Seminarians of the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP) prepare to receive minor orders at Wigratzbad
Since Pope Francis’s Apostolic Letter Traditionis Custodes in 2021, congregations attending the pre-Vatican II Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), have been living on borrowed time. Pope Francis announced that he wished to enforce “single and identical prayer” and to this end deprecated the use of parish churches for the liturgy of the TLM. The Dicastery for Divine Worship later explained that “the exclusion of the parish church is intended to affirm that the celebration of the Eucharist according to the previous rite, being a concession limited to these groups, is not part of the ordinary life of the parish community.” On February 21 the Pope approved a rescript, signed by Cardinal Arthur Roche, to the effect that permission for the continuing use of parish churches for the TLM was “reserved to the Holy See”. Local bishops could not allow it on their own authority.
There are many puzzling things about this situation, but here I shall focus on two. One is the spiritual benefit some Catholics receive from the Traditional Mass; the other is the value of this liturgy to the Church as a whole. That those who attend this Mass typically benefit, spiritually, from doing so, seems to be taken for granted by the documents restricting it: they repeatedly refer to their “good” as a potential justification for allowing celebrations to continue. The Holy See is not claiming that attending the Traditional Mass is bad because this liturgy is theologically misleading, or inculcates a false spirituality.
Indeed, different liturgical forms are like different optional devotions or schools of spirituality. The Church does not condemn variety in these things, but welcomes it. With the Eastern Rites in mind, Vatican II’s Unitatis redintegratio (n. 4) tells us:
All in the Church must preserve unity in essentials. But let all, according to the gifts they have received enjoy a proper freedom, in their various forms of spiritual life and discipline, in their different liturgical rites, and even in their theological elaborations of revealed truth. In all things let charity prevail. If they are true to this course of action, they will be giving ever better expression to the authentic catholicity and apostolicity of the Church.
This insight is also the law of the Church (Canon 214).
The TLM has not been recognised officially as a separate Rite, and attendees have not usually grown up with it; again, many attend both the new and old forms of Mass. Nevertheless, it has been approved by the Church over many centuries, and has a spirit somewhat different from the reformed version. This being so, it is natural that some Catholics may find it helpful as a part or the whole of their liturgical experience, and on the above principles this should be welcomed.
If, then, it is “good” that people be allowed to attend it, why is this to be discouraged? The answer we have been given is “unity”: Pope Francis tells us that this liturgy has been “exploited” or “instrumentalised” to “expose her to the peril of division”.
As many have pointed out, the characterisation of traditionalists in this document seems to have been inspired by extremists already outside the Church. Even if some within her walls are indeed like this, it seems a strange way of dealing with them: to overrule local bishops to force them to attend Mass in a parish hall or inaccessible convent chapel, or to drive them out of the Church altogether. Penalties in the Church are supposed to be “medicinal”: to help the individuals who are penalised, and not simply to sacrifice them for the greater good. Isolation, marginalisation, and persecution are a recipe for radicalisation. It hardly seems helpful to stop Catholics who attend the Traditional Mass from mixing with those who do not, and to provide apparent justification for their most paranoid assessments of the hierarchy.
The good of individual Catholics attached to the TLM is not the whole story, however. The dogged persistence of supporters of this liturgy carried them through long periods of time in which few of them were able to attend it regularly. The Latin Mass Society and similar groups all over the world are testament to this. Their long campaign for the freedom of the “earlier Missal” cannot be explained solely by personal devotional habits. They did not just want the ancient Mass for themselves: they saw its disappearance as something bad for the whole Church. In the words of the founding President of the worldwide Una Voce Federation, Erich von Saventhem, in 1970: “It is our task—since we have been given the grace to appreciate the value of this heritage—to preserve it from spoliation, from becoming buried out of sight, despised and therefore lost forever.”
The same attitude was articulated by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007, in his letter to bishops which accompanied Summorum Ponti cum. He explained his decision to make the TLM more widely available: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behoves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”
It is, then, not just a matter of individuals who have been drawn into a liturgical form which will be painful for them to give up – important as this is to the bishops and priests charged with their pastoral care. In addition to that consideration, the ancient liturgy is part of the heritage of the whole Church, and in- deed, of worldwide human culture. We are all impoverished when a cultural practice recognised for antiquity, beauty, and profundity, is lost, or becomes detached from the community which had been its bearer to become a mere museum piece. UNESCO has for some years now been registering endangered cultural practices as items of “Intangible Cultural Heritage”: human culture needs biodiversity just like the natural world. What is true for the world is also true for the Church.
What UNESCO cannot account for is the spiritual, as well as cultural, value of religious practices: a value sometimes glimpsed even by non-believers, as well as by established members of a religious community. It would be a spiritual as well as a cultural tragedy if, say, the Byzantine Rite were lost, and we look to Byzantine Rite Christians to preserve it, even at some cost and inconvenience to them- selves, as their own special heritage and as a component of the Church’s spiritual patrimony. We should have the same attitude to the greatest spiritual and cultural monument of the Latin Church, the Traditional Latin Mass. It is to preserve this, as a living liturgy of a living community, that Catholics attached to it have fought so hard, and suffered so much, for so long.
The preservation of this liturgy does not imply the disappearance of the reformed Mass, or victory in any particular theological wrangle. To return to the 1970 speech of Erich von Saventhem, it should be available, for those who want it, “if only in a corner of the rambling mansion of the Church”. This preservation should be desired not only by its particular partisans, but by all who love the Church.
Dr Joseph Shaw is Chairman of the Latin Mass Society
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.