vatican-ii | Blogger Priest

Do the SSPX & Vatican Hear & Understand Each Other?

Posted on March 18, 2026 by Father Joe

While I am only a dabbler when it comes to pondering significant questions in religion, I must wonder if the multitude of clergy in the SSPX are any better. Most priests who minister in the trenches, no matter whether juridically licit or not, are more comfortable with settled definitions and basic catechesis than with professional theological wrangling. Dialogue with divergent groups, even among the few learned on both sides, can be difficult for numerous reasons. The millennium long schism with the Eastern churches is a case in point where politics, language and basic philosophical concepts were at odds. The communities grew apart regarding preparation of the Eucharistic species, the inner life of the Trinity, the background to Mary’s sinlessness, the role of the bishop of Rome in the universal Church, etc. While we acknowledge the sacraments in Orthodoxy as valid, disagreements persist and reunion evades us. Similarly, behind mutual anathemas, the break with Protestantism was not only because of abuses and outright heresies but because of character clashing egos and a failure to understand each other. Mutual condemnations were often directed against straw-men arguments and not the actual ideas in contention. As evidence for this, I would point to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999) wherein a consensus was achieved between Lutherans and Catholics. It is proof that dialogue can resolve doctrinal confusion between faith communities. While Lutherans emphasized justification by faith, it was conceded that we are saved by “grace alone” and not strictly by “faith alone.” “Good works” constitute a vital result of genuine faith (that takes precedence). Both sides had been arguing for centuries at cross-purposes. Scholarship, honesty and goodwill were able to heal old wounds. But can we find these elements in the current stalemate between the SSPX and the Vatican? Where there is arrogance, windows are closed to the Holy Spirit and doors are locked to men of goodwill.

Bishop Robert Barron has observed that spokesmen for the SSPX not only reject Vatican II but do so while repeatedly mischaracterizing its genuine teachings. Further, their attacks upon the Novus Ordo liturgy focus upon aberrant abuses and fail to give a proper assessment of its potential to enrich believers even as it seeks to worship almighty God. Too much weight is given to innuendo and sensational gossip while little to no attention is given to what is “actually” taught by the Council and post-conciliar popes. I have argued that the Holy Father should continue a discussion about the liturgy and Vatican II, even if the SSPX should decide not to be a part of it. The Lefebvrites may have become too comfortable with their autonomy to want to surrender anything to Rome. Note that Pope Leo XIV, at this writing, is using weekly audiences to speak about Vatican II. If he should resolve the doctrinal reservations held by the SSPX and others, then he would reveal their dissent as just empty posturing. But do not expect his critics to give him a fair hearing or to honestly assess his views.

Just as Protestant-Catholic dialogue often suffers from a confusion in terminology and language, the hermeneutical shift in Catholic theology likely has apologists for the old and the reformed at odds to understand each other. Of course, there are exceptions and Protestants frequently have their own problems in speaking to other non-Catholic Christians. Fundamentalist Bible Christians are literalists and treat the Bible as a science book and morality manual. There is a huge gulf between churches of the Word and those of the Table. Those with an intellectual bent had previously embraced the historical-critical method and as with Catholic modernism, struggled with atheism. Many of the Evangelicals focus upon the existential experience. Increasingly Protestants are gravitating from the objective to the subjective, moving from facts to how God’s revelation engages and transforms the believer. Considering all this, are we to treat the dialogue between traditionalists and post-Vatican II Catholics as in-house dialogue or as ecumenical debate?

The Catholic hermeneutical shift in theology signifies a transition from static doctrinal propositions to an increasingly dynamic, contextual, and historical perspective. Certain teachings are infallible, but their formulations are not immutable. Other teachings are not understood as settled and we should avoid creeping infallibility. As an example, many authorities taught, even prior to Vatican II and the universal catechism, that the “limbo of the innocents” was a scholastic theory and not settled doctrine. A study of the fathers was always disconcerting in this regard because St. Augustine posited unbaptized infants who died as in hell and not in any abode where they might be ignorant of God but naturally happy. What is the truth? The most honest will admit that we are not sure, but we are optimistic given our Lord’s love for the innocent children. Pope Benedict XVI subscribed not to a hermeneutic of “rupture” but one of “continuity” or reform.

