This is immediate and sweeping! My comments in italics
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970
Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. i.e. no more extraordinary form
Art. 2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him,[5] to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese.[6] Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See. Bishops had long complained that Rome was tying their hands
Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:
§ 1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs; i.e. Francis has decided that the pastoral provision rather than welcoming people back into the church was encouraging dissent from Vatican II
§ 2. is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes); i.e. these people are not going to be allowed to convert existing parishes nor establish new parishes
§ 3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962.[7] In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences;
§ 4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful; restricts the use of the rite only to priests authorized by the bishop, no longer a right of priests to celebrate with the old missal
§ 5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them; right of bishops to investigate existing groups
§ 6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.
Art. 4. Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization.
Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.
Francis sent a letter to the bishops, just as Benedict had, to explain himself
With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”,[12] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.
It must therefore be maintained that the Roman Rite, adapted many times over the course of the centuries according to the needs of the day, not only be preserved but renewed “in faithful observance of the Tradition”.[22] Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements.
A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.”
As Rocco points out these documents were issued only in Italian and English, and the control over any interpretation of the situation was returned from the Doctrinal Congregation to the Worship Congregation which is now headed by a English Archbishop. This problem is largely an English speaking problem, so Francis is going after his opposition in the English speaking world.
The American bishops should reconsider their opposition to this Pope. He has shown with this document that he is very willing to completely reform areas of the Church overnight even areas in which he has come to different conclusions than his predecessors. Even when there are Cardinals with a strong media presence (e.g. Burke and Sarah) who disagree with him.
Francis is very patient but he is also very persistent when he make up his mind.
This is pretty big news. A few comments, which apparently I'll need to break into several comments in order to share:
ReplyDelete"i.e. no more extraordinary form"
I read Art. 1, not as abrogating the use of the extraordinary form, but as asserting the primacy of the current missal. If I'm not mistaken, Benedict tried to present the 1962 (pre-Vatican II) and current missals as coequal expressions of the church at prayer ("two usages of the one Roman Rite" was the expression Benedict had used in Summorum Pontificum). Francis just rewrote (and corrected) that underlying principle - and Francis's realignment in this respect surely is in sync with the intentions of the Fathers of the 2nd Vatican Council (that is to say: in sync with the church and the Holy Spirit). This correction is most welcome.
"Bishops had long complained that Rome was tying their hands"
Yes. Benedict's permission essentially was an end run around diocesan bishops and gave permission directly to priests to celebrate the pre-Vatican II missal if they wished, and the circumstances in which they could do so were fairly wide-ranging. I don't think that was good ecclesiology.
To their credit, many American bishops resisted that end-run provision in Summorum Pontificum. I knew one adherent of the Latin mass who grumped that Summorum Pontificum was a "dead letter" because the bishops never submissively "received" it; bishops continued to assert their authorities over their diocesan priests and restrict conditions under which the 1962 missal could be utilized.
Btw, that episode of the American bishops' resistance is worth recalling in light of the current lot's apparent disregard of the Holy See's wishes regarding the forthcoming document on "eucharistic coherence". American episcopal resistance to the pope and the Holy See is not new to Francis's papacy. The bishops' resistance to Benedict during that 2007 period arguably was more "in your face" than the current episode is.
ReplyDelete"[The diocesan bishop] is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes)"
I am not entirely sure what this means. In Chicago, there are at least two parishes, one in the city and one in the suburbs, which have regularly scheduled 1962 missal Latin masses. I wrote about a wedding at one of those parishes back in 2019.
https://newgathering.blogspot.com/2019/10/another-wedding-report.html
The suburban parish offers masses in the Latin extraordinary form; the English ordinary form; and the Spanish ordinary form. The city parish offers masses in the Latin extraordinary form; the Latin ordinary form; and the English ordinary form. If one is to incorporate the extraordinary form into parish life, this strikes me as a responsible way to approach it.
As a practical matter, I believe both of the parishes have a sort of dual identity: offering vernacular worship to the folks in the neighborhood; and acting as a sort of "magnet parish" for people in the wider area who want to worship in the extraordinary form.
