Motu Musings
Posted by: tony on 07/08/2007 11:03 PM
Updated by: tony on 07/08/2007 11:09 PM
Expires: 08/08/2007 12:00 AM
I have been watching with a certain amusement the huge pillow fight which has ensued between the "Novus-ites" and the "Rad-trads" (the Jets and the Sharks have nothing on these two groups) with regard to the recently released apostolic letter entitled Summorum Pontificum. otherwise known as The Motu Proprio™, as if there were never any other apostolic exhortations released under the Pope's own authority (motu proprio).
This particular long awaited document was purported to liberalize the use of the "Tridentine Rite". It was looked upon by "traddies" as an 11th commandment coming down from the mountain of God's rottweiler, the former Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. It was looked at by the "libs" as rolling back the clock to before Vatican II, or going back to the "dark ages".
I figured neither of those ideas would be 100% correct, and I believe the official document has vindicated my viewpoint.
It seems that out beloved Papa has taken a very Catholic Pillow Fight attitude toward granting permission to use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII (and no, it's not a separate rite, nor is it the unadulterated product of the Council of Trent (having undergone multiple changes between the date of that rite and 1966).
I'm going to go through it and give my commentary of the parts that struck me as important.
The Holy Father writes:
"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 Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour 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.
The ordinary expression, and the extraordinary expression, both leading to the appropriate "rule of prayer". Beautiful. Both expressions are valid and worthy. The Holy Father has, like King Solomon, "cut the baby in two" (but actually did a much more interesting thing by "combining the baby into one").
Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.
That's a good one. It's still the extraordinary expression even if the vernacular is used for the readings. This may not be pure enough for some traditionalists (possibly not pure enough for SSPX; that remains to be seen).
"Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 õ 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei".
If the pastor won't do it for you, call your Bishop. If the Bishop won't do it for you call the Pope. What I'm curious about is how seriously the Vatican will take priests and bishops balking the faithful, and how swiftly the Vatican will correct the problem.
"Art. 10. The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.
The Bishop can make the SSPX obsolete in his diocese. All he has to do is set up specific chapels for the faithful who want the extraordinary expression and only that.
"News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.
No kidding.
Now for one of the most important paragraphs (at least in my viewpoint).
"As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a 'Forma extraordinaria' of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church. [ed.- Highlighted emphesis, mine]
This underlined passage brought tears to my eyes. I felt like the Holy Father had looked into my heart, and was speaking directly to me. Here was a kindered spirit, and he was the Pope.
I have dealt with felt banners, banal music, loss of deliniation of God-space and people-space, the denuding of churches turning them into "worship spaces", loss of respect for the Blessed Sacrament, and indeed a loss of the understanding in the faithful that Jesus is real and present in the eucharistic bread and wine.
Frankly, I tire of it.
By the same token, I understand that Vatican II was a legitimate council. I have to, because it was called by a validly elected Pope in accordance with the norms of the Catholic Church. I may not like it, but that has to me it's simply because I don't understand it fully yet. As a Catholic, I don't have to fully agree with or understand something to be obedient to it.
Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them.
I guess the "young fogies" have had quite an impact. I'm somewhat on the borderline. I was a youth when Vatican II was called and the missal of Paul VI was promulgated. So I guess I could be considered an "old fogey".
Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present norms are also meant to free bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.
The Holy Father is making it easy on the Bishops by taking it out of their hands. That's one of the things I love about Pope Benedict, his selfless charity and generosity.
And now for the money quote:
"I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return . widen your hearts also!" (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.[ed.- Highlighted emphesis, mine.]
Pope Benedict seems to be saying: "Divisions were happening, and we sat on our hands. Now we have to roll up our sleeves and work twice as hard to fix it."
I agree, Holy Father. There is a lot of fixing to be done. To my traditionalist brothers and sisters, I'll say the same thing that I have said in the past:
We need you in the pews in our parishes. Please don't bail for the nearest "extraordinary expression chapel". Stay with us. We need your voice, your wisdom and most importantly, your prayers.
