Two spirited articles, against the call for self-silencing in ecclesial matters

Two spirited pieces for your perusal, one brief (but marvelously satirical), one long (and bracing), if you are getting demoralized yet again in this miserable pontificate by being berated and gaslit for standing up for tradition and, in short, Catholicism, in the face of contradictory, confusing, and really, abusive directives from the Vatican. 

First, the short one, from my husband, Phil Lawler:

Understanding the Vatican crusade against tradition

The Vatican “carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops in 2020” regarding the use of the traditional Latin Mass. Although we’ve never seen the results of that consultation, Pope Francis determined that “the wishes expressed by the episcopate” called for a crackdown on traditionalism. But the bishops who wanted that crackdown can’t be trusted to do it themselves.

 In a “synodal” Church, the Vatican listens carefully to all the faithful, and serves the needs of the diocesan bishops—in this case, by telling them what to do.

Second, the long one, by Sebastian Morello, reiterating all the things we've said for more than a decade at every step -- only, it all has to be said over and over, since new abuses are heaped upon us pretty much daily:

Yes, Francis is the Pope, and His Office Binds Him: A Reply

Recently, fellow writer for The European Conservative, Felix Miller, wrote a piece strongly criticising traditional Catholics who, in his view, have routinely been overly critical of Pope Francis. In the opening two paragraphs, three times Miller invokes the name of Satan to point his readers to the spirit he thinks is leading trad Catholics in their general attitude to current Church affairs.  

... Does Miller think that the faithful ought to just shut up and watch the Church they love, and the Faith that is Her gift to the world, be attacked by those who hold Her highest offices? Does Miller believe that Catholics shouldn’t criticise such abuses of ecclesiastical power, even though it’s their canonical right to voice their concerns (can. 212, sec. 3)? 

Trad Catholics like Kwasniewski have had recourse to this theory precisely to sustain their continuing recognition of Francis as pope whilst trying to show that the ongoing abuses of papal power during his pontificate may not possess the full authoritative force of his office. 

This latter point is especially strong for me, since my husband and I were dragged through the Catholic blogosphere five years ago for the same reason. I had posted on Facebook that Pope Francis is a bad pope precisely to make a distinction between myself and Phil and those who think Francis is not pope at all. This remark of mine provided the spark to set off the stake-burning of my husband for his book (which the main accuser, branding Phil a schismatic, of all the accompanying and merciful things, admitted he had not read), Lost Shepherd. 

We are merely on the tiresome, new go-round of this awful clown-house ride. But we must continue to offer all the reasons why we persist, because the alternative is the wrong one: simply subsiding and accepting that well, things are the way they are, and there's no reason to put up a fight -- our hierarchy deems it all so.

But, as Morello points out (and as I pointed out here and here and here), in the only really comparable cataclysm endured in the Church from within, the Arian heresy, resistance -- and especially resistance from the laity -- saved the day. 

Let me just say that it's beyond what anyone can endure to be taken to task for standing up, not even for oneself but for one's children and grandchildren, and for all those who, in Morello's words, 

have made enormous sacrifices and received astonishing mistreatment from their own bishops merely for worshiping as did their forebears in the Faith, and for protecting their children from the heresy preached or irreverence practiced at the local parish (sometimes necessitating travel over vast distances every Sunday). They’ve often undergone terrible bullying by the Church’s ministers precisely because, rather than deny that there’s a pope in Rome like the Sedevacantists or opt to be in a canonically irregular situation like the Lefebvrists, they chose to tough it out in submission to the Church’s law and Her hierarchy—undergoing frequent persecution as a consequence. Miller contributes to the bullying of these faithful Catholics and calls his hounding of them “a spiritual work of mercy.”

It was Fr. Mankowski who introduced me to the words of the poet Rabindranath Tagore, which I have quoted before and will continue to quote until the beatings stop, for they are more apt every day under this intolerable regime: 

“Power takes as ingratitude the writhing of its victims.”

Do read all of both articles for a good shot in the arm today, if you need to recover from all the scoldings!

By the way, as someone on Twitter pointed out (I'm sorry that I went by too quickly to credit), Bishop Robert Barron, a conservative Novus Ordo bishop not especially friendly to Trads if there ever was one, offered the SSPX the use of the chapel he has set aside in his diocese for worship in the usus antiquior. QED, the SSPX are not schismatic. 

