M The following “open letter” by
M Jeff Ostrowski (7/26/2022) does not
M necessarily reflect the opinions
M of Corpus Christi Watershed.
Open Letter to Bishop Arthur Roche
With 12 Points To Consider
Your Excellency:
SAW YOUR recent interview with Deborah Lubov (16 June 2022) in which you attack Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. I urge you to retract it, and I’m praying you will consider doing so. On 6 July 2022, Pope Francis said: “Make your voices heard! If they do not listen to you, shout even louder, make noise; you have every right to have your say on what concerns your future.” Pope Francis was speaking to young people. Since I was born in the 1980s, I suppose I qualify!
Your Attack: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (who became BENEDICT XVI) was recognized as a brilliant theologian, and he took part in Vatican II when you were barely a teenager. Later on, Ratzinger ran the Holy Office. In the Lubov interview, you condemn the pope emeritus:
“Resistance to [1970s liturgical reform] is quite a serious matter… It was clear that the Council, the Bishops of the Council, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, were putting forward a new liturgy … and to resist that is, is [sic] something that is really quite serious, too.” (SOURCE)
Specifically, Bishop Roche, you attacked the statements by Ratzinger:
| (1) When Ratzinger praised “the holiest and highest possession” of the Church;
| (2) When Ratzinger reminded us how it’s “impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable” about allowing those who love the Missale Vetustum to attend it;
| (3) When Pope Benedict XVI said (7/7/2007) “it behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer.”
1. On Your Watch!|
With all due respect, Bishop Roche, on your watch we’ve witnessed liturgical abuses so ghastly it’s amazing you have not resigned. Consider this Mass (Seattle). Consider this Mass (Omaha). Consider these Masses (Italy & Philippines). Consider the recent Mass in Italy held in the ocean—including bikinis! What about the priest in Cardinal Cupich’s diocese who mocks the Monstrance with a guitar? Similar abuses take place daily on your watch, and yet—as far as I can tell—you’ve done virtually nothing to intervene. Anyone who reads actual quotations from the council will notice Vatican II mandated a liturgy which has never been seen by the vast majority of Catholics. It is your solemn duty to stop all instances of desecration. Instead, you spend your energy trying to eliminate “EF” celebrations! (For example, this letter from Bishop Parkes demonstrates how you spend your time.)
2. The Council Did Not Oversee…|
You claim “the Bishops of the Council, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” created a new liturgy—but this is false. Vatican II mandated but did not oversee liturgical change. In other words, Vatican II anticipated certain liturgical changes but their implementation was a wholly post-conciliar project. Indeed, the fathers of Vatican II believed the changes would be made by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. Unfortunately, an advisory committee (the “Consilium”) arrogated authority which was not theirs. CARDINAL ANTONELLI (Secretary of the Conciliar Commission on the Liturgy) and CARDINAL LARRAONA (Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites) were “very saddened” by this theft of authority according to Cardinal Antonelli’s diary entry of 16 March 1964.
3. You Condemn Cardinal Lercaro|
The man in charge of all liturgical reforms was CARDINAL LERCARO. On 2 March 1965, Lercaro published an article in l’Avennire d’Italia in which he strongly condemned liturgical abuses, giving concrete examples of practices he considered “fanciful” and “deplorable” {Chiron p119}. What were these deplorable abuses? (a) Communion in the hand; (b) a Celebrant reciting the Canon in an audible voice. Furthermore, in a letter (25 January 1966) to the bishops’ conferences, Cardinal Lercaro also called female altar servers “a grave infraction.” But all three are now mandated by post-conciliar legislation! Do you consider the attitude of Cardinal Lercaro “quite a serious” sin? Moreover, how can you maintain that Lercaro—the man responsible for the 1970s liturgy—is someone who “resists” Vatican II? What’s your verdict, Bishop Roche? Is it really a “serious matter” to “resist” those items which Lercaro cited as fanciful, deplorable, and “gravely” wrong? Let me reiterate: these very items are mandated by today’s legislation! Your position seems to be that whatever whim you embrace (at any given moment) is to be praised—even if it contradicts the explicit words of Vatican II … as well as the beliefs of the man responsible for post-conciliar changes!
