Why Francis Suppressed the Latin Mass

A friend is a fan of the late Pope Francis and his synodal way. He supports the suppression of the Latin mass. This has never made any sense to me. Why is it a problem, when it was the traditional form of the liturgy for hundreds of years, and dozens of other non-standard liturgies are well-established. 

It is, my friend says, because it causes schism in the Church. 

This makes no sense to me. If one group is continuing to do as they always did—traditionalists, by definition—and another group is starting to do something different, surely it is the innovators who are promoting schism?

And how can a difference in liturgy matter? If there is some theological or doctrinal conflict, surely the proper approach is to address that doctrine, not the liturgy.

The problem, he elucidates, is that traditionalism opposes the charismatic movement within the Church. 

For those who do not know, the “charismatic movement” is a movement to Pentecostal forms of worship within the Catholic church. Lots of singing and laying on of hands, perhaps speaking in tongues. The idea is to evoke the presence of the Holy Spirit. A more free-form style of worship.

This supposed conflict comes as news to me. I have always considered myself both a traditionalist and a charismatic. I love charismatic forms of worship. But again, surelty different liturgical forms can coexist within the Catholic Church, as they always have. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict both endorsed charismatic prayer, and they are traditionalist heroes. Traditionalism opposes modernism, surely, falling away or turning away from traditional doctrine, not pentecostalism.

But wait... The charismatic movement emphasizes the ongoing action of the Holy Spirit. Francis’s synodality movement is about groups supposedly listening to the Holy Spirit—and then discussing doctrine. 

So this looks like a jump from pentecostalism as a style of worship to something else, something deeper.

Of course, to a traditionalist, this too should be no problem. It is the Holy Spirit who has spoken through the prophets, through the Bible, and through the apostles, to bring us to where we are today. Obviously, the Holy Spirit is not going to suddenly contradict itself. 

The problem is, however, unlike the Bible or the established magisterium, anyone can claim, falsely, to be guided by the Holy Spirit to propose anything he might want. This has been, historically, the case. The Holy Spirit has told some they had the right to take multiple wives, or to overthrow the government of China, or to kill themselves by drinking poisoned Kool-ade. And the Bible warns us of this danger—that there will be false prophets. This is why private revelation has never been allowed to supersede the magisterium. If something proposed goes against the established teaching, that proves it is the demonic voices speaking, not the Holy Spirit. This is how you “test the spirits.”

So far so good—but if this is your position, what is the possible point of holding these synods? As nothing can change, they are a waste of time.

Cardinal Zen made this point at the recent consistory of bishops in Rome: “the continual reference to the Holy Spirit is ridiculous and almost blasphemous. They expect surprises from the Holy Spirit; what surprises? That He should repudiate what He inspired in the Church’s two-thousand-year Tradition?”

In other words, it seems “the synodal way” is an attempt, through the alibi of the charismatic renewal, to smuggle in changes in church doctrine. And when “charismatic renewal” is understood in this sense, it is indeed opposed to traditionalism, and traditionalism must be opposed to it.