The Chair of St Peter: 22nd February 2022

I am always mystified by those priests who, in the celebration of the Feast of the Chair of St Peter, focus in their homily on how Christians today might react to the question asked of the disciples in the Gospel of today's Mass: "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" It is a nice pious thought for the edification of their congregation. 

But it misses the point that the feast that is being celebrated is determined, not by the question, but by how Jesus reacts to St Peter's answer to the question: "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church".

The feast day celebrates the office of the successor of St Peter, and it escapes me why clergy seem to be so hesitant to preach on the nature of that office when it is the very subject of the feast day. 

There appear to me to be two aspects of the life of the Church in 2022 that make this feast day particularly relevant. 

Firstly, there is the Synodal Pathway that we have been invited to experience at the local, parish level at this time, and for which the first of three key themes is that of "communion". Ecclesial communion is a hierarchical communion, and particularly a communion with the bishop of the diocese and with the Pope. One measure of the action of the Holy Spirit in the Synodal Pathway is the extent to which it promotes this hierarchical communion rather than undermining it. It should draw us closer to the successor of St Peter, and not separate us from him.

Secondly, there is the excoriation of Pope Francis that can be heard from certain quarters. Whatever else one might say about it, and however "learned" it may appear, this certainly does not represent either an authentically Catholic stance nor a genuinely traditional one. The further away from the successor of St Peter one places oneself, so much further does one distance oneself from the heart of the Church. The celebration of the feast of the Chair of St Peter should give cause for considerable reflection in these quarters.

According to the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Pope, bishop of Rome and the successor of St Peter, is the perpetual, visible source and foundation of the unity of the Church. He is the vicar of Christ, the head of the college of bishops and pastor of the universal Church over which he has by divine institution full, supreme, immediate and universal power.

There are a couple of nice observations from Pope Benedict XVI, in the early pages of his book length interview with Peter Seewald published as Light of the World. After observing that the faithful are not the employees or subordinates of the Pope, he writes:

... the Pope is, on the one hand a completely powerless man. On the other hand , he bears a great responsibility.

And commenting on the large number of Catholics in the world, and the suggestion that this makes him the most powerful Pope of all time, Pope Benedict writes:

Among those 1.2 billion Catholics are many who inwardly are not there. Saint Augustine said even in his day: There are many outside who seem to be inside, and there are many inside who seem to be outside. In a matter like faith - like membership in the Catholic Church - inside and outside are mysteriously intertwined with each other. 

Unnecessary burdens

 I found this post at Where Peter Is a thoughtful read: They Lay Heavy Burdens on the Shoulders of Others. I think it usefully indicates the consequences that can be experienced as a result of the existence of a kind of "alternative teaching authority" alongside that of the established hierarchy of the Church. It also gives a suggestion, in its use of the term "reactionary", of the possible merging of a (conservative) political stance with a Traditionalist ecclesial stance. 

What I think is most useful in the post is its account of how the activity of the proponents of this alternative teaching impacts on ordinary people who follow them, and in ways that are quite unnecessary. Very often we are looking at situations that are matters of prudential choice and not religious imperative, as, for example, with the question of home schooling.

I am a little unsure of the suggestion that the need to keep a job constitutes a "grave reason" in terms of allowing the taking of a COVID-19 vaccine:

Since the Church has spoken, they should be free to receive a vaccine, if only to keep their jobs. In my opinion, this could be considered a “grave reason,” particularly when a job is necessary to support the family.

Since the Church's teaching on the matter has been made clear, certainly Catholics should feel free to receive a vaccine in order to keep their job and support their family , without any concern that they are taking part in an immoral action. But in another context, the need to support a family would not justify taking part in something that is taught by the Church as being morally unlawful. Hence, my hesitations here.

I have more difficulty with some of what the writer says about Amoris Laetitia, most particularly this sentence:

Pope Francis taught that under some circumstances, divorced and remarried Catholics can be admitted to Communion.

I think it is more accurate to say that Pope Francis allowed a possibility in the well known footnote in Amoris Laetitia. This possibility, however, is only a part of a wider programme of how the Church should help those in irregular marriage situations to grow in the life of grace and charity (cf the very sentence in n.305 to which the footnote is applied). I think the writer also misses the point that it is the manifest (ie publicly visible) and persistent (ie a public situation that may not change in the immediate moment) that leads to a canonical ruling that remarried people cannot receive the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. 

I see three fundamental aspects to Pope Francis' teaching in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia: 

Firstly, a recognition that a person living in an objective state of sin through an irregular marriage situation may be living to an extent a life of grace, and that they can grow in that life of grace (cf n.305). The post on Where Peter Is recognises this in a slightly different way in its account of mortal sin.

Secondly, there is a key place in the discernment of a particular situation for an examination of conscience, and the suggested path of this examination of conscience does involve "humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching" (cf. n.300). This examination of conscience is not a soft touch if the pattern suggested by Pope Francis is followed.

Thirdly, the key focus of the discernment is not that of reception or not of the sacraments but of how a person might engage with the Church's mission of charity in order to thereby grow in the life of grace. This is strongly argued in Amoris Laetitia n.306, and followed up by Pope Francis' observation in n.309 that it is providential that the Apostolic Exhortation is wirtten during the Year of Mercy, when the renewed practice of the works of charity was proposed to the Church. 

