in the life of the parish, its music, its devotions and its liturgies; more frequent reception of the sacrament of confession; and that ultimate criterion of Catholic success, increased amounts in the collection basket. Vocations of course also appeared. The traditional liturgy, far from being a source of division, became a source of unification of a parish otherwise divided into number of isolated communities: Hispanics, Indians, old-time Italian and Irish parishioners etc. A unique and moving measure of success with two recent deathbed testimonies in favor of the traditional liturgy – including the request for a requiem mass – by two prominent parishioners who had had no previous connection with traditionalism until the era of SP. But perhaps the greatest testimony to the success of St. Mary’s under SP is that of all those most directly involved with the work of the parish – the clergy, the ministers, the musicians, the lay volunteers. – only two or so had any experience with the pre-conciliar Church or even any long – term experience of the Indult.

A further benefit of the new regime was the cooling off in the cold war waged by conservative Catholics against the traditionalist movement. Indeed, some prominent publicists of ”Conservative Catholicism” and “Reform of the Reform” increasingly became supporters of the new course. Others, who could not disguise their disagreement with SP, retreated into silence: in keeping with their principles how could they dispute any action taken by the pope?

It will be noted that the era of SP was once more primarily liturgical: the invitation of Pope Benedict to reflect upon the relationship the council to the whole course of Catholic Tradition was not immediately taken up in the United States. Since the fall of Triumph there was no publication or organization exercising intellectual leadership on these shores. The intellectual component of Traditionalism was still overwhelmingly provided by foreign sources – German, French, English and increasingly Italian. But one positive development in all this was the blossoming of the traditionalist Internet scene. Through sites and blogs traditionalists obtained unprecedented access to news of the Church and the intellectual developments abroad. Moreover, in the post SP “era of good feeling” certain key players of the “conservative catholic “ Internet now joined in publicizing traditionalist developments.

Yet all was not sweetness and light. There were disturbing shadows of the past, and, in hindsight, somber forebodings of the future. The implementation of SP was very uneven – the attitude towards the traditional liturgy in many dioceses remained resolutely hostile. Seminarians and members of religious orders regularly faced sanctions for participating in traditional liturgies. It still remained common for such clerics and aspiring clerics to request anonymity if they showed up in the sanctuary. In 2010, a magnificent pontifical liturgy was scheduled at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC. The Archbishop of Washington prevented the participation by the scheduled celebrant, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos. The next year, Archbishop Wuerl forced the cancellation of the scheduled Pontifical liturgy altogether at the last minute. It has not reappeared since. Moreover, towards the end of this period, ti seems that underground the forces opposed to SP were regrouping. For example, the current worldwide crisis in the Franciscan Friars of the immaculate was launched with the key participation of certain US members with the encouragement of certain “conservative Catholic” elements.

That there were also issues with the traditionalist movement itself cannot be denied. A certain lassitude seems to have overtaken many of the traditionalists. Instead of redoubling their efforts and eagerly seizing the incredible opportunities now made available to them to both celebrate the Traditional liturgy and evangelize others, many sat back and let the clergy take over the running of the traditionalist show. This spread of this passive, inwardly focused attitude so typical of mainstream American Catholicism, could only be disastrous for a still marginalized movement like traditionalism. For as subsequent events would show official favor can be a very fleeting thing. It is a sad fact that many promising traditionalist liturgical initiatives had to be abandoned because of lack of participation.

Do we also need to mention that some of the negative organizational features of the Indult era continued? That no publication of a high level existed that would serve to focus traditional Catholics and inform them of developments? That traditionalists continued to be divided into many different groupings under dominating leaders – either lay or clerical? That it was nearly impossible to get these groups to even inform each other of what they’re doing, let alone collaborate and cooperate? These long-standing difficulties remained – yet it was reasonable to hope that they would be worked out in the course of time.

In summary, Traditionalists had indeed accomplished something tremendous. A cause that had been written off as dead and been subjected to the almost universal opposition of the church establishment had been resurrected. And, most importantly, 50 years after the close of the Vatican Council, the traditionalist movement had been handed over to a new generation – one untainted by the complexes and compromises of the past.

