Abbot Primate of the Benedictines: “Mass in the Old Rite Can No Longer Be Eliminated”

We are very pleased to note the following from an interview which the Benedictine Abbot Primate, Dom Jeremias Schröder, gave to the website katholische.de, (an official organ of the Catholic Church in Germany), which was published on Saturday. Dom Schröder comes from the archabbey of St Ottilien in Upper Bavaria; he was elected the 11th abbot primate on September 14, 2024. By a happy providence or coincidence, this is also the date that Summorum Pontificum became legally active in 2007, and the birthday of the Holy Father, Pope Leo.

When asked whether the co-existence of the traditional and modern rites created conflict among the Benedictines, Dom Schröder stated, “I don’t see a conflict there. Among us Benedictines, the traditional and modern liturgies coexist harmoniously. In our entire order, we have about ten abbeys that celebrate according to the old rite, most of them in France. These predominantly belong to the Congregation of Solesmes, where, however, the majority of monasteries use the new missal. Starting with the Abbey of Fontgombault, a group of monasteries has emerged that celebrate according to the old rite. They are fully integrated into their congregation. Then there is the abbey of Le Barroux with its daughter houses, which was initially Lefebvrian in orientation. After the illicit episcopal consecrations of 1988, the monastery returned to full communion with Rome and is directly under my authority as Abbot Primate. And then there is the community in Norcia. We all treat each other with respect.”

Then, when asked whether in this regard, the Benedictines “can serve as a model for the entire Church?”, Dom Schröder replied, “In a certain sense, yes, because we already practice this peaceful coexistence. I am very curious to see how Pope Leo will address the issue. After Pope Benedict opened doors here, it will no longer be possible to completely eradicate the old form. We have brothers and sisters who have built their religious lives on this form of prayer and Mass. This has now also gained a place in the Church and should be permitted, at least in some areas.” (In both paragraphs, this is Google’s automatic translation.) 

The text I have bolded above is of course an editorial “my emphasis”, but it is not just my emphasis. It is also the headline for the interview chosen by both katholische.de itself, and by Avvenire, the official news service of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, for summary of it given in Italian on their website. So in both cases, this was the main thing which the editors decided to highlight as the most notable aspect of the interview.  

It bears repeating in this context that both the German and Italian bishops as a whole, while not known for any particular sympathy to the traditional liturgy, have been for the most part blessedly indifferent to the most obvious failure of the previous pontificate. I also note that the abbot primate resides at the abbey of Sant’ Anselmo in Rome, and is chancellor of the its liturgical athenaeum, which has long been one of the centers of opposition to Pope Benedict and Summorum Pontificum. Both sites accompanied their articles with the same photo of the abbot standing in the abbey’s cloister. Perhaps, then, we may take this as another encouraging sign that the Church’s internecine conflict over the traditional liturgy, which was deliberate rekindled almost five years ago, will not last far into its sixth year. And in this regard, let us remember to pray continually for the Holy Father, that the Holy Spirit may inspire to make the right decision, and repeal Traditionis Custodes completely.

And I therefore also make bold to remind our readers of these prayers for the Pope which are traditionally said at services like Benediction, and can of course be said privately any time.

Potent New Work Defends Intuition Behind Summorum Pontificum and Critiques Violence of Traditionis Custodes

As Kevin Tierney has pointed out more than once, there are many indications that Traditionis Custodes has been a tremendous failure in its overt mission of ridding the Church once for all of the dreaded Tridentine rite.

For sure, its implementation (like that of Sacrosanctum Concilium) has led to damages, divisions, and dismay in far too many places, but worldwide there has been little attempt to suppress the old rite altogether, which continues to flourish in or adjacent to parishes and in certain fortunate dioceses. Pope Leo XIV himself has signaled that this policy is no longer a priority and has urged making room for diverse “sensibilities.” Whether he will dismantle or modify his predecessor’s legislation on this point is difficult to say.

All the same, Traditionis Custodes looks like an act of violence in comparison with the pacific intentions of Summorum Pontificum, and it is well for us to reflect on the deeper theological and pastoral issues at stake, in order (ideally) to move away from the violence towards peaceful coexistence and even, dare one say, mutual enrichment – at least of communities, if not of rites.

Fortunately a new book has been published that serves exactly this purpose, and does so with brilliant insightfulness. I cannot recommend it too highly. The title is Liturgical Peace, Liturgical War: Benedict XVI’s “Summorum Pontificum” and Its Critics (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2026; also available at Amazon), and its author is Tomasz Dekert, a professor at the Jesuit University Ignatianum in Krakow, Poland, who has written it in English.

The book advances the thesis that the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI initiated a genuine – though long-term and demanding – process of leading the Catholic Church out of the postwar “liturgical conflict,” whereas the subsequent Traditionis Custodes interrupted this process and intensified existing tensions.

The author argues that the roots of the conflict lie not merely in opposing preferences (tradition vs. reform), but in a deeper problem: a flawed understanding of the nature of liturgy as ritual, structured by abstract and functionalist assumptions, which came to dominate approaches to liturgy in the context of postwar liturgical reforms. In particular, he criticizes approaches that subordinate ritual form to theological or cultural constructs, rather than recognizing its primary, “self-evident” character – that is, its sensibly apprehensible, performative, and socially constitutive nature.

An important component of the book is its polemic with critics of Summorum Pontificum, who view it as a threat to the unity of the Church, an expression of nostalgia, or an ideological project. The author argues that such criticism rests on the same reductionist understanding of liturgy that underpinned the postwar reform, treating it as an instrument for expressing or shaping doctrine and identity, rather than as a constitutive practice that is prior to them.

Drawing on the ritual theory of Roy A. Rappaport, the author demonstrates that the stability and repetitiveness of ritual form are conditions for the functioning of a religious community. Consequently, the radical and top-down liturgical reform following the Second Vatican Council – intervening in the entirety of the ritual’s “canonical” layer – necessarily led to a profound crisis within the Church, affecting not only liturgy, but also its structure of meaning and its unity.

Against this background, Summorum Pontificum appears as an attempt to restore ritual continuity by permitting the coexistence of liturgical forms and creating the conditions for their organic interaction, as well as for a gradual and patient healing of the situation. By contrast, Traditionis Custodes, grounded in the same problematic vision of liturgy as that of the critics of Summorum Pontificum, abandons this path and seeks an administrative resolution to the conflict, which – according to the author – leads to its escalation and entrenchment.

Ultimately, the book argues that overcoming the “liturgical war” cannot be achieved at the level of legal decisions or theoretical disputes, but requires a fundamental revision of the theological understanding of liturgy: namely, the recognition of its ontological and social role as a constitutive practice, and the restoration of its continuity as a condition for the unity of the Church.

With regard to the Novus Ordo, Dekert’s book makes essentially one claim – but a fundamental one with extensive ramifications, namely, that its introduction was a mistake because of the sheer scale of the change it brought about, a change which, precisely for that reason, could not help but act in a profoundly destructive way upon the Catholic system.

One wonders to what extent this kind of approach – far more anthropological than theological – can or will be taken seriously by contemporary theologians, that is, by those who operate primarily in the world of words, concepts, and ideas. This is a world in which, and with which, a mind sufficiently skilled in dialectics and interpretation can do almost anything. One can, for example, “prove” that although adding two apples to another two gives us four apples, “in reality” recognizing that there are seven will make us richer! When reading today’s mainstream liturgical writers, one often feels as if their defense of the post-conciliar liturgical reform amounts to something along these lines. The argument takes place at the level of ideas, not at the level of actual practice and its impact on real people.

This cuts both ways: if you want to understand why the traditional rite is so powerful and attractive, you must not stop at the level of ideas, but pay close attention to the way in which living it, participating in it according to its own rhythm and symbology, profoundly shapes consciousness and worldview.

