Itchy feet

This is the time of year when bright (young) things in the teaching profession get a new job, and it becomes known in the staff room - or the prep room, if your subject area happens to be science - that they are leaving at the end of the year. It has to do with the end of May being the deadline for giving notice under the teaching contracts prevalent in the UK.

I caused some amusement during the discussion of "itchy feet" in the prep room earlier this week when I pointed out that when you reach a certain age (ie mine), the term "itchy feet" refers to retirement not promotion.

"Itchy fingers", I suppose, refers to retirement from the keyboard ...

More than a matter of life or death

There are some news items that are more important than Universae Ecclesiae.

Sunday afternoon saw the demise of West Ham, or, at least, their relegation from the Premier League to the Championship (ie the second tier in English football).

So they will play Crystal Palace next season. My last experience of a Crystal Palace - West Ham game was a Championship play-off in Cardiff, during West Ham's last sojourn in the Championship. I was driving back along the M4 that evening, and missed the football scores on the radio. I asked a group of West Ham fans at a service station who had won - thinking West Ham would be a safe bet as the winners.

Oops. Crystal Palace had won in their typically makeshift manner.

Reports on Conference on Summorum Pontificum

There are two reports that I have found on the recent Summorum Pontificum conference held in Rome.

La Croix are carrying a report Rome prêche la réconciliation autour de la forme extraordinaire, that makes reference to the interventions of two cardinals and two bishops during the conference. It needs a bit of a health warning - what has been highlighted by the journalist may need to be placed in the wider context of each cleric's full text when/if that becomes available.

According to this report, Cardinal Koch was anxious to counter three false oppositions:

Il entreprit ainsi de mettre à mal plusieurs faux « dualismes » : la messe est tout à la fois la commémoration du sacrifice du Christ et le repas partagé par l’assemblée des fidèles, et non l’un ou l’autre ; le prêtre est bien le représentant du Christ devant l’assemblée, celle-ci participant pleinement à la liturgie, l’un n’excluant pas l’autre ; le célébrant devrait pouvoir se tourner, à certains moments de la liturgie, vers l’Orient, sans pour autant se détourner du peuple.

We must respond to several false "dualisms": the Mass is at one and the same time the commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ and the meal in which the assembly of the faithful takes part, and not one or the other; the priest is truly the representing of Christ before the assembly, which takes part fully in the liturgy, the one does not exlude the other; the celebrant must be able to turn, at certain points of the liturgy, towards the East, without for all that, turnining himself away from the people.

Sur ce dernier point, le cardinal suisse fut largement applaudi, le public étant séduit par deux de ses exemples : « Personne ne s’offusque qu’un conducteur d’autobus ou un guide de haute montagne tournent le dos à leurs clients ! »

On this last point, the Swiss cardinal was stronlgy applauded, the audience being taken by two of his analogies: "No-one would argue that a bus driver or a mountain guide turned their back on their clients".

Mgr Schneider's argument in favour of the restoration of the minor orders - by reference to the Levitical priesthood and the sacrality of Holy Orders - seems to be out of step with the provisions of Universae Ecclesiae which insists that it is ordination to the diaconate that marks incardination into a religious institute.

ZENIT are carrying a report that largely covers the intervention of the Secretary of the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei, before including some coverage of the interventions of others. What is of interest here - though, again, the full context of this would need to be gained from the full text of the different interventions - is the extent of the discussion of "mutual enrichment".

According to Mgr Pozzo:

Now, both forms of the Roman liturgy "are an example of reciprocal increase and enrichment," he stressed. "Whoever thinks or acts otherwise, stains the unity of the Roman rite, which must be tenaciously safeguarded."...
In each form there can be "accentuations, underscoring, assertions more marked in some aspects in regard to others, but this does not affect the essential unity of the liturgy," the priest explained.

The ZENIT report suggests that Cardinal Koch's contribution centred on a discussion of the implications of Summorum Pontificum for the Church's ecumenical engagement.

For his part, Cardinal Koch said that the Motu Proprio "will mean steps forward in ecumenism" only if both forms of the one Roman rite are not considered as "an antithesis" but "as mutual enrichment."