4. The Era of the Indult (Part II) 1993-2007

In 1992 Roger McCaffrey launched a new magazine, The Latin Mass. In 1996 the same publisher launched Sursum Corda. The Latin Mass, aimed at traditionalists, concentrated on liturgy and aired broad issues of policy dominated by a pessimistic, critical view of Church and society. Sursum Corda, addressed to Catholic conservatives, emphasized the bright side, devoted much space to concrete initiatives like homeschooling and featured the real or imaginary successes of the contemporary Church. Two publications with the same publisher and editor – what could illustrate better the vast gap that had developed between the worldview of traditionalism and that of conservative Catholicism?

Yet The Latin Mass had much greater significance. It marked the first attempt since the demise of Triumph to create a national forum on a high intellectual level for traditionalism. After the years in “internal exile” and the initial exclusive concentration on resurrecting the liturgy, traditionalists now sought both to consolidate their achievements and return to the “public square.” (using the favorite metaphor of conservative Catholics.)

The locations where traditional indult masses were celebrated continued to steadily increase. Traditional Catholics, however, were no longer satisfied merely with the mass. They wanted all the sacraments now. The drive for all the sacraments actually dates to the first years of the traditionalist revival under the indult. For example, in 1989 the chapel of a well-known university on the East Coast saw the celebration of (supposedly) the first “officially authorized” traditional nuptial mass in the United States since the 1960’s. In a very haphazard manner celebration of the other sacraments in the traditional rite also became available.

This all required increased dialogue with the institutional church. In many places a more harmonious relationship with the local diocese developed. Sitting bishops even celebrated the traditional mass. As time went on, indult traditional Catholicism became in many areas of the United States a part of normal Catholic life: limited in scale but real and accepted.

Further, the Traditional Catholics wanted to establish fully functioning communities and parishes. In this period of consolidation that objective was achieved in a surprising number of locations. In this endeavor the recognized religious congregations – such as those recognized by the Ecclesia Dei commission – began to show their real value. It was one thing for the bishop to disregard the request of some group of laity – it was another matter to disregard the request of an order or community of priests recognized by Rome. In Chicago, for example, the clergy of the parish of St. John Cantius, site of an indult mass, evolved in 1998 into an independent order, the Canons Regular of St John Cantius. The Canons have as their mission “to help Catholics rediscover a profound sense of the sacred through solemn liturgies, devotions, sacred art and sacred music, as well as instruction in Church heritage, catechesis and Catholic culture in the context of parish ministry.” 1) This alone shows the broadening horizons of the traditionalist movement. Ecclesia Dei congregations such as the FSSP, soon joined by the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest by 1995 and then by others, although unable to provide overall direction to the traditionalist movement, were instrumental in establishing what were in reality traditionalist parishes, whatever their technical status in canon law.

This outward turn was manifested in many activities. We have mentioned The Latin Mass magazine. Books of traditionalist authors also found an audience outside the narrow circles of traditionalism itself. American traditionalists ventured out of their country in the early 1990s to join the Chartres pilgrimage in France. Building on this, they created their own pilgrimage to the shrine of the North American martyrs in Auriesville, New York. Several thousand participants witnessed the first solemn mass at the shrine, celebrated at he conclusion of the pilgrimage.

And there were even more spectacular examples of success. On May 12, 1996, a traditional mass was held for the first time in many decades in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City – celebrated by Cardinal Alfons Maria Stickler before a standing-room-only congregation of over 4000. In 2004, The Passion of the Christ, directed by Mel Gibson of the “Trotskyite” (sedevacantist) wing of traditionalism, achieved the greatest national and international success of any religious film in decades.

Towards the end of this period the relationship of traditionalists with conservative Catholics steadily worsened despite (or because of?) this growing institutional and societal recognition. In the course of years and after innumerable reverses and disappointments – we need cite only the hierarchy’s treatment of the founders of EWTN and Ignatius Press – a significant faction among the conservatives adopted a much more conciliatory tone with the Establishment. The sexual abuse crisis would seem to only confirm the dire predictions of conservative Catholics over the years, and some conservatives indeed understood it as such. Others, however, now rallied to the episcopal Establishment, minimizing the extent of the crisis or damning the news media. Conservative Catholic works (like George Weigel’s biography of John Paul II) began to be mentioned with favor in the Vatican at least to the extent they seemed to support the institution. The Legion of Christ was now attempting to organize conservative Catholics particularly in the homeschooling movement, through Regnum Christi. And this developing reconciliation with the Establishment and its policies also lead to some interesting interactions with the conservatives’ mortal enemy, the progressives. (consider the 2005 book on Opus Dei commissioned by them from John Allen of the NCR)

