Divided in Communion

by Editor · April 9, 2003

On Holy Thursday we contemplate the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. This may be an opportune occasion also to reflect on the division among Catholics in the celebration of the Holy Mass.

A recent debate in the letters pages of this newspaper has revealed the polarisation between those who fully embrace the post-Vatican II Mass in the vernacular, and those who insist on the preconciliar Tridentine Mass in Latin.

Of course, differences over matters of liturgy provide only one focus in the dispute; many other elements in the exercise of the faith are subject to various degrees of discord, too.

The debate is not helped by arguments over the relative merits (never mind validity) of the respective rites. Those who reject the postconciliar Mass as invalid place themselves firmly outside the Roman Catholic Church. The Mass in the vernacular, with all its attendant officially-sanctioned innovations, was canonically authorised and approved by a valid Church Council.

On the other hand, Vatican II did not invalidate the old Latin Mass, although for the sake of uniformity the Church has accepted the post-1970 Mass in the vernacular as the standard.

While Pope John Paul has encouraged local ordinaries to make the old Latin Mass available, the diocesan bishops, and indeed the hierarchy, have genuine concerns regarding that Tridentine rite. Chief among these are the activities of the Priestly Society of St Pius X (SSPX), whose founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated in 1988 for illicitly ordaining four bishops. The clergy of the SSPX is automatically excommunicated (though some would dispute that this is so), and confusion continues over whether Catholics who attend Lefebvrist Mass fulfil their Sunday obligation.

We must presume that those who attend Masses offered by priests of the SSPX are mostly virtuous and pious Catholics who believe their spiritual hunger is satiated only by the old rather than the new Mass. For their liturgical preference, they merit no reproach.

However, by attending Mass celebrated by priests who are not in full communion with Rome, such Catholics may be placing themselves apart from the communion of the Catholic faithful. Some have argued that for this, those bishops who do not permit the old Mass in their dioceses must bear a measure of responsibility.

Bishops facing this question have a dilemma. Their function includes the pastoral care of all Catholics in their diocese, traditionalists included. However, many traditionalists not only show aversion to the postconciliar Mass, but also to many of the reforms of Vatican II in general.

Few traditionalists would publicly express the combative tones of Archbishop Lefebvre�who in 1986 called Pope John Paul II an “apostate” for praying alongside other religious leaders during a peace gathering in Assisi. Yet, one suspects that among many traditionalists the Lefebvrist mindset perseveres. It is not by chance that even Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a resolute conservative in matters of doctrine and liturgy, sees little prospects for a speedy accord with the SSPX.

While reconciliation with the core of the SSPX may be a long way off, bishops may find benefits in permitting the regular celebration of the old Latin Mass in their diocese, by a loyal priest under their charge. This would naturally be contingent on sufficient demand, and should be closely guided and supervised to establish whether the availability of such Masses would compromise diocesan unity.

Certainly, such Masses would separate those faithful who seek to be in communion with Rome from those who reject the post-conciliar Church wholesale.

A gesture along these lines, however, would also require concessions from those who would benefit from it.

Their presence at such Masses would have to serve as a public acknowledgement of the validity of the reforms of Vatican II, including on thorny issues such as ecumenism and liturgy.

It would also acknowledge an understanding that on certain liturgical occasions, the vernacular Mass only would be offered (such as Holy Thursday, when the whole diocese is required to celebrate in unity the same liturgy)�a sticking point for traditionalist communities that remain in communion with Rome, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter.

Cardinal Ratzinger may well be right in saying that the SSPX�s road to Rome is still long. The unlikely prospect of reconciliation renders the need for the pastoral care for traditionalists all the more urgent.

Jesus intended the sharing of his Body and Blood to be an expression of unity among his followers. It is perplexing that the celebration of the Eucharist should accomplish the opposite.