The Wrong Problem
When discussing issues within Catholicism today, it is helpful to remember that while problems may have a theological element, there is more to the Church than just her theology. Many of her problems are similar to problems found in any large and venerable institution. One of these problems is the failure to fall in love with the problem.
The concept of falling in love with a problem is a mentality that focuses on understanding the problem inside and out, before even thinking about a solution. While solving a problem can bring great fame and prestige, the desire to solve a problem can lead you to often propose a bad solution. To truly solve a problem, you must first understand every facet of it that you can: what the problem is, why it exists, how it developed, and where solutions might lie.
A recent letter by the Abbot of Solesmes, Dom Geoffroy Kemlin, showcases this mentality. In this letter (reproduced in English by Rorate Caeli, alongside an interview), Dom Kemlin advocates a rather creative liturgical reform: taking the Ordinary of the Traditional Latin Mass and inserting it into the Novus Ordo, while keeping the modern Propers, Lectionary and Calendar. He does so with both a solution and aspiration in mind: to bring about true liturgical unity, and to clear up misconceptions about traditionalists who “instrumentalize the Mass and use it as an identity banner.” (He himself is not sure this exists, just that it is said.) I find this a classic case of falling in love with a solution, rather than the problem.
I would argue that the problem is not that traditionalists “instrumentalize the Mass” and “use it as an identity banner.” Not only is this something he is not sure of, we now know the Bishops made clear to Francis that this was not a serious problem. Even when implementing the decree, Bishops often made clear that the problem they were trying to correct was not prevalent in their dioceses. (How this makes sense I leave up to the reader.) The real problem is one his interviewer hints at, and which the Abbot’s plan clearly contradicts, despite his protest: Traditionis custodes.
While the decree mentions unity, the energy of the decree was behind an eventual ban of the Latin Mass. Without that ban, not only could there be no unity, Francis believed we were betraying the Council. You can argue over whether or not that’s true all you want, and it might make for an interesting theological debate. That debate turns into a problem when you look reality square in the face: The Traditional Latin Mass is not going to be banned, no matter what a Church decree says. We are roughly five years removed from the Pope’s decree, and most of the energy in furthering its mandate died with its author. The problem is we have the full force of Church law currently oriented towards something that few want, and even among those few defenders, they cannot articulate a way to achieve it beyond hoping to wait out a group of people who have proven surprisingly resilient at waiting out Church authorities over the past six decades.
Another way this fails to understand the problem is that it fails to take into account how this is a problem for those impacted. For a monk, the Abbot is remarkably online, buried deep in a dispute that takes place among a very exclusive group: liturgy nerds online or clerics in periodicals. If you are reading this and nod in agreement, it is good to remember that we are not the median traditionalist. The median individual impacted by this dispute has no strong opinions on Vatican II, even if they are in an SSPX chapel. The median Catholic in the Novus Ordo is generally happy with their Mass, even if they want some externals changed. (Better music, chant, incense, for the person in the pews to shut up so you can pray, etc.) This dispute is a problem because it has fundamentally disrupted the lives of faithful Catholics. Flourishing Latin Mass communities were shuttered and dispersed. Parishes that celebrated both side by side are now divided, and in many instances, their future as a Novus Ordo community is now in doubt. To the extent your average Catholic hears about how the liturgical disputes impact people, it is in regards to people no longer being able to attend something the Church admits is holy and lawful, and not being able to make sense of it beyond “someone in Rome thinks this is a good idea, and there’s nothing I can do about it.”
I think this is where discussion needs to center on: the Church has introduced something incredibly disruptive, and it has created a toxic environment. This could possibly be justified if there was some larger goal that would be obtained, but that goal is unattainable. We haven’t even gotten to the theological issues from such a change, which even the Abbot admits would require careful implementation and explanation. Before you can even get to that, you have to ask: who is this solution for?
The Ordinaries are not really the same. The Offertory is very different, the prayers at the foot of the Altar are there in one and not in the other. Two readings in the old and three in the new. Not even the Kyrie is the same (3, 3, 3 vs 2, 2, 2) and so on. So, even when the new is entirely in Latin, it is obviously, noticeably different. To be honest, this proposal from Dom Geoffroy strikes me as a solution nobody wants in search of a problem to solve. It is also aimed at 1975 or so, in terms of the serious conversation about liturgy. That has moved on, quite some time ago.
Trads are only asking that the Latin Mass is, as Benedict said, allowed. I remember a priest in my diocese wanting to offer the Latin Mass and was told by the bishop that he could not in spite of Benedict’s decree that a priest doesn’t even need to ask the Bishop. Bishops seem to be all about submission to the pope as long as they like what he is saying. I think Benedict resigned because, as he said, his authority went no further than the door of his office.