At least one location is operating subject to a restriction which I believe to be unique in the Catholic Church:

Source: Latin Mass Directory

(Thanks to Le Forum Catholique)

Peter Seewald has given a remarkable Interview published in Kath.net.  The original is to be found here; an English translation here. What is remarkable, first of all, is the man who is speaking. We have reviewed several books by Peter Seewald, written in collaboration with Benedict XIV ( posted here and here). Those of you who have read them know that I have had serious reservations regarding Peter Seewald’s books. He and Benedict tried to continue the party line of the Church establishment: within the Church all is peace, unity and continuity of policy. Here and there in his most recent biography of Pope Benedict, however, Seewald could no longer follow this course. And in this new interview he definitively breaks with it.

Seewald declares that the floodgates have opened! He describes the radical break the policies of Francis represent with those of his predecessors Benedict and John Paul. He details the insults and contemptuous treatment meted it out by Francis to Benedict, Mueller, Gänswein – the list is a long one. He frankly describes the incompetence and worse of Francis’s associates: McCarrick, Danneels and most recently Victor Fernandez.  And he frankly faces the potentially apocalyptic consequences of the pope’s current course of action.

I would single out the emphasis Seewald gives to Pope Francis’s attack on the traditional liturgy – he rightly considers Summorum Pontificum a key achievement of the Benedictine papacy. This passage of the interview is even more remarkable because as recently as 2020 Seewald himself seemed completely unaware of the significance of that motu proprio. 1)

All this is a remarkable change in direction – from a would-be member of the establishment, if a conservative one, to an outspoken critic of it. We have seen over the years numerous other examples, however: Daniel Mahoney, Aldo Maria Valli and even George Weigel. The confrontational radicalism of Francis’s course is driving an ever-greater number of potential allies into the opposition.  A major role in Seewald’s “conversion” is the death of his long-term interview partner, Pope Benedict, which obviously frees him from the constraints imposed by Benedict’s reverence for the Council and the Church establishment.

Of course, it is equally remarkable that this interview appears on Kath.net, a “conservative” Austrian site that has desperately striven to maintain relations of some kind with the German Church and the papacy of Francis – and to distinguish themselves from the traditionalists. They too may have reached the end of the rope. 

Of course, some observers had seen the dam breaking 10 years ago. Seewald rightly says that Francis “from the first day of his pontificate sought to distance himself from his predecessor”  – an insight that Pope Benedict and Seewald repeatedly denied for ten years in their jointly published works.  Nevertheless, “better late than never!”  I will welcome more contributions from the now unleashed Peter Seewald based on his extensive contact with Ratzinger over the decades. 

1. Seewald, Peter, Benedikt XIV. Ein Leben at 872-76 (Droemer Verlag, Munich, 2020)

The weekly Saturday 8 am Missa Cantata at St. Roch’s Church in Greenwich, CT, has been removed from the church sanctuary and will be celebrated in the gymnasium of the school building next door, starting this Saturday (assuming Bishop Caggiano gives permission this week). The pastor and celebrant, Fr. Carl McIntosh, is following the directive of Bishop Caggiano.

As Attorney General Merrick Garland targets pro-lifers, Pope Francis takes aim at trads.

In an article in The American Conservative (1) Nora Kenney examines the parallels between the developing persecution of pro-life activists and Catholic traditional groups by the United States government and the ongoing war against traditionalists waged by Pope Francis and the Vatican.

Such coverage of the FBI crackdown on traditional Catholics has, however, been somewhat misleading. Despite the document’s shoddily sourced contents, the real government crackdown is not on those Catholics who attend the Latin Mass, but on those who still adhere to traditional Church teachings on bioethics and sexual morality. Of the groups mentioned in the FBI’s now-infamous document, only a handful actively promote the Latin Mass over the Novus Ordo—yet all are outspoken in their support of traditional Catholic reproductive ethics and rejection of contraception and abortion.

