AS Pope Leo XIV guides his flock to relive the grace-filled season of Lent, his first as the leader of the 1.3-billion-strong Catholic Church, “a world that is ablaze” that rues in his Ash Wednesday message, is increasingly ripping apart the prospects for world peace. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is now in its fourth year and is hardly showing any sign of resolution. A week ago, the United States and Israel launched airstrikes against Iran, which promptly retaliated with its own missiles, hitting neighboring countries that host American military bases.
Then a conflict close to home — less dire but equally sadness-evoking — nags at the top of the Vatican’s administrative agenda: how to keep the door open to those who view the liturgy differently, particularly with respect to the celebration of the Holy Mass. The process is by no means easy, if it has to go through conventional routes, because the present hierarchy deems the benchmark Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) closed to bespoke interpretation.
The liturgy was among the topics discussed during the extraordinary consistory he called on Jan. 7 and 8, 2026. The ugly sight of schism, which yet again looms when the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) proceeds with its plan to consecrate bishops without papal mandate on July 1, 2026, has brought with it unresolved differences concerning the liturgy.
The SSPX, with two bishops and around 700 priests worldwide, celebrates the Latin Mass. Reports further indicate that globally, some 600,000 attend SSPX Masses every Sunday.
Rome’s reluctance to even partially recognize SSPX, assuming this concept exists, as rooted within the apostolic ambit of the Holy See, has a long and agonizing history. In 1988, during the papacy of Saint John Paul II, the SSPX inflicted upon itself the pain of excommunication when it consecrated bishops without the Vatican’s approval. Although Pope Benedict XVI lifted the ban on the four consecrated bishops in 2009, the SSPX remains in an “irregular canonical situation, as the lifting of the penalty did not mean they were immediately in full, regular communion with the Catholic Church.”
At the heart of the conflict is SSPX’s continued rejection of certain texts promulgated by Vatican II (1962-1965). The Council of Trent (1545-1563) codified the celebration of the Latin Mass (or “Vetus Ordo,” also called the Tridentine Mass). Convened at a time when Church leaders felt too little had been done before and after the Second World War (1939-1945), and against the backdrop of the expanding clout of Protestant churches, Vatican II introduced profound changes to many of the Church’s teachings. It produced 16 documents (four constitutions, nine decrees and three declarations).
Two of the four constitutions are prominently mentioned in the present debate: “Sacrosanctum Concilium” (the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), approved by a vote of 2,147 to 4, and “Gaudium et spes” (the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), approved by a vote of 2,307 to 75 by council delegates. Among other things, “Gaudium et spes” “clarified and reoriented the role of the Church’s mission to people outside of the Catholic faith.”
The Vatican II assembly included then-36-year-old Father Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), who was a university professor at the time and served as peritus (theological consultant) to Cardinal Frings of Cologne, and SSPX founder French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
From “Sacrosanctum Concilium” came “Novus Ordo,” the Holy Mass being celebrated in the native tongue of local churches. In an article, Catholicus.eu hailed the “Vetus Ordo” as a treasure of tradition. At the same time, it admits that “Novus Ordo” has been “praised for its flexibility, allowing cultural adaptations that make the liturgy more relevant to different contexts,” conceding, however, that “this flexibility has sometimes been a source of controversy, as it has led to a variety of interpretations and practices that, in some cases have diluted the sense of the sacred.”
Before becoming pope, Cardinal Ratzinger weighed in when he wrote a short essay in memory of German Catholic liturgist Klaus Gamber (1919-1989). He said: “On the one side is a liturgy that has degenerated into a show, in which people try to make religion interesting with trendy antics and flippant moralizing, [but] with... alienation on the part of all who look to the liturgy, not for clerical showmanship, but, rather, for an encounter with the living God... The other side offers the extreme conservation of ritual form, the greatness of which is still quite stirring, but when it becomes the expression of stubborn isolation, in the end, it leaves only sadness. Certainly, there is the middle way of the many good priests and their congregations who celebrate the newly formed liturgy reverently and solemnly, but the contradiction on either side calls it into question, and the lack of inner unity in the Church ultimately makes even her fidelity seem to many people [unfairly] a merely private variety of neo-conservatism... A new spiritual impulse is necessary that will give the liturgy back to us as a communitarian action of the Church and snatch it away from the arbitrariness of the pastors or their liturgy committees... What happened to a great extent after the Council has quite a different significance: instead of the developed liturgy, some have set up their self-made liturgy.”
In the local churches, there is a variety of flavors offered in the liturgical menu, especially when the homilies are served. At times, the preaching tends to be “sabog.” The messaging can drift too far to find the wandering soul. For good measure, desserts are passed around before the concluding rites. Parish pastoral council matters are brought up, the amount of donations is updated (followed by applause), and even those who skip council meetings are offered friendly reminders. All these add to promote transparency and to rebuild connections. But in the end, one can hardly relate how sacred the whole flock had gathered for the saving grace offered by the Eucharist.
For the oratory-gifted charismatics, the online Mass is a launchpad to stardom; they attract more attention to themselves than to the man on the cross. They echo the prosperity gospel made fashionable by evangelicals, long in flattery but short in sharing of what it takes to do His will, perhaps to gain more following, collect more likes, encourage shares and get paid for content creation.
Ratzinger, as pope, said: “Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment.”
However, in “Summorum Pontificum” (2007), he underscores the point that there “cannot be two Masses, for ‘Jesus died once,’ and the Eucharist re-presents that singular sacrifice... Even in the liturgy, the Church does not wish to impose a rigid uniformity... but respects and fosters the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. As one sacrifice, it unites East and West, transcending forms.”
Will there be sadness after July 1, or will the Vatican and the SSPX find the middle way for God’s greater glory? In front of the pope are crossroads buffeted by headwinds that need expert navigation.
haberia@gmail.com
