How We Got Here

Something interesting happened over the weekend.  The Pope issued a clarion call for holy war to be waged upon the Latin Mass, and issued a motu proprio that was, by his own admission, the first step towards its gradual abolition.  The funny thing that happened is very few bishops were eager to take up the call to begin the purge.  This no doubt surprised traditionalist and Rome alike.  I think understanding why requires a bit of unpacking.  Obviously this could all change if Rome applies extra pressure, yet I'm skeptical it will.  I also think in unpacking this, we trads can confront some realities we need to examine as to how we got here.  We do have a hand to play in this current situation, but its not in the way most think.

First, we get to smash a trope some of our friends across the way try to deny.  For the purposes of telling this story, let's get the obvious out of the way:  There was a revolution in the Church surrounding the Second Vatican Council.  Whether you buy the "good revolution" at the beginning (when most of the original schema were voted down" as opposed to the "bad revolution" of 1965 (when the council was implemented in a way far beyond what the Council mandated), or you think the revolution didn't go far enough, a revolution occurred.  What came out of the Council, for better or worse, was a new way for the Church to operate that was fundamentally different than what came before it, even if there were some developments in the immediate years before the Council one could cite as precedent.  Like all revolutions, chaos erupted in its wake, and the debate became less about how to reform the Church, and became more about who to blame for the chaos.

I think this is the world we need to consider when Karol Wojtyla ascended the papal throne as John Paul II.  He had essentially inherited a Church on the brink of anarchy.  If he didn't step in and DO SOMETHING, the entire project was going to fail, the revolution would be over, and there's a real chance you get the inevitable counter-revolution. (In 1978, that was still at least somewhat a possibility.)  Along with allies like Joseph Ratzinger, John Paul II took it upon himself to be custodian of the Second Vatican Council, and by extension, custodian of its revolution.  This also meant ending the revolution upon terms agreeable to him.  

To achieve this, John Paul II centralized the Church on a level unimagined by his predecessors.  Whether through canon law, motu proprio's, papal encyclicals, or sheer force of personality, everything in the Roman Catholic Church became identified with the person of John Paul II.  In a thought-provoking essay, Arturo Vasquez compared John Paul II to Napoleon Bonaparte, and I think that is correct:

I need not enter into details concerning the tumultuous events of the Second Vatican Council and the 1960’s. In my interpretation, the papacies of John XXIII and Paul VI were the revolutionary period parallel to the 18th century timeline, with perhaps the Roman Curia playing the part of Robespierre collectively. Paul VI ruled the Church as an indecisive and conflicted figure, especially after the debacle of Humanae Vitae. If his court represented the Jacobins, Bonaparte came in the form of a prelate from Poland, the now sainted Karol Wojtyla or John Paul II. Even though he eschewed the tiara and other traditional marks of Papal authority and gravitas, his rule by charisma and geopolitical power-plays invoked the famed French general who conquered Europe and crowned himself emperor. Such a regime had the character of authority but was based on the previous revolt that congealed into the rule of one figure who survived the political tumult. The papacy of John Paul II was marked by a revolutionary impulse that continued under the guidance of an authority figure who displayed characteristics of a traditional mentality (Marian piety, conservative sexual morality, anti-communism) while carrying out the plan of the Revolution (reformed Canon Law, ecumenism, liturgical “creativity”, continued promotion of progressive prelates, etc.)

It is this centralization that I think matters more than anything else for our story.  By the time he died, John Paul II had arguably saved the revolution, or at the very least, bought it considerable time.  The impending collapse was staved off, a surge in pride for Catholic identity occurred, and he was succeeded by his top lieutenant, as Ratzinger took the name Benedict XVI.  While some look at Benedict as someone who represented "a turn to the right", I think that's inaccurate.

I think Benedict looked to end the Revolution, and return the Church to normal governance, or at least normal governance of the Church no longer suffering dramatic reversals depending on the occupant of the papal throne.  In that regard, he governed as a more academic (and more reserved) version of John Paul II, yet as John Paul had in mind saving the Revolution, Benedict was concerned with its end.

Part of that end regarded the Latin Mass. When Archbishop Lefebrve broke with Rome and consecrated 4 bishops against the Pope's wishes, there was a real worry a far greater schism could take hold, due to the status of the Latin Mass.  If it remained inaccessible outside of the Society, the Society would soon have a very powerful source for Catholics to rally around.  To save the Revolution, John Paul II promulgated Ecclesia Dei Afflictica, taking the existing Indult for the Latin Mass and encouraging Bishops to offer it more generously.  When Benedict became Pope, it was time to look at that.  He could do one of two things:  make the Latin Mass a permanent part of the Church, or suppress it.  This question isn't academic:  as Cardinal Ratzinger, he at one time espoused the idea that there could only be one form of the Roman Rite in use, that's what made the Latin Mass so dangerous.  

Yet that was as Cardinal Ratzinger.  As Benedict, he wanted to end the revolution.  To suppress the Latin Mass would require a pretty strong revision to canon law, and would require a theological vision of the Church (to make war on its ancestry) that Benedict was never very comfortable with.  It was that desire to make war on their ancestors that made the original young revolutionary Benedict break with his more radical colleagues.  (He signed on for revolution not to burn, but to build.)  The Latin Mass had grown for almost 20 years within the Church, and would have required a lot of resources to suppress.  If it must survive, it had to fit within a new theological vision.

That theological vision was Summorum Pontificum. It envisioned an idea of two different uses of the Roman Rite, in the Ordinary and Extraordinary Form. Later added was Anglicanorum coetibus, establishing provision for an "Anglican Use" form of the Mass for Anglicans who wished to enter into the Catholic Church's communion.  This theological vision even began to grasp with a fundamental question:  the Roman Rite had grown from being the Mass of Rome to the Mass of 5 continents, and most of South Asia as well.  As this occurred, legitimate debates regarding how to incorporate such a vast cultural expression into one Roman Rite for everyone emerged.  The consensus was:  you can't.

Since Friday morning, you've heard a lot of historical revisionism about how this theological vision had failed, but its worth noting that as recently as the Amazonian Synod, there was talk of having a liturgy for indigenous people  using the same principles as the Anglican Ordinariate.

We're going to stop here for now with that narrative, but I think there's a few things we should come to terms with.

1.)  The Revolution of Vatican II was almost entirely successful.  There is no going back to the way things were done before. For the most part, even most traditionalists really don't want to.  If they could, it's now 2021, nobody really has any idea how it was "before" anyways.  This doesn't mean Vatican II was good or bad, just that the revolution it inspired isn't going anyway.  What comes next in the Church, even if it is a turn "to the right", will be within the framework and memory of the Second Vatican Council.

2.)  Summorum Pontificum was not so much a grand victory for traditionalists as it was a favorable surrender.  Trads accepted the revolution was over, and in return got quite a bit.  They got their Latin Mass mostly unrestricted.  What was required to be accepted for Vatican II was reduced substantially, and in many cases, a pretty traditionalist interpretation of the documents (such as with religious liberty) was deemed acceptable.  It was not just terms for the Latin Mass, but terms by which they would be re-integrated into the larger Church.  Benedict got peace.  By peace I don't mean freedom from criticism or debate, but an understanding those debates took place along lines dictated by the Church.  (His attempts to reconcile the SSPX can be considered along the same lines.)

3.)  As we will explore next, trads embraced their reintegration into the Church about as well as could be expected, and were far more effective than could be expected.  We will pick up the narrative tomorrow to see what happened after Summorum Pontificum.