Pope Benedict XVI died this morning in Rome.

The following churches will offer the Traditional Mass on Sunday, Jan. 1, the Octave of Christmas.

St. Mary Church, Norwalk, CT, 10 am Solemn Mass followed by annual festive Christmas coffee hour with carolling

St Marguerite Bourgeoys, Brookfield, CT,  12:30 pm Missa Cantata

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, New York, NY , 10:30 A.M. Sung Mass , 4:30 P.M. Solemn Christmastide TLM Vespers and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament

St. Josaphat, Bayside, Queens, 9:30 am

St. Rocco, Glen Cove, Long Island, 11:30 am Missa Cantata

Immaculate Conception, Sleepy Hollow, NY, Jan. 1, low Mass at 4 pm.

St Mary / St Andrew, Ellenville, NY, January 1 at Midnight (High Mass; Convivium following); 11:30 am 

St Joseph’s Church, Middletown, NYJ, 10:15 a.m.

Sacred Heart Church, Esopus, NYJ, 11:30 a.m.

Holy Trinity Church, Poughkeepsie, NY, 1:30 p.m. (Missa cantata)

St Patrick’s Church, Newburgh, NYJ, 3:00 p.m.

Our Lady of Sorrows, Jersey City, 9 am

Our Lady of Fatima Chapel, Pequannock, NJ, 7 am, 9 am, 11 am, 1:30 pm , 5 pm

St. John the Baptist, Allentown, NJ, Jan. 1, 12:30 pm

It is reported – also by Pope Francis – that “Pope Emeritus” Benedict XVI is seriously ill. Let us keep him in our prayers today. For it was Pope Benedict who liberated the Traditional Mass by issuing Summorum Pontificum in 2007. He suffered much for that and his other attempts to reconnect the Church with her Tradition. Benedict was the target of vicious attacks both during his papacy and up to and including this year. Every Tradionalist, however, owes him an immense debt of gratitude.

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!

To all our members, readers and friends!

We have heard much since early December about Marko Rupnik. All of what we know was either revealed by news media – especially online resources – or admitted under duress by the Catholic Church. More details trickle out every day. One emerging response of the establishment is that Rupnik’s misdeeds shouldn’t prevent us from appreciating his work and his spiritual counseling. As the Slovene bishops put it:

“We beg you, with this tragic realization in mind, to distinguish his unacceptable and reprehensible actions from his extraordinary spiritual and artistic accomplishments in mosaics and other areas,1)

Fr. Briscoe at Our Sunday Visitor adopts the party line:

But as for his art, we must recall the purpose of art in a sacred space. Art in our churches renders visible the invisible beauty of the sacred mysteries. Jacques Maritain says this, “In the signs it presents to our eyes something infinitely superior to all our human art is manifested, divine Truth itself, the treasure of light that was purchased for us by the blood of Christ.” If the reality manifested by a work of art is not the beauty of God made known in the sacraments, it does not belong in a church. But if it is, it does, regardless of the artist’s state of soul. 2)

Fr. Briscoe believes or assumes that Rupnik’s art does manifest a reality that is “the beauty of God in the sacraments.” Fr. Briscoe also talks at length about Renaissance artists, particularly Caravaggio – another line of defense. The comparison is preposterous. Caravaggio didn’t organize a quasi-religious community including “consecrated women.” Caravaggio didn’t hold himself out as a spiritual leader (Rupnik’s books are almost innumerable). Caravaggio was not presented by the Catholic hierarchy of the day as role model and made by them a significant spiritual presence in Rome and even given some participation in church government. Caravaggio didn’t hide his murders for decades (how could he – they were violent acts in violent age). It was Rupnik (and the Church) who chose to advertise  his Centro Aletti as a kind of post- Vatican II monastery or modern-day Beuron movement – a fusion of the artistic and the spiritual. 3) But let us turn to Rupnik’s art – what exactly were his “accomplishments”?