To make matters trickier for those targeted by the document, traditional Catholics will soon represent some of the only voices in American public life who still defend such values.

All of this is not to say that antipathy to the traditional Latin Mass doesn’t exist and that all the public wrath is simply abortion-related. Latin Mass antipathy does exist. It’s just that it’s not coming from the government. 

It is coming from within the Church’s own hierarchy. Even if they wanted to, federal officials could never stem the celebration of the Latin Mass as effectively as Pope Francis can.

I do have a reservation regarding Kenney’s citation here of Ross Douthat for a classic statement of the “middle-between-two-extremes” self-understanding of establishment Catholicism. Ross Douthat claims the Vatican is engaged in a two front-war: crushing Traditionalists but trying more gently to restrain the German Church. Stated in this manner, Douthat’s characterization is blatantly false. Francis is not waging any kind of war againt the German Church. He obviously agrees with some or all of the objectives of the German Synodal Path; he disagrees with the mode of implementation the Germans are pursuing. But the pope clearly understands that the continuing radical push forward of the Germans creates the danger of rallying those forces within the Church opposed to the Germans’ theological and moral agenda. A reaction that eventually might turn against his own policies. Therefore, the pope doesn’t confront the Germans but seeks to co-opt their movement – which has the effect of spreading it throughout the Church worldwide.

Similarly, Kenney has identified that the Pope’s war againt traditionalism is increasingly running ino passive resistance:

But in America, muted signs of hope for those Catholics who favor the centuries-old liturgy persist. Quietly, bishops across the U.S. are turning a blind eye to some of the restrictive demands of Traditionis Custodes, and in some cases, even celebrating the Latin Mass with local traditional parishes.

This is fortunate for the continued existence of Catholicism in this country:

These Church leaders seem to understand a finding [Mary]Eberstadt emphasizes in her book (Adam and Eve After the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution – SC) namely that a “strict church is a strong church”—that social science proves unequivocally that churches that adhere to strict teachings and resist the urge to devolve into “Christianity Lite” are the only ones that survive in decadent ages.

In May, Pope Francis called these (Traditionalist) Catholics symptomatic of “a nostalgic disease.” But for those who hope for holy, orthodox, diverse priests who can offer spiritual guidance and inspiration as Garland tightens the screws on pro-life Americans, we can only hope the disease spreads.

1. Kenney, Nora, “Cops and Popes and Latin Mass,“ The American Conservative (6/3/2023)

I have not been directly commenting on the developments that have been afflicting traditionalists. Partly, because I can draw on no privileged sources of information. Partly, because I could add little to the many eloquent testimonials and analyses readily available to all. Finally, because of the sheer volume of materials emerging as the war against both the Traditional Mass and the Catholic faith engulfs the whole Church. For example, I have not yet been able to read any of the books that saw the light of day at the end of last year: by Gänswein, by the late Pope Benedict, etc. But let me now summarize briefly the current situation – all of which should be familiar to our readers  – and add some personal comments.  

Indisputably, the Church is entering a dramatic and tragic time. In Germany, and not just there, the synodal path is reaching a decisive phase. A major church like Germany may imminently adopt doctrines and a constitution incompatible with the basic tenets of Catholicism. A schism will arise –  that is, unless Pope Francis expressly or silently endorses the German decisions. But that will create an even greater crisis!  Already, outside of Germany, bishops are publicly accusing other bishops  of teaching heresy. (In fact, of course, they have been teaching it for a long time! ). Throughout the Church, the prevalence doctrinal confusion regarding the most fundamental principles of Christian morality is devastating and disheartening.

