Why did I summarize this gospel episode? Because, in a certain sense, it seems to me that it resembles the situation of the traditional Roman Catholic liturgy. Practically forbidden by Pope Paul VI, all the other popes who followed him – John Paul II and Francis – made sure that the liturgy of the ages remained buried and sealed (probably Pope John Paul I would have done the same). The only exception was Pope Benedict XVI, whose motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (2007) aroused adverse reactions from some hierarchs. Anyway, we know how his pontificate ended.

His apostolic letter Traditionis custodes (2021) represents not only the death certificate of the old liturgy of the Church but also a sign of accelerating the initial plan for its complete elimination. The tomb is now well guarded.

In recent years, Pope Francis has made sure that the seal under which the Gregorian Liturgy was buried is stronger than ever. His apostolic letter Traditionis custodes (2021) represents not only the death certificate of the old liturgy of the Church but also a sign of accelerating the initial plan for its complete elimination. The tomb is now well guarded. In “Can Conservative and Liberal Catholics Coexist?,” an article published on May 8th in The New York Times, Ross Douthat shows that “the current pope has often seemed exasperated by the persistence of traditionalist tendencies – How can this thing still be sticking around?” Replace “thing” with “ghost” and you will understand that the question Douthat attributes to Pope Francis indicates the amazement of those Catholic hierarchs who are astonished by the persistence of the “thing” sealed in the tomb: they cannot believe that its content is (still) alive.

Regardless of how they are labeled and dismissed, Catholic traditionalists have described in numerous books, articles, and conferences the situation created after the “reform” of Pope Paul VI. One of the best characterizations comes from an eclectic author, with a complicated intellectual path – the French philosopher and historian of religions, Jean Borella. In one of his best works, The Crisis of Religious Symbolism (1990), he asserts the following:

“There has never been any religious authority that has separated itself, by decision and by the unanimous agreement of its members, from a ritual tradition of impressive antiquity and imposed the new ritual in the most totalitarian and implacable manner, while affirming at the same time that it is the same faith, the same religion, the same liturgy.”

The quote from Borella is not only critical but also revelatory. For it indicates the substratum of replacing the organic liturgy of the Church with a “manufactured liturgy” (Pope Benedict XVI). Those who assert, stubbornly, that it is the same faith, the same religion, and the same liturgy are representatives of a vision of history in which a certain kind of Hegelian fatalism dictated the change. A change that, they believe, is absolutely positive and beneficial for Christians, for the Church, for the world. None of the hierarchs concerned with “sealing the tomb” believes they are doing anything wrong. I am convinced that all of these share the opinions of Pope Paul VI and the majority of progressive fathers of the Second Vatican Council. And their main opinion was – and is – that the “reform” is necessary and, at the same time, beneficial for the Church. Considering themselves inspired by the Holy Spirit, who speaks 24 hours a day through the mouths of the conciliar and post-conciliar pontiffs, they have done what – fatally – they had to do. And the Roman Catholic Liturgy, also called “Gregorian” or “Tridentine,” must be irreversibly replaced to allow for a “second spring” to manifest itself.

Considered outdated, backward, possibly even inferior to the rite created by the “experts” of Cardinal Annibale Bugnini, it was destined for destruction by the vast majority of “Catholic” hierarchs. They still believe today that we need a liturgy that is easy to understand (it is taken for granted that the old one was unintelligible to the people) and, last but not least, open to ecumenical dialogue with the “separated brethren.” This is precisely what we have now in the form of the fluid “Novus Ordo” liturgy. The only problem is that the sick patient, whose death has long been proclaimed, refuses to die. The formidable work coordinated by Joseph Shaw, The Latin Mass and the Intellectuals: Petitions to Save the Ancient Mass from 1966 to 2007 (Arouca Press, 2023), is evidence of this situation.

Although a good portion of the texts are signed by J. Shaw, other authors are also present: Fr. Bryan Houghton, Fr. Gabriel Díaz-Patri, Sebastian Morello, Erik Tonning, Matthew Schellhorn, Philippe Maxence, and even Marcel Proust (with a superb essay, translated from French, titled “Death Comes for the Cathedrals”). Clearly, the entire work has a pronounced historical character, being a detailed account of all the moments of the famous petitions initiated with the aim of saving the ancient Liturgy from complete prohibition. However, as Dr. Shaw shows from the outset, “this is not merely a matter of historical research, but a contribution to the continuing debate on the preservation of the ancient Catholic Liturgy.” Philosophy, art history, music, literature, aesthetics, and, above all, speculative and liturgical theology meet in the pages of this perpetual plea for the preservation of the Liturgy of the Ages. The reader feels like he is participating in a banquet where what unites all the participants is the common passion for the divine worship of the Church of our eternal King and Lord, Jesus Christ. And the quality of these participants is perfectly captured by the brilliant writer Martin Mosebach in his Foreword:

“This was an elite that stood up for the liturgy: artists and philosophers who knew that this cult of the Incarnation was the seminal and founding work of art in Europe.”