Pope Francis confirms the use of the 1962 liturgical books

In Scripture we are told to send the serpent after the dove (Mt 10:16). It's not carping or having bad spirit to maintain a sense of reality regarding the words and actions of Pope Francis, and to refrain from acting as if no destructive behavior has ever been displayed before. 

So I agree with Peter Kwasniewski and do not fault him for "seeing the bad side" when on Facebook he wrote the following:

The news that Pope Francis has confirmed the charism of the FSSP affords temporary relief from our woes. We have been assured that their pastoral ministry will continue as before, and that they will continue to enjoy the use of the old Roman Pontifical. This is particularly good news for the seminarians.

Without wishing to sound like a giant wet blanket, however, we need to bear in mind several points.

1. Pope Francis's message could be rephrased: "I hereby condescend to grant you, as a privilege, and by my benign authority, that which you already possess by virtue of particular law and immemorial custom." In other words, he speaks as if the continuing use of the traditional Roman Rite is simply a matter of legal positivism. That is precisely the error we have been fighting all along (and the error that was set to rest by Benedict XVI). Those who live by papal privilege may die by it, too.

2. As Eric Sammons tweeted this morning: "We can (and should) be thankful that the Pope has confirmed the charism of the FSSP while still understanding that his long-term desire is to eliminate the traditional liturgy." 'Traditionis Custodes' itself manifestly seeks to confine traditionalists to ghettos and to dry up the use of the traditional liturgy outside those ghettos; so it makes sense that Ecclesia Dei communities would be strengthened, while the message is transmitted to bishops everywhere that they'd better tighten the screws on the poor diocesan clergy and the faithful who have supported their "turn to tradition." (And not to look like I'm nitpicking but can we be clear about this, please? Adherence to tradition is not a "charism"; it is part of the definition of being a Catholic.)

3. If there is one thing we have learned over the past decade, it is that we are dealing with Machiavellians. There is a steep price to pay for papal favors in the current regime. The pope is strategic enough to wish to "buy" the relative silence of the SSPX and the FSSP (and many others) by granting concessions or aids. 

All that said, we should also be realistic: the restoration of tradition (in liturgy, in doctrine, in life) will be a long, long struggle, and time is in fact on our side, since mainstream Catholicism is on a suicidal course. So any time we can obtain a bit more land or a bit more time, we should rejoice about that, even if the immediate circumstances are dodgy. In short: we make the best of whatever situation we've got, taking the long view of things.

What kept so many of us in the Novus Ordo fold back in the day was the prospect of the "mutual enrichment" that would, we hoped, result in reform of the disastrous Mass of Paul VI and restoration of tradition to the Roman Rite. Let's soberly admit that Traditionis Custodes and its aftermath, including this letter to the FSSP, leaves those hopes in the dead past. In particular, while this "confirmation" certainly offers welcome relief to the FSSP (and by extension, one assumes, the other TLM institutes), it confines them and prevents them from being the fertile ground in which the seed corn would flourish in the wider fields of diocesan parish life. 

Instead, if things go on as they are now, they will be more like "the remote hothouses where the rare plants are kept apart." 

I'm not alone, I'm sure, in hearing rumors that young men in (diocesan) seminary are interested in the traditional form -- that some seminaries have altars at which to practice the TLM, chant classes, and other evidence of a return to ancient form -- or at least a desire for it. 

I am sure the Pope has heard this as well. And I am sure he does not like it.

Albertus Magnus, pray for us!

Peter Kwasniewski demonstrating the freight a little prayer can carry. 

And I'm not sure what the word "progress" is doing at Mass anyway...

Traditionis Custodes, a collection of reactions

Last week, early in the morning, I had a text from a priest on the other side of the world that I found cryptic ("Well you came into tradition at just the right time."), not having checked the news before Mass. After breakfast, my husband came in from his study with the words, "I can't believe it."

By now you've read Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis' Motu Proprio restricting the Traditional Latin Mass and essentially rescinding Pope Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, allowing and affirming it. 

And you've read the letter to the bishops accompanying it. declaring "the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present motu proprio." 

I just wanted to round up some of the best of what I've read so far on the topic. If you can only read a few things, here is what I recommend, basically in the order posted:

First, for an overview, a news story from my husband's site. An important point made in this story is the real possibility of harming ecumenical relations with the Orthodox. 

Cardinal Mueller's strong analysis. 

