In another entry I posted an article from the the ultra-lefty English weekly The Tablet. In that same issue there was an unsigned editorial.
What follows is an exercise in vindictive hatred for people who desire the traditional form of Mass.
This is the stuff of cry babies.
Here it is with my emphases and comments.
Editorial, 10 November 2007
Harsh words from Rome
Celebration of the Eucharist is at the heart of Catholic identity, to the extent that regular attendance at Mass usually defines who is and who is not entitled to call themselves by that name. This may be why liturgical controversy in the Church sometimes takes on a hard and bitter edge. The latest display of ill feeling has been triggered by the somewhat unenthusiastic welcome [How about "cold and defiant rejection"?] in some parts of the Church given to Pope Benedict’s motu proprio of last July, licensing the more general use of the Tridentine Rite. Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship at the Vatican, this week accused bishops who were trying to limit use of the Tridentine Mass of being "in rebellion against the Pope" and guilty of "one of the gravest sins" – pride. Certain "theologians, liturgists, priests, bishops and even cardinals" had issued "interpretative documents that inexplicably try to limit the Pope’s motu proprio", he complained. [He properly observed. It is all a matter of perspective, right?]
The substance of his charge is somewhat perplexing, as the motu proprio itself implied some limitations, such as its restriction of the use of the Old Rite to "stable groups" [There it is again! Do you see how pernicious this bad translation is?] who had "adhered" to it. That seemed to refer to strongly traditionalist Catholics who already [You see? There is the argument of some of those who are stonewalling. The group desiring the older form of Mass had to already exist, which is clearly not what Summorum Pontificum implies. This is the way those who object seek to limit the rights of the faithful, which were expanded generously by the Holy Father.] had special dispensation to celebrate Mass in that form, and such groups are by no means either numerous or evenly spread. Thus the judgement of Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow, for instance, that no such groups existed in his diocese, seems a reasonable one and hardly an act of disobedience. [B as in B. S as in S.] If the Pope meant to give universal approval for the use of the Tridentine Rite without conditions, he would presumably have said so. [He pretty much did. It is only when you entirely ignore the Church's practice of interpretation of law and refuse to read the Latin that you are able to find restrictive "loopholes".] And if Archbishop Ranjith’s words signal his lack of confidence in the loyalty of various bishops to the Pope, such intemperate language will hardly gain him the confidence of the wider Church. [The writer is assuming that Archbp. Ranjith needs human respect in this matter. And notice the slimey word "confidence" here. What does that mean, exactly, from the pen of this writer?] He has made his own job immeasurably more difficult. [Let me get this straight. There are bishops and priests all over the world, for decades, violating the rubrics of the Novus Ordo, in sharp and conscious defiance of documents of the Holy See and repeated admonitions and yet Ranjith has made Ranjith's job harder?] Indeed one of those he appears to be criticising is Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds, chairman of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, who is a key player in the drafting of a new English version of the Mass whose final promulgation may be only months away. He too has written to his priests offering an interpretation of the motu proprio.
Bishops have every right to have reservations about the return of the Tridentine Mass, [More on this below.] as it has long been the symbolic flag carried by elements in the Church which most disliked the reforms promoted by the Second Vatican Council. The bishops have a duty not to let this disobedient and anti-conciliar spirit spread. [WHAT? I submit that the writer must have his head in a very dark place indeed. What the vast majority of the people who desire the older form of Mass objected to was the hideous irreverence and utter disdain for liturgical tradition imposed on them for decades. Let's just ask ourselves these questions: Upon whom did the onus of obedience lie heavier? Clergy or laity? Bishops and priests, who let everything veer diabolically out of control, and even aided the chaos, or lay people who were still told to shut up and keep putting money in the collection?] It is already present in some seminaries, where a proportion of young men studying for the priesthood seem particularly attracted to a backwards-looking style of Catholicism that was familiar in the novels of Evelyn Waugh. [I think we know what the implication is.] The Tridentine Rite reflected the Counter-Reformation theology that emerged from the Council of Trent, and the Second Vatican Council marked the moment when the Catholic Church decided, definitively,[Definitively? Really? In what document can that be cited?] that the Counter-Reformation era was over. It is because the motu proprio seemed to give comfort and support to those with a nostalgic and obsolete view of the faith [Note that "comfort and support" are usually given to the "enemy" by "traitors".] that many bishops worldwide felt the need to limit the damage it might otherwise have caused. It is a pity that some in Rome did not understand this.
What I understand is that the writer thinks those bishops ought to have defied the Pope’s provisions and that they are doing well to place restrictions on Summorum Pontificum.
I want to follow up on that phrase "Bishops have every right to have reservations about the return of the Tridentine Mass".
Bishops have the right to their opinions just like everyone else. They can like the older Mass or not, fear it or embrace it, long for it or wish it would go away.
They are perfectly within their rights.
What they do not have the right to do is violate the right of others to pray at Mass in this form.
They do not have the right restrict the provisions given by the Supreme Pontiff.
The writer is a coward for not signing this editorial.