While the theological problems of the “Tridentine Rite” are at odds with the teachings of the Council, the pastoral difficulties that will accompany the implementation of this motu proprio may prove to be an even greater problem, starting with the priests themselves. Where will competent priests, willing to celebrate the Mass and other sacraments according to the old rite, come from? Are we now to offer Latin and liturgy courses in seminaries to train our new priests to offer the Rite of Mass and the sacraments of the Medieval Rite on demand along with the liturgical rites mandated by Vatican II?
The official proclamation that this medieval rite is “extraordinary” compromises the coherence of the Church’s self-understanding and threatens to reduce the liturgy to a simple matter of individual “taste” rather than what it is meant to be: an accurate reflection of what we believe as Catholic Christians who live in the twenty-first century. Although cited several times in the document, the hallowed patristic axiom lex orandi, lex credendi (how we pray, so we believe) has been seriously ignored in this motu proprio.
In short, “Summorum Pontificum” weakens the unity of the Church by failing to support the foundational insights of the Second Vatican Council.
Since it is very unlikely that Catholics will flock en masse to their local parishes to demand that altars be turned back to the wall and that money be set aside for the purchase of new baroque chasubles with matching maniples, pax boards, and the reinstallation of communion rails, what’s all the fuss about? Why all the fear and loathing, which is mostly a repeat of the fear and loathing expressed when Pope John Paul allowed the old Mass some years ago. You see, among his other misstatements, nothing really new is happening here.
It’s a bit precious to whine about “the unity of the Church” given the phenomenal disunity driven, in part, by the radical, abrupt, and – let’s tell the truth for once – non-conciliar changes from the old to the new Mass. The Council did not mandate liturgical changes enacted in 1970, but, rather, called for retention of Latin, Gregorian Chant, and minimal reforms (such as scripture read in the vernacular).
Perhaps Mark Francis and his friends can tell us, without the deeply manipulative language they generally favor, exactly why they think that people who prefer the old liturgy should be shut out of their church. Why can’t these people have a litugy that speaks to their heart? What’s wrong with them, Mr. Francis? And, Mr. Francis, what’s this about multiple usages in the Latin Rite being unknown in history? As a trained liturgist, you should know that multiple usages were allowed prior to Trent. Even today, the Anglican Use is approved and in limited usage. What’s wrong with this one little usage?
And, all in all, I am not a devotee of the Mass of Pius V, but (and I’ve said it before), the liturgical contratemps is a surrogate for darker issues, which are partly summed up in the Holy Father’s identification of a “hermeneutic of discontinuity”, positing the Second Vatican Council as a decided rupture in the life of the Church, rather than an organic development.
There is something fishy about the logic of saying, “Nobody wants this, it will have little impact,” and “This completely undermines Vatican II.” Why not just the Gamaliel Principle?
You can indeed argue that something is both irrelevant and crucial.
As long as you don’t mind looking a fool.
#3 – or looking like a TECUSA reappraiser (Same sex blessings are of minimal impact. They aren’t that important and this will just blow over and they are an important justice issue.)
I notice that the writer of the article sniffs that the Pope the Pope … is not a trained liturgist while the professor himself is. This presumably makes the professor an expert and the Pope a mere dabbler. How patronising. Heaven save us from experts. Liturgists have such gall. We all know instances where they have assured us with a straight face that we must change this or that – even when it contradicts what they had told us only a few years before (eg where to place baptismal fonts). Moreover, can liturgics proceed in isolation from, for example biblical studies? We all know that Benedict XVI is very well read in that field, as his books show, not to mention western philosophy generally. My advice to the writer of the article: Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
The number of mistakes in this author’s piece are so many I must ask at what point does one have travel beyond simple error into the realm of deliberate lies.
I have yet to meet a liturgy professor with his head on straight. My liturgy professor at seminary was (1) the most theologically and politically liberal person on the faculty, barely qualifying as a Christian, and (2) was the liturgical equivalent of Colonel Quadafi. Bells, smoke … vestments: all bad. (This was Sewanee, BTW. Back in the days before the Chapel of the Apostles.)
As a retired Latin professor with a doctorate in medieval latin literature, I’d be happy to offer classes in liturgical Latin for priests wishing to use the Latin Mass–and at a modest fee, I promise.
I still remember my first Tridentine Mass at Sacred Heart Chapel at Notre Dame, opening convocation my first year of graduate school. The priests and choir were chanting the mass and waving the censor at the high altar while the faithful were banging their rosary beads against the pews. A year later Vatican II began, and a year after that there was joyful celebration of the Liturgy in English in every residence hall chapel. But the days of Ecclesia romana reformanda are gone.
It will be interesting to see how this decree affects the present retrenchment going on in the RC Church. Presently I only know one RC priest who could do a Latin mass justice. But as I said, I’m available to help.
One aspect about which I’ve heard little (to nothing) is how this decree is actually a response to the vox populi, a concept dear to liberals when it suits their agenda.
In fact, a quick browse of the internet found nearly well over 500 Latin Masses in the U.S., which includes Roman Catholic, SSPX, and independent Chapels.
The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), an order of faithful Roman Catholic priests dedicated to the Latin Mass, has a registry of about 260 sites where the Traditional Mass is celebrated, by their order, by the Institute of Christ the King (a similar order), and by diocesan priests. These aren’t huge numbers, by Catholic standards, but according to many web comments I have read, they are well-attended and growing. My parish has hosted an FSSP Mass for 20 years. It was always a fairly small – maybe 100? – but stable group. A friend tells me they have been growing dramatically over the past 2-3 years, and when I wandered through the church during their Good Friday Liturgy, it looked between 300 and 400 folk.
Given that all of this is according to the Indult rules now in effect, I am going to renew my questions:
1.) What’s so dramatic about this new decree that it signals the end of Ecclesia romana reformanda, and
2.) Why shouldn’t these people have a pastoral accomodation to address their spiritual needs? They certainly outnumber the 6 or 8 Anglican Use parishes that have their own liturgy.
My family has twitted me recently by asking me, as the Lone Catholic in the bunch, if I’m ready to learn Latin. After explaining to them what the situation actually is, I have been going on to say that I would welcome learning Latin, along with the rest of my parish, Anglos and Hispanics both, so that we would no longer be two parishes united by a single building!
Though many will disagree with his opinions, I believe Mark Francis was right about the recent [i]motu proprio[/i] in what it ignores and its missed opportunities.
For the most part, (to quote the [i]motu proprio[/i]) ‘Christ’s faithful who spontaneously request it’ and ‘parishes where a group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition exists stably’ are already well catered for under the existing arrangements.
And for all the talk about ‘leaving the ninety-nine to go after the one lost sheep’ the new arrangements (to come into force from 14 September) will not bring the Lefebvrists ‘into the fold’ – their problem has never been liturgy but ecclesiology – they just do not believe in the same Church.
Once the dust has settled, the newly all-powerful Ecclesia Dei Commision has made its mark with one or two star chambers, and everyone has calmed down, the main difference will be that some seminarians and younger clergy [i]of a certain persuasion[/i] (most of them, incidentally, bloggers and all of them knowing the private email addresses of the Roman curia) will be wearing more lace and promenading a little more grandly.
For the most part, the [i]plebs sancti Dei[/i] will be unaffected by all the affectation.