Una Voce Report on the Third Anniversary of Summorum Pontificum

Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce recently published its report on the third anniversary of Summorum Pontificum. The following are some excerpts from this report, which is dated 9/14/10... [Note: Formatting appearing in the original has been omitted below. Also, paragraphs may be combined/separated below, references may be omitted, and some spelling/punctuation changes have been made]

* "Now that the veil has been lifted and the traditional Mass declared always valid, people of all nations and of all tongues are returning to, or discovering, the great and historic liturgy that spread the faith around the globe."

* "And yet a great source of sanctification - the traditional Latin Mass - is being denied to those priests who wish to obtain the graces which flow from this form of Mass. Many bishops are not only refusing to allow their priests to celebrate this Mass but some are actually punishing their priests for daring even to think about saying it. The individual reports from our members...include a number of examples where this has happened. If the bishops are an alter Christus to their priests then they should follow the example of our Blessed Lord in his relationship with His apostles and disciples."

* "In a Church that places great emphasis on justice and peace, and in pursuit of these admirable causes supports all manner of diverse projects around the world, it is remarkable how so many of the bishops do not place the same emphasis on justice and peace among their own flocks whenever mention is made of the traditional Latin Mass; or Extraordinary Form, as Pope Benedict refers to it."

* "While there are many instances of bishops being obedient to Pope Benedict XVI and faithful to the motu proprio, there is also overwhelming evidence that a great many bishops seem determined that it shall be stifled at birth because it does not suit them. Although the Holy Father gave permission to each priest of the Latin rite to use the [traditional Missal], there are many bishops who are denying the authority of the Supreme Legislator and are placing their own negative and restrictive interpretations on the motu proprio. It gives us no satisfaction to state this because the laity are required to give obedience to their diocesan bishops as successors of the apostles. But we expect that our bishops give obedience to their legitimate authority, the Vicar of Rome. If our bishops are seen to be disobedient to Peter then they cannot be surprised if their flocks lose respect for their authority. Holy Mother Church is now in a state of chaos and anarchy because the management of the Church is rent with individual bishops, and bishops' conferences, thinking, and acting, as if they are the Pope with ultimate authority."

* "There has been some improvement [since 9/14/09] in a few countries but this, in the main, is due entirely to dedicated and active laity, who are prepared to overcome the antipathy and even hostility of many of the bishops. In a number of countries it is clear that many bishops are opposed to the resurgence of the extraordinary form and seem determined to thwart the will of the Holy Father and the desires of their flocks by direct refusal of requests, by simply ignoring requests and petitions, and by making their disapproval known to their clergy who reluctantly have to obey."

* "It is not too strong a comment to say that many bishops have turned their faces against the Vicar of Christ and have refused to open their hearts to their faithful. They continue to deny their flocks the form of Mass that spread the Catholic faith to every country of the world; the form of Mass that was the spiritual nourishment of countless saints and martyrs, the consolation of untold millions of the faithful down through the centuries, and a form of Mass that, in reality, is revitalizing seminaries and communities where it has been reintroduced."

* "In the USA the following members of the hierarchy have been very helpful. Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop John Myers, Archbishop Raymond Burke, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, Archbishop Alexander Brunett, Bishop Kevin Rhoades, Bishop James Timlin, Bishop David Foley, Bishop John D'Arcy, Bishop David Zubik, Bishop David Ricken, Bishop Jerome Listecki, Bishop Bernard Harrington, Bishop Thomas Doran, Bishop Robert Finn, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, Bishop Edward Slattery, Bishop John Wester, Bishop Gerald Kicanas, Bishop Allen Vigneron, Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, Bishop Clarence Silva, Bishop David Fellhauer, Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, Bishop James Johnston, Aux. Bishop John Dougherty, Aux. Bishop Joseph Perry, Aux. Bishop Robert Hermann"

* "His Holiness appealed to his dear brother bishops to generously open their hearts but the reality is that many have refused to do so and have used many means to obstruct the reasonable and legitimate requests from their flocks for the traditional Mass. There has been a collective abuse of power to maintain the status quo and deny any possibility of the restoration of the traditional liturgy. Evidence has been provided...of episcopal refusal of a great many legitimate requests, of ignoring legitimate requests, of creating impossible conditions for willing celebrants to comply with. Instructions have been issued that make their displeasure of the traditional Mass perfectly clear to their priests, thus creating an atmosphere of fear that parish priests are unwilling to act against. In many dioceses there is no visible evidence of a bishop’s antipathy to the motu proprio but the diocesan priests have been made aware of the possibility of action being taken against them should they celebrate [the TLM]. The bishops refuse obedience to their legitimate authority, the Holy Father, but ruthlessly demand obedience from their priests and their flocks. "

* "One particular bishop imposed an 'examination' of those priests who wanted to say the traditional Mass in Latin in order for them to be 'approved', but there was no similar examination for foreign priests entering his diocese to celebrate the new Mass in the vernacular. No such 'approval' is required for them."

