Some Further Thoughts on Traditionis Custodes and the Current State of Traditionalism:

There is not much more to say about supposed traditionalism than what I have said in recent weeks when responding to the predominant reaction from these circles to Traditionis Custodes. The responses of that nature can be read here:

Thirty Pieces of Evidence In Support of the Decision in Traditionis Custodes (circa October 17, 2021)

On Traditionis Custodes and the Circumstances That Motivated Its Promulgation (circa October 21, 2021)

Reason, logic, and documented evidence however expansive can only get you so far. The reason? Experience has shown that for those of a cultic mindset, it is akin to a conspiracy theorist insofar as like the latter, reason and logic are usually not the roads taken into such endeavours. For this reason, expecting them to take those paths out can not infrequently be disappointing. There are emotional factors at play here and when someone is guided by emotions, their reason and logic can become very foggy if non-existent. So for those kinds of folks, consider the following analogies:

---The Tridentine liturgy is akin to the plump juicy animals King Saul spared from the Amalekites to make sacrifices to God. What did God think of King Saul's actions? From the words of Samuel the prophet:

Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in heeding the voice of the Lord? Behold, obedience is better than sacrifice, being attentive is better than the fat of rams. Rebellion is like the sin of witchcraft, arrogance like the evil of idolatry. [1 Samuel xv,22-23]

Those who think the Lord is pleased with their purported resistance to Pope Francis' restrictions on the Tridentine liturgy are no different than King Saul and in like manner, God is not pleased with them.

---The Tridentine liturgy is analogous to the Bronze Serpent, made by command of God:

The Lord sent seraph serpents among the people. They bit the people, and many of the people of Israel died. The people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you. Pray to the Lord so that he might save us from the serpents.” So Moses prayed for the people. The Lord said to Moses, “Make a seraph serpent and put it upon a pole. Whoever has been bitten and looks upon it will live.” [Numbers: xxi,6-8]

Even if some today would claim that the Tridentine liturgy was commanded of God{1}, so too was the Bronze Serpent. And what was the fate of the Bronze Serpent?:

Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, the king of Judah began to reign during the third year of the reign of Hoshea, the son of Elah, the king of Israel...He eliminated the high places and he broke down the pillars. He cut down the Asherah and he broke into pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for up to those days the Israelites had burned incense to it and they called it Nehushtan. [2 Kings xviii,1;3-5]

In other words, even if Pope Francis was abolishing the Tridentine liturgy{2} and even if the Tridentine liturgical form was literally decreed by God{3} there is biblical precedent for such an action. For Pope Francis is acting similar to King Hezekiah and restricting what has become a source of literal idolatry in the traditionalist movement by a not-insignificant number of those folks. They have become like the modernists who according to Pope Pius X sought to "try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself."{4} Or as St. John Henry Newman noted of the defect in faith of Protestants in one of his Discourses to Mixed Congregations not long after his conversion:

[I]n spite of so much that is good in them, in spite of their sense of duty, their tenderness of conscience on many points, their benevolence, their uprightness, their generosity, they are under the dominion (I must say it) of a proud fiend; they have this stout spirit within them, they determine to be their own masters in matters of thought, about which they know so little; they consider their own reason better than any one's else; they will not admit that any one comes from God who contradicts their own view of truth. What! is none their equal in wisdom anywhere? Is there none other whose word is to be taken on religion? Is there none to wrest from them their ultimate appeal to themselves?{5}

This is the reality of what we are seeing here: a movement that whatever value it may have had at one time is shot through with serious problems including the problem of idolatry. If it was only an issue of serenely observing the pre-reformed liturgy, then Pope Francis would not have had to do what he did. But far too often there is a discernible pattern that takes place over time amongst those of a traditionalist inclination. It starts with mere preference for the Tridentine liturgical form. From there it inexorably moves towards denigrating the revised Roman liturgy, speaking contemptuously of the Pope who promulgated it{6}, often moving onto his predecessor{7} and successors prior to Pope Francis{8} to say nothing of what they have done to Pope Francis the past eight years, running down the last ecumenical Council in various ways{9}, and not infrequently lionizing schismatics{10}, and eventually at some point along the way, imbibing forms of antisemitism.{11}

The suppression of the Tridentine liturgical form by Pope Francis{12} in other words did not happen in a vacuum. It is being done to chasten those with a superficial understanding of the faith. They are spiritual infants who whine and cry over external liturgical forms whereas those with the eyes of faith see Christ in every mass because the externals are literally the least important factor.{13} And rejection of the so-called "Novus Ordo" by those traditionalists who do so is a rejection of Jesus Christ himself{14} and that is the bottom line really.

Notes:

{1} Which it was not.

{2} Which he is not.

{3} Which it is not.

{4} Pope St. Pius X: Encyclical Letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis §42 (circa September 8, 1907) as Quoted in the Rerum Novarum Postings On the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Obedience, and the Requirements of Faithful Catholics (circa February 26, 2020) and On the Controversy of Amoris Laetitia Amongst The More Faithful Than Thou Crowd (circa December 5, 2019)

{5} St. John Henry Newman: Excerpt from his Discourse On Faith and Private Judgment (circa 1849)

{6} Pope St. Paul VI

{7} Pope St. John XXIII

{8} Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI

{9} For example, the attempt to create a dichotomy between the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council as a "pastoral council" and other synods as "dogmatic councils." I first dealt with this false dichotomy nearly twenty years ago but it is still a tired canard trotted out by the theologically ignorant.

{10} For example, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, other clerics given prominence by movement partisans, as well as various and sundry writers for traditionalist themed websites and periodicals.

{11} I could fill a footnote with link upon link involving traditionalist groups and the obsession not a few of them have with antisemitic views, both overtly as well as covertly. Rather than take up too much time with that, I will note here only a few of many such examples which could be noted:

Italian bishop condemns “anti-Semitic regurgitations” in Church after “traditionalist” Catholic unveils blood libel painting

Saint Simon of Trent (1475)

Traditionalist SSPX leader calls Jews "enemies of the church"

The traditional Latin Mass is not the problem with traditionalist communities

Traditionalists' Expert on Pope Francis Is A Holocaust Denier

The Synthesis of All Catholic Conspiracy Theory (Part 1)

The Synthesis of All Catholic Conspiracy Theory (Part 2)

The Synthesis of All Catholic Conspiracy Theory (Part 3)

Non Possumus

{12} It is worth noting that nothing in Traditionis Custodes annuls any of the privileges that Pope Francis has granted to the SSPX. Nor does this text appear aimed at the FSSP who have long had good relationships with many of the local ordinaries.

{13} [T]hey have not realized that the least of the benefits which come from this Most Holy Sacrament is that which concerns the senses; and that the invisible part of the grace that it bestows is much greater; for, in order that they may look at it with the eyes of faith, God oftentimes withholds from them these other consolations and sweetnesses of sense. [St. John of the Cross: From The Dark Night of the Soul, Book I (circa ante-1582) as Quoted in the Rerum Novarum Note On Traditionis Custodes and the Circumstances That Motivated Its Promulgation (circa October 21, 2021)]

{14} The revised Roman Missal was promulgated by Pope Paul VI who possessed the power of binding and loosing. And that "Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same" (Pope Pius XII: Mystici Corporis Christi §40), this teaching has not insignificant ramifications for the current situation. For as "Christ and His Vicar constitute only one Head", logically "[t]hey, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth" (Mystici Corporis Christi §41). Concretely, what Peter in the person of the Pope binds or looses is bound or loosed by Christ. So those accusing Pope Francis of immorality in issuing Traditionis Custodes are engaging in a form of blasphemy toward Christ. 

To be clear, disagreement with a decision is not an issue of course as long as that disagreement does not denote either disobedience or treating the judgment with contempt. However to those traditionalists who have spent years running down in various ways the revised Roman Missal, they run afoul of Church teaching which expressly condemns such conduct. For "the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority" (Pope Gregory XVI: Mirari Vos §9). Those who in any way try to diminish Traditionis Custodes or treat the so-called "Novus Ordo" with contempt are only treating with contempt the Vicar of Christ but Christ as well. This is why Pope Leo XIII cited with his approval the following words of St. Maximus the Confessor:

He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See. [Pope Leo XIII: Excerpt from the Encyclical Letter Satis Cognitum §13 (circa June 29, 1896) as Quoted in the Rerum Novarum Points to Ponder series (circa October 14, 2021)] 

Miscellaneous Musings on Neoscholasticism:

Whatever one wants to say about the Second Vatican Council, the intentions of the Fathers, of Pope St. John XXIII and all, one thing bears nothing. Namely, whatever fits and starts, whatever incomplete elucidation were involved in the process, one unquestionable good was the Second Vatican Council smashed neo-scholastic crap and more or less buried it. However good the intentions of its promoters were initially in wanting to recover authentic scholasticism, the actual result was a sham and at best a shell of authentic scholasticism. 

This increasingly fraudulent form of scholasticism was dominant in the Church in roughly the century prior to the Second Vatican Council. The Council to its great credit oriented the Church towards viewing the faith in a far more genuinely traditional way: incarnationally and a faith manifested through charitable service. What was so damaging about neoscholastic methodology is it asphyxiated the faith by making of it not a lived faith but instead a series of dogmatic theological propositions.{1} When the latter become the primary point of focus to the detriment of an incarnational understanding, it causes ones faith to become very sterile and unlifelike. 

