Thread by @frmattfish

Thoughts on the Motu Proprio, Traditionis Custodes: I won't speculate on the motives of the Holy Father, nor will I judge the merits of his decision. But I will offer some commentary, to give a little clarity (I hope), and to point to the more fundamental issue that remains.

Despite the blessings gained by the ressourcement in liturgical practice inspired by the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis has judged that, because of the division that has accompanied it, it is not worth continuing the permissions of Summorum Pontificum.

While the ExForm is not being abrogated, it seems Pope Francis intends the concessions still in place to be temporary, inasmuch as he believes that those who are attached to the ExForm “need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II.”

Many have observed over the years how the extraordinary/ordinary division was not only infelicitous, it could only be temporary. It provided a détente that everyone knew didn’t really conform to the truth of things: which is to answer, *how should the Liturgy be celebrated?*

I'm sure I'm not alone here: in official Archdiocesan meetings, in which we talk about all sorts of aspects of our mission and what we need to do, the one thing never brought up is the liturgy. Why? Because we all know that there is no basic agreement from which to proceed.

We’ve learned to work together despite it, but everyone knows that many fundamentally disagree as to *how should the Liturgy be celebrated.* We especially dare not invoke the GIRM: we’d prefer to keep things as they are, irenic, focusing instead on a host of other issues.

But the truth is, the question is not going away. Sacrosanctum Concilium brought it to the Church's attention, judging the status quo to be inadequate. But the Liturgical Movement had already been asking that question in new and critical ways for almost a century.

The later Consilium and its achievement, the Mass of St Paul VI, gave an answer to the question; but it has not ceased to be questioned in its motives and and in its final uneasy result, how what came about could be so different than the Mass that existed before.

Add to this all the postconciliar creativity and eccentricities and abuses that Pope Francis himself deplores. Summorum Pontificum was an attempt to meet this problem, which even most traditionalists judged inadequate: they enjoyed its permissions but rejected its implications.

Again, the fundamental question was not dealt with (at least, not constructively). Pope Francis has not raised this question now: he positively asserts that the question has been answered, that both the Council and what followed it in the reform of the Mass was right and just.

But on the ground, it remains a disputed question, which the fact of massive liturgical variance in conformity to norms and rubrics demonstrates. The neuralgic issue has gone nowhere: just like how there would be no need for Sacrosanctum Concilium if everything was fine before.

The Holy Father says he hopes his motu proprio will bring unity to the Church: but many doubt this. I agree with those who say a wider allowance will be given by most bishops than what the document seems to suggest. Why? Because numerous big young families attend the ExForm.

And most bishops recognize that the preponderance of such big young families is not found elsewhere. They can't lose them. Moreover, the SSPX is a live option in this country: most bishops will not want to drive members of the faithful into their arms, unnecessarily.

I doubt any of this will satisfy most traditionalists. But I think most bishops too know that they are putting off the fundamental issue. Liturgy is not a matter of taste. On the contrary, it evokes the strongest commitments and beliefs people have. The fact is, liturgy divides.

Take what Pope Francis says so very clearly at the end of the Motu Proprio:

If one put into practice all the norms the GIRM teaches—e.g. saying the Creed and Our Father in Latin, giving pride of place to Gregorian Chant, singing most of the Mass on Sundays, and using Extraordinary Ministers of Communion only when needed—great division would result.

We’ve seen what only just a particular application of liturgical law has done to the USSCB recently: this is why the question of *how should the Liturgy be celebrated* is unlikely to be raised, at least not in any kind of practical, pastoral kind of way. It’s simply too divisive.

The majority of parishes will not be affected by this document. But every pastor can meet with his liturgy committee (or parish council) and show them that request by Pope Francis; and then they can open up those dusty books and documents and read them, together.

Bishops and priest councils may not want to talk about it: but if every seminary and parish followed this request of Pope Francis, the fundamental issue of *how should the Liturgy be celebrated* would be raised again, and this time in light of the teachings of the Church.

That may not bring back the permissions of Summorum Pontificum. But it could inspire the renewal of the celebration of the Ordinary Form, the Mass attended by 99% of Catholics. Which would bring about a change far greater than Summorum Pontificum ever attempted.