Faith is not ancient dictums locked away in dusty old texts but is a living tradition that engages modernity. We know both adaptation and development. There is movement from the theoretical or abstraction to the pastoral and realized. There is a renewed interest in Christian anthropology, inter-religious dialogue and cooperation, and appreciating our place within creation. However, not lost is the chief concern of soteriology as the Church is defined as the great sacrament or mystery of salvation through which we encounter Christ.

The reformed Protestant Karl Barth labeled Catholicism as the Church “of the great AND.” What he meant was that where historic Protestantism argued for only the Bible, Catholicism would add, “and sacred tradition.” Protestants asserted that we were saved by Jesus alone, and Catholics would add, “and within his holy Church.” Mention the mediation of Christ and Catholics inserted, “and with the intercession of Mary and the saints.” Protestants would echo Luther in saying that we are saved by faith, and Catholics would insist, “and by works.” Catholicism insured that classical Christianity would never allow crucial elements of faith to be forgotten or eclipsed. The Word is vital, but so is sacrament. Knowing the truth is crucial, but no less was the gift of charity. The Church would seek to reconcile all the dualities and not repudiate or leave them hanging. Similarly, today the SSPX must find a way to reconcile what they interpret as rupture or ambiguity between the historic faith and the Church in the modern world. It is the same Church, not two. The face we show the world may have changed but “the faith” remains the ancient faith.

While nothing is denied, there has been a hermeneutical shift away from reducing faith to a series of dogmatic, liturgical and moral propositions as found in the Catechism of Trent and in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The Catholic faith is, at its heart, not a philosophy text or a morality book, but a relationship of faith with Christ lived out in loving obedience. Many Protestants as Bible Christians make a similar mistake by reducing the new dispensation to a book religion. The saving faith or Gospel is not simply words written upon paper but a sacred encounter that penetrates minds and hearts. The law is still important, but the emphasis is how revealed truths bring us into a saving covenant with Jesus and his Church. Note that SSPX seminaries resort to reprinting centuries old religious manuals for the memorization of settled definitions. Many modern texts and even Vatican II documents are treated as Forbidden Books. By comparison, priests formed in schools sympathetic to Vatican II study the primary sources and seek to make fluid connections to the lived faith. Each does this according to his intelligence and gifts.

Revelation comes to us from both Scripture and Tradition, but we should be wary of any strict duality. An Analogy is sometimes made of God’s Word that is transmitted to us against the backdrop or parchment of Sacred Tradition. One always requires the other. The professional theologian, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught, is at the service of the Magisterium. It is not an adversarial relationship. When it comes to teachings, infallible or mutable, they are affirmed and passed down by the Pope and those bishops in union with him. Exacting dogmas wherein God reveals himself and the terms of salvation demand absolute assent as true. Teachings that belong to papal opinion or practical necessity are respected because of his office and require obedience. However, popes may disagree about the latter and change direction. For instance, instead of extending an amnesty that was typical, Pope Sixtus V ordered the execution of highway bandits in the Papal States. This is in an entirely different ballpark from Pope John Paul II who discouraged capital punishment and Pope Francis who rejected judicial homicide altogether. The authority of the Pope is respected throughout. There is a concurrence in faith. A distinction is made about those things that are always true and those that are maintained for practical expediency for the good governance of the Church. An example of this distinction is the doctrinal prohibition for women priests as compared to the discipline for celibate priests— the former is absolute— the latter is not. Reason, nature and experience constitute the prism for theological understanding and formulations about Christian doctrine. This horizontal movement must be complemented and affirmed by the teaching authority of the Church which is gifted by Christ with the protective guidance of the Holy Spirit. More than just the use of the Latin language is at stake. Indeed, while theologians are well-versed in Latin, Greek, French, German and other languages, the SSPX and the Vatican— are still at odds and seem to be speaking different theological languages. The manner itself is problematic. Where there should be mutual respect and dialogue there is distrust and enmity. You cannot expect much good fruit from that. Traditionalists tend to expand what they feel should be infallible. That is why some resist any change to the liturgical calendar, expansion of the readings or even the revised Easter Vigil from Pope Pius XII. Vatican II application of Catholic teachings or principles to intersect modernity are frowned upon or deemed as errors. While religious liberty as practiced in the United States allowed the infant Catholic Church to grow and flourish, the principle is rejected as heretical. It makes no difference that had it been practiced in England— More, Fisher and generations of Jesuits would not have been martyred. The ideal state is still regarded as wholly Catholic and monarchial, with the practice of other denominations either outlawed or restricted to private homes. It makes no difference to them that historic Catholic states would do much to persecute the Church and that Western democracies, Asian Communist dictatorships and Islamic theocracies are all that is left. The traditionalists in the SSPX camp would thus necessarily dismiss notions about freedom of conscience and Pope John Paul II’s teaching about the inherent dignity of the human “person.” They are resolute in the assertion that error has no rights and that the unregenerated person lacks genuine dignity. The post-Vatican II apologist interprets this as a recipe for oppression. While not denying the heightened value given by sanctifying grace to the baptized man or woman, Pope John Paul II also championed natural human dignity and rights from conception to natural death. His theology of the body expanded our appreciation of universal human rights, contending that human dignity is derived from our Creator God. The SSPX do not accept this expansion of the Gospel of Life.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, Catholic, christianity, doctrine, Faith, Jesus, latin-mass, sspx, vatican-ii | Leave a comment »

