At Rorate there is a strong piece which examines the Motu Proprio. It is by a canonist writing with a nom de plume.
I’ve read it over a couple of times, along with Traditionis, and I’ve been contacted by, and have myself contacted, several canonists today who reference it.
It takes time and sometimes more than one set of eyes to get into a document like this, as well as commentary.
One of my first reactions to Traditionis is that it is not just cruel, it is sloppy.
For example, as the aforementioned canonist points out, Article 3 refers to “‘the “Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970.’ Strictly understood, the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970 is the editio typica of 1965 with the alterations of Tres abhinc annos of 4 May 1967. This is not the 1962 Missal.” Yes. And no. The 1962 was issued with an editio typica. In 1965 and 1967 alterations were made, and books were prepared with vernacular translations and a new Ritus Servandus section, but there wasn’t an actual, technical typical edition of 1965 or 1967.
Please allow a digression.
A huge problem with this whole nasty business is that the people who are issuing these decrees and who will enforce them in general do not know the Traditional Roman Rite. They are judging what they do not know. If they don’t use it, they don’t know it. They are working from incomplete knowledge, or perhaps faulty notions. They are making decisions sometimes based on whether they like the people involved.
Look… the bottom line is this. There is sloppy language in this document that, frankly, if carefully read with the interpretive principle odiosa restringi et favores convenit ampliari, there isn’t that much that would have to change in a diocese – depending on the bishop. Sure the document is dreadful: it can be read in a severely restrictive way or be read in a lenient way. Just as that dreadful footnote in Amoris could be read one way or the other.
I would add to the above the provision of can. 87 –
Can. 87 §1. A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority.
§2. If recourse to the Holy See is difficult and, at the same time, there is danger of grave harm in delay, any ordinary is able to dispense from these same laws even if dispensation is reserved to the Holy See, provided that it concerns a dispensation which the Holy See is accustomed to grant under the same circumstances, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 291.
So, a diocesan bishop can dispense from disciplinary laws, both universal laws and those particular laws made by the supreme ecclesiastical authority (read: Supreme Pontiff) for his territory and his subjects. Since the provision that the Traditional Roman Rite ought not be celebrated in parish churches (cf. Traditionis Art. 3) is a disciplinary law, and has not been reserved to the Apostolic See, the diocesan bishop is free to dispense from that norm!
Do you want the TLM to continue in your parish church and not in the garage attached to the rectory, a hotel room or the nearby Lutheran church that the local pastorette will let you use for a contribution? Then calm down and think.
I urge everyone to think carefully about how to approach your local bishops and priests.
What sort of attitude and language are going to obtain what you desire?
- Joy and commitment to parish life?
- Bitterness and being unengaged except for that hour or so on Sunday?
What have I been saying for YEARS?!?
You can lose what you have, people. Now more than ever.
So, if you are inclined to lash out and make a big scene to your local bishop or priest, then consider how selfish you look in the eyes of those whose opportunities you are casting into the hazard.
This doesn’t mean roll over and let yourself be kicked. It means think first.
Archbishop Salvatore Cordiloeone of San Francisco told CNA July 16 that “The Mass is a miracle in any form: Christ comes to us in the flesh under the appearance of Bread and Wine. Unity under Christ is what matters. Therefore the Traditional Latin Mass will continue to be available here in the Archdiocese of San Francisco and provided in response to the legitimate needs and desires of the faithful.”
The Diocese of Arlington told CNA that all parishes that had planned on offering Masses in the Extraordinary Form would be able to do so.
I hope that that “planned” means that lots more were going to start it up!
And this from New Orleans:
Archbp. Hebda of St. Paul and Minneapolis HERE
D. of El Paso HERE (good news, mostly)
D. Grand Rapids. HERE
Archbp. Gomez, President of the USCCB. HERE (Remember that conferences can’t tell bishops what to do. They have no power.)