One other tremendous strength in Dekert’s book is his thrilling treatment of the involvement and significance of papal authority in the process of reform and the implications this carried, both for Catholics within the Church and for ecumenical relations, especially with the East.

The price tag of the book is very high, as is the strange custom of academic publishers, but we may hope that it will eventually go down, as occurred with U. Michael Lang’s book on the Roman Rite, which eventually came out in a paperback edition as well. But if you or an institution you work for can afford Dekert’s book now, take my word for it: the book is worth every penny. It is one of the most insightful critiques of the liturgical reform I’ve ever read.

The Question of the Traditional Mass in Pope Leo XIV’s Pontificate

A guest article by the Canon of Shaftesbury, who serves as a canonist in a major archdiocese.

We find ourselves in the early days of Pope Leo XIV’s pontificate, and there are reasons for cautious optimism. Several signs suggest that the Holy Father wishes to address some of the more pressing challenges inherited from his predecessor.

Among these is the thorny question of access to the Traditional Latin Mass (what was once called the Extraordinary Form or Tridentine Mass) and the restrictions imposed by Traditiones Custodes.

I approach this question with the disposition we ought to have toward any successor of Peter: giving the benefit of the doubt, assuming good faith, and trusting in his pastoral intentions. Thus far, I do not detect in Pope Leo XIV any ill will toward those attached to the Traditional Mass. Yet good intentions alone do not guarantee wise policy, and two proposals currently being discussed as potential ‘solutions’ to the current impasse give me serious pause. Both, I would argue, fail to address the underlying problems and may even compound them.

The Ordinariate Proposal: A Gilded Cage

The first proposal involves creating some form of personal ordinariate to oversee communities attached to the Traditional Mass. This has a certain administrative logic to it: provide a dedicated structure, remove these communities from the direct oversight of potentially hostile diocesan bishops, and create a stable canonical framework for their existence.

But this apparent solution conceals a fundamental problem: it would create a liturgical ghetto. The genius of Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum was precisely that it refused this ghettoization. Pope Benedict recognized the Traditional Mass not as some exotic rite requiring special permissions and separate hierarchical structures, but as part of the Roman Rite itself: never abrogated, always legitimate, and available as a right to the faithful and to priests. The ordinary-extraordinary form distinction was meant to emphasize continuity, not division. It acknowledged that the Church prays in two forms of the same rite, both equally Roman, both equally Catholic.

An ordinariate structure, by contrast, would effectively declare: ‘This Mass is so problematic, so divisive, so other, that it cannot exist within normal diocesan structures.’ It would enshrine in canon law the very separation that Pope Benedict sought to overcome. Worse still, it would do nothing to address the problem of hostile bishops. In fact, it might embolden them. A bishop who has shown himself ungenerous—or outright antagonistic—toward the faithful attached to the Traditional Mass would simply have his prejudices validated: ‘See, these people and their liturgy are so different they need their own separate structure. They don’t really belong here.’

The faithful would be protected, perhaps, but at the cost of being formally marginalized. This is not a solution; it is an institutionalized retreat.

The “Reform of the Reform”: Necessary but Insufficient

The second proposal focuses on improving celebrations of the Novus Ordo; what is often called the ‘reform of the reform.’ Proponents argue that if the Ordinary Form were celebrated with greater reverence, solemnity, and attention to the sacred, many of the concerns driving people toward the Traditional Mass would dissipate.

This is not entirely wrong. Much of what ails Catholic liturgy today stems not from the Novus Ordo itself in its official form, but from the liberties, innovations, and abuses that have become routine in its celebration. A more reverent Novus Ordo: celebrated ad orientem, with Gregorian chant, in Latin where appropriate, with careful attention to rubrics, etc. This would undoubtedly be a vast improvement over what many Catholics experience on a typical Sunday.

But this approach, while laudable, does not go far enough. It treats the problem as primarily one of implementation when there are also questions of structure and theology embedded in the rite itself.

The Novus Ordo was not the product of organic liturgical development but of committee design. This is not a polemical claim but a historical fact. The post-Vatican II liturgical reform, whatever its intentions, created a rite that was substantially different from what preceded it; not through the gradual, Spirit-guided evolution that characterized liturgical development for centuries, but through deliberate committee construction in a remarkably short period of time.

Pope Benedict XVI himself was deeply aware of this problem. In his writings both as Cardinal Ratzinger and as Pope, he expressed concerns about the rupture in liturgical continuity and the dangers of treating the liturgy as something we construct rather than something we receive. His whole project in Summorum Pontificum was, in part, to restore that sense of organic continuity.

More troubling still is the way the Novus Ordo, in its typical celebration, places the priest at the center of the liturgical action. The structure of the rite, particularly when celebrated versus populum, tends to make the priest’s personality, choices, and even charisma central to the experience. The priest becomes, whether he wishes it or not, a kind of performer. The liturgy becomes, to a troubling degree, his creation.

This is not to say that priests celebrating the Novus Ordo are acting in bad faith or that Christ cannot be encountered there; of course He can and is. But the structure of the rite makes the centrality of Christ dependent on the priest’s willingness and ability to efface himself, to suppress his own personality, to resist the temptation to innovate or ‘personalize’ the liturgy.

In the Traditional Mass, by contrast, the priest’s personality is structurally suppressed. Facing the same direction as the people, following a more fixed and detailed rubrical structure, praying large portions of the Mass quietly, the priest becomes almost anonymous; a mediator rather than a protagonist. Christ is at the center not because the priest is particularly holy or particularly skilled, but because the structure of the rite itself directs all attention away from the priest and toward the altar, toward the sacrifice, toward the Lord.

It is no accident that so many churches built or renovated in the Novus Ordo era look like stadiums or auditoriums rather than sacred spaces. If the liturgy is fundamentally about what the priest does, about the community’s celebration, about active participation understood primarily as external activity, then the architectural logic follows: create a space where everyone can see the action, where the priest is visible and audible to all, where the focus is on the human gathering rather than on the divine presence.

A more reverent celebration of the Novus Ordo can mitigate some of these problems, but it cannot fully overcome them without structural changes so substantial that we would be, in effect, creating a different rite.

The Pastoral Ends

The real solution is not complicated, though it requires courage and perhaps a willingness to disappoint certain constituencies who have grown attached to the restrictions of Traditiones Custodes. The solution is to return to the dispensation of Summorum Pontificum. Pope Benedict’s motu proprio was wise precisely because it addressed all the problems that the current proposals fail to solve:

1. It dealt with hostile bishops. By establishing that priests have a right to celebrate the Traditional Mass without needing episcopal permission, and that faithful have a right to request it, Pope Benedict removed the question from the realm of episcopal whim and placed it on firmer canonical ground. A bishop could not simply forbid what the universal law of the Church permitted.

2. It refused ghettoization. By insisting on the ordinary-extraordinary form distinction, Pope Benedict kept the Traditional Mass within the normal life of dioceses and parishes. It was not an exotic import requiring special structures, but part of the Church’s living tradition.

3. It respected the freedom of the faithful. Pope Benedict understood that the faithful have a right (not merely a privilege) to access the Church’s liturgical heritage. The liturgy is not the property of bishops or popes to manipulate at will, but a sacred trust handed down through generations.

4. It created space for mutual enrichment. Pope Benedict hoped that the two forms of the Roman Rite would enrich each other: that the reverence and sacral character of the old would influence the new, while the new rite would encourage Catholics to engage actively with the liturgy, to better understand the texts, and to participate vocally in their appointed parts. These devotional habits, once cultivated, naturally enhance one’s experience of the traditional rite as well. But for this enrichment to work, it requires proximity, not separation.

