Was Pope Benedict XVI an “outlier”?
That is the view of Mike Lewis on the liturgical views of Pope Benedict XVI. Writing at “Where Peter Is,” Lewis casts Ratzinger–before, during, and after his pontificate–as an “outlier” in the post-Vatican II liturgical project. According to Lewis, Montini faithfully implemented Vatican II’s liturgical reform vision, Luciani welcomed it, Wojtyła continued it, and Bergoglio and Prevost defend it.
Ratzinger is the one allegedly out of step in the liturgical dance. I don’t share that take.
For one, I think several threads are tangled up here. Without attributing a motive to Lewis, I think there is a larger drive of historical revisionism under the surface behind this debate. Various circles that want to pretend that Vatican II launched reforms (not just liturgical) which Paul VI–if sometimes with doubts–implemented, but that the reforming spirit of the Council was waylaid for three-some decades while the Church wandered in the desert during the John Paul II/Benedict XVI era, only to have the “true” spirit of Conciliar reform recovered under the leadership of Pope Francis.
Proponents of the liturgical status quo are a subset of that larger “reform” crowd, often with their own agenda. Much of which seems to be seeing bogeymen of SSPX-ism in any questioning of what is called “Vatican II liturgy reform” 60 years out.
As for the subset of liturgical reform, I want to draw out several distinct themes.
First, not everything done in the name of the Council ipso facto means that those things reflect the will of the Council. Much has been done in the Council’s name and, often, even more tenuously, in the name of the “spirit of Vatican II,” whose link to the Council requires suspension of disbelief.
Take some issues that have become lightning rods, such as altar rails. Let’s be honest. There is nothing in Sacrosanctum Concilium prescribing altar rail removal. I cannot imagine the average bishop who voted for the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (such as my then-bishop in Trenton, the relatively traditional George W. Ahr) understanding his “placet” meant churches across the world should proceed to wreckovate their sanctuaries, resulting in the sanctuary bleeding into the rest of the church. It’s perhaps why sanctuaries of German cathedrals are put at the disposal of chicken jugglers while Home Depot parking lots become inviolate “sanctuaries” for illegal aliens.
I know there are liturgists who advocated for it in the name of “full and conscious participation of the faithful” participating in “celebrating” the Eucharist. And I know they were able to write the implementing documents that, in many cases, did not prescribe but suggested that possible outcome. Nevertheless, liturgical vandals quickly befell churches, “renewing” them in the name of an interpretation of what the Council required.
Yes, it is arguably an interpretation. And, six decades after the Council, asking whether interpretations of the Council have stood the test of time is not a betrayal of the Council, much less a schismatic act that threatens ecclesiastical “unity.”
The same can be said, mutatis mutandis, about the ongoing back-and-forth about the placement of the tabernacle. Behind that issue lies another question arguably none of the Council Fathers thought they were ratifying: that focus on the Eucharist as “source and summit” of the Christian life would be taken to mean that the reserved sacrament, the tabernacle, and Eucharistic adoration outside of Mass would acquire at least de facto subordinate places in typical post-Conciliar Catholicism, ostensibly as something their decisions mandated.
Compound this with suspicions about what people’s intentions might be, and one arrives at a kind of toxic liturgical “unity.” Consider, for example, the Bishop of Charlotte telling priests in 2025 not to use pre-1969 prayers when putting on vestments (the current Missal provides no vesting prayers), because it might be assumed to be a throwback to former liturgical forms. Is it better for priests not to pray as they prepare to celebrate Mass and to treat vesting as a purely utilitarian function for donning anachronistic clothing, ecclesiastical cosplay? Is the current banter that characterizes many a sacristy a more fitting pre-Mass atmosphere?
All this leads us back to the question of interpretation. Sixty years–three generations after Vatican II—is an appropriate interval by which to make an honest, nonpolemical assessment of the successes and failures of post-Conciliar implementation. That discussion seems to be the sort of thing that faithful Catholics–those who advocate for current models and those who question them–should be able to have synodally and otherwise.
It is perhaps the interpretation question where Benedict XVI was really the “outlier.”
