In this edition of Oriens we publish an extraordinary correspondence between a young Australian and the Ecclesia Dei Commission. In response to debate over the Ecclesia Dei decree among relatives and friends John Gresser wrote to Rome for answers — and got them.

MY INTRODUCTION to the traditional Mass movement was painfully slow. Growing up in the country meant that my mothers' sound teaching about the Catholic faith was not necessarily augmented by what was presented to us liturgically in the few parishes I was able to attend. Beauty was scarce.

My first experience of a semi-traditional celebration of Mass was at the 1998 Family Conference in Sydney. Many would only remember the occasion because our star guest, Mother Teresa, was not able to attend. For me it marked the beginning of my life as a traditional Catholic.

The moment I knelt before Cardinal Gagnon and presented the boat to him so he could place the incense in the thurible was the moment I knew that attending Mass did not mean "putting up and shutting up". I discovered that the liturgy of the mass was not some bizarre, ancient or hero-worshipping ritual. It was, rather, fitting and entirely consistent with being Catholic. While I always knew that I did not have to take the garbage I was getting from dissident priests, feral nuns and liberated lay people, I now knew the reasons.

A handful of Masses celebrated according to the traditional Missal in Sydney over the succeeding five years served only to strengthen my love for the old Mass. There are no words to describe the interior devastation I felt on each return to the liturgical wasteland of my home parish on the mid north coast of New South Wales. To go home was like dying. The pain of a 'ritual' stunning in its mediocrity, intensified by these infrequent doses of tradition, served to increase and to sharpen my desire for the old rite and all the nourishment it offered me.

So, when I finally moved to live in Sydney I actively sought a rapid infusion of Catholic culture. At last, I was able to enjoy Mass! This was the perfect complement to the course of Thomistic studies which provided my reason for the coming to Sydney. The combination of these two Catholic treasures quickly built on the solid foundations so painstakingly laid by my parents. St Thomas gave meaning to the Mass and the Mass — the traditional Mass — gave meaning to St Thomas.

It was hard, however, to reconcile the object of my enthusiasm with the critical response it received in other quarters, especially when that criticism came from those whom I considered to be as 'conservative' as myself. Neither the Ecclesia Dei decree, nor even the foundation of a totally traditional society of apostolic life, the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP), in record time, and with the full approval and support of the Pope and of Cardinal Ratzinger, was enough for those who opposed the traditional option. No evidence of the Church's blessing on the traditional Mass and on those in love with it seemed sufficient to satisfy conservative critics of the path I had chosen. Finally, the difficulty which my own relatives experienced with my brother's decision to enter FSSP seminary in the United States, prompted my decision to write to Rome to obtain further clarification on the status of the traditional Latin rite.

When it was first suggested that a letter to Rome might yield a handy response, the thought that such a prompt reply would come to a relative back water of the Church, seemed fanciful.

I sorted through some ideas with a friend who knew how to write to Rome in a way which would be most likely to elicit a response. Some of the questions appeared rather odd, but others went straight to the heart of the matter. Answers to these queries would be direct replies to the objections which were being raised. Surely people would take notice of a Vatican Commission?

I could hardly contain my excitement when the Vatican envelope actually arrived less than three months after I had sent my letter. It was somewhat of an anti-climax when I finally opened it (click here to read first reply) because I already knew the answers. Though it did prove to be quite an event for others. It was read from a parish pulpit, included in an insert in the Australian distribution of The Latin Mass magazine, and copies had to be faxed and mailed urgently to many interested people. It served also as a response in the letters page of Sydney's Catholic Weekly to some adverse comments about the traditional Mass made by the official Archdiocesan spokesman, Fr Brian Lucas. It even ended up on the home page of the Society of St Pius X in England, listed as "some interesting correspondence."

The response this Roman reply received from those whom I was trying to convince of the legitimacy of the traditional Latin Mass did, however, surprise me. The way in which it was explained away gave me a clear insight into the mentality I was dealing with. For years these good people had stuck with the new Mass and defended it. In some cases this had turned into disdain for the old. Now that it had become obvious that what they had been helping (out of a sense of loyalty) to suppress had once again been permitted, they were unable to accept it. They had already been obliged to change rites once. They were not about to do it again.

I decided to write a second time (click here to read letter) — not so much because I needed answers for myself, but rather to ask the questions which other people were too afraid, or too unwilling, to ask. It prompted a remarkable Roman response (click here to read reply) and a clear vindication of my position — much clearer, in fact, than I had dared to hope for. This time the Commission replied within two weeks.

After showing the letter to a few people, I decided against showing others for they were unlikely to be open to what the Vatican said, considering their responses to the first letter. Instead of uniting the conservative element, the debate had turned to name-calling. I was branded a ghetto Catholic, a Lefebvrist and divisive. So much for bringing joy to my youth.

However, had it not been for these experiences, I doubt that it would have been possible for me to have developed the firmness of conviction about our liturgical heritage and its merits which I now have. Comforted by the certainty provided by these letters as to the real meaning of Ecclesia Dei, I am now confident that the harmony in the Church's liturgical life, which the Pope himself has desired, will one day be achieved.

The Pope's support for the restoration of traditional practices has also meant that many conservative Catholics are now more willing to consider the necessity of a new phase of tradition-orientated liturgical reform. Such a fair minded reconsideration, which in the past might not have been contemplated by some 'mainstream' Catholics, will certainly contribute much to a deepening of our knowledge of, and appreciation for, the 1500 years of liturgical development which we have inherited.

These traditions make up an integral part of our Catholic culture and heritage. They must be recognised in any reasonable discussion of the liturgy as an important part of our history.

 While I know that I personally have found in the traditional liturgy the most fitting ceremonies and customs with which to express our faith, these experiences have also shown me that the Catholic faith should be much more than private (or even communal) attachments to treasured customs. The Catholic faith is a way of life in which Christ the King truly reigns.

To read the correspondence between Mr Gresser and Msgr Perl click on the following:
 

Letter 1 from Mr Gresser
Letter 2 reply from Msgr Perl
Letter 3 from Mr Gresser
Letter 4 reply from Msgr Perl
 

Return to Oriens, Spring, 1998

Return to Oriens home page