Wednesday, 12 August 2009

Archbishop Nichols and the Latin Mass Society

I think it was the first of the Extraordinary Form training conferences at Merton College, Oxford. I recall being impressed by two things. The first was Archbishop Nichols, then Archbishop of Birmingham, the diocese in which Oxford lies, willingness to be associated with the event. This really was quite a development, since one might have expected bishops to be as wary of the older form as they had been in the years before Summorum Pontificum. I think the significance of this can be underestimated. The second thing that impressed me was that he celebrated Mass at Merton in the Ordinary Form. This seemed to me at the time to accurately represent the relationship between the two forms of the Roman Rite as expressed in Summorum Pontificum.

It seems to me that Archbishop Nichols approach to the forthcoming conference at London Colney reflects exactly the same approach as this. The text of Archbishop Nichols message to participants in the conference has now appeared in the blogosphere.

If we compare Archbishop Nichols message to the description of the training conference in the Latin Mass Society's invitation letter, I think the difference in understanding of what is going on is quite clear.

The Latin Mass Society version first, taken from their website:
The conference is being organised with the help and encouragement of the Archdiocese...

Prior to the Conference there will be a Pontifical Mass in the Ordinary Form in Latin sponsored and organised by the Archdiocese at 11.00 am on the Monday. The conference proper will commence in the afternoon...

And Archbishop Nichols:
I welcome this short Training Conference provided by the Diocese of Westminster in conjunction with the Latin Mass Society. This is the correct description of this event. In both the teaching and law of the Church it is the bishop who has responsibility for the provision and oversight of the Liturgy...

...the ordinary Form of the Mass and this extraordinary Form serve one and the same Rite. They are, therefore, both finding their place in this Summer School and participants will wholeheartedly celebrate the Mass in each of these Forms.
There may well have been discussions behind the scenes that have resolved this difference and, if that is so, a public statement to that effect would be helpful.

I think "11.00 am on the Monday" will provide an interesting measure of exactly what is going on with regard to the Latin Mass Society and their training conferences. Participation in that Ordinary Form celebration appears to me a courtesy of ecclesial communion with the host Archdiocese and an indication of the appropriate relation of two forms in the One Rite. If the Latin Mass Society separate themselves from it I think I would agree with the view that such a distancing is not what is envisaged by Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter from Pope Benedict.

[The comment on this at New Liturgical Movement gives, in its last paragraphs, a substantiation of this last observation.]

5 comments:

Agellius said...

Joe writes, "If the Latin Mass Society separate themselves from it I think I would agree with the view that such a distancing is not what is envisaged by Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter from Pope Benedict."

Then I'm sure you feel equally strongly about other Church organizations that "distance themselves" from mass in the Extraordinary Form?

Joe said...

Agellius:

Within the framework of Summorum Pontificum, the accompanying letter of Pope Benedict, and, now, the motu proprio establishing the Ecclesia Dei commission within the Congregation for Doctrine,there is a greater freedom to celebrate the Extraordinary Form. But juridically I believe that there is not a symmetry between the positions of the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms.

Agellius said...

So EF adherents have an obligation to give equal support to the OF, but not vice versa?

In other words, if OF adherents are free to totally ignore the EF, is there a good reason why EF adherents should not be free to totally ignore the OF?

Joe said...

..EF adherents have an obligation to give support to the OF, but not vice versa?
RESPONSE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
...is there a good reason why EF adherents should not be free to totally ignore the OF?
RESPONSE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

Agellius said...

Um. I don't suppose you'd like to say what the "good reason" is?