Conclusion

Pope Leo XIV faces a difficult situation, and I do not envy him the task of navigating these troubled liturgical waters. But the path forward should not require novel structures or half-measures. Pope Benedict XVI, in his wisdom, already showed us the way. Summorum Pontificum was not perfect (no merely human legislation ever is) but it was fundamentally sound in its principles and generous in its pastoral vision.

What is needed now is not innovation but restoration: restoration of the freedom Pope Benedict granted, restoration of trust in the faithful, restoration of confidence that the Church is big enough to hold both forms of her Roman liturgical tradition without one threatening the other.

The Traditional Mass is not a problem to be managed or a crisis to be solved. It is a gift to be received, a treasure to be preserved, and a heritage to be passed on. The sooner we return to treating it as such, the sooner we can move past these exhausting controversies and return to the real work of the Church: the sanctification of souls and the worship of Almighty God.

End, Don’t Mend, Traditionis Custodes: Guest Essay by Kevin Tierney

We are very grateful to Mr Kevin Tierney for sharing with NLM this insightful essay on the failure of Traditionis Custodes, which I am sure our readers will find especially interesting in light of the upcoming extraordinary consistory. You can find more of his excellent writing on his Substack; He is also on Twitter at https://twitter.com/CatholicSmark

When the cardinals gather in Rome in January at the invitation of Pope Leo XIV, they will discuss, among other things, the sacred liturgy. While not explicitly named, everyone understands that, in this conversation, some of them will raise the topic of Traditionis custodes. To speculate, the ensuing discussion will likely center on how to preserve it while eliminating its worst aspects, such as the rescript that revoked the bishops’ right to regulate the liturgy in their dioceses. I think instead that the cardinals should discuss not how to mend Traditionis custodes, but how to end it.

While normally this discussion centers on why people prefer the TLM vs the Novus Ordo, I’d like to look at the legislation itself, and the culture in which that legislation came into being. A striking thing about Traditionis custodes (hereafter TC) was that the plan had a single point of failure. By his own words, Pope Francis promulgated TC to bring about liturgical uniformity within the Roman Rite, because only liturgical uniformity could faithfully honor the Second Vatican Council. (“This unity I intend to re-establish throughout the Church of the Roman Rite.”) Since the bishop is the moderator of the liturgy in his diocese, Francis entrusted this task to the bishops… who mostly ignored it. This led to Francis changing Church law regarding the liturgy, removing the authority of the local bishop (in the Roman Rite) to regulate the sacred liturgy, and instead putting it in the hands of the head of the Dicastery for Divine Worship, whom he could more easily pressure into eliminating the TLM on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, he exposed TC’s single point of failure.

Dangerous counter-revolutionaries threatening the unity of the Faith!

A single point of failure is an engineering concept where an entire system succeeds or fails based on one point. Many times, a single point of failure is ignored because of all the complex dynamics involved in a system, or the number of data points involved. When that one point fails, the entire system crashes, normally leading to long term disaster. For this reason, the first thing any smart design of a system does is abandon a single point of failure, by either adding redundancy (a backup) or diffusing the risk (distributing the cost of failure between points.)

Pope Francis proved that the person of the Roman Pontiff is TC’s single point of failure. As Diane Montagna revealed, when he asked the bishops for their opinion, the majority told him what he wanted to do was a bad idea. Francis responded to this by bypassing every norm of implementing a law, and demanding that it take immediate effect. He moved a change into a live environment, not knowing if it would work. When it was clear that it would not work, he doubled down on the single point of failure, by making enforcement dependent almost entirely on who is Pope. With the end of a pontificate, the desire to keep enforcing TC would be entirely in the hands of a successor, whose priorities might be very different. I think we have seen this with Leo. While some bishops have attempted to continue to implement the decree, Leo has shown himself far more amenable to the TLM’s continued existence. While some might say that Leo can fix this situation by being less oppressive, this does not change the fundamental reality of TC: few want it, and even fewer are invested in its success.

Solemn Mass celebrated by His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke in St Peter’s basilica on October 25th, during this year’s Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage. 

The second reason it should be rescinded is that TC fails to achieve its stated goal. The decree and the documents implementing it claim that a powerful sign of unity will be fostered in the Church because of these actions. I would simply ask the reader to look at the dioceses where this approach has been emphasized. Are Detroit and Charlotte centers of unity and visible communion? Are their bishops united with their pastors and laity? Are those bishops known for being well liked by their brother bishops? To ask these questions is to answer them.

The third reason TC should end is there is no realistic way to get to Yes. When you introduce a change into the world, you must have a way you can measure if it is successful, at which point you can say that “Yes, this worked” or “No, it didn’t.” At what point can you say that TC worked? Does anyone believe, in 2025, that the TLM is going to be abolished? If not, what are the options for getting to that point? The first option would be even greater centralization or a brute force ban of the TLM, options which, whatever their chance of success, just add even more pressure onto that single point of failure. The second would be a mass purging of bishops, and appointing outright yes-men in their place. This would destroy the authority of even bishops sympathetic to TC, and introduce into the dynamic a lot of bishops deprived of their jurisdiction, who would nonetheless still be admired by the faithful, while central authority would be held in contempt. Ecclesiastically speaking, bad things happen in that situation.

Faced with this reality, there will be a temptation to take measures which will turn the temperature down. The rescript could remain in place, but just ignored. Bishops would receive automatic approval to keep having the TLM celebrated, or Rome could drop that part entirely. The rescript could be removed, returning the issue to the bishops entirely. While all of these would be welcomed as short-term measures, they do not address the long-term instability of TC. Most bishops still do not want this decision, and are fine with leaving it to their priests. They either do not care about the TLM, or they want it preserved and encouraged. The younger a priest is, the more conservative he is, and the more at peace he is with the continued existence of the TLM, and not just in America.

Instead of trying to make a dying project work, the cardinals – and the Church at large – have a chance to introduce a new question: instead of trying to check off long desired ideological goals that have no relevance to today’s Catholics, what can we do to make it easier for Catholics to follow Christ?

Sadness in the Diocese of Knoxville

Great sadness has descended upon the parishes in the Knoxville diocese where the Latin Mass has been celebrated for the past several years. At the end of this year, the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) will be banned in the diocese altogether, with the Chattanooga parish changing over at the end of the liturgical year.

During Pope St. John Paul II’s reign, the possibility for the Catholic faithful to experience the liturgy of our forefathers once again became possible in certain places due to the possibility of an indult. This was how I first experienced a traditional (1962 Missal) Latin Mass at the age of 48. No doubt, I attended the Mass in that form when I was a young child, but I had no memory of any Mass except for the Novus Ordo until that time.

During my lifetime, I experienced in many locations the many varied ways the Mass is celebrated since Vatican II. I can say quite sincerely that none of them approached transcendence. Marked by the culture of the priest’s personality (which is hard to avoid with the versus populum liturgies - a Paul VI invention that is not prescribed in the GIRM), really poor music (many times performed by musicians who don’t read music), the faithful Catholics have suffered an insipid and uninspiring Mass all that time.

We could, perhaps, blame the poor music for these experiences in large part. Most parishes even today have only volunteer musicians, bringing their guitars, synthesizers, and other instruments, even such things as tambourines, rain sticks and drums finding a welcome at Novus Ordo liturgies. The skill level of the musicians varies wildly from one parish to another, but generally depends on the generosity of volunteers, since most pastors seem to think that musicians don’t deserve any remuneration for the vast amount of time required to plan, practice and sing for liturgies. Unlike parish secretaries or janitors, musicians are somehow considered greedy if they expect payment for their work.

But it is more than just the poor music that is responsible. The entire liturgy seems to have been designed to be inoffensive to Protestants in its language and the various inventions that were added (Prayers of the Faithful, Sign of Peace, various options to suit every personal taste in the various Eucharistic prayers).