As for traditionalism, with the rescriptum of February 2023 Francis redoubled his commitment to his flagging war against Catholic tradition. Indeed, in some respects the impact of this document was greater than anything else issued since Traditionis Custodes itself. Although basically it is republishing and endorsing a document from 2021,  the rescriptum demonstrates  beyond the shadow of the doubt the “steely determination” (Christopher Lamb) of Francis to eliminate Catholic traditionalism. Rumors continue about further documents to be  issued,  this time perhaps targeting the Ecclesia Dei institutes. We have not yet seen anything authoritative in this regard.  However, reputable observers have pointed out that the rumors seem very specific, and, in the case of Francis, one cannot exclude any action at any time. All of this is happening  – or is rumored to shortly happen – in the so-called “Holy Season” of Lent and Eastertide. 

Here in our own New York neighborhood, we see in some dioceses traditional mass after mass being terminated without explanation or even the courtesy of a notice. In some cases, the faithful are exiled to a school gymnasium or chapel. It is a perfect image of the hatred Francis and most of his bishops have for the traditionalist faithful. In other dioceses,  however, quiet still prevails on the liturgical front.

The “optics” of these actions are terrible. Coming so soon after the death of Pope Benedict, the pope’s and the Church’s deeds confirm the self-understanding of the “conciliar” Church as totally breaking  with the past – not just of the Church prior to the Council, but even of that which existed under John Paul II and Benedict as well.  The suspicion of a personal vendetta also naturally arises. And all this is occurring amid a never-ending series of outrageous sexual and financial scandals at the Vatican and at the level of the national churches: France, Germany, the UK , Portugal…. Do I need to add that all the objective indicia of the life of the Church (the level of religious practice, vocations, financial resources, etc.) indicate disastrous decline? Yet the Pope and most bishops pursue their anti-Traditionalist war and “synod on synodality” completely indifferent to the storm clouds enveloping the Church. Is it any wonder that, even in the camp of the progressives, Massimo Faggioli speaks of “paralysis” and Cardinal Kaspar opines:

The Church is in a very profound crisis. It is indisputable that we can’t continue as before. But how the future of the Church will look in detail – none of us knows. 1)

Yet, on the local level the traditionalist priests and faithful carry on. They continue the basic apostolate of traditionalism: to celebrate the Latin mass and, if they can,  the other sacraments. I do not see the slightest evidence of despair, conformism, or susceptibility to any possible reeducation programs. Yes, it is a bitter blow to leave churches that the traditionalists in some cases had refurbished at great cost;  to experience contempt and rejection by bishops with whom they had made every effort to remain on good terms. It is especially tragic for the young priests who cannot celebrate the sacraments in the form they love.

Ten years ago, I asked: how would American traditionalists respond if the Church renewed the persecution of the 1960s and 1970s? So far, the answer has been clear:  the faithful are continuing the practice of the traditional Catholic faith, are forging links with other traditionalists and even, where it is the only option available, taking measures to survive underground.  I have no doubt that the Traditionalist movement will survive and even be strengthened by these trials. Was this not the experience of the Church in the 3rd century under the declining Roman Empire when the great persecutions of Decius and Diocletian took place? 

In this situation when everything seems to be in flux, and conflict and confusion reign, the Catholic must not succumb to fear.  Pope Francis and his minions rule by fear: the fear of the actions they may take,  of the statements they may make,  of the men they may appoint. The fear and confusion are compounded by the lack of transparency that, regrettably, still prevails in the Roman Catholic Church at all levels: in the Vatican, the dioceses, and the individual parishes. But nevertheless, we cannot yield to fear. I have been privileged to meet and hear the testimony of witnesses –  such as the late Cardinal Pell –  who have resolutely encountered similar or greater storms. Traditionalism – which, after all,  is nothing but the simple practice of the Catholic Faith in its fullest – has survived many things.  It will survive this onslaught.

At the Society of Saint Hugh of Cluny,  we remain committed to the cause confirmed by Pope Benedict with Summorum Pontificum. You may have recently noticed that after the lengthy hiatus caused by the COVID measures the Society has finally reemerged, sponsoring masses and lectures. It may be that we will not be able to report on things as openly as we did in the past. It may be that our sponsorships will need to be made quietly.  And I don’t want to make any guesses as to when and how this extraordinary crisis of the Church may end. Rest assured, however, that this apostolate will continue in the firm hope of a better day.

