CNA Staff, Jul 3, 2024 / 12:45 pm (CNA).
A distinguished cadre of British public figures is calling upon the Holy See to preserve what they describe as the “magnificent” cultural artifact of the Catholic Church’s Traditional Latin Mass.
In 2021 Pope Francis placed sweeping restrictions on the celebration of Mass using the 1962 Roman Missal, known also as the extraordinary form of the Roman rite and the Tridentine Mass. Rumors have circulated in recent months that the Vatican is preparing to clamp down further on the celebration of that ancient liturgy.
No new directives on the Latin Mass have yet been promulgated amid the rumors. In a Tuesday letter to the London newspaper the Times, meanwhile, a wide cross-section of English cultural fixtures openly implored the Vatican to refrain from restricting the rite further.
“Recently there have been worrying reports from Rome that the Latin Mass is to be banished from nearly every Catholic church,” the letter said. “This is a painful and confusing prospect, especially for the growing number of young Catholics whose faith has been nurtured by it.”
The signatories, which included actress and human rights advocate Bianca Jagger, author Tom Holland, musical eminence Julian Lloyd Webber, and media executive Sir Nicholas Coleridge, described the Latin Mass as a “cathedral” of “text and gesture” that developed over many centuries.
“Not everyone appreciates its value and that is fine,” the writers said, “but to destroy it seems an unnecessary and insensitive act in a world where history can all too easily slip away forgotten.”
“The old rite’s ability to encourage silence and contemplation is a treasure not easily replicated, and, when gone, impossible to reconstruct,” they said.
The writers in their letter pointed to a 1971 petition from a similar cross-section of prominent Britons that had also asked the Vatican to preserve the Latin Mass in England.
That petition led to the “Agatha Christie indult” allowing the extraordinary form to continue there; the indult was named after the famous author who was among the signatories.
In their letter this week the British celebrities said their petition, like the 1971 request, was “entirely ecumenical and nonpolitical.”
“The signatories include Catholics and non-Catholics, believers and nonbelievers,” they wrote. “We implore the Holy See to reconsider any further restriction of access to this magnificent spiritual and cultural heritage.”
In issuing the 2021 guidelines, the pope had said he was saddened that the celebration of the extraordinary form was now characterized by a rejection of the Second Vatican Council and its liturgical reforms.
To doubt the council, he said at the time, is “to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Sadly, The Times signed their names erroneously. The 1971 letter listed them properly. These “Lords” (peers) are members of the upper chamber of British parliament but not one is an aristocrat. All appointed due to their service in arts, culture, commerce, social justice, etc. and especially music and drama.
entitling the article “British lords” just compounds the error.
I think it’s disgusting that CNA gives traction to ANY statement regarding the Catholic Church and its liturgical expression to the British who turned apostate almost to a man 500 years ago.
Just to illustrate the cultural and moral absurdity of paying attention to anything the British House of Lords has to say about the Catholic Church, the lead-in to the CNA article refers to them as: “A distinguished cadre of British public figures.” Bianca Jagger is distinguished? Now really! I think the folks over at CNA who write such nonsense ought to be fired.
The ears of the Vatican have been deaf to the voices of Catholics who desire the Latin Mass to continue. Perhaps they’ll experience an “ephphatha” moment, however, if non-Catholic celebrities desire it to continue. The current regime seems big on celebrities.
I confess I don’t know what to make of this.
What to make of this? Well, there might be another shoe to fall. Try this…
One of the signatories to the letter is the Catholic Julian Fellowes, writer of the “Downton Abbey” popular TV series—where the last lines of the last episode effectively cast the entire series on British social change as an apologetic for inevitable social and cultural acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. As with possible further quarantining of TLM, even binary human sexuality and marriage (and Humanae Vitae?) are already secularly redefined and scripted as just another museum piece.
So, as a possible Vaticanista response to the British House of Lords, TLM as just another “‘magnificent’ cultural artifact” for the museums…very synodal, that.
The simple fact that Francis is trying to abolish a form of worship that has been with us for almost 2,000 years – Need anything more be said?
Stop this “Mass of Ages” nonsense. Be more nuanced. Take the difference between “essence” and “form.” The Mass in its “essence” (meal, sacrifice, real presence) is unchanged for 2,000 years. Through this span of time it has undergone reforms in its “form” (ritual order, ceremonial flow, languages). The essence of the Novus Ordo (1969 Missal) is the same as that of the Vetus Ordo (1962 Missal). The form of the Vetus Ordo is not 2,000 years old.