* "In one European country the bishop stopped a priest celebrating the traditional Mass until the diocesan board had discussed the case. After many months the bishop declared that any Mass with the public attending was not a 'private' Mass (i.e. without faithful) and threatened to punish the priest if he continued to be 'disobedient'. In some countries priests who have celebrated the traditional Mass have been 'relocated' from their parishes to remote areas and others have been removed entirely and deprived of all pastoral offices - and income."

* "Many bishops are adopting a strategy of refusing to acknowledge or reply to requests for the traditional Mass and are saying that in their diocese the 'problem' of Summorum Pontificum does not exist."

* "News and Extraordinary Form Mass listings are rarely carried in diocesan publications or on diocesan websites. There have been instances of diocesan publications refusing to cover Extraordinary Form affairs, e.g. the reference to 'Summorum Pontificum' in the entry supplied by one member for the 2009 edition of the diocesan directory was deleted by the directory's editor, and the diocesan newspaper declined to print an article which explained the provisions of 'Summorum Pontificum'."

* "There are many instances of priests all around the world responding generously to requests from their parishioners. Many often do so despite hostility from their fellow priests and also, it must be said, from ill-informed lay people who think these priests are acting against the Second Vatican Council. Although it is mainly younger priests who are responding to the motu proprio, there are many instances of retired priests who are very happy to return to the Mass of their younger days and help the faithful."

* "It is, in the main, younger priests who are willing to celebrate the traditional liturgy and some are acting courageously in the face of opposition from their older confreres."

* "Most Extraordinary Form apostolates are showing strong signs of steady growth."

* "[T]here is widespread ignorance as to the actual contents of the Holy Father's motu proprio and accompanying letter, and even of the existence of these documents."

* "Many requests have been made...and many reasons for refusal have been received in return. Bishops have said that a particular group is not large enough, or not sufficiently motivated for a wholly Latin liturgy, or that the suggested priest does not know Latin sufficiently well, or that other motu proprio places exist in the diocese."

* "What is beyond dispute is the phenomenal growth of internet websites and webblogs since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, despite the negative and stifling approach of many bishops around the world. The growth is exponential."

* "Many people drive for hours to attend a usus antiquior Mass which is a testament to the devotion it engenders. Many new attenders express surprise that it is not more extensively promoted by the authorities."

* "Federation members report that many priests have requested books, videos, and any resources to learn how to celebrate the traditional Mass. And many ask for anonymity for fear of reprisals from their respective bishops. This is a common theme because the Federation knows of many priests and religious who would like to learn or celebrate the traditional liturgy but have found difficulty with their bishops or superiors who have prevented them. This climate of rejection and persecution of the Extraordinary form, is preventing many priests, and their congregations, from benefiting from the spiritual graces that flow from the Mass in the Extraordinary Form."

* "Unfortunately, many [priests] prefer to celebrate only in private, especially those who are young because they want to avoid problems with their parish priest and do not wish to publicize the fact that they can say the traditional Mass. This atmosphere is reported by many of our members and is quite common."

* "Since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum the International Federation Una Voce has received many enquiries from around the world from lay people, and clergy, and religious. Although many bishops seem to have a policy of silence about the motu proprio, the news is spreading world-wide, particularly via the internet, and the most noticeable phenomenon is that the great majority of enquiries are coming from young people. Many enquirers have received no response or encouragement from their own clergy and bishops and are turning to the Una Voce Federation for advice on how to obtain the traditional Mass in their area, and also for guidance on how to start Una Voce groups."

Related:

* Three Year Anniversary of the Effective Date of Summorum Pontificum (9/10)

* Three Year Anniversary of Summorum Pontificum (7/10)

* Una Voce's Report on the Motu Proprio (11/09)

* The Traditional Latin ('Tridentine') Mass vs. the Novus Ordo (New) Mass

* Summorum Pontificum Info (Latin Mass Updates:  7/07 & Later)

* Latin Mass Facts

* Why the Latin Mass?

* Traditional Latin Mass (Topic Page)

[12/1]

'The phenomenon of liturgical disobedience'

The following are some highlights from a recent article by Fr. Mauro Gagliardi, consultor of the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff and professor of theology at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum in Rome....

* "Vatican Council II ordered a general reform of the sacred liturgy. The [Novus Ordo Mass] was effected after the closing of the Council, by a commission commonly called, for reasons of brevity, the Consilium. It is known that, from the beginning, the liturgical reform was the object of criticisms, at times radical, as well as exaltations, in certain cases, excessive. It is not our intention to pause on this problem. We can say instead that it is generally agreed that an increase of abuses can be observed in the celebratory field after the Council."

* "...a great number of priests believe that ultimately the space left to 'creativity' must be enlarged, which is expressed above all with the frequent change of words or whole phrases in relation to those fixed in the liturgical books, with the insertion of new 'rites' often completely foreign to the liturgical and theological tradition of the Church and even with the use of vestments, sacred vessels and decorations that are not always appropriate and, in some cases, even fall into the ridiculous."

