Abbé Jean-Marie Perrot
February 1, 2022
One of the many reasons for the annoyance provoked by the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes and the subsequent Responses to the Dubia is the symmetry they establish between the traditional liturgy on the one hand and liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo on the other. This means, first of all, that the Vetus Ordo in itself is reduced to the very depreciated rank of abuse, of a misuse of the lex orandi; and this is understandable if one accepts, with article 1, that it is not an expression of that lex.
The second reason for annoyance is that the denunciation of liturgical abuses in the celebration of the sacraments (and above all in the Mass) according to the liturgical books promulgated by Paul VI has been a topos since their promulgation—one that is unresolved and, it seems, unresolvable. This, today as in the past, places the faithful attached to the usus antiquior in an situation from which no escape is possible. It is admitted, in fact, that the attachment to the ancient liturgy, for a great number, comes from the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions” (letter accompanying Traditionis custodes, quoting Benedict XVI). By default or out of spite, one would have remained with or turned to the Old Missal for relief. But (one may be surprised to learn), scandalous situations have not been resolved by pedagogy, admonitions, or adequate sanctions!
It is indeed curious that a pope can complain in this way some fifty years after the liturgical reform, and after each of his predecessors has already made similar remarks. So, how, in the very context of this argument, can we reproach the old missal for enduring? And above all, since the salvation of souls must come first, how can we dare to deprive the faithful of their right to go to the safest place for their salvation—by the most eminent means of this salvation, the sacraments—since (dare we say it) nothing is being done, apart from repeated declarations, to remedy the situation which is nevertheless being denounced?
Half a century of vain denunciation of liturgical abuses
The list of solemn and decisive declarations of Roman pontiffs against abuses is indeed a long one. Already Paul VI, in an address to the Consilium on April 19, 1967, warned against “arbitrary forms” and “whimsical experiments.” John Paul II multiplied his appeals and his calls to order:
– Letter Dominicæ Cenæ (February 24, 1980): “This subordination of the minister, of the celebrant, to the mysterium which has been entrusted to him by the Church for the good of the whole People of God, should also find expression in the observance of the liturgical requirements concerning the celebration of the holy Sacrifice. These refer, for example, to dress, in particular to the vestments worn by the celebrant…. I would like to ask forgiveness—in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and dear brothers in the episcopate—for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament. And I pray the Lord Jesus that in the future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people.”
– Letter Vicesimus quintus annus (December 4, 1988).
– Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia (17 April 2003).
This last text was followed, at the Pope’s request, by a long and very detailed document from the Congregation for Divine Worship, the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum on Certain Things to be Observed and Avoided concerning the Most Holy Eucharist” (25 March 2004). In the preamble, it was pointed out that the work had been carried out in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; and the same preamble stated forcefully: “It is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church, which in our day not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations in one ecclesial environment or another. In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease” (n. 4).
Benedict XVI, in the Apostolic Letter Sacramentum Caritatis (February 22, 2007), based on the 11th General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops which met on the theme of the Eucharist in October 2005, was not to be outdone and wrote in favor of an ars celebrandi which favors the sense of the sacred by “the use of outward signs which help to cultivate this sense” (n. 40). But, all in all, the pope remained discreet about abuses, a term that comes up only twice in the text. No doubt the man who had been prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of the drafting of the above-mentioned Instruction, considered—wrongly—that it had been sufficient. In fact, as a trait of his intellectual affability, he blamed deviations on ignorance: “Perhaps we take it for granted that our ecclesial communities already know and appreciate these resources, but this is not always the case” (ibid.). But, we may remark, there is culpable ignorance, too...
The new missal, “a missal-path, plural, indicative and optional”
Nothing or very little has been done, or without much effectiveness, we have argued. In any case, Benedict XVI, in the letter to the bishops accompanying the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, indicated again: “Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
Fourteen years later, while Francis thinks he can judge the failure of the “Summorum Pontificum experiment,” he makes at the same time (as we pointed out at the beginning) an identical observation about a liturgical reform tainted over time by serious, unbearable abuses “in many places.”
This brings us back to the charge contained in Traditionis Custodes against the Vetus Ordo and those who are attached to it. What can we say in the end? Either the symmetrical accusation is purely formal, rhetorical, as far as one branch is concerned (the Missal of Paul VI), because there is no intention of touching what is claimed to be deplored; the overall reasoning is then dishonest. Or, another possibility, the sincerity is real, in Francis and in his predecessors; but in that case, do not such remarks signal that the movement toward abuse seems unstoppable? And this is really to ask a blunt question: Would this not in fact be an admission of the failure of the Novus Ordo?
Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have spoken in this regard of the strength of modern individualism, marked by a mistrust of the objectivity of norms and an overvaluation of the subjective dimension. And all three point to this flaw in some actors in the liturgy. But none of them points to the liturgy itself. Yet it seems to us that the question must be asked, and asked like this: Are there not deficiencies in the very norms of the new liturgical books which, if they do not explicitly encourage abuses, make the concept of abuse vague and thus increase the probability of it?
In view of the situation described, it seems that the most appropriate definition of abuse is this: “the result of the action of abusing; injustice introduced and fixed by custom” (Trésor de la Langue Française). It is not enough to speak of occasional bad habits; one must also show the recurrent character of this reality, almost ordinary, accepted, or even endorsed; this is what the word “custom” covers. To refer the responsibility to individuals or particular communities is expeditious and does not dare to confront the liturgical books in their specificity.
A quotation will open up some avenues in this sense, which we cannot explore here. François Cassingena-Trévedy wrote of the Vetus Ordo: “a mirror-missal... plenary... normative and preceptive... a missal-form... Catholic... a missal of the Presence”; and of the Novus Ordo: “a missal-path... plural... indicative and optional... a missal-space... Catholic and at the same time ecumenical... a missal of Philanthropy.”[1] On the one hand, an “absolute” liturgy, heaven-on-earth; on the other hand, a “relative” liturgy, heaven-for-earth. Is it a play on words to warn that in our time the relative can lead to relativism, or at least accommodate it?
One last remark deserves to be made: the motu proprios Ecclesia Dei Adflicta and Summorum Pontificum—especially the latter—preserved a link between the two missals, one dimension of which was certainly to make the new one benefit from the traditional stability of the old one. Some grasped this possibility and filled in the gaps in the norms of the Novus with the prescriptions or customs of the Vetus. By its radical nature, Traditionis Custodes makes such a support of the new by the old impossible. In that case, alas, one doubts that “the full, conscious, and active participation of the whole People of God in the liturgy” emphasized in the accompanying letter can be anything other than a cover for creativity.
[1] Te igitur (Geneva: Ad Solem, 2007), 87 and 94.