4. You Condemn The “Vatican Guardian Of Faith”|
FRANJO CARDINAL SEPER was known as the “Vatican Guardian of the Faith.” That’s because he was appointed by Pope Paul VI as Prefect for the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But Cardinal Seper made clear his appraisal of the ambiguity of EUCHARISTIC PRAYER NO. 2:
“Me? I’ll never adopt that Canon.” {Chiron p169}
Indeed, he was “totally opposed to granting any new Eucharistic Prayers” {Chiron p170}—although they were eventually approved in spite of his opposition. According to you, Cardinal Seper—by pledging to never use Eucharistic Prayer No. 2 (even after it was officially promulgated)—tried to “resist” the Holy Ghost. Must we all join your condemnation of Cardinal Seper for his alleged “resistance” of Vatican II? Is it not likely that post-conciliar reformers perverted what the Council fathers mandated and constantly contradict their own legislation? Can you not understand it’s impossible to embrace practices which directly contradict one another? Did your seminary formation include any sort of critique of ‘legal positivism’?
5. You Condemn Pope Paul VI|
Saint Paul VI himself—on 22 January 1967—attempted to intervene, trying to save the Last Gospel {Chiron p134}. His intervention was unsuccessful, however, and the Last Gospel was eliminated. If you’re wondering how the pope could be ‘overruled,’ please read this explanation by Father Louis Bouyer, a personal friend of the pope. For the record, not everything desired by the BUGNINI CADRE (i.e. “radical progressives”) was granted. For example, they tried to eliminate Ash Wednesday {Pristas p120}, the triple AGNUS DEI {Chiron p134}, and even foreign words such as “Amen” {Marini p184}—which Bugnini called a “meaningless sound”—but those items were ultimately salvaged. Getting back to the Last Gospel, Pope Saint Paul VI felt it should not have been eliminated. But you, Bishop Roche, seemingly consider this “resistance” to the Holy Ghost. You claim such “resistance” is “quite a serious matter.” (After all, the Last Gospel is still part of the Extraordinary Form.) Yet, considering the last fifty years, can’t you realize the post-conciliar reformers were wrong when they insisted on reducing Scripture at the Catholic Mass? Please stop being so harsh towards Catholics who lament the Novus Ordo purge of Scripture: (1) The biblical Proprium Missae; (2) Psalm 42 at the beginning of Mass; (3) Psalm 140 during the incensation of the Altar; (4) Psalm 25 during the washing of hands; (5) An extra reading at the end of Mass (often the first chapter of St. John’s Gospel); and so forth.
6. You Contradict Pope Francis|
And why did you publish a letter (4 December 2021) listing various ways OF congregations should ostracize those who value the Last Gospel? Your letter basically says OF parishes should make it clear that “EF people” belong at the bottom of the totem pole. With all due respect, your suggestions come across as absurdly malicious. For instance, you encourage people not to publish information about the Extraordinary Form—wherein the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity becomes present upon the Altar!—in the parish bulletin. Bulletins routinely contain the most trivial information, yet you apparently have no issue with that. Your petty suggestions contradict the words of POPE FRANCIS (26 September 2021), who said: “The Holy Spirit does not want closedness; He wants openness, and welcoming communities where there is a place for everyone.”
