Bishops Against Bishops on the TLM: Where Will Leo Land?

Mr Flanders asks a question which has been on the minds of every Traditionalist since the day Leo was elected Pope. Where does he stand?

From One Peter Five

By Timothy Flanders, MA

Two days ago Diane Montagna revealed that “one of four texts distributed to the cardinals” at the consistory last week was on the liturgy, penned by Cardinal Roche. You may recall that four topics were on the agenda: evangelisation, the Roman Curia, the Synod and synodality, and the liturgy. However the Cardinals voted to focus only on synodality and evangelisation, and the liturgy was not a focus.

Meanwhile, yesterday Bishop Schneider revealed that he had personally appealed to His Holiness to “do a more solemn document, not just a Motu Proprio as Benedict XVI did and then the anti-Motu Proprio of Pope Francis Traditionis Custodes.”

So what did Roche have to say? He presents, first, a new argument that I’ve not heard before, claiming that Pope St. Pius V said in Quo Primum that “it is most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass.” He seems to adduce here that Pope St. Pius V did what Paul VI did, namely reform the Mass (as he says in the beginning, the liturgy is always reforming) and then impose one rite on the whole Church.

That is in effect what Paul VI did, yes, abolishing, de facto, the previous Latin rite.

Roche’s quote from Pius V, however, seems woefully misleading, for he omits the subsequent paragraph from Pius V, which states the following:

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom.

 Thus it seems Roche is quoting Pius V in a misleading way, which could easily mislead good Catholic bishops and faithful, as indeed even some traditionalists advocate the Tridentine mono-Latin rite as if this were traditional. In fact, even in the Latin rites, there are multiple traditional rites, and only because of the Protestant revolt did we arrive at a situation where virtually the entire Latin Church celebrates the rite of the city of Rome. It is not traditional for the Bishop of Rome to attempt to make the entire world his own diocese and his own rite, so that every local bishop becomes the vicar of the Roman Pontiff in their governance and ritual. But I digress.

Roche then quotes Pope Benedict’s comments about Tradition, omitting the fact that Pope Benedict stated explicitly that liberating the Latin Mass was a fundamental aspect of Tradition. This traditional understanding of Ratzinger was sent down the memory hole by Traditionis Custodes and a mythos was claimed that Ratzinger’s only motivation for Summorum was appeasing the SSPX. Thankfully, Benedict explicitly denied that before his death:

[Peter Seewald:] The reauthorization of the Tridentine Mass is often interpreted primarily as a concession to the Society of St Pius X.

[Benedict XVI Emeritus:] That is just absolutely false! It was important for me that the Church is one with herself inwardly, with her own past; that what was previously holy to her is not somehow wrong now. The rite must develop. In that sense reform is appropriate. But the continuity must not be ruptured. The Society of St Pius X is based on the fact that people felt the Church was renouncing itself. That must not be. But as I said, my intentions were not of a tactical nature, they were about the substance of the matter itself. Of course it is also the case that, the moment one sees a Church schism looming, the Pope is obliged to do whatever is possible to prevent it happening. This also includes the attempt to lead these people back into unity with the Church, if possible. (my emphasis)[1]

After this omission, conspicuous by its absence, Roche then quotes Pope Francis praising the reform, together with further truisms to support Traditionis Custodes, while side-stepping any substantial engagement with the traditionalist critiques of the same. He then quotes Pope Francis’s strongest words against the ancient Roman Rite (in Desiderio Desideravi 61), invoking the Providence of the Holy Spirit against Summorum Pontificum.

He then ends with another quote from Pope Francis which reveals Francis’s ignorance of his immediate predecessor’s liturgical theology: “I do not see how it is possible…” In other words, Pope Francis never studied Ratzinger’s liturgical theology, nor listened to the traditionalists’ efforts at explaining the issue at hand.

Meanwhile, as I said, Bishop Schneider has attempted to explain to Pope Leo the liturgical issue, and we know others have as well, like Cardinal Burke. Leo himself, as we have reported, even though he has admitted his ignorance about the Latin Mass movement, already seems to understand the movement apparently better than Cardinal Roche.

This should give Trads hope for better things to come with this pontiff. But in any case, Jesus is on the throne, and all will be well.

VIVA CRISTO REY!