You will recall that His Eminence the Archbishop of Manila, Card. Rosales, had originally imposed severe restrictions on the provisions enacted by the Supreme Pontiff in Summorum Pontificum.
Those restrictions were so clearly out of step with the Church’s law and the intent of the Motu Proprio that Card. Castrillon, President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", intervened to explain the situation to Card. Rosales.
Now the Archdiocese of Manilia as a new page on its website with a "Clarification" about Summorum Pontificum.
Let’s look at it with my emphases and comments.
Episcopal Commission on Liturgy
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines
Clarifications on Summorum Pontificum
Pope Benedict XVI published the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007 with effectivity on September 14, 2007. The Episcopal Commission on Liturgy received several requests to clarify certain issues [that's one way to put it] regarding its contents and implementation.
* What is the aim of the Apostolic Letter?
The Apostolic Letter was published to seek “interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church”, that is, with those who still adhere to the Missal of Pius V. It is also a reaction to what is perceived as “abuses” in the celebration of the Mass after Vatican II. [Several things. First, this is an attempt to place the people who "still" adhere, benighted as they are, in a time frame so far in the past ("Pius V") that they cannot be considered normal. Second, it think this Clarification suggested that the Pope is a "reactionary". Third, there are more than "perceived 'abuses'" going on. Fourth, the MP is not simply about abuses. It is about restoring to a place a dignity sacred rites of Holy Church where were never abrogated. The Pope is working through these provisions not to throw a sop to the abnormal, or to reconcile groups, but to reconcile a vast rupture in the identity of the mainstream Church.]
* Are there now two rites of the Roman Missal?
Summorum Pontificum distinguishes two forms of celebrating the one and the same Roman Rite, namely, “forma ordinaria” and “forma extraordinaria”. The ordinary form is the 1970 Missal of Pope Paul VI revised by authority of Vatican II. The extraordinary form is the Tridentine Missal [Well.. not really "Tridentine", but let that pass. However, the fact that it is called "Tridentine" here suggests to me that the person who drafted this has not been keeping up on his reading about these issues.] published in 1962 by Pope John XXIII.
* What would be an implication of the “forma extraordinaria” of the Roman Missal? [What sort of question is this?]
The hermeneutics of continuity means that the 1970 Missal is a Vatican II revision of the Tridentine, [?] while the hermeneutics of legitimate progress could justify the inclusion of inculturated liturgies as other extraordinary forms of the same Roman Rite. [HUH? What the...! The writer has taken this opportunity to interpolate something that is his own pet project. He creates a term "hermeneutics of legitimate progress" and places it together with something the Pope proposed. He is trying to instrumentalize the MP for his own purposes. First, the "hermeneutics of continuity" is not a phrase that appears in Summorum Pontificum. It is extrapolated as a conclusion from remarks made by Pope Benedict in Dec. 2005 to the Roman Curia. But what Pope Benedict was talking about with his explication of a "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture" as opposed to a "hermeneutic of reform" (e.g., "hermeneutic of continuity") has far greater implications than a singular application to the Missale Romanum. The writer introduces a third idea and tries to blend it into the Popes proposition. This is what the writer did: Since the Missal of Pius V is culturally circumscribed, and since we have two forms of the Roman Rite, we can therefore justify any number of forms of the Roman Rite, each inculturated according to its own cultural circumscriptions. This is claimed to be an "implication" of Summorum Pontificum. This is absurd. I could go on, but you get the point.]
* What are some of the important conditions for celebrating according to the 1962 Missal?
Those who wish to celebrate it should possess “a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language”. Furthermore, the Missal to be used should be the 1962 edition. [This insistence on 1962 supports what I said earlier about the reference to "Pius V".] It is important to remember that the 1962 Missal requires the use of the Latin language (except for the readings and the homily), particular liturgical furnishings, vestments, books, and liturgical calendar. [So... you can use vernacular readings and the new calendar.] Lastly, in order to be in full communion with the Church, priests who celebrate according to the 1962 Missal must, as a matter of principle, accept the validity of the 1970 Missal.
* What other liturgical rites are included in the permission?
Besides the 1962 Roman Missal, permission is granted to use the other Tridentine Rituals of baptism, confirmation, marriage, penance, anointing of the sick, funerals, and the Roman Breviary. The Apostolic Letter excludes the Easter Triduum [Umm.... it doesn't exclude the Triduum. The MP mentions the Triduum in Art. 2, which begins, "Art. 2 In Masses celebrated without the people....".
Clearly in those places where the EF is celebrated with people it is possible to have the Sacred Triduum with the older Missal. This is in fact being done around the world. Furthermore, the Holy Father would not have bothered to alter a prayer for Good Friday if the texts for the Triduum were not to be used.] and is silent about holy orders. [It is silent about Holy Orders. But Bishops can use the Pontificale Romanum for consecration of churches and for confirmations, etc. A bishop could chose to use it for Holy Order too, right?]
* How about the seminaries?
Summorum Pontificum does not directly address the question of celebrating the Tridentine Missal in seminaries. [It is silent. However, if there are two forms of the Roman Rite, then priests of the Roman Rite should know those forms. You can bet seminarians will be pressed to know the "inculturated" forms. If that is the case, by the writer's argument above, they must be trained in the two formal forms of the Rite. Futhermore, the PCED has expressed that seminaries must train seminarians. I also remind everyone that the 1983 CIC requires that all seminarians be very well trained in Latin.]
* What is the responsibility of parish priests?
In parishes, where a stable group of the faithful adheres to the 1962 Missal, [I thought it was the missal of "Pius V"...] the parish priest should willingly accept their request. Such Mass maybe [sic] celebrated on weekdays, and once on Sundays and feast days. [Actually, it can be celebrated more than once, provided that adequate celebrations of the Novus Ordo are available for those who prefer to attend them.] The Ordinary shall determine what a “stable group” consists of. [Oh? Says who? This little phrase effectively reduces the provisions of the Supreme Pontiff to what the local ordinary wants to do. He is therefore ready to implement the 1988 MP Ecclesia Dei adflicta but not Summorum Pontificum.]
* What is the responsibility of bishops? [It is not the responsibility of the local ordinary to determine what a stable group is....]
If a parish priest fails to satisfy the request for Tridentine Mass, the faithful that request it should inform the Ordinary. If he himself cannot satisfy the request, he should [must] refer the matter to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. Furthermore the Ordinary may [Interesting how this shifts from "responsibility" to "may".] establish a personal parish where the Tridentine rituals may be used, or he may appoint a chaplain for such group of faithful.
* What happens to active participation? [Again... what sort of question is this? What is the real aim?]
While the liturgical reform of the Vatican II aims principally to promote active participation, the Tridentine Missal encourages prayerful meditation during the Eucharistic celebration. [On the surface, that sounds positive, right? But what the real point here is to say that the older form of Mass does not promote active participation. Anyone who wants "active participation" should not go to this form of Mass. The problem here is that the writer is working from a false sense of active participation if he thinks (and clearly he does) that there is a "rupture" in the sense of active participation possible in the two forms of Mass.]
* What happens to the 1970 Missal of Paul VI?
It is useful to note that the Vatican II Missal of Paul VI can always be celebrated in Latin and in Gregorian chant. [Again, Sacrosanctum Concilium says that Mass with the vernacular is the exception, that Latin must be preserved and that Gregorian chant has pride of place. This interjection, useful as it is, stands reality on its head.]
[Watch the word choice here:] Summorum Pontificum gives the assurance that the Missal of Paul VI will certainly remain the ordinary form of the Eucharistic liturgy, given the actual pastoral circumstances of local Churches and the need for more adequate liturgical formation and knowledge of Latin among the faithful.
It is our fervent hope that the implementation of Summorum Pontificum will not, as Pope Benedict XVI desires, divide the heart of the Church, [the writer could have started with the positive, but he chose the negative instead] but rather foster mutual respect and understanding within the one Church of Jesus Christ. Let pastors be mindful that the ordinary form of the Holy Eucharist for the Church today is contained in the Missal of Paul VI [Again? Is this necessary? How scared are they of the older form?] whether this is celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular. As one Church, may we be united in one faith through a diversity of liturgical forms. [Including all those forms which have made-up inculturated elements.]
That in all things God may be glorified!
If I had to summarize this in three words, I would pick: fearful, deceptive and manipulative.
The writer is clearly afraid of the older forms.
The clarification is deceptive in that it stresses only those dimensions of the MP which the writer prefers.
Worse yet, there is a absurd attempt to use the Motu Proprio as a support for "inculturated liturgies"… which has nothing to do with the mind of the Supreme Pontiff in Summorum Pontificum.