7. You Condemn Pope John XXIII|
POPE SAINT JOHN XXIII—who convened Vatican II (which began on 11 October 1962)—published an emphatic defense of Latin called VETERUM SAPIENTIA on 22 February 1962. John XXIII wrote: “Impelled by the weightiest of reasons, We are fully determined to restore this language to its position of honor, and to do all We can to promote its study and use […] to ensure that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained and, where necessary, restored.” The pope who convened Vatican II went on to say that bishops “must be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.” In spite of these forceful words by Pope John XXIII, Latin has been de facto forbidden by people who claim its use is opposed to the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II. This claim continues to be made, in spite of the statement by the Sacred Congregation of Rites (23 July 1964):
At Vatican II “the great majority of the Fathers approved the various dispositions concerning a wider use of the vernacular precisely because of the existence of that first paragraph [Sacrosanctum Concilium §1] which ensured substantial preservation of the Latin, apart from a few particular cases (salvo jure particulari), such as the concession made to China.”
8. You Condemn Cardinal Albareda|
ANSELMO CARDINAL ALBAREDA—someone deeply involved in the 1960s reforms as well as the clandestine Commissio Piana—spoke in no uncertain terms about liturgical Latin: “The unity of language in the liturgy is so great a treasure for the Church that no advantage could compensate for its demise” {Giampietro p249}. Moreover, AUGUSTIN CARDINAL BEA—deeply involved in liturgical reform going back to the 1940s—said something similar: “No concession should ever be made for the singing of the EXSULTET, in whole or in part, in the vernacular.” Must we condemn these men—the very men responsible for the liturgical reforms!—as “resisting” the Holy Ghost? Can you not admit, Bishop Roche, that today’s liturgical praxis would be unrecognizable to these men? Leave aside (for the moment) whether they were faithful to Vatican II; do you maintain that the ‘average’ Ordinary Form Mass resembles what they envisioned? Why can you not admit the Traditional Latin Mass is much closer to what Vatican II mandated?
9. “The Pathetic Creature We Created”|
FATHER LOUIS BOUYER was one of the chief liturgical reformers. With assistance from Dom Bernard Botte, Father Bouyer composed EUCHARISTIC PRAYER NO. 2 {Bouyer p221}. Bouyer was certainly no “traditionalist,” as page 4 of his Liturgical Piety (Notre Dame Press, 1954) demonstrates. However, when he observed the results of the liturgical reforms, he was profoundly disturbed. Indeed, he referred to the post-conciliar reforms as “the pathetic creature we created.” He called the reformed calendar “insane” {Bouyer p223} and “the handiwork of a trio of maniacs.” Father Bouyer even admits the reformers had no chance of success, since their goal was “recasting from top to bottom—and in a few months!—an entire liturgy which had required twenty centuries to develop” {Bouyer p219}. Bouyer was a close to Pope Paul VI on a personal level, and makes the claim that Paul VI was not satisfied with the liturgical changes, even though he approved them. It is incontestable that Father Bouyer was a more respected theologian than you, Bishop Roche. Nevertheless, you claim that Bouyer—himself an architect of the post-conciliar reforms—is “resisting” the work of the Holy Ghost! Why do you insist that the “insane” (his word), “pathetic” (his word), and “unsatisfactory” (his word) reforms are the work of the Holy Ghost? Do you deem those responsible for the reforms unqualified to comment on them?
10. “Very Serious Consequences”|
FERDINANDO CARDINAL ANTONELLI was named “Secretary General of the Conciliar Commission on the Liturgy” on 4 October 1962. The cardinal died in 1993 (almost reaching the age of 100), and after his death came the publication of his diary. He was certainly not a traditionalist; e.g. he embraced Bugnini’s idea that for much of church history the laity were “mere spectators” {Giampietro p148} at Mass. Like Bugnini, he believed the “essential point” of Catholic worship “unfortunately had been lost for centuries” {Giampietro p148}. For Cardinal Antonelli, anyone who did not desire changes to the sacred liturgy did so “from indolence of lack of liturgical sensibility” {Giampietro p69}.
