Fr. Z's Blog

UPDATE 9 July:

You might go over to The Remnant and watch Peter Kwasneiwski’s talk at the Roman Forum on the issue I treat, below, and a lot more.   One of the important points he makes is the ever-increasing ultramontanism we are seeing, these days almost to the point of papalotry.

His talk at the Roman Forum is pretty much the same as the piece I mention, below, at Crisis.   The piece and talk are truly worth your time.   Among the chewy sustenance we find – an example:

I know of bishops who simply flatly deny that it is good for souls to have access to the Church’s traditional rites; they say it is better for them to be “obedient,” to be “humble and content with what the Church provides,” and “not to look for externals or be fixated one one’s own ideas of what’s reverent,” etc. Let’s put it this way: if pastors and bishops had a clue what was “for the good of souls,” we would not be in the disastrous situation in which we find ourselves.

As great as are the benefits we have been able to reap through Summorum Pontificum, we are in dire need of a more comprehensive theological understanding of the inherent rightfulness of traditional liturgy and the inalienability (so to speak) of the rights of clergy and laity to such liturgy. We need to see that, as much as popes have added to divine worship over the centuries, we are not beholden to popes for the liturgy; it preexists them, superior in its reality and its authority; it is the common possession of the entire People of God.

Originally posted Jul 8, 2021 at 19:11

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I have recently been discussing w/ an FSSP priest friend of mine the issue of “forms”. Maybe you can tell me if my thesis here is correct.

From the day of my first RCIA and experience of Mass, I never understood the NO. It was always odd to me. Catholics constantly talked about “tradition” but then here I was sitting in a church building watching a dolled up and dumbed down version of the Lutheran service I just left one block down the street. Except there we knelt in reverence for (admittedly invalid) communion.

When I was introduced to the TLM I realized that this was the faith I’d been converted to, but was further confused, as it was obvious even to me and my wife who are not deeply knowledgeable about liturgies that this was a different RITE, not just a different “form” {whatever that is}. At the time I never understood the use of this “form” language and no one could shed any light on it for me. To me, if the NO is a truly valid and valuable liturgy at all then at the least it is a separate RITE.

Fast forward to Dijon and the rumored TLM suppression…

When this occurred it dawned on me that there might have been a reason specifically chosen for the use of the term “form” instead of simply admitting the obvious…that the NO is a different RITE. For if it was admitted that the NO was a separate RITE, then the administration of the Church could never have forced it upon priests as priests under all codes as far as I know, cannot be forced to say a different RITE than that in which they were ordained and incardinated and in fact must get special approval to celebrate bi-ritually. At any rate the whole thing appears to me to be duplicitous in the extreme, truly and deeply dishonest, something I am coming to associate with the term “Catholic Leadership” in general these days. It is very difficult not to think of this whole development as a planned operation.

You ask a good question.  I have written about this many times, but in such a way that it is perhaps buried in longer posts with a different focus.

I think the key to this lock is found in a distinction.  Summorum Pontificum is a juridical document, not a theological-liturgical or historical-liturgical document.  It establishes a juridical reality whereby if a priest of the Latin, Roman Church has the faculties to celebrate Mass in the Roman Rite then he… sorry if this seems circular… he has faculties to celebrate the Roman Rite.  Since the Traditional Form of the Roman Rite as codified in the 1962 editio typica of the Missale Romanum was, as the Legislator Pope Benedict XVI declared, never abrogated, then all priests with faculties to say Mass can freely use also the 1962 Missale and not just the more commonly used 1970, etc. editions (Novus Ordo).

Let’s halt for a moment and get a term squared away. “Abrogate” means to abolish completely, in such a way that you cannot appeal even to long-standing custom.  A good example of this is found the Congregation for Divine Worship’s 2002 document entitled Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[65.] It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1. This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

So, any norms or appeals to previous custom that would allow a lay person to preach were abrogated, wiped out.  Then it went farther and “reprobated” the same, which means that if someone decided to continue to do this, abusively, they could not make future appeals to contra legem custom (as was the case with girl altar boys, etc.).

The Vetus Ordo, codified in the liturgical books in force in 1962, was never abrogated.   Hence, it is still the Roman Rite of the Church and it can be used without an indult which grants an exception to a law.

Summorum Pontificum itself established a law.  It did not pretend to solve the problem of whether or not the Novus Ordo is a different rite. 