In other respects, though, I think the post at Where Peter Is has usefully given an account of the experience that can result from the unhelpful activity of some clerics and commentators.

On the inadmissability of the death penalty ...

In the light of Pope Francis' promulgation of new wording for n.2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (though it is worth reading the preceding n.2266 as well for a complete context), I have searched "death penalty" on this blog.

It produced these two earlier posts: The consensus of the Holy Fathers ..... and The end of Traditionalism?

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"!

The Ordinary Form in the style of Fortescue?

Visiting a parish recently, I experienced what might be stereotyped as a celebration of the Ordinary Form according to the style of Fr Adrian Fortescue. That's not to say that the celebration was authentically derived from Fortescue - in some ways it was, but, I suspect, in other ways it wasn't.

Poor Father. He definitely appeared to be more concerned with the inches between his extended hands (I doubt that centimetres, that most heinous modern innovation, would have entered his mind), the burse stood upright on the altar when not in use, and several other like things, rather than anything else. One can be irrelevantly pedantic in suggesting that a priest should "celebrate" Mass rather than "say" Mass - but if ever I have encountered Mass being "said" rather than "celebrated" this was it. It was Liturgical form without any soul; it appeared to have only the smallest regard for the congregation present who could be forgiven for feeling that they were an inconvenience; and that included the homily which was read like a prescribed script (I can't comment on content because I very quickly stopped listening and reverted to Magnificat, my resort in circumstances that are usually different in nature). I suspect that even the most evenly balanced of MCs wouldn't have coped with it (there wasn't one, and no altar servers either, which perhaps wasn't surprising).

The funniest bit for me was the three strong tugs on the maniple to stop it sliding down over the wrist - I think towards the end of Eucharistic Prayer I, though my memory fails me a little here. Oh, and much as I might want to encourage other priests to give Eucharistic Prayer I its fair use, this unfeeling recitation left me cold. I can only remember the "Through Christ our Lord. Amen" recited without pause between the end of one paragraph and the start of the next.

I tell the story because, if the Trads have the idea that this kind of thing is a model of the mutual enrichment sought by Pope Benedict XVI in his letter to bishops that accompanied Summorum Pontificum, they couldn't be more wrong. To misquote Pope Francis, it is more like an ideological colonisation of the Ordinary Form. It won't have anything to say beyond their own enclaves. (Perhaps my recent experience was untypical, I don't know).

Likewise, the persistent reference to the "new Mass" or "novus ordo", and indiscriminating reference to the "Latin Mass" or the "Traditional Mass", don't help the cause of mutual enrichment either. One of the clear points to Pope Benedict's letter, and to Summorum Pontificum itself, is that the one form is just as "traditional", in the juridical sense, as the other. Playing them off against each other was not something that Pope Benedict envisaged at all.

As with the campaign against Amoris Laetitia (much that I read of this campaign, which gains the approbation of the Trad blogosphere, appears exactly like the kind of thing that would be written by others to denigrate the teaching of the Successor of Peter, and be excoriated by the same Trad blogosphere - perhaps the appeal to Canon 212 n.3 to justify their actions being an illustrative point), there seems to be a selection of those bits of the exercise of the Office of the Successor of Peter, be that Benedict or Francis, that suit and a disregard for those bits that don't. Once one begins to have a conversation in terms that distinguish between the present day exercise of the Office of Peter and that of his predecessors, with the intention of undermining the former, I fear there is shifting sand under one's feet rather than firm foundations.

But then perhaps the Traditionalist movement has always carried with it the risk of becoming a kind of magisterium of its own....

A plague on both your houses

This from the learned pages of the National Catholic Reporter (I have added the underlining):

... welcome back to the 'twilight zone' that was well and truly entered by the Catholic Church on 13/3/13. In the vortex of diabolical mayhem known simply as the 'post-Benedict XVI era', Catholic bloggers are tasked with the mission of encouraging Catholics to stay faithful to the Faith passed down to us while it is further polluted, corrupted and overthrown centrally by men who have overseen its decline locally for the past 30-40 years, while lauding the wisdom of the 'new direction'. Yes, vocations can plummet, Churches can empty and close and the souls of millions can - through deliberate, wilful ambiguity on the part of prelates - be placed in graver jeopardy that ever before, but the esotericist can still claim the 'new direction' to be a success even when objective statistics suggest anything but success. I guess that's just part of what makes the new Catholic gnosticism so much fun.

And this from the rather unintelligent extreme of Tradition (again, I have added the underlining):

A Christian is not supposed to give up hope. She is not to despair.

But after three very uplifting and incredible years under the prophetic leadership and compelling personal witness of Pope Francis, many reform-minded Catholics have again become quite worried about the future direction of their church.

It is not that their honeymoon with the first New World pope is over. (The memory of what a disastrous state the church was in before his election has prevented that from happening just yet.)

But there are growing concerns that, despite being able to effect a seismic change in attitude and ethos throughout the worldwide Catholic family, Francis has done nothing to ensure that this will not all be tossed aside once he is gone.

It should be stated again, without any gloss, that he must move more quickly to make structural and juridical changes that cannot be easily undone by one of his successors.