We can all take issue with some of the things that came out of the Council, things that could have been said or expressed or formulated better. However, one undeniable benefit was the Second Vatican Council to its great credit smashed the sclerotic neoscholastic approach to the faith and set about expressing the faith more incarnationally as a faith that is lived through embodying the corporeal and spiritual works of mercy, not merely a jumble of verbal formularies.

Note:

{1} It was also based less on the original scholastic sources than on later commentators and various glosses they put on their commentaries on original sources which were often erroneous but confused with the thoughts of the schoolmen. 

Opening Address To the Council

Miscellaneous Dyspeptic Mutterings:

For those who think the Pennsylvania revelations are somehow curable with a "return to the old ways", restoring the so-called TLM, or other such inanities, etc., explain to me the following please:

--The Holy Office Instruction Crimen Sollicitationis issued in 1962 by Cardinal Ottaviani and approved by Pope John XXIII. (Subtitled On the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of the Crime of Solicitation.)

--The Holy Office Instruction Crimen Sollicitationis issued in 1922 by Cardinal Merry Del Val and approved by Pope Pius XI. (Subtitled On the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of the Crime of Solicitation and more or less identical to the 1962 Instruction.)

--The Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Pope Benedict XIV treating on matters of confessional solicitation "lest that which has been given by divine beneficence as a means of rescue of shipwrecked and wretched sinners after the innocence of baptism is lost, results [instead] in woeful destruction through the deceit of demons or the malice of men who use the privileges of God perversely; and so that which has been established by Our Lord, who is rich in compassion, for the salvation and healing of souls not be turned by the execrable improbity of wicked priests toward the ruin and damnation of these souls" (Pope Benedict XIV circa 1741).

--The Brief of Pope Gregory XV issued in 1622 extending a prior Bull of Pope Pius IV (issued prior to 1565 to the Spanish Catholic Church) to the entire church and dealt with "any priests delegated to hear confessions who solicited shameful and dishonourable conduct" (Pope Benedict XIV circa 1741).

We have texts spanning 340 years prior to the Second Vatican Council (where I might add, a planned distribution to the bishops of the 1962 version of Crimen Sollicitationis for some reason never occurred). So kindly explain to me again how returning to "ye good old days" pre-Vatican II is supposed to magically fix things when these texts and their prescriptions were ALL issued back in the "TLM days" and (in the cases of the 1922 and 1962 Instructions) kept ultra secret, not published in the Acta, and were never to be written of or spoken of publicly whatsoever.

On My Resignation From Where Peter Is, General Concerns For The State Of Public Discourse There and Elsewhere, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

To begin with, this situation has been on my mind since nearly the very beginning of my involvement at Where Peter Is. And as I sketched some of this out in my introduction column at Where Peter Is (WPI), I will use what I said there to explain why I have decided to with this posting formalize my decision concretely at the present time. To wit:

Many years ago, I was involved in apologetics but I have been distancing myself from that for about fifteen years now. Fundamentally this was due to the limitations involved in mere apologetics. However, there was also the factor of too many involved in that endeavour revealing a disturbing degree of intellectual dependence on the Church’s magisterium to try and navigate complex subject matter. There is also an equally disturbing tendency of not a few folks to try and dogmatically impose an artificial uniformity onto others which creates unnecessary divisions. This is hardly in line with “the common saying, expressed in various ways and attributed to various authors…recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity” (Pope St. John XXIII: Encyclical Letter Ad Petri Cathedram); ergo, I want nothing to do with that crowd.{1}

What I outlined above are areas that I believe should be well understood by all but indeed they are not. Even among those who can cite the relevant texts, understanding is usually lacking because merely citing a text does not mean its actually understood very well. Much as the Bible is used as a prooftext-fest for not a few of our brethren (separated and otherwise) against one another, the same is the case with magisterial interventions by Catholics. I begin seeing very early on these same problems in the manner whereby WPI was operating. But in keeping with the title of the column{2}, I sought to explain the alternative which is what I intended to focus on after getting my feet wet with a few columns first. I made reference in the inaugural column to both general areas of interest{3} as well as problems I had seen over the years{4} both methodological{5} as well as attitudinal{6} in the various Catholic spheres I had inhabited over the past twenty years. It was hoped that touching on these matters at the get-go could help alert site participants to look for them in their own writings and attitudes but this does not appear to be the case. Therefore, my involvement even as a silent lurker would appear to give a tacit approval to the very same problems I had outlined in the inaugural column.

There is also the issue of the general thrust of the way the site had been operating. Even apart from some of the specific columns that I found profoundly problematical{7} is the general atmosphere as presented on the site and on the message thread. I made my good friend Pete Vere aware of some of these matters very early on in an email communication:

I have been doing a lot of pondering on this writing relationship with the group page Where Peter Is (WPI). When I came aboard, it looked very promising. Since that time, I have only seen things that lessen my motivation for being involved there. I do not like the idea of having to wait for many days for simple columns to post. When I joined that was not an issue but over the past week it has become one. I also do not like basically being told what to write about or when to publish something.

