Desiderio Desideravi: Pope Francis at his best!

I have enjoyed reading Pope Francis' Apostolic Letter Desiderio Desideravi, finding it a wonderfully enriching account of what we are called to experience in the celebration of the Liturgy, particularly the Liturgy of the Eucharist. I find very striking the idea that what draws us to join the celebration of Mass is, before a response on our part, the desire that God has for us:

Before our response to his invitation — well before! — there is his desire for us. We may not even be aware of it, but every time we go to Mass, the first reason is that we are drawn there by his desire for us. For our part, the possible response — which is also the most demanding asceticism — is, as always, that surrender to this love, that letting ourselves be drawn by him. Indeed, every reception of communion of the Body and Blood of Christ was already desired by him in the Last Supper.

Pope Francis develops this idea very beautifully in the first paragraphs of the Apostolic Letter.

A hope of Pope Benedict, expressed if I recall correctly in his letter to Bishops that accompanied the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum , was that there would be a mutual enrichment between the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms. One perspective from which to read Desiderio Desideravi is that of an indication of how much that could be said of the "antecedent form" of the liturgy can be employed to enrich our celebration of the "unique expression" of the Roman Rite. At the time when Summorum Pontificum was first published, I remember feeling that, whereas I was quite happy to live the ordinary life of the Church's liturgy celebrated according to the missal of Paul VI and John Paul II, I was now being put in a position where I was being asked to adopt a position vis-a-vis the earlier missal when that was something I had no calling to do. Again, I am not reading Desiderio Desideravi in the context of a dialogue with the "antecedent form", and it simply has not occurred to me that I should do so. Part of my pleasure in reading the Apostolic Letter is precisely that it does not ask me to do that, and I believe that those who would read it in that way will not be able to access its richness.

As I never tire of suggesting, I think it is important to read the whole - hence my including the link at the beginning of this post - and I think that is particularly true of Desiderio Desideravi. There is much more than the section in which Pope Francis discusses the art of the priest in his act of presiding at the Eucharistic Celebration which I quote below. Even if  I do not post further on Desiderio Desideravi I will nevertheless be returning to read more carefully the other sections. Why I have chosen to quote this section is that the idea of "presiding" appears to me to have entered into the liturgical vocabulary at the time of Vatican II, and Pope Francis' account is the first I have read that offers a properly theological/liturgical insight into the meaning of "presiding". 

56. The priest lives his characteristic participation in the celebration in virtue of the gift received in the sacrament of Holy Orders, and this is expressed precisely in presiding. Like all the roles he is called to carry out, this is not primarily a duty assigned to him by the community but is rather a consequence of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit received in ordination which equips him for such a task. The priest also is formed by his presiding in the celebrating assembly.

57. For this service to be well done — indeed, with art! — it is of fundamental importance that the priest have a keen awareness of being, through God’s mercy, a particular presence of the risen Lord. The ordained minister is himself one of the types of presence of the Lord which render the Christian assembly unique, different from any other assembly. (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 7) This fact gives “sacramental” weight (in the broad sense) to all the gestures and words of the one presiding. The assembly has the right to be able to feel in those gestures and words the desire that the Lord has, today as at the Last Supper, to eat the Passover with us. So, the risen Lord is in the leading role, and not our own immaturities, assuming roles and behaviours which are simply not appropriate. The priest himself should be overpowered by this desire for communion that the Lord has toward each person. It is as if he were placed in the middle between Jesus’ burning heart of love and the heart of each of the faithful, which is the object of the Lord’s love. To preside at Eucharist is to be plunged into the furnace of God’s love. When we are given to understand this reality, or even just to intuit something of it, we certainly would no longer need a Directory that would impose the proper behaviour. If we have need of that, then it is because of the hardness of our hearts. The highest norm, and therefore the most demanding, is the reality itself of the Eucharistic celebration, which selects words, gestures, feelings that will make us understand whether or not our use of these are at the level of the reality they serve. It is obvious that this cannot be improvised. It is an art. It requires application on the part of the priest, an assiduous tending to the fire of the love of the Lord that he came to ignite on the earth. (Lk 12:49)

58. When the first community broke bread in obedience to the Lord’s command, it did so under the gaze of Mary who accompanied the first steps of the Church: “these all continued with one accord in prayer with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus.” (Ac 1:14) The Virgin Mother “watches over” the gestures of her Son confided to the Apostles. As she protected the Word made flesh in her womb after receiving the words of the angel Gabriel, she protects once again in the womb of the Church those gestures that form the body of her Son. The priest, who repeats those gestures in virtue of the gift received in the sacrament of Holy Orders, is himself protected in the womb of the Virgin. Do we really need a rule here to tell us how we ought to act?

59. Having become instruments for igniting the fire of the Lord’s love on the earth, protected in the womb of Mary, Virgin made Church (as St Francis sang of her) priests should allow the Holy Spirit to work on them, to bring to completion the work he began in them at their ordination. The action of the Spirit offers to them the possibility of exercising their ministry of presiding in the Eucharistic assembly with the fear of Peter, aware of being a sinner (Lk 5:1-11), with the powerful humility of the suffering servant (cf. Is 42ff), with the desire “to be eaten” by the people entrusted to them in the daily exercise of the ministry. 

60. It is the celebration itself that educates the priest to this level and quality of presiding. It is not, I repeat, a mental adhesion, even if our whole mind as well as all our sensitivity must be engaged in it. So, the priest is formed by presiding over the words and by the gestures that the Liturgy places on his lips and in his hands. He is not seated on a throne because the Lord reigns with the humility of one who serves. He does not rob attention from the centrality of the altar, a sign of Christ, from whose pierced side flowed blood and water, by which were established the Sacraments of the Church and the centre of our praise and thanksgiving.

Desiderio Desideravi is, I think, Pope Francis at his very best! There is a lot here for me still to read and reflect on.

SSPX: a flawed proposal?

When he issued the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI also wrote an accompanying letter to the bishops of the world. That letter explained the intentions behind the juridical provisions of the motu proprio itself. It is worth noting two points from the letter:

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question. Firstly, in responding to the concern that the greater provision for celebration of the Extraordinary Form would call in to question the Liturgical reforms since Vatican II:

This fear is unfounded.  In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy.  The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration.  It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”.  Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

And secondly, Pope Benedict clearly demonstrated an expectation that it is the Missal of Paul VI, and not that of John XXIII, that should unite parish communities:

...the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.  The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.  The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal. 

Summorum Pontificum appears to me to have had two unfortunate consequences, neither of which were intended when it was promulgated. The first, which was largely transitory, was that Catholics with no attachment to the Extraordinary Form felt that they had to "take a stance", one way or another, with regard to the Extraordinary Form, when the living of a Catholic life demanded no such thing. This has largely dissipated with the passage of time (though a train of thought among Traditionalists is perhaps bringing it to the fore again). The second has been the legitimacy given to a subsequent promotion of the Extraordinary Form, more or less over and against the Ordinary Form, within the Traditionalist movement, and from within the Traditionalist movement to the wider community of the Church. The initial "headline" back in 2007-8, and maintained today, was the continued use of the term "Traditional Latin Mass", with its inherent suggestion that, juridically speaking, the Extraordinary Form was more "traditional" than the Ordinary Form, when the letter to bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum , in speaking of two forms of the same rite, indicates that the one form is as "traditional" as the other. This has reached its ultimate destination in the recent efforts of Dr Shaw to claim the Extraordinary Form as the (only) place to find authentic Catholicism (here), something that I do not think was at all envisaged by Benedict XVI.

In summary, the Traditionalist movement has taken Summorum Pontificum as legitimising a promotion of the Extraordinary Form in  a manner and a context that has no justification whatsoever in Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter to bishops themselves.