I am reminded of Abbot Vonier's insight, on which I have commented at length - The Church we are in. I concluded that post as follows:

To return to the reflection based on Abbot Vonier's notion that the Church should not be seen as divided into an "ideal" and a "real", but exists as a single entity whose beauty and holiness shine out to the world. If we look around us during the papacy of Pope Francis, we see the Church that we are in, and some of it - perhaps more on the reform-minded side than on the Traditionalist side - appears pretty far off the wall. But if we take Abbot Vonier's insight seriously, there is an abiding beauty and splendour that is there in all of it. And we need to trust that it is there and that it does still shine out.

The touchstone of that shining out is, as it has ever been, the office of the Successor of Peter. Nothing is to be gained by excoriating - or mis-representing -  its holder. 

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.

Holier than thou .....

.... over at tigerish waters.

The anti-Francis attitude: it isn't Catholic ....

The persistence of some in taking every opportunity their imagination suggests to broadcast across the aether their projections (or to re-broadcast uncritically the projections of others) of what Pope Francis has said and what they think he should have said instead ..... it has quite honestly become tiresome beyond belief. Do give over, and get a life ...

It isn't Catholic to operate with a category of "faithful Catholics" and the presumably unfaithful others .... as if one can allocate oneself uncritically to the wheat without recognising that you might actually be among the tares .... both of which the Lord allows to grow side by side in his field and which, for most of us, grow alongside each other in our hearts and souls. And to then characterise Pope Francis as if he were running a campaign against you .....

Neither is it Catholic to work with categories of "Traditionalist", "Liberal" and "Conservative" - the last of which is all too readily used by the adherents of the first to pigeon hole those they think lack the intelligence of faith to see what they think is the obvious heresy before their eyes (but which, in reality, is largely the recycled gossip of the imagination of a few who, for some reason I cannot fathom, gain a credibility that unfortunately doesn't justify the bits and bytes strewn across the electronic media).

And the real underlying point: almost without exception, what is projected on to Pope Francis words, what he is interpreted as saying, is not justified from what he actually said. Put simply, the anti-Francis rant isn't true .... but it is put about with a persistence and a lack of critical faculty that makes the saying of it enough for it to believed. All that "confusion" caused by Pope Francis ... isn't most of it the result, not of Pope Francis' words, but of the commentary that the great and the good of a sector of the Catholic electronic world propagate?  If you have difficulty understanding him .... aren't you the one who is the source of confusion if you broadcast your own non-understanding to the world at large?

Let's take Pope Francis' observation, some time ago now, about the risk of living the Christian life as a kind of ideology, rather than as a living encounter with Jesus Christ, and so with the life of the Trinity. All that anxiety about a comment aimed at criticising the "faithful" or "Traditional" Catholic .... when, if you read Luigi Giussani's The Religious Sense you find a discussion of ideology in a context of the possibility of religious faith. It wasn't a targeted arrow at all, but a reflection of a conversation in an ecclesial movement with which Pope Francis is very familiar. And more recently I have been able to readily find on my bookshelves texts that place Pope Francis remarks about the risks of gnosticism and a certain pelagianism in similar contexts. And so on. If you think he is just nagging and criticising you .... take the trouble to read around a bit and place his remarks in the context of the ecclesial conversation ...

And the most recent occasion of shock - horror ..... is a complete non-story. Read properly what Pope Francis said in reply to the question from the wife of a Lutheran, recalling that he speaks of discernment of conscience in the sense intended by the Spiritual Exercises and not in a liberal sense .... and the confusion is being sown by the all too ready commentary. It simply isn't true to give the impression that Pope Francis said to the lady that she should make her own decision on the matter.

And the Year of Mercy .... in which, in case you missed it, the Sacrament of Penance (confession) is clearly going to have a central role. And which is absolutely in line with the teaching of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI on divine mercy. There is no justification in trying to rubbish the Year itself, or Pope Francis' understanding of mercy.

The anti-Francis attitude is not Catholic in two further ways. Read the blogs .... and doesn't it form a kind of alternative Magisterium? .... A Magisterium that, if you challenge it, you find yourself being told that you are ignorant of the Catholic faith?.... with its authorities who are above reproach and who are lauded to the high heavens as "defenders of the faith"? And doesn't it involve a "pick-n-mix" approach to Pope Francis himself? Take the bits you don't like and slate them across the networks .... ignore the bits that you should like. Cafeteria Catholicism .... but taking and leaving different parts of the menu than those normally associated with this phrase .... "hermeneutic of continuity" when it suits, but not when it doesn't .... big up Pope Benedict, do down Pope Francis (I am personally convinced that those who play off Benedict against Francis didn't really get Benedict either ...).

It is tiresome.....it's not Catholic ....it's not true ....... and we can all do without it.

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!

Give Away Lines (2): From the Traditionalist Camp

From here and then circulated elsewhere (with my italics added):

My deepest fear is that if Pope Francis continues to push the Church toward heresy that we may experience a war among the faithful that would make Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s opposition after Vatican II appear like a simple objection!

So it is taken as read that Pope Francis is pushing the Church towards heresy? There really isn't a glimmer of truth in that assertion.