Pope Paul VI implemented the Council. Lewis pooh-poohs the question of whether Montini truly grasped everything he was “reforming” and whether Annibale Bugnini was not necessarily playing both sides against the middle to get his preferred outcomes. Lewis invokes topline phenomena (“more Scripture, use of the vernacular … and active participation of the faithful”) to argue that John Paul I was totally in line with current trajectories, when the truth is we know almost nothing of where Luciani would have led the Church. Lewis further insists John Paul II was “unambiguous” in his support of new liturgical trends. And he portrays Francis as the one who saved the Church from liturgical regression, a path he sees Leo continuing without engaging “the views of those who reject the reform.”
But Benedict, he claims, is the odd man out.
I suggest a different reading of history. Paul VI was too close to events to see the full impact of what he approved. Where John Paul I would have gone is conjecture, not history.
John Paul II, who authored a book (Sources of Renewal) and held regular meetings in the Archdiocese of Kraków on conciliar implementation, also came from a country where many of the liturgical abuses already commonplace in the West were unknown. I suspect he may have discounted some of those reports; I can say from personal experience that, when I would relate to colleagues at the Catholic University of Lublin what was going on liturgically in some corners of the United States, they thought I was exaggerating. There is no doubt, however, that he sought to roll back what he saw as abuses, including the indiscriminate use of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, something most bishops failed to back up.
Francis, on the other hand, was probably accustomed to freewheeling liturgy in the Society of Jesus and in Latin America, which was in the throes of liberation theology. So Francis was, I think, generally more indulgent of that than of the “rigid” types of which he so disapproved. I cannot predict at this point where Pope Leo is going on liturgy.
In that group, Ratzinger stands out. He returned from the Council to see what its improvisational implementation looked like in Germany, especially in the academic milieu in which he lived. Wojtyła’s Church in Poland may have kept the lid on experimental liturgy, but Ratzinger’s in Germany certainly did not—and has not. The German Synodal Church is just its logical outgrowth.
For that reason, and as a theologian committed to the Church, Ratzinger did not feel obliged to toe the “company line” about everything being sunshine and roses. He recognized the wheat and the weeds.
He properly raised the question, for example, about liturgical translations that ignored the typical editions in favor of the translators’ preferences (and, sometimes, utter creativity). He did not hesitate to invoke the “experience” which is in such contemporary vogue to suggest that some “reform of the reform” was in order. As one familiar with the thought of the great liturgical theologian Romano Guardini–one of the guiding lights of liturgical reform–Ratzinger did not pretend that the perspective of time raised questions about particular things or their consequences done ostensibly in the name of the Council.
If that made him an “outlier,” then what Lewis wants is a publicist, not a theological thinker.
I say these things in part because I feel a certain kinship to Ratzinger. I would certainly not put myself in his league, but I do share his perspective–one sometimes upsetting to both extremes–that the Novus Ordo was a proper reform that, on balance, has been beneficial for the Church but which, at the same time, is imperfect and, after sixty years, can be honestly assessed for its deficiencies as well as its strengths.
That is not a comfortable position for some because it refuses unambiguously to take polemical sides (which should not be a posture in the Church). I recognize that this discussion is burdened by the Lefebvrist rejection of the post-conciliar reforms. But, of course, not every critic of those reforms or their details is a Lefebvrist. Neither is attachment to the Extraordinary Form (which does not include me) a closet subterfuge for Écône and the SSPX.
Ratzinger recognized that and was willing to talk about it. If that makes him an “outlier” in some way, it seems more encompassing than the new “inclusivity”.
Finally, isn’t it interesting that, amidst all the synodal talk of the past year–including talk that openly questioned received and established doctrine–that liturgical questions have been curiously bracketed out?
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Thanks, dear Dr John M. Grondelski, for another thoughtful & evocative article. My apologies if this response seems to sideline some of the contested matters.
A simple, elderly lay Catholic (yet with qualifications & a global experience of Christian theology) I’m in joy-filled awe of the perfection of the liturgy of the Holy Mass.
In every healthy congregation we begin with a sincere, trinitarian welcome to each other and to our precious celebrant. We then acknowledge that none of us can approach God’s Holiness except by confessing our sins and confidently assuring one another of God’s mercy for all who are truly repentant. We pray: “Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy” for our assembled eucharistic community.
