[Catholic Caucus] A new offensive in the war on traditional liturgy

Rome’s rumor mills are buzzing. According to multiple sources, a new Vatican document is being prepared, which would impose still tighter restrictions on the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM).

If approved in its current form, our informants tell us, the document would bar diocesan priests from celebrating the TLM; only the communities specially formed around the old liturgy (the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, etc.) would be allowed to use the ancient rite.

Whether these reports are entirely accurate, and whether the proposed document will gain final approval, remain to be seen. The rumors suggest a publication date in July. But the official publication date of a Vatican document often does not match the date of its actual appearance. A document formally dated in July may not see the light of day— much less take effect— until autumn or beyond.

So Catholics who love the traditional liturgy are worried, and likely to remain worried for some time to come. And as if to confirm them in their fears, just as these reports have circulated in Rome, a remarkable interview has appeared, with one of the most ferocious opponents of the TLM, underlining the implacable determination of liberal liturgists to eradicate all traces of the traditional liturgy.

Andrea Grillo, a professor of sacramental theology at the pontifical athenaeum Sant’Anselmo in Rome, is widely regarded as the primary thinker behind (if not the ghost-writer of) Traditionis Custodes, the first powerful salvo in this pontificate’s war on the TLM. In an interview with Messa in Latino (helpfully translated by Diane Montagna), Grillo is candid enough to eliminate any possible misunderstanding of his intentions.

First, Grillo emphatically rejects the suggestion of Pope Benedict XVI, who released Summorum Pontificum hoping that a wider appreciation for the TLM could lead to an “mutual enrichment” between the old and new rites. This was a “totally inadequate strategy,” says Professor Grillo, “fueled by ideological abstractness.” Summorum Pontificum is “not theologically sound.”

It takes a special arrogance to dismiss the greatest Catholic theologian of the 20th century as unsound. But Grillo is not bashful, nor is he inclined to take an opponent’s arguments seriously. Quoting the late Pontiff’s defense of the old liturgy— “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us, too.”— he scoffs: “Where does this principle come from? Not from theology, but from nostalgic emotion for the past.”

Anyone who has read the Vatican II document Dei Verbum should recognize that for a believing Catholic, the term “Tradition” means something much more than nostalgia. The living Tradition, handed down from the apostles in teaching and in worship, is the work of the Holy Spirit. But Grillo has a quite different idea, as evident when he mentions “what best describes tradition: namely its service to change.” And if that statement is not clear enough, consider this astonishing statement: “Tradition is not the past, but the future.”

Thus the authority of tradition, for Grillo, lies in the future. We will decide which aspects of the tradition are authoritative— with helpful guidance from Sant’Anselmo, of course. And in order to reach that enlightened state, we must jettison any aspects of tradition that conflict with his vision.

Does this sound like the program of an ideological zealot? In his interview with Messa in Latino, Grillo acts the part. Reminded that 18,000 traditionalist Catholics recently joined in the annual Chartres pilgrimage, he brushes them aside as insignificant: “What are 18,000 people compared to the great multitude of the Catholic Church?” Challenged to explain the steady decline in priestly and religious vocations, and the mass exodus of young Catholics from the Church, he replies calmly that this “is not just a negative fact; it is the sign of a necessary travail for the entire Church.” In short Grillo is quite willing to accept the suffering of some Catholics (compare: the liquidation of the kulaks) and the overall precipitous decline in Catholic worship (compare: 80 consecutive years of bad harvests) as the price we all must pay to achieve the liturgical utopia.

Pope Benedict instructed us to view all Church teaching with the “hermeneutic of continuity,” to proceed on the assumption that Catholicism does not undergo radical change. Grillo takes almost the opposite approach in his contempt for the TLM; he insists on a complete break. Many faithful Catholics believe that it is possible to appreciate the beauty of the TLM without rejecting the Novus Ordo. Grillo will have none of it:

Fortunately the “progress” that Grillo demands is certainly not irreversible. Even if he were right, and tradition meant whatever the future says it means, then the Church of the future could discard the liturgical fashions of today. If Pope Francis suppresses the TLM, some future Pontiff will restore it.

Even the council that defined papal infallibility defined its limits. It is not schism to point out those limits. It is not a sin to point out those limits. It is not disloyal to illustrate how a pope might be exceeding those limits, and how in exceeding those limits he has himself broken with the faith.

And then there’s Galatians 1:8-9: “8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. 9 As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema.”

So, as a thought experiment, let’s suppose there is a pope who composes a new creed, orthodox in every way. Now let’s suppose he issues a papal bull replacing the Apostle’s creed with his new creed and excommunicating any priest who dares to recite the old Apostle’s Creed, even privately. Remember, this hypothetical papal bull applies only to priests, so it clearly does not fall within the limits of papal infallibility.

I would hold that it is abundantly clear to anyone with an ounce of sense that that pope would be exceeding his authority and could be disobeyed with a clear conscience.

Now let’s suppose that the new creed contained a relatively minor, but clearly heretical error. (Is there really such a thing as a relatively minor heresy? But let’s pretend for a moment.) How much more so would we be allowed, if not even obliged to disobey him?

I believe this is an excellent analogue to what Bergoglio is reportedly planning to do with the TLM. Whether or not he is legitimately pope, he simply does not have the authority to do it, and all bishops, priests, deacons, Religious sisters and brothers, and all lay people may disobey any decree that would punish them for saying or attending the TLM.

Am I wrong for attending the local Walton, KY SSPX church.
several years ago, Pope Francis decreed that SSPX confessions are valid. this was the year the Pope wanted frequent confessions of the laity. Are the SSPX Masses valid? These are the Masses of my parents and grandparents and myself attended until my age of 14. I didn’t understand Latin at 14 and still don’t but love the solemnity of the Mass. Went to my first High Mass this morning. I believe it is Matt 18:20 that speaks Christ “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

1. There was never any question that the SSPX Masses are VALID. The question for some is of liceity.

2. The SSPX has been given FACULTIES for Confession which assures validity. Faculties can also be supplied in danger of death, or in an emergency (e.g. underground priests in Red China).

Canon Law states that one could go even to a schismatic Mass to fulfill obligation if one cannot go to a regular Catholic Church due to physical (e.g. distance) or MORAL reason. (e.g. Novus Ordo priest violates rubrics, or teaches immorality) The SSPX status is NOT schism, the status is irregular.

I understand the SSPX marriages are now considered valid even though they had never been “regularized”, which implies they were ALWAYS valid.

We have a choice in Phoenix, and we go to the FSSP, but I have nothing bad to say about the SSPX, and we have great friends who go to their Masses, and my son plays on their baseball team.

In crazy times, charity is called for towards those who are making hard choices.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.