[Editor’s note: This article originally included a comparison between the “liturgy war” in the Syro-Malabar Church in India and the implementation of Traditionis Custodes in the Archdiocese of Chicago. After speaking with several well-informed members of the Syro-Malabar Church, it became clear to me that my speculation about Pope Leo’s role in the resolution was very likely overstated and and inaccurate in parts. I apologize for publishing an article that engaged in undue speculation. I hope to publish an article in the very near future about the liturgy in the Syro-Malabar Church that accurately explains the history of the controversy without inserting my own speculative interpretation. Below is an adaptation from the part of the article about the handling of the Latin Mass in Chicago. — ML]
Four months into his papacy, Pope Leo XIV has not made many major decisions, and thus far he has kept any major plans for reform close to the vest. There are few clues currently available about the ultimate trajectory or governing style of his papacy. Those who are concerned about the future of the Latin Mass have discussed the possibility that Leo may have a different approach to decision-making than his predecessor.
Traditionis Custodes, the letter issued by Pope Francis in July 2021 to restrict the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, offered a general set of guidelines to be implemented at the diocesan level. Each bishop was tasked with carrying out the pope’s directives, and the results were decidedly mixed. Some bishops — particularly in the US — attempted to circumvent the initiative altogether by invoking canon law. Others, like the former Texas bishop Joseph Strickland, simply ignored it. In other dioceses, the Tridentine Mass was phased out completely within a year or two.
In some dioceses such as Detroit and Charlotte, Latin Mass-friendly bishops retired and were replaced with bishops who were motivated to carry out Traditionis Custodes. Pope Francis’s ultimate goal was clear: to return the Roman Rite to one unique expression, the post-Vatican II liturgy. But not unlike the faithful of the Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly, Catholics devoted to the Tridentine Mass are determined not to go down without a fight, and a peaceful resolution appears to be a long way off.
Many ardent traditionalists refuse to participate in the reformed liturgy for ideological reasons. They see the post–Vatican II Missal as a rupture with the Church’s liturgical tradition, and they dissent from the Church’s position that the reforms were a legitimate development. For such ideologically focused Catholics, any participation in the reformed rites would amount to betraying their mission of restoring the pre-conciliar rites in their entirety.
Such an attitude, of course, betrays the vision of Pope Benedict XVI when he opened up access to the preconciliar liturgy. As he wrote to the bishops of the world in 2007, “In order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.” Benedict foresaw the liberalization of the Tridentine Mass as an accommodation for a group of Catholics “who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops.”
Fourteen years later, Pope Francis lamented that Benedict’s vision did not come to pass, writing that Benedict’s generous permission “was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.” And rather than becoming open to celebrating the reformed liturgy, many traditionalist priests refused to participate in it at all. Many of them were not even willing to concelebrate the Chrism Mass once a year with their local bishop and brother priests. In at least two dioceses in France, traditionalist priests have been expelled for their refusal to concelebrate.
Will Leo be a seeker of compromise?
Still, in some dioceses, liturgical compromises have been made. One situation that might serve as a model for Pope Leo is that in Chicago, the archdiocese of his birth.
In January 2022, Cardinal Blase Cupich implemented Traditionis Custodes in Chicago with a diocesan policy that permitted continued use of the 1962 Missal, but only with permission and under specific conditions. Cupich made it clear that clergy seeking faculties had to request them in writing and explicitly affirm the “validity and legitimacy” of the post-conciliar reform and “the value of concelebration, particularly at the Chrism Mass.”
Where permissions were granted, Cupich required the exclusive use of the post-Vatican II liturgy on the first Sunday of each month and on Christmas, the Easter Triduum and Easter Sunday, as well as Pentecost.
Faced with that framework, two Chicago communities that have long celebrated the antecedent rite took different paths. The Canons Regular of St. John Cantius accepted the compromise and adjusted their schedule: they will continue to celebrate the Tridentine Mass on Sundays at 7:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., except on first Sundays, when they will celebrate the reformed liturgy in Latin. In this way, the Canons Regular will continue to preserve and regularly celebrate the preconciliar Mass, while giving public adherence to the archdiocesan norms and to the Magisterium of the Church.
By contrast, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP) declined to sign onto the required assurances and norms; in the summer of 2022 their public Masses and sacraments at the Shrine of Christ the King were suspended. It was reported that this was due to their refusal to accept the conditions offered by the archdiocese. Practically, the outcome was that St. John Cantius kept operating under the new policy, while the ICKSP’s Chicago apostolate ceased public liturgies.
The Canons Regular of St John Cantius expressed sadness at the restrictions but committed themselves to unity with the cardinal and the pope while celebrating both forms of the Roman Rite. They also stated their prayerful hope “to be a bridge for unity in the life of the Church.”
Although it is likely that many of the priests and people of the St. John Cantius community suffered as a result of the compromise, their acceptance of the Cardinal’s conditions allows them to continue celebrating the older liturgy into the future. They can be seen as models of obedience to the Church they have committed their lives to serve.
Conclusion
The conflict in Chicago suggests that liturgical battles are often quelled when the focus is on Church unity and legitimate authority more than rituals. In Chicago, Cardinal Cupich allowed continued use of the old rite for priests who affirm the legitimacy of the post–Vatican II liturgy. There, the Canons of St. John Cantius accepted that principle, while the Institute of Christ the King refused and lost their public ministry.
It is certain that Pope Leo will uphold the primacy of the reformed liturgy, but perhaps he, like Cardinal Cupich, is willing to grant concessions to avoid greater division in the Church. I believe that communities that manifest obedience and strive for unity should have the opportunity to preserve their heritage, especially if they are willing to sacrifice some of their demands. Pope Leo’s pontificate may lean toward practical compromise, even as he holds the line on the direction of liturgical reform.
Image: Vatican Media
Mike Lewis is the founding managing editor of Where Peter Is. He and Jeannie Gaffigan co-host Field Hospital, a U.S. Catholic podcast.
Popular Posts