But the "give away" is not so much that something is being said about Pope Francis that isn't true. The "give away" is about how it comes to be that such a point of view has any traction at all amongst those who self identify as traditionalists (or as "faithful Catholics" or "loyal Catholics").

If you keep saying it, and saying it, and saying it again, ..... within your own self-referential circle ..... well, you end up believing it. And you end up convincing yourselves that you are on shaky ground and without any certainties of faith any more. And you all buy in to a fear that should not have been aroused in the first place. WYSIWYG - what you say is what you get. You end up needing to "mind the gap" between your own little world and the real one....

Those who blog and re-blog, and tweet and re-tweet, need to recognise their share in the responsibility for this .....

Those who find excuse to, oh ever so reasonably (not), attack Pope Francis time and time again need to recognise their share in the responsibility for this too, perhaps particularly those who have a certain discretion about it but nevertheless help to create the aetherial environment in which ideas gain traction that are not worthy of credibility .....

I suspect that Pope Francis' word for much of this would be "gossip" - and his scathing comment on the harm that it does to all involved is very much on the record.

Pope Francis press conference on the way back from Korea

A full transcript of the "Q and A" between Pope Francis and journalists during the flight back to Rome from his recent visit to Korea has been published. A copy can be found at Catholic Voices, along with some links to news reports following it: Pope Francis press conference on papal plane from Seoul: full transcript.

Of course, traditionalist comment has totally, and it seems to me quite deliberately, mis-represented the following remark made by Pope Francis, in answer to a question about how he manages his extraordinary popularity. I quote Pope Francis full answer, with my emphasis added:

 I don’t know how to respond. I live it thanking the Lord that his people are happy.  Truly, I do this. And I wish the People of God the best .  I live it as generosity on the part of the people.  Interiorly,  I try to think of my sins, my mistakes, so as not to think that I am somebody.  Because I know this will last a short time, two or three years, and then to the house of the Father. And then it’s not wise to believe in this. I live it as  the presence of the Lord in his people who use the bishop, the pastor of the people, to show many things.  I live it a little more naturally than before, at the beginning I was a little frightened.  But I do these thing, it comes into my mind that I must not make a mistake so as not to do wrong to the people in these things. A little that way.

 AFP's reporting of these words suggests that Pope Francis spoke "light-heartedly" - but even if he did not, it is the most crass of interpretations to read into these words the sin of presumption.

Two other points in the transcript caught my attention. The first is in relation to the beatification of Archbishop Oscar Romero, which is something I would like to see occur "subito". I have only a limited understanding of why the cause was ever blocked "for reasons of prudence" - many of Archbishop Romero's advocates can appear to be problematical (to use a diplomatic word), but his own teaching and practice have always appeared to me impeccable. Indeed, he exemplifies for me how a pastor should apply the teaching of the universal Church in the particular circumstances of his own time and place. The interesting point in Pope Francis' remarks refers to how we understand the nature of martyrdom - way back in 1985, I spoke and wrote of Archbishop Romero and Fr Jerzy Popieluszko as "martyrs for the truth" about the human person and about the situations in which they had to live out that truth. Again, I quote the full answer, with my emphasis added:

What I would like is to have clarified when there is martyrdom in ‘odium fidei’ (out of hate for the faith),  whether it is for confessing the credo or  for performing the works that Jesus commands us to do  for our neighbor. This is a work of theologians that is being studied.  Because behind him (Romero), there is Rutillio Grande and there are others.  There are other that were also killed but are not at the same height as Romero. This has to be distinguished theologically. For me, Romero is a man of God.   He was a man of God but there has to be the process, and the Lord will have to give his sign (of approval). But if He wishes, He will do so!   The postulators must move now because there are no impediments.

The other point that caught my attention was the suggestion that the retirement of a Pope was now perhaps a possibility that was "normal" or "institutional", rather than "exceptional", and that this was a possibility created by Pope Benedict's resignation:

... as I said before, some theologian may say this is not right, but I think this way.  The centuries will tell us if this so or not. Let’s see.

But you could say to me, if you at some time felt you could not go forward, I would do the same!  I would do the same.  I would pray, but I would do the same. He (Benedict) opened a door that is institutional, not exceptional.

Blogging...

My two-penny worth on why people aren't blogging any more .... cf Fr Ray here, and indirectly, here; and tigerish waters here.

The practicality is that the day job in all probability achieves far more than a blog post .... and it certainly represents my prime responsibilities in life. [And perhaps we have now come to realise that not everyone thinks what we write is as important as we do ourselves.]

I would agree with tigerish waters that the Trads have lost the plot. I might add that I actually think they lost the plot as far as Pope Benedict XVI was concerned and rather co-opted him to their cause in a way that was not justified (his "mutual enrichment", for example, seems a far cry from the "restoration" of the EF that featured as a Catholic Herald headline, and there seems to have been a complete failure to recognise that Traditional Catholicism can no longer simply define itself in a relation to the Liturgy). That, of course, set them up for an intrinsic problem with whoever was going to succeed him in the See of Peter. And understanding many of the most "controversial" (for the Trads) acts of Pope Francis requires an understanding of the charisms of a number of the new ecclesial movements, and Traditionalists are not terribly strong on that. The "ideology" remark and, more recently, the shared blessings with the Archbishop of Canterbury simply do not have the implications read into them by Traditionalists if you have a familiarity with the charisms and writings of Communion and Liberation and the Charismatic Renewal.