1. Ring-Eifel, Ludwig, “Kardinal Kasper: Synodaler Weg wird sich nicht durchsetzen,” katholisch.de (3/5/2023)

UPDATE: I have provided some additional details based on a conversation with someone who participated in the bishop’s Zoom call.

We are informed that last week Bishop Frank Caggiano of the Bridgeport diocese held a Zoom conference with those who attend the Traditional Latin Mass at St. Marguerite Bourgeoys parish. The priest who celebrated that mass, Fr. Donald L. Kloster, has been removed from the diocese (Bishop Caggiano claims he left voluntarily). The traditionalist faithful and their Mass are also to be removed from the parish to a new location – in a school gymnasium in Danbury ( located relatively close to Brookfield).

I can find no record of these rather significant events on the parish website or bulletin, other than the disappearance, over two successive weeks in February, of (1) the name of Father Kloster from the parish staff; and (2) the Latin Mass from the list of services. I am also informed that atttendance at the Traditional Mass had increased from 4 or so in early 2021 (when it started) to, most recently, 100-150 each Sunday. Several vocations have emerged from this congregation. About 35 participated in the Zoom call (given the way it was publicized, that’s not surprising (see below)) – about 50 had attended Fr. Kloster’s farewell dinner.

We are informed that the bishop also expressed in some way his “concern” for those who attend three other diocesan Traditional Masses, notably, that at St. Mary (Norwalk). He stated he will be organizing a similar call with the parishioners of St Mary’s. His concluding words were “Please pray for the parishioners of St. Mary, Norwalk.”

(Below) This is the notice put in the pews for the Zoom call with Bishop Caggiano:

We are informed that the Traditional Mass at Holy Family church in Little Falls, New York (Diocese of Albany) has been terminated, effective immediately. No notice was given.

UPDATE:

The Catholic News Agency has now covered this story providing more details:

Effective immediately, parish churches in the diocese are prohibited from celebrating the Latin Mass in accordance with the “Missale Romanum” of 1962, according to a statement from the diocese. 

“In light of the rescript, which the Vatican sent last week, the celebration of the Usus Antiquior [Traditional Latin Mass] is currently on hold in parish churches in the Albany Diocese,” the diocese noted in a statement provided to CNA. “As we explore various possibilities, the Usus Antiquior can continue at Our Lady of Martyrs Shrine in Auriesville, which is not a parish church in the diocese.”

(A Carmelite church in Albany is also not affected by this decree)

Holy Family Parish in Little Falls, which offered the Latin Mass at noon on Sundays and at 8 a.m. on Wednesdays, cannot celebrate the ancient form of the Mass for the time being. St. Ann’s Church in Fort Ann, which offered the Latin Mass on certain weekdays, was also informed it can no longer celebrate this form of the Mass.

Arnold, Tyler, “Albany Diocese limits Latin Masses following new guidance from the Vatican,” Catholic News Agency (2/27/2023)

So reads the title of a Christmas Eve article in The New York Post:

Zito, Salena, “A New Generation of Catholics discovers Latin Mass 60 years after Vatican II,” The New York Post, 12/24/2022

The article is highly favorable to what it calls (without articles) “Latin Mass.” We meet two young families who have recently committed to Catholic Traditionalism. They state that they were attracted to the Traditional Mass both for its beauty and intellectual content. They attend Mass in Pittsburgh but the article is illustrated by photos of Holy Innocents parish in New York City. The article mentions how Traditional Mass communities are often found in such old, elaborately beautiful churches built by the Catholic immigrant congregations.

We learn that attendance at Traditional Masses has actually increased since the pandemic – confirming our impressions and actual data.

But the traditional Latin Mass never completely vanished; today of the 17,000 Catholic parishes in the United States 592 of them perform the extraordinary form in Latin — including at least six in New York City and four (including Most Precious Blood) in Western Pennsylvania.