Cardinal Koch also suggested that there is a programme of liturgical reform on the part of Pope Benedict XVI:

He explained that the Pope "believes that a new liturgical movement is indispensable today," which in the past he himself described as "a reform of the reform of the liturgy."...

He noted that "Benedict XVI knows well that in the long term we cannot remain with a coexistence between the ordinary and extraordinary forms in the Roman rite, but that the Church will again need in the future a common rite."

"However," he said, "given that a new liturgical form cannot be decided in an office, as it requires a process of growth and purification, for the time being the Pope stresses above all that the two forms of use of the Roman rite can and must enrich one another mutually."

What is essentially offered to all the faithful, and should receive the attention of all the faithful, as a result of the provisions of Summorum Pontificum, is the "richness of the Liturgy" (cf n.1 of Universae Ecclesiae). The agenda of "mutual enrichment" means that this should not be exclusively identified with attachment to the extraordinary form. The notion that a (re-)unified singularity of form is the ultimate purpose of a Papal project of liturgical reform is in a certain tension with the notion of "two forms of the same Rite" that underlies the idea of Summorum Pontificum as it will be lived in the forseeable future. However, that the two forms should move closer to each other does seem to be in the intention of Summorum Pontificum.

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.

Mischief in Universae Ecclesiae?

Does the introduction (nn.1-8) of Universae Ecclesiae represent any changes from Summorum Pontificum? The question is of significance if Universae Ecclesiae is seen as in some way a teaching document about the merit/standing of the extraordinary and ordinary forms. It is of rather less significance if Universae Ecclesiae is seen more strictly as a legislative document.
Now, so far as I have been able to tell, there is nothing in those first paragraphs of Universae Ecclesiae that is not already in Summorum Pontificum. In fact, one can take most of those first paragraphs, turn to Summorum Pontificum, and look to find where they are in "the original". It is really a summary of the provisions, or the underlying principles of the provisions, of Summorum Pontificum.

So, for example, this from Universae Ecclesiae

6. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the last edition prepared under Pope John XXIII, are two forms of the Roman Liturgy, defined respectively as ordinaria and extraordinaria: they are two usages of the one Roman Rite, one alongside the other. Both are the expression of the same lex orandi of the Church. On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with appropriate honor.

could, if one were publishing a concordance of such things, be placed alongside this from Summorum Pontificum:

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the "Lex orandi" (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Blessed John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same "Lex orandi," and must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's "Lex orandi" will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's "Lex credendi" (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite. 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.

If we also recall that, in his letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict wrote:

..., 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 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.

we can begin to see what I might call an element of mischief. If one reads the Instruction without reading the Motu Proprio (and, after all, the Instruction is about the implementation of the Motu Proprio, so one should really read the Motu Proprio with the Instruction) one can gain a rather different sense of the intended "balance" between the two forms of the Roman Rite. One could take away from the Instruction a sense of "equivalence" between the ordinary and extraordinary forms - prompted by the absence of the assertion of the ordinary form as being the ordinary form in a real sense as well as a juridical sense and the insertion (compared to Summorum Pontificum) of the phrase "one alongside the other". I do not think that such an "equivalence" is intended or expressed in the provisions of Summorum Pontificum.

As someone who does not have an attachment to the extraordinary form, and who sees the value to the vast majority of Roman Catholics of Summorum Pontificum and its more generous provision for celebration of the extraordinary form in the mutual enrichment of the ordinary form resulting from that more ready celebration of the extraordinary form, I do not find this element of mischief helpful. We have a stake in the project of Summorum Pontificum, just as much as do those attached to the extraordinary form, though that stake is of a different nature. [And before anyone complains about my use of the word mischief, do read it within the genre in which it is written and remember that, if you are complaining about my use of the word here, it's quite likely that you wouldn't complain about it if I were referring instead to the work of the post-conciliar Consilium or of ICEL in its pre-new-translation incarnation.] 

Oh dear, I am off message again ... More to follow.

UPDATE: The effect of this mischief is exemplified in this extract from Fr Zuhlsdorf, where the influence of the insertion "one alongside the other" and the omission of the recognition of the Missal of Paul VI as the ordinary form in reality as well as juridical nature is quite apparent. What it says is both perfectly correct and perfectly incorrect (though both in different senses).

