The big uproar on social media and elsewhere regarding the latest actions of Pope Francis in connection with the Traditional Latin Mass is subsiding. I have been asked to weigh in, and I do so in summary form as I believe less is more.
Let’s summarize. Pope Francis issued a “Letter of the Holy Father Francis to the Bishops of the Whole World That Accompanies the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Data `Traditionis Custodes’” along with “Traditionis Custodes” (TC) on July 16, 2021. Francis in his letter noted that many people, including the young, had been drawn to the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) over the years especially since Benedict XVI issued “Summorum Pontificum” (SP) in July, 2007. Francis is apparently motivated, as he says in his Letter, by a fear that the TLM is the source of unity in opposing the validity of the Vatican II Council. He writes
“I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the tradition and the `true Church’….To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner, cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.”
TC then restricted the prevalence of the TLM by giving power to the bishop to set the locations and times and priests to say the TLM and perhaps most controversially to “determine that these groups [existing TLM groups] do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs” while making sure “not to authorize the establishment of new groups.” New priests wanting to celebrate the TLM were to submit a request to do so and be vetted, current priests doing so were to be reauthorized by the diocesan bishop, and overall supervision of the new regime was vested in the Congregation of Divine Worship etc.
SP opened up the celebration of the TLM and served to make it more prevalent. The diocesan bishop did not figure into the regime set out by SP. The older rites were permitted. So, against a context of a Pope viewed by many as a Globalist, TC is rightly viewed as a restriction or even a “clamping down” on the TLM and those communities who were invested in it.
Several initial observations arise at this time.
First, the very uproar (I spent hours reading the comments from day to day people and the Catholic chatterers) is confirmation of a central thesis of my book, John Courtney Murray, Time/Life, and the American Proposition. That is, the American leadership made the Catholic Church like America by convincing the Catholic leadership that America teaches the Church. An essential part of American social organization is the “right” to “free speech” which amounts to a license to be irresponsible. Most of what I read was emotional, inflammatory, and irresponsible.
Second, Francis appears to be seeking to squelch what his predecessor called the “hermeneutic of rupture” (but only as to one group as I explain below). What that means is that Catholics cannot see Vatican II as a break with Tradition for to do so is to deny the power of the Holy Spirit, among other things. People either see Vatican II as a break (“rupture”) or a continuation (“continuity”), and Catholics are called to the latter. It is a matter of choice, a matter of the heart, a matter of faith, and a matter of the intellect. The “rupture” crowd involves some people associated with the Latin Mass, ALL “Liberal Catholics” who are true Americanists, and a lot of Catholic chatterers who make their living and fame sowing division and conflict in the Church with their endless scribbling and blatherings. Rupture is the message of those who denounce the legitimacy of Vatican II and rupture is the message of those who embrace the “spirit of Vatican II”. The people who see discontinuity whether it be from the “left” or from the “right”, and the idea of rupture, are used by the plutocrats who increasingly run the West and the rest of the World, and they are used to weaken the Church so as to eliminate any effective opposition to their plans. I understand that there are several main points of conflict on which “traditionalists” claim Vatican II was a break from Tradition. Two of these are on religious liberty, which I discuss repeatedly, and the other is on the treatment of non-Catholic religions. Essential to understanding the work of Vatican II is to understand just what is policy and what is doctrine, what was policy and what was doctrine in these two areas, and to review serious studies from responsible sources on them. My book is a serious study on the issue of religious liberty and the proper organization of society.
Third, I have written and spoken extensively on how Catholicism views the proper way by which to organize society. That doctrine is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated by Pope St John Paul II in 1992 (with revisions) – the “traditional” doctrine on how to organize society is in the CCC, only it is presented in a different way than others may claim it was presented. One aspect of that doctrine of social organization is that people do not have a right to error or to spread error. Another is that the means of social communication are meant to be exercised within and in advancement of the Divine Positive Law which means American style “free speech” is not approved. Yet another is that the policies of every society are to be based on the Divine Positive Law and that includes establishing and protecting the Catholic Church as society’s church. All these things are in the CCC and were reiterated by the Council, quite clearly in fact. Vatican II did not break with Tradition. It is in continuity with Tradition and that is how it must be seen if one is to be Catholic.
Fourth, to many, Francis’ actions seem unfair, and I agree. Francis should also clamp down on the spreading of error or even the appearance of error in the name of being “pastoral” as is done by the Americanists. He does not do so and has not done so instead embracing the Americanists or those holding to the “spirit of Vatican II.” The Americanists remain in firm control of the Church machinery and Americanism best serves the powerful private interests. Bringing the Church out of its American Captivity is a great work of our day, and it is important in that regard that all who perpetuate rupture – even in the name of the “spirit of Vatican II” – be held to account. For example, James Martin, SJ and others like him perpetuate the “spirit of Vatican II” with their approval of LGBTQs. Let me say this again and for emphasis: The “spirit of Vatican II” is Americanism and it is rupture.
Fifth, there may be an authority issue here. By that I mean, just how authoritative is TC? In SP, Benedict XVI wrote “we decree” prior to issuing the position points. In TC, Francis writes: “I have considered it appropriate to establish the following.” Francis tends to use the first person more and more in his writings, and that, I believe, limits the authority, and hence the value, of his many writings reducing much of them to just personal opinions.
Those are my thoughts at this time.