Being absolutely in solidarity with the attitude of the authors included in the pages of the volume coordinated by Dr. Shaw, I wish to emphasize that for the “reformists” who wish to definitively bury the Liturgy of the ages, there is no debate. For them, everything is clear, definitive, and irrevocable. Their radical historicism, which tells them that the new liturgy is the result of a necessary evolution, does not allow for alternatives. All their positions, from Pope Paul VI to Pope Francis, testify to this. Confronted with those represented by the Federation Una Voce and traditionalist priestly fraternities, they sometimes display – simultaneously – fury and astonishment. Everything is encapsulated in Ross Douthat’ question (already cited) that describes Pope Francis’s reaction to the traditionalists: “How can this thing still be sticking around?” A good friend told me that during a spiritual exercise session, he asked a Jesuit monk about replacing the liturgy of the ages with that of Paul VI. The Jesuit, literally trembling, after a few minutes of perplexity, could only ask: “Where did you hear about the old Liturgy?” Reactions of this kind clearly show that for all the “reformists,” once the Gregorian Liturgy is buried, it should remain so forever. With maximum accuracy, Joseph Shaw provides us with evidence to this effect.

The foundation of this attitude of rejection towards traditionalists and their message is strictly doctrinal: the Second Vatican Council and its reforms are an inevitable necessity. All those who oppose it are doomed to perish, as they resist the course of history and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which has set entirely different priorities for our times than those of the pre-Council Church: ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, feminism, ecology, global governance, encouragement of immigration, etc.

For example, on page 343, citing sources from the history of the Una Voce federation, he shows that “the Commission (i.e., Ecclesia Dei) was periodically tempted toward the view that existed to phase the old Mass out.” In support of this statement, he offers three examples. The first, when Cardinal Innocenti tells bishops in 1993 that “this was a temporary Commission which is to work itself out of existence.” The second, when Cardinal Felici writes to the superior of the Fraternity of Saint Peter that his role is to “integrate the traditionalist faithful into the reality of the Church.” We all understand what these words mean: the integration of traditionalists into the dominant progressivist-reformist current. Finally, in the year 2000, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos announces the commission’s intention to publish a document in which some of the innovations rejected by traditionalists would have been gradually imposed: the reception of communion in the hand, the service of the altar by females, the use of the reformed lectionary, the revised calendar of the saints. However, the reactions of traditionalist leaders prevented the publication of this text.

The fact that Pope Francis suppressed the commission in 2019, transferring its responsibilities to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, clearly shows that the hierarchs at the Vatican and all post-conciliar popes (with the exception of Benedict XVI) share the same vision. According to this, when traditionalists accept the doctrines of the Second Vatican Council, they will be merged into the mainstream Novus Ordo “reformed” Catholicism and the commission would become unnecessary. Its dissolution only indicates a firm desire to accelerate the process, implying at the same time the decision to exclude those who do not wish to integrate. Anyway, they have always been considered by the majority of “mainstream” Catholics as dangerous oddballs (in the best case), or outright schismatics (in the worst case). Cardinals and bishops who show them genuine sympathy, rather than just temporary and diplomatic one, are rare.

The foundation of this attitude of rejection towards traditionalists and their message is strictly doctrinal: the Second Vatican Council and its reforms are an inevitable necessity. All those who oppose it are doomed to perish, as they resist the course of history and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which has set entirely different priorities for our times than those of the pre-Council Church: ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, feminism, ecology, global governance, encouragement of immigration, etc. Because of its irreconcilable demands with such “values,” the Gospel must be modified and attenuated, just like everything that represents traditional Christian identity. The modern world and the man of the revolutions are the landmarks that must be followed without hesitation. Yet, everything we read in the volume coordinated by Dr. Shaw indicates a kind of thinkers who not only aim to preserve the liturgical treasure of the Roman Catholic Church but are also bearers of “counter-revolutionary” ideas considered unacceptable by the majority of hierarchs today.

The essence of the entire debate is related to the relationship with the modern world. If the Second Vatican Council proposed and achieved, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger stated about Gaudium et Spes (a counter-syllabus, he said – referring to the famous Syllabus of Errors published by Pope Pius IX in 1864), this aimed at reconciling with the modern world. At the same time, the “pastoral” attitude imposed throughout the Church is one of capitulation and destruction of any strong Catholic identity. Aware of this, traditionalist lay leaders have undertaken one of the most difficult (or even impossible) missions imaginable: to negotiate with those who had already signed the death certificate of the Liturgy of the ages. And, almost miraculously, they have managed to postpone, again and again, the inevitable outcome.

Not without a certain dose of humor, Joseph Shaw states in the concluding paragraph of the massive work that “religious traditionalists have displayed a cockroach-like ability to survive in the most hostile environments, albeit on a small scale.” Throughout the nearly 400 pages of the book, you discover with delight not only this ability to survive but also a humility and tenacity that recommend them (or at least some of the Catholics committed to saving the Gregorian Liturgy), as sure candidates for sanctity. Despised, repeatedly treated with disdain and/or an insulting silence, they have not ceased to hope and wait, asking, again and again, for their weak but tireless voice to be heard.

At the same time, I have also received confirmation of something I have always intuited. In the Church after the Second Vatican Council and Paul VI, most hierarchs await the death of the Catholic Tradition and its last quixotic representatives. And yet, the struggles of the traditionalists described in this book have convinced me that a remnant will remain undefeated until the end. The principle stated by Martin Mosebach in the opening pages of the book deserves to become the creed of those Christians who refuse to submit to the dominant relativistic culture:

“The only way to stand firm in this turmoil is to raise the inviolability of the liturgy to an axiom beyond all discussion and to consistently refuse to enter into dialogue with the spirit of the age, which has lost all notion of holiness.”