Paix liturgique

Miguel Escrivá published a very interesting analysis in Infovaticana on March 13th of the four most important appointments made by Leo XIV, which undoubtedly have a strategic relevance: the appointment of the new Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, Filippo Iannone; the Archbishop of Vienna, Josef Grünwidl; the Archbishop of Prague, Stanislav Pribyl; and the Archbishop of New York, Ronald A. Hicks. It is very likely that these four prelates will receive the red hat at the consistory that will be convened for that purpose. They represent the new model for high-ranking ecclesiastical dignitaries.

It is no longer Francis's style: "They are not," writes Miguel Escrivá, " the old banner-waving progressives, disheveled, coarse, delighted to scandalize the Catholic bourgeois with an aesthetic of «poor priest» turned into moral performance. Nor are they men of doctrinal, liturgical, or ascetic restoration. They are something else: ecclesial managers with soft manners, culturally accommodated, institutionally reliable, media-presentable, and sufficiently ductile to (for now) not break completely with anything, but yes to shift the axis of the Church without needing to declare it. This may be more unsettling than the bronco progressivism of the eighties, because it wears down without stridency and reforms without confessing that it is reforming. The mutation stops being presented as combat and is presented as normality. That is its strength."

Thus, Filippo Iannone, the man who will now appoint the new bishops, is a technocrat, a man of the legal and canonical apparatus of Rome. He will promote "balanced," "dialogue-oriented," and "non-polarizing" men. At the current rate of episcopal replacement, in 10 years, the world episcopal body will be largely composed of "soft, manageable, and doctrinally porous" prelates.

Josef Grünwidl (Vienna) is the boldest of the four, a member of the Viennese diocesan apparatus, lacking intellectual depth or visible liturgical substance, but who has defended the female diaconate, the possible abandonment of celibacy for all priests, and the inclusion of women in decision-making processes. He is hostile to "neo-integralism" and the excessively identity-based Christianity of today's young priests and seminarians. But his reformism is not confrontational: he presents himself as a reasonable moderate.

Stanislav Pribyl (Prague) has his aim set on "building bridges," listening, engaging in dialogue, and fostering synodality, while speaking at length about the depositum fidei and the need for the new evangelization. He does not come across as explicitly progressive.

Ronald A. Hicks (New York), who replaces the moderately classic Dolan, is the American equivalent of this new type of "soft" official, at least on the surface. He worked for a long time with Blase Cupich, the most progressive of the American bishops, serving as his assistant. His program: avoiding divisions, "walking with the wounded," "priority to healing" (as Amoris Laetitia does with adulterous spouses), and the mission. He presents himself as an affable progressive and does not persecute traditionalists.

"In other words," concludes Miguel Escrivá, "these men are not dangerous because they seem like wolves. They are dangerous because they seem harmless." Moreover: these prelates no longer ridicule identity-based Catholicism, but rather relativize it. They appear orthodox on the surface and rarely say anything shockingly intolerable. They practice listening, accompaniment, and keeping the balance, and they talk about synodality, synodality, synodality.

For this reason, in general, they lack a genuine liturgical concern. They are not liturgical iconoclasts like in the 70s, but the liturgy no longer matters to them as a central theological axis. They consider it merely as a pastoral framework, a functional stage, a form of community support. Ultimately, the absence of liturgical conflict does not signify love for the liturgy, but rather indifference.

Is Miguel Escrivá too pessimistic? I don't know. But I do know that these "soft" progressives”, whether they like it or not, will face a harsh reality in two respects. First, the reality of a bankrupt Church: not only is it losing faithful, vocations, religious houses, and financial resources, but after 60 years of inconsistent or ambiguous teaching, the faith of its faithful has become fickle.

And second, the reality of the "problem" of the traditional liturgy. Undoubtedly, these Church leaders will want to ensure that it is not "instrumentalized" as a "banner," as Dom Geoffroy Kemlin, Abbot of Solesmes, wrote in a letter to the Pope that we will have occasion to analyze. But those soft traditionalists they dream of, who would allow themselves to be led out of sight into a golden cage, do not exist.

Unlike the priests of Opus Dei, Emmanuel, or the Community of Saint Martin, and other advocates of a third way, traditionalists have very simple claims regarding the liturgy and the catechism that cannot be ignored: they demand the celebration of the Mass and the teaching of the catechism as they have been handed down to them, and that are integrally Catholic. These traditionalists may not be the majority, at least not yet, but they exist, they are numerous, young, their numbers are constantly growing, they have vocations and their churches are full. The synodal executives, whose machinery is perpetuated while artificially revolving upon itself, will now have to deal with this very real situation.

The Parisian sentinels bear witness to this. Imperturbably, they pray their rosaries for the freedom of the traditional liturgy at 10 rue du Cloître-Notre-Dame, Monday through Friday, from 1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., at Saint-Georges de La Villette, 114 avenue Simon Bolivar, on Wednesdays and Fridays at 5:00 p.m., and in front of Notre-Dame du Travail, on Sundays at 6:15 p.m.