So what will happen if the Society of St Pius X is allowed to become a Personal Prelature and its situation with respect to the universal Church is "regularised"? Bishop Fellay's recent television interview, which gave rise to speculation about this possibility, is now online with English subtitles (my sample viewing suggests that the subtitles are very accurate to the original French); and this post, though it draws largely on a different interview, appears to me to correctly present the position of Bishop Fellay articulated in the television interview.

Bishop Fellay suggests that a number of things are already in place as far as the every day life of the Society of St Pius X is concerned that represent a degree of "regularisation" of their situation: the permission of Pope Francis that allows their priests to validly / licitly confer absolution in the Sacrament of Penance, and a certain recognition of the (strictly speaking illicit) ordination of priests by local dioceses in the place of ordination are examples. The new situation of the Extraordinary Form created by Summorum Pontificum is also relevant here, in a way that is entirely consonant with the intentions expressed by Pope Benedict in his letter to bishops. But Bishop Fellay is equally clear with regard to the Society's non-negotiables - see from about 07:20 onwards in the television interview and the paragraph "A Battle of Ideas" in this post. In summary, with regard to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council that have been controverted by the Society over the years, there is no movement on the part of the Society whatsoever. The question for Bishop Fellay and the Society is whether a suggestion that these controverted points can in some way not be considered essential as part of what is termed "Catholic" would allow them, from a "regularised" position within the Church, to continue to fight their position over and against that generally accepted in the wider Church and upheld by the conciliar and post-conciliar teaching office of the Church. Though Bishop Fellay sees some signs of this possibility being offered, he appears far from certain as to whether or not it will materialise in a full reality. Given how clear Bishop Fellay is in the interview, it is surprising to me that the speculation about a possible "regularisation" has gained as much traction in the media as it has.

Why do I find the prospect of a "regularisation" of the situation of the Society of St Pius X concerning?

Given the lack of movement of the Society over controverted issues, any "regularisation" is going to legitimise to the wider Traditionalist movement the notion that certain key teachings of the Second Vatican Council are in some way "optional" as far as being Catholic is concerned. (We are not talking here of developments after the Council that are contrary to the substance of its teaching, but of the teaching itself.) Should the Holy See be explicit in ruling this out, it appears to me unlikely that the Society will accept regularisation. Should, in the interests of charity and the promotion of communion and to avoid a rejection of the proposal by the Society, some form of "future discussion" be allowed within the process of regularisation, the precedent of the response to Summorum Pontificum and the more recent advocacy of the Extraordinary Form as the locus of authentic Catholicism, is that the Traditionalist movement will in any case conclude that the controverted issues are "optional" and seek to drive a coach and horses through the attaching conditions, to the confusion both of their own adherents and others (though I suspect that Bishop Fellay himself, on the basis of what I have seen in his television interview, has an intelligence and integrity that would not lead him to encourage such a misapprehension).

Whilst - irony of ironies - one might wish to position the controverted issues at a lower or higher place within a "hierarchy of truths" as the basis for possible future discussions between the Society and the Holy See after "regularisation", and therefore arrive at an evaluation of how central they are to being "Catholic" as a step to "regularisation", that does not make the teaching of the Council optional. But there is a nicety in this that the Traditionalist movement is unlikely to respect.

The end of Traditionalism?

Traditionalists have always risked the following temptations:

1. That of being "cafeteria Catholics", but ones who pick different bits of the Catholic whole than do the liberal minded to whom at one time the Traditionalists would have applied this epithet. Isn't this the import of the discussion of the "non-magisterial" nature of those recent exercises of the office of the Successor of Peter that are not amenable - and this appears now to extend beyond Pope Francis?

2. That of making absolute for all time those things that are relative to their own particular time or place. Isn't this what lies behind the insistence on the "Traditional Latin Mass", even though Pope Benedict indicated that the Ordinary Form, celebrated according to the Missal of Paul VI, should be considered an authentic expression of the tradition of the Church?

3. That of becoming an alternative to the present day teaching office of the Church, with its own respected authorities and defining axioms. Do we not see this in the replacing of the "non-magisterial" in the exercise of the office of the Successor of Peter with the teaching of the Traditionalist "blogisterium", something that the internet has enabled in a way not seen before? And isn't there an irony in its claim to authentication by the support in the media of Catholic intellectuals* when it was precisely such a display of intellectuals in the media that they blame for undermining catechetics in the 1960s and 1970s?

4. That of living in a permanent state of contestation with others in the Church. Do we not see this in the critique of "conservatives" now, when in the past that contestation might have been directed only towards the liberal minded in the Church? Where other movements in the Church  can find their origin in a founding charism, an individual gift of grace given at a time and place but with a value for the Church as a whole, does not the Traditionalist movement only find its definition in contestation with the contemporary life of the Church in favour of a concept of "Tradition"?

5. That of siding with a concept of Tradition over and against the Successor of Peter. Do we not see this in the discussion of "conservatives" who have "sided with the Pope against Tradition"? When one moves aside from the exercise of the office of the Successor of Peter - and, indeed, from that of an ecumenical council - does not Tradition become something of the past rather than something that has its living expression in the exercise of office in the Church? Are we not seeing a certain legitimisation here of the stance taken by the Society of St Pius X at the time of their illicit episcopal ordinations?

When I read something like this, from a spokesman of the Traditionalist movement, and I cut through its apparent credibility and its pigeon-holing of others, do I not in reality see Traditionalism arriving at a destination that is inherent in its risks highlighted above? A move away from a living of a Catholic whole towards an isolated corner, in a permanent state of "against" and adhering to a certain concept of Tradition as its prime source of judgement?

...it means is that a very large proportion of our conservative Catholic voices have been forced to reconsider the narrative, which has been a favourite of their school of thought, that everything which has gone wrong has gone wrong because of people misunderstanding or mis-implementing Vatican II or the post-Conciliar popes. When a pope has made it clear that his personal view is something nor really consistent with the Tradition--Paul VI on the liturgy, John Paul II on the death penalty or the authority of the husband over the family--they have tended to side with the Pope against Tradition, despite the fact that the Papal statements on the subject tended to lack magisterial weight....

...What happens to ultra-montanist Catholic conservatives** who finally realise that some at least of the Church's problems go right to the top--who take, as the metaphor of the hour has it, the red pill?

Ask a Traditionalist. Almost all us have gone through this process personally: I certainly have.

That move from the "conservative" to the "Traditionalist". Isn't it telling that the terms are "conservative" and "Traditionalist", and not "Catholic"?

 

Are we not instead called to live according the Catholic "whole", in which Tradition lives in its context of Scripture and the living teaching office, the Magisterium?

*... but are these intellectuals in large part from among the "usual suspects" of Traditionalism?
** .... the irony of this when Pope Francis has been accused of setting up "straw men"!

SSPX as a Personal Prelature? A warning

When Pope Benedict XVI made provision, in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, for a more ready celebration of the Extraordinary Form, there was no intention on his part that this should give rise to a "restoration" of the previous Liturgy over and against that promulgated by Pope Paul VI. Rather his intention was to create a sense of a "home" for those who enjoyed an attachment to that Liturgy in the wider Church. As well as indicating a care towards those attached to the Extraordinary Form who had retained their fidelity to local Ordinaries and the Holy See, the Motu Proprio also represented a step that might have helped the Society of St Pius X to regularise its position with regard to the universal Church, something that has not as yet come to pass.

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden.  This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. [Letter to Bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum]

Art 1.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage.  These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite. [Summorum Pontificum Art 1.]

For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.  The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.  The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal. [Letter to Bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum].