SSPX & Vatican Dialogue: No Need for Talking Parrots

Posted on March 16, 2026 by Father Joe

The SSPX prefer unchanging liturgy and stagnant cut-and dry definitions. And yet, at this crucial time in history, we neither need nor want talking parrots without the basic tools for the give-and-take required in theological reflection and discourse with intellectual giants like Cardinals Robert Sarah and Gerhard Ludwig Müller.

We must be wary of those who speak out of both sides of their mouths. Certain progressives would supplant an oblation to the divine with a fellowship supper and prefer a revolutionary break with past teachings and values. Anachronistic traditionalists would embrace an unchanging liturgy and dogmas reduced to staid definitions that are either disconnected from modernity or attack it head on. Instead of ecumenical outreach the Society is often locked in attack mode and employs old and aggressive proof text apologetics. This will not get us very far. Both the SSPX and the Vatican must take care about who speaks for them in any dialogue. Many of their priests would do poorly with their ingrained resistance. This is not a debate that one must win at all costs. The starting point must be obedience to the Holy See, affirmation of the various liturgies approved, and the acceptance of Vatican II as a genuine ecumenical council. This does not mean that the door is closed to clarifying teachings and reconciling them with previous formulations. When it comes to the brightest minds in favor of the traditional Latin Mass, and who are aware of the other issues, we must turn to learned laymen like Dr. Peter Kwasniewski and Dr. Taylor Marshall. While we might sometimes disagree with them, they would legitimately seek to maintain communion with the living Magisterium. Resolution about the status of liturgy and reconciling Trent with Vatican II would be good for the Church overall, even if the SSPX and other groups should still go into formal schism or their bishops face excommunication.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, christianity, Faith, God, Jesus, latin-mass, sspx, Tradition, vatican-ii | Leave a comment »

Reflecting Upon SSPX Dissent & Disobedience

Posted on February 28, 2026 by Father Joe

My old classmate Dr. Larry Chapp summarizes in the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER (Feb. 24, 2026) the crisis with the SSPX in an article entitled, “The SSPX Rupture with Tradition.”

https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/chapp-sspx-rupture

He spells out the situation. Father Davide Pagliarani has rejected dialogue as hopeless and has listed five reasons as to why. Dr. Chapp argues that these five reasons are “theologically deficient and ultimately expressive of a deep ecclesiological rupture with tradition.” Indeed, even the basic ground rules for any discussion among Catholics are rebuffed. Such a stance repositions this from internal Catholic discussion to a debate with defectors who reject ecumenical niceties. Dr. Chapp is correct, this sets up the SSPX as a parallel magisterium. He does not mince words, they might say they accept the Pope but are acting in a manner that subscribes to “sedevacantism.” Not trusting Rome, they treat the Pope as if he were not the Pope, stripped of any authority to compel their obedience.

