This appeal was published by Sandro Magister in Settimo Cielo and translated into English on Diakonos.be under the title “For the love of God: Lay down your arms!”
Cardinal Brandmüller makes no mention of the report by the Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship, Cardinal Arthur Roche, prepared for the consistory of January 7 and 8: a report particularly hostile to the supporters of the Tridentine Mass, which was removed from the meeting's agenda when this topic was postponed.
But he offers a historical perspective on the current situation, which he attributes in particular to a misapplication of the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Liturgy.
A Misapplied Constitution
The high-ranking prelate seeks to exonerate the Council and defends the Constitution on the Liturgy—a thesis also supported by Bishop Athanasius Schneider: “It is not the Second Vatican Council's Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, but rather the implementation of the liturgical reform after the Council, that is responsible for the rift that has spread throughout many parts of the Catholic world.”
However, he does criticize the post-conciliar period: “Chapter II of the Second Vatican Council's Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium should be studied impartially in order to critically examine subsequent developments. It will then become clear how far post-conciliar practice has deviated from this constitution.” This point will need to be revisited.
An Attack on “Human” Tradition
Cardinal Brandmüller sees this “liturgical conflict” primarily as an attack on the traditions of peoples: “What does, however, affect the daily life of piety are the rites, customs, and concrete forms of religiosity experienced every day. … In most cases, it is not the doctrine of faith that is directly affected. What is affected is religious sentiment, cherished devotional formulas, habit.”
These attacks always provoke reactions because they misunderstand “not only the Christian but also the human essence of inherited tradition.” He cites as an example the battles fought after the Council of Trent, which “did not concern the nature of the Holy Eucharist.”
He also cites as an example Pius XII’s reform of the Easter Vigil in 1951 and then of Holy Week in 1955, which did not give rise to “such distrust or even rejection of innovations.” And he wonders "why instead the reforms of Paul VI generated certain reactions,” because "many saw a liturgical break with tradition taking place."
An Attack on the Very Nature of the Mass
The porporato sees this difference in the object of the conflict: “It was only at the beginning of the 20th century, in the context of modernism, that the dispute over the sacrifice of the Mass resurfaced, but now not so much over the rite as over the essence of the sacrifice itself.”
But Pius XII, “in the midst of the postwar problems and aware of the unresolved questions relating to the holy sacrifice of the Mass, took up the subject again in his encyclical Mediator Dei of 1947: he reiterated and clarified the dogma of the Council of Trent and finally provided guidelines for a worthy liturgical celebration.” Everything seemed to be set right. But…
After Pius XII
“After the pontificate of Pius XII,” Cardinal Brandmüller acknowledges, “the election of John XXIII was perceived in various ecclesiastical circles as a liberation from magisterial constraints. The door also opened to dialogue with Marxism, existentialist philosophy, the Frankfurt School, Kant, and Hegel—and with this, a radically different way of understanding theology.”
And he adds this grave and terrible observation: “The hour of theological individualism had struck, of the farewell to what was dismissed as ‘pastism. The consequences for the liturgy were grave.”
“Arbitrariness, proliferation, unbridled individualism led, in not a few places, to the replacement of the Mass with personal compositions, even collected in ring binders prepared by the celebrants. The result was liturgical chaos and an unprecedented exodus from the Church, which, despite Pauline reform, continues to this day.”
The Post-Conciliar Period and its Abuses
The observation continues regarding the post-Conciliar period: “In response, groups and circles arose determined to counter the chaos with unwavering fidelity to Pius XII’s Missale Romanum. …Thus, Paul VI’s reform of the missal—which was not without its flaws—also encountered criticism and resistance.”
The criticisms focused “not so much over the rite, as over the nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice. The excessive emphasis—to the point of true absolutization—on the convivial nature of the Holy Mass led, and still leads, to grave liturgical abuses, sometimes even blasphemous. Abuses born from fundamental misunderstandings of the mystery of the Eucharist.”
And the observation concludes with a most serious one: “Cases in which episcopal authorities have intervened against abuses have been rather rare. It is not yet sufficiently understood that this dissolution of liturgical unity is the fruit of uncertainty or even of a loss of authentic faith, and constitutes a threat to unity in the faith itself.”
The “Reform of the Reform”
But this strong and clear observation by Cardinal Brandmüller amounts to very little: the opposing groups must lay down their arms and agree to “impartially study chapter II of the conciliar constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and evaluate the subsequent developments in its light. It would then become clear how far post-conciliar practice has strayed from the constitution.”
He concludes by stating that “only in this way, in silence and with great patience, will it be possible to work toward a reform of the reform that truly corresponds to the provisions of Sacrosanctum Concilium.” Pope Benedict XVI had made the same proposal, which was part of the broader framework of the hermeneutics of continuity.
Certainly, it would be possible for a pope to carry out a sound "reform" of the Roman Rite and impose it on the entire Church.
But this would face numerous obstacles today and would be supremely imprudent. First, because times of crisis are not conducive to this kind of undertaking. Then, because it would be offering a ‘third way’ that would be reluctant to take either side, especially under current conditions.
Finally, because such a reform would allow to subsist – unless it was abolished at the same time – a severely defective rite. It is moreover on this observation that Cardinal Brandmüller’s analysis stumbles, seeing only abuses – even very serious ones.
Who speaks of abuse, affirms its deviation from its destination as a good thing: in other words, the Novus ordo is good, it is abuse that is detestable. While affirming contradictorily that this new mass was not established according to the prescriptions of the Council.
While Cardinal Brandmüller's contribution is interesting and important, it seems to remain only on the surface of the problem.