BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

I had previously expressed my perplexity at the dire alarms being raised by traditionalist sites like the Italian messainlatino.org and the US-based blog Rorate caeli claiming that the forthcoming and long-awaited instruction from the Holy Father intended to clarify points about the implementation of Summorum Pontificum, will in fact mean restricting the effects it originally intended.... Why would they think so, regardless of the fact that they claim to have heard it will be so from 'authoritative sources'? Why would they think that Benedict XVI, having gestated SP for more than two years after he became Pope, would suddenly step it back in any way?...

Now I am genuinely alarmed = not about what the instructions will be - but because influential bloggers like Father Z and Inside the Vatican's Robert Moynihan are not only providing a sounding-board for the traditionalists' klaxon call, but also urging the faithful to sign an online petition to the Holy Father, which espresses, among other things, "grave concern that any restrictive measures would cause scandal, disunity and suffering in the Church and would frustrate the reconciliation you so earnestly desire, as well as impede further liturgical renewal and development in continuity with Tradition, which is already so great a fruit of your pontificate".

I think it is a monumental presumption on the part of well-meaning traditionalists to consider information from 'authoritative sources' - whom they never name, of course - as gospel truth, especially when it makes no sense at all in vithe light of Benedict XVI's long-standing positions on the liturgy; and then, 2) on the basis of such rumor or possibly maliciously planted disinformation, to presume to advise the Pope what he should do about it... Not incidentally, I would call their attention to the fact that Mons. Fellay of the FSSPX, in his most recent interview, did not seem to show much concern about these rumors... Can it be that messainlatino and Rorate caeli are even more zealous and jealous about the traditional Mass than Mons. Fellay himself?

Much as I find this whole exercise distasteful, I am posting Moynihan's recent 'newsflash' about this, which mostly quotes the overheated, near-hysterical alarm expressed in Rorate caeli, but also tries to look at the issue - which I find artificially generated and therefore a non-issue - with some degree of equanimity, even if Dr. Moynihan is obviously not above enjoying controversy, as his title shows:

Will a new papal document
curtail use of the Old Mass?
by Robert Moynihan

February 2011

Will the Vatican soon issue a document calling for some restrictions on the use of the old rite of the Mass?

The internet, especially in traditional Catholic circles, is abuzz with reports that this may be about to happen.

But for the moment, these reports are based only on rumors.

Officially, no one yet knows the content of the upcoming Vatican Instruction to give guidelines for the implementation of Summorum Pontificum -- the dramatic and controversial July 7, 2007 papal motu proprio in which Benedict XVI, after long hesitation, granted wider use of the old, pre-Vatican II liturgy, also known as the Tridentine liturgy or the Latin Mass.

The upcoming document is indeed being prepared; that much is certain. It is said to bear the date of February 22 -- just four days from now.

But it is not likely to be made public on February 22, but some days or weeks later, as often happens with Roman documents, and the document can even be rewritten during that time, after the date it is signed.

So we may be in for a considerable period of uncertainty on this question. And that will naturally allow room for fears based on uncertain or partial information to grow.

According to unconfirmed "leaks" of portions of the document's contents, the Instruction will, somewhat unexpectedly, contain two clauses which will restrict the celebration of the old rite.

I say "somewhat unexpectedly" because the expectation for this document was that it would concretize what Benedict said in 2007 was his desire for a "generous" granting of permission to celebrate the old liturgy "widely."

It therefore seems strange to many that, if the reports are true, it may contain new restrictions, as if this would be out of keeping with Benedict's own expressed will.

First, according to these reports, the old Mass will not be able to be freely celebrated in places where "non-Roman" Western rites once flourished, especially in Milan, where the Ambrosian rite flourished. (This is of importance because Milan is the largest diocese in the world.)