This robust growth isn’t just taking  place in Pittsburgh—it’s happening nationwide. A recent survey by Crisis Magazine, an independent journal covering Catholicism and Catholic issues, revealed a marked increase in TLM attendance since the beginning of the pandemic.

The author of the article does try to give a fair description of the beauty and reverence of the Traditional Mass – although she seems obsessed with the position of the celebrant. Regrettably, the article also features some inexact descriptions, misunderstandings and outright errors:

The practice of Latin Mass, which was abolished some six decades ago by the Second Vatican Council, features a priest with his back turned away from the congregation. (Caption to a photograph)

Dating back to at least the 15th century, Latin Mass is rich, mysterious, strictly arranged and (as its name suggests) conducted entirely in Latin.

Rather than facing his congregants, for instance, the priest conducts the mass with his back to them. He’s facing the Eucharist—the symbolic body and blood [of] Christ himself and the central act of Christian worship.

 Last year, the Argentine-born pontiff described Latin Mass as “divisive” and imposed new limits on the service, which had been partially reintroduced over the past three decades by both of his predecessors, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. In June of this year, Francis went even further, demanding the faithful stop exploiting Latin Mass for ideological reasons…( I doubt most people would consider Desiderio Desideravi to be really “going further” in an already fanatic campaign – one that was already showing first signs of exhaustion. Nor do I think it is appropriate to leave uncommented “exploiting…for ideological reasons” as if it were a statement of fact.)

These statements reflect reliance on articles of the mainstream media – hardly an informed source. But, despite this, let us be grateful for such a nice Christmas present from the Post!

George Weigel actually providing support for the Traditionalist consensus on Pope Francis.

Yet the present pontificate has diverged from the Council’s teaching in several ways.

The Vatican’s current China policy contradicts the Council’s teaching that no rights or privileges are to be given governments in the appointment of bishops—a teaching now legally embodied in Canon 337.5. The Holy See’s adherence to the 2019 Abu Dhabi Declaration and its claim that the plurality of religions is an expression of God’s will does not sit easily with the Council’s proclamation of Jesus Christ as the one, unique redeemer of humanity: the Lord who is the center of history and the cosmos. One of Vatican II’s signal accomplishments was its strong affirmation of the authority to govern conferred by sacramental ordination to the episcopate; recent reforms of the Roman Curia, the deposition of bishops without due process, and curial diktats about the proper celebration of Mass (and even the content of parish bulletins!) undercut that authority. And the pontificate’s exceptionally narrow interpretation of the Council’s teaching on the liturgy has made the implementation of Vatican II even more contentious.

Weigel, George, “Three Pontificates and Vatican II,” First Things, (11/9/2022)

The “three pontificates” are apparently those of John XXIII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI (or John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis?). As in some of Weigel’s other recent writing (1), the pontificate of Paul VI disappears into the background – he is even claimed to have only begun to “authoritatively interpret” Vatican II in 1975!

In the 1975 apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (Announcing the Gospel), Pope Paul VI began the process of giving the Council-without-keys an authoritative interpretation.

1. Papal without a Pope

In 2020, we reviewed the initial issue of The Lamp. At the time we applauded the editors’ intentions but felt that the result fell far short of their ambitions. There was too much verbiage about topics like gabbing with Jesuits over wine spritzers in Vienna and too little attention paid to the actual crises racking the Church. I am happy to say that based on some recent articles that can be found online, The Lamp is now beginning to honestly confront the concrete and emotional crises of our day. These are today, first and foremost, the outrageous actions of Pope Francis and his allies in the hierarchy, culminating in the persecution of traditional Catholics throughout the world.