Along with the addition of a second reading at Sunday Masses and a 3-year cycle of readings, the implementation of the new form of the Mass seemed to open the doors to all sorts of incorrect information provided to the faithful after the Vatican II documents were implemented. Somehow, the idea that Latin and Gregorian chant were no longer allowed came into general belief, despite the documents themselves saying quite the opposite. In the recent years, and particularly under Pope Francis’ reign, the traditional norm of ad orientem (the priest facing the altar) liturgy began to be disallowed by bishops around the US, despite that being the norm according to the General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM).

The shoddy translation from the Latin that was implemented with the English vernacular liturgy included things that were not even close to the original Latin. For example: “The Lord be with you” answered by “And also with you” is completely inexplicable when the correct translation “And with your spirit” is so simple. Not until the new translation in 2010 was implemented were many of these clear errors corrected. Another obvious example is the completely fabricated English Memorial Acclamation (happily dropped with the newest translation) of “Christ has died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again.” There is nothing even close to that in the Latin version. It was completely made up. That lack of beauty in the text of the prayers and in the readings is also striking.

When Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum was announced in 2007, the same summer I first attended an indult TLM in Washington, DC, I truly had no understanding of the differences between the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass. It seemed obvious to me that it was far more beautiful and lovely than any Novus Ordo liturgy I had experienced, but at first I thought it was just the care in the music that was at the heart of it. I thought, incorrectly, that the Novus Ordo liturgy could also be as beautiful if the music were done as intended.

Over the next 15+ years of my life, I worked toward that end. I attended Colloquia planned by the Church Music Association of America (CMAA) every year, where we tried to make every liturgy lovely in all forms, English, Spanish, Latin Novus Ordo, and Traditional Latin Mass. It became clear that the very form of the Novus Ordo is incompatible with many of the traditional polyphonic Mass ordinaries. The traditional Latin Mass has the action on the altar continuing in parallel with the music sung by the choir, with the prayers offered on the altar by the priest happening concurrently with the singing of propers and ordinary. It is a perfect union of both integral parts of the liturgy.

When you try to use the same music at a Novus Ordo Mass, because of the way the rubrics are designed, it does not work as well. You’ll find the priest waiting around for the choir to finish singing before the next part of the liturgy can proceed, something that is not a problem in the TLM. Because of that, many priests do not want the choir to sing all the prescribed propers or the full chanted ordinary. It often makes the Mass much longer than it should be because all the various things must happen in sequence – not in parallel.

One thing that is particularly striking when attending a TLM such as the one at the Basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul in Chattanooga is the discipline, diligence and beauty of the work of the altar servers for the TLM. It is not unusual to have 18-20 altar servers at the Sunday Mass, with various tasks assigned to each in turn. Several of these young men have learned all the various jobs and take turns acting as Master of Ceremony (MC). The movement of the altar servers is carefully planned and executed with a sort of military precision that is beautiful to behold, with the older boys patiently teaching the younger ones. In the TLM, the altar servers not only carry candles, assist with incensation, and assist the priest at Mass. They also learn the Latin responses for the liturgy and make those responses on behalf of the faithful in the pews. There is nothing similar required of altar servers for the Novus Ordo Mass. The rubrics don’t allow for most of the altar server work currently done for the TLM. The sadness of this loss to those boys and young men is palpable, beyond the loss to the faithful who have watched and appreciated their work each week.

When the vernacular liturgy was implemented after the 2nd Vatican Council, there was no suitable vernacular substitute for the Gregorian chants that had been used in the TLM. And how could there have been? The glorious treasure of music built up over a thousand years cannot be replaced with suitable music in a few years’ time. In fact, the Church did not publish any books telling musicians what should be sung for those liturgies for years after the implementation of the vernacular Mass. So… left to their own devices, most parishes jettisoned the lovely Gregorian chant and polyphonic tradition in favor of such lovely pieces as Kumbayah, They’ll Know We are Christians, Morning Has Broken, etc. The idea that the Latin pieces were no longer allowed was common at parishes during that time, so many parishes thought they had no choice. Many places also started using Protestant hymns for the liturgy since at least they were in the apparently preferred language, despite the fact that hymns were not a part of Catholic liturgical tradition for the Mass. Hymns were typically reserved for the Divine Office or devotions outside the Mass.

Most Catholics are completely unaware of this and think that hymns are appropriate and even preferred for the Mass. They have not been taught that the Proper texts are actually prescribed for each Mass and that substituting hymns is the least desirable option. I’ve sometimes tried to describe this to people as equivalent to someone arbitrarily deciding that they don’t want the reading of the day and using some other Bible text of their own choosing. Somehow this knowledge is lacking among many faithful Catholics. The main difference in this analogy is that this substitution for the proper texts for music is actually allowed in the Novus Ordo, as the fourth option - alius cantus aptus (another appropriate song). I daresay many of the choices are not appropriate and that removing this option could greatly reduce the banality of the music that is so often experienced.

In the past 20 years or so, various lay people and a few priests have created Proper settings in the vernacular to try to alleviate the lack of suitable music for the Mass. I have personally worked to create Mass Proper settings in Spanish based on the Gregorian chants for the three-year cycle to try to offer something beyond the simple hymns and poor options we find in such books as Flor y Canto. These settings are made available for anyone to use at no cost.

But this was not at the behest of the Church leadership, but rather individual work taken on by people who saw a need and had the desire to somehow make the Novus Ordo liturgies beautiful. And, in order to not have to negotiate with the Church hierarchy over copyrights and royalties, we must keep the settings 100% free of charge, despite the fact that the texts that are used are those required to be used for the liturgies and the translation to produce those texts was ultimately already paid for by the faithful.

With the last translation of the Missals in English and in Spanish, chanted Mass ordinary settings were included to allow at least some dignity in the liturgies. The work done by ICEL and the USCCB (for the Spanish Misal) was long overdue and a definite improvement, even if 30 years too late.

Can you imagine the joy a person like me has felt when we were at long last able to attend a TLM regularly? Since moving to the Chattanooga area nearly two years ago, this has been the first time in my life I have had the opportunity. For these two years, my family has enjoyed this great gift and tried our best to contribute to the parish, through my participation in the parish choir, through our financial support, and, most recently as sponsors for candidates in OCIA. My husband has volunteered to assist in the Vocations Ministry, hoping that we can follow the diocesan program to build vocations among the young men to become future priests.

At other places over the years, I have served as a choir director, while my husband worked in the prison ministry and we both helped in other small ways at each location. We have tried to lend our time and treasure to the Church as much as we could. Our sons were altar servers and/or lectors at various parishes we attended. We had no option other than the Novus Ordo and we made the best of it.

As I sat in the choir loft listening to our pastor’s homily when he gave the news of the end of the TLM in our parish and in the diocese, tears came to my eyes. The message was a very hard one to hear, especially when the message of submission and obedience seemed so harsh. It was a warning against disobedience and schism rather than a message of shared suffering. Knowing Fr. Carter, I cannot believe that was what he intended. One thing I can say is that the Novus Ordo Latin liturgy that replaces the TLM in our parish will be as beautiful as it can be under his leadership.

None of this means that I do not accept the authority of the Church or that I want to leave communion with the Pope. Nor do I dispute the validity of Communion and the other sacraments in the Novus Ordo. When we cannot attend a TLM due to travel or other commitments, we always attend an alternate Novus Ordo Mass. I simply now understand the pain and confusion that must have been experienced by older generations when, after Vatican II, the long-held, familiar and lovely liturgy they had known their entire lives was banned. For 40 years or so they had no chance of attending Mass in the form they had grown up with and loved. They had no chance to explain the differences to their children or grandchildren.

