Saturday, May 14, 2011

A Victory for the Rights of Catholics

From the time it became known that an instruction  on Summorum pontificum was coming, devotees of the Extraordinary Form feared -- not without reason -- that liberals in the Church would seize the opportunity to choke off the Pope's initiative to restore traditional worship and effectively shelve the pre-conciliar liturgy once again.  Now that Universae ecclesiae is out, it appears to be viewed as a defeat by some in the traditionalist camp.  Universae ecclesiae certainly must be regarded as a defeat by anyone unrealistic enough to demand the complete and universal suppression of the Mass of Paul VI, effective immediately.  The instruction certainly has its flaws, and as a lawyer, I cannot help spotting its loopholes.  But overall, I find myself bouyed and encouraged by Universae ecclesiae, which vindicates the legitimate rights of Catholics -- all Catholics, whether they like it or not -- in matters of liturgy and worship.  Some observations:

-- The hermeneutic of rupture -- the idea that we created a "new Church" after Vatican II, and that the traditional liturgy and all its accoutrements, including chant and Latin, must be abandoned -- is once again clearly condemned as error.  The notion that we are well rid of those things that we had "gotten away from" after the Council is not in line with the mind of the Church.  The instruction reminds us once again of what the Holy Father said in his letter to the bishops at the time the motu proprio was issued: "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture. What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful."

-- It is clearly the intent of the Holy Father that the Mass of tradition once again enter the mainstream of Catholic life.  It is not just for the trads; it is for all Catholics.  It is a part of our patrimony and our heritage as Catholics, and we have a right to it.  Those of us who are devoted to traditional worship are not to be considered as denizens of the fever swamps:
8. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum constitutes an important expression of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and of his munus of regulating and ordering the Church’s Sacred Liturgy.  The Motu Proprio manifests his solicitude as Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church,   and has the aim of:
a. offering to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure  to be preserved;
b. effectively guaranteeing and ensuring the use of the forma extraordinaria for all who ask for it, given that the use of the 1962 Roman Liturgy is a faculty generously granted for the good of the faithful and therefore is to be interpreted in a sense favourable to the faithful who are its principal addressees;
c. promoting reconciliation at the heart of the Church.
-- Innovations that have cropped up in the liturgy since 1962, such as altar girls and Communion on the hand, will not take place in the Extraordinary Form.  The ethos of the form shall thus be preserved.  Those who would seek to sabotage the regular celebration of the Extraordinary Form by introducing these things into it will not be permitted to do so.   Does this instruction stop them from trying?  It may very well do so in some cases, despite the fact that we generally cannot know about abuses that do not take place because they have been prevented.  But even if it be the case that no abuses are in fact prevented, we are still better off for having the instruction than otherwise, just as we are better off for having laws against stealing, even though the law fails to deter all thieves.

-- Even though liturgical practices introduced since 1962 do not apply to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the instruction gives the lie to the contemporary notion that that the Extraordinary Form is a dead thing, a museum piece or a fly stuck in amber.  The instruction contemplates, in Paragraph 11, the creation of new liturgical books and texts pertaining to the Extraordinary Form.  For example, feast days for saints canonized since 1962 will find a place in the Extraordinary Form.  No doubt the Feast of Divine Mercy will also be incorporated into the older rite.

-- The question of what constitutes a "group of the faithful existing in a stable manner" who requests the Extraordinary Form is to be liberally construed, as is the question of what qualifies a priest to celebrate the Extraordinary Form.  Groups of the faithful need not have been devoted to the Extraordinary Form prior to Summorum pontificum, and they need not belong to the same parish or even the same diocese.  Priests cannot be required to be expert Latinists in order to celebrate the Extraordinary Form -- a prerequisite, by the way, that would have disqualified the Cure of Ars himself, who flunked his Latin exams in seminary.

-- Bishops are to assist their priests and seminarians in training in the Extraordinary Form.  The instruction does not affirmatively require them to do so, though I am given to understand that the authoritative Latin text is actually much more strongly worded than the English translation.  If the bishops are exhorted to provide opportunities for their priests to train up in the older rite, even though they are not being ordered to do so, then it must be the case that they may not legitimately forbid or hinder such training.

Will there still be bishops, chanceries, priests and laity hostile to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass?  Yep.  Are there still dioceses where we who desire the Mass of Tradition are asking our priests, in effect, to be pioneers and take the arrows?  You bet.  But a priest is chosen and trained and fortified by the Sacraments, especially of Confirmation and Holy Orders, precisely to take arrows.  How can he be faithful and not expect arrows?  And can a faithful priest of the Roman Rite bear to remain for long ignorant of half of his rite, and to forgo unlocking the treasure that has enriched centuries of saints?   And how can we in the pews, who expect our priests to put themselves on the line for us, not support them and take the arrows with them?  The state of affairs that has persisted for almost the last half-century need not continue -- ought not continue -- now that it is plainer than ever that the hostile forces have neither the law nor the mind of the Church on their side.  This is a huge victory, if only we grab hold of it and use it. 