It was in this context that the internet appeared on the scene. It would have revolutionary consequences for the ability of Catholics to communicate with each other outside of the progressive news media or what purported to be the official Catholic press. As could be expected, conservative Catholics were initially more active in utilizing the new medium. Partly as a consequence of the arrival of the internet and the unrestrained discourse of of some of the conservative “players,” however, the dislike of leading conservatives for traditional Catholics grew to something that could only be called hatred.

There were other concerns for traditionalists in what otherwise could be taken as an era of maturity and consolidation. Traditionalists remained very much a tolerated minority in most dioceses, subject to close supervision. In certain places – including the chapels of several conservative Catholic colleges – the traditional mass continued to be barred altogether; in others the Ecclesia Dei congregations remained excluded. The Establishment saw to it that the 1996 mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral was never repeated. The Latin Mass magazine eventually merged with Sursum Corda. After coming under new management it remained a solid publication but no longer aspired to provide any overall leadership.

The growing “normality” of traditionalism also regrettably meant that some of the worst ills of the contemporary Church made their appearance in the traditionalist world. If we consider the “Society of St. John” traditionalist (organized in 1998 – they used the 1965 missal) we see how the abuse scandals could intrude into traditionalism and have the same devastating impact as in the “conciliar Church.”

In view of all this, is it surprising that towards the end of the era under consideration, certain traditionalists started to waver? Several traditionalist spokesmen moved over to sedevacantism – a temptation perhaps stronger in the United States than elsewhere in the world. In a sense, sedevacantism was a return to the pre-indult “ghetto” to preserve an imaginary purity. Paradoxically it also reveals, though, the underlying traditionalist dissatisfaction with entire indult regime of “tolerance,” however great the accomplishments under it had been. The Latin Mass magazine had described itself as a “chronicle of a catholic reform.” Perhaps most American traditionalists were still unable to articulate their principles and aims that clearly. But traditionalism, consciously or not, was on the point of awakening to serve as a potential influence for change for the entire Church.

1) http://www.canons-regular.org/go/about/

3. The Era of the Indult (Part I) 1985-1993

We have seen that the so-called “Traditionalists” of the United States had had very little influence on the course of the defense of Tradition in the world. But prompted by events in Europe, the Vatican had executed a remarkable about–face. It had extended permission to celebrate the old Roman Rite once again. Initially, by its very terms the permission was grudging. The local interpretations were even more restrictive. Later, Ecclesia Dei indicated a more generous policy.

Now although they had not done much to bring about this new situation, American Catholics were among the most active worldwide in taking advantage of it. They were aided by the prevailing spirit of the Americaan hierarchy, which, although hostile, generally lacked the hard ideological edge found in France or Germany. The practical work of establishing traditional mass apostolates also appealed to Americans. Whatever the cause, the effects were remarkable. By the end of this period a very substantial portion of the American population had available to it a traditional mass – at least if we define “available“ as meaning being subject to a drive of two hours or more.

These early masses were often adventures. Who, for example, of those who attended can forget that first “authorized” traditional mass in New York City, at St. Ann’s? Deliberately placed in an out-of the–way parish early Saturday afternoon (so no Sunday requirements could be fulfilled), this first mass nevertheless attracted a large crowd. Those who had shown up found that the Archdiocese had prohibited the mass at the last minute. But eventually that mass did take place on a subsequent Saturday and despite the adverse circumstances celebrations continued in this church for many years afterwards.

The locations and times of these indult masses usually were selected to discourage attendance. The bishop would settle upon a church located in an unattractive or even dangerous part of town. Perhaps the ultimate expression of these policies was the indult mass authorized in a chapel on the truly haunted grounds of the largely abandoned state insane asylum of Wingdale, New York. If the location was in a more normal parish setting, the very existence of the traditional liturgies was concealed – indult masses were usually not listed in parish bulletins. If the mass could be celebrated on Sunday at all, the afternoon would almost inevitably be the only available slot.