Then, being newly shriven, we are confident to approach The Throne with loud exclamations of God’s Glory; recalling that Christians began singing ‘Gloria in Excelsis Deo’ before 128 AD! Think of that . . !
The earliest known creed – the old Roman – dates back to about 110 AD and we join together in loudly proclaiming our unchanging Catholic Christian faith in its descendant Nicene or Apostles Creed. This is all a grand and meaningful preparation for our approaching the table of The Lord as shriven, praising, worshipful, orthodox believing Catholics. A body that is truly catholic & thoroughly Christian.
That brings us to the place where we can feast on the soul-food of God’s Word: Epistles read and Psalms sung to prepare the way for The Good News of The LORD Jesus Christ Himself, welcomed by our cry of: “Glory to You, O Lord!”. Reverently marking our minds, lips, and hearts with the Cross of Jesus Christ – we’re proclaiming – “We believe – We will tell others – We will forever love Christ’s Word”.
How precious it is to listen to the Apostles’ account of Jesus’ teachings & life of miracles that uniquely confront a world in darkness with the Light of the Eternal Truth, in precious texts that come to us from the very start of First Century Christian community, still fresh & vibrant today. Oh! “Praise to You, Lord Jesus Christ!”
How often ? do we celebrate The Church as (irrespective of tumultuous politics & discombobulating philosophies & confusticating factions & schisms) THE FAITHFUL PROTECTOR & COMMUNICATOR OF THE 27 HOLY SPIRIT-INSPIRED TEXTS BY 9 APOSTOLIC AUTHORS; the very ‘Magn Carta’ of THE NEW AND BETTER COVENANT BETWEEN GOD AND US. Totally irreplaceable.
How wonderful: Catholic Christians have been singing ‘The Sanctus’ from before 96 AD.
Shouldn’t we be wrapped in awe as we say or sing this together?
Can we sense hosts of holy angels joining in our worship.
Jesus, our King, calls us to His table to feed on His Holy Body and drink His Precious Blood; confirming that we have LIFE in Him and He lives in us. Oneness with Christ is our guarantee of eternal life with God & with all those who love God (the whole point of our faith & of The Catholic Church). Hopefully we will all sense our deep unity: graced to be incorporated in One Body, far more that any sense of our individually fulfilling a religious duty!
We pray out loud ‘The Our Father’ – given us by Jesus Christ – and express His Peace to all our sisters & brothers.
Since every Catholic Christian who has ever lived is eternally incorporate in the One Savior, we are given a very potent reason to persevere in loving & serving each other. This is the love that will demonstrate to the world that Jesus Christ is truly The Son of The Father, given to save us (see, e.g., John 17:23).
Sharing Christ’s Holy Flesh that is Real Food,
we are together called to His perfect obedience to GOD’s Commandments.
Sharing Christ’s Precious Blood that is Real Drink,
we are together called to His unshakable, unbreakable, unlimited love.
As a passionate human being: incorporation in this amazing Love Feast is highly addictive.
As an experienced academic: the logic of the liturgy of Holy Mass is mightily persuasive. There is nothing else like this.
What a glorious gift amidst this world of shadows!
Quite honestly, for me the magnificence of the Holy Mass renders questions about altar-rails, priestly orientation, the use of Latin, etc., etc., etc. somewhat irrelevant – to say the least.
Worth looking at, “The Ratzinger Report (1985)” and then the “1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops” whose purpose was to guard against “divergent interpretations” of the Council. Ratzinger for four years already had been Prefect of the fully involved Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith (demoted by Francis into one dicastery among the many).
In his later writings Ratzinger distinguished between the “real” Council of the Documents and the outlier “virtual” Council of the media. Selections from “The Ratzinger Report” relevant to “divergent interpretations” today:
“After the phase of indiscriminate ‘openness’ it is time that the Christian reacquire the consciousness of belonging to a minority and of often being in opposition to what is obvious, plausible and natural for that mentality which the New Testament calls–and certainly not in a positive sense–the ‘spirit of the world'” (p. 36).
“Behind the ‘human’ exterior stands the mystery of a ‘more than human’ reality, in which reformers, sociologists, organizers have no authority whatsoever” (p. 46).
“We must not forget that the episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function” (p. 59).
“The saints were all people of imagination, not functionaries of apparatuses [….] the Church needs saints more than functionaries” (p. 67).