It's funny how, in an age when we are so big on claiming and asserting our "rights," so many  of us Catholics gladly jettison our legitimate rights to the treasures of our heritage and to the liturgy and sacraments properly celebrated.  Indeed, we bristle with indignation whenever anyone seeks to vindicate or even remind us gently of our legitimate rights.  We prefer to wear ourselves out chasing after the "right" of women to be ordained; the "right" of girls to serve on the altar; the "right" of laymen to march into the sanctuary and handle the Sacred Species; the "right" to receive Holy Communion on the hand; the "right" of middle-aged adolescent garage bands to play at Mass; the "right" to have the Church witness gay "marriage"; the "right" to contracept; and all sorts of other imaginary "rights" to which we have no legitimate claim and that we simply have no business pursuing.  Our thinking on the whole question of rights is now so warped as no longer to remotely resemble anything Catholic. 

Thank God Pope Benedict still thinks like a Catholic,  still shines a light on our true priorities, and still looks out for the legitimate rights that we throw away like yesterday's garbage. 

9 comments:

  1. Sigh..... and then there are priests like ours (in Canada for a few years, from India) who think that our choir moving from the front of the church to the choir loft was -and I quote him- "going backwards 50 years". Heavy sigh. Does that constitute, for our parish, taking an arrow, not for the priest but for the Church?

    ReplyDelete
  2. P.S. I would add that the business of making music is a huge distraction and therefore should never be at the front of the church for that reason alone. This is true no matter what century we are in, and is true even if you don't have any hams in the choir (which all to often is not the case).

    ReplyDelete
  3. "...Thank God Pope Benedict still thinks like a Catholic, still shines a light on our true priorities,...'

    I beg to differ with you, Counselor.

    APPLES ROTTING is a good way of describing the condition Holy Mother Church faces. (...from the writings of a Catholic Bishop).

    In two ways a rotten apple may cast a little light in the darkness of today's eclipsed Church.

    Firstly, we do not wait for every part of an apple to be rotten before we call it rotten as a whole, yet parts of it are still not rotten.

    In answer then to the question whether the apple is rotten, we must make a double distinction : as a whole, yes; in these parts, yes; in those parts, no.

    And secondly, while apple is not rot and rot is not apple, yet the rot is inseparable from its apple and cannot exist without it.

    Let us apply the first part of this common sense to the Novus Ordo Mass and the "Conciliar church", the second part to the "Conciliar church" and the Papacy.

    As for the New Mass, it is rotten as a whole by its Conciliar man-centredness, but while some parts are clearly not Catholic (e.g. the Offertory), other parts are Catholic (e.g. the Kyrie Eleison).

    Because it is rotten as a whole and slowly makes Catholics into Protestants, it is not fit to be attended, but that part which is the Consecration may be Catholic and valid. So one can say of the Novus Ordo Mass neither that it is valid so it can be attended, nor that it cannot be attended so it is invalid.

    In truth it may be valid in its essential part, but that is not a sufficient reason to expose one's faith to the danger of attending it as a whole.

    Similarly, today's Church is rotten as a whole insofar as Conciliarism is widespread throughout it, but that does not mean that every single part of the Church is rotten with Conciliarism. So it is as wrong to condemn any part still Catholic because of the Conciliar whole, as it is wrong to excuse the Conciliar whole because of those parts still Catholic.

    To fit one's mind to the reality, one must distinguish both between the different parts, and between the whole and the parts.

    And if we apply to today's Church also the second part of the comparison with a rotten apple, we can say that it is genuinely useful to speak of two churches, the "Conciliar church" and the Catholic Church, because Conciliarism is to be found in real life all through the Church, although in their pure state Conciliarism and Catholicism exclude one another like apple and rot.

    But they are not in real life separable any more than are the rot from its apple or any parasite from its host.

    In real life there is only one Church, the Catholic Church, suffering today all over from the Conciliar rot.

    Therefore as to a Conciliar Pope, it is a genuinely useful way of speaking to say that he is one head of two churches, because by his words and actions, sometimes Catholic, sometimes Conciliar, he places himself all the time at the head of both the Catholic Church and its Conciliar rot.

    But that is not to say that he is the head of two churches separate in reality.

    It is to say that he is head of both the Catholicism and the Conciliarism in the one real Catholic Church presently disfigured all over by the Conciliar rot.

    And why in Heaven's name are our Church leaders so enamoured of the Conciliar rot ?

    Because of the modern longing for liberty.

    That is another story. But meanwhile we must pray with might and main for Benedict XVI that he may see once more the difference between apple and rot!

    Pray for the Holy Father.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  4. In truth it may be valid in its essential part, but that is not a sufficient reason to expose one's faith to the danger of attending it as a whole.

    This is how we end up becoming too holy for the Church.

    Last I checked, attending Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation was a requirement. If you have access to Mass, you are required to go, even if it is only the Novus Ordo.

    That is another story. But meanwhile we must pray with might and main for Benedict XVI that he may see once more the difference between apple and rot!

    I think the Holy Father sees quite well, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "...19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church..."

    This is a dangerous statement.

    The attack you would make upon this statement does not square with your sentimental view of what you believe religion should be.

    Sailors have a saying "Any old port in the storm"

    I never have subscribed to that thought in any shape or form.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  6. "...19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church..."

    This is a dangerous statement.


    Hardly more dangerous than the situation those persons are already in who have placed themselves in schism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What is wrong with the statement by Benedict. It is clear and unassailable and it defines the boundaries.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What is wrong with the statement by Benedict. It is clear and unassailable and it defines the boundaries.

    One of which boundaries is still between those who are in union with Peter and those who are in schism. That must be the problem.

    ReplyDelete