* "The phenomenon of 'liturgical disobedience' has extended in such a way, because of the number and in certain cases also because of the gravity, that the mentality has been formed in many by which the liturgy, with the exception of the words of the Eucharistic consecration, can be subject to all the modifications 'pastorally' considered suitable by the priest or the community... Particularly significant in this text is the appeal to the right of the faithful to have a liturgy celebrated according to the universal norms of the Church, in addition to stressing the fact that the transformations and modifications of the liturgy - even if done for 'pastoral' reasons - in reality do not have a positive effect in this field; on the contrary, they confuse, disturb, and tire and can also make the faithful abandon religious practice."

* "The problem indicated, however, subsists and it is important that the solution of the same begin with the priests, who must commit themselves first of all to know in a profound way the liturgical books and also to put faithfully into practice their prescriptions. Only knowledge of the liturgical laws and the desire to hold oneself strictly to them will avoid further abuses and arbitrary 'innovations' that, if at the time might perhaps move those present, in reality soon end by tiring and disappointing. Saving the best intentions of those who commit them, after forty years of 'liturgical disobedience' it does not in fact build better Christian communities, but on the contrary it puts in danger the solidity of their faith and of their belonging to the unity of the Catholic Church."

* "The more 'open' character of the new liturgical norms cannot be used as pretext to pervert the nature of the public worship of the Church"

Source: Zenit

Related: The Traditional Latin ('Tridentine') Mass vs. the New (Novus Ordo) Mass| Why the Latin Mass?

[7/10]

TLM: 'Tridentine' or "Extraordinary"?

On the RemnantNewspaper.com website, the editor of The Remnant Newspaper, Michael J. Matt, has weighed in on the debate regarding whether to call the TLM the "Extraordinary Form". He says, in part...

"Yes, I know, we’re not supposed to call [the 'Tridentine' Mass] that anymore. Now it’s the 'Extraordinary Form', which makes some sense, I suppose, given the sheer ordinariness of the New Mass. But why this insistence on 'Extraordinary Form'? God knows. Perhaps a new name was needed for the old Mass - one that doesn’t imply allegiance to the clarity of Trent over the ambiguity of Vatican II. Perhaps suggesting two forms of one Rite provided cover for the bizarre spectacle and abrupt rupture of an entirely New Mass. I don’t know. Whatever it is, for many of us the traditional Mass will always be the Tridentine Mass. This is so for a variety of reasons... It was codified at Trent by the same sainted pontiff who’d codified the 15-decade traditional rosary - St. Pius V, spiritual general of Lepanto, and the great pope who’d saved Europe from both Islam and Protestantism... ['Pioneer Traditionalists'] knew very well that important components of [the TLM] predated Trent by some 1500 years. But by referring to it as the 'Tridentine Mass' they lashed themselves to the mast of Catholic Tradition - the dogmatic Council of Trent, Quo Primum and the flagship of the Catholic fleet that would preserve the Faith of the Ages against the onslaught of Novelty, Protestantism and a burgeoning Novus Ordo Seclorum... The Extraordinary Form? Sure, but one day it will again be the only form of the Roman Rite"

One might also add that using the terms "ordinary form" and "extraordinary form" may favor the idea that the differences between the two are insignificant or of little consequence. It may imply that both are equally good. Remember that Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci did not seem to agree that the differences were insignificant, of little consequence, or that both were equally good when they stated that the NO "represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent, which, by fixing definitively the 'canons' of the rite, erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery" or when they stated that the NO liturgy "teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith". The Protestants who rejected the Traditional Mass but who accept the New Mass also illustrate that the differences between the two are quite significant. Further, terms such as "ordinary" and "extraordinary" seem to automatically relegate the "extraordinary form" to be used only "extraordinarily" (otherwise it would be "ordinary"), at least in the minds of the general Catholic population.

Finally, such terms tend to promote the idea that both really are two forms of the SAME rite. Without wishing to open a can of worms, one might ask: If they really are two forms of the SAME rite, what exactly then would it take to make them two different rites? Already we know that the history of development is different, the emphasis is different, the rubrics are different, the language (of typical use, not promulgation) is different, the readings are different, the calendar is different, the options are different, the gestures are frequently different, the prayers have many differences, the Bible translation is different, the architecture is typically different, the participants in the sanctuary are typically different (e.g. lectors, 'lay ministers' of Holy Communion, female 'altar boys', etc.), the priests' direction is typically different, the music is typically different, distribution of Communion is different, etc., etc. What exactly is left to officially consider the two "different" rites? And, if the TLM and the NO were officially considered different rites, wouldn't tradition-minded Catholics have more "rights" since they could choose the TLM as their rite and would then automatically be entitled to it - without needing to "jump through hoops" (e.g. Can. 214: "The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church and to follow their own form of spiritual life so long as it is consonant with the doctrine of the Church")? Not only that, but if the two were officially considered different rites, wouldn't it be the NO adherents who had effectively changed rites, rather than those attached to the immemorial TLM? Just a thought.

Related: The Traditional Latin ('Tridentine') Mass vs. the New (Novus Ordo) Mass | Latin