Objectively viewed, his work seems completely sub-artistic – a hybrid of pseudo-Byzantine and pseudo-modern. His cartoon-like images have as their most characteristic feature blank black eyes.  I can only suggest as a point of comparison the art installed in Catholic Churches in the immediate pre-conciliar years. Or perhaps some of the simplistic images in modern Coptic Christian art. But these latter emanate from a Monophysite tradition that has a restrictive notion of the Incarnation and (consequently?)a limited pictorial heritage – and in any case they lack the distinctive “Marko eyes.”

But if Rupnik’s work is not truly art, what is it then?  It’s remote from the unsuccessful attempts of the European churches – efforts associated more recently with Cardinal Ravasi – to somehow “Christianize” the styles and products of contemporary Western art. We have reviewed books critically analyzing this modern sacred art. 4)  Likewise, Rupnik’s work is not popular kitsch. The Catholic “masses” (which includes the bulk of the clergy) remain content with manufactured reproductions in various formats of art from the 19^th century and earlier – as well as with crude attempts at their imitation. 5)  

For it is safe to say that Rupnik and his art were completely unknown in the states. True, there was critical commentary when his work appeared as logos for Vatican events. Yet he was not a popular presence. That is amazing because some of his major works are located here  –  especially in our backyard of Southern Connecticut. The patrons in Connecticut were the Knights of Columbus and Sacred Heart University (an extremely establishment-friendly institution of limited scholarly ambition). The Knights also financed the decoration of the John Paul II Center in Washington. 6) That is most appropriate, since it was John Paul II who in the 1990’s helped to launch the Rupnik phenomenon with the commission of mosaics for the Redemptoris Mater chapel in the Vatican. The cost of all these mosaics is in the millions of dollars.

From this list of patrons, we realize that Rupnik’s art is preeminently an official art – an art of the establishment. It is intended to achieve and synthesize various ideological goals. First, fulfilling the ambition of the Council, it definitively breaks with any Western Catholic art of the past. Second, it is reminiscent of the art of the Christian East – giving it an “ecumenical” aura.  Third, its figurative nature renders it accessible to those not initiated into modern art (which would include the patrons mentioned above). Fourth, the alleged religious nature of Rupnik’s studio enabled the marketing of his art as a vehicle for dispensing spiritual values.

Rupnik’s art thus caters to the ruling establishment of the Church. In this sense its role is akin to that of Socialist Realism in the Soviet Union.  Each has a political, not artistic, function. Like Socialist Realism, Rupnik’s art restates the dogmas of an ideology to the applause of patrons from an ignorant bureaucracy.  Thus, it is really not art at all. 

Such patronage is very lucrative indeed – the costs for building the Sacred Heart Univerity chapel were $17 miillion, I believe. It is tragic that the Church establishment over the years has wasted increasingly scarce resources on Rupnik’s art and similar products. It is infuriating that such projects continue to decided in isolation by bureaucrats and priests wihout the input of anyone with artistic judgment.

1. Winfield, Nicole, ‘Despicable’: Slovene bishops condemn Jesuit artist’s abuse, AP News 12/22/2022)
2. Briscoe, Patrick, What do we do with Father Rupnik’s Art? Our Sunday Visitor, 12/16/2022)
3. Beuron was a monastery, (re)founded in the 19^th century, that created its own school of art practiced by monastic artists.
4. E.g., The Art of God, Sacred Thoughts, Profane Ideas.
5. The Churches of New York XC: Art of the Archdiocese
6. The Pillar, Rupnik mosaics stand in US chapels, amid priest artist abuse scandal, (12/22/2022) (With images of his works.)

From JuventutemDC:

IMPORTANT: Under Cardinal Gregory’s decree of 22 July, there can be no Traditional Latin Masses in the Archdiocese of Washington on Christmas. There will, however, be several in nearby dioceses, and @tlmarlington has done the work of compiling a list:

But there’s also the FSSPX chapel for the DC area!