_____________________
Update: The big fears concerning the SP instruction are not materializing in the rumor mill.
So far, the two negatives presented by Rorati Coeli are rather minor, and if everyone would stop and think about it, to be expected.
An apparent limitation of the application of Summorum Pontificum to Western liturgical Rites such as the Ambrosian Rite and Dominican Rite, which is said to be contained in the instruction, and limiting the ability of diocesan seminarians to be ordained according to the 1962 liturgies have more to do with protecting the equally legitimate liturgical rights of local bishops and religious superiors. In both cases, the rights of local bishops and religious superiors may be contrary to the rights of the faithful concerning the forms of the liturgy to be used. We should not expect anything other than the rights of the local bishop and religious superiors taking precedence.
Secondly, there is a new rumor circulating that these leaks are coming from those translating the document, which raises some pointed questions:
Why aren't the positives being leaked?
Are those leaking this information interested in weakening the instruction in general by undermining support for it in traditional circles?
Given the importance of Summorum Pontificum in the efforts to reach a canonical solution for the SSPX, is this an attack on those efforts?
If this is the case, is Rorate Coeli and the rest of us only furthering these nefarious designs?
I think it best to bring back some measure of calm here. We need to wait for the document to be released before passing judgment, otherwise we may be unwittingly playing into the hands of a few who are trying to undermine the present course regarding Tradition and traditionalists.
______________________
Rorati Coeli has been posting about a possible disaster pending with the release of the "clarification" document concerning Summorum Pontificum. There are rumors claiming this document will water down the prerogatives set forth in the Holy Father's motu propio that liberated the Traditional Latin Mass according to the liturgical books of 1962.
Back at the beginning of the year I made a prediction that this clarification document would be released this year, but would be a disappointment for traditional Catholics. This was not a wild guess on my part. Late last year I had gotten wind that a substantial number of bishops and their offices had written up negative reviews for the three year analysis that they were asked to draw up. The main criticism, I was told, was divisiveness on the part of the members of traditional Catholic groups and communities, and their lack of involvement in the greater diocesan communities. Accusations were being made regarding "strong-arm" tactics on the part of traditional Catholics, insularism, and slow growth.
This, of course, is all hear-say, but given the recent rumors, I believe that this information is relevant at this time. Allow me to point out, I rather think these rumors about the clarification document are exaggerations. While it may be disappointing, I don't think it will be the disaster that it is already being lamented as being. We need to wait for the document to come out, and then judge it on it's own merits.
But lets grant that the rumors are true, and this document will be every bit as terrifying as it is being made out to be...
If these rumors are true, then we can expect from the clarification document a movement away from the Extraordinary Form being a "right", and back to being a "privilege". There is essentially no difference between a privilege, something that is allowed, and an "indult". I seriously doubt we are headed back to those bad-old-indult days, wherein local bishops had the freedom to crush traditional Catholics and their legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, I think we are going to start hearing the word "universal indult" again. Granted, back in 2006 the term "universal indult" was the substance of our dreams, but that was before we got something much better, a right.
What will this mean for traditional Catholics? Honestly, it's not all doom and gloom. Sure we can expect some negatives from this. The re-introduction of an "indult mentality" to the episcopate will mean that traditional Catholics will once again get treated as second class citizens by many bishops, and our aspirations will be treated as aberrations in the life of the Church that needs to be segregated and ignored as much as possible. However, that's true of many bishops, regardless of what this clarification document will say. If a modernist bishop doesn't like traditional Catholics, the Traditional Latin Mass or Tradition, then there's nothing in a Vatican document that will make it better or worse for traditional Catholics in that man's diocese. It may even have the advantage of silencing all these calls for the novus ordo, as ludicrous as it may be, to "enrich" the Traditional Latin Mass. If traditional Catholics and the Traditional Latin Mass are once again "second class", then I for one will not lament mainstream Catholics forgetting "mutual enrichment."
Speaking of "mutual enrichment", I heard a theory (not a rumor) that one aspect of the clarification document may be a call to force traditional Catholics into hearing the novus ordo by willfully limiting our access to the Traditional Latin Mass. Exclusivity and insularism on the part of traditional Catholics is, after all, one of the main concerns of many bishops. Mutual enrichment isn't served by traditional Catholics attending only the Extraordinary Form, or so the logic goes. Pressure could be brought to bear on traditional Catholic fraternities and orders to start offering the novus ordo, and to start concelebrating at the novus ordo, at least once a year at the bishop's chrism Mass. This latter theory isn't so far fetched. It has actually happened in the case of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, and that controversy contributed to the resignation of the Fraternity's original superior.
