I recently had the great pleasure of engaging in a lengthy discussion with an admirable young priest with whom I am newly acquainted, the kind of priest that gives us hope in these dark days of the crisis. Perhaps I will be fortunate enough to properly introduce him to you in the future.
In any case, we discussed, among other things, the state of various “traditionalist” groups (e.g., SSPV, CMRI, RCI, etc.). In Father’s estimation, each one seems to have its own particular strengths and weaknesses.
I agree with that observation.
As I’ve mentioned in this space a number of times in the past, no one traditional society checks every Catholic box perfectly. I believe that this is to be expected given the present crisis. In fact, I consider it circumstantial evidence that the Household of God has indeed been without a Holy Father for decades.
Even so, I recently came across a manifestation of this effect that genuinely took me by surprise.
Before I get to that, a related update:
At Bishop Sanborn’s request, his secretary, Fr. Bayer, let me know that His Excellency (due to his busy schedule) has decided to decline my invitation to appear on the akaCatholic Podcast to discuss the Thesis in more detail. Disappointing, yes, but perfectly understandable. I was not owed a response, and I’m grateful for having received one.
Fr. Bayer also mentioned the existence of video interviews that His Excellency has already given on the subject. I followed that suggestion and watched an interview of Bishop Sanborn that was conducted in September of 2024 (available HERE).
At roughly the 47:00 mark, Bishop Sanborn was asked about his views on CMRI, at which point he mentioned (without any rancor whatsoever) some points of disagreement between them.
For one, His Excellency tells us, CMRI rejects the Thesis. NOTE: I will address the Thesis in more detail in a separate post soon.
Secondly, he said that CMRI (to the best of his knowledge) occasionally does “investigations” of cases where couples “are having a difficult time.” After evaluating and discussing the situation, CRMI leadership sometimes renders a conclusion, “In our judgment, you have reason to consider yourself not married.”
His Excellency said that he disagrees with this practice because, as he views the matter, it’s “a usurpation of the Church’s power to rule, and we cannot do that.”
Agree with his conclusion or not, the principle that His Excellency cites seems quite sound.
From there, Bishop Sanborn pointed out areas of liturgical disagreement with CMRI.
They use the Holy Week of 1955, we do not. They use the 1958 rubrics [for the celebration of Holy Mass], we do not.
His Excellency explained, “The reason we do not is because they were all designed by Annibale Bugnini … and how that was actually meant to proceed toward the new Mass (Novus Ordo).”
He also plainly acknowledged, however, as CMRI might point out: “They [the 1955 and 1958 revisions] were promulgated by Pius XII. That’s certainly a legitimate argument. I mean, I wouldn’t argue with that.”
Before we continue, let us acknowledge that in the years immediately following the 1955 and 1958 revisions, well before Bugnini assumed his role in creating the Novus Ordo, the revisions promulgated by Pope Pius XII were met with a mixed reception. Many prominent churchmen expressed concern. (With respect to the 1955 Holy Week revision, I concur with those who lament the loss of such beautiful liturgical actions as the Palm Sunday knocking at the church door.)
Others, however, welcomed the changes promulgated by Pope Pius XII.
NB: None publicly refused the revisions outright, i.e., none insisted upon using the unrevised texts as if nothing had changed. It is conceivable that such a thing may have happened on the part of individual priests, in isolated instances. If so, however, it would have been viewed as unjustified dissent, perhaps even tantamount to a revised liturgical book burning.
A similar dynamic was at play when Pope Pius X revised the Breviary in 1911. Despite any legitimate concerns that one may have had, it was well understood that the pope alone has the authority to regulate the liturgy and it is for the faithful, clergy included, to give external assent.
Bishop Sanborn went on to provide the reasoning behind the RCI’s liturgical position:
It’s just that, we say, if you’re going to protect tradition, if you’re going to uphold tradition, in the hindsight that we have … it makes sense to go back to pre-1955.
While this particular stance is common knowledge for those familiar with the RCI, it was news to me, and I found it rather shocking for several reasons. For one, it runs exactly counter to Bishop Sanborn’s statement, made just moments before, concerning the “usurpation of the Church’s power to rule.”
More troubling still is that the RCI’s position reflects more than a little tinge of Resist-the-Pope poison – think SSPX – only worse, as I will explain momentarily.
