May 13, 2011

Vatican Instruction Released: The Good and the Bad

The long-awaited (and occasionally feared) Instruction on Summorum Pontificum was published earlier today, addressing some of the questions that the ultra-slow motion return of the Traditional Latin Mass has occasioned. So what do we learn?

First, the good: Bishops can’t stymie a Latin Mass group just because their visiting priest doesn’t have the Latin fluency of Marcus Aurelius. Bishops are to presume that priests who want to say the Mass are competent to do it. No altar girls, extraordinary ministers, or any post-1962 norm are to be regrafted onto the 1962 Missal. The “group” of faithful asking for the old Mass doesn’t have to be big, doesn’t have to be all from one parish, and should be welcomed. They can request the Easter Triduum liturgy and confirmation in the old form. Religious orders can return to their 1962 books as well (we’re looking at you, Dominicans).

A close reading of this instruction seems to reduce bishops to a welcoming committee. It’s almost as if Pope Benedict XVI has built a bridge between himself and these small groups of faithful through the office of Ecclesia Dei, and this structure is built over the bishops.

The uncertain or bad: There are phrases in this instruction that can be latched onto by bishops who oppose any whiff of incense to cause trouble. The Instruction should never have even mentioned that the need for the old liturgy had anything to do with people who were “formed by it,” even if it clearly announces that Summorum Pontificum is for the entire Church.

The document also contains this: “The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria.” Bishops could use this line to deny faithful access to the old Mass. Validity and legitimacy are legal terms, but bishops can construe these words to mean that the faithful who prefer the Old Mass are not really allowed to prefer the old Mass, to think it better in any respect, or to give off too many Lefebvrist vibes.

The document also states that new saints and new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal. This is dangerous stuff, I’m afraid. Sure, some would like to have Divine Mercy Sunday in the old form, for instance. But there is just not enough trust built between traditionalists and the larger Church to begin making revisions to the old Mass yet. I even wonder if these will be followed at all. Certainly the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) won’t follow them, and they do have the influence of example on Ecclesia Dei communities. The Extraordinary form Masses I’ve attended haven’t even incorporated Benedict’s revision to the Good Friday prayer for the Jews.

The Instruction makes training for seminarians in Latin and the Old Rite a strong suggestion and not a requirement. It also limits ordination in the Old Rite to the societies dedicated to it, which is probably wise in order to avoid fears that the new rite is deficient to make a priest.

Overall, the instruction is just okay for hard-bitten traditionalists. It has the besetting fault of all recent Vatican documents: It is verbose, bureaucratic, and managerial. The traditionalist movement in the Church does best when the obstacles are cleared out of its way. Each time that Church authorities try to explain every detail along the way, they inadvertently set up nets for us to get tangled in. They make us more and more dependent on offices like Ecclesia Dei, which is fine so long as the character of the bishop leading it is great.

But the traditionalist movement has succeeded with self-generating and largely self-directed institutions: the SSPX, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), the Institute of Christ the King, and individual priests and pastors taking an initiative. Traditional Catholics don’t need management, we need freedom and recognition. If Benedict would like to give leadership, he doesn’t need to manage us, but rather he should manage the seminaries and Catholic universities that continue to produce anti-Traditional Catholics.

This Instruction affirms our freedom and recognizes some of our desires, but in some cases it also tries to manage us. We’ll continue to run the race, but we’ll occasionally buck and chafe.

Update: A previous version of this article misidentified Archbishop Raymond Burke as the president of Ecclesia Dei. We regret the error. Image

Tagged as: Ecclesia Dei, Liturgy, president, slider, Summorum Pontificum

The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

Print this | Share this

By Michael Brendan Dougherty

Michael Brendan Dougherty is a contributing editor at The American Conservative and the founder of The Slurve, a site on baseball. He blogs at The Unreal. His work has appeared in The Awl, Politico, Newsweek, and ComedyCentral.com.

Crisis Magazine relies on the generosity of our donors to keep our apostolate going. Please support our work today!

Nick

“It is verbose, bureaucratic, and managerial.”

Oh good, another Catholic who thinks he knows better than the Church.

Now all I need to see is a dissenting Catholic group to claim the instruction is evil and I’ll be golden.

Dennis

Agreed. While I think the Extraordinary form is beautiful and should never be done away with, many (not all) traditionalists make it seem they will only be satisfied once the Church gives them this directive: “Do what you want.” Anything less than that is a ‘net to be tangled in’.

With that philosophy, though, the other end of the spectrum can claim documents against women’s ordination and unchaste homosexual priests are ‘nets to be tangled in’ and should also be able to do what they want. They can also claim, paraphrasing above: ‘The modernist movement in the Church does best when the obstacles are cleared out of its way.’

B. Baxter

Heterodox Catholics can and would claim this, only they would do it baselessly. The TLM was never abrogated, and this has been affirmed throughout the last thirty years; meanwhile the full authority of the Church came down absolutely and finally opposed to every single one of the causes of the culture of death.

Their only foundation is made of lies or at least misconceptions, inoculated against truth by fuzzy thinking and poor catechesis.

Pingback: Instructions in Latin « The Unreal
Bender

**Traditional Catholics don’t need management, we need freedom and recognition**
______________

That much is clear, that what the rad-trads want is not communion with the rest of the Church, but freedom from the Church, i.e. separation. You want to not do what others do in unity with them, but instead you want to do your own thing.

This is merely a dissenting “we are Church” view from the opposite side.

Fact is, you do need management . . . and a good dose of humility too.

B. Baxter

It bears saying: Good managers are referees. Micromanagers are not.

Thomas

Just a nit-picky detail:
“They make us more and more dependent on offices like Ecclesia Dei, which is fine so long as the character of the bishop leading it is great. Archbishop Raymond Burke is pretty great.”

As much as I wish he were in charge of Ecclesia Dei, he is not. Unless a change was made today, I stand corrected.

I believe the Cardinal President is His Eminence William Cardinal Levada and the Secretary is the Reverend Monsignor Guido Pozzo.

Xpo4us

You are correct about Cardinal Levada.

However, the instruction also makes explicit (Para. 10.2) that appeals from any decision by PCED will go to the Apostolic Segnatura, which *is* headed by Cardinal Burke.

Anonymous Seminarian

I agree it’s not perfect, especially as any seminarian who compares the two rites for ordination is going to want the Roman one, but it’s a great start. It clearly supports and strengthens SP, clarifying some of the details we needed clarity on (like when the readings can be done in the vernacular). And about seminaries, in this country we’re looking at a whole host of seminaries in tacit defiance of Canon 249 by not requiring any Latin at all. If they’re not doing the basic minimum now, what good is telling them to do more? So I think it’s a start; as the Roman Rite regains strength, I think we’ll see stronger documents in the future.
http://www.steveskojec.com Steve Skojec

Michael,

Thanks for this. I’ve not had the chance to read the full document yet and it’s helpful to have a summary.

The point is well taken about “nets” to be tangled in. I first started attending the “indult” (which we now know should never have needed permission at all, as many protested back then) in 2004. While I’ve had a great deal of positive experiences, I’ve also seen plenty of unfairness and legalistic restrictions. I’ve also known fellow Catholics – including diocesan priests – whose bishop[s have used every conceivable means at their disposal to limit, trivialize, or forbid traditional Catholics from having the sacraments in the Church’s most long-standing forms.

In many sectors of the Church, Catholics who are attached to traditional forms are viewed as either old dogs who can’t learn new tricks (and will eventually die out) or misguided young malcontents latching onto something that’s not much more than a fad. If you want to encounter hostility as a Catholic, going to the Latin Mass is a far surer way to get it than, say, to advocate liturgical dance, the loosening of restrictions on clerical celibacy, or the like.

And I have to note that it’s hard to get good pastoral care. You go to one Church because they allow the TLM (with help of visiting priest, not pastor) another to get parish activities/community, etc. If you want daily Mass you’re out of luck, most of the time. I’ve found that in a number of cases, otherwise good, orthodox priests can at times get very squeamish when you ask them to provide any sacraments pre-1969. I recently experienced that when requesting a baptism that way.

Why is there a stigma on those who want to worship in exactly the same way as their grandparents and great-grandparents? Attitudes aside, are there liturgical preferences somehow disordered? 4 years after Summorum Pontificum, you’d think we wouldn’t still be talking about this.

I remain convinced that better than any instruction or clarification from Rome, if the Holy Father celebrated even a single (though more would be better!) public Mass in the Gregorian Form, it would move mountains. That act alone would do more legitimize those attached to traditional sacraments than any document ever could. Why he hasn’t yet is quite the mystery, considering the way he talks about it’s value to the Church as a whole.
James Kabala

I disagree – I think it is good for the Old/Tridentine/Extraordinary calendar to be open to additions – not so much for Divine Mercy or any other new liturgical feasts that might be created, but for the canonization of new saints. Therese of Lisieux and Pius X were added to the calendar in the twentieth century, and if the Novus Ordo had never been created post-1962 canonizations such as Martin de Porres, Charles Lwanga, Padre Pio, or Damian of Molokai might well have been added in due time, as they were in fact added to the Novus Ordo calendar. (Maybe they would have not made the cut, as John Fisher and Thomas More did not at first but later did in the NO calendar, but no one would have considered it improper to at least consider such additions.) Decades to come will likely see the canonizations (and additions to the NO calendar) of Newman, Mother Teresa, and others.

I understand the traditionalist concerns about the so-called “saint factory” of recent decades, but I think it is a bad idea to have a calendar frozen as if holiness came to an end in 1962. How will that play a hundred or a thousand years from now?
Michael Brendan Dougherty

James,

I agree. I would like the calendar unfrozen. But the trust just isn’t there at the moment. It would be easier to do this once you recociled all or most of the SSPX so that the changes will be seen in all (or nearly all) Catholic chapels.

We Trads also like our “gesima” Sundays, and fear losing them. And the prefaces should only be touched with great care.

As for the rest accusing me of disloyalty or whatever, since when did an appreciation of Vaticanese become necessary for our salvation?

Best,
Michael

Alessandro

Sorry, Michael, but I don’t agree, though being a Trad myself. I think the Mass should be changed in some minor aspects. Why? Well, for psychological reasons.
Keeping the Usus Antiquior Mass unfrozen means in the mind of progressists that our beloved Tridentine Mass is nothing but archaeology and nostalgia. We are just retros. It is just a weapon they can use against us to condemn our “medieval” views as contrary to the Second Vatican Council.
By adding the new saints and embodying some new Prefaces (in truth, it is odd we don’t have one for Advent!), the Magisteriums is just sending a signal to progressists: the EF is a living Mass. It is changing because it is actual. It can evolve naturally within Tradition as it should have done in case Bugnini’s Consilium didn’t turn the Latin Mass into a repository of Protestant creativity, but should have kept the ordinary form of “evolution” within the Latin Rite as it happened in the 400 years between the Council of Trent and the 1962 Missal.

Of course, this is my understanding. I was even hoping for that. Being committed to the Tridentine Mass doesn’t mean time has stopped back in 1962. It means we can live as 2011 AD people who have a traditional approach to God and the liturgy. That’s my opinion.

In Christ,

Alex

http://www.zazzle.com/jitpring Jitpring

The document may bear some good fruit, but not nearly as much as it might have, as it perpetuates at least three errors: 1) following the Vatican II cult of novelty and confusion, the continuing use of the schizophrenic terminological and conceptual innovations, “ordinary form” and “extraordinary form.” 2) the continued treatment of the traditional Mass (the so-called “extraordinary form”) as a museum piece attractive only for its antiquity rather than its objective superiority over the Novus Ordo. 3) the continued renunciation of the strong language of a commanding magisterium.

Dennis

Regarding 1) What terms would you prefer? The Novus Ordo is the form that is ordinarily used. The traditional Mass is used in addition to (extra-) the ordinary form.

Regarding 2) The pope and magisterium do not claim there is a superiority of one over the other, so your comment seems very arrogant, even if you did not mean it that way.

Regarding 3) The magisterium sees a much larger and detailed picture than you do. The ‘strong language’ you are looking for may be damaging than beneficial. Do not assume you know best. Remember, liberal Catholics (and I use that term loosely for many of them) want ‘strong language’ as well, but for their own ends, as you do yours.

http://www.zazzle.com/jitpring Jitpring

By the way, regarding the objective superiority of the traditional Mass, see:

http://www.realclearreligion.com/index_files/757bb466a5ca6270ded190925c7f227f-611.html
Pingback: FRIDAY EXTRA: UNIVERSAE ECCLESIAE | ThePulp.it
dms

Regarding the objective superiority that “Jitpring” thinks he has, see his comments on various websites. This commentary seems to have been written by a “hard-bitten traditionalist” who thinks the document is “just okay.” Verbose? It’s one of the shortest “instructions” I’ve ever read and gets right to the point. Managerial? Aren’t all instructions? Isn’t that the point of an instruction? Bureaucratic? It’s for people (bishops) who are part of the “bureaucracy.” It doesn’t require Latin? Latin is already required in the Code of Canon Law. “Manage us?” Again, it is not written to you or me. It’s for the bishops or other executors of the law contained in Summorum pontificum.
Bender

About that “objective superiority” –

In other words, you are saying that the Ordinary Form is objectively inferior, thereby implying it has less validity and legitimacy. Way to go there — you’ve just disqualified yourself under section 19.
http://www.zazzle.com/jitpring Jitpring

Just read the article I linked to, by Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP.

Dennis

I have read it already. It is based on what the author has personally experienced and what he himself considers more beautiful, more meditative, and more prayerful. In other words, it is his opinion.

In addition, as is mentioned in footnote 36: “…the liturgical writers also indicate that the fruits of the Mass can be received more efficaciously by those properly disposed than by those not properly disposed.” Using the author’s wording, the extrinsic efficaciousness of the Mass is also determined by one’s disposition. In other words, it is subjective, not objective. A Novus Ordo Mass can be more efficacious for me than a traditional Mass can be for you if I am better disposed to receiving the fruits of the Mass.

Dennis

Please keep in mind that I am not criticizing the traditional Mass, nor most of those who prefer it. I am criticizing those who have the arrogance to think they know better than the Church’s leadership.

Christophe

Such uncritical idolization of “the Church’s leadership” is a primary cause for the current state of the Church. Every indicator shows a profound decline since Vatican II. This devastation did not mysteriously descend upon the Body of Christ from the outside, it arose from the conscious decisions of “the Church’s leadership.” If more of the faithful had been critical, both in intellect, word, and deed, we might actually be experiencing a New Springtime. Yet in Dennis’ eyes, the “traditionalists” are the bad guys.

http://www.zazzle.com/jitpring Jitpring

Yes. It truly boggles the mind.
james Hughes

The real problem is that prior to –we were mostly governed by the notion that the clergy and hierarchy knows best and we either have conform or be branded as schismatics. The result is that now the genie is out of the bottle and the people are more and more likely to question and criticise what the hierarchy do and say. Lets face it their credibility has been trashed given the scandals which have beset the church on their watch . Is it any wonder we are in such a turmoil?

Bender

Re: “the Church’s leadership”

You mean the Holy Spirit? (which we as Catholics profess as a matter of doctrinal faith to be guiding and protecting the Church from error)

And to be clear, it is not authentic traditionists who are “the bad guys” here. Authentic traditionals adhere to tradition, including that which is the dogma and doctrine of the Holy Church, including the doctrine of being ONE Church.

But this is not you. This is not anyone who, by words or deeds, works toward division in the Church as you do and have even here.

http://www.zazzle.com/jitpring Jitpring

“Authentic traditionals adhere to tradition, including that which is the dogma and doctrine of the Holy Church, including the doctrine of being ONE Church.”

Exactly. Which is why authentic traditionalists must reject the errors of Vatican II and anything that reinforces or augments them, such as the vandalized Mass, i.e., the Novus Ordo.

kjd

I’m pre-Vatican II. I grew up with the TLM. Fr. Ripperger’s comment that the TLM is less laity-active (my own words there, but it means we aren’t giving the responses) made me laugh, it was so true. The nuns would lead us children in the Rosary during the Mass! Our bishop, when the new Mass came in, stated that the elderly who recited their rosaries during the Mass were actually attending. Note that during most Masses, there were two rituals going on — the Mass, by priest, acolytes, and those who attempted to follow in their missals; and the private prayers by most of the laity in the pews. It is very difficult to carry on private prayer during a Novus Ordo Mass — you are forced into concentrating on the Mass itself.

“A little child will lead them.” I miss the Latin, but was shaken at the end of the Our Father (Novus Ordo) when a little boy clapped — I realized it was the first time he could fathom what was going on! Better we could all (young/old, educated/uneducated) pray with the priest rather than leave it to the acolytes to represent us.

The Mass is supposed to be a public prayer, not private. Allowing those who want the TLM to have it is a good idea. Those who want it will be praying the TLM, not the Rosary or the other prayers in their prayer books. I would say the Mass today is extrinsically better than the Mass said prior to Vatican II. Why? Because more people, whether it is TLM or NO, are actually assisting at the Mass.

Oh, I still miss the Latin, the pomp, the incense, the hymns; but I think I pray the Mass much more and better than I ever did in Latin.
Ellen

I too am a pre-Vat2 Catholic. I appreciate the preConciliar ritual, but since it doesn’t seek to involve the assembly except visually (it hardly does so aurally unless a schola or choir) it will never appeal to all but a tiny minority of persons. The Novus Ordo, done correctly, is far, far more effective in achieving the sanctification of its congregation.

Oh, and whatever service attended by the author with the preConciliar intercession for the Jewish people, if Catholic, included certainly wasn’t Mass. And editors should make sure authors know how to spell Triduum. It is small errors like this that betray the “know-nothing” undercurrent among trad laity.
Marc

I would just like access to the Traditional Mass. We are stonewalled at every turn here in Southern Oregon. At this point they are starting it up again about 3 hours from us twice monthly so we are forced to drive there if we want it.

They promptly transferred a new priest (after only two months) that was known to say the Latin Mass after a group of us expressed an interest (I’m sure it had nothing to do with it… cough)

I guess I can always go to the local Lifeteen Mass if I feel I need an extra spiritual jolt. At least they are concerned about the needs of the teenagers to feel welcome in the Church.

Arnold

Marc,

Are you referring to the new assistant priest at the parish in Medford? I heard recently just a couple of weeks ago from a friend involved in church music and liturgy that the new parochial vicar there was looking into celebrating the Extraordinary Form. When did this transfer take place?