Nevertheless, Cardinal Antonelli was greatly troubled by the liturgical reform, especially the extreme haste with which important decisions were made by the Consilium {Giampietro p167+173+179} and the outrageously deplorable voting system, which decided upon resolutions “without anybody counting how many had approved or not” {Giampietro p173+176}. Bishop Roche, you have claimed this is the work of the Holy Ghost—but such an assertion seems highly unlikely. In any event, Antonelli’s entire diary cannot be quoted (due its great length)—so one quote must suffice:
“In the CONSILIUM, there are few Bishops with a specifically liturgical expertise, and very few are really theologians. The most acute deficiency in the CONSILIUM is the lack of theologians. In fact, it could be said that they had been excluded altogether, which is something dangerous. In the liturgy, every word and every gesture expresses an idea which is always a theological idea. […] And this has very serious consequences.”
Cardinal Antonelli concludes that the post-conciliar reformers “have only been able to demolish and not to restore” {Giampietro p192}. It would be easy to produce numerous quotations demonstrating that Cardinal Antonelli “resists” Vatican II—which you have said “is quite a serious thing.” For instance, Cardinal Antonelli insists that certain parts of the Mass (e.g. the Canon) must remain in Latin—according to Vatican II—while the vernacular can be used for the parts of Mass “directed to the people” such as the Prayer of the Faithful {Giampietro p149}.
11. “Faith … Will Be Weakened”|
It would be easy to list more quotations by men who were deeply involved in the reforms, yet had disagreements with what was done then (or would be done subsequently). For instance, a disturbed JOHN CARDINAL HEENAN complained on 28 August 1964: “The Mass is no longer the Holy Sacrifice but the Meal at which the priest is the waiter.” Indeed, a synod of bishops took place at the Vatican in 1967, and on 24 October Bugnini celebrated a Mass in the Sistine chapel for the assembled prelates to show them the Novus Ordo (now referred to as the “Ordinary Form”). Some of the bishops gave consent, but many objected. For that gathering, a majority would require 124 “placet” votes. When it came to approving the general structure of the reformed Mass, only 71 gave a “placet” {Chiron p131}. Others either abstained, voted against approval, or said placet juxta modum (“changes must be made”). For the record, Bugnini’s secretary falsely claimed in 2007 this reformed Mass was approved by the bishops “by a wide majority” {Marini p138}. With regard to Bugnini’s “experimental Mass,” Cardinal Heenan of Westminster stood up and told his fellow bishops: “At home it is not only women and children but also fathers of families and young men who come regularly to Mass. If we were to offer them the kind of ceremony we saw yesterday in the Sistine Chapel, we would soon be left with a congregation mostly of women and children.” Cardinal Heenan also said Bugnini’s demonstration Mass downplayed the Eucharistic Prayer, predicting that “the faith of both clergy and people will be weakened” {Bitter Trial p102}.
12. “To Some Of The Prayers And Chants”|
BISHOP GEORGE P. DWYER, who earned a double doctorate (philosophy and theology) at Rome, participated in Vatican II—both the preparatory work and the Council itself. Dwyer wrote: “By no means would I offer the counsel that Mass be celebrated in languages other than Latin.” But Bishop Dwyer also felt that usage of the vernacular could be extended. For Mass, Vatican II gave the vernacular a “restricted” use (congruus locus) whereas for the Sacraments Vatican II gave the vernacular a “wider” use (amplior locus). ABBAT JEAN PROU attended the Second Vatican Council and was especially involved in drawing up the conciliar texts on the liturgy. On 18 November 1985, Dom Prou reminded us that according to Vatican II: “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (§36a); Since the vernacular “may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants…” (§36b); The local bishop is “to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used” (§36c). Bishop Roche, those are the words of Vatican II. Anyone capable of rational thought realizes the word “some” does not mean “all.” I don’t see how you can deny that the Missale Recens (as it is usually celebrated) contradicts the explicit mandates of the Council: e.g. Sacrosanctum Concilium §36, §54, §89a, §100, §101, §112, §114, and §116.
