Non Possumus
Thanks to Traditionis custodes, we have seen a resurgence of the discourse according to which, on the one hand, the Pope had to crack down because there are Trads who reject the new Mass, and on the other hand, the protests of Trads who affirm that of course they do not reject the new Mass, but only ask that they be allowed to keep the old Mass as well, for reasons of... of what? personal preference? sensitivity? Of "nostalgia"?
Let us be clear. No, we do not "prefer" the traditional Mass for reasons of "sensitivity," aesthetics, or "nostalgia" (a very large majority of us were not adults at the time of the liturgical revolution). We reject the new Mass because it is not traditional, because it is no longer the full expression of the Catholic liturgy.
1. The neo-liturgy was manufactured in an openly anti-traditional way. It was necessary to recover the purity of the liturgy of the first centuries beyond, as one of its principal manufacturers dared to say, the "Gregorian deformation," namely of Saint Gregory the Great. This is enough to deny any legitimacy to this "reform." Nothing in the Church can be done against tradition, especially when one pushes impiety to the point of speaking of a "deformation" for which the principal codifier of the Latin liturgy, one of the greatest popes and doctors of the Church, would have been responsible.
2. Moreover, the alleged desire to recover the purity of the origins is a pure lie. No reform based on a lie can be legitimate. The makers of neo-liturgy, so proud of their work, have published their work. They have not restored what existed before the "Gregorian corruption": they have fabricated a liturgy from start to finish, using expressions taken from here and there and patched together as if by Dr. Frankenstein, and blurring what in the ordo missae emphasized sacrifice and the Real Presence.
3. The reason for this sordid concoction is that it was necessary to use ancient expressions to make people believe that the purity of the origins was being re-established -- but in order to create a liturgy that would conform to the aspirations of the man of the "modern world", because it was imagined that in this way he would return to the church. As a result, a large part of the liturgy was thrown away. Everything that had to do with fasting, penance, asceticism was suppressed or blurred, as well as everything that spoke of the difficulties of the Christian life. It is no longer a question of turning away from the seductions of the earthly world and seeking the realities of the world above. The Christian of today, being an adult, manufactures his own salvation without really needing grace. This is the great return of semi-Pelagianism. Let me repeat the conclusion of Lauren Pristas' study (with imprimatur) on the Advent collects in the Old Missal and in the new one, not without pointing out that no thurifer of the new one has yet left his pedestal to move from the petitio principii (it's imposed by Rome, so it's good) to the criticism of precise arguments:
The verbs of movement in the two sets describe exactly opposite movements: in the 1962 collects, Christ comes to meet us; in the 1970 collects, we go to meet Christ, we arrive, we are brought to, etc.
The 1970 prayers contain no reference to sin or its dangers; to darkness or impurity of spirit; to human weakness or the need for mercy, forgiveness, protection, deliverance, cleansing. Moreover, the idea that we must undergo a transformation in order to enter heaven is evoked only by the word eruditio, instruction or formation, in the collect for the second Sunday. (...)
Those who pray the 1970 collects do not seek divine assistance to survive perils or to begin to do good. Indeed, they express no need for such help. Rather, they ask to enter heaven at the end. On the other hand, those who pray the 1962 collects do not explicitly seek heaven, but demand - the verbs in the imperative - immediate and personal daily help on the way. (...)
With these three differences, we come to a very delicate conclusion. In simple terms, the Catholic faith considers that every good deed that moves us toward salvation depends on divine grace. This doctrine is formally defined and cannot be changed in such a way as to reverse its scope. Every nuance of the 1962 Advent collects expresses this Catholic doctrine of grace unambiguously, in the rather subtle and non-didactic manner of the orations. Although the 1970 Advent collects do not explicitly contradict Catholic teaching on grace, they do not express it and, more disturbingly, they do not seem to presume it.
We are told that the new liturgy can be celebrated in a Catholic way. Yes, there is no doubt about that. It can be when the priest who celebrates it is truly Catholic. But it is not Catholic in itself. It is so because of what is added to it from the outside. I see this more and more the more I know the Byzantine liturgy. There is a real gap between the content of the Byzantine liturgy and the content of the neo-Latin liturgy, which is no longer Latin, a gap that does not exist at all with the Traditional Latin liturgy. One can disguise the fundamentally anti-traditional character of the neo-liturgy by using forms taken from the traditional liturgy, but this is a decoy. It is the same decoy we see in the Anglican high church masses: it looks like a St. Pius V mass, except that there is no priest and no real presence...
A Catholic coating on top of the neo-liturgy can make it look Catholic for a while. But gradually the neo-Pelagian venom of the new orations, the reverence for the world, the erasure of the necessity of penance, the suppression of the Ember Days, of Septuagesima, of any mention of the Lenten fast, the emphasis on the community at the expense of looking to God, the deletion of significant words and gestures in the ordo missae, the downgrading and indeed the discarding of the Roman Canon, all of this can only result in a religion that is no longer Catholic.
That is the real reason. Let's stop the evasions. Let's stop the politeness. This is a war. We may lose it, because they have the power. But from the supernatural point of view they are the ones who have already lost.
