Dom Alcuin Reid has a thoughtful piece at the UK’s Catholic Herald which ever so cordially employs paywalls.
Here’s the last part of Reid’s offering with some emphases and comments.
He starts out stating that Leo XIV seems liturgically level-headed and dignified. It would be helpful were he to stress what Benedict XVI called ars celebrandi in his Sacramentum caritatis.
[…]
The second area in which the Holy Father will have to exercise leadership is in facilitating a return to the liturgical peace that was violently ended by the abrupt and, as we have recently learnt from new evidence, the carefully manipulated, [cf. lying about the “survey results” to justify Taurina cacata] persecution of those, particularly young people, who have discovered the older liturgical rites and who have “felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them” (Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops, 7 July 2007).
The Pope has spoken often of his desire for unity, peace and reconciliation. There is no more important area for this than in the worship of the Church. [Liturgy is doctrine. We are our rites.] But we must be clear: unity does not mean uniformity. The liturgy has always rejoiced in a rich, legitimate diversity, even in the Western rite – as the rites of different religious orders and historic dioceses attest. It is only since the most recent Council that attempts have been made, and recently renewed, to impose a rigid uniformity, falsely appealing to the need for “unity” and “communion”.
Those involved [I think McTeigue would call them the “members of the people who should know better club”] should have learnt in “Theology 101” that these are fundamentally sacramental and theological realities which do not require uniform ritual expression. Proponents of moving on “to the second phase” of liturgical reform know this at least implicitly, but conveniently ignore it in respect of the older rites.
As Supreme Pastor, the Holy Father needs to correct this error and end the Stalinist persecution of the older rites being waged by the Archbishop Secretary of the Dicastery and by certain bishops. This campaign, gleefully presided over by the Cardinal Prefect, has fractured unity and scandalised many good faithful, particularly families, driving them away and forcing them to find solutions at times “outside the system”.
It is hard to see how this is anything other than an ideological campaign by partisans of a particular political liturgical viewpoint, the legitimacy of which is highly questionable. It is certainly not pastoral in the true sense of that word – it does not serve the salvation of souls – and it has given rise to ungodly bitterness on all sides.
The Pope has already given one encouraging sign: his permission for the celebration of Mass in the usus antiquior (the older form) in St Peter’s Basilica by Cardinal Burke for the annual pilgrimage of those who worship according to the older rites. The extraordinarily large numbers at this Mass – around 5,000 when only 1,000 were expected – speak loudly. It is hard to imagine Pope Leo seeking to continue to ban such genuine fervour and devotion.
I doubt the Holy Father will wish to address the issue of the “reform of the liturgical reform” spoken of over a decade ago. [If I read Reid right, I think he is talking about what figures such as Fr. Fessio suggested. I, respectfully, think that that was a dead end. On a positive note, it got people better informed about what Sacrosanctum Concilium really said, as well as thinking and talking it.] Those officially “in charge” abhor the mere thought of “correcting” the modern rites in the light of critiques made of their fidelity to the Council itself. And those who celebrate the usus antiquior see little point in any such effort. This minefield may have to wait a little longer before being cleared.
After the Holy Father’s election, our community revived the traditional prayers for the Pope sung during adoration on Sunday after Vespers. [This was also done at The Parish™] Leo XIV is not Benedict XVI, nor is he Francis. But he is the Pope, and as such he needs our fervent prayers that he will teach and govern wisely and prudently, most especially in respect of the Sacred Liturgy, “the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed …[and] the font from which all her power flows” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 10). [fons et culmen]
Loading ...
Dom Alcuin Reed is not a man given to idle hyperbole. Stalinist persecutions hits the nail right on the head. Perhaps the real issue which requires examination at this moment is “why the persecution” rather than the content of the argument. That question answered it is certain to bring the disputes to clarity and resolution. Time for more than a few men to look into the mirror and realize its not their favorite icon.
From the same journal :
Pope Leo XIV marked the Feast of the Dedication of the Lateran Basilica on Sunday with a call for renewed reverence and beauty in the Church’s liturgy.
