N 12 NOVEMBER 2021, Bishop Robert E. Guglielmone (Charleston, SC) shocked the world by issuing a bizarre decree which flagrantly and explicitly contradicts the unambiguous mandates of Vatican II. In addition to other weird claims, Bishop Guglielmone says that “the beauty of the Gregorian Chant” and a “sense of reverence” during the Holy Mass are “not consistent” with Vatican II. To be honest, Bishop Guglielmone seems ignorant of the documents of Vatican II; for instance, Gregorian Chant is specifically mandated—along with sacred polyphony, choral music, and the pipe organ—by the Second Vatican Council.
Nobody Is Perfect: How praiseworthy it would be for Bishop Guglielmone to admit he made a mistake and reverse course. Everyone makes mistakes! I’ve certainly been guilty of wrongheaded ideas. For example, I used to have kooky ideas about congregations singing intricate plainsong, but after decades of parish work I came to realize the Church’s traditional method makes a ton of sense. Another example of someone “getting it wrong” would be Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who—in the summer of 1965—strongly endorsed the use of the vernacular:
“The priest coming nearer to the faithful; communicating with them; praying and singing with them and therefore standing at the pulpit; saying the COLLECT, the EPISTLE, and the GOSPEL in their language; the priest singing in the divine traditional melodies—the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo—with the faithful: these are so many good reforms that give back to that part of the Mass its true finality.”(SOURCE)
It’s A Trap! The use of the vernacular (in theory) sounded like an awesome plan! Who could argue with such an idea? But it turns out the Church’s tradition of a lingua sacra had good reasons. One of the chief reformers, Dom Anselmo Albareda, attempted to remind his fellow reformers of this reality on 2 January 1953: “The unity of language in the liturgy is so great a treasure for the Church that no advantage could compensate for its demise.” Indeed, Our Savior—JESUS CHRIST—offered the Last Supper using a lingua sacra, not the vernacular. As Monsignor Francis P. Schmitt put it: “Our Lord worshiped in a language at least as dead then as Latin is now.” Even the arch-heretic Martin Luther (who founded a sect called “Lutheranism” during the Protestant Revolution) had enough sense to declare: “I in nowise desire that the Latin language be dropped from our service of worship.”
Hindsight Is 20/20: Like so many other bishops, Archbishop Lefebvre was influenced by the zeitgeist—yet when he saw the results of tampering, he changed his mind. We have spoken often of Cardinal Antonelli, who was (perhaps) the most knowledgeable source when it comes to liturgical reform. Cardinal Antonelli had been named “Secretary of the Conciliar Commission on the Liturgy” on 4 October 1962, yet changed his mind and had the courage to admit it. (Franciscan priests of that generation, such as Antonelli, tended to be extremely honest men.) Another example would be Father Louis Bouyer, the man chosen to compose “Eucharistic Prayer Number 2.” When Father Bouyer saw the results of the liturgical reforms with which he’d been deeply involved, he condemned them. He even referred to these liturgical reforms as “the pathetic creature we produced.”
What Would Come Later: Many bishops had no idea how crazy things would get. They tried to be loyal to the zeitgeist, but whoever marries the spirit of the age will find himself a widower in the next. Archbishop Heenan—in charge of what some considered the world’s most influential diocese (Westminster)—wrote to author Evelyn Waugh on 20 August 1964:
“Although a date has been set for introducing the new liturgy I shall be surprised if all the bishops will want all Masses every day to be in the new rite. We shall try to keep the needs of all in mind—Pops, Trads, Rockers, Mods, With-its, and Without-its.”
Evelyn’s Estimate: And remember, Cardinal Heenan wrote that in 1964! The really radical changes were still half a decade away! Indeed, Evelyn Waugh (d. 1966) hit the nail on the head in his response: “The distress is not caused by the modest changes in the Mass threatened in Advent but by the tone of the ‘progressives’ who seem to regard these as a mere beginning of radical changes.”
Circling Back: Bishop Guglielmone made many false statements in his decree of November 12th. I would welcome an opportunity to speak to him. We could have a cordial dialogue, and I could express how much harm is done to Catholics when bishops say: “We must obey Vatican II—and that means doing the opposite of what Vatican II said.” At this moment, I don’t have time to meticulously correct each error he made. However, I notice that Bishop Guglielmone said: “In the years following the Council, the Church has developed many changes in the liturgy, especially in the celebration of the Eucharist.” Yet, this good bishop fails to mention the unequivocal support for the Missale Antiquius by previous popes, cardinals, and bishops. Indeed, hundreds of bishops have celebrated Mass according to the Missale Antiquius over the last thirty years. In 2003, Cardinal Ratzinger (who would later be elected pope) said the following about the Traditional Latin Mass:
“I think it’s important to […] demonstrate the continuity of the Church. We are today not another Church as 500 years ago; it’s always the same Church. And what is at one time holy for the Church is always holy for the Church, and is not in another time an impossible thing.”