I reflected at some length upon how Dr. Chapp shredded Fr. Pagliarani’s five reasons for disobedience. (1) Despite the world’s bishops, priests and laity overwhelmingly accepting Vatican II, they interpret the council as “rupture” and reject it. (2) Since the modern magisterium’s stance cannot be reconciled with the SSPX, they play the part of Martin Luther in repudiating lawful authority. (3) They question the Vatican’s motives and seek to coerce the Holy See with the threatened episcopal consecrations. (4) The SSPX inadvertently becomes a victim of modernism in setting itself up as the sole arbiter of what constitutes true and false doctrine and tradition. (5) They continue to malign Cardinal Müller’s essential 2017 ground rules: acceptance of the Holy Father’s authority and preserving a respectful presumption in favor of an ecumenical council of the Church.

Masquerading as the true Church instituted by Christ, the SSPX was founded out of rebellion, not fidelity, by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. They have ever since feigned orthodoxy and tradition regarding many tenets, all the while embracing a heretical ecclesiology that is akin to the modernism of Alfred Loisy. Dr. Chapp concludes: “So it looks as if the SSPX will once again defy Rome and incur an excommunication. . . And let us attend carefully to the recent remarks from Cardinal Müller, who contends that a true reform of the Church can only take place from within the Church.”

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, Catholic, christianity, Faith, Jesus, latin-mass, Magisterium, Pope, sspx, vatican-ii | Leave a comment »

The SSPX & the Devil Stealing St. Peter’s Keys

Posted on February 27, 2026 by Father Joe

A Possible Return to Schism and Excommunication

The CDF in 2017 gave three conditions for the SSPX to receive canonical status: (1) Adhere to Pope John Paul II’s 1988 Profession of Faith, (2) Accept the teachings of Vatican II and the post-conciliar Church, and (3) Recognize the reformed Mass and other sacraments and rituals as licit and valid. Speaking out of both sides of their mouths, they technically acknowledge the validity of sacraments in the postconciliar Church; however, the SSPX still rejects the Novus Ordo as intrinsically evil, discourages Mass participation by calling it dangerous and stamps Vatican II as heretical. Does this not deny the indefectibility of the Church? This alone is at variance with ecclesial doctrine. Will not the consecrations of new bishops against papal directives impose a new excommunication upon them as specified in canon 1397?

SSPX clergy have stated, even on their official website, that the Novus Ordo Mass is evil and dangerous to attend. This slur demands proper mental consideration. First, this assertion undermines the indefectibility of the Church under the Holy Father. It insinuates that Jesus is a liar or even impotent in keeping his words to Peter that he would be with him and sustain the Church until he comes again. It maligns Christ and undermines papal authority. Second, since the Eucharist is the very font and life-spring for the Church, the negative charge implies that the post-Vatican II Church is dried up and lifeless. There can be no fruit. But, if one rejects the true Church, then one rejects Jesus Christ. The SSPX leaders are risking their very souls. This is a grievous defamation of Christ’s Church. Third, the Mass, old and new, is the re-presentation of Calvary and makes present the body and blood of Christ as our spiritual food and drink. Any rendering of the divine mystery as evil is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, a dire mortal sin. Lacking repentance and contrition, one cannot escape the unforgivable sin. One cannot be saved by a divine power that one rejects. The SSPX cannot take to itself the authority and power that belongs to the Church shepherded by the Pope, Christ’s visible vicar on earth. And yet, that is precisely what it is attempting to do.