The transformation of this magazine has not been total, of course. Father Ambrose Dobroszi does attempt to address the hot issue of the scope of papal authority but falls into the ultramontane rhetoric of several of the contributors to the first issue – and even gives it radical new expression:

Yet nonetheless, even the mistakes of the pope must be carried out…This is an uncomfortable truth, but it is clearly correct when we examine history…

We even see that papal mistakes do not necessarily detract from the holiness of the pope. I think all of us would rather the Church have taken a harsh punitive strategy earlier on in the abuse crisis, but Saint John Paul II’s decision to distrust accusations against clerics—an error in judgment—is not necessarily a sin. His evident holiness did not guarantee that he made all of the right decisions, nor did his mistakes—or even sins—prevent his canonization. Our Lord willed to construct the Church in such a way that this successor of Saint Peter could grievously misjudge cases of abuse, have the authority to definitively establish a strategy of dealing with abuse cases that has proved disastrous, all while being one of the most apparent and clear examples of sainthood in our times. The pope has the authority to be tragically wrong, whether he is holy or not, and the Church on earth must obey.

In other words, a pope may be a saint regardless of what he does, and the Church must obey him regardless of what he commands. Preposterous formulations like this will not raise the image of Catholicism among outsiders or fallen-away Catholics.

Several other contributions, however, confront directly the tragic and terrible losses caused by Traditionis Custodes and the subsequent banning of the traditional mass in various Catholic dioceses – especially Washington DC. Christopher McCaffrey writes of his parish of St. Francis de Sales and its history. Harry Scherer describes the final Latin Mass at St. Anthony of Padua:

What the archdiocese effectively said to the people of Saint Anthony was Your work is not wanted here… The Sunday traditional Latin mass at Saint Anthony’s was unique because it was primarily driven and coordinated by students at the Catholic University of America down the street… 

Yes, the congregants were aware that the Mass was in some sense historic, an occasion they will recall to their grandchildren at a Sunday brunch after a Solemn High Mass decades from now. The sounds from the choir loft were majestic, the smell of incense intoxicating, and the fellowship of friends in worship re-assuring. But the moment was rooted in something deeper than the continuing history of the traditionalist movement, such as it is: the worship of Almighty God through the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary offered in a form of worship handed down to them by their ancestors.  That the old women, solitary men and women, zealous students, and bright-eyed couples will no longer gather at Saint Anthony’s is a sorry shame. That the priest’s mellifluous voice will not pronounce the hallowed formulas of this ancient liturgy is cause for grief indeed. Those who came together for the “Final Latin Mass” did not come by their sorrows cheaply—they’re paying for their emotion. Until the next Votive Mass of Thanksgiving to the Most Holy Trinity is offered at Saint Anthony’s, they can rest assured that their rejection of decadent cynicism was their way of keeping to the narrow path.

Most impressively of all, Matthew Walther, the editor of The Lamp, raises explicitly an issue in the mind of so many: Why Benedict Should Speak. To the extent there is still some nimbus of papal status remining about him, it would seem incumbent upon him, regardless of his debility, to take some action, to say something. For Walther points out that Pope Francis and his minions are characterizing Summorum Pontificum in a way that directly contradicts Benedict’s own careful teaching on the subject – in other words, they are lying. 

Which is why, with further restrictions upon the traditional Mass rumored for Ash Wednesday, I repeat my central contention that Benedict must speak about his intentions, and that he must do so unequivocally, without regard for the consequences of doing so. Such a clarification from him might not be enough to prevent the enemies of the old Mass from carrying out their plans. And it would certainly not have any obvious juridical force, even if it would expose the central premise of the other side as a preposterous fiction. But it would also be a moment of sublime clarity, and the last desperate fulfillment of that continuing paternal responsibility to which he has alluded.

In this way, The Lamp, perhaps compelled by circimstances, is now squarely facing the tragic and concrete situation of the Church today. Do I even need to mention the other storms raging in and outside of the Church such as the synodal path developments? There is so much to deal with – and so much of it is dismaying! It isn’t as pleasant as writing about a conservative Catholic fantasyland.  But it has the merit of being real and true. And after all, it is out of such confrontations that good writing emerges.