If this is the case, then once again, I'm not so sure this is all doom and gloom. It isn't as though traditional Catholics haven't had to tread the same ground in the not so distant past. The Modernists will never understand our devotion for the Traditional Latin Mass, or our willingness to make extraordinary sacrifices for it, because the disaster that they have made of the Church has obscured and caused them to forget any semblance of true devotion. While they are drooling over the witchery and fraud at Medjugorje or congratulating themselves for their Pentecostalism at Franciscan U, neither of which will stand the test of time, we will simply go about business as usual. Whether it be swelling the pews at the local SSPX chapel, driving sixty or a hundred miles on Sunday, or just pestering the daylights out of our bishops, we've been there and we've done that. We had nearly fifty years of training. The Traditional Latin Mass and Tradition didn't go away then, and they won't go away now.
I agree with New Catholic over at Rorate Coeli that we should all start writing letters to the Holy Father, the CDF and our local bishops. But allow me to add this: if you are expecting our current leaders to make the necessary reforms that will turn the tables on the Modernists, you are going to be disappointed. The fox is guarding the hen house. Write to them, pray for them, ask God to soften their hardened hearts, but we have to put even more energy into making ourselves holy and faithful traditional Catholics. The primary manner in which we promote the Traditional Latin Mass and Catholic Tradition is by making ourselves more receptive to the beauty and spiritual fecundity that is the exclusive property of the Immortal Mass. We are the ones entrusted with this precious Icon, and it is up to each one of us to muster up the courage to rise to the occasion, come the realization of these rumors, or even worse.
What could be more dis-heartening than the May 1st beatification of Pope John Paul II???
ReplyDeleteThe rumored restriction on the right of bishops to use the 1962 Ordinal is not minor but a fundamental attack on the potential growth of diocesan Traditional communities. It may really depress diocesan Traditional vocations even now, and certainly will loom large in 10 years.
ReplyDeleteDiocesan bishops looking to bring the fullness of Tradition back to their dioceses should not be forced to choose between making noise in Rome and making the presbyterally unpopular move to bring in an outside religious order.
Quote:
ReplyDelete"Write to them, pray for them, ask God to soften their hardened hearts, but we have to put even more energy into making ourselves holy and faithful traditional Catholics."
It is the hardened hearts of us traditionalists that need softening, not those of the modernists. Until then, God is not going to allow true freedom of the Mass of all time.
Who has the most to gain by stirring up traditional Catholics (by Rorate Caeli) into fear and frenzy? Who, in traditionalist circles, is expert in doing this, and has been expert for 30+ years? Who is behind the website motuproprioappeal.com? Discover the answers to these questions, and you'll begin, hopefully, to see the bigger pictue.
Anon, I disagree. First of all, the rumors in this regard are completely unsubstantiated. We simply don't know what the instruction will indicate.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, even it were true, I simply don't see how such a "restriction" could harm in the least traditional Catholic communities, which have been thriving for the last three years despite the fact that there hasn't been a single priestly ordination of a diocesan seminarian by a diocesan bishop according to the 1962 liturgical books, at least not in the United States. If you know of one, please let me know.
Thirdly, the rumor really doesn't make any sense. Why would a bishop have to ask "permission" from a commission to do anything? More than likely, if the instruction is going ask anything of a bishop in this regard, it would be a notification, not a request for permission. The devil is in the details, and, once again, since we don't know the details, we need stop being alarmists.
I don't know of any cases of ferendae sententiae excommunication by diocesan bishops in this country either, in the last 3 years. But it would be devastating to Church discipline to remove that power from them.
ReplyDeleteIt's shameful that our bishops should be treated like second-class bishops, and denied the right to use a lawful Ordinal without first securing the approval of some dimply-faced Roman desk-clerk.
Order priests are not the traditional, normal way for providing the Sacraments to the faithful. We have sent our young men to diocesan seminaries and expect them to be ordained for the diocese (in whatever rite), so they can eventually say the Traditional Mass for the diocese. But why would we want to send our young men to the diocese to promise obedience to a second-class bishop and his second-class successors?
Anon, once again, you are getting worked up about something that simply isn't the case. We don't know what the instruction will say, and its highly unlikely any instruction from a pontifical commission would or could abrogate the rights of the apostles' successors.
ReplyDeleteDon't you think it much better for your heart just to calm down and wait for the document to be published at large?