Celebrating Mass at the Cathedral of Rome before more than 2,700 faithful, the Pope said that “care of the liturgy in the place of the See of Peter must be such that it can be offered as an example for all the people of God, in respect of the norms, attentive to the different sensitivities of those who participate … and at the same time in fidelity to that style of solemn sobriety typical of the Roman tradition, which can do so much good for the souls of those who actively participate.”
His Holiness described the liturgy as “the source from which all its power flows” and urged that it serve as an example for the whole people of God. He added that “every care be taken to ensure that here the simple beauty of the Roman Rite can express the value of worship for the harmonious growth of the entire body of the Lord,” quoting St Augustine’s reminder that “beauty is nothing but love, and love is life.”
NOTE TO THE READERS:
“Godfrey” posted to the queue something which I deleted, not because of his arguments (which weren’t that good) but because he was in violation of my terms of participation here. Namely, I require some “bio” information (which isn’t shown publicly… only I can see it). Here is a screenshot.
However, as is typical of trolls, he posted a nasty parting shot, which I will let through for the edification of the readership.
We won’t be hearing from him again, I think.
Fr. Z. has deleted and refused to approve a dispassionate, logical comment I made to this post in which I provided quotes from a 2023 book by Peter Kwasniewski that explicitly state and prove that traditionalists reject the liturgical reform and consider the postconciliar liturgy and the reform movement to be false and harmful for the spiritual life of Catholics.
I add here that Dom Alcuin Reid has been suspended a divinis and his monastic association dissolved by his local ordinary because Reid announced he had been secretly ordained a priest in order to continue his association’s preconciliar liturgical life. Reid continues in disobedience, stemming from his refusal to accept the liturgical reform and the reformed liturgy. Yet he is considered to be a responsible trad commentator and leader.
You see, disobedience and rejection of the postconciliar Church are in traditionalists’ blood. That is why there can be no compromise with them. They have made an idol out of the TLM, and they prefer it to union with the Church. Traditionalists are schismatic. “Traditionis custodes” was right, necessary, just, and good.
Fr. Z., you are a disappointment. You are intellectually dishonest. You also cannot handle the truth when it bursts your bubble and smashes your idols.
You have been bested, Fr. Z. I declare “checkmate.” Don’t pound the table like Magnus did after he was defeated.
I will no longer post here. There is no point in communicating with stubborn, prideful, dishonest people incapable of admitting their or their friends’ errors because they are wedded to their erroneous ways and beliefs.
I am even more resolved to work in my own little field of the Church towards eliminating the preconciliar liturgy from the Church’s liturgical life. Make no mistake, Fr. Z.: you are and your tribe are wrong.
“You have been bested . . .” LOL – but it looks like he left off the “Huzzah!”
Don’t let the front door hit you on the backside, Godfrey. I suspect he’d have made a great and very eager guard in the gulags as described by Solzhenitsyn in chapter 2 of the “Gulag Archipelago.” (give the trajectory of the world now-a-days, perhaps he’ll still get his chance). If he’s being at all sincere, and I sadly suspect that he is, his comments show someone with a true passion for hurting others so as to validate his superlative obedience and virtue. I will offer some prayers for him, but sadly I think he’s like a character in a Flannery O’Connor story – he will need Old Testament grace before he can be shaken from his current, destructive course.
“…and your little dog, too!”
Father,
Can we find out where “Godfrey” lives so I can go to his house, tell him his mother wears army boots, and sock him with a dead mackerel?
It’s so exquisitely simple, Godfrey.
There would be no cause for men to “idolize” or “worship” the Traditional Mass if they weren’t being continually ground into the dirt for daring to find it more nourishing to their souls.
They aren’t seeking some brash innovation, some relaxation of the timeless teachings of Christ. They aren’t fomenting heresy. They abhor schism. They just want the right to worship as their ancestors have worshipped since 1570. Precisely where is the harm in that, pray tell?
Stop persecuting those who are crying for bread instead of stones, and the problem will solve itself.
I doubt the Holy Father will wish to address the issue of the “reform of the liturgical reform” spoken of over a decade ago. [If I read Reid right, I think he is talking about what figures such as Fr. Fessio suggested. I, respectfully, think that that was a dead end.