The quality of these celebrations often left something to be desired. The norm was the low mass. If possible music would be added sometimes performed by a solo male vocalist just like in pre-conciliar funerals. So much could be expected. What was unexpected was the restoration of the Traditional liturgy in a completeness and magnificence far surpassing what had been the norm prior to the Council. Organizations and churches like the St. Gregory Society (New Haven) and St. John Cantius (Chicago) strove for liturgies with music on a professional level and exactness of ritual (now and then even including the solemn Mass). How did this come about?

Perhaps the main reason was generational change. Traditionalists were of course disappointed that the indult had so little resonance among the general Catholic population. The twenty-year war of the Establishment against Catholic Tradition had been successful to this extent: most Catholics had no interest in the Traditional liturgy. Indeed, only a steadily declining percentage had any interest in the mass or the Church at all. But from the very beginning of the indult it was not just old-timers who were behind the return of the Latin Mass, but a younger generation, which could but dimly recall the pre-conciliar era – if they were old enough to have had any experience of those times at all. Students, musicians, converts and young priests – they had rediscovered the Traditional faith – with God’s help of course – on their own. If they were to celebrate the Traditional mass, they reasoned, it should be as perfect as possible. They rejected the shortcuts and compromises that had become all too prevalent in parish use prior to 1965. And with each year the number of these newcomers to Tradition and the perfection of the services increased as well. So from the very beginning of the indult it has been ludicrous to talk about “nostalgia” as the motivating factor of Traditionalists (the party line of the Establishment and the Vatican).

Moreover, in the wake of Ecclesia Dei in 1988 the Traditionalists received reinforcement in the form of a recognized religious community dedicated to Tradition yet in good standing with Rome – the Fraternity of St. Peter. It had broken away from the FSSPX over their ordination of bishops. The arrival of the FSSP meant that the number of churches where the liturgy was celebrated in its fullness would steadily increase. Regrettably, the FSSP, riven by internal dissension and ideological conflicts, proved unable to fulfill its potential role as unifier and organizer of American Traditionalist efforts. Perhaps we see here also the continuation of an “American way” of organization: the FSSPX likewise had failed to organize the Traditionalists just as Opus Dei (and all the other “ ecclesial movements”) had failed to mobilize the ”conservatives.”

For the work of restoring Tradition rested upon a myriad of individual priests and laity, local groups and societies. Una Voce served as a helpful umbrella organization for some – by no means all – of these efforts of liturgical entrepreneurs and independent local chapters. Traditionalism in the United States truly was a grass-roots effort dominated by the laity. Its weakness was the divorce from the institutional Church and the absence of any legal rights. Indult masses remained a mere gesture of tolerance subject to the arbitrary discretion of each bishop or individual pastor. For example, a new indult mass was established in 2005 in Saint Mary’s Stamford (near New York). It gained a following even leading to the celebration of a solemn pontifical mass. By early 2007, the pastor had changed and the mass was terminated by the middle of that year. (Of course, in many places this situation de facto continues to the present day – compare the recent experiences at Our Saviour’s in New York or at St. John’s Stamford.)

Despite all the defects and limitations, the indult regime had transformed the Catholic Traditionalist movement. Before the indult, American Traditionalism, with the exception of the FSSPX, had been largely a theoretical discussion forum. After the indult it concentrated almost exclusively on the practical task of making the Traditional liturgy available – with a great deal of success, all things considered. The achievement was attributable in large part to concentrating on the “single issue” of the liturgy – and ignoring most of the other myriad problems afflicting the Church.

For the “conservatives,” the balance was much more mixed. It had seemed that with the election of the “Polish Pope” John Paul II the Church had finally acquired a leader to their own taste. Certainly John Paul II’s participation in the events leading up to collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989-91 fulfilled the wildest dreams of the conservatives. But in the area of church government, as opposed to secular foreign policy, the record of John Paul II was much more controversial. No matter what actions the conservatives took, their “dissenting” foes in the hierarchy and the religious orders remained untouched and in good standing. It was the same in the matter of new appointments: for every O’Connor or Law there was a Bernardin or Mahony.