I am afraid, there you have it. The SSPX response is more telling than they would readily admit, given that their subterfuge hides nothing. While the last pontificate sowed ambiguities that complicated matters, the SSPX would have had issues with any of the popes going back to John XXIII and Paul VI. Ironically, the response accuses the Holy See of a disingenuous attitude toward efforts at regularizing Marcel Lefebvre’s syndicate of discontents. As one poor priest who believes in extending freedom regarding the celebration of approved liturgies, I had hoped and prayed for full juridical reunion, not only to help preserve the Mass of the Ages, but to lend greater nuance and consistency to the Church’s tenets of faith. As it is, Pope Benedict XVI’s efforts at reunion have been thwarted, not only by the questionable antics and obscurity of the last pontificate, but by the Lefebvrites themselves in preferring a compass heading away from Rome and swinging ever closer to the sedevacantist sects. Bishop Athanasius Schneider wrote a catechism that essentially defended the Society in its repudiation of certain Vatican II tenets and accused the post-conciliar popes of false teaching, which he coined as “ambiguity.” If given a choice to mind his own business and return to his home archdiocese or to join the SSPX, what would he do? The danger exists that those sympathetic to the SSPX may join the increasingly erratic Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in excommunication and schism after the illicit consecrations. While Bishop Schneider is transparent in his public dialogue about doctrinal concerns, the SSPX has likely duped him that such is their core reservation. I suspect it is more about jurisdiction and power. It is unlikely they will hand over what they have to the Vatican in exchange for canonical status as a personal prelature or special ordinariate.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, Catholic, christianity, Faith, Jesus, latin-mass, Magisterium, Mass, papal-authority, Pope, sspx, vatican-ii | Leave a comment »

Considering Cardinal Roche’s Consistory Document

Posted on January 18, 2026 by Father Joe

Is This a Genuine Application Newman’s Organic Development?

(CLICK the image to go to document.) The first paragraph of his document to the cardinals at the extraordinary consistory speaks about past historic changes in the Mass and about the process of liturgical reform as one of “organic development.” It is true that the Mass has always been subject to “a process of organic development.” However, this fact does not mitigate the tension over post-Vatican II reforms. Reforms were historically not accomplished over a period of months or a few years but extending decades and even centuries. Further, they were the product of priests and the lay faithful alike, not a small group of so-called experts or a single liturgist. Changes in the liturgy would consist of an addition here or a small deletion there, but not a wholesale rebranding and substitution of the Roman Canon. How can anyone with a straight face argue that the changes effected during the last half-century were truly “organic” in scope? There is no getting around it, the changes were revolutionary. The practical proof of this claim was the reaction among those in the trenches. While many youths embraced folk and rock Masses as part of their natural rebellion, older Catholics were upset but complied because of a strong affinity toward obedience of just authority. Catholics often did as they were told because they loved the Pope and trusted their bishops and priests. I can still recall whole parish and religious school libraries being emptied into dumpsters because the “new Church” would no longer need the old liturgical books or morality manuals. Despite debates to the contrary, this negative treatment against treasures from the past spoke volumes about a hermeneutic of rupture. The psychology here was not rooted in continuity but in a break or a new start. Everything old was deemed bad and everything new was judged good. Ironically, this mentality, in reverse, is what we hear from certain traditionalists— that the “old” is better and holier and that the “new” is bad and heretical. Increasing numbers of learned critics contend that the liturgical changes went far beyond the mandate of the council. Nevertheless, the reforms received ecclesial approbation. This truth cannot be sidestepped. It must be said that the reforms were imposed based upon various contemporary presuppositions (of questionable credulity): that the Latin liturgy was unintelligible to modern men and women, that it lacked logical internal organization, that it wrongly rebranded the preparation of the gifts into an offertory functioning as a secondary natural oblation, that it overly anticipated the transformation of the sacred species, that it lacked a coherent and clear epiclesis, that the liturgy of the Word was eclipsed or minimized by the Eucharist, and that it deified the person and power of the priest over any active participation by the laity.

Does One Faith Demand Absolute Uniformity?

The second paragraph of his missive to participants of the extraordinary consistory is just as nonsensical as the first. As a defense for the abrogation of the traditional Latin Mass, it is ironic that Cardinal Roche should cite Saint Pius V’s assertion that since “there is only one way of reciting the psalms, so there ought to be only one rite for celebrating the Mass.” Today there are many ways that the psalms are recited given the many translations, chant and modern musical renditions. The psalms may be recited straight through, antiphonally or with intruding responses. The Roman rite was translated into the vernacular from Latin, and one translation often disagrees substantially with another. Where we had one canon in the West, we now have four ordinary ones, as well as special Eucharistic prayers for children and reconciliation. Further, the Anglican returnees have their traditional liturgy and Catholicism permits many lesser rites around the world. Given all this diversity, why cannot room be carved out for those spiritually attached to the old Roman Canon? That which is not from God will pass. That which belongs to the Lord will blossom and grow under the movement of the Holy Spirit. Can we not trust God about this? How can the good cardinal both impugn Pope Pius V’s logic and then claim it as a support for the intransigence of Traditionis Custodes?