I agree in the sense that there is little to no appetite in the current hierarchy to turn over a rock like “what SHOULD the reform have looked like” and watch all the creepy crawlies in the NO try to creep out of sight. The bishops and liturgists committed to the NO don’t want such an effort undertaken. So, no reform in that sense is within the foreseeable next 20 or more years.
Nevertheless, once “commitment to Vatican II” is no longer a hot-button issue – say, in 100 years, somebody in the highest reaches, including the pope’s seat, is going to firmly address the fact that the NO as normally practiced is so dismally dreadful compared to what SC said, AND what man’s spirit needs. And what an administrable Church with a recognizable Rite means. They are going to do SOMETHING to address that in direct form. They won’t be bothered by the question of “but does this mean ‘going back on the reform’ ?”, as nobody by then will care one iota. At that point, some people are going to feel entirely free to “re-discover” the ancient traditions that are present in the TLM and claim them in much the same way (politically speaking) the liturgo-terrorists of the 1960s “reclaimed” ancient traditions of the 2nd century. And they will be adopted not principally because they were in the Missal of 1962, but because they’re just good liturgy. The fact that they can be easily seen to qualify under the criteria of Vatican II for the reform will be just gravy.
Whatever the right solution is to “deal with” the NO, completely abandoning it and reversing to the 1962 (or 1955) Missal is not going to happen. Having some elements of the Mass (e.g. the Collect, the readings) in the vernacular only is going to stay no matter what. But if they merely impose the Vatican II obligation of parishes to use – and the laity to know – the Latin (including Gregorian chant) for the ordinary prayers, i.e. to ACTUALLY FOLLOW what SC said in a few elements, that’s going to (a) be an improvement, (b) get rid of a lot of cruddy and unneeded variation; and (c) look to the average lay person as something of a hodge-podge of the NO and the TLM. As long as it does not, in any sense, take a form of “replacing” the TLM of the 1962 Missal, it’s all good.
Don’t let Godfrey go to a Hispanic wedding, and notice the remnants of the Sarum Rite and the various Hispanic peninsula Rites. It wouldn’t be the same as all the other Catholic weddings he’s gone to.
But then… most Catholic countries have their own liturgical customs, which are different from the usages of most American parishes. Oh, the disunity!
In his wisdom, our reverend host has denied us the possibility of posting GIFs. If he hadn’t, I might be tempted to post one of Curly Bill saying “well, bye.” Godfrey may be gone, at least for now, but let us not forget that he and people like him are as much in need of prayer as we are.
One wonders if Godfrey spends as much energy trying to stamp out the actual liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo which exist in his area?
When Traditionis Custodes was published, I had the small glimmer of hope that liturgical abuses within the Novus Ordo would be clamped down on. The document explicitly calls for it. Yet, in practice, it seems that certain bishops are more concerned with stamping out practices like ad orientem worship which are permitted in the Novus Ordo than with stamping out things which are not.
The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism by Louis Bouyer, published in 1956.
According to a Scott Hahn audio tape my wife bought me for Xmas or a birthday sometime in the mid-90s, the above book was Scott Hahn’s first venture into Catholicism, recommended to him by another Protestant minister who became a Catholic.
In it, Bouyer responds to Protestant criticisms of the Mass—along the lines of we humans are unable to worthily worship, hence the Mass should not be celebrated—he asks, “what if the Mass is how Jesus taught us to worship?”
It cannot be shown that the early Mass in the western Roman Empire was substantially different than what we had before VII. Maybe other than being in Greek for awhile until, as Christine Mohrmann points out, a form of Latin was developed that was deemed worthy of offering the Holy Sacrifice. She also points out that the Latin of the church was not a vernacular language, just like that of Cicero was not, rather these Latin languages were hierarchal languages used by the empire and later in a different form by the Church. Be that as it may, Godfrey makes it clear that goal of his ilk is to destroy the traditional Catholic faith because, as Aidan Nichols points out, the church fathers believed that the liturgy contains church doctrine—nothing that contradicts the liturgy can be correct.
(I am reading There is no Rose by Aidan Nichols. It is about our Mother Mary. Apparently the Cardinals have not read it. I urge everyone to read it, although I am only in chapter 4.)