The Institute of Christ the King celebrating the Easter Vigil at the St. Joseph Shrine, Detroit, Michigan.
Have you ever noticed how commentary from the hierarchy about accommodating traditional Catholics always centers on the concept of pastoral provision for those "attached" to the traditional rite? The assumption behind this commentary is that the liturgy wars are primarily about creating a pastoral cut-out for a segment of the Church who feels a particular affinity for the old rites. Sometimes this affinity is affirmed as legitimate (as in Summorum pontificum); other times it is treated as a sign of immaturity to be gradually outgrown (Traditiones custodes), but it is always about the attachment of the faithful. It is primarily about us, what we want, and whether and how we should be accommodated.
Don't get me wrong, if this is the talking point that will improve access to the Traditional Latin Mass, then I'll take what I can get. If Pope Leo or anyone in Rome says, "We are going to increase access to the Traditional Latin Mass so we can attend to the pastoral desires of the traditional community," well, bring it on. Whatever gets the job done.
This pastoral framing has strategic appeal, but skirts the real issue. We won't make true headway in the broader Traditionalist cause until the terms of the discussion shift from the "attachment" of the faithful to the fact that the Traditional Latin Mass is a an objectively superior form of worship. It should not be, "What are the faithful attached to?" but rather, "What is the most suitable way to honor God?"
The liturgical discussion is too often framed as a subjective matter, when Trads do not and have never seen it that way at all. It is only when the discussion gets reframed as about what is objectively better for divine worship that we start to get to the heart of the matter. This shift is visible in the growing body of scholarship—from Dom Alcuin Reid's historical work on the organic development of the liturgy to Peter Kwasniewski's philosophical case for the superiority of the classical rite—that grounds Traditionalist claims in something firmer than feeling. The argument is no longer "we prefer this" but "here is what the liturgy is actually for, and here is why this form serves that end better." That is a meaningfully different conversation, and Rome has fewer tools for dismissing it. This has been a blessing for the Trad movement, as it establishes the Traditionalist critique as being more than preference, affinity, and attachment. (1)
There have been rumblings recently that Pope Leo is open to some sort of liturgical rollback from the authoritarian proscriptions of the Franciscan era. My guess is that liturgy will be a hotly debated topic in 2026 and 2027. In these discussions we should make a point of raising these arguments whenever the discussion arises. Yes, preference and pastoral provision matter, and as I said, I would take the restoration of the TLM on these points alone, if need be. But I think what makes people truly devoted to the Traditional Mass is not their affinity, but their conviction that this liturgy as an objectively better ritual.
We all know by bitter experience that framing liturgical restoration as a concession to sentiment, implies the power to retract it on the same grounds. Pastoral provisions can be tightened, restricted, or revoked whenever the pastoral calculation changes—as we have all sadly witnessed. The only durable ground for the Traditional Latin Mass is the one Traditionalists have always known but have not always been permitted to argue on: that this is the superior form of the Church's worship. From a strategic perspective, we may have to settle for access based on our "legitimate aspirations." But ideologically, this should not be the long term goal. The goal in 2026 and beyond is not to be accommodated; it is to be right.
(1) In my One Peter Five article "The Maturation of Tradition After Summorum Pontificum," I argued that the maturing of Traditionalism since 2007 has gone hand in hand with a more objective anlysis of liturgical question that has been far more empirical
The liturgical discussion is too often framed as a subjective matter, when Trads do not and have never seen it that way at all. It is only when the discussion gets reframed as about what is objectively better for divine worship that we start to get to the heart of the matter. This shift is visible in the growing body of scholarship—from Dom Alcuin Reid's historical work on the organic development of the liturgy to Peter Kwasniewski's philosophical case for the superiority of the classical rite—that grounds Traditionalist claims in something firmer than feeling. The argument is no longer "we prefer this" but "here is what the liturgy is actually for, and here is why this form serves that end better." That is a meaningfully different conversation, and Rome has fewer tools for dismissing it. This has been a blessing for the Trad movement, as it establishes the Traditionalist critique as being more than preference, affinity, and attachment. (1)
There have been rumblings recently that Pope Leo is open to some sort of liturgical rollback from the authoritarian proscriptions of the Franciscan era. My guess is that liturgy will be a hotly debated topic in 2026 and 2027. In these discussions we should make a point of raising these arguments whenever the discussion arises. Yes, preference and pastoral provision matter, and as I said, I would take the restoration of the TLM on these points alone, if need be. But I think what makes people truly devoted to the Traditional Mass is not their affinity, but their conviction that this liturgy as an objectively better ritual.
We all know by bitter experience that framing liturgical restoration as a concession to sentiment, implies the power to retract it on the same grounds. Pastoral provisions can be tightened, restricted, or revoked whenever the pastoral calculation changes—as we have all sadly witnessed. The only durable ground for the Traditional Latin Mass is the one Traditionalists have always known but have not always been permitted to argue on: that this is the superior form of the Church's worship. From a strategic perspective, we may have to settle for access based on our "legitimate aspirations." But ideologically, this should not be the long term goal. The goal in 2026 and beyond is not to be accommodated; it is to be right.
(1) In my One Peter Five article "The Maturation of Tradition After Summorum Pontificum," I argued that the maturing of Traditionalism since 2007 has gone hand in hand with a more objective anlysis of liturgical question that has been far more empirical
No comments:
Post a Comment