For a long time before Summorum, there was hot debate about this question among liturgists.   Some claim (overly optimistically) that the Traditional form or Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo are the same Roman Rite.  I don’t know that anyone who celebrates both can maintain that claim for long.

However – and this is important – governing involves, to paraphrase Otto von Bismarck, “the art of the next best”.  Even Popes have to apply politics and “the art of the possible”.

Had Benedict made declaration that the Novus Ordo and the TLM were two different rites, all hell would have broken loose in negative reaction.  Also, that would probably have required new or altered structures in the Curia to handle the consequences.  Moreover, it would have made it much harder for priests to use the Traditional Roman RITE, since they would have to be bi-ritual, which is more complicated.

The solution in Summorum Pontificum is an elegant juridical solution that sidesteps many problems.  Is it the best possible in terms of outcome?  Perhaps not.  I think it was too restrictive.  However, getting the Traditional Latin Mass back into the main stream of Catholic life absolutely involved the art of the possible, of the second best.

Had Benedict allowed himself to make the perfect into the enemy of the good, we would today still be locked up in the chains of hostile bishops.

On the 14th anniversary of Summorum there were a couple of good pieces published by friends of mine.

Recently, Peter Kwasniewski wrote at Crisis about this issue, using language that I wouldn’t have used.  He writes of “Summorum Pontificum: Its Tragic Flaws”.  It could be that Peter, whom I greatly esteem, misses a couple of points.  First, let’s see what he said at Crisis.  My emphases and comments:

The most notorious feature of Summorum Pontificum is its claim, in Article 1, that there are two “forms” of the Roman rite:

The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same lex orandi, and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

Yet the claim that Paul VI’s Missale Romanum of 1969 (the “Novus Ordo”) is, or belongs to, the same rite as the Missale Romanum last codified in 1962—or, more plainly, that the Novus Ordo may be called “the Roman rite” of the Mass—cannot withstand critical scrutiny, nor can this claim be sustained for any two liturgical books, Vetus and Novus. Never before in the history of the Roman Church have there been two “forms” or “uses” of the same local liturgical rite, simultaneously and with equal canonical status.  [Firstly, I am not so sure that that is the case.  It seems to me that through our long history of sacred liturgical worship there have been times when there was quite a bit of variation.  However, it eventually became necessary, as after the Protestant Revolt, to codify things for the sake of unity.  Anyway, let’s not lose sight of the fact that SP is a juridical document, not trying to settle the theological-liturgical question… in which field we find a very different answer, IMHO.]

That Pope Benedict could say that the older use had never been abrogated (numquam abrogatam) proves that Paul VI’s liturgy is something novel, [and that this is a juridical issue] rather than a mere revision of its precursor, since every earlier editio typica of the missal had replaced and excluded its predecessor. While there have always been different “uses” in the Latin Church, this doubling of the liturgy of Rome is a case of dissociative identity disorder or schizophrenia. [Yes, but in 2007 the question is not confined to ROME but spreads to the whole world.]

By no stretch of the imagination is it possible, let alone desirable, to talk about the Tridentine rite and the Novus Ordo as “two usages” or “forms” of the same Roman rite; [I will agree, if we are looking at content of the two Missalia and considering the content theologically as well as looking at the genesis of the Novus Ordo (a quickly assembled, artificial construct) compared to the perennially stable, slowly developing Roman Rite.] and it is ludicrous to say that the deviant form is “ordinary” and the traditional “extraordinary,” unless the evaluation is merely sociological or statistical. [Let’s not leave that without comment.  I think that distinction of “statistical” is important.  A while back I wrote about the term “norm”.  Something can be a “norm” which is prescriptive, like a law which establishes how something ought to be done. Also, “norm” can be descriptive, explaining how things are being done.  The same can be said about “ordinary” and “extraordinary”.   Prescriptive or descriptive?   When we interpret law in the Church, we do so to favor people’s rights.  Some people want to make that “extraordinary” to mean “rare” or “exceptional” (as if by an indult), and “ordinary” to mean the “norm” in the obligatory sense.  Think of Communion in the hand.  It is the norm only in the sense that it is common.  But Communion on the tongue is the norm for which there must be an indult.  “Extraordinary Form” does not mean that it is meant to be the exception, permitted as if by indult.  It was not abrogated.  It is a normative Mass not by statistics, but by law and by custom.] With a growing body of scholarship showing the radical differences in theological and spiritual content between the Roman rite and the modern papal rite of Paul VI, it is not intellectually honest or credible to claim that the old and new rites express the same lex orandi or, consequently, the same lex credendi. [Which statements, being made in a juridical document, and not in a scholarly monograph about the Roman Rite, reflect the “art of the possible”.  Imagine what would have happened had Benedict suggested openly that the two forms or rites express a different lex orandi, a different lex credendi?  That would have elicited unheard of blowback that would have buried Summorum deeper than Veterum sapientia.] It may be that the new rite is free from heresy, but its lex orandi only partly overlaps with the old rite’s, and so too for the credenda that they convey—as seen not only in texts but also in ceremonies and in every other dimension of public worship.  [“only partly” is sometimes enough.  This is the challenge of governance, the art of the second best.]