Constant Reform or Long-Term Stability?

The third paragraph of Cardinal Roche’s consistory document would seem to argue for perpetual reform without end. This ignores several important concerns. The reformed liturgy was neither something entirely old nor simply the product of “cultural elements that change in time and place.” It was largely the result of one time and place. There was an almost “Pollyanna” optimism during and after Vatican II. The signs of the times were a tradeoff of antiquity and the ageless for the contemporary and fickle. Note that many modern liturgies and the accompanying music still resemble something from the 1969 Woodstock festival. First, not all cultures and times are the same. The Church is the mother of Western civilization. It is not that she is just the product of her times but that often her faith and rituals were the catalyst and source for the ideas and cultural values around her. Second, while the relationship of the Church to the surrounding culture communicates in two directions, sometimes the situation is mutually supportive and at other times, clashing and combative. No authentic liturgical reform can embrace elements that are contrary to authentic Christian beliefs. Third, the nature of the paschal mystery itself mandates that certain elements of faith and ritual should be judged as immutable. Just as Jesus is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow— a liturgy should be historically grounded as a permanent anchor in a world of incessant change. Do words and ceremony communicate what they should— making present the mediation of Christ in his passion, death, resurrection and ascension? Is it not precisely the argument of the advocates for the traditional Latin Mass, that the sacred language, silence, ordered movement, and heightened reverence, all better convey a sense of the paschal mystery of Christ?

Pope Benedict versus Pope Benedict?

Is there no shame? Cardinal Roche in paragraph four of his consistory document would quote Pope Benedict XVI (out of context) to support the suppression of the traditional Latin Mass and the reversal of Summorum Pontificum. Really? Has he not read what the late Pope wrote about liturgy? Pope Benedict XVI did indeed speak about sacred tradition as a “living river,” but the streams of that river extend both to the Vatican II reforms and to what came previously. Indeed, one might ask, are the waters freely flowing to the tried-and-true of centuries past as to the novelties not yet a hundred years old? Indeed, to keep the analogy going, might Traditionis Custodes be interpreted as a dam to those waters.

A Bias for One Liturgy Over Another?

Paragraph five of Cardinal Roche’s consistory document seems to envision a “dynamic vision” as belonging exclusively to the Novus Ordo. Is this not the same kind of negative bias of which the other side in this debate is accused? Legitimate progress must not be interpreted as change for change’s sake. It is true that a living tradition would forestall a “collection of dead things.” But it was never Pope Benedict XVI’s intent to resuscitate a zombie rite. Both rituals are alive and make Christ present in his person and in his saving activity. He hoped that the old and reformed liturgy, side-by-side, might cross-pollinate and enrich one another. Might the old liturgy be pruned in part? Might it benefit from an enriched lectionary and an extended responsorial for the gradual? Might it be offered in Latin and the vernacular? Could a form of concelebration be returned to the old liturgy? Might a sense of reverence and order be given the reformed rites? Might there be a reconsideration of the reduction of the offertory in the Novus Ordo? Could we see a restoration of some Latin and Gregorian chant? Might the liturgical calendar be reconciled between the old and new? Unfortunately, all this is short-circuited by the current suppression. How is this healthy? How does this promote the life of souls? If we are all about giving the people a voice, then why do churchmen make demands against kneeling and communion on the tongue? What became of freedom about such things? Why should we care if reverence and care are taken?

Might Something Be Gained & Lost By Reform?