Perhaps the Trads have missed the significance of Pope Benedict's meeting with the new movements in St Peter's Square on the eve of Pentecost in 2006 - where both Communion and Liberation and Charismatic Renewal were represented - Pope Francis is in absolute continuity with Pope Benedict in his regard for the gift of the new movements.

In his gifts, the Spirit is multifaceted - we see it here. If we look at history, if we look at this assembly here in St Peter's Square, then we realize that he inspires ever new gifts; we see how different are the bodies that he creates and how he works bodily ever anew.

But in him multiplicity and unity go hand in hand. He breathes where he wills. He does so unexpectedly, in unexpected places and in ways previously unheard of. And with what diversity and corporality does he do so! And it is precisely here that diversity and unity are inseparable.

He wants your diversity and he wants you for the one body, in union with the permanent orders - the joints - of the Church, with the successors of the Apostles and with the Successor of St Peter.

I would perhaps disagree a little with tigerish waters over the question of an intellectual lack in Pope Francis compared to Pope Benedict. Pope Francis certainly is not a professional academic - and Pope Benedict clearly showed such a background in his exercise of the office of St Peter - but he does have a different style of intellectual background, drawn from his encounter with Communion and Liberation and the Charismatic Renewal. Both of these movements do have an intellectual, though not formally academic, expression of their charisms and this can be perceived in the words and acts of Pope Francis. It is not perceived by the Traditionalist, though.

Just as Pope Benedict, and indeed Pope John Paul II before him, continued to manifest the gifts of academics (theologian and philosopher respectively) during their Papal ministries, so does Pope Francis continue to manifest in his Papal ministry the life of a priest and bishop that was his experience before his election to the See of St Peter. That is another key, I believe, to understanding Pope Francis.

And the kite flying about Pope Francis being against orthodoxy.... My italics added to the passage below, taken from Pope Francis' address to the Congregation of Bishops. Orthodoxy isn't something we shout about .... we just get on with it amongst the range of other gifts that represent life in the Church. Pope Francis sets an example in this regard .... and the Trads don't get it.

Therefore, to identify a bishop, a list of human, intellectual, cultural and even pastoral qualities are not useful. The profile of a bishop is not the algebraic sum of his virtues. Certainly he must be outstanding (CIC, can. 378 § 1): his human integrity ensures his capacity for healthy, balanced relationships, so as not to project his own shortcomings onto others and become an element of instability; his Christian soundness is essential for promoting fraternity and communion; his upright behaviour attests to the high standard of the disciples of the Lord; his cultural preparation allows him to dialogue with men and their cultures; his orthodoxy and fidelity to the Truth whole and integral, which the Church safeguards, makes of him a pillar and point of reference; his interior and exterior discipline allow for self-mastery and open up opportunities for welcoming and leading others; his ability to govern with paternal firmness ensures the safety of the authority that leads to growth; his transparency and detachment in the administrations of the goods of the community invest him with authority and meet with the esteem of all. All of these indispensable gifts must nonetheless be secondary to the central witness to the Risen One, subordinate to this primary commitment. It is the Spirit of the Risen One who fashions his witnesses, who integrates and elevates their qualities and value in fashioning a bishop.

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.

Pope Francis and Ideology

As I pondered the reaction to Pope Francis' remarks about a faith that can become an ideology (and here), I found it interesting to read this week two blog posts suggesting that the (however delicately expressed) criticism of Pope Francis from Traditionalist, or Traditionally minded, circles is not really the way to go: Just a thought .. and Is this the Pope's Response to his Critics? There is something in these posts of my own thoughts expressed here: Puzzled ... but not by Pope Francis. The efforts of the Chair of the Latin Mass Society to argue that it is the Traditionalists who are really the most Franciscan are entirely different in character than the criticism being offered from other quarters, though I suspect that they still do not issue in what I might term a "comfortable attitude" towards and with Pope Francis.

That the emergence of Traditionalist discomfort with Pope Francis should prompt the question in dogmatic terms of what must be followed of a Pope's teaching and what may be the subject of  "respectful" disagreement is surely very telling: Assent and Papal Magisterium. In the discussion around our response to Pope Francis' interviews and morning homilies this is not the question at stake, and only to one whose ecclesial environment is "dogma" alone could it appear to be the question at stake. Rather it is a question of trying to grasp in the manner of Pope Francis' exercise of his office as a Christian, as a priest, as a Bishop, as the Successor of St Peter the roots from which his life in the Church emerge.

So, for example, with Pope Francis' decision to live at the Casa Santa Martha rather than in the apartments of the Apostolic Palace. Time and again, Pope Francis has explained this as being, not the result of any great sense of poverty or virtue on his own part, but rather as being a result of his own felt need to live with and alongside others. Some Traditionalists have wanted to see in it a certain turning away by Pope Francis from the dignity of the Office of the Papacy. But perhaps one should see its root, consistently with Pope Francis' own explanation, in his experience of the movement Communion and Liberation where there is a great sense of the encounter with Christ being experienced and lived out in a community of life with others in the movement and in the Church.

