Time for the Church to dialogue with traditionalists

On 20 February the Pope urged the application of two points that were already in the motu proprio Traditionis custodes and the responsa ad dubia. It is clear that some in Rome are getting impatient: the motu proprio must be applied more seriously. De facto, in France, here and there, new norms given by diocesan bishops are restricting the use of ancient liturgical books. Can one celebrate with the ancient missal and not reject Vatican II and the reforms of the missal of St. Paul VI and St. John Paul II? Yes, it is perfectly possible to obtain a full, conscious and active participation of the lay and clerical faithful by celebrating the Holy Mysteries with the ancient missal. Moreover, let us not forget that a missal which incorporated many of the demands of Sacrosanctum concilium was published in 1965. A "collective punishment". The "Tradi movement" is plural. On the clerical side, you find "exclusivist" priests (who celebrate only with the ancient missal), others who concelebrate with their bishop, others who usually use both Roman missals.  On the part of the laity: some only attend Mass according to the ancient missal, others participate in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice according to both missals. But the motu proprio, the responsa and the rescript make little distinction. A few small exceptions have been made: for the pastors of "personal parishes", for the priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter. The fate of the old missal and ritual is nevertheless sealed: they must disappear in the near future. Misunderstandings. When the motu proprio was published, a good number of priests and faithful (not to say almost all of them) did not recognise themselves at all in the situation described, hence a feeling of stupefaction and incomprehension that remains today. Some (a minority) may have felt targeted (and rightly so), but then why such a collective punishment without sufficient distinctions? It seems that we have entered an era of "juridicalism", even "legal positivism": the law is good because it is the law.

If we were to caricature it a little, we could sum up the current state of mind with the slogan: "Obey and move on".  Ideologies.  The proponents of a hermeneutic of rupture are in agreement.  For some, everything new is bad: there is no question of using the new rituals.  For others, everything old is bad: there is no question of allowing the use of old books.  This is not at all the discourse to which Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have accustomed us for 35 years.  A proposal: dialogue and study in a synodal spirit.   In accordance with canon 212, I propose that official spaces for dialogue and study be established both at national and diocesan levels. In the light of Sacrosanctum concilium, they would allow for a consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the old and new rituals, but also of the Roman missals. They would, I hope, eventually lead to a "mutual enrichment" of what Benedict XVI called the "two forms" of the Roman missal (and why not also of the rituals of the sacraments). For some have said that "mutual enrichment" has failed; I think it has never been attempted. Didn't Benedict XVI say that the new liturgical books were only "partially renewed" (cf. Summorum Pontificum)? Doesn't this mean that a "reform of the reform" is always possible?

Examples of questions to ask. For example, on the subject of baptism: did Sacrosanctum Concilium call for the removal of the prayers of exorcism and deliverance from the ancient ritual? In the light of the apostolic letter Desiderio desideravi (2022), which expressive symbols of the old ritual have been removed? What are the contributions of the new baptismal ritual to the old one? What mutual enrichments can be envisaged? On the subject of the sacrament of marriage: is it theologically right to use the old ritual in a marriage with "disparity of worship" (for example, between a baptized and a non-baptized person) insofar as this ritual speaks only of the sacrament of marriage, whereas we know that there can only be a sacramental marriage between two baptized persons? What are the contributions of the new marriage ritual compared to the old one? And so on. The risks if the legitimate demands of the intelligence of the faithful are not met.

Let us assume that these synodal dialogue and study bodies do not exist in the future. What will happen? The Diocesan bishops will naturally obey the Pope and enforce the current norms. The faithful will have to obey the competent authorities. Their will will be appealed to because obedience is in the will, but the intelligence of many will not be satisfied at all. Of course, it is possible to obey without agreeing with the precept received, but it must also be added that it is easier to obey when one understands the merits and relevance of the order given. It is likely that many priests will obey by virtue of the promise made at their ordination. In this they will follow in the footsteps of the saintly Padre Pio who obeyed his superiors even if their orders seemed unjust (and objectively they were). Other priests will refuse to obey and will lose their ministry in one diocese or another, as has already happened in recent months. The lay faithful will be distraught but will continue to go to Mass wherever they please. Some of them, trained since 1988 by the speeches of two popes who told them that the coexistence of two Roman missals does not harm the unity of the Church but rather constitutes a richness, will say to themselves that they still have a right to this missal: they will go and pray in garages, in private oratories, and even in chapels of the Society of St. Pius X (because the theological distinctions of validity, licitness, lifting of excommunication which does not entail full communion with the Catholic Church are beyond them and escape them). The end will justify the means - which is not Catholic.

The fact is that, for almost all the faithful, the words of Benedict XVI still resonate: “What was sacred for previous generations remains great and sacred for us, and cannot unexpectedly be totally forbidden, or even considered harmful.” It is good for all of us to preserve the riches that have grown in the faith and prayer of the Church, and to give them their rightful place. Obviously, in order to live full communion, the priests of communities that adhere to the old usage cannot exclude the celebration according to the new books on principle. The total exclusion of the new rite would not be consistent with the recognition of its value and sanctity" (letter accompanying SP). Therefore, a call to "blind" obedience, without the work of the intellect and without synodal dialogue, seems to me to be a very perilous exercise. Preserving unity. St. Augustine wrote: "The executioners did not tear the garment [of Christ], Christians are dividing the Church". If we can avoid new tears, should we not? Let us remember the words of Benedict XVI: "Looking at the past, at the divisions that have lacerated the body of Christ over the centuries, one continually has the impression that at critical moments when division was beginning to arise, the Church's leaders did not do enough to preserve or conquer reconciliation and unity; one has the impression that omissions in the Church had their share of guilt in the fact that these divisions managed to consolidate" (letter accompanying MS). Behind the humour: a heavy responsibility. To sum up my proposal with a note of humour, allow me to quote Jean Lefebvre in a "cult" film: "Basically now, diplomats would rather take precedence over men of action. It would be a time for round tables and relaxation, eh, what do you think? Otherwise we all risk what the same actor called: "sleepless nights, migraines, nervous breakdowns as they say nowadays...". Can't we spare ourselves these? Can we not avoid entering the traps of the Divider? Why not make the choice of communion and synodality?

Source