Paragraph six of the consistory document simply says that there is no reform of the Church without liturgical reform. This is true given the intimate inter-connectiveness of constitutive elements of the Church. Paragraph seven is an expression of confidence in the scholarship (theological, historical and pastoral) behind the liturgical reform. Left unspoken is the possibility that reformers, no matter how well intentioned, can lose their way. Reformed Judaism had gone through its own reform earlier and with unanticipated negative results. The rabbis warned churchmen that a more streamlined and ordered liturgy might not have the same compelling power of a somewhat messy conglomeration. A ritual that arises over time from the genuine prayer of a priest and congregation around an altar often proves itself better than one composed by a professor more familiar with academic than the pastoral setting. Ritual touches the human being, not only on the rational level, but upon the emotive and spiritual as well. For instance, repetition and striking the breast might change little in terms of meaning but have a tremendous impact upon the human psyche. Similarly, the “artistic” and “beautiful” cannot be reduced to cold mathematical formula. As for paragraph eight, while formation is invaluable for deeper understanding, we must not forget that the language of sign and symbol should also immediately convey a sense of the sacred and a meaning imbued with mystery. Those attached to the traditional Latin Mass may not have degrees in liturgy, but we should not devalue or undermine as inconsequential any attestation of a powerful experience of the transcendent. If the reformed liturgy places a premium on words and translation, the older ordo placed greater weight upon the sacred spectacle of smells, bells, gesture and chant. While the reformed liturgy emphasizes external participation, the older ritual emphasized an internal movement of just being present and many personal prayers. Who is to say which is better? Maybe different people vary in the type of liturgy that serves them best?

Does an Old & Reformed Liturgy Signify a Defunct and a New Church?

The danger of paragraph nine and the extended quote from Pope Francis should be self-evident. It is a direct appeal to a rupture in the tradition. It asserts that one cannot be faithful to the Vatican II Church and desire a strict association of the prior liturgy. However, in truth it is the same Church. Further, who is not to say that certain conciliar principles will not have an impact on the Tridentine liturgy over time? The argument that the Mass change is a fait accompli to which everyone must slavishly comply seems nonsensical if brute authority must be exacted against otherwise good and faithful Catholics? If the new liturgy were perfect, then it is doubtful that a problem would have arisen. Why would Pope Leo XIV beseech Eastern churches to maintain their tradition of liturgy while we have largely thrown ours away. Allowing both the old and the new to exist side-by-side may be the perfect way toward integration, not by ecclesial force but by a natural spiritual attraction. Maybe we have been too stringent in restricting and defining the movement of the Holy Spirit to the work of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini and his team? The groundswell of support for the old Mass and the demand for an end to abuses in the new might be the true work of the Spirit of God. While there is much in the way of cultural adaptation and freedom given Catholics in regard to all sort of parallel traditions and experimental liturgies, then why not carve out a space for those who acknowledge papal authority but should be shown sensitivity and compassion about a liturgy that bred many of the saints and still resonates with the Catholic soul?

Paragraph ten simply gave some of the recent history about the liturgy and the popes, conveniently omitting the name of Pope Benedict XVI. Paragraph eleven returns us to Pope Francis’ view in paragraph nine. He writes: “I do not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council . . . and at the same time not accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium . . .” Both Cardinal Roche and the late Pope Francis view it as an ecclesial matter. This mentality pretty much insures an eventual full schism with the SSPX and makes any future for groups like the Fraternity of St. Peter more than precarious. It is ironic that an attachment with the old liturgy should call their Catholicity into question. Contestations to the contrary, much of Vatican II can easily be reconciled with tradition.

A Few Broader Vatican II Questions Beyond Liturgy

As for the harder Vatican II questions like freedom of conscience and the extent of religious freedom and ecumenism, should they not be argued and hammered out by believers. Given a world where Catholic states have all but disappeared, it makes sense for Catholic social teachings to honestly reflect the current lived reality. While we have every right to insist upon the truth of our beliefs, we can still work with others for a peaceful and just society. Is it really too much to concede that believers should not use torture or violent intimidation? Indeed, is this not the high ground of the Church against Islamic extremism? Further, an emphasis upon the incommensurate value of human life and the high dignity of “persons” is no threat to the divinization of believers by grace. None of us should be so attached to the anachronistic that we would further fracture the Church and society when there is a desperate need to build bridges and heal old wounds.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Catholic, christianity, Faith, Jesus, latin, Liturgy, Mass, vatican-ii | Leave a comment »