Consider that the 1958 rubrics put into practice certain of the principles set forth by Pope Pius XII in the 1947 Encyclical, Mediator Dei. Among them, one finds the following:
The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.(ibid., Article 58)
While not denying in principle that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys this right, the RCI is denying it in practice. Their justification for doing this, according to Bishop Sanborn, is that the reform “was actually meant to proceed toward the new Mass.”
This invites some important questions, for one: “Meant” by whom?
I doubt that Bishop Sanborn would suggest that the Holy Father meant for the reforms to proceed to the new Mass. Presumably, therefore, he must be saying that Bugnini (and the Liturgical Movement more broadly) “meant” to set in motion a progression (descent more properly) toward the Novus Ordo.
If so, fair enough, but so what?
Neither Annibale Bugnini nor the Movement to which he was attached had any power whatsoever to establish the new Mass, or any Mass for that matter. Such power belongs exclusively to the pope, a truth that is underscored by the footnote for Mediator Dei 58, which points to Code of Canon Law 1257:
It belongs only to the Apostolic See to order sacred liturgy and to approve liturgical books.
It seems to me that there’s no wiggle room here.
In matters liturgical, the Church’s power to rule – more specifically, the power of the Apostolic See under the authority of the Roman Pontiff – is exclusive. Another way of expressing this truth is to say that the Roman Pontiff alone is the proximate source of the Church’s unity of worship (as well as unity of faith and governance). This is a matter of law as well as doctrine.
Recognizing the pope’s exclusive power to order sacred liturgy isn’t enough, however. It is also necessary to conform one’s behavior accordingly. Refusing to comply with the Roman Pontiff’s liturgical rule is a very serious matter, it’s nothing less grave than a direct assault on the Church’s unity of worship.
But… but, the pre-1958 (and pre-1955) books have also been approved!
Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt. Writing in his Apostolic Letter, Epistola Tua, Pope Leo XIII describes the proper Catholic attitude:
It is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.
At this, let me be perfectly clear on two points: Number one, I am not picking on the RCI. I just happened to discover this about them while doing research on the Thesis, the primary reason they are presently on my radar screen.
Secondly, in no way am I accusing the RCI, or Bishop Sanborn personally, of malice. I admire him a great deal, I just do not see how the RCI’s liturgical position can be considered anything other than anti-traditional. In my view, it looks much more like protesting tradition than protecting it.
For what it’s worth, my young priest friend (who knows much more about the various traditional groups than I do) singled out Bishop Sanborn, and the seminary under his charge, for its theological rigor. Even with my limited exposure to the RCI, I can see why.
That being said, I suspect that this post will rouse some RCI faithful to anger by virtue of the all-too-human tendency to defend the Home Team no matter what. If that describes you, take a step back. The only team any of us should identify with, ever ready to defend to the best of our knowledge and ability, is Team Catholic. Period.
I must also admit that I have no idea which, if any, other traditionalist groups share the RCI’s position on the liturgical books. Obviously, my commentary here would apply to them too, as well as any individual priests who think and act likewise. NB: It is the position being espoused that merits criticism, it’s not personal.
The reason the RCI position on the liturgical books is so troubling – to expand upon what has already been said – is that it does great harm to the faithful to witness their sacred pastors, on the one hand, encouraging faithful adherence to Catholic tradition, while on the other taking it upon themselves to cherry pick which parts of said tradition are worthy of adherence.
The grave error being imparted to these poor souls, even if only implicitly, is simply this:
The superior/subject relationship that is the papacy – that is to say, the proper disposition of the faithful toward a true Roman Pontiff – is such that the faithful have what amounts to line-item veto power over the teachings, the directives, and the laws set forth by the pope.
The cultivation of this dangerous attitude is the primary stock-in-trade of the entire Resist-the-Pope industry (SSPX, Catholic Family News, Remnant, OnePeterFive, etc.). All of these organizations, despite any good intentions they may have, are literally training a new generation of Catholics to view the papacy through a Protestant lens and it’s shameful.
The case under discussion here, however, is far worse.
The Resist-the-Pope movement, misguided though it is, is presently focused on resisting Francis, a man whose claim to the papacy is, at the very least, highly doubtful. Such a man should be resisted, even though the movement proposes doing so for the wrong reasons.
The RCI liturgical position, by contrast, encourages a sort of resistance aimed against the authority of Pope Pius XII, a man whose papal legitimacy is doubted by no credible person anywhere.
Which do you think poses the graver danger to naïve souls?
