Church Life Journal: Getting The Band Back Together

Since the promulgation of Traditionis Custodes (and its subsequent ignoring), trads have had a lot of field to play on. The likes of WPI and the various liberal organizations have more or less ceded the entire playing field to traditionalists, instead just trying to frame their position as one of raw papal power politics: the pope commands it, therefore it must be right, proper, and obeyed. To which trads have been able (quite adpetly I might add) to point out that in the eyes of Church law (and Traditionis Custodes itself) it is actually up to the local bishop to determine what is right, proper, and to be obeyed when it comes to most liturgical law. To which liberals have responded: t he pope commands it, therefore it must be right, proper, and obeyed. Having decisively won the argument (for now), most bishops ignored it, the Pope has backtracked (at least in public) his rationale for TC, and even the Synod on Synodality has been forced to admit its a very unpopular decision with the people of God.

Faced with this problem, Notre Dame's Church Life Journal is attempting to meet critics of Traditionis Custodes head on. In doing so, they are attempting to revive the old conservative consensus of the days of John Paul II. I think their attempt to do so is a bit instructive, and suggests a growing problem a lot of the anti-traditionalist polemics have: it demands conformity to a world which no longer exists.

To set the table, let us briefly recap the "conservative consensus". I covered this a lot more in my narrative history surrounding Traditionis Custodes, which I encourage you to read. If the conservative consensus could be defined as anything, it is the following marks:

- Doctrinal Orthodoxy

- A fierce devotion to the pontificate of John Paul II

- A fierce defense of the necessity and robust success of the Second Vatican Council

- A tension (and often outright hostility) towards traditionalists, whom you would think they have much in common with.

The consensus established during the JPII era (sometimes not necessarily what JPII had in mind) was not people attempting to change church teaching. They were people trying to uphold Church teaching, but also uphold the pastoral approach of Vatican II, which included the hostility the Church had towards traditionalists. They were sons of the Church: they just changed their disposition with whatever they perceived to be the popular disposition of the parental figures at the time.

One sees this outlook permeated through the words of the essay in Church Life Journal. Whatever you may say about this or that author, Thomas Weinandy is not a liberal. In just about every other context, a lot of the defenders of Pope Francis would be (and have) branded him as a dissident reactionary for his pointed criticisms of the Pope's (failed) attempt to change John Paul II's teaching regarding divorce and communion. While their argument is more or less the argument of the left on the Latin Mass, it doesn't root the argument in the mind of Pope Francis, but in the mind of the Council Fathers and the teaching authority of John Paul II and the numerous dicasteries that treated this question.

To this the traditionalist has one retort: you have listed a lot of facts which are true. Yes, the Council Fathers didn't envision a world in which the liturgy before 1965 survived. John Paul II didn't envision a world in which people would still cling to the Latin Mass. One could even add to this by noting that Pope Benedict didn't envision a world in which the Latin Mass became the domain of the young. His own accompanying letter to Summorum Pontificum said people shouldn't worry about this, because it would be mostly old people who would make use of it, something to which Benedict was 100% wrong about.

There is a lot of talk in the article about "spirit anointed liturgical reform" (whatever that means), and how sensible and uniform the approach to the Latin Mass was. So what? The reality is that even as far back as the 1970's, it was understood that the Catholic Churches attempt to suppress the Latin Mass was not just a crime, it was a mistake. It was realized (rather quickly) that the original intent of Paul VI (an immediate suppression of every Latin Mass) was not going to work, so a carve out was made for "aged and infirmed priests" to say the Mass in private. This was then expanded on in 1971 with the "Agatha Christie Indult" which allowed the Latin Mass to be celebrated in Britain/Wales with the permission of the local bishop for any priest, not just aged and infirm. By 1980, there was a growing realization: the Latin Mass wasn't going to die. Therefore, the matter was sent to the Congregation of Divine Worship to study. This was ultimately decided by John Paul II in 1984 with Quattuor Abhinc Annos, which erected a formal legal regime by which the Latin Mass could be celebrated anywhere within the Latin Church, subject to certain conditions.  It was also during this time that John Paul II wanted to get a better understanding of his options here:  what was the status of the Old Missal?  Was it abrogated?  Suppressed? Could it be?  He asked a commission of cardinals to study the matter.  They reported their findings to the Pope:  The Old Rite was never abrogated, and a priest did not need permission to celebrate the Old Rite, at least privately.  Given the role of the local Bishop in liturgical affairs, the existing legal situation had a clear tension between a bishops rights and the rights of the priest, to say nothing of the desires/obligations/rights of individual lay Catholics.  This was sent to the Holy Father who.... did nothing, for various reasons, understandable and inexplicable.

In the meantime, the Latin Mass continued to grow, and the position of the Church became more incoherent.  A can of gasoline was thrown on this fire with the illicit episcopal consecrations by Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve of four priests, meant as a way to perpetuate the survival of the Latin Mass.  In announcing that the bishop had incurred canonical penalties, John Paul II nonetheless admitted that the Church's approach to the Latin Mass played a part in creating the schism.  He commanded the worlds bishops to be more generous in allowing the Latin Mass, and over time even erected infrastructure in the Church (such as the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei and the creation of new religious orders for the Old Rite) to facilitate the growth of the Old Rite under the auspices of the Church.

All of this happened before Pope Benedict ascended the throne.  As he ascended the throne, the question was not if the Latin Mass would be further liberalized, but rather the terms under which it would take place.  Would it be a "universal indult", where the Pope simply granted the authority for every priest?  Or would the entire Indult die and be replaced by something new, trying to learn the lessons of the last 35 years?  This is what our friends in Church Life Journal completely ignore.  The path to Summorum Pontificum was slow, but it was organic, and rooted first and foremost in pastoral reality:  even if it was a reality the Church had to be dragged to, sometimes kicking and screaming.  Summorum Pontificum didn't change the Church.  It was simply an acknowledgement of how much things had changed.

The authors don't grapple with this problem.  It isn't fair to say they ignore it.  It is probably better to say they aren't even aware of its existence.  Why?  Because they are still operating as if its the 1980's, when most of the conservative polemics against the TLM came into fruition.  Its apologetics are rooted in the 1990s, when there was a considerable following within orthodox circles that attacked the Latin Mass, and viewed itself (under the guise of John Paul II) as true custodians of the revolution of Vatican II, protecting the revolution from both the Jacobins and the monarchists.  If this world doesn't make sense to the reader of today, tell that to the authors.  

All these things happened.   You cannot wish them away.  It makes no sense responding to the past 40 years by talking about legislation promulgated in 1974 that tells a bishops conference how to act in 1974.  Subsequent legislation revoked that old legislation.  That legislation in itself rested not on raw force of will by the legislator, but a reality on the ground that legislation was trying to properly channel, not impose.  The rest of the article is full of the same anachronisms regarding liturigcal debates:  they make sense in the era of the liturgy wars from 1980-2007.  They have zero relevance in todays world.

That is what I think is ultimately behind the failed attempt to impose Traditionis Custodes, and more generally why the conservative consensus collapsed during the years of Francis.  Whatever one thinks of that world:  it no longer exists.  The infrastructure for it is crumbled.  The will to implement it isn't there.  Far more pressing problems have taken its place.  The arguments of Professors Wienandy, Healy and Cavadini aren't just wrong:  they are alien to people who live outside of academic towers and practice their faith in the real world.  It is a crusty self-referential consensus that shouldn't just be returned to its cage, it should (and will) be put out of its misery.