Another aspect of this is that most of the faith communities in dioceses around here which offer extraordinary form worship is that it is not diocesan priests who run those churches; they are run by religious orders whose charism is to worship according to the extraordinary form. There is at least one such church (I am not sure whether, canonically, it qualifies as a parish) in Chicago, and there are others in neighboring dioceses. I don't see anything in these new laws and Francis's letters which explicitly addresses what these religious orders are able to do or not do. To be sure, their liturgical practice in a particular diocese still is subject to a bishop's authority.
"I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum."
I agree that it is significant that this task was given to the CDF rather than the Congregation for Divine Worship; this job would seem to belong to the CDW. I know that Cardinal Sarah recently retired from the CDW; Sarah was quite sympathetic to Latin Mass adherents. I believe Francis recently had a "visitation" to the CDW done. All of these are signs that Sarah and his regime were badly misaligned with Francis's liturgical priorities. Now Francis is starting to assert his own liturgical vision - something which has received comparatively little attention in his papacy until now.
One more comment: toothpaste can't be put back into the tube. For good or ill, Catholics have had permission, starting with John Paul II in the 1980s and broadening under Benedict, to worship using the 1962 missal. Groups of adherents, entire faith communities and religious orders have been established for this purpose, and some of these communities have shown that they can sustain themselves. They are part of the church. They are deserving of some respect and accommodation. They are not monolithic; their views on liturgy, the church, the validity of Vatican II, etc. cover a fairly broad range, with some of them surely veering off into areas which call their broader communion into question - but others still well within the boundaries of faithful Catholicism. They can occasionally be vexing in their criticisms of the church and her worship. But on the whole they are a tiny minority, they are self-contained, and more often than not they mind their own business. They generate a lot of antipathy from the "other side" in the culture wars and the worship wars - in my opinion, the antipathy is far out of proportion to these Latin groups' actual size and importance. Probably the priests among them are the biggest problem with which bishops and Rome must deal in this matter.
Art. 6. Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life, erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, fall under the competence of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies for Apostolic Life.
ReplyDeleteArt. 7. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, for matters of their particular competence, exercise the authority of the Holy See with respect to the observance of these provisions.
So basically it is up to the congregation for religious to decide what happens to religious. I suspect that Francis and others in the Vatican would like to see use of the old Missal be under the care of these religious orders.
Nothing was said in the document about the old breviary, pontifical etc. So I suspect these will continue to be able to function in support of these religious orders.
There is a Benedictine Monastery in Europe that maintains the old Monastic Office as well as the EF. I suspect nothing will change there at all. It is a good model of keeping the old. I often celebrate Lauds and Vespers with them on feast days. The Office is almost exactly what it was when I was at Saint John's during the Vatican II. I sing along using a copy of the Monastic Antiphonal, the exact same edition that I used at Saint John's.
There are a lot of liturgical variations from the Roman Rite that deserve to be preserved or revived. Milan has kept its Ambrosian Rite for its diocese (however I think it has been revised). In Toledo Spain there are a few churches that kept the ancient Mozarabic Rite.
Much of the variations have been revived and celebrated by various music groups in Europe. I see no reason why these should not be celebrated in Universities, Monasteries or other places under the supervision of a local bishop.
Jack, ma y thanks for that explanation re: religious orders. I guess I'd note that different orders take different approaches. In your comment, I think you are referring to the Benedictines of Solesmes, who do wonderful scholarly work to maintain the integrity of old texts and chants. The religious orders I had in mind were orders like the Institute of Christ the King, which operates in this area to establish and run Latin Mass communities. At least in this area, those orders, rather than diocesan priests, are likely to be the ones who are founding and promoting communities of Latin Mass adherents.
DeleteFWIW, I think the spirituality which attracts these adherents is genuine, and supplements other spiritualities like mine which aren't as much in tune with the older missal - it really is a different spirituality, and there is a part of me which feels a tug on the rare occasions I experience it - there is something essential and compelling and truthful about it. That spirituality is to be found in the current missal, as well, but it's more than the text of the missal (although the text surely is a part of it).
"Probably the priests among them are the biggest problem with which bishops and Rome must deal in this matter."
ReplyDeleteYES the big mistake of Benedict was to give every priest the option to use the EF. As a social psychologist I immediately understood that this would create problems. It would give priests the ability to act on their own and to create a cult following. Very attractive to young priests and others with personal problem. Also very supportive of clericalism of the pompous variety. Of course there is a lot liberal clericalism, too.