“Every Catholic must have the courage to believe that his faith (in communion with that of the Church) surpasses every ‘new magisterium’ of the experts, of the intellectuals” (p. 76).
“Many people have felt and said that the liturgy must be ‘made’ [….][This] is to lose sight of what is ‘distinctive’ to the liturgy, which does not come from what ‘we do’ but from the fact that something is ‘taking place’ here that all of us together cannot ‘make'[….] Many liturgies now lack all trace of this silence” (pp. 126-7).
“The Catholic confession is that without the apostolic succession there is no genuine priesthood, and hence there can be no sacramental Eucharist in the proper sense” (p. 161).
“The idea of a national, i.e., Germanic. anti-Latin Christianity gave a handle to Hitler, as did the tradition of State churches and the very strong emphasis on obedience to authority which is part and parcel of the Lutheran tradition” (p. 167).
SUMMARY: Not an “outlier,” nor an out-and-out liar.
Absolutely agree: there is a difference between the Council and what is alleged in its name. Revisionist theology benefits by blurring that distinction, which is what I tried to get at towards the end on the question of standing up for what the Church teaches (as opposed to what freerides that designation) versus those who are attached to the past in such a way as to be practically in schism, e.g., the “necessity” crowd of the SSPX.
Thank you, dear Peter D. Beaulieu.
Pope St Benedict XVI showed the way; may Pope Leo XIV faithfully follow!
“Behind the ‘human’ exterior stands the mystery of a ‘more than human’ reality, in which reformers, sociologists, organizers have no authority whatsoever” (p. 46).
“We must not forget that the episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function” (p. 59).
“The saints were all people of imagination, not functionaries of apparatuses [….] the Church needs saints more than functionaries” (p. 67).
“Every Catholic must have the courage to believe that his faith (in communion with that of the Church) surpasses every ‘new magisterium’ of the experts, of the intellectuals” (p. 76).
The One & Perrenial GOD, unseen but uniquely, fully, & solely revealed in Jesus Christ, simply IS. The works of man (including churchmen) are always fading away.
It’s only by loving obedience to Christ that anything in us will endure.
Quite honestly, for me the magnificence of the Holy Mass renders questions about altar-rails, priestly orientation, the use of Latin, etc., etc., etc. somewhat irrelevant – to say the least (Grondelski).
An honest appraisal. Would that the masses of Catholic believers, partial believers possessed that level of faith. I hold similar conviction toward the Eucharist. Experience in offering the sacrifice in different settings in different places ingrained in me the conviction that priest reverence, additions of former rubric does affect the faith of the Laity.
Leaving me with the appreciation of Benedict’s proposal that a limited retention of the TLM as proposed in Summorum Pontificum allows for transference from the older what’s missing in the new.
While I think that Dr. Grondelski makes some good points regarding (JP I) I think that Mr. Lewis is largely correct in asserting that Benedict XVI is a slight outlier on post Vatican II liturgical aesthetics. More traditional Novus Ordos can now be found in ways were I think pre Benedict XVI there couldn’t be. The TLM is also much more widely available, despite Traditionis custodes.
Although I clarify my comment in agreement with Grondelski that he was not an outlier because he fully appreciated the value of the Novus Ordo.
The comment that never made it through the technical hazards:
Quite honestly, for me the magnificence of the Holy Mass renders questions about altar-rails, priestly orientation, the use of Latin, etc., etc., etc. somewhat irrelevant – to say the least (Grondelski).
An honest appraisal. Would that the masses of Catholic believers, partial believers possessed that level of faith. I hold similar conviction toward the Eucharist. Experience in offering the sacrifice in different settings in different places ingrained in me the conviction that priest reverence, other past rubrics does affect the faith of the Laity.
Leaving me with the appreciation of Benedict’s proposal that a limited retention of the TLM as proposed in Summorum Pontificum allows for transference from the older to what’s missing in the new.
The comment that failed to survive the technical hazards of the day, to which my reply was addressed.
Quite honestly, for me the magnificence of the Holy Mass renders questions about altar-rails, priestly orientation, the use of Latin, etc., etc., etc. somewhat irrelevant – to say the least (Grondelski).
