It was not the world episcopate that asked to ‘cage’ the Mass in the
ancient rite, as Pope Francis claimed when he declared that the motu
proprio Traditionis Custodes was the response to a specific request from
the bishops consulted on the matter. A scoop by journalist Diane
Montagna, however, shows, with documents in hand, a very different
reality about that consultation: no one asked for the total abolition of
Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum (which had opened those doors then
abruptly closed by Francis), nor for the total disappearance of the
ancient liturgy (the explicit goal of Traditionis Custodes). Monsignor
Nicola Bux and Saverio Gaeta, co-authors of the book La liturgia non è
uno spettacolo. Il questionario ai vescovi sul rito antico, arma di
distruzione di Messa (Fede&Cultura, Verona 2025), also shed light on
the documentation. Monsignor Bux, interviewed by La Bussola, places the
controversial genesis and repercussions of Traditionis Custodes in the
broad horizon of the ‘liturgical peace’ hoped for at the time by
Benedict XVI and dramatically interrupted in 2021.
So, Monsignor Bux, it was not the majority of bishops who pushed to ‘do away’ with the traditional Mass?
The first to be surprised was Pope Benedict, as we know from Monsignor
Gänswein's book, Nothing but the Truth. But it was also surprising to
many others that the bishops of the world took such a negative stance
towards an act – Summorum Pontificum – that had effectively restored
liturgical peace, as desired by Benedict XVI himself, and at the same
time had done justice to a precious and millennial heritage. Among other
things, it is not clear why tradition is being rediscovered everywhere,
even in the culinary sphere (the ‘traditional cuisine’), but this
should not apply to the liturgy. Not to mention the great heritage of
Eastern rites, recently highlighted by Leo XIV.
The measures of Traditionis Custodes were also justified by
pointing to alleged anti-ecclesial attitudes. Yet, reading the bishops'
responses, one gets the impression that these are limited cases and not
such as to call for the abolition of Summorum Pontificum...
It is always difficult to analyse the meaning of the Church and the
faith of the people. One could then also analyse all the people who
attend the ordinary Mass: whether they have a sense of the Church,
whether they feel united with the Church on the truths of faith and
morals. We know very well that this is not the case. Therefore,
attributing a distorted sensus Ecclesiae to the extraordinary rite is
not correct. There has been dissent from all sides, even in progressive
circles (think of the Dutch Catechism), but that is not a good reason to
keep people out of the Church.
In the questionnaire, some bishops acknowledge the positive
effects of the ancient rite even for those who celebrate the new one.
But then, wouldn't banning it be a loss for everyone, not just for this
or that group?
Certainly. If the ordinary form or Novus Ordo – which its proponents
present as a development of the ancient form – has undergone, as we
know, ‘deformations to the point of being almost unbearable’ (Benedict
XVI, 7 July 2007), this clearly means that it needed that restoration of
the sense of mystery that is very present in the Eastern liturgies (as
Pope Leo reminded us) and that is equally present in the ancient rite.
Even the Orthodox, who sometimes participate in the so-called
extraordinary rite or Vetus Ordo, are struck by it. As a scholar of
Byzantine liturgy, I can say that if there is a rite very similar to the
Byzantine rite, it is the ancient Roman rite. So why sever a
relationship that, among other things, is also very beneficial for
encounters with Eastern Christians? I would just like to recall that
when the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum was issued, the then Patriarch
of Moscow, Alexy II, congratulated Pope Benedict because he said that
only by recovering our common roots, traditions and liturgies will
Christians come closer together.
What have been the effects of Traditionis Custodes to date?
I believe that overall the effect has not been that impressive. Of
course, the obedience that must characterise bishops and priests has
obviously slowed down the celebration of the ancient Roman rite, but it
is unlikely to stop it. The reality of traditio is like the water of a
river that grows richer as it flows. But if we reject this richness of
faith, prayer and liturgy that we have received, how can we expect the
new generations to draw closer to the Catholic Church? Let us look
instead at the young people who take part in traditional pilgrimages,
such as Paris-Chartres or Covadonga in Spain, and others that are being
planned. The hope is that the ideology that tends to cling to
ecclesiology and liturgy will be abandoned once and for all, because the
Church is always a reality that comes from above, the heavenly
Jerusalem that descends among us, not something that is “made”. Pope
Benedict insisted on this point: the liturgy is not the result of the
arbitrary will of priests or bishops, nor even of the Pope and the
Apostolic See. For even the Pope is subject to the Word of God and
therefore to the tradition that this Word has handed down to the present
generation over two millennia.
Is this why the book opens with an excursus on the Mass throughout the centuries?
Exactly, it is to demonstrate – with a necessarily concise excursus –
that what we profess comes from the apostolic tradition, not from
someone's inventiveness. In the book, we wanted to place the question of
the questionnaire's assessments in its proper context and then conclude
with recent events, from Summorum Pontificum to Traditionis Custodes,
and then make an appeal to the Pope.
It is too early to say how Leo XIV will proceed, but what can we hope for the future of “liturgical peace”?
We need to get back on the path of the “reform of the reform”, in the
sense that Benedict XVI understood it, starting from the observation
that the liturgical reform has not really taken off, or has flown very
low, to the point that it has allowed deformations, arbitrariness,
Masses on mats and so on. This is because it was not “armoured” by
canonical norms and sanctions, despite Sacrosanctum Concilium being very
clear on this point, warning that no one, “even if a priest, should
dare, on his own initiative, to add, remove or change anything in
matters of the liturgy” (22,3). Let us ask ourselves what has happened
instead in these sixty years and let us resume studying how it went. I
make a proposal directly to the Pope and to the Prefect of the
Congregation for Divine Worship: let us have the courage to study the
documents of the Consilium established by Paul VI for the implementation
of the liturgical reform, or the Memoirs of Louis Bouyer, one of the
great experts who participated in it... let us have the courage to seek
the truth.
And then to recover, not through imposition but with the patience of
charity, what has been left on the ground, to graft back the severed
branches, to use an Augustinian image. This is the work that I would
call ‘reform of the reform,’ without ideological pretensions but as a
fact, a respectful confrontation, which certainly cannot happen
overnight. In the meantime, let us allow the two ritual forms to
“ferment” – as most of the bishops said in their responses to the
questionnaire and as hoped for by Summorum Pontificum.
If Jesus speaks of the wise scribe who draws from his treasure nova et
vetera, new things and old things, it is not clear why we should not be
able to do the same with the great traditional heritage of the liturgy.
https://lanuovabq.it/it/guerra-al-rito-antico-non-furono-i-vescovi-a-scatenarla