One may measure Pope Francis’ will to return to unity the deplored so-called “traditionalists” (i.e., those opposed to the Missal of Paul VI) against the degree of his determination to put an end to the innumerable “progressivist” abuses of the liturgy (renewed in accordance with Vatican II) that are tantamount to blasphemy. The paganization of the Catholic liturgy – which is in its essence nothing other than the worship of the One and Triune God – through the mythologization of nature, the idolatry of environment and climate, as well as the Pachamama spectacle, were rather counterproductive for the restoration and renewal of a dignified and orthodox liturgy reflective of the fulness of the Catholic faith.

 Reflections on Pope Francis’s Motu Proprio “Traditionis Custodes” by Sebastian Morello. This is an important essay with a perspective that gets lost. The Church is a society (a word used by Pius XI, not only by political philosophers) and as such must be governed. If the primary mode of governance becomes revolution, disorder isn't limited to the structure of the institution, and in the case of the Church, it endangers souls.

Some questions, by John A. Monaco. 

Similarly, Cardinal Burke asks questions and points to contradictions. (By the way, some mock Cardinal Burke, but he is a foremost expert on Canon law.)

Op-Ed by Top French Philosopher Michel Onfray: "I'm an Atheist, but the Latin Mass is Our Patrimony: Francis is Destroying It; He is Doing What He Was Elected to Do."

Benedict XVI wished to overcome a schism with traditionalists, Francis will recreate it, by giving as a pretext, of course -- a Jesuit once, a Jesuit always -- that he intends in this way to reunite what he is separating. Vocations collapse with Vatican II. But the religious who preserve the Latin rite are not familiar with loss of interest, instead they fill up their seminaries. Pope Francis prefers churches that are empty with his ideas than full with those of Benedict XVI.

A reflection on the loss of tradition in general from Leila Miller.

A long video with Peter Kwasniewski, going through the letter line by line. 

There are many more. The internet exploded with reasoned, spirited responses to this disastrous Motu Proprio. For a comprehensive round-up, see this article in the New Liturgical Movement, and this follow-up one. 

UPDATE: 
I did want to add this one from Cardinal Zen, former archbishop of Hong Kong. I am just pasting the English here: 

Why do they see a problem where there is none and close their eyes to the problem, for which they are also responsible?

The concerns about a breezy document " against " the Tridentine Mass (see my blog June 12, 2021) have come true, and the blow was no less severe because it was foreseen, many tendentious generalizations in the documents hurt the hearts of many good people more than expected , which never gave the slightest cause for being suspected of not accepting the liturgical reform of the Council, much less not accepting the Council " Tout court ". They also remain active members in their parishes.

Personally, it was a bitter surprise that the “widespread” consultation did not reach me, a cardinal and already a member of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. During the years 2007-2009, then, I was bishop of Hong Kong and therefore responsible for the execution of the "Summorum Pontificum", and so far, a notorious supporter of the group.

Having known neither the questionnaire nor the questionnaire responses, I cannot judge, but only suspect that there was a lot of misunderstanding (or perhaps even manipulation) in the process.

From how I read the two documents I note (1) an incredible ease (or tendentiousness) in linking the desire to use the vetus ritus to the non-acceptance of the ritus novus and (2) in associating the non-acceptance of the liturgical reform (which often concerns the way in which it was carried out with its many grave abuses) with a total and profound rejection of the Council itself (for the proponents of this rejection the diversity of the rite of the Mass is only a small corollary, so much so that the concession regarding the rite did not reverse the schism).

The Vatican authorities should ask themselves (and perhaps even make a detailed investigation) about the reason for the persistence and perhaps (recent) aggravation of the second phenomenon.

The problem is not "which rite do people prefer?", But it is "why don't they go to Mass anymore?". From certain surveys it appears that half of the Christian people in Europe no longer believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, they no longer believe in eternal life! Certainly we do not blame the liturgical reform, but it only means that the problem is much deeper, the question cannot be avoided: "Wasn't the formation of the faith missing?" "Wasn't the great work of the Council wasted?" Isn't the root of evil perhaps that attitude of believing that everything can now be changed? Is it not that attitude of believing that this Council cancels all precedents and that the Council of Trent is like the dirt accumulated on the fresco in the Sistine Chapel (as a "liturgist" in our diocese said)?

The Document obviously not only sees disturbances in the execution of the Summorun Pontificum, but considers the very existence of a parallel rite to be an evil. Paragraphs § 5 and § 6 of art 3, art. 4 and 5 do not clearly wish the death of the groups? But, even with this, cannot the anti-Ratzinger gentlemen of the Vatican be patient for the Tridentine Mass to die together with the death of Benedict XVI instead of humiliating the venerable Pope Emeritus in this way?