"Also very supportive of clericalism of the pompous variety."
DeleteYes - this is the part which concerns me the most. All of us who grew up in the church have had deference to priests drilled into us from a very early age. Even today, at age 59, I don't feel comfortable addressing a priest as "Dan" or "Tony" - I address them as "Father". Many priests, to their credit, are not completely comfortable being deferred to all the time - they want to be more collaborative, and want to be servant leaders.
But I haven't observed that discomfort with Latin Mass priests. The ones I've observed are quite happy to be deferred to, and seem to think that that is the right ordering of the world, or at least the church. That is not to say that they all are shot through with personality defects. Some of them are quite personable, and I am told that some of them do good and even amazing pastoral work. But this particular are of deference is sort of a red flag for me.
(Some people try to defer to deacons all the time, too. It's excruciating!)
DeleteJim - (Some people try to defer to deacons all the time, too. It's excruciating!)
I was horrified to walk into the narthex of the parish church one day to see a woman kneeling in front of the deacon for a blessing. Of course, this particular deacon was very full of himself, and, I suspect, regrets the day he chose to marry instead of becoming a priest.
I would not be surprised if SPSS gets some priests and communities out of this.
ReplyDeleteI think Francis basically thinks of them much like the Orthodox, i.e. is it is OK for Catholics to go to Orthodox Churches or even become Orthodox. Francis has said that he and the Ecumenical Patriarch agree that basically we are one in Spirit, the theologians just need to figure out how to get us together. In the meantime let just be as nice as possible to each other.
I think you're right that some of them will join groups whose communion is impaired (or worse).
DeleteSpirituality is evolving, too. I think my kids' generation of young adults doesn't look through some of these questions through the same prism as we who are more rooted in a pre-Vatican II church. To them, Vatican II is like the Civil War - something to be read about in books or studied in school, not really living history.
Actually the reception of the council which usually takes about a hundred years is living history. The first 50 years are difficult because many of those who made the necessary compromises are still living and active JP2, B16
DeleteFrancis is the first pope who was not at Vatican II. His experience is the experience of episcopal conferences implementing Vatican II hence his emphasis upon synods as a means of realizing Vatican II. Neither Paul VI, JP2 or B16 had much use for synods.
I wonder what will happen with this organization, the FFSP. One of their seminaries is in Denton, NE. They were given permission to set up there by the (then) bishop of the Lincoln Diocese. However many of them are foreign and none of these priests serve in Nebraska. I never did see the point of them being here. It is my understanding of this latest ruling of Pope Francis that there would no longer be new priests formed for the purpose of Mass in the extraordinary form. Which was the specific purpose of this seminary.
ReplyDeleteJack wrote, "Francis is very patient but he is also very persistent when he make up his mind. " Michael Sean Winters made that same point in NCR: "Pope Francis is a patient pastor. Until he isn't. His new apostolic letter, Traditionis Custodes ... is the ecclesial equivalent of ripping off the Band-aid in one pull."
ReplyDeleteWe still have a Latin Mass that anyone can celebrate without the permission of the Bishop. The new Missal can be used in whole or part for any Mass. If I were a bishop or pastor that is what I would offer the EF people.
ReplyDeleteIf people like the Latin antiphons and songs for the Introit, Gradual, Offertory and Communion they can be used even if the rest of the Mass is in the vernacular.
If people like the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei sung in Gregorian Chant they can be used even if the rest of the Mass is in English.
If people like the first Eucharistic Prayer in Latin and/or the Prefaces in Latin they can be used.
All of these are far easier to use than to use the Old Latin Missal with its elaborate rubrics. Any priest could easily learn to say the old Eucharistic Prayer in Latin. And the laity that want other things in Latin could be encouraged to learn the language and the chants. If people really want these things then they should be willing to put effort into making them happen.
Actually in some other countries, e.g. England, there are lots of Masses which are either in whole or part in Latin. It is regrettable that in this country that opposition to any Latin on the part of many pastors has made Latin much rarer than it could or should be.
Right. I don't think it's the Latin per se. It's more the spirituality. Latin is part of that spirituality: it's viewed by extraordinary-form adherents as a sacral ritual language, elevated above the everyday English which is the language of politics and commerce. But it's not just the sacral language. It's the faithful kneeling in silent devotion, the women's heads modestly covered, the muttered words signifying our sinfulness and Christ's sacrifice, the chant raining down from the loft as from angels in heaven, the images of saints on the walls and windows watching silently and approvingly over the proceedings - it's a whole spiritual ecosystem.