An honest appraisal. Would that the masses of Catholic believers, partial believers possessed that level of faith. I hold similar conviction toward the Eucharist. Experience in offering the sacrifice in different settings in different places ingrained in me the conviction that priest reverence, many of offering does affect the faith of the Laity.
Leaving me with the appreciation of Benedict’s proposal that a limited retention of the TLM as proposed in Summorum Pontificum allows for transference from the older what’s missing in the new.
Mike Lewis is a modernist who greatly dislikes anything that is traditional. He will not debate anyone who challenges him on his forums and will block you if you show him up. He is pro-Francis and Leo no matter what they say or do. If you disagree with them or him, he will attack you viciously.
If you read his writings, they are invariably “walls of text”.
Patrick,
Yes. Wherepeteris is a heterodox site, for one, masked by alleged papal obedience, but only if it’s francis and leo, but stops with any orthodox pope. Lewis and others there have openly run material challenging teaching on the usual issues- women’s ordination, same sex attraction, contraception. The line-up of their contributors is composed of its share of “progressive” types. That’s also to say they are ideologically driven, so it’s kind of pointless to take them seriously. Lewis also has zero training/schooling in any relevant discipline yet styles himself an expert. The same goes for some of their most frequent contributors. Lewis is demonstrably one of the most dishonest, nasty catholic personages on the internet. He has even celebrated bad things happening to people he sees as enemies, such as being gleeful over actor mel gibson’s house being burned down in the california wildfires. He then tried to claim he was only joking.
True. And yet it works. As a sycophant, Lewis has built a business belittling his betters, second only in scale to Taylor Marshall. The website should be renamed: Where Peter Is Not.
As for pope Benedict XVI, where is this saintly successor of Peter? God willing, Pope Benedict XVI will soon be declared a Saint in Heaven and Doctor of the Church.
“Without attributing a motive to Lewis”
I took a look at some of his screeds. Wow that’s serious gamma territory. Great walls of text.
WPI is an organ of boomer partisanship. Virtually all of the young priests in my diocese use the Benedictine altar arrangement, and while I know of several study groups that have taken up The Spirit of the Liturgy, I know of zero who have sought the wisdom of Traditionis Custodes. The boomers are whistling past the graveyard.
I have long been puzzled as to how much more “conscious participation” is supposed to happen in a Novus Ordo Mass than in the Dialog Mass I was taught as a child in the 1940s WE responded to the priest’s proclamations, sang the propers, and heard the Scripture readings repeated in English after having been chanted in Latin. Dual language Missals were readily available. For example, Fr. Stedman’s My Sunday Missal was cheap and pocket sized, with ample devotional and instructive material besides. Anybody else remember the Old Days as they actually were, not as idealized or criticized?
Good, searching comment, dear Sandra.
Blessed are we, indeed, whose Catholic faith was first formed in the 1940’s!
Ethical Encounter Theology provides the term ‘Sympathetic Resonance’ – referring e.g. to the positive feedback that *The Holy Trinity* bestows on those whose faith is childlike & unsullied. The New Testament, heart-felt faith, no less!
A skilled artisan once told me: “Don’t try to fix something that ain’t broke!”
How many faithful, mature-aged Catholics consider that most of the monkeying-around with the liturgy has done precious little good?
Always in the love of The Lamb; blessings from marty
My Sunday and daily St. Joseph Missal provided Latin and English texts for the entire liturgical year. It provided my Catholic education. I have it still, tattered and worn. The impromatur is Cardinal Spellman.
the vision of Tuy – Google Search
The Traditional Latin Mass Is More Than Just “Mass in Latin” | The Fatima Center
The history of Christianity is the history of a divine intervention in history, and we cannot study it apart from the history of culture in the widest sense of the world. For the word of God was first revealed to the people of Israel and became embodied in a law and a society. Secondly, the word of God became Incarnate in a particular person at a particular moment of history, and thirdly, this process of human redemption was carried on in the life of the Church which was the new Israel—the universal community which was the bearer of divine revelation and the organ by which man participated in the new life of the Incarnate Word. (Formation, 17)
Dawson’s Christendom and the Catholic Intellectual Life – Catholic World Report
Traditionis Custodes couldn’t even keep straight the number of regularly offered Mass Rites in the Latin Church. Why expect sound teaching from it?