Why, may I ask, do people get up at 5 in the morning EVERY SUNDAY and set out for the Latin Mass 100 miles away, on the way passing by a church – only 5 miles from their home – where the Novus Ordo is celebrated?
What is the ‘Vetus Ordo’?
In conclusion – “This is a painful and confusing prospect, especially for the growing number of YOUNG CATHOLICS, WHOSE FAITH HAS BEEN NURTURED BY IT.” (EM)
I noticed you placed meal before sacrifice. The mass is first and foremost the same sacrifice that Christ went through but in a non physical way. The old mass express that clearly, the new mass subdues it for ecumenical consideration. By the way, the two liturgies are not the same.
Good for Tom Holland and God bless him. I’ve enjoyed listening to his podcasts: The Rest is History.
What’s the point? Is it to achieve uniformity, to dispose the faithful to a new hermeneutic of Gospel perspectives? Or is it more, that the TLM is emblematic of an inadmissible past destined for annihilation, as are doctrines condemning homosexuality, the requirement to bear the cross for repentance of sins, conversion of manners for reception of the holy Eucharist, the essential nature of the Mass as sacrifice?
Why doesn’t His Holiness speak clearly on this straining issue within the universal Church? We are dismayed, we are cast into darkness while a Roman pontiff presides at a distance as if possessed of superior knowledge while the sacrifice of the Mass is offered [was the same when presiding during the Vatican lawn worship of an Amazonian idol a portent of this moment?]. Is the doctrine of Christ’s bloody sacrifice a retention of an expired past?
Pope Francis possesses the authority to eliminate what is emblematic of a long, sacred history of worship, witness by the blood of our martyrs. But he has zero authority to change the hearts of the faithful from authentic worship of our crucified Lord.
MIND-BOGGLING TRAGEDY OR CRIMINALITY (for which we must thank God)
Can we be honest?
The whole history of the Church since the early 1960s (excepting a few saintly, heroic individuals who are widely disparaged or forgotten) is one big mind-boggling tragedy, or moral crime.
Only the decades-long Communist domination of Russia and Eastern Europe is comparable, in my mind.
Well, I can think of one other comparable situation in U.S. history:
In the 1940s and 1950s, Congressional and FBI investigations into covert Communist influence in Hollywood lead to hundreds of Communist screenwriters, actors, and directors being blacklisted (meaning none of the movie studios would hire them).
But by the 1960s, all the formerly blacklisted Communists were welcomed back into Hollywood as heroes and martyrs, and Hollywood began producing an endless stream of films that inspire immorality, godlessness, rebellion against moral authority, unrestrained violence, unrestrained lust, sex outside of marriage, divorce, unrestrained greed, etc.
But I guess this is all happening as per divine “permissive will.”
As such, following the Little Flower, I guess we should thank God even for these tragedies and crimes.
We should get one with seeking and touching the all-pure God in the little chapels of our souls.
Just to add a discursive footnote:
Humiliated and discredited after his 1950-53 accusations, Senator Eugene McCarthy (“McCarthyism”) also was subject to a minutely researched and different narrative (William F. Buckley, Jr. and L. Brent Bozell, “McCarthy and his Enemies: the Record and its Meaning,” Regnery, 1954/1961). Lots of attention to names, maneuverings and personal histories, to hearing transcripts, and to a few other key hearings curiously never conducted.
My summary recollection is that the new Senator McCarthy was seen as simply too green in his rhetoric, and that he miss-stepped by charging personalities as card-carrying communists, rather than more accurately as demonstrated serious security threats. Usually not full-blown Communists, but soft-headed “anti-anti-Communists.”
At one point (for one example) we learn that between 1948 and 1952, the period overlapping the McCarthy hearings (1950-1953), the State Department did in fact release 15 security risks, but it is not clear to the authors how many of these were among those named by McCarthy. A contrarian narrative, incisive and scholarly.
Back to Hollywood–As president of the screen actors guild, Ronald Reagan detected and resisted that domain of influence/infiltration (as a result, he switched political parties in 1962), and later as President of the United States was key to cutting the head off the snake–the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The corruption of Hollywood might claim that ironic benefit to civilization.
Well, it is not as if Pope Benedict, and all The Popes after Vatican lI did not recognize The Latin Mass is a Treasure.
Pray for the restoration of The Papacy as instituted by Christ.