And I suspect that a familiarity with Communion and Liberation is perhaps the way to gain some understanding of the homily in which Pope Francis refers to the possibility that a certain manner of living the Christian life can in fact constitute an adherence to an ideology. Don Luigi Giussani's book The Religious Sense , which represents the most fundamental articulation of the charism of Communion and Liberation, for example has a section headed "Preconception, Ideology, Rationality" (and, as Cardinal Bergoglio, Pope Francis presented the Spanish edition of this book at its launch in Argentina):

Ideology is the theoretical-practical construction developed from a preconception.

More precisely it is a theoretical-practical construction based on an aspect of reality, a true aspect, but taken up in such a way that it becomes unilaterally and tendentiously made into an absolute; and this come about through a philosophy or a political project.

This last suggests the way in which an ideology achieves intellectual expression in the realm of ideas or practical expression in the pursuit of objectives that are more or less explicitly political (with a small "p"). Towards the end of her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt discusses something of the role of ideology with regard to the practice of totalitarian regimes. Don Giussani continues:

Ideology is built up on some starting point offered by our experience; thus, experience itself is taken up as a pretext for an operation that is determined by extraneous or exorbitant preoccupations.

Vaclav Havel's essay "The Power of the Powerless" (an edition, with other essays, is currently the "Book of the Month" at the website of Communion and Liberation) is a classic account of the part played by ideology in the ordinary life of people under the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe. To quote from Havel, though you need to read the whole essay to grasp his full notion of what ideology is and does to a human person:

Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them.

All of this can help us understand what it is that Pope Francis refers to in his use of the term "ideology". What Pope Francis is warning against is a shift (which can happen all too imperceptibly) from centring our Christian life on the person of Christ to centring it on the proximate requirements of a moral system - not to say that Catholic moral teaching does not form a consistent whole that is based in the dignity of what it means to be a human person, nor that it is "secondary", but rather to say that the living of the moral life arises in the encounter with Jesus Christ and not apart from that encounter. Without that openness to the "whole" of Christian experience, the Christian life becomes an ideology - a partial perspective, a theoretical-practical construction developed from a preconception rather than being something rooted in the "whole".

It is possible to go further in suggesting Communion and Liberation as a way to help understand this homily by Pope Francis. Don Giusssani has a short book entitled Morality: Memory and Desire in which he gives an account of what Christian life should look like. The suggestion that the one who does not pray falls into living the Christian life as an ideology in the sense indicated above, expressed in Pope Francis' homily, can be recognised in this book, though the book does not identify it by the term ideology.

... the key point at which we begin to do good [in the world at large] is found first of all in those whom Christ has placed at our sides: our fellow Christians.

According to a "moralistic" attitude, however, this key point is derived from ideas or plans that originate in our own consciousness.

.... which could be termed an "ideology" in the sense suggested above.

But what happens if you read of Pope Francis' homily outside of this kind of context, particularly from a somewhat Traditional background? It isn't going to make much sense, not helped by its nature as an unscripted (though not necessarily unprepared) homily, by the lack of a full text and, possibly, by being delivered in a language other than Pope Francis' first language (Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II would appear to have been much stronger linguists than Pope Francis).

So perhaps it is going to take an effort to get to grips with the ideas of this homily. But for me the idea that the Christian life could be lived in a way that constituted an "ideology" was not new....

Puzzled ... but not by Pope Francis

I have been rather puzzled, not so much by the consternation in traditionally minded circles at Pope Francis' recent interviews, but by exactly what it is that is causing them consternation. At times over the last few days being puzzled has morphed into being somewhat bemused. So many of the Franciscan statements that are causing the consternation just don't seem to justify it if read properly in the context in which they were originally spoken/written, and if read in an appropriate framework (see, for example, my observations about the stages of evangelisation with regard to the "first interview").

I do think that there is a lot to be said for Elizabeth Scalia's idea that there are some of us who "get" Pope Francis and others who, as yet, do not: If we “get” Francis, we have to absorb his lessons.

I have a pet theory about why people might not "get" Pope Francis. In the media, and the social media in particular, it appears to me that, within the particular circle within which one exists, there is a danger that WYSIWYG - "what you say is what you get". If the same thing is said it can gain its own credibility just by being said many times within the same milieu; and it then just takes one or two of those with a standing in that milieu to take it up, and the thing that has been said becomes, in effect, de fide for that milieu. So if those of a traditional frame of mind keep saying X about Pope Francis, then that is what they will get, and their colonisation of the electronic media only enhances this effect.

The second part of my pet theory is that, in order to "get" Pope Francis you need also to "get" Pope Benedict XVI. It is interesting, for example, to look at how Pope Benedict conducted himself during his visit to the United Kingdom in 2010 .... and to compare it to the primacy that Pope Francis gave to "primary proclamation" and the subsequent position of moral teaching on abortion etc in the "first interview". The reference to care for life was discretely expressed during Pope Benedict's visit to St Peter's Residence and not in the form of a condemnation during his visit to Westminster Hall. If we take the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI as a whole, and not just the particular bits that appealed (or, for others, did not appeal), I believe we do end up with Pope Francis. I suspect that the traditionally minded suffer again the phenomenon of WYSIWYG, having seen in Pope Benedict XVI's exercise of the office of Successor of St Peter a project of promotion of their cause that was never there in reality.

