More Thoughts On The Reaction To Traditionis Custodes

Most of the reaction to Traditionis Custodes I've seen in Catholic media has been negative, almost always tied to deep, and I would say knee-jerk, suspicion of Pope Francis. I don't think anyone can dispute that this is the case. This leads me to a basic question: how would I address any concerns I had about Francis in the confessional?

Option 1: "Bless me, Father, I have sinned. I have attended a novus ordo mass, eleven times. I have received the sacrament standing, in the hand, eleven times. I was tempted to agree with Pope Francis in his statements on faith and morals, more times than I can count. I changed my mind on the death penalty after reflection based on remarks by our priests and his revision of the Catechism. I am sorry for these and all my sins."

Option 2: "Bless me, Father, I have sinned. I have unconsciously adopted the idea that Catholics who don't attend the Latin mass aren't good Catholics. I have spread the opinion that the pope is a heretic. I have spread the opinion that the Second Council was not valid. I am sorry for these and all my sins."

It occurs to me that almost any priest (excluding some real jerks I know in the ordinariate) would be tempted to laugh me out of the confessional for Option 1, but would actually try a patient explanation, given the time available, of what the Catholic Church is about, but again considering the time available, maybe even suggest either counseling or a return to confirmation class. He would almost certainly find it problematic that such a person would be thinking perfectly good things are sins, while quite possibly neglecting a more thorough examination of conscience over things like pride that he thinks are not.

The second option, it seems to me, would reflect a more authentic examination of conscience over matters like pride, gossip, and scandal. I would imagine that just about any priest, again excluding those jerks in the ordinariates, would be happier to hear Option 2 than Option 1.

Actually, considering what I've been seeing in social media -- heck, not just in social media, in respectable Catholic blogs and web sites -- I'm feeling more and more offended by the aspersions that traditionalists now even more vehemently cast on me and the great majority of other Catholics who attend and are well fed by novus ordo parishes and masses. It's not much different from the elites who now routinely insult me by claiming I'm a racist. It's poisoning the atmosphere.

In fact, I probably need to bring my own reactions to this up the next time I go to confession.

Let's look at the dynamic here. The Vatican II constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, which at Bp Barron's recommendation I just read, decreed "a general restoration of the liturgy" so that

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

This document, the product of an ecumenical council, is as authoritative as you can find in the Catholic Church. If you have problems with it, you have problems with being a Catholic. So to get around it, those who object criticize what emerged as the novus ordo liturgy. Just today, someone sent me material about Annibale Bugnini, the head of the commission that produced the new mass and a longtime bete noire among traditionalists.

The point seems to be that Bugnini was politically adept and even something of a schemer, and not all the bishops liked him -- even Paul VI got tired of him. I don't understand. In Acts, we learn that St Paul didn't get along with St Mark at all and didn't want to travel with him. How does this undermine the New Testament? This sort of thing happens among human beings. As someone who's had to get even small-scale stuff done at work, I've learned you have to have political skills, even to revise a technical manual. How much more do you need to revise the mass? The Church nevertheless comes out of it.

Wikipedia quotes Michael Sean Winters:

Aficionados of the old rite like to talk about how that rite uniquely conveys the sense that each Mass is a part of the one eternal sacrifice of Christ […] If the Eucharist is, as Vatican II taught, the source and summit of the Catholic faith, then we know that when the celebration of the Eucharist fails to serve the unity of the church, something is wrong, and it isn't ever the fault of him whose sacrifice we commemorate.

I've got to say that the traditionalists' tone in this discussion, often doubling down on the position that Vatican II was not authorized to change the liturgy, or that Francis is a heretic, is driving me away from that group and only confirms the impression I'd developed that Anglicanorum coetibus was an intiative as flawed as Summorum Pontificum. I'm with Francis on this one. And I'm a conservative guy.