Traditionis Custodes (3)

It is very interesting, to me, to see the reactions of bishops from around the world to Pope Francis' motu proprio on the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite of the Mass.  An auxiliary bishop from the Netherlands, Bishop Rob Mutsaerts, calls the motu proprio a 'declaration of war' on the part of Pope Francis.  He also opines this is another sign of how Pope Francis is losing hold of his authority as Supreme Pontiff.  In any case, here is the article published by the National Catholic Register.  It is worth a read since it explains some about the terms ("oekaze") the bishop uses as well as where he is coming from.  The actual letter (in English) of Bishop Mutsaerts' follows.  I found the actual letter quite interesting and worth a read.  It is inserted here just in case your platform doesn't translate from the original.  I'm usually suspicious of software driven translations but this seems quite coherent.  So, have at it!

An evil oekaze of Pope Francis

Pope Francis promotes synodality: everyone must be able to talk, everyone must be heard. There was little mention of this in his recently published motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, an oekaze that must immediately put an end to the traditional Latin Mass. In doing so, Francis puts a thick fat line through Summorum Pontificum- Pope Benedict's motu proprio that gave ample space to the old Mass. The fact that Francis is reaching for the power word here without any consultation indicates that he is losing authority. This was evident earlier when the German Bishops' Conference did not care about the pope's opinions on the synodal process. The same occurred in the United States, where Pope Francis called on the Bishops' Conference not to prepare a document on dignified communication. Then no advice, but a warrant must have been given to the Pope when it comes to traditional mass.

The language is very much like a declaration of war. Every pope since Paul VI has always left openings for the old Mass. If any changes were made, they were minor revisions, see, for example, the 1984 and 1989 indults. John Paul II firmly believed that bishops should be generous in allowing tridentine Mass. Benedict even opened the door wide through Summorum Pontificum: "What was sacred then, it still is today".

Francis slams the door through Traditionis Custodes. It feels like treason and is a slap in the face to its predecessors. Moreover, the Church has never abolished liturgies. Not even Trent. Francis completely breaks with this tradition. The motu proprio contains briefly and powerfully some theorems and commands. By means of an accompanying longer statement, etc. is further exploded. This statement contains quite a few factual inaccuracies. One is the claim that what Paul VI did after Vatican II would be the same as what Pius V did after Trent. This is completely true. Remember that before that time various (overwritten) manuscripts circulated and local liturgies had arisen. It was a mess.

Trent wanted to restore the liturgies, remove inaccuracies and check for orthodoxy. Trent was not about rewriting the liturgy, nor about new additions, new eucharistic prayers, a new lectionary or new calendar. It was purely about ensuring uninterrupted organic continuity. The missal of 1517 har reached back to the missal of 1474 and so on back to the 4th century. There was continuity from the 4th century onwards. Even after the 15th century there is four centuries of continuity. From time to time, at most, some minor changes were made or an addition of a party, remembrance or column.

Vatican II asked for liturgical reforms, according to council document Sacrosanctum Concilium. This is a conservative document. Latin was maintained, Gregorian chants retained their legitimate place in the liturgy. However, the developments that followed Vatican II are a far from the council documents. The infamous 'spirit of the council' is nowhere to be found in the council texts themselves. Only 17% of the prayers of the old missal (Trent) can be found in the new missal (Paul VI). Then it is difficult to speak of continuity of organic development. Benedict recognized this and therefore gave ample space to the Old Mass. He even said that no one needed his permission ("What was sacred then, it still is today").

Pope Francis is now pretending that his motu proprio is in the organic development of the Church, which completely contradicts reality. By making Latin Mass practically impossible, he finally breaks with the centuries-old liturgical tradition of the R.K.Kerk. Liturgy is not a toy of popes, but is heritage of the Church. The Old Mass is not about nostalgia or taste. The Pope must be the guardian of tradition; The Pope is the gardener, not the manufacturer. Ecclesiastical law is not just a question of positive law, there is also such a thing as the law of nature and divine law, and moreover there is such a thing as Tradition that cannot simply be brushed aside.

What Pope Francis is doing has nothing to do with evangelism and even less to do with mercy. It's more like ideology. Why don't you go to a parish where the Old Mass is being celebrated? What do you come across there: people who just want to be Catholic. These are generally not people who deal with theological disputes, nor are they against Vatican II (but against its implementation). They love the Latin Mass because of its sanctity, its transcendence, the soul fence that is central, the dignity of the liturgy. You run into big families, people feel welcome. It is only celebrated in a small number of places. Why does the Pope want to deny people this? I come back to what I said earlier: it's ideology. It is Vatican II including its implementation with all its aberrations, or nothing! The relatively small number of believers (which, incidentally, is growing, while the novus ordo is collapsing) that feels at home at the traditional Mass must and will be eliminated. That's ideology and malice.

If you really want to evangelize, really show mercy, support Catholic families, then you are honouring tridentine mass. The Old Mass may no longer be celebrated in parish churches (where can you?), you explicitly need permission from your bishop, who may only allow it on certain days, and for those who are ordained in the future and want to celebrate the old Mass, the bishop must seek advice from Rome. How dictatorial, how unpastoral, how unforgiving do you want it!

Francis mentions in Art. 1 of its motu proprio de novus ordo (the current Mass) "the unique expression of the Lex Orandi of the Roman Rite". He therefore no longer distinguishes between the Ordinary Form (Paul VI) and the Extraordinary Form (Tridentine Mass). It has always been said that both are expressions of the Lex Orandi, so not just the Novus ordo. Again, the old Mass has never been abolished! I never hear Bergolio about the many liturgical abuses that exist here and there in countless parishes. In parishes, anything is possible except the Tridentine Mass. All weapons are thrown into battle to eliminate the Old Mass. why? For God's sake, why? What is Francis' obsession with wanting to prey on that small group of traditionals? The Pope must be the guardian of tradition; Not the prison guard of tradition. While Amoris Laetitia excelled in vagueness, Traditionis Custodes is a perfectly clear declaration of war.

I suspect Francis is shooting This Motu Proprio in the foot. For the brotherhood Pius X it will turn out to be good news. They will never have suspected that they owe this to Pope Francis.....

+Rob Mutsaerts