DeleteYou forgot the Kleenex pinned to the heads of women who forgot to be sufficiently “modest” by remembering to cover their hair, the people not paying attention to what the priest is muttering with his back to them, saying the rosary instead. That was usually the women. The men took catnaps.. The singing ( minimal if at all) was not something that could be confused with the sublime voices of an angelic chorus. Etc. The reality of the Latin mass that all we old folk grew up with is far different from the one you describe here.
DeleteIt has seemed to me over the years that the Latin mass nut extremists are actually looking to be entertained by a religious themed experience- music, art, pomp, gilded altars and midaevil “ royal” vestments (doubt that Jesus - or Peter - ever wore that kind of imperial garb);- not really there to pray WITH others as part of a community, but there as an observer to be edified by an aesthetic experience.,
Yes, I agree that there is a certain aesthetic satisfaction (which may not reduce to "entertainment") which liturgy can offer. I've certainly experienced it with the so-called "ordinary form" as well.
DeleteFWIW, I can say from ample personal experience that one need not celebrate according to the 1962 missal to "zone out" during mass ...
The Latin High Mass before Vatican II was often poorly done. The choirs were generally poor. Our weekday High Masses were sung by a lady with a very poor voice who accompanied herself with the organ. High Masses were worth a $5 donation while Low Masses were a $1 donation.
DeleteHowever I was very impressed as a fifth grader when a seminarian taught us boys how to sing Gregorian chant during summer school. I was interested in astronomy at the time and this all seemed like rocket science to me.
Unfortunately the parish did not have the resources to support my enthusiasm and my voice was about to change. But I did become an altar boy and became interested in the Mass and then the Divine Office. So the Holy Spirit may prevail despite how clumsy and awful things are done.
Back in the late 1990s the Latin Mass Association had its annual meeting here in Cleveland at the Cathedral. A Latin Mass according to the New Missal was celebrated by Bishop Pilla. It was the Saturday Mass of Our Lady. The choir from the Pontifical College in Columbus came up to sing. I think there were handouts with all the music. Anyway I remember bringing my Latin Missal just in case it was needed.
ReplyDeleteI was shocked how few of the people attending sang the Latin music. Most of them appeared to be listening to the music rather than singing
Now some of these people may have been locals who came out of curiosity but most appeared to be people from across the nation who supported the Latin Mass. There were not a great number of them, probably several hundred. However I assumed most of them would be very familiar with singing Gregorian chant and would welcome the opportunity to sing a very familiar Mass together. I was very disappointed. It seemed they were people who wanted someone else, e.g. a professional choir, to provide the music for them.
There was a lot of effort made by some people in the decades before Vatican II to promote Gregorian chant. Here and there, it did succeed, or a least created some good choirs but not many
.
If we social scientists could time travel, I suspect a study of music in the liturgy before and after Vatican II would reveal that we have both more and better choirs today and more and better singing by the people today.
Now it did not happen instantly after Vatican II There were some lean years of amateur folk music and mediocre hymns. However I think slow and steady progress has been made with the vernacular music.
Not surprised that nobody from the Latin Mass Association sang. Full, conscious and active participation is a Vatican II liturgical goal. This goes directly to Francis's critique of Summorum Pontificum: it did not advance the liturgical reform; it might even have set it back a bit.
DeleteI agree with you re: progress in vernacular music. As time has gone on, the music compositions have improved, and the directing of parish music has developed into a profession with competencies and standards. Parish music programs have provided an outlet for gifted people to serve the God and the community, and experience spiritual fulfillment, by offering their talents to lead people in song.
I think none of this resonates with the spirituality that Summorum Pontificum has engendered.
An interesting quote from Fr. Reece:
ReplyDeleteWhen my mother was alive, she used to go to the Saturday evening Mass at her parish. One Saturday she showed up and the Mass was in Spanish. She kept going to that Mass even though she did not know a word of Spanish. When I asked her why, she responded, “It is wonderful, just like the old Latin Mass. I don’t understand a word they are saying.” Then she added, “It is even better, I don’t understand the homily.”