And the bishops and cardinals who participated in the changes made during Vatican II must surely have had good reasons for making some reforms. I don’t deny that many of those bishops must have had good intentions, despite a few bad characters such as Bugnini, who seems to have had an outsized role in developing the Mass of Paul VI. They may have thought getting input about the liturgy from Protestants as they did might make it more attractive to potential converts. However, I think many, if not most, of the bishops who participated in the 2nd Vatican council must have felt completely blindsided by the liturgy that came after the completion of the council meetings. I don’t think this was what they intended at all.

After the Novus Ordo was introduced, post Vatican II, many people were very happy to have a more relaxed and informal liturgy in the vernacular. Some relished the chance to become church rock singers on Sunday, kicking off the shackles of the strict musical requirements of the TLM. You’ll find these are the people seen at the sparsely-attended Novus Ordo parishes that are on the verge of shutting down due to lack of interest. They are typically also the biggest complainers if any music is sung in Latin. When you visit a typical English Novus Ordo parish anywhere in the country, you’ll often find that most of the pews are uncrowded and the age demographics tilt heavily toward these people - the baby boomer generation (of which I am one). In many places the younger generations are simply absent or nearly so. The main exception to this in the past few years would be at the growing number of Spanish liturgies you’ll see in every city in the country. This group tends to be a younger demographic. This is due to the fact that we have had a huge influx of Spanish-speaking Catholics who have brought their guitars and mariachi-style music to many places. Let’s face it: however much any of us appreciate mariachi music, we have to agree that it is not Sacred Music and does not encourage contemplation or prayer.

A side note: If we want to speak of lack of unity, I dare you to see how much crossover there is at a typical Novus Ordo parish with a Spanish-speaking community and an English-speaking community. Ne’er the twain shall meet. It is a constant problem due to the lack of a common language. Some parishes are forced to have separate parish council meetings, separate Knights of Columbus meetings, etc. At the parish we previously attended before moving near to Chattanooga, the confirmation classes were only offered in Spanish, so the daughter of one of our friends did not receive that sacrament when she was in high school. No provision was made for English-speaking children at the parish.

The mish-mash of Spanish and English that must be used during the Triduum and Holy Days of Obligation is often a terrible thing. At least some portion of the attending faithful are always alternatively annoyed when their language is not the one being used and when the musical styles are so different as to be completely jarring, switching back and forth between Spanish and English. Wouldn’t a unified Latin be a huge improvement? But I digress.

At this point, most people in the world have never experienced a Traditional Latin Mass and think those who are attached to that liturgy are crazy “trads” if they are aware of them at all. Many are completely unaware and disinterested in the controversy. Some are quick to criticize TLM attendees as if we are denying the validity of the 2nd Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo liturgy. Speaking for myself, that is certainly not the case.

But, beauty is beauty. Truth is truth. After Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, more and more priests, and in particular, the younger priests, began to learn how to offer the Mass in the old form. Little pockets of people began to ask for it and work to get it in their parishes around the country and around the world. They spent hours learning the correct way to do it, training young men and boys to serve at the altar, the choir working to learn to read the Gregorian chant notation and to sing it. While still a very small minority in total numbers, the people attending the traditional Latin Mass were sharing information about where they occurred and were often driving hours each week to attend them where they were offered.

This form of the liturgy is marked by the high percentage of young families with lots of children, large numbers of altar servers, many women who wear head-coverings and homeschool their children and have very regular Mass attendance. This is the group of Catholics most likely to believe in the True Presence in the Holy Eucharist, follow the Church teachings on birth control and abortion and receive the sacraments regularly. This group of people have been so appreciative of the availability of the Mass to them that they were generous financial supporters of the parishes and source of many new vocations.

This isn’t nostalgia. This form of the liturgy was never offered to these young parents when they were growing up. But, having experienced it, they could see the beauty of it and wanted it to continue. They were willing to sacrifice to make it available.

Until Pope Francis put forth the motu proprio Traditiones Custodes (TC), which was essentially a complete reversal of Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum after only 14 years, the two forms of the Mass were, for the most part, happily coexisting in the Church. Those who preferred the guitar Mass could have it pretty much anywhere; those who wanted the TLM (if they were willing to drive a bit) could sometimes have that. Many people moved to locations where it was offered specifically with that in mind. This issue had no small impact on our family’s decision to move to the Chattanooga area.

If there is essentially no difference between the TLM and a Latin Novus Ordo, I have to wonder why the Latin Novus Ordo virtually disappeared once the TLM was allowed again. Could it be that the vast superiority of the form and the beauty was unmistakable?

Why it was determined that this form of the liturgy should be again stamped out is a complete mystery to me. And for Pope Francis to issue that motu proprio while Pope Benedict was still living was a rather shocking thing. Knowing he had no love for the traditional sentiments among the faithful, it was not unexpected that he would move to suppress it to some degree, but many (perhaps most) of us thought he would have the courtesy to wait until after Pope Benedict died.

And why did Pope Benedict choose to freely allow all ordained priests to learn to celebrate the “extraordinary form” of the liturgy without the permission of their bishops and to offer it wherever and whenever they wished? What about the argument about the Lefebvre followers and the SSPX and their disobedience? Would allowing the TLM cause faithful Catholics to join the SSPX somehow or to deny the validity of the Novus Ordo? I believe the reason Pope Benedict offered the option was because of the abuses that are so common in the Novus Ordo liturgies - everything from the “Clown Mass” to allowing lay people to preach homilies, to improper use of home-baked bread for Holy Communion (not the correct unleavened bread that is prescribed), the use of improper vessels in the Mass, priests using water pistols to spray Holy Water and so on. I think his hope was that the TLM would inspire and inform the Novus Ordo so that those liturgies could be uplifted in the “Reform of the Reform”.

The people who have grown to love the TLM are good and faithful Catholics. Taking this form of the Mass away is simply cruel. I understand that the TC restrictions on training other priests to offer the TLM has placed an unreasonable burden on those who are celebrating it currently. This, again, is completely unnecessary. If I understand correctly, the restrictions of TC also make it difficult for the records kept by parishes regarding baptism, confirmation, marriage, etc., since only non-parishes are allowed to offer the TLM. This seems to have been part of the rationale for deciding not to declare any shrines or chapels for the TLM in the diocese, although perhaps I misunderstood. All of this seems to just be a way of suppressing the TLM for no good reason.

The most recent letter from the bishop of Knoxville displays either a complete lack of understanding of the differences between the two forms of the Mass or a breathtakingly condescending attitude toward those faithful who are attached to the TLM. To think that simply allowing ad orientem Latin Novus Ordo liturgies is an indistinguishable substitute for the TLM is simply ignorant. Since this is the assumed norm in the Novus Ordo liturgy according to the GIRM, the idea that it would have to be “allowed” seems disingenuous.

Every year since 2007, I have attended conferences where we have endeavored to make the Novus Ordo liturgy as beautiful and transcendent as the TLM through the use of Sacred Music, careful adherence to the rubrics on the altar, lovely vestments, etc.

It never quite makes it.

Certainly, using the traditional chants and following the actual rubrics are a huge improvement on the typical parish Novus Ordo liturgy, but it is clearly not an equal substitute.

In the Knoxville diocese, as was the case in Charlotte, the new bishop seems to have taken the harshest tack possible on implementing TC, without offering a good justification. Even though the allowance for shrines and chapels to offer the TLM could have been allowed, no provision for that has been made. While dioceses more friendly to the TLM have planned for this, creating new shrines and chapels and making at least some provision for a transition, in our diocese, there will be no TLM available at all after the end of the Church year in Chattanooga and the end of the calendar year in Knoxville and Johnson City. Those of us who have been watching to see what would happen locally after Francis’ motu proprio (TC) were fearing it would be more difficult to get to a TLM, if not every week, then at least fairly frequently. We never dreamed it would be this bad.