Is what we are seeing by way of comment from some Catholics really respectful disagreement? Or is it better described as contestation? And are those genuinely perturbed by what Pope Francis has said helped if they see the causes of their concerns legitimised (unjustifiably, in my view) by comment in the electronic media?

Pope Francis: United in our differences ...

I have found it somewhat amusing (and that is probably not to my credit) to watch the Traditionalist minded in the Catholic blogosphere trying desparately to come to terms with Pope Francis' homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul:

United in our differences: there is no other Catholic way to be united.

So, for example, Fr Ray observes that:

... like much of what he [ie Pope Francis] says there is often a great deal of ambiguity ..

and one of the comments on Fr Ray's post remarks that

... his [ie Pope Francis'] gift does not include precision of expressions of thought....

The Bones, after placing Pope Francis' words alongside those of Pope Benedict XVI speaking on a the same occasion a year ago, asks:

Does anyone detect a shift in emphasis?

I am amused by the sudden change from decrying perceived reluctance on the part of bishops and priests to do what they thought Pope Benedict wanted with regard to the Liturgy to a legitimising of disregard for the pastoral approach of Pope Benedict's successor, Pope Francis. It would appear that the idea of a "hermeneutic of continuity" has only lasted as long as it suited.

Now the "eastward gaze" of Pope Francis' homily becomes quite transparently obvious when it is placed alongside the address given the day before the Solemnity, to the delegation of the Ecumencial Patriarch of Constantinople, visiting Rome to join the celebration of the Solemnity. And the references to difference and to synodality gain their very specific, and not in the least big confusing or ambiguous character, from that "eastward gaze". In so far as it also has a "westward glance", the reference to the work of the Synod of Bishops - established after the Second Vatican Council as a continuing expression and realisation of collegiality rightly understood, and perhaps better characterised by the term "communion" - is equally un-problematic, though I had not previously taken cognisance of its ecumenical import in quite the way suggested here.

To confirm in unity: the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the primate.

I do actually think that, like Pope Benedict XVI before him, Pope Francis has a quite exquisite and precise choice of phrase. It is different in style to that of Pope Benedict, but in an absolute continuity with it; it has been most apparent in some of the strap lines emerging from his homilies at the morning Mass in Domus Santa Martha. The following is from Pope Francis's homily for Sts Peter and Paul , with my italics added:

In the Church, variety, which is itself a great treasure, is always grounded in the harmony of unity, like a great mosaic in which every small piece joins with others as part of God’s one great plan.

... compared to Pope Benedict XVI's homily a year before (h/t to The Bones), again with my italics added and the suspicion that Pope Benedict was referring to a thought by Hans Urs von Balthasar:

we know that together we are all cooperators of the truth, which as we know is one and “symphonic”, and requires from each of us and from our communities a constant commitment to conversion to the one Lord in the grace of the one Spirit.

As an exercise in use of the communications media, the Traditionalist minded who have sought to undermine Pope Francis' homily in the blogosphere appear to me to have scored an enormous own goal. Apart from feeling that they simply haven't "got it" as far as the homily and Pope Francis in general goes (they need to move out from their own limited territory in order to achieve that), their broadcasting of what they think others will make of it has rather given the views of those others a huge boost.

[In the context of the discussion of Pope Francis' homily, there is a very sensible analysis of how we should understand Pope Francis here: Understanding Pope Francis.]

The present situation of Traditional Catholicism

1. An alternative magisterium

There is, of course, an irony in suggesting that Traditionalists (or those who are of similar mind to them) act in some manner as if they are an alternative to the structures/office in the Church. One element of this arises from an expression of a "no compromise" Catholicism, with its risk of absolutising prudential judgements about a particular issue as if they are directly matters of belief,  and the consequent public attack on those who do not accord with their own particular prudential judgement. Another element arises from seeing the exercise of pastoral office in the Church, either exclusively or in an exaggerated manner, in the exercise of its aspect of juridical authority. The absence of public exercise of juridical authority is then equated with weakness in holding and teaching the faith. [I happen to think that the most significant exercises of the universal pastoral office of the Successor of Peter in recent years to have been the various "Years of ...", which, while totally respecting the liberty of the local Churches, nevertheless provides a lead and encouragement to pastoral activity in those local Churches]

So one can see among the Traditionally minded a tendency for a publicly critical stance with regard to a local episcopates or ecclesial bodies, a tendency to say "Rome says X" as a basis for a critical stance towards those who do not say X (when Rome has not always said X, even in the document cited by the Traditionalists to support what "Rome says ..." and, as I write this, I have a particular instance in mind) and a tendency to champion particular bishops or priests who they see as matching their understanding of the exercise of office in the Church ("courageous bishops" and, by implication, also the non-courageous).

Now, the first of these tendencies seems to be alive and well in, for example, the criticisms of Archbishop Nichols (over his remarks about complaining) and Catholic Voices (over their post on vocations numbers). The second tendency seems to have been put on hold since the election of Pope Francis, as the Traditionalist inclination cannot quite work out if the Holy See might now promote policies not to their sympathies. The third tendency took a rather hard knock with the events surrounding Cardinal O'Brien.