I support Pope Francis but that does not mean I support every sentence that comes unformed from his mouth -particularly when it is in areas that fall outside of his divinely vested competence. However, I also have serious problems with the attitude of so many who take issue in the latter areas in the manner they far too frequently do so. And the free passes folks on all sides give to their chosen comrades to engage in detraction, calumny, and general belittling of chosen "outcasts" while excoriating "the other side" for the same offenses: this too does not meet with my favour.

Also, I am not even remotely interested in the political-themed stuff I am seeing with greater frequency on the group messenger. It is too similar to what I see in virtually every other sphere and as I am reducing significantly my involvement in that stuff in other places, I am hardly going to take on more of it [here]...

It appears that the aim of WPI is to act as a general apologetics site for all things Pope Francis. However, I have no interest in general apologetics whatsoever. It is too simplistic and too divisive. I went over this in the inaugural column so my stance on this should not be surprising. I was also told in a more veiled way that material needs to be shaped for a pro-Francis audience or something like that. I operate under the assumption that the dialogue that Pope Francis and his predecessors have spoke of going back explicitly to the pontificate of Pope Paul VI is one they take seriously and furthermore, that they want Catholics to take part in. I do not see how that can be the case if the goal is just to create an echo chamber of nodding yesfolk who take turns complaining about what the yesfolk of other echo chambers say and vice versa.

This is a serious problem today: too many echo chambers and far too few who try to bridge these chasms in a productive fashion. That is what I saw myself doing as a member of WPI. I am interested in helping build bridges, not helping destroy them. There is a reason I started the inaugural column with that passage from Fr. Taft. I am not interested in creating unnecessary conflict but instead to help find ways to resolve it. It does not seem to me that WPI and I in that respect are on the same page and the goal of members of the former seem to be the antithesis of what I aim to do.{8}

For his own reasons, Pete has decided to part ways with WPI as well as the rest of public social media. Apart from what I thought WPI could be as enunciated in my inaugural column, I got involved in the project to collaborate with an old friend as we used to in the old days when we wrote web content as well as columns for periodical publications. We may be able to resume collaboration in the coming year but obviously that will not be happening at WPI. I therefore for the reasons specified above formally resign from Where Peter Is as of this column's publication and its notation on the messenger thread of its site participants. I thank them for the original opportunity but in the end, it simply is not the right fit for me; therefore, I wish them well and bid them adieu.


“The world is full of people who are bridge destroyers. They want to destroy the bridges that already exist. That’s not me.” [Rt. Rev. Archimandrite Fr. Robert F. Taft, SJ]

Notes:

{1} Excerpt from Lighting Candles Instead of Cursing the Darkness (circa June 16, 2018)

{2} Lighting Candles Instead of Cursing the Darkness

{3} Among the ecclesial areas I have done a fair amount of study in are the areas not often familiar to apologists or indeed many theologians. For example, what is involved in the principles of authentic dialogue? (It is one thing to throw the term around and another to actually understand what it involves!) What is and is not involved in a magisterial intervention and what is and is not considered (properly speaking) “magisterial”? What are the general norms of theological interpretation involved in properly understanding the theological qualifications of magisterial interventions? What are the situations where someone can take issue with magisterial interventions and the recognized methodology thereof? And furthermore, what sort of spiritual dispositions should be involved in all such endeavours? These are areas worth delving into... [Excerpt from Lighting Candles Instead of Cursing the Darkness (circa June 16, 2018)]

{4} I have observed over the years that there is a greater frequency of coarseness in discourse in society generally speaking. What is even more disappointing is that I see it just as prominent among Catholics who should know better. To quote the words of a soon-to-be canonized saint, “[i]t would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness” (Bl. Pope Paul VI: Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam). While I will at times bluntly call out such things when I see them, that is as a rule not how I have preferred over the years to go about these or other matters. [Excerpt from Lighting Candles Instead of Cursing the Darkness (circa June 16, 2018)]

{5} See the material from footnote one.

{6} I have also seen a growing coarseness in discourse among Catholics with the proliferation of labels intended to stigmatize others. [Excerpt from Lighting Candles Instead of Cursing the Darkness (circa June 16, 2018)]

I unfortunately in following the private messaging thread of WPI seen this sort of thing proliferate there as well as some of it creep onto the site itself.

{7} It is not my interest to go into this matter in any depth. Suffice to say, I hope bringing this matter to the attention of others on the site will make them more attuned to what they write and the manner in which it is presented in the future.

{8} Excerpts from an Email Correspondence (circa June 24, 2018)

Points to Ponder:
(On Legitimate Differences of Opinion)

The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark. [Pope John XXIII: Ad Petri Cathedram §71 (circa 1959)]