We, the faithful, strongly suspect our new bishop didn’t really try to get any more extensions from Rome on the allowance of the TLM for a longer period in order to make new provisions. Since no realistic plan for its continuance was made, of course there is no logical place to move the liturgy in place of the current parishes. It is as if the bishop simply let the clock run out and then said there is no solution that allows the continuance of the TLM. I understand the difficulty for the priests who have been offering the TLM up to this point. It seems the bishop is fully in agreement with the late Pope Francis that the TLM has no place in the modern Church and the TLM-attending faithful must choose to either obey or become schismatics outside the Church.

But because those who attend a TLM are such a small minority, it probably seems relatively low-risk to the diocese as a whole. Perhaps the difficulty in dealing with some of the “trads” who have misconceptions about the validity of Novus Ordo sacraments is troubling to pastors and bishops. Our pastor gave a few examples of this in his recent homily including a related story about people from the Traditional Mass that have requested that leftover consecrated hosts from the TLM be stored separately from the Novus Ordo Masses. He also mentioned the fact that his desire to modernize the TLM liturgy with sung vernacular readings was met with rigid disapproval from the faithful. Perhaps this was the type of reform those bishops at Vatican II were actually hoping for and expecting. It was, perhaps, a sad lost opportunity to keep the beauty while offering a reform of the old.

We will remain Catholic. We will attend Mass, despite any lack of beauty, holiness and tradition. We were stuck with this situation for 40 years before the 2007 Summorum Pontificum, wandering in a liturgical desert. We will pray for our bishops and priests and offer up these sufferings, remembering that others have it worse. We will make home sanctuaries, where priests who want to celebrate private Masses in the old form will be made welcome. We will tell our children what they have lost and hope it won’t be another 40 years before we have freedom to have this form of the Mass reinstated again.

But bishops are not bringing peace and unity by doing these things. This is a choice they are making to inflict pain on members of their own flock when they don't try to find alternatives to fully abolishing the TLM. They are bringing bitterness and resentment into the diocese, where it didn't exist before. We have been made to understand that we who love the TLM are not as important as inflicting their will on the liturgical form. Our bishop is quite willing to risk the fact that some will be tempted toward schism. For the vast majority of us, however, that would never be the choice.

We were joyful and appreciative of the generosity of our priests who took the (not inconsequential) time to learn to offer the TLM and prepare different homilies because of the difference in Mass readings on many weeks due to changes in the Church calendar between old and new.

If peace and unity are attained (the stated goal of this by bishops), it will be in spite of their actions. May we all find the grace to forgive them.

Please pray for our priests, who are struggling as we are with these trials. If you are in a place where the TLM is still allowed, rejoice in it and let your pastor know that you appreciate him! And, above all, realize that your Catholic brothers and sisters who attend the Novus Ordo liturgies may not be able to have the good fortune you do. We are all still members of the Church who hope to share eternal life with our Father in heaven.

The Revolution is So Over

Traditionis Custodes did not come as thunder out of a clear sky; rumors of a plan to restrict the use of the Roman Rite had been circulating for weeks before it actually dropped. But when it did drop, on a Friday at noon in Rome, the shabbiness of the whole affair was immediately evident to the entire world, not least because of the absence of a vacatio legis.

The bishop of the area where I was living at the time was far out of town, and unable to return on short notice that weekend, but I have it on absolutely certain authority that he immediately contacted his secretary to have him clear his schedule for the Sunday following. Come the day, His Excellency spoke at both of the traditional Masses in the main church where it is celebrated in his diocese, and said, “I have read this document, and I see nothing in it that applies in any way to this community.” He immediately issued all the necessary dispensations, and the traditional mass remains as it was in that diocese.

In the following months, the reactions of so many of the world’s bishops were so similar that, in the name of collegiality synodality, the Holy See had to do a special end run around canon law, and remove their ability to use canon 87 in this matter specifically. And from that day to this, the would-be defenders of TC have never been able to make up their minds as to why it was necessary. They tell us almost simultaneously that those who attend the traditional Roman Rite are a tiny fraction of the faithful, (the least of the brethren, as it were,) so their concerns and the pastoral care of them need not trouble anyone, least of all their shepherds. But at the same time, they also represent a grave threat to the unity of the Church.

Dangerous counter-revolutionaries threatening the unity of the Faith!

That first year, when NLM’s anniversary came around, instead of the usual “happy anniversary to us, and thank you, Shawn!” piece, I wrote an article called, “The Revolution is Over.” The basic point was that TC was a gesture rooted above all else in despair, the despair that overmasters the minds of all revolutionaries when their revolution has failed. Seeing that the rising generations are not interested in their revolution, they attempt to impose ideological conformity by force, because they can no longer do so by persuasion. When that happens, it is already too late, and the revolution is already over.

I have thus far seen no evidence that I was wrong about this, and I write this now because I have just seen a new and very interesting piece of evidence that I was right. The National Catholic Reporter, of all publications, ran an outstanding opinion piece two days ago by a Catholic YouTuber named Roxie Beckles, who uses the handle That Black Catholic Chick. Commenting on the crowds of young people who attended the Jubilee celebration in Rome this summer, she writes, “These young Catholics were not extremists obsessed with nostalgic throwbacks. They were the future of the church – standing tall, unashamed and deeply in love with Jesus Christ. This moment wasn’t orchestrated by branding experts or synodal surveys. It was the Holy Spirit moving through the hearts of a generation tired of being lied to by the world. A generation that’s not content with shallow answers and empty rituals. They want real doctrine. Real reverence. Real formation. Real holiness.”

Turning specifically to the topic of the Latin Mass, she then writes something which has been, of course, obvious to all those with eyes to see and ears to hear, but which is nevertheless always worth repeating. “…when we really listen to the hearts of young Catholics, we see that the desire for tradition is not about ideology, but identity. … Young people want a liturgy that reflects the weight and glory of what we profess. They want to hear sacred music that stirs the soul rather than mimic the culture outside the church walls. They want to see beauty. They want to be caught up in mystery.

To move forward as one body, we have to stop pretending that reverence belongs to the past when, in fact, it’s one of the only things still bringing young people in. The future of the Catholic Church depends not on reinvention, but on deepening. We don’t need to discard what’s still bearing fruit. We need to water it, tend it and let it flourish.”

Even the National Catholic Reporter recognizes that the ideological crusade of frustrated revolutionaries against the traditional Roman Rite is out of gas. This column is part of a series on “Views on the first U.S. pope”, and ends with Ms Beckles saying, “My hope is that this pontificate offers space for that to happen; that we won’t be asked to silence what gives life, but invited to share it freely and joyfully with the world.” That is our hope too. Oremus pro pontifice nostro Leone!

From Pax inter Spinas, the publishing house of the Monastère Saint-Benoît in Brignole, France.

Cardinal Roche Repudiates Traditionis Custodes

Ever since Traditionis Custodes was issued more than 3½ years ago, its defenders have struggled to come up with a rationale for why it was issued at all. This is hardly surprising. The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, in repudiation of which it was written, was the fruit of decades of careful meditation on the Church’s liturgy problem, on the part of one of the finest minds of our times. And the theological and pastoral problems which Benedict XVI addressed with such wisdom and sensitivity are not one whit less real and serious now than they were when he issued it. That is a fact which is not going to change within our lifetimes.

Traditionis Custodes, on the other hand, was above all else an expression of fear, the fear of revolutionaries who know that their revolution is dying, because it holds no interest for the rising generations. It was always going to be a difficult prospect to defend the spectacle of men in their 70s and 80s angrily berating people in their teens and 20s that they need to get with the times, but it has certainly been given the old college try.

We were told that Pope Benedict’s decision to issue Summorum Pontificum was “above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre.” We were told this, even though Pope Benedict himself flatly stated that this was “absolutely false.”