But the conservatives’ greatest failure was in liturgy. In the name of authority, they (or the minority among them which was interested in such topics) sallied forth against the Establishment and the liberals to challenge communion in the hand and altar girls – only to have the Vatican pull the rug out from under their feet. In contrast to the conservatives’ insistence on loyalty to a fixed liturgical text, the Vatican and the Establishment made clear that the Novus Ordo would remain a “work in progress” where change would come about through the implementation of a new praxis regardless of any texts or rules. At the other end of the spectrum, the coming of the indult – wholly unexpected by the conservatives – destroyed overnight most interest in the use of Latin in the Novus Ordo. In view of these developments the liturgical focus of the conservatives shifted from strict construction to reform of the reform. It now was conceded that there were indeed problems in the current liturgy that needed correction; there was, however, no agreement on what those corrections should be.

I had undertaken earlier to sketch out the broad outlines of a history of the Catholic Traditionalism in the United States; how it arose and where it stood at the present day. In the press of events I had to set this work aside. Now, when I turn to it again I find a new and radically different context. In February 2012 we were working out the questions regarding the implementation of Summorum Pontificum under Pope Benedict XVI. In March 2014 the Benedictine era has passed and Pope Francis has instituted a systematic recommitment to the polices and rhetoric of the 1960’s. In the United States – as opposed to Italy and Germany – this “Francis Effect” still remains mostly verbal. Nevertheless, this new situation makes all the more important that a younger generation understands better the development of Catholic Traditionalism in this country. For those crises and conflicts we thought in 2012 to have been superseded may well recur!

2. The Era of “Conservative Catholicism”: 1975-1985

We have seen how the forces of Tradition in the Catholic Church of the United States appeared routed by 1975. No support had been found in the Church Establishment. Very few practical alternatives to the tidal wave of conciliar reform ever had been offered; and the mouthpiece of the resistance movement, Triumph, had folded ignominiously. Yet it was at this moment that a new rival to the “orthodox” forces of Establishment took on definite form. It was the start of the era of “Conservative Catholicism.”

Now the movement dates back well before 1975. We could cite the split in the Matt family between the “factions” of The Wanderer and The Remnant in the late 1960’s. The reaction of Brent Bozell and the editors of Triumph to Humanae Vitae could be another point of departure. And, speaking of Bozell, his – pre-conciliar! – breakup with Bill Buckley and National Review already illustrated fundamental differences between “Traditional“ and “Conservative” Catholicism. Similarly, new manifestations of “Conservative Catholicism” continued to appear well after 1985 – for example, First Things, its most representative forum, dates from 1990. Yet it was in the second post-conciliar decade that the conservatives developed into a coherent force and their key institutions and leaders appeared.

In contrast to Traditionalism, conservative Catholics “accepted” unconditionally the Council and the new Mass (at least initially!). Entirely consistently, they also adopted as their own the “modern world” and specifically the “American Experiment.” Yet at the same time they did not have many good things to say about the actual government of the American polity nor (at least at this early stage), the leadership of the Church in the United States as well. How had this unhappy situation come about? It was the fault of “dissident” forces within the Church: liberals and radicals who had rejected that Papal authority which still provided a sure guiding light and to which conservatives always appealed – both in theory and often in actual practice. The crisis of the Church was in essence a crisis of obedience. (Mgr. George Kelly) Regardless of whatever else was being done or said, following blindly the Pope and the Vatican was the only course to take in a time of confusion.

Now in fact the positions of conservative Catholics were very diverse, reflecting the absence of any central doctrine or authority. While some restricted their loyalty to the Papacy and critiqued and even confronted “dissenting” prelates, others (like Catholics United for the Faith) proclaimed a duty of blind obedience to all bishops or even to all priests. Some celebrated what they considered the continuing successes of the Establishment, while others, like The Wanderer, were so severe in their criticism of the “American Catholic Church” to be at times barely distinguishable from the Traditionalist untouchables. Figures like Fr. Bruce Ritter were proclaimed “conservatives” simply for opposing abortion or pornography (a view shared by the secular news media).

The political and economic views of the conservatives were also not at all monolithic. Most, however, forcefully defended American capitalism against “liberal” and socialist critics. Most took a firm anti-communist stance, whether confronting the continuing threat of the Soviet Union (and opposing, for example, the American Church’s flirtation with disarmament) or pro-socialist tendencies in the Catholic Church itself (like liberation theology). Above all, they concentrated on “life issues”: preeminently, opposition to abortion.

