Critical Mass: Introduction

Today, the Holy See is meeting with Bishop Fellay of the Society of St Pius X, the schismatic group of traditionalist Catholics that broke with Rome over (to make a long story mercifully short) the implementation of certain reforms of the Second Vatican Council. In 1988, founder Archbishop Levebvre consecrated four priests as bishops in defiance of Rome. All were automatically excommunicated as a result.

Of course, the issue of greatest concern to Catholics in light of this meeting, is the expanded use of the classical Roman missal, as promulgated by Pope Pius V in 1570, with minor amendments by 1962. The so-called "Tridentine Mass," so named after the Council of Trent of which this edition is a by-product, is in fact a codification of older Roman usage dating back to the time of Pope St Gregory the Great in the fifth century. The reformed Roman missal, as promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970 and the normative use of the Roman Rite, is increasingly acknowledged as a break with organic development of the Mass in the Western church, and as such, not at all with the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council had in mind.

This growing consensus has spawned two parallel trends; one is the approval for use of the 1962 Missale Romanum, with the permission of the local bishop, under the terms of the 1988 decree Ecclesia Dei. The other has been a call for a "reform of the reform," whereupon efforts are made, both to restore a sense of the sacred to the reformed missal to the extent possible, and to discern what the Council Fathers had in mind for a reform of the Latin liturgy at the offest, and to determine how that might set things back on track.

For the most part, liturgical traditionalists seek no less than a complete return to the normative use of the classical Roman rite. They are encouraged by the sentiments of Pope Benedict, who as Cardinal Ratzinger demonstrated great sympathy for their plight, and a venerable practice that was, in fact, never officially abrogated. As a result, they often take a dim view of counter-reformists, considering the latter's efforts to ultimately be a waste of time. In so doing, they tend to ignore two things; one, that the very idea of "the reform of the reform" originated with the man who now wears the Fisherman's Ring (you know, the same guy whose name they keep dropping when they need his endorsement), and two, that of acting as if Vatican II never happened (or at least didn't matter, as if an ecumenical council would thus be worth all the trouble).

It is generally acknowledged that the Council Fathers saw the need for the Roman liturgy to be reformed. Such is the opinion of people with the audacity to admit they were there for the proceedings. This being the case, there is no getting around it. On the other hand, the basis of their reform was a continuous tradition of fifteen centuries, as opposed to that which was, if only by historical standards, rather hastily assembled. Therefore, the fact of the older usage of the Roman liturgy is no more likely to go away, than is the ecumenical council which was said to have its effect thereupon.

And so it goes.

The next couple of weeks will be devoted to various thoughts on the future of Catholic worship in the Western church, and the opinions of this writer with respect to the subject. Included will be references to other brethren of St Blog's who have already commented at length on this matter.

And not without considerable reaction. Stay tuned...