We were also told that in a survey whose contents have never been revealed, the bishops of the world had alerted the Pope to the grave threat to the Church’s unity which the adherents of the traditional Roman Rite pose. At the same time, we have also been constantly told ever since then that there are very, very few such adherents; so few, in fact that the bishops needn’t worry too much about the sheep whose smell they are acquiring by wading into their midst and giving them a solid thrashing.

Dangerous counter-revolutionaries threatening the unity of the Faith!

We were told that it was therefore necessary to revoke the faculties granted by Summorum Pontificum, in order to restore to the bishops their rightful role as “guardians of the (Church’s) tradition”, and the authority over the liturgy which they needed to end this dangerous looming schism. The letter accompanying the newer motu proprio cited paragraph 27 of Lumen gentium to that effect four times, and said to the bishops, “It is up to you to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration, and to determine case by case the reality of the groups which celebrate with this Missale Romanum.” At the same time, their authority to make such determinations was drastically curtailed by the motu proprio itself. And when many of the bishops used the authority still left to them to determine that there was no such danger in their dioceses, their authority was further curtailed by the responses to a supposed set of dubia, and further still by the end-run around Canon 87 enshrined in a rescript two years ago.

We were told that the traditional Roman Rite must be consigned to the dustbin of history, because it is incompatible with the fascinating new ecclesiological insights of Vatican II. We were also told that the Synod on Synodality was still figuring out what those insights were, and would be sure to let us know as soon as it found them.

We have been told numerous times that attachment to the traditional Roman Rite, and to tradition in general, results from various psychological problems, murkily grouped under the conjuring term “rigidity”. But of course, expulsion from parishes is not a merciful way to accompany those who suffer from psychological problems. And all this is done in the name of defending the legacy of Vatican II, which rightly warned against this sad incomprehension and dismissal of the young by the old, and did not put an expiration date on the warning.

The blessed martyr Rolando Rivi, wearing a classic symptom of psychological rigidity. 

Enter now His Eminence Arthur Cardinal Roche, prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship, even he of the dubia and the rescript. In a fascinating new interview with The Catholic Herald published today, he reveals yet another new explanation of Traditionis Custodes, one which effectively repudiates not just the defenses of it proffered hitherto, but the document itself.

When asked “what advice (he) would give to those who want to remain faithful members of the Church and love the Latin Mass but find themselves restricted in attending,” he makes no mention of the dangerous divisions which supposedly necessitated such drastic action in the first place. Indeed, he tells us that “There is nothing wrong with attending the Mass celebrated with the 1962 missal”, the very point which Pope Benedict himself made in his letter to the bishops of the world accompanying Summorum Pontificum, one of his most famous quotes, because one of his wisest: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too.”

We also learn that in issuing Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis did not act to end the threat of a dangerous looming schism after all, but only to say that the traditional Roman Rite “is not the norm.” Again, this is the very same point that Pope Benedict himself made by calling the traditional Roman Rite, “the Extraordinary Form.”

Now it has to be admitted some of the other things he says about the traditional Rite and its current status in the Church are rather surprising, but such are the ways of the god of surprises. He tells us, for example, that “For very good reasons, the Church, through conciliar legislation, decided to move away from what had become an overly elaborate form of celebrating the Mass.” Of course, few people have as good cause as he to know that the post-Conciliar Rite is what it is, in its very essence, because it rejected and did not fulfill the liturgical legislation, such as it was, of the most recent ecumenical council.

But then in the very next paragraph, he regales us with one of those charming anecdotes about how badly the Mass used to be celebrated before the reform. Apparently, when he served Mass at school, the priest used to charge him with the responsibility of keeping track of the length of his Mass, and if he reached the Last Gospel within 15 minutes, to tug on his chasuble as a reminder that the Mass was supposed to be 20 minutes long. Clearly, the old Mass cannot have been that elaborate…

His Eminence admits what we all know, that this was “something very different from what people experience in the Extraordinary Form today.” Yes, we all know that those who cultivate the Extraordinary Form today fulfill the liturgical wishes of the most recent ecumenical council far more authentically than… this, for example. (Ash Wednesday Mass celebrated yesterday at the church of the Twelve Apostles in Cologne. Things get particularly interesting at 27:30, but be warned: what you hear will not easily be unheard...)

His Eminence then states that “The numbers devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass are, in reality, quite small, but some of the groups are quite clamorous. They are more noticeable because they make their voices heard.” We may prescind from the uncomfortable question as to why the authorities of the Church then pay them so much attention, while ignoring so many and such graver problems that afflict it. NLM is really not about those problems, so I simply make bold to suggest that His Eminence ask himself WHY those who are devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass make their voices heard in its defense, while those who are devoted to the reformed liturgy… um, don’t.

There are a few other chestnuts in the interview, including the perennial favorite that the new rite has more Scripture. But by far the most interesting statement is this: “What interests me is why people get hot under the collar about others celebrating the Tridentine Mass. I think this has been a mistake.” Here again, it is extremely gratifying and edifying to see His Eminence embrace the wisdom of our beloved Pope Benedict, who wrote to the bishops as follows in the aforementioned letter:

“This document (Summorum Pontificum) was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

This fear is unfounded. …

In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded.”

Indeed.

My Interview with Dr Jan Bentz of The European Conservative

Earlier this year, on the feast of the Assumption, I had the great pleasure of giving an interview to an old friend, Dr Jan Bentz, who studied in Rome for many years. He is now teaching at Oxford University, and hosting an interview series called Reality Check on the YouTube channel of The European Conservative magazine. Our conversation ranged over a wide variety of topics related to the liturgy: a little bit about the station Masses; the current status of the traditional Roman Rite; the legacy of Pope Benedict XVI, and how it applies to the whole life of the Church; the non-reception of Vatican II; the lectionary; continuity and rupture in the post-Conciliar reform; prospects for future liturgical reform, etc. I hope you find it interesting.

The Next Possible Anti-TLM Strategy: A Novus Ordo/TLM Hodge-Podge to Demonstrate “Acceptance of the Reform”

Convent de Sant Francesc, Santpedor, Spain (source)

In a press release dated July 25, 2024, the Dominicans of the Holy Spirit, a community that celebrated the traditional rite for decades but was then ordered by the Vatican to begin to adopt the Novus Ordo, announced that the Vatican had given them detailed stipulations as to how they should proceed in the future. As of December 1, 2024:

The Holy See asks us to follow the liturgical calendar currently in force in the Universal Church for the Roman rite [i.e., the Novus Ordo calendar]; it also asks that in our various houses, Mass be celebrated according to the Novus Ordo one week of the a month, with the exception of Sundays, while the Vetus Ordo remains in use for the other three weeks and every Sunday. It specifies that the Mass readings for each day will be those of the current Roman lectionary, and that all the prefaces of the Paul VI Missal will be used for Masses according to the Vetus Ordo. [1]

The Vatican here targets a vulnerable community of nuns, heavily reliant on the outside support of priests [2] , in order to run an experiment that it would like, if possible, to extend to all TLM institutes, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer, the Fontgombault monasteries, and so forth: namely, not to suppress the old rite, but to hybridize it with the Novus Ordo. Thus, the diktat might be issued that the old Ordo Missae may be retained, but the Novus Ordo calendar, lectionary, and prefaces must be used at all times, instead of the ones proper to the classical Roman rite.

This idea is hardly a new one. In fact, Traditionis Custodes already seems to have envisaged it in the following passage: “In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences.” The obvious sense of these words is that the new lectionary was to be imposed on TLM communities. Yet the motu proprio was so badly written, so clumsily revised, and so hugely controversial from the first moment, that this provision was basically ignored by nearly everyone (and rightly so: see here, here, and here).