As the 70’s and 80’s progressed the religious conservatives started to acquire their own literature (e.g., Mgr. George A. Kelly’s Battle for the American Church) and leaders (George Weigel, Richard Neuhaus among many others). They erected new colleges like Thomas Aquinas or Christendom. New magazines came into being: Human Life Review (1975), Crisis in Catholicism (1982), First Things (1990) – in addition to already existing conservative-friendly publications like National Review, Homiletic and Pastoral Review or The Wanderer. And there was of course a plethora of new organizations, including the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Catholics United for the Faith, Human Life International and many more – often with Latin names (Regnum Christi). Some of the creations of this era, like Ignatius Press or EWTN, were truly amazing accomplishments – especially when one considers their founders faced the Hierarchy’s indifference and often active opposition.

On the liturgical front, the conservatives accepted the Novus Ordo as an article of faith. They could not, however, ignore the massive liturgical abuses – which showed no sign of abating. In this early period the conservatives’ response was strict construction of the liturgical texts. Careful examination of the liturgical legislation would reveal that many abuses had no foundation, while other practices that had been proscribed (like use of the Latin language, chant or celebration ad orientem) were specifically allowed. It was on this basis that organizations like the Latin Mass Society (in the United States, dedicated to the use of Latin in the Novus Ordo) started promoting the return of Latin to the liturgy.

So at least the Latin language had returned – even if generally in out-of-the-way locations (like the former parish of Our Lady of Vilna in New York City) or only at irregular intervals. In these services Catholics struggled to restore the church’s liturgical and artistic heritage to the Novus Ordo and to purge it of abuses. In at least one or two locations even regular parishes were established. But experience soon showed the difficulty of the endeavor. The Establishment was indifferent to the would-be restorers of the liturgy. The inherent flexibility of the Novus Ordo meant that a significant degree of unpredictability remained an ineradicable feature of all these celebrations. Eccentricity prevailed among the celebrants, congregations and sponsoring organizations. There was no universally accepted point of reference – like the Oratory in the UK.

What was the result of these conservative efforts? Many important social and ecclesiastical initiatives were supported and many moral causes promoted. For example, it was increasingly to the credit of the conservatives that the Catholic Church remained a critical player in the prolife cause – after the Hierarchy had gotten cold feet, having realized that this issue was driving a wedge between them and American civil society. The conservatives had put the spotlight on certain issues – like child abuse and the “lavender mafia” – decades before the secular press – let alone progressive Catholic publications – had perceived anything was amiss. The conservatives and their new institutions preserved for a whole new generation of Catholics something of the theological, liturgical and moral teachings of the Church.

Yet the failings and missed opportunities were at least as great. First, the leadership of conservative organizations and associations showed from the beginning an alarming tendency to self-destruct either morally, theologically or both. This became an increasingly serious liability, given that the usual organizational form of these groups was absolute rule of a charismatic authoritarian individual. Second, except for a minority of individual priests, bishops and small orders, conservatives acquired no following in the institutional Church. Indeed, they aroused berserk rage to the extent they publicly criticized prelates, attempted to go over the heads of certain bishops to nuncios or the Vatican, or just declined to join in the official Catholic press’s hosannas to the Establishment. Archbishop Weakland’s memoirs offer eloquent testimony of this. The only commentary acceptable to the Hierarchy was from a Catholic left having political and social connections the bishops both feared and secretly envied.

Third, the conservatives’ notion that the Vatican was on their side was delusional. Would the Vatican discipline the very prelates it had appointed – usually with the advice or at the instigation of the existing team? At most a limited outward conformity was imposed. While isolated elements of the conservatives’ rhetoric might be welcome now and then in Rome, in no way did the Vatican support any kind of systematic renewal or restoration in the conservative sense. Usually for the gentlemen in the Vatican it was more matter of navigating between various individuals, forces and trends without any attempt (or ability?) to impose reform. At all times the Vatican set greater store on Notre Dame University than Thomas Aquinas – and Harvard was more important to them than either! And the conservatives‘ economic and political program had even less resonance in Rome. It was tragic then, that the Catholic conservatives, the would-be “party of the establishment” were in fact themselves the “dissenters!”

