By JOHN YOUNG
An alleged reason for the Draconian restrictions on the Traditional Mass is to prevent schism, but it should be clear that it will increase that danger.
Many people who love that Mass and are appalled at the liturgical abuses, banality, and mediocre homilies in so many parishes, and find themselves deprived of the Traditional Mass, may be tempted into schism. That will be particularly the case of the people who are already drawn toward schism.
This is not the first time that Pope Francis’ actions have had the opposite effect to what was intended. His concessions to the Chinese government have made things worse for persecuted Catholics in China. And his “merciful” approach to practicing homosexuals, giving the impression that they need not change their lifestyle, will only tend to make it more difficult for those struggling to live a chaste life.
The reality regarding people who attend the Traditional Mass is that they are usually very fervent Catholics, often with big families. Large numbers of young people also love this Mass. And the homilies are doctrinal and orthodox.
Contrast this with the Novus Ordo Mass in many parishes. There is a casual attitude on the part of many in the congregation (certainly not all), a significant minority of priests depart from the rubrics, and there is usually not much substance in the homilies.
Pope Francis is taking these harsh measures in the name of unity, but it would be more logical (I am not suggesting that this should be done) if he imposed restrictions on the Novus Ordo, banning its celebration unless the rubrics are followed and unless the homilies don’t tend to drive people away from the truth!
I believe there are two extremes to be avoided: antipathy toward the Traditional Mass and antipathy toward the Novus Ordo. Both forms are good, with people differing as to which one they prefer.
The use of Latin brings out the sublimity and universality of the Mass, while some people find that the vernacular has greater impact and makes the meaning of the Mass clearer to them.
Some find the consecration more awesome when the priest is facing away from the congregation; others, including myself, like to see the Host as the priest says the words of consecration.
Some find the greater external participation of the Novus Ordo to some extent distracting, while others find it helpful. In the Traditional Mass there is more flexibility in the sense that one need not be focused on the responses, but can meditate more widely on the Divine Drama of the Mass.
With the Novus Ordo we see and hear all that the priest is doing, which is not the case with the Traditional Mass; and this can be either a help or a hindrance to our participation. It will help some and hinder others. Of course, if the priest changes things on his own initiative this is upsetting and distracting, and the Novus Ordo is open to this abuse.
Here, as in so many things, people differ, and the differences can be legitimate. An example is the rosary, with some people preferring to say the rosary in a group while others (myself included) prefer to say it alone. Some concentrate better in a group, others alone.
There is an old saying, often attributed to St. Augustine: “Unity in essential things, freedom in doubtful things, and charity in all things.”
There are people who are hostile to the Novus Ordo and others hostile to the Traditional Mass. Pope Francis is worried about the former while neglecting the greater danger from the latter.
Not only that, but his harsh demands, so contrary to the actions of Pope Benedict XVI in making the Traditional Mass more accessible, will tempt some not well-informed Catholics into the sede vacante error: the claim that the Holy See is vacant, that we don’t have a Pope at present.
But knowledge of Church history is very helpful in these troubled times. The present harsh action of the Pope reminds me of the Easter Controversy in the second century. The churches of the province of Asia celebrated Easter at a different date from the Roman practice, claiming that their tradition went back to St. John the Apostle.
The Pope, St. Victor I, ordered them to come into line with Rome, and when they refused he excommunicated those churches. But many bishops, including St. Irenaeus, considered that the Pope had acted too harshly. He was prevailed upon to lift the excommunication and allow the churches in Asia to continue to keep their traditional date for Easter.
It is too much to hope that Pope Francis will imitate Pope St. Victor and repeal his motu proprio, but this long ago dispute is one of many that the Church has endured. She has survived them all!
We should urge the bishops to interpret this document as pastorally as possible, imposing no more restrictions than they have to. A degree of flexibility has been left to the bishops. They should exercise it to give their people as much freedom as possible.
Long before this motu proprio was issued Pope Francis had made it clear that he disliked the Traditional Mass, and had even suggested that there must be something wrong with young people attracted to this ancient rite. Now he has exercised his authority to impose his personal opinion on the Church.
But we should remain optimistic. The Church has suffered much greater crises than this one and always comes out stronger than before.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress