Musing on Summorum Pontificum

I noticed in John Zmirak’s article on "trads" that he picked up on a phrase I have been using for quite a while regarding Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.  I have been calling SP Pope Benedict’s "emancipation proclamation".

Zmirak wrote in his piece that "many of our bishops answered it with liturgical Jim Crow."

I guess that means that those who don’t want to implement Summorum Pontificum "segregationists".

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Our Catholic Identity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Musing on Summorum Pontificum

  1. smallone says:

    Of course, in many cases SP is implemented by offering one Mass per month at 3:00 pm by a priest from another parish. It can have a back of the bus feel to it….

    But the priest who offers the EF Mass is YOUNG. In his mid 30s or so. May Our Lord grant him many years!!

  2. irishman says:

    Zmirak wrote in his piece that “many of our bishops answered it with liturgical Jim Crow.”…

    …just so, it clearly reveals the hostility, engendered
    by a supposed loss of power, that the VatII devotees fear…
    I often think they don’t really give a darn about the liturgy
    of the Novus Ordo, but that the casual attitudes it hasw
    raised in the faithful make it easier for them to administer
    the dioceses…to say nothing of not having to learn the EF.
    not an easy task by any means…but it makes me wonder,
    trads are always admonished for being schismatic for not
    accepting Vatican II on its face, as the Holy Ghost speaking
    through the Holy See…well, if the Holy See is saying
    “implement SP,” how is it not schismatic for this bunch
    (the VatII crowd)to oppose it…

  3. Jaybirdnbham says:

    Our bishop (Robert Baker) is firmly in the Trad. Latin Mass camp, and has encouraged the growth of a TLM community. Unfortunately the parish that group has chosen to use is in a very bad part of town. Honestly it’s just a notch above a war zone. I won’t go there. They chose it because it still has the old altar and is a beautiful church, but a person takes their life in their hands to drive “there and back again”.

    Maybe I’m wanting more than is realistic, but I hope that the TLM will eventually come to my own parish. I love my parish, and don’t want to go across town for a Latin Mass when I can walk across the street to my own parish and be with people I know and love.

  4. TJerome says:

    “Jim Crow” that’s a pretty good analogy. I just can’t for the life of me understand why a Catholic bishop would be so opposed (or fearful) of the Roman
    Rite’s mother tongue and the EF form of the Roman Rite. It’s baffling, simply baffling. The only good thing is my suspicion that younger bishops are not
    so much in that camp. Tom

  5. Bornacatholic says:

    Dr. Zmirak is smashing and seriously funny. By that I mean he is both very serious (incredibly well-informed;his knowledge of Catholicism is wide and deep) and he is hysterically funny.
    He made this very incisive comment about posture for Communion:

    This book isn’t the place for the critique of recent liturgical changes in the Church-particularly the method of dispensing Holy Communion. But we’d like to suggest an experiment.

    From now on, to get a movie ticket, Americans should have to kneel before a consecrated celibate wearing ceremonial robes and take the ticket between their teeth – never daring to touch it with their hands. Within a generation or so, they’d all develop certain ideas about movie tickets and their significance.

    Now take the Eucharist and reverse the process, treating it like a movie ticket…Enough said.

    Page 70. The Bad Catholics Guide to Good Living. John Zmirak & Denise Matychowiak

  6. maynardus says:

    Not sure where this fits with your analogy (which I think is quite apt, btw) but as we’ve all seen oftentimes the “discrimination” (“liturg-ism”? And would a person who commits “liturg-ism” be a… “liturgist”?) comes from the entrenched apparatchiks in the chancery rather than the bishop himself. In a large (arch)diocese these folks control access to the (arch)bishop and may even control what information he receives. Or an insecure bishop may feel pressure to yield to his “presbyterial council”, essentially abdicating his authority.

    And of course this is replicated at the parish level in plenty of instances with a less-assertive (or heterodox) pastor either being manipulated by the “staff” or going along with them to keep peace (what’s the difference?)

    So maybe this fits the analogy because these sorts of bishops and pastors are… politicians! Maybe we can reclaim the word “pastoral”, as in “yes, sister, even if as you say the E.F. is retrograde and mysogynistic it would be a pastoral gesture to allow it”

  7. “Tridentine today, Tridentine tomorrow, Tridentine forever”.

  8. chironomo says:

    I have been bashed elsewhere for suggestions along these lines, but isn’t it about time that we stop pretending that this is about being “pastoral” or “ecumenical” or whatever and acknowledge that there are two opposing views that are not compatible and that are roughly equivalent to liberal and conservative political ideologies?

    Just as in the political arena, the “liberal” liturgical faction doesn’t even want to allow the “conservative” liturgical faction to have a place at the table…hence the stalling and suppressing of anything that could allow traditionalism to get a foothold.

    And just as in the political arena, there can be no real “bipartisan agreement”….the two views are not compatible and one will have to go before the other can flourish. Traditional Catholicism was effectively eliminated following Vatican II, and the liberal ideology flourished in it’s absence. Now Conservative Catholicism is back and I’m really not sure that the idea of “mutual enrichment” or some kind of peaceful “two-rites existing side-by-side” arrangement will really work as some are envisioning. Consider for a moment that traditionalists have to ASK to be ALLOWED to say Mass in a completely licit and universally permitted liturgical Rite.

  9. Nathan says:

    Chironomo, you make a good point. Mr. Zmirak’s apt and pithy comment on liturgical Jim Crow does at least imply malice and forethought. I wonder, though, just how many of the difficulties in implementing Summorum Pontificum are due to malice and forethought, and how many are better explained by incompetence and inertia?

    Of course, I’m a bureaucrat, so incompetence and inertia are a significant part of my life….

    In Christ,

  10. TJerome says:

    chironomo, you raise a valid point. I believe SP is the “bridge” upon which sacred and traditional liturgy will return. Liberalism, progressivism, or whatever you
    want to call it, is a dying force in Catholicism. That camp had its day and its coming to a close. When you look at the young men and women who are
    embracing religious orders and the diocesan clergy today, they are definitely not the “kumbaya” crowd. They desire genuine, authentic, and traditional
    Catholicism. You know,Catholicism. Tom

  11. Mitchell NY says:

    “They desire genuine Catholicism”……The liberals will look back one day and say so poetically “Who knew”?

  12. chironomo says:

    Sadly, as in the political arena, it will require a nearly complete replacement of the establishment to diminish the influence of progressive theology…

  13. Henry Edwards says:

    chironomo: isn’t it about time that we stop pretending that this is about being “pastoral” or “ecumenical” or whatever and acknowledge that there are two opposing views that are not compatible … ?

    And for a forthright admission at the highest levels that the view which has dominated in recent years is not compatible with the history and tradition of the Church.

    I’m really not sure that the idea of “mutual enrichment” or some kind of peaceful “two-rites existing side-by-side” arrangement will really work as some are envisioning.

    On the other hand, it is arguable that loss of faith in the Church did not result directly from the new rite and, instead, that the liturgical abuse prevalent in the new rite is a result of pervasive loss of faith that would have occurred anyway and, indeed, predated the new rite.

    Based what I saw and experienced in the 1960s, I think all the seeds of current abuse — and the forces responsible for it — pre-existed the new rite, and would have afflicted the traditional rite in the absence of any new rite.

    Perhaps it will happen that, once faith and continuity have been restored — largely by the passage of malformed generations — liturgical problems will be a thing of the past, and old and new rites can, indeed, coexist in mutual reinforcement, with the whole being greater than either part alone.

  14. Fr_Sotelo says:

    I used a similar phrase about ten years ago speaking to some clergy about the EF Mass. I said that traditional Catholics in the post Vat. II Church were treated like black people under Jim Crow laws.

    Some were very offended and angered by the analogy. I said I didn’t mean to offend, but that if the shoe fits, wear it.

  15. robtbrown says:

    There might be a certain similarity, but generally, I think it’s a mistake to overlay the current situation in the Church with the conservative-liberal paradigm. IMHO, the paradigm itself is liberal because it reduces the situation to strict vs loose interpretation, which are horizontal categories.

    The argument for Latin liturgy is very simple: It is catholic (universal)–the vernacular by definition is not. I recommend Veterum Sapientia.

    The question of ad orientem/versus populum celebration is a function of the nature of the Eucharist. If it’s considered a meal (cf Protestantism) and a memorial of the Last Supper, then versus populum is appropriate. If it’s a sacrifice, a memorial of Christ’s Passion and Death (instituted at the Last Supper), then ad orientem celebration is appropriate.

  16. robtbrown says:

    I used a similar phrase about ten years ago speaking to some clergy about the EF Mass. I said that traditional Catholics in the post Vat. II Church were treated like black people under Jim Crow laws.

    Some were very offended and angered by the analogy. I said I didn’t mean to offend, but that if the shoe fits, wear it.
    Comment by Fr_Sotelo

    I have heard that a US bishop (now retired) once said that any priest who wants to use the 1962 Missal will be treated like a pedophile. My reaction was that would be an improvement because we know now that pedophile priests were treated pretty well. It was also mean that some of those 1962 Missal priests would be consecrated bishops.

  17. Fr_Sotelo says:

    Dr. Brown:

    Of your many pithy and witty comments, I think that one is one of the best. If I were that poor bishop, I would be gushing blood all over the floor before I had any idea that the rapier had gone in and out of my gut. LOL.