Finally, an even more significant, if more subtle, problem was inherent in Catholic conservatism. Compared to the isolated fantasy world that prevailed in the Church Establishment, it might seem the conservatives were hardheaded realists. Yet despite all the criticism of the state of the Church and the relentless activity in so many apostolates, at the end of the day conservatism fostered the conviction that, at least at the very top level, all was well with the Church. At least the Pope has a plan and we can wait for him and his bishops to implement it – so they assumed – assisting when needed. A pervasive sense of complacency was the inevitable result. Problems continued to be ignored and arbitrary assumptions and wishful thinking substituted for facts. Meanwhile the destruction of the Church at every level proceeded – we have seen the fruits in the last 25 years.

We may ask ourselves how the conservatives differed from the phenomenon of what were later called the “movements:” organizations, often led by the laity, which departed from the traditional Catholic paradigm of the religious order. Indeed there arose at this time in the US at least one home-grown “movement” – Miles Jesu – that might be assigned to the conservative camp. Yet the differences remained great. First, while the conservatives were, on the whole, economic and social conservatives as well, that could only be said of a minority of the movements. Second, while the conservatives, certainly in this period, pursued a policy of open criticism of the American church, the movements had from the beginning made cultivating the favor of the Hierarchy a key element of their plans. Third, there seems to be some instinctive lack of resonance of the movement concept in American conservatism. In the early 80’s Opus Dei organized at least one conference featuring conservative greats but as far as I am aware never repeated this initiative. The Legion stood aloof – it was only much later that it tried through Regnum Christi to organize some of the conservative forces for its own benefit. The other movements didn’t have a meaningful presence In the US. The result was that no one organization was able to give overall direction and focus to the conservative efforts.

Now what of the “Traditionalists?”

It was at this time that a branch of the FSSPSX was set up in the United States just a few years after the start of Archbishop Lefebvre’s seminary in Switzerland. It was a revolutionary step – a group of Traditional Catholics acknowledged that the crisis of the church has assumed such a magnitude that action even independent of the Hierarchy was justified. This meant seminaries, schools, chapels, and monasteries both purely Traditional and independent of the Institutional Church. It was, in retrospect, an amazing step. Perhaps, in the American context, its greatest significance lies in the concept of a state of emergency: it seemed that among all the Catholic factions – liberal, conservative or progressive – only the FSSPX had a sense of urgency, the instinct that catastrophe loomed unless action were taken.

This was perhaps the right course – yet in practical terms the impact of the FSSPX in the United States was limited. In a way it was absurd to expect such an ecclesiastical “civil disobedience” movement to flourish in a country that was the very homeland of blind obedience to the clergy. But there were also early crises of the Society that couldn’t just be ascribed to the uniquely inhospitable environment of the United States. For example, the departure of 9 priests in 1983 to form the sedevacantist Society of Pius V – and later other sedevacantist groups- revealed significant internal policy tensions within the FSSPX. So the FSSPX – after these early struggles – continued to steadily grow, adding new chapels and schools over the years. What it could not do, however, was act as any kind of general rallying point for Traditionalists in the United States – just as the none of the “movements” could do the same for the conservatives. While the European parent almost immediately created a critical challenge for both the French church and the Vatican, the American branch of the FSSPX could be safely ignored.

And the other Traditionalists – the “Uniate” ones?

These years were indeed the “winter of (their) discontent.” Aside from a few individual priests, no other Traditional masses were being celebrated. Publications like The Remnant helped publicize contributions mainly from Europe (Michael Davies). A variety of groups like the “Roman Forum” in the New York helped keep the cause alive. In addition to European visitors, contributors included Triumph veterans and a few new faces (John Rao). It was at this time that Una Voce organized on these shores – its initial contribution was more talk and little else. Yet all these activities helped maintain awareness of what was happening elsewhere in the world and kept the seemingly absurd hope alive that the Traditional cause one day would be restored. It was a struggle for survival.

It was in this closed, asphyxiating environment that the letter Quattor Abhinc Annos (3 October 1984) and even more so the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988) hit like bombshells. The “indult” regime, authorizing the celebration of the Traditional mass, was born. It was an extraordinary change – something both Catholic progressives and the conservative Catholics had said was impossible. Yet American traditionalists had had precious little to do in bringing it about. It was a victory attributable to the efforts of other men in other countries.

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….