This deconstruction by hybridization, and the resulting fractures in unity it would bring about in the traditionalist movement, would be the next and more subtle strategy for officials who have realized they cannot achieve direct and total abolition of the old rite. If you can’t beat them, why not assimilate them in some fashion?

Another view of the same church, which on both the outside and inside was renovated with modernist elements (source).

Such moves would, of course, undermine the integrity of the rite and make it a hodge-podge. As Joseph Shaw is especially good at explaining (see this pamphlet and this book), the old rite and the new rite each has its own “design principles,” if one may use that expression. Each is consistent from start to finish at pursuing certain goals with certain means. In the old rite, the inflexibility of the rubrics, the separation of priest from people, the use of a hieratic language, the frequent periods of silent prayer, the exclusive use of the Roman Canon, the fixed, limited, and repeated texts, etc., form a phenomenological and theological unity. In the new rite, the compact order of celebration, the interaction with the people, the verbalization of nearly everything, the options, the looser movements, the ample portions of Scripture, the clerically controlled silences, the vernacular extroversion, and so forth, also form a phenomenological and theological unity.

I think that clergy and laity who are familiar with the two rites are well aware of the many profound differences between them. While the new rite presents itself as an assemblage of modules, which can be explained both by the manner of its genesis and by the intention of situational adaptability, the old rite is most definitely nothing of the sort, and it cannot be treated as if it were a lego-brick toy in which one can swap out some blue pieces for some yellow pieces.

Indeed, almost every proposal for “improving” the old rite either rests on questionable antiquarian premises or betrays a faulty understanding of how the old rite works. (See my article “The Liturgical Rollercoaster: A Recent Proposal for 14 ‘Improvements’ to the TLM.”)

Anyone who knows about the hundreds of obvious and subtle differences between the old and new calendars will see immediately that combining the old rite with the new calendar is a non-starter. For one thing, the hagiocentricity so characteristic of the old rite will be instantly compromised. For another, the symbolic and numerological patterns that fill the old calendar will be lost without a trace.

Of all the changes, the one that is most alarming is the forcing of the new lectionary into the old rite. This is a topic I have extensively researched and written about. For convenience, I will list here the main articles in which I have sought to articulate the profound rationale for the first-millenium lectionary and to point out the new lectionary’s numerous flaws:

• A Systematic Critique of the New Lectionary, On the Occasion of Its Fiftieth Anniversary
• Mythbusting: Why the TLM’s Lectionary Is Superior to the New Lectionary (this talk overlaps to an extent with the preceding)
• Not Just More Scripture, But Different Scripture—Comparing the Old and New Lectionaries
• A Tale of Two Lectionaries: Qualitative versus Quantitative Measures
• The Omission that Haunts the Church—1 Corinthians 11:27-29
• How Typical Lector Praxis Transmits a Pelagian and Protestant Message
• A Great Example of an Expurgated Reading in the New Lectionary
• Is Reading More Scripture at Mass Always Better?
• Floating in the Sea, Not Drinking from the Firehose
• The New Lectionary and the Catholic Wedding
• How the New Lectionary Treats (or Doesn’t) the Antichrist
• The Annunciation and the Subtle Use of Gospels in the Old Roman Rite
• In Defense of Preserving Readings in Latin
• Against Vernacular Readings in the Traditional Mass
• What’s Wrong with the New Lectionary (audio only)

Of related interest:

The Omission of ‘Difficult’ Psalms and the Spreading-Thin of the Psalter

(I am currently at work on a book that will offer a comprehensive apologia for the old lectionary and critique of the new one; look for it in the coming year.)

The experiment in running the old and new rites together was already tried years ago by the monks of Norcia, who started as a “biritual” community that offered Mass in the Novus Ordo and the Vetus Ordo, while singing the old monastic office. Over time, the incoherence of the alternating rites, the clashing of calendars, the lack of tight interaction between Mass and Office, and other inconveniences so pressed upon them that the monks unanimously chose a fully traditional way of life and worship, which instantly brought “pax liturgica”—the ability to rest in the rites of tradition, as countless monks, clerics, and laymen had done for centuries. And in this case, the lack of peace wasn’t a hybridized rite—God forbid—but a mere alternation between them.

For more photos of this project of architectural hybridization, see this article.

I feel genuinely sorry for the Dominicans of the Holy Spirit, as they now embark on the bumpy, cratered, agitating road of incoherence that wiser monks and nuns have left behind: a forced and clumsy attempt to fit new in old, and old in new, will make the resulting neither-this-nor-that liturgical life more self-conscious and wearisome. And to think they are making this shift in 2024—decades after the problems of the new rite have been exhaustively experienced and canvassed! After so many souls, responsive to the same Holy Spirit who raised up for us these noble apostolic rites in their millennial plenitude, have successfully left behind the “banal on-the-spot product” for good! Thus we see the devastating results of placing obedience to renegade authorities higher than obedience to any other principle, including the universal and unanimous acceptance of liturgical tradition that has characterized Western religious life from its dawn until the rise of ultramontanism.

Nor is my concern limited to the current heads, more or less competent, of Roman dicasteries. For there are figures within the traditional movement who would gladly throw open the gates to the Trojan Horse of late Liturgical Movement innovations in order to maintain what they considered the core of their commitment. For example, in certain years on Pentecost Monday of the Chartres pilgrimage, the Epistle and Gospel have been read in French toward the congregation rather than being chanted in Latin while facing eastwards and northwards (a practice whose deep theological and symbolic meaning is explained in this lecture). Apparently many French and German priests who offer the TLM believe that the readings should be given in the vernacular only, and facing the people. This mentality is a consequence of a fundamental failure to understand the role of the Word of God in the Eucharistic liturgy, reflecting widespread errors—largely rationalist in origin—about the exclusively or primarily “instructional” nature of the first part of the Mass. [3]

Imagine a future pope—let us call him Pius XIII, perhaps hailing from Africa or Asia—who, with all the good intentions in the world, wishes to end the “liturgy wars” and therefore decides to produce a hybrid missal for the “Roman Rite” that combines what he, or a committee he appoints, decides are the best features of both. At this point it is almost a foregone conclusion that, among its components, such a hybrid rite would begin from the old Ordo Missae but adopt the new lectionary, precisely because it is considered such a great success, indeed a necessary step of progress in the Church’s relationship with the Bible.

I have no inside information about what is being planned, but it’s not difficult to connect the dots and to make projections. I say none of this to be a fearmonger or to promote anxiety. I simply wish to warn traditional clergy and faithful of the kind of maneuvers that our antagonists have in mind, so that we can make sure we ourselves understand well the rationale behind the traditional practices of the Roman Rite and, on that basis, be prepared to offer respectful but firm resistance to any attempts at diluting or destroying the integrity of that tradition. If or when the Dicastery for Divine Worship (or the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life) issues the command to adopt the new calendar, the new lectionary, and the new prefaces, we must be ready to say:

Non licet. Non possumus. It is not permitted. We cannot do it.

[1] Communiqué du 25 juillet 2024, translated from https://www.dominicaines-du-saint-esprit.fr/fr/communique-du-25-juillet-2024/.

[2] This is a trial run on a vulnerable group of nuns who seem to be in the grip of a false conception of obedience (see my work True Obedience in the Church for a full explanation). As for Donneaud’s critique of the French translation of my book, I think it is sufficient to point to John Lamont’s refutation of it here.

[3] It goes without saying that there is an instructional aspect, and that is why it has usually been the custom for the preacher to read the readings in the vernacular from the pulpit before his sermon. This is not a liturgical reading but a paraliturgical reading, for the benefit of those who do not know the Latin readings or have not followed them in a hand missal. Nor does it hurt to hear and read the readings twice, a point to which I will return later.