With the passage of time since 2007, it appears to me that those promoting the celebration of the Extraordinary Form have become increasingly open about the selective way in which they wish to implement Summorum Pontificum. They are happy to take the easier access to such celebrations - but they do not accept the indications in Pope Benedict's letter with regard to the position of the Missal of Paul VI, the notion of mutual enrichment or the idea that the two forms of the one Roman Rite are equally "of tradition". This was expressed quite explicitly recently on the blog of the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society, and his citation of Michael Davies is suggestive of how far this attitude towards contemporary ecclesial life may be systemic among traditionalist Catholics:

What is significant about a document from Rome is what it changes, not what it says. This is an exegetical principle of the late Michael Davies: when reading a new document, ask What does it allow which was not previously allowed? What does it forbid which was not previously forbidden? The rest is padding. The truth of this principle becomes clear with the assistance of hindsight. What is significant about Paul VI's Memoriale Domini is that it allowed Communion in the Hand: it is irrelevant that nine tenths of the thing is hymn of praise for Communion on the Tongue, and that it actually says that the existing rules aren't being changed. That 90% of the document is inert, like the polystyrene padding in a parcel. In exactly the same way, what is significant about Summorum Pontificum is that the Traditional Mass is allowed without permission from bishops. The rhetorical concessions to liberals unhappy about this, slipped in here and there, are of no significance. Getting worked up about them is a complete waste of time.

As far as the Liturgy goes this may not be leading to great division within the Church, though it is not likely that it genuinely promotes that "reconciliation in the heart of the Church" desired by Pope Benedict. The vast majority of us continue to use the Missal of Paul VI; and the typical parishioner is highly unlikely to be affected in any way by Summorum Pontificum.

However, the stakes are much higher with regard to the rumoured reconciliation of the Society of St Pius X in the form of a Personal Prelature.  According to the interview with Archbishop Pozzo in La Croix, (according to the account given here as I am not able to find the link to the original):

"The difficulties raised by the SSPX concerning the Church-State relationship and religious freedom, the practice of ecumenism and dialogue with non-Christian religions, certain aspects of the liturgical reform and its concrete application, remain subject to discussion and clarification but do not constitute an obstacle to a canonical and juridical recognition of the SSPX. 

"The documents of the Second Vatican Council must be received with the required degree of adherence.

"The acceptance of the texts on relations with other religions is not a prerequisite for the canonical recognition of the Lefebvrist society, and certain questions can remain 'subject to discussion and clarification'." Anticipating already a canonical recognition —for which he has been working since 1987— the prelate announces that the Second Vatican Declarations "will, even after the canonical recognition, remain subject to discussion and deeper study, in order to obtain greater precision and avoid the misunderstandings or ambivalences that we know to have spread throughout today’s ecclesial world.” 

According to Abp. Pozzo, the SSPX is requested "to accept that the Magisterium of the Church is the only one entrusted with guarding, defending and interpreting the deposit of the Faith". 

If traditionalist Catholics take the same attitude to this reconciliation, should it occur as rumoured, as they have taken to Summorum Pontificum, they will rejoice at the establishment of the Personal Prelature........and consider any accompanying affirmations of the necessity of fidelity to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council to be of no account. Archbishop Pozzo's diplomatic use of the words "discussion" and "clarification" should not hide the fact that there is doctrinal disagreement here.

The very real danger is that, should a regularization of the canonical situation of the SSPX take place before the issues relating to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council are resolved, traditionalist Catholics will take it as a green light to dissent from that teaching and from the teaching of subsequent Popes. Rather than achieving a "reconciliation at the heart of the Church" it will contribute to an institutionalising of a division at the heart of the Church.

Presentation or Purification?

2nd February sees the celebration of the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord (Ordinary Form) and the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Extraordinary Form). The name of Candlemass also applies, because of the blessing and procession of candles associated with the celebration of this feast.

So far as I can tell, the Liturgical texts, at least for the celebration of Mass and the procession of candles, are similar in both the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms. The Old Testament reading is from Malachi 3:1-4 and the Gospel is the account of the Presentation. I think the Collect is the same in both forms, too. This suggests a greater affinity to the title of the Feast in the Ordinary Form, which indicates it as being a Feast of the Lord rather than a Feast of the Virgin Mary.

However, in the Collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary there is a Mass entitled "The Blessed Virgin Mary and the Presentation of the Lord". According to the introduction to this Mass given in the Sacramentary for this Collection:

In this mystery of  salvation, Our Lady:

- in accordance with the Law of Moses (see Leviticus 12:1-8) submitted to the ritual of purification after childbirth, although as the "purest of virgins" from her "chaste womb" she had "brought forth in purity the Son of the Eternal Father" (Entrance Antiphon);

-faithfully carried out the law of the firstborn (see Exodus 13:1-2), redeeming with the offering of the poor (see Luke 2:24; Prayer over the offerings) her Son, "the author of the New Law" (Collect), "the Redeemer of us all" (Prayer over the offerings), "the glory of" the "people Israel and the light of all nations" (Preface; see Luke 2:32), the "Lord, the Saviour of the world" (Communion Antiphon);

- as "the handmaid of (God's) plan of salvation" (Preface) saw in her Son "the spotless Lamb, to be sacrificed on the altar of the Cross for our salvation (Preface) and offered him to the Father.

The texts of the Mass also recognise the Virgin Mary as the "virgin daughter of Zion", and the exemplar of the faith and life of the Church, described in the Collect as the "chaste Bride of Christ". The Collection does not give any indication of the origin of the Liturgical texts used.

However, what the texts and introduction for the Mass in the Collection drew to my attention was that, whichever title is used for the Feast celebrated on 2nd February, and consequently whether it is seen as being primarily a Feast of the Lord or a Feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the content of what is being celebrated is essentially the same. In particular, in adopting the title "The Presentation of the Lord" the Liturgy of the Ordinary Form has not turned aside from the elements of the celebration which would be expressed by the title "The Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary".

Some quick thoughts that follow:

1. Is there an opportunity for "mutual enrichment", or of assimilation of this celebration in the two forms of the Roman Rite?
2. Theologically, what does this celebration offer in the discussion of the relation of Christian faith to Judaism?
3. Liturgically, what does this celebration teach about the origins of Christian Liturgy in the practices of the Jewish religion?

Maintaining the Church's Liturgical traditions?

In commenting on the recent change to the rubric of the Mass of Maundy Thursday in the Ordinary Form, the Latin Mass Society statement concludes:

These concessions have moved many to reconsider the Extraordinary Form, which is not affected by this decree, or similar concessions to liturgical abuses in the past. It is in the Extraordinary Form that the Church's liturgical traditions are maintained.

And commenting on the celebrations of Christmas Masses in the Extraordinary Form:

We have a long way to go, in making the Traditional Mass genuinely available to Catholics in England and Wales. But thanks to the tremendous work of the priests who love this Mass, and to the faithful who support them - including the Latin Mass Society - we are moving in the right direction.

And more recently:

What we have seen again and again is that where the Extraordinary Form is offered every week on a Sunday morning, even in places with no previous demonstrable demand for it, it quickly attracts a growing congregation of young people and families, and can play an important part in conversions and vocations to the priesthood....Let's stop blaming people for not knowing what has too often been deliberately hidden from them, and do our best to give them access to the liturgical riches which are every Catholic's birth-right.

 1. For all the publicity associated with it, the celebration of the Extraordinary Form remains of interest and immediate value to a minority, more or less small, within the Roman Rite. The likelihood of it ever being otherwise is remote, and the pretence that it might be so is becoming increasingly frustrating. The growing congregation that appears where there has been no previous demonstrable demand is, I suspect, attracted from a wider geographical area and not correctly associated with the one location; and, as I write, I can recall two instances in the blogosphere where it is the same familiar faces that are recognised at celebrations of the Extraordinary Form. As Pope Benedict wrote in his letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum, and as I believe still applies today:

The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often.  Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

Moreover, the idea that the Extraordinary Form should be made readily available in each and every part of the England and Wales, even to the extent of being celebrated in every parish, has no justification in either Summorum Pontificum or Pope Benedict's accompanying letter.

2. As two forms of the same Rite, there is, from the juridical point of view, nothing that is more "of tradition" about the Extraordinary Form than there is about the Ordinary Form. This is the sense of Pope Benedict's words in his letter, read as they should be in the context of his remarks about mutual enrichment:

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal.  In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.  What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.  It behoves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. 