In an internet report on the Catholic website Rorate Coeli, we read:

"In its current draft, the Instruction definitely 'clarifies' that the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum is applied exclusively to the Roman Rite, in the strictest interpretation of the word. Therefore, not to the non-Roman Latin Rites: the clearly minoritarian or even forgotten Mozarabic, Braga, or Sarum rites. But the rule would apply also to the not few religious who have tried to rediscover their Traditional rites or uses: Dominicans and Carmelites, in particular, but also Carthusians, Norbertines... What is surprising is that the extension of the spirit of the motu proprio to other Western rites and uses had always been assumed...

"This restrictive rule," the web site continues, "would in particular (and would seem thus planned, considering the complications of the Italian Church) exclude the application of the motu proprio to the Traditional Liturgy of the largest diocese in the Old World, and third with most Catholics in the world: Milan. Excluding the enclaves of Roman Rite, the motu proprio would be void in the Archdiocese and in the Ambrosian zones of the Diocese of Lugano, Switzerland.

"For over five million Catholics in that area, and for religious priests dedicated to their rites or uses, the rules to be applied would not be those of Summorum (the Traditional Liturgy as a right of priests and groups of faithful), but only Ecclesia-Dei-like privileges and concessions, granted by the liturgical authorities of the Archdiocese (in the case of Milan) or the Superiors (in the case of the orders).

"Why such a restriction? In legal terms, nothing seems to demand it: the text of Summorum is sufficiently ambiguous that it can be interpreted in both ways...

"This first major point of the instruction has, thus, a clear repressive and punitive intention. Its sense would be extremely dangerous: that the Traditional liturgies of the West, rather than being encouraged (as the letter of the motu proprio makes clear), must be contained, regulated, oppressed. Not a clear declaration of rights, but a bureaucratic web of limited privileges and concessions: this small example seems to set the general new tone regarding the Traditional Liturgy.

"This may seem minor," the Rorate Coeli website concludes. "Yet it is quite significant in what it reveals: an interpretation of the rights recognized by Summorum as privileges or 'indults' that can be curtailed."

Second, and "much, much, more serious and insidious" says Rorate Coeli, is the report that "the Instruction, in its current draft, will explicitly prevent Bishops from using the Traditional Rite of Holy Orders."

In other words, bishops will not be able freely to ordain their seminarians using the old rite. They will be able to celebrate all of the other sacraments -- baptism, confirmation, etc. -- according to the old rite, but not holy orders, unless they receive ask permission first from Rome. [And why would Benedict XVI choose Holy Orders, of all the sacraments. as one in which the traditional rite would not be valid????]

There will be two exceptions, according to the leaked information, when bishops may use the old rite in priestly ordination ceremonies.

The first involves those institutes (the Ecclesia Dei institutes) and particular Churches dedicated exclusively to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

The other exception is that the Bishop that desires to ordain a certain seminarian in the ancient Rite will have to ask prior permission to Rome (to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei), which will then evaluate if said permission should be granted or not.

"What is to be achieved by this odious restrictive interpretation?" Rorate Coeli asks. "Why should bishops be forbidden to choose with which Rite to ordain their own deacons and priests? The intention is, among others, to ghettoize the Traditional Rite of this most pivotal of all Sacraments, Holy Orders; and, further, to identify 'problematic' bishops and future priests, with all consequences that could entail (including for their careers)."

The website concludes: "It is an alarming sign that the thrust of the Instruction is once again to make, even in law, all Catholics attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite or those who merely appreciate it (and, in this case, even Bishops and poor hopeful seminarians) second-class Catholics."

[How can anyone who respects Benedict XVI be so ready to accept as gospel truth purported provisions that defy common sense and logic?]

Some web bloggers argue that the leaks that have been leaked thus far are disinformation, that there is an effort being made to confuse people just before the Instruction's appearance.