The Instruction could have said that the Extraordinary Form is not to be used as often as the Ordinary Form. It doesn’t. It says that the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms are “one alongside the other” and that the Extraordinary Form is to be maintained with “appropriate honor”.

Mind sets

Two points in preparation for further comment on Universae Ecclesiae.

In the discussions of a "guild" of Catholic bloggers, there seems to have been an anxiety that everything should be loyal to the magisterium. This for example is part of a post at A Reluctant Sinner on this subject (my emphasis added):

Of course, such a blog / group would need to be committed and faithful to the magisterium, and would strive to be a positive and charitable space. It would not engage in controversy, but would seek to defend the Church and witness to the joys of our Catholic faith. But individual members and bloggers would, of course, still be able to post controversial and / or independent opinions on their own blogs.

This appears to me (from the outside) to be an "anxiety" of those concerned, rather than just something that is lived in a natural way in the Christian life. I don't happen to share this "anxiety" as an anxiety, and am rather put off by it.

In discussions of Summorum Pontificum, before the publication of Universae Ecclesiae, there has been comment from those attached to the Extraordinary Form about the "wishes of the Holy Father". This sometimes takes the line that, with Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI wanted to see the Extraordinary Form celebrated in every parish (my own view to the contrary can be discerned in this post). Herewith one example:

Three years on and the availability of the Latin Mass across Wales is pitiful! As I understand it the same picture is true in most dioceses, with some better than others - but nowehere coming closed to "every parish" especially for Sunday Mass.

Why are the Pope's wishes being ignored? Why is this wonderful Liturgical treasury of Heaven's Graces being denied to the Faithful? Why are the Faithful being treated like obstinate children when many of us simply want to do what the Holy Father wants, for the benefit of the Church, the faithful, our priests and our parishes?

The claim by those attached to the Extraordinary Form to have some kind of unique "ownership" of the wishes of the Holy Father with regard to the liturgy has two aspects that I find off putting. Again, there appears to be an "anxiety" about the universal jurisdiction of the Holy See with regard to the life of the Church, rather than just a natural experiencing of that jurisdiction in the life of the local Church. In a previous era and historical context this kind of attitude might have attracted the label "ultramontanism" but there is only one element of such a label that would be appropriate here, the element of playing off the jurisdiction of the local Bishop against that of the Holy See. The second aspect is the rather simple one that what is claimed as being the "wishes of the Holy Father" is not actually the wishes of the Holy Father and that there is in any case a certain selectivity in what is being discerned as the wishes of the Holy Father and what is not being so discerned.

After the publication of Summorum Pontificum I attempted on this blog to define what the term "traditional Catholicism" meant since my view is that, after Summorum Pontificum, traditional Catholicism can no longer be defined on the basis of attachment to the Extraordinary Form. I am not sure that I was able to come to a clear conclusion. Is traditional Catholicism now, not as a matter of definition or charism but as a matter of phenomenology, to be discerned by the above "anxieties" or "mind sets"?

Real Life

I have copied this from Tigerish Waters because it was posted there in such a way that it was not possible to link to it as an individual post. Tigerish Waters is one of the more thoughtful blogs on the block. Her husband was taken ill suddenly during the Easter triduum.

It has taken me a while to get here, but I now have to report the news to you that my husband, Paul died at 9.20 pm on Tuesday 10th May. I humbly ask now that you pray for the repose of his soul.

It was a good death. It was a beautiful death. I wake up every morning and cry because I cannot believe I was able to participate in such an outpouring of grace. Perhaps one day I'll write in more detail, but not now.

Actually, I implore you too to pray for a happy death as he did every night. It is such an important thing to do.

If I could, on my own testimony, raise Bl John Henry and my dear Bl Elizabeth of the Trinity to be amongst the canonised saints, I'd do so now. They have worked miracles for us in the last few weeks.

I also give thanks to God for your wonderful prayers and support. This is the real power of blogging, and never let us forget that.

************

Well my dear St Rita, I'm a widow now like you, what ever next .....?

Eternal rest grant to him, O Lord, and perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace and rise again in glory.