Whilst the traditionalist might want to read this in favour of widespread celebration of the Extraordinary Form, it more correctly refers to  the influence on celebrations of the Ordinary Form of the Extraordinary Form. It is not legitimate to assert that the Extraordinary Form in some way preserves the Liturgical tradition in a way set over and against the Ordinary Form; and those who wish to celebrate the Ordinary Form in a faithful manner cannot but resent such an assertion. Traditionalists talking among themselves might wish to say so; but they do not have a right to assert it to those who wish faithfully to celebrate the Ordinary Form.

3. This last observation is related to the idea of "mutual enrichment" to which Pope Benedict referred in his letter. In persisting in talking of the "Traditional Latin Mass", and taking little or no interest in how the celebration of the Extraordinary Form might contribute to the celebration of the Ordinary Form, the traditionalist movement is, in effect, creating a kind of enclave from which there is trumpeted a superiority of the Extraordinary Form. Those outside the traditionalist enclave are not going to be very interested. Their "birth right" would be better served by a positive engagement of the Extraordinary Form with the Ordinary Form. Both the traditionalists themselves and the Commission Ecclesia Dei appear to me to have singularly failed in this, even at the relatively basic level of showing an interest in unifying the calendar between the two forms and inserting the celebrations of new saints into the Missal of 1962.

So, dear traditionalists, do be more realistic about the scale of your enterprise .... a little less convinced of your own righteousness.....  and a little more aware of the temptation to become your own magisterium.

Louis Bouyer on mutual enrichment?

I would suggest that the advocates of traditional Catholicism, in its post Summorum Pontificum version, are not really interested in the mutual enrichment between the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms sought by Pope Benedict XVI.

It's perhaps not a surprise that they should make much of the chapter in Louis Bouyer's Memoirs in which he gives a trenchant and critical account of his experience in working as a member of the post-Conciliar Consilium revising the Liturgy. There is perhaps a particular glee in noting Fr Bouyer's scathing observations about the modus operandi of the then Mgr Annibale Bugnini. The account of the writing, at least in part, of Eucharistic Prayer II in a Trastevere restaurant to meet a deadline the following morning also raises a chuckle.

But Fr Bouyer also notes the enrichment arising from the re-introduction to the Missal of " a good number of splendid prefaces taken over from ancient sacramentaries and thanks to the wider biblical readings (although, on this latter point, there was too much haste to produce anything satisfactory)". [English translation p.223]. He particularly praises the new Common Preface I; and has already referred to "three Eucharistic Prayers which, despite rather wordy intercessions, reclaimed pieces of great antiquity and unequalled theological and euchological richness" [p.220]. Can we perhaps see here something of the origins of Pope Benedict's suggestion that some of these new prefaces be introduced into the Missal of the Extraordinary Form, a proposal on which those attached to the Extraordinary Form show no sign of moving forward?

I would suggest that Fr Bouyer's summary of his account [English translation p.224] clearly recognises things of value in the Ordinary Form (my emphasis added):

After all of this, it's not much surprise if, because of its unbelievable weaknesses, the pathetic creature we produced was to provoke laughter or indignation - so much so that it makes one forget any number of excellent elements it nevertheless contains, and that it would be a shame not to salvage as so many scattered pearls in the revision that will inevitably be called for.

If Fr Bouyer's account is read as a whole, and not in a selective way, there appears to me an undeniable impetus in the direction of mutual enrichment.

The same chapter in the Memoirs includes an account of Fr Bouyer's participation in the International Theological Commission, from which he eventually resigned. In Fr Bouyer's account, he would usually be seated at meetings of the Commission between one Fr Joseph Ratzinger (traditionalist cheer?) and a certain Fr Hans Urs von Balthasar (traditionalist boo?). Now doesn't that make one's mouth water at the thought of the coffee break exchanges that might have taken place between these three!

Replying to two comments received ...

...As someone who goes to both forms of the Mass I can't help but see the pews in the OF emptying quite quickly around me while the pews around me at the EF of the Mass, when I can get there, are slowly filling, almost like a reverse osmosis but the Church is going to be decimated before it rebuilds...

I would suggest that the comparative experience of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms related in this part of a comment received can only be a partial picture. There is not a single narrative of "growth where you have the Extraordinary Form" and "decline where you have the Ordinary Form". One has only to look at the life of the new movements in the Church to see faithfulness to the Church and to an original charism that result in ecclesial growth, with little or no reference to the Extraordinary Form. Pope Francis draws attention to this growth with his knowledge and experience of Communion and Liberation and the Charismatic Renewal. (One or two of the remarks of Pope Francis that have caused most disaffection in Traditionalist circles have been a familiar part of the ecclesial conversation in these movements for some time.)

I would suggest that the particular situations of Extraordinary Form and Ordinary Form celebrations vary from place to place, and with the circumstances of the different places. The experience of one particular place should not be extrapolated to become the experience of each and every place. And I see a number of places where the pews around me at the Ordinary Form are full.

I found this account informative, in a number of ways, with regard to experience of attending the Extraordinary Form: the reform of the reform.

..you seem not to have not read that Pope Benedict wanted the EF of the Mass in every parish...

But it is the last three words of the headline of the news report to which I was referred that says it all:
Pope would like Tridentine Mass in each parish, Vatican official says . "Vatican official says" ..... Cardinal Hoyos speculation in this regard during a visit to London in June 2008 would appear to still be the cause of wishful thinking on the part of at least some advocates of the Extraordinary Form. It is very difficult indeed to read Summorum Pontificum and Pope Benedict's accompanying letter and take away from them an intention that the Extraordinary Form should be established in every parish.

Pope Benedict's letter  clearly indicates that it is the Missal of Paul VI, celebrated with reverence, a sense of the sacred, and with obedience to its directives, that will unite parishes; it is that form that remains the ordinary form of celebration.  The preserving of the "riches that have developed in the Church's faith and prayer" to which Pope Benedict refers in his letter is as much about this enrichment of celebrations of the Ordinary Form from the greater availability of the Extraordinary Form. It is incorrect to read it as an intention that the Extraordinary Form should be celebrated in every parish, and I am not aware of any direct statement to such an effect from Pope Benedict himself.

An open letter to the Bishops of England and Wales (by way of reply)

As you will be aware, Pope Benedict XVI's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum established that there should be two forms of celebration of the liturgy in the one Roman Rite. The one, termed the "ordinary form", is that according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI, and its two subsequent editions published by the authority of Pope John Paul II. The second, termed the "extraordinary form", is that according to the liturgical books of 1962, published at the authority of Pope John XXIII. At the time of the publication of Summorum Pontificum, and in the time immediately following, there occurred an effort from some quarters to actively promote and extend the frequency of celebrations according to the extraordinary form. At the present time, it is again being suggested that such celebrations should be actively promoted, even in places where no request or desire for such celebrations is expressed.

It is of note that, though Pope Benedict must clearly have anticipated, in writing his letter to bishops that accompanied Summorum Pontificum. that the number of celebrations in the extraordinary form would increase as a result of the motu proprio, there is nothing in that letter which advocates a promotion and extension of those celebrations to places where no manifest desire for such celebrations exists. The circumstances which the preamble to Summorum Pontificum itself, and the letter, describe are circumstances which justify a "clearer juridical regulation", to quote Pope Benedict.

The attachment to the extraordinary form is not commonly encountered in the majority of Catholic life, and is usually a manifestation of a very specific liturgical and spiritual style. It is therefore the considerations of Pope Benedict's letter that refer to the relationship of the extraordinary form to the celebration of the ordinary form that are of relevance to the majority of Catholics, rather than the wider promotion of the extraordinary form. I would suggest therefore that the Bishops Conference should give attention to:

The conditions that Pope Benedict identified as ensuring that the Missal of Paul VI is able to unite parish communities: the celebration of the ordinary form of the liturgy with reverence, that is, with a deliberately nurtured sense of the sacred rather than of the mundane and every day; and the celebration of the ordinary form in a manner faithful to its rubrics

The various aspects of mutual enrichment between the extraordinary and ordinary forms: the unification of the calendars for both forms, which will then enable the inclusion of the new saints and prefaces in the celebration of the extraordinary form and avoid the situation where on the same day very different feasts might be celebrated depending on the form used; the promotion of the use of Latin in the celebration of the ordinary form.