The underlying current to all of this is a sense of an essentially Traditionalist criterion of judgement - an alternative exercise of office which seems to be of its nature contentious. Whatever the precise rights and wrongs of Archbishop Nichols remarks about "complaining bloggers", and their relation to Pope Francis' own remarks cited by the Archbishop, the underlying thought that there is a contentiousness latent in the Traditionalist-style activity (which has colonised the electronic media out of all proportion but is also expressed in other media) deserved a more considered reflection than the rather dismissive response of many.

2. Raising the drawbridge on mutual enrichment

Again, there is an irony in my suggesting that the Traditionalists have not really come to terms with the full implications of Summorum Pontificum and Pope Benedict's accompanying letter. Or rather, they have come to terms with the aspects they liked (greater freedom for the celebration of the Extraordinary Form), exaggerated the intent of Pope Benedict XVI (I do not think he ever intended any restoration of the Extraordinary Form at the expense of the Ordinary Form, or that the Extraordinary Form should be celebrated in every parish) and ignored the bit that was inconvenient to them (mutual enrichment and the insistence that it is the Missal of Pope Paul VI that will unite parish communities). I have posted on this in the past. From the very start, those areas of celebration of the Extraordinary Form that are open to enrichment from the Ordinary Form (spoken Canon, insertion of new Prefaces, the adoption of a common calendar) have been resisted with a combination of rubricism (everything exactly according to the 1962 books, we can't change anything) and academic argument (though, in the case of the FIUV position paper on new Prefaces, for example, one might be forgiven for thinking that the essential argument once one cuts through the historical detail is little more than "no change"). The use of celebration in the Extraordinary Form to facilitate celebration of those Days of Obligation recently moved to Sunday is a symptom of this;  the consistent refusal to use the language of Extraordinary Form is another. But then neither of these suit ...

I can see that the "mutual enrichment" agenda was to an extent "on hold" while there was a potential for reconciliation of the Society of St Pius X with the Holy See.  That, of course, was part of what I described as a second direction of glance for Summorum Pontificum. Every indication now is that such a reconciliation is not going to happen. That, and the election of Pope Francis to succeed Pope Benedict, should put an end to the dalliance that some in the Traditionalist fold might have had with Lefebvrist thinking (though, if I recall correctly, a useful observation  emerged from that dialogue about the circumstances to which Vatican II's declaration on Religious Liberty was addressed being different than those toward which previous teaching was addressed). Perhaps the Traditionalists saw this coming and got the drawbridge on Liturgical development raised quickly in anticipation ....

In my earlier posts, I observed that Traditional Catholicism should not, post-Summorum Pontificum, define itself only in terms of attachment to the Extraordinary Form, and this because juridically speaking Summorum Pontificum establishes the two forms as being equally "traditional".

3. Where do Traditionalists go under Pope Francis?

I do not yet feel that I have understood Pope Francis' stance towards the Liturgy. One part of me has to forgive him for being a Jesuit, as Jesuits notoriously do not really "do Liturgy" - and can one see that in a tendency towards informality in style of celebration on the part of Pope Francis? I am not sure of that. Yes, the morning celebrations in the chapel of the St Martha House have a touch of informality (so called "off the cuff" homilies). But what I have seen of the more "set piece" celebrations appear to have a clear continuity with the style of Pope Benedict, perhaps most notably in the "Benedictine arrangement" of the altar. Some aspects of his approach seem to be driven by Pope Francis' own language skills. The Traditionalists certainly don't seem to have him sized up at all from the Liturgical point of view. And Pope Francis certainly has not done anything to encourage a vision of the Office of the Successor of St Peter in its juridical/authoritarian aspect.

I suspect that the perception of the significance of the Traditionalists in the wider Church is more  accurately apparent with Pope Francis than it was with Pope Benedict (my view is that the Traditionalists thought they had rather more than was there in reality as far as Pope Benedict was concerned and their presence in the electronic media acted as a magnifying glass for it). If the election of Pope Francis encourages a reality check in this regard, I do not think that will do the Church any harm.

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.

Corners in the Vineyard

I have from time to time encountered very ordinary people in parishes who manifest a quite unexpected depth of Christian living or perceptive insight into matters of faith. I expect that many parish priests also have experience of knowing these unexceptional "saints" of every day parish life. The evangelising impact of such people can be very profound, but its reach is to only the few who meet them. They fulfil a mission to their particular corner in the Lord's vineyard, and it is their influence in that small corner that is the measure of their efficacy and of the authenticity of their response to the vocation that they have particularly received from the Lord.

Bishop Mark Davies, and Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue before him, were allocated their own portions of the Lord's vineyard as diocesan bishops. It is certainly true that an individual bishop, as a member of the universal order of the successors of the Apostles, has a wider dimension to his mission in the Church. But that bishop also has a first mission towards their own corner of the vineyard.

Do we do them any favours by making them into champions of causes outside of their dioceses? Or do we actually make it more difficult for them to undertake the "unexceptional", though in reality exemplary, pastoral care of the diocese entrusted to them?

The measure of their ecclesial fruitfulness is not whether they are the darlings of (traditionalist) bloggers but rather how faithful they are to the work in their own corner of the vineyard.