Response to Timothy Flanders on Trad Questions

Unlike some "Catholic" publications and bloggers One Peter Five actually believes in dialogue. Here is a good example, it publishes Fr Brownson's response to Mr Flanders's critique of his essay.

From One Peter Five

By Fr Michael Brownson

Dear Mr. Flanders,

May charity reign.

I thank you for publishing my essays on “Traditionalism and its Dangers” as well as for your fair and charitable commentary in response. You are certainly on target with your insight into the different perspectives of a parish priest and a father of a family, but don’t forget that a parish priest is also the father of a family. These days a parish priest might have fewer options and maybe even less real authority. Besides, he can’t choose to move his parish to a better diocese. In any case, personally, I am happy to celebrate the TLM whenever possible.

To speak of dangers is not to speak of things that are not necessarily realized but to speak of real possibilities. Nevertheless, if I speak of the dangers of traditionalism, I would certainly argue that they are in some cases realized and we would most likely agree that “Sedevacantism”, at least, is a case in point. Nevertheless, we do disagree a bit about the SSPX. No, they are not formally in schism, but since schism includes “refusal … of communion with the members of the Church subject to [the Supreme Pontiff]”(CIC 751), I do think that practical schismatic attitudes are widespread. For the record, Kennedy Hall is my favorite SSPXer and I usually enjoy reading his articles, especially when they are on “neutral ground.” 

My main point, which I believe is “de fide“, is that the Church is a visible, hierarchical reality in this world, and consequently, the Church is bigger than the traditionalist movement. As a result there is a danger for traditionalists, in their promotion of the TLM and their critique of the Novus Ordo, to begin to see traditionalism not just as the best place to raise their children, but as the whole of the Church. 

The second, related danger, which you express as “that we do not absolutise the thing about the liturgy which is objectively inferior to the Person Whom the liturgy offers to the Father.” My point was that in a valid Mass, not only does transubstantiation take place, but the Person is objectively offered to the Father, regardless of the dispositions of the worshippers and so the objective glorification of God through the mere fact of the sacrifice of Christ being offered is greater than the exterior rite and greater than anything the worshippers bring, good or bad. For a valid Mass what is required is a valid rite (Novus Ordo qualifies) and the intention of the part of the priest to “do what the Church does” (cf. Roman Catechism on the minister of sacraments), which is certainly manifested by his performance of the rite in communion with the Church. He may otherwise be a heretic or not understand what he is doing or believe what he is doing, but he need only intend to do what the Church does. I have seen these points missed or even denied in traditionalist polemic. 

You conclude: “I would hazard to guess that most Trads – the vast majority of whom are too busy doing penance to be on social media – are simply in awe of the Lord as He arrives in the awesome Latin Mass, that they forget themselves and only yearn to the know the Lord, in this rite, and pray here, like they forefathers did.” Please God that is true, which means also that “most Trads” are not engaged in polemic against their brethren who worship according to the “Novus Ordo”.  

At the same time, when they do engage in such polemic, it has been understandably exacerbated by an execessive militancy, alluding to the title of the book edited by Dr. Kwasniewski, the passage from “Benedict’s Peace to Francis’s War.”  One of the more grievous consequences of Traditionis Custodes is that it has targeted precisely those priests who are able to live in both worlds, who are able to care for a parish that has both the TLM and the Novus Ordo, in which the faithful who frequent  one or the other or both are able to know one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, interact, and work together in charity for the glory of God.

At present we are experiencing in the Church a maximum of tension, so to speak, between the visibility of the Church and the tradition of the Church. For all the tension these two must be held together. So, my question for traditionalists is “How far are you willing to go that you personally may be assured of having access to the TLM?” 

If the traditionalist movement is right – and in this I think they are right – that the Church needs the TLM and that the TLM cannot be suppressed, then there is nothing to fear, though there will be much to suffer. The TLM may or may not become once again the universal liturgy of the Roman Rite, but Traditionis Custodes cannot last and the TLM will certainly recover, shall we say, its freedom.

Keep up the good work at OnePeterFive.

In Christo et Matre eius,

Fr. Michael Brownson