Holy Church had dramatic growing pains in her early centuries.  Varying practices and doctrines tore at her unity.  Eventually huge questions about, for example, the person of Christ – Did He just appear to be a man?  Did He have a human will?  Was He divine like the Father or a creature? – had to be worked out.  Titanic struggles ensued and civil authorities had to intervene because average people took these things so seriously that there could be riots in the streets at the suggestion of an opposing proposition.

To solve these problems bishops of differing factions met in councils and synods to hammer out the truth.  However, these factions were stubborn and often the best they could do was produce a formula just vague enough that both sides could sign it.   Clear enough and ambiguous enough that both sides could sign.  Then, in another few decades, when that formula wasn’t enough, different sides went at it again and another, suitably clear but diplomatically ambiguous formula was crafted that all could sign.  And so forth.  Thus, brick by brick we made ever clearer steps towards a fuller understanding of, for example, who Christ is so that at Chalcedon and with St. Leo the Great we arrived at something superior to what preceded.  We had to come to learn who the Mother of God is also.  We had to solve questions about the Holy Spirit.   As time passed, other questions flowed from the conclusions of previous councils and synods…. down to our time and Vatican I (Who is the Pope and who are bishops?) and Vatican II (about which the jury is still out).

Summorum Pontificum reflects a heavy brick, nay rather, a keystone in the arch, to hold things in place until more could be done.   It isn’t perfect, but it was sound.

Also at Crisis, Gregory DiPippo wrote of Summorum for its 14th anniversary.  He goes into the derailing of the liturgical reform mandated, by hook and by crook(s), by the Council.  In the wake of rumors about attacks on the integrity of Summorum (NB: rumors), Gregory reminds:

These fears are not misplaced, but at the same time, those who love the traditional liturgy should not allow themselves to be discouraged. A withdrawal, whole or partial, of Summorum Pontificum, brings with it an implicit but absolutely undeniable recognition that the post-Conciliar reform has definitively lost its grasp on the hearts and minds of the young. … [A]ny movement to suppress the Church’s traditional liturgy once again will fail, because it is in itself a confession of a much greater failure.

This is exactly right.

I would add that 2021 is not the same as the time when the Novus Ordo was implemented, 1970.  These are not the days of information limited to diocesan newspapers and the increasingly heterodox, renegade Fishwrap.   If certain powers that be think that the fruits of Summorum can be snapped out of existence as if with the stroke of a pen, they are living in a fantasy world constructed from their own will-to-power view of governance.

Just to circle back to the top:

Summorum Pontificum is not “tragic” unless you see it as trying to accomplish more than it was certainly intended to accomplish.  It is a juridical document which provided a solid juridical path to getting the TLM back into the Church’s mainstream.

Bottom line: If a priest is idoneus to celebrate Mass (he has faculties, he is competent) he has to be allowed to celebrate.  By declaring that the TLM had never been abrogated, and that juridically the Roman Rite has two “forms”, then if a priest has the faculties to celebrate Mass at all, he can choose either form.  Then the burden is on those (i.e., bishops) who want to say that the priest is not idoneus.  But if he isn’t, then maybe he also isn’t to say Mass in say, Spanish… or English in the case of priests from elsewhere.  Then what?   Try to restrict idoneus for one and you restrict it for the whole.  That’s not going to work.

Of course the counter to this is that bishops don’t care about the law and they do what they want to whom ever they want, reasonable or not, charitable or not, moral or not.

But then the mask is off.