Your current position, Bishop Roche, could be summarized as follows—or am I mistaken?
“It matters not what Vatican II mandated. Nor do statements by the actual reformers matter. Nor do the numerous contradictions by post-conciliar documents matter. Only one thing matters: what I declare at any given moment. If I contradict tomorrow all previous legislation, so be it. That is the work of the Holy Ghost—and to resist that is really quite serious.”
Contradiction seems not to bother you. I say this because just a few years ago you said on video that the Extraordinary Form is “a valid expression of the Church’s liturgy,” adding that the Ordinary Form “must learn” (from the EF) “a real sense of reverence and worship.” To claim the Missale Recens is the “only expression” (l’unica espressione) of the Roman Rite, one must condemn those responsible for its creation—such as Cardinal Lercaro, who called the audible Canon a “fanciful” and “deplorable” practice. One must likewise condemn the fathers of Vatican II, and repudiate much post-conciliar legislation (e.g. 5 Nov 1971; 2 Jul 1988; 7 Jul 2007; 4 Nov 2009; 8 Apr 2011; 22 Feb 2020). Post-conciliar legislation often began by condemning the very things it ended up demanding: female altar servers, audible Canon, hand-communion, women lectors inside the sanctuary, exclusion of Latin, exclusion of plainsong, and so forth. Furthermore, I’m not aware of a single deficiency you’ve ever put forth vis-à-vis the liturgy that nourished Saint Edith Stein, Saint Maximilian Kolbe, Saint John Vianney, Saint Isaac Jogues, Saint John Bosco, and so many others—not one single thing.
Whether your feelings about the Traditional Mass have changed, Bishop Roche, is irrelevant. You must stop impugning those who disagree with you. In Sacrosanctum Concilium §37, the Second Vatican Council explicitly rejected seeking “rigid uniformity” in the sacred liturgy. You must retract your letter (4 December 2021) in which you encouraged OF parishes to marginalize Catholics who possess that which Pope Saint John Paul II referred to as “rightful aspirations.” Finally, you must recall that on 6 July 2022, Pope Francis said:
“Be open to acceptance, and hence to the value of inclusion. Don’t let yourselves be drawn into short-sighted ideologies that want to show others—those who are different from ourselves—as enemies.”
Final Thoughts: Your actions, Bishop Roche, appear as an attempt to do by coercion what you cannot accomplish by persuasion. Think of it! For more than fifty years, the “Ordinary Form” proponents have been in charge of all the schools, church buildings, universities, seminaries, and chanceries. They have had a monopoly on all the propaganda and publishing rights, with nearly endless funding. Yet the diocese of Rome this year ordained a grand total of three (3) priests! I will not insult your intelligence by explaining what this means.
The people who share your ideology believe the Traditional Mass must be crushed because it proved “too popular” and because it has proven to be too much of a boon to the spiritual life of the People of God. (Nobody buys the arguments about ‘extremists’ because if you were honestly concerned about extremists you would discipline them, using the proper tools.) But your duty, Bishop Roche, is to support and encourage Catholics who love the Mass. The Mass is the center of our Catholic Faith.
BOOKS CITED BY THIS ARTICLE:
Yves Chiron’s Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy (Angelico Press, 2018).
Monsignor Nicola Giampietro’s The Development of the Liturgical Reform As Seen by Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli from 1948 to 1970 (Roman Catholic Books, 2009).
Lauren Pristas’ Collects of the Roman Missals: A Comparative Study of the Sundays in Proper Seasons before and after the Second Vatican Council (T&T Clark, 2013).
A Bitter Trial: Evelyn Waugh and John Cardinal Heenan on the Liturgical Changes (Ignatius Press, 2011).
The Memoirs of Louis Bouyer: From Youth and Conversion to Vatican II, the Liturgical Reform, and After (Angelico Press, 2015).
Piero Marini’s A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal (Collegeville Press, 2007).