 It is in considerations such as these that the spiritual needs of a major part of the Catholic faithful will be met, rather than by the attempt to spread the celebration of the extraordinary form to places where there is no expressed need or desire for it. This would also be in conformity with Pope Benedict's intention, expressed in his letter to bishops, to respond to situations where there is an expressed desire for the extraordinary form and thereby arrive at "an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church".

Shock and Awe

I suspect that Blackfen is not the only parish in the country to have recently, or to be about to, experience a change in parish clergy. Such changes can lead to a certain shock among parishioners as new clergy with inclinations and pastoral orientations different than those of their predecessors establish their wishes in a parish. I suspect that it has ever been thus, and this is not a phenomenon that is particularly new to the Church of our own times. I recall my mother, for example, speaking of a Fr McCormack, who served in their Lancashire mill town parish in the early 1940's, as being a priest who inspired people and got things going (perhaps most remarkably two YCW sections, in which my mother and at least one of her sisters played a significant role). When he moved to other pastoral duties, I think I can reasonably surmise that a certain amount of disappointment was felt by some at least in the parish.

Part of the cause of such shock may be failings in charity on the part of arriving clergy - but remember, the clergy are as human as the rest of us, and we might well find similar failings among ourselves. But in our own times, I think there may be a more structural aspect, too. At the time that my own diocese learnt of the appointment of a new bishop, I commented on what I might hope for in the new appointment in a post entitled Hopes for a new bishop:

The experience of living in the diocese is that there are some parishes where I am happy to attend Mass and some parishes where I am not happy to attend Mass ... and most parishes that sit somewhere in between, not scaring me away but not exerting a positive attraction either. This is usually down to the parish priest because, for all the talk about lay ministry, it is still the parish priest who drives what happens in a parish. I am atypical in that, not having lived in the diocese when I was young, I do not enjoy a strong affiliation to one parish rather than another. So I look to the new bishop to achieve a greater unity among the priests of the diocese, so that lay folk like myself can live a greater unity of ecclesial experience from one parish to another. A unity in the celebration of the Liturgy and catechetical life seem essential to me in this regard.

 

A diversity in charisms and gifts among clergy is to be expected; but that does not militate against an underlying unity in the celebration of the Liturgy and in the catechetical life of a diocese. Indeed, the articulation of that diversity might well be linked to the charisms of religious serving in a parish or to the charisms of ecclesial movements with a presence in a parish, all of which can be lived within an underlying unity of diocesan life.

 

It does also have to be recognised that, at a human level, a new parish priest who wishes to make changes will be able to establish those changes more easily if he moves to implement them as soon as possible after his arrival.

 

All of which is leading me to suggest that the shock being experienced by some in Blackfen may have arisen most fundamentally from a situation of a lack of unity in the Liturgical and catechetical life of dioceses in general, and rather less from questions relating directly to the celebration of the Extraordinary Form. [The celebration of the principle Mass on Sundays and Days of Obligation in the Extraordinary Form could arguably itself have been out of sympathy with Pope Benedict's observation in his letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum that it would remain the Missal of Pope Paul VI, celebrated with a reverence and obedience to rubrics, that would unite parish communities.] As such, it is a shock alike to that which may be experienced in other parishes. It's only unusual dimension is that it has attracted national and international attention.

 

And now for the awe. Mgr Marcus Stock has been appointed as the new bishop of Leeds. A blog post at the Tablet describes him as being "among the most able clergy of his generation" and "quietly orthodox". I think he is unlikely to do something one of his predecessors, the then Bishop Heenan did. After an early round of clergy moves, the clergy of Leeds in Bishop Heenan's time reportedly greeted each other with the words "where are you?" rather than "how are you?" The attention that Mgr Stock is indicating towards the priests of the diocese matches both Pope Francis' thoughts and, indirectly, my wishes for my own new bishop referred to above. I have wondered what I would feel is an appropriate state of mind of a newly appointed bishop. I would suggest "awe", not just at the human level in reacting to the scale of the task to be undertaken, but at the nature of the office (in the Balthasarian sense) that is about to be assumed. There is a rightful awe in the power of the priest to celebrate Mass and to forgive sins in the person of Christ. But the bishop is a successor of the Apostles, the person whose presence in the particular geographical location represents the corner stone on which all other ecclesial stones in that geographical location are aligned in order to have "communion" with the universal Church and the Successor of Peter (and, indeed, since the announcement of his appointment, Mgr Stock has expressed his fidelity to the Successor of Peter).

 

Many years ago now, Mgr Mario Oliveri expressed this in a talk that I heard in Oxford, giving an account of the teaching of Vatican II's decree on the Pastoral office of Bishops in this regard:

The essential characteristics of a Diocese or of a particular Church are ...:

(a) a community of the faithful;

(b) The presence in them of a Bishop as Shepherd to whom the pastoral care is entrusted and who is assisted by a Presbyterate (Sacred Ministries);

(c) the adherence of the faithful to the Bishop;

(d) the unity of the faithful in the Holy Spirit realised by the Bishop through the Gospel and the Eucharist (faith and sacraments).

Mgr Oliveri identified a further characteristic as being essential so that in the local Church the universal Church of Christ might be present and active, a characteristic which impinges particularly on the office of the Bishop:

It is necessary that the individual Church should be in communion with all the other (local) Churches and their respective Pastors and particularly with that Church which has the Successor of Peter as its Pastor and which alone can definitively guarantee the authenticity of Faith and fidelity to Christ.

This office of the Bishop is something that rightly fills with awe.

The Sign of Peace - CLARIFICATION ADDED

I have hesitated to comment on the recent Circular Letter on the sign of peace without being able to read the text itself. An English version has been posted here, though the blog posting it has not been sympathetic to the Letter in its own comments.

I have been thinking about a number if inter-related points over the last few months, relating both to the sign of peace and to the practice of people who are not able to receive Holy Communion approaching the priest for a blessing. One prompt has been Fr Tim's post in June: The modern Sign of Peace is a distortion, a certain affinity to which you will recognise in what follows. The discussion around access to sacramental Communion for the divorced/re-married adds some immediacy to my points.

1. Approaching the priest for a blessing.
From a liturgical point of view, this does not seem to me to be envisaged by the rite of reception of sacramental Communion (a neutral point, in itself). From a pastoral point of view, it seems to be motivated by a desire at a social level that no-one appears to be left out, that everyone can feel to be taking a full part even if they are unable to receive sacramental Communion. It also seems to provide for two quite distinct types of pastoral situation: firstly, those who will at some point in the future receive Communion sacramentally (young children, catechumens and those entering into full communion with the Catholic Church); and, secondly, those who regularly attend Mass but whose life situations mean that they are not foreseeably going to be able to receive Communion (non-Catholics, non-Catholic partners, those who have re-married).

The most fundamental difficulty lies in the social sense of communion that is encouraged by this practice. It certainly seems to me a rather less appropriate practice with regard to those who will at some point in the future receive sacramentally - not approaching for a blessing in this case appears to me a better reflection of the nature of sacramental Communion as a completion of the cycle of the sacraments of initiation - than for those who regularly attend Mass but are not going to foreseeably be able to receive Communion.