"These documents go through many drafts, with many changes," one blogger wrote. "My guess is that such info is disinformation, intending to influence the document or – perhaps more importantly – its reception... It might have happened like this: A few powerful German or French bishops communicate with or visit Ecclesia Dei, recommending that certain restrictions be in the Instruction. Then word is put out through sources that such restrictions will be in the Instruction. A similar MO [modus operandi] was used before Humanae Vitae was promulgated." [That certainly sounds like a plausible scenario, but it is still conjecture. At least, the blogger does not cite unnamed 'authoritative sources' to underpin his conjecture!]

Father John Zuhlsdorf, whose popular website "What Does the Prayer Really Say?" (http://wdtprs.com/blog) has reported on the leaks, has encouraged his readers to pray for the Holy Father.

"If you are concerned about what might happen to Summorum Pontificum," he writes, "pray and fast. Don’t whine. Don’t panic. Don’t fret. Don’t behave like a suddenly headless chicken.

"Do what a committed Catholic warrior would do for a cause that is dear," Zuhldsorf continues. "Go to church and spend time before the Blessed Sacrament every day until this resolves one way or another. Ask Jesus to either stop the Instruction or to make Summorum Pontificum even better. Pray the Rosary for the Holy Father. Ask our Blessed Mother to move the Holy Father to keep Summorum Pontificum strong, to make it even stronger. Pray to the Holy Father’s guardian angels constantly during the day asking them to strengthen him and to weaken his many enemies, some of them very close to him."

Zuhlsdorf and others desire to "keep Summorum Pontificum strong" because they see the revival of the old liturgy as positive not only for the Church's cultural identity, but also for the holiness of her faith and morals.

One blogger, noting that he had just read through the "shocking" Philadelphia Grand Jury report, just published, on the investigation into the priestly abuse of minors in the archdiocese of Philadelphia, expresses a feeling widely shared by traditional Catholics: that the loss of the sense of the sacred which followed the introduction of the new Mass in 1970 -- for whatever reason -- also contributed to a loss of moral discipline, of a moral compass, among many Catholics, especially among the clergy, and that the return to the faith and practice inculcated by the old Mass is the best way to restore the holiness of the life of the Church and end the scandals.

But, this blogger notes, after four decades, a return to that faith and practice is bitterly opposed by many in the Church, some of them very powerful and highly placed.


{I wish people like Father Z and Dr. Moynihan, who have both spent years at the Vatican and have close contacts there, would tell us exactly which 'very powerful and highly placed' persons could possibly manage to impose their will over that of the Holy Father, under whose signature and approval any Vatican document - especially one regarding SP - will necessarily be issued? It's another instance when, for a reason I cannot fathom, even the most intelligent and most well-intentioned Catholics seem to treat Benedict XVI as if he were a dotard!

Two dicasteries logically are the ones most concerned with the implementing instructions of SP - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which now has Ecclesia Dei under it, and the Congregation for Divine Worship. Does anyone really think that Cardinal Levada or any of his underlings at CDF, particularly, Mons. Pozzo who now heads Ecclesia Dei; or Cardinal Canizares at Divine Worship or his underlings, would draft any document for the Holy Father's approval that so clearly contradicts the intentions of the motu proprio? Still less, that the Holy Father himself would ask them to make SP 'more restrictive'?

It all seems to me like an inexplicable abdication of common sense on the part of the alarmists. For that reason, I will not bother to post here the text of the well-ontended but rather preposterous online petition, which may be found on
click.icptrack.com/icp/rclick.php?d=r_FSjbDEQwUsvi4AMjfZ_Q0srGkCmdlT&w=1&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motuproprioappea...
for those who may want to sign on.

I pray for the Holy Father constantly, as I always do - not the least, that the Spirit may always be with him and in him - but I would not lecture him as the petition does, in effect, even if it uses the most respectful words. Without impugning the good intentions behind the petition, could there not be, somewhere in the background, an anticipation of patting-oneself-on-the-back for 'doing the job' if it turns out that the instructions come without any of the restrictions the alarmists fear?