2. The form of the sign of peace.
So far as I can tell, the sign of peace is always exchanged between the people in parishes in the form of a handshake (though, of course, there is some individual variation from this, say, between close family members, and my experience is limited to Europe and does not extend to the Far East, where a quite different form might be used). In the majority of those countries, a handshake is a sign that does not have a religious significance - it is the greeting that might be exchanged at the start of a business meeting, for example. A sign without a religious significance is therefore used at a point in the liturgy where the representation is one deeply laden with a religious significance.

3. A sign that is celebrated without understanding.
The explanation/directions with regard to the sign of peace in the Roman Missal only partly communicate the weight of the sign being offered (cf General Instruction nn. 82, 154):

There follows the Rite of Peace, by which the Church entreats peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament....

... all express to one another peace, communion and charity.

The suggested dialogue (cf the General Instruction n.154) is, in my experience, entirely neglected, though its use would go some way towards practising the religious character of the sign:

While the Sign of Peace is being given, it is permissible to say, "The peace of the Lord be with you always", to which the reply is "Amen". 

My experience suggests that most of the clergy and most of the faithful celebrate the sign of peace as a sign of communion at a social level, and little more.

So, what is to do?

A. Restore a sense of communion in the order of grace.
It seems to me that this represents the fundamental pastoral challenge, or purpose, that practical suggestions about the sign of peace and the practice of approaching the priest for a blessing needs to meet. The "peace, communion and charity" expressed by both the sign of peace and by sacramental Communion are the "peace, communion and charity" that are given by Christ to his Church and, in the liturgical context, are given through the action of the priest ("in persona Christi") at the altar and then shared from the altar to the people. In this respect, the practice of the sign of peace in the celebration of High Mass in the Extraordinary Form is instructive, and offers a clear opportunity for enriching the celebration of Mass in the Ordinary Form.

The suggestion in the Circular Letter that Bishops Conferences might give consideration to changing the way in which the sign of peace is exchanged seems to offer a significant opportunity to achieve this. The Letter also attributes to Pope Benedict XVI a recognition of a contemporary relevance to the question:

Pope Benedict XVI, further than shedding light on the true sense of the rite and of the exchange of peace, emphasized its great significance as a contribution of Christians, with their prayer and witness to allay the most profound and disturbing anxieties of contemporary humanity ...

If the faithful through their ritual gestures do not appreciate and do not show themselves to be living the authentic meaning of the rite of peace, the Christian concept of peace is weakened and their fruitful participation at the Eucharist is impaired.

A period of catechesis in this regard seems important, if the changes suggested below are to be implemented successfully.

B. Change the manner of exchanging the sign of peace.
I think that the handshake should be replaced by the more liturgical practice of the person offering the sign placing their hands on the shoulders of the person receiving the sign, while the person receiving the sign places their hands under the elbows of the person offering. At the level of the individual members of the congregation there is therefore mirrored the offering of peace by Christ and its being received by the Church. I would also suggest that, as the Circular Letter indicates, there are circumstances where omitting the exchange of the sign of peace among the congregation is appropriate (I know one parish, for example, where the exchange of the sign of peace is reserved to Sunday Mass and major celebrations). If the relation of the exchange among the congregation to the dialogue between priest and congregation that immediately precedes it is taken seriously, then there has still been an exchange of peace. The exchange of a sign of peace among the congregation becomes a fuller liturgical expression of the exchange contained in this dialogue.

The Extraordinary Form offers an additional possibility that could inform the Ordinary Form - that the priest should kiss the altar before the dialogue with the people, so that there is represented the origination of the peace with the person of Christ represented by the altar and its subsequent communication to the Church represented by the lay faithful. See The modern Sign of Peace is a distortion.

C. End the practice of people approaching to receive a blessing.
I suggest this with two strands in support. For those who are able to receive sacramentally, or can be foreseen as being able to do so in the future, this would reduce the sense of the social in the reception of the Eucharist and enhance the sense of communion in the order of grace.

For those who are not going to be able to receive sacramentally, the promotion of a much more sacred sense of the sign of peace offers opportunity for that to become the point at which they are able to participate in an act of communion. This is, of course, a suggestion that has particular relevance to the discussion around the admission of those who are divorced/re-married to sacramental Communion.


The practical points of the Circular Letter (n.6 (a)-(d)) contain nothing that is new or has not already been said - but I have yet to see a text of the attachment to the Circular Letter referred to in (d). This is indicated as offering "helpful guidelines" to help Bishops Conferences in preparing catecheses on the rite of peace and its proper realization in the Liturgy.

And, for those who would insist on a practice of the sign of peace that reflects a social, pastoral care or congratulatory role (cf n.6 (a) of the Circular Letter), I would end with the same suggestion made by Fr Tim at the end of his post. All of these pastoral needs can be met by adopting strategies outside of the immediate liturgical celebration - greeting people before or after the celebration, arrangements for a social gathering after Mass.

CLARIFICATION
I wish to make clear that the above post does not assert that the Sign of Peace of the Ordinary Form is meaningless, nor that it is about a social inclusion only. I express the view, based on my own experience, that "most of the clergy and most of the faithful celebrate the sign of peace as a sign of communion at a social level, and little more" - an observation about the practise rather than the principle of the meaning of the sign. The post intends to suggest a way in which clergy and faithful can celebrate the sign such that its full liturgical and ecclesial meaning is better expressed; and it goes on to suggest a relevance of this to the question of the admission of divorced/re-married Catholics to sacramental Communion.

A Fashion that Comes and Goes (or Trads and the "spirit of Summorum Pontificum")

At the time that Pope Benedict XVI issued his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter to Bishops, I posted to the following effect:

Traditional Catholics seemed to me to take the parts of Summorum Pontificum that they liked (a greater juridical freedom to celebrate the Extraordinary Form) and leave to one side the parts they did not like (insertion of new prefaces and saints into the Extraordinary Form, the agenda of mutual enrichment)

Summorum Pontificum did not establish an equality of status between the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form - as these terms themselves, used in the juridical provisions of the motu proprio, clearly indicate - and did not justify the kind of promotion of the Extraordinary Form that we then saw from certain quarters; indeed, Pope Benedict's accompanying letter argued that it would be the Missal of Pope Paul VI, celebrated reverently and in accordance with its rubrics, that would unite parishes

After Summorum Pontificum, it was not possible in juridical terms to consider the Extraordinary Form to be in any way "more traditional" than the Ordinary Form, and that, in consequence, Traditional Catholicism as a movement in the Church could not define itself only in terms of attachment to the Extraordinary Form

I think I was, at the time, described as having a "minimalist" interpretation of Summorum Pontificum.  I would say that others were adopting a "spirit of Summorum Pontificum", seeing it as a green light to promote the Extraordinary Form over the Ordinary Form. Under Pope Benedict XVI I think there was a mistaken sense that "the Traditional Mass was back". The election of Pope Francis has certainly pricked that bubble. But it was never the case that Summorum Pontificum envisaged or intended a "restoration", and I believe that a careful reading of the motu proprio and accompanying letter to Bishops bears this out. This "spirit of Summorum Pontificum" represents a certain fashion that, like the "spirit of Vatican II", will see its day and then pass away. (As far as the notion of "restoration" is concerned, Fr Hunwicke appears to lack the discretion in this regard that those longer in the Roman fold manifest.)

Rorate Caeli quotes one part of Pope Benedict's letter to Bishops, thereby mischievously playing off Pope Benedict against Pope Francis. But in reflecting on Pope Francis reported remarks about fashion in regard to the Extraordinary Form, it is worth reading another part of that same letter (my italics added):

The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often.  Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

I believe Pope Benedict here correctly assessed the situation of the vast majority of dioceses in the universal Church - attachment to the Extraordinary Form, including that emerging among young people, remains an interest for a small minority in the Church (despite the contrary impression that can be gained from Catholic blogs, and recognising that Summorum Pontificum has given that minority a numerical boost). In this sense, to use Pope Francis' term, it does have something of the character of a fashion - and it is interesting to look at exactly how the report of Pope Francis' words expresses this:

I find that it is rather a kind of fashion.

It is a nuanced wording, with a particular sense to the word "fashion" that should not be identified with a statement that young people attached to the Extraordinary Form simply do so "to follow a fashion" in the same way that people might dress in a particular way. This does not mean that the attachment of young people to the Extraordinary Form should be disregarded and no provision made for it; but it does mean that the provision should be suitably proportionate in scale.

It is also worth noting a certain even-handedness in Pope Francis' reported remarks:

.... I consider greatly important to go deep into things, because if we do not go deep, no liturgical form, this or that one, can save us."

We also need to recognise that Pope Francis is credited in Rorate Caeli's report with "affection, attention and sensitivity" when speaking on this matter, in order not to hurt anyone.

[In parentheses, I suspect that the position of a country like the Czech Republic is significanctly different than that of countries like England and Wales. I think a discovery of freedom after a time of repression, and a very particular cultural heritage, might well create a particular style of interest in the Extraordinary Form that would not be found in mainstream Western countries. Others might be able to comment on this more fully than me.]

If Traditional Catholicism, with its definition (so far as I can tell, and I have yet to be convinced otherwise) by way attachment to the Extraordinary Form, is not to be just a fashion in Pope Francis' sense, I do think it needs to demonstrate a responsibility towards the Ordinary Form, to be more universal in its outlook. It needs to overcome the "spirit of Summorum Pontificum" and move from being a fashion with a limited appeal to being a more natural part of the life of the whole Church.

Damian's knickers in a twist

He is, of course, such a trust worthy source of gossip news!

It really does not follow that, just because the faculty at Oscott are not making arrangements for the celebration of the Extraordinary Form in the seminary, they are acting in disobedience to the wishes of Pope Benedict XVI. When un-thinking trads take Damian's word for it and make infallible pronouncements about "Oscott liberals", "nonsense", "disgrace" and "catacombs", one wonders whether Catholic blogging is worth the maniple candle.

If, as Damian reports, the ecclesial authorities responsible for Oscott are keen that their aim

should be to educate and train seminarians in the Ordinary Form so that they can celebrate it well and be able to draw out its full potential, including the use of the riches of our Latin liturgical tradition in music.

they do seem to be echoing Pope Benedict's words in his letter that accompanied Summorum Pontificum:

For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: ..... The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

My own more careful(ie less sarcastic) analysis of the provisions of Summorum Pontificum can be found here and, if you read it, you will see that Pope Damian's knee jerk conclusions with regard to the policy being adopted at Oscott do not follow by any means.

Is Brentwood the diocese Rome has forgotten?

It is now well over a year since the process of appointing a successor to Bishop Thomas began; and it is now pretty much a year since the suggested names from the Diocesan College of Consultors were forwarded to the Nuncio. Bishop Thomas has celebrated his Farewell Mass, with its subsequent pastoral letter.

A conversation earlier this week reminded me of what I feel to be the priority of a new Episcopal appointment. I think the new Bishop needs, before all else, to be able to unite the priests of the Diocese, and this in a very ordinary way.

This week's conversation described a situation where a new parish priest had arrived, as it happens a priest of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. Shall we say that "changes" have followed, and there are some difficulties as a result. The "changes" are leading to a Liturgy that is probably a more faithful celebration than previously, though I cannot really judge on the details as these did not form a part of a very general conversation. I was reminded of a situation now a good number of years ago where the arrival of a new parish priest led - with stunning speed - to "changes" in an opposite direction, towards a less faithful form of celebration of the Liturgy.

Even if one remains neutral as to which of these "changes" should be encouraged and which discouraged, the fact that the arrival of a new parish priest can lead to these kinds of situations indicates a radical division among the priests of the Diocese, a division that has significant consequence for the life of faith of the laity. [To be fair to Brentwood Diocese, this situation in all likelihood exists in other Dioceses too.]

A fundamental sign of the unity of the priests of a Diocese is that they should celebrate the Liturgy of the Church in the same way. A result of that unity is that the lay faithful also have a common experience of the Liturgy, be it across different parishes or when a new priest arrives in a parish. Working to promote this seems to me the priority for a new Bishop. It is a task in which the juridical aspect is only an aspect; there is an underlying work for the promotion of communion which cannot be reduced to just its juridical aspect (a danger of a traditionalist inclination) but will include that aspect alongside others.

Pope Benedict expressed it like this, in his letter accompanying the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (my two distinct emphases added):

The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

Brentwood Diocese does enjoy celebrations, small in number, of Mass according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and according to the Syro-Malabar Rite. The principles of reverent celebration and harmony with Liturgical directives apply to all of these celebrations and represent a principle of unity across all Liturgical forms. But for the vast, vast majority of the faithful of the Diocese it is the Roman Rite celebrated according to its Ordinary Form that will unite them with their priests and this is why reverent celebration in accordance with the rubrics of the Ordinary Form is so important.

Who said ...?

The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful....

.... the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

Answer here.

My experience, and, I would expect, that of most practising Catholics, is that only a small minority are interested in the celebration of the Extraordinary Form, and that the impression otherwise created by the electronic media does not reflect a real situation in pews. Since Summorum Pontificum there has undoubtedly been an increase in such interest; but not such as to make it anything other than still a small phenomenon for the Church as a whole.

If there is not an effort for mutual enrichment - a common calendar seems a clear suggestion to me, implied by the suggestion of including new saints in the old Missal, and an explicit interest by those attached to the Extraordinary Form in promoting the sacrality of celebration of the Ordinary Form - then the majority of Catholics are being excluded from the benefits and intentions of Summorum Pontificum. In this respect, I wonder whether the attention of the  Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei to just the communities attached to the Extraordinary Form will turn out to have an element of dis-service to the wider Church, analogous to the dis-service that the traditionally inclined see in the work of the post-Conciliar Consilium.

"Brick by brick" - but the building is not going to be finished if you refuse to use the vast majority of the available bricks, use bricks of only one size and shape, and you concentrate on only one corner of the plan...

My previous posts on the theme of Summorum Pontificum can be found from this link. And. oh, how I wish I could lead a Catholic existence without feeling forced to adopt a stance "for" or "against" the Extraordinary Form!

SSPX: Yes, No or Maybe?

The response of the Superior of the Society of St Pius X to the "doctrinal preamble" has been received at the Holy See. The guarded official comment of the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei reads as follows:

"The text of the response of Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, as had been requested at the meeting of 16 March 2012, was received by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on 17 April 2012. The text will be examined by the Dicastery and then submitted to the judgement of the Holy Father.

Fr. Federico Lombardi, head of the Vatican Press Office, said that, with the latest response, “steps forward have been taken, that is to say, that the response, the new response, is rather encouraging. But there are still developments that will be made, and examined, and decisions which should be taken in the next few weeks.”

The gossip says:

The superior of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) has signed a doctrinal preamble set out by the Vatican as a basis for further reconciliation talks, a top Vatican commentator said yesterday.

Andrea Tornielli, journalist for the Italian newspaper La Stampa, said Bishop Bernard Fellay had signed the document “with some slight modifications”.

The Society of St Pius X have issued a very cautious communique in response to the press coverage: Communiqué de la Maison généralice de la Fraternité Saint-Pie X (18 avril 2012, citing the statement of the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei, and denying that Bishop Fellay has given a "positive response" to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, saying that he has replied to the request made of him by Cardinal Levada for clarifications with regard to the doctrinal preamble.

More detailed coverage can be found at La Croix: Les lefebvristes acceptent la main tendue du pape.

I have previously commented on the "doctrinal preamble" here and here; and my views on it can be summarised by these three points:

1. Since we all have a stake in the content of the Doctrinal Preamble, should it not at some point become the subject of public discussion in the Church rather than just of private discussion between a dicastery of the Holy See and the SSPX?

2. If the rule of faith considered appropriate for those joining the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, and so "achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See", is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, why should this same catechism not provide the rule of faith to which the SSPX are expected to adhere?

3. The speculation is that, should the SSPX accept the Doctrinal Preamble, their canonical status in the Church might become that of a Personal Prelature. This might be diplomatically convenient, but I am not sure that it represents the status best reflecting the nature of a priestly society.

I find it difficult to believe (though would be happy to be proven wrong) that any modifications made to the "doctrinal preamble" (previous discussions seemed to accept the possibility of "clarifications", but not modification) by Bishop Fellay are just slight as Andrea Tornielli suggests, or that they are without some doctrinal or pastoral significance. The report at La Croix quotes the Holy See's spokesman, Fr Lombardo, as saying that :

"la réponse contient des demandes ou propositions de précisions sur le texte du Préambule doctrinal proposé à la signature" [the response contains requests or suggestions for clarifications of the text of the doctrinal preamble put forward for signature].

I therefore trust that the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei will be suitably critical in its examination of any such modifications/clarifications, and thereby respectful of the needs and interests of those who have faithfully adhered to the teaching and life of the Church as expressed in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and in the pontificates since that Council.

Good news or bad news? Let's wait and see.

Three cheers for Archbishop Conti (or why I am leaving the aether)

I had intended on giving up on the aether. The Catholic form of that world has been colonised by inhabitants of EF-land, who seem to have great difficulty in seeing beyond their own borders and interests.

From what I have seen of Archbishop Conti's remarks about the Extraordinary Form in his ad clerum, I do think that he is fundamentally correct about two things.

1. In the Catholic Church, despite the impression that some might like to give (based on the fact that more people are interested in the EF than before, and that more of those people are young people - and all this is true), the vast majority of Catholics do not have any attachment to the EF. There is very little "demand" for it, though the concepts of supply and demand borrowed from the culture of commerce are perhaps not the best concepts to use. One might say that the pastoral need is very limited. Now if the inhabitants of EF-land could shift themselves into the realms of the wider ecclesia - one might compare it to the Schengen zone in Europe, you can cross to-and-fro without having to show any sort of passport or identity card - they might actually see that EF-land is a pretty small territory, and not as important as its inhabitants think it is. Instead, though, they set about attacking Archbishop Conti in terms of "contempt" for the EF. Pope Benedict's letter to the bishops of the world accompanying Summorum Pontificum acknowledged the minority nature of the interest in the EF, referring to the particular liturgical formation from which such interest arises and recognising that it is not very widespread in the Church today.

2. As I argued in posts at the time of the publication of Summorum Pontificum, that motu proprio and the accompanying letter to Bishops gives absolutely no mandate for a campaign of "promotion" of the EF. It gives no mandate whatsoever for the idea that there should be "an EF Mass in every parish"; none whatsoever. On the contrary, the accompanying letter asserts that it is the Missal of Paul VI, when used in a manner that is reverent and obedient, that will unite parishes. Archbishop Conti is fundamentally correct to argue that there is no requirement arising from Summorum Pontificum to promote the EF.

There might well be some aspects of Archbishop Conti's ad clerum - such as the phrase "harking back" - that have not accurately expressed the position of those who do have an attachment to the EF. Comment on those by all means. But, dear inhabitants of EF-land, do get real and get out and about a bit. If you take no interest in the Ordinary Form - and the Catholic aether is increasingly giving me the impression that you aren't interested in it, that you identify Pope Benedict's "liturgical reforms" with the promotion of the EF when there is nothing to suggest that that is the case - then you should not be surprised if an Archbishop writes an ad clerum like this one. If you have a real care for souls in the Church, remember that the vast majority of them will be reached through celebrations of the Ordinary Form, so your engagement with the mutual enrichment agenda - funny how you don't talk about that very much - would be a much more valuable and generous thing across the whole piece.

What I have really come to resent over recent months is that those with an attachment to the EF do not seem to want to respect the stake in Summorum Pontificum that others have, too. That stake arises from the idea of "mutual enrichment" referred to in Pope Benedict's accompanying letter.  The recent instruction from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei also indicated a possibility that that commission likewise does not consider the interests of people attached to the Ordinary Form as part of its brief. That may be to do with the membership of the commission, which should perhaps include some representation from those without specific attachment to the EF; or it might mean that the oversight of provisions with regard to the EF should be extended to include other dicasteries that can represent the needs of those without attachment to the EF, while Ecclesia Dei itself focusses on the needs of those institutes dedicated solely to the EF.

[If you send a comment to this post, please be aware that I might well not see it to post it. It won't be a matter of any censorship on my part. It will be simply that I have reverted to my decision to give up on the aether. Unless Catholic blogging changes quite a bit and becomes more of an exercise in "communio", I am not really interested any more.]

[Updates: A couple of comments at other blogs here and here.]

Universae Ecclesiae and mutual enrichment

I promised more, so here it is.

First of all a bit more mischief tucked away in Universae Ecclesiae. The first of the aims of the provisions of Summorum Pontificum cited in n.8 of the Instruction is:

a.) offering to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure to be preserved

A "parallel passage" to this cannot be found in Summorum Pontificum. It is true that the provisions of Summorum Pontificum intend that all the faithful who wish it can participate more easily in celebrations in the extraordinary form (and, of course, we should read the Instruction about implementing the Motu Proprio in the light of the Motu Proprio itself and not in isolation from it). The preamble and article 1 of Summorum Pontificum make this clear:

But in some regions, no small numbers of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms. These had so deeply marked their culture and their spirit that in 1984 the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by a concern for the pastoral care of these faithful, with the special indult "Quattuor Abhinc Anno," issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in the year 1962. Later, in the year 1988, John Paul II with the apostolic letter given as "motu proprio, "Ecclesia Dei," exhorted bishops to make generous use of this power in favor of all the faithful who so desired.

Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the cardinal fathers of the consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these apostolic letters we establish the following:

Art 1. .... It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the liturgy of the Church.

We also need to bear in mind the agenda of "mutual enrichment" referred to by Pope Benedict in his letter that accompanied Summorum Pontificum:

For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the "usus antiquior," will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.

I think there are three things to be said about the provision of n.8 (a) of Universae Ecclesiae. If it is read in the context of Summorum Pontificum, it does not mean, as some might wish, that the extraordinary form should be celebrated in every parish every Sunday. It does mean that those who have an attachment to the extraordinary form should have a kind of "natural right" to participate in  celebrations of that form rather than needing a "special permission", and that appropriate logistics are in place to enable this. The phrase "all the faithful" should be read, when responding to this question about the frequency of celebrations, with reference to those who are attached to the extraordinary form.

However, I do think the more ready celebration of the extraordinary form is offered to "all the faithful" - by which I mean now those who do not have an attachment to the extraordinary form. This offer is mediated through the idea of "mutual enrichment". Once it is recognised that there is no contradiction between the ordinary and extraordinary forms, then it should be possible to see in the ordinary form those elements of the "precious treasure" that come to greater visibility because of their now being seen in a relation to the extraordinary form.

One of the least commented upon points of Universae Ecclesiae is n.25:

25. New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently.

There is clear indication here that the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" are working on the "mutual enrichment" from the aspect of its significance for the celebration of the extraordinary form. What I would hope is that, as they undertake the two specific tasks referred to in n.25, they will also look at the question of unifying the calendars of the two forms. This would make it much easier for those who look to enrich the celebration of the ordinary form from that of the extraordinary form, as well as better serving the intention of unity in the Church that is another of the intentions of Summorum Pontificum.

However, perhaps the underlying difficulty is that the Commission "Ecclesia Dei" do not appear to have the (mutual) enrichment of the ordinary form within their brief, though Summorum Pontificum suggested that they had an overview of its provisions that might have included this. There seems to be no clear allocation of this responsibility within the dicasteries of the Holy See. It could, of course, be undertaken at the level of the local Church. Unless it is undertaken, a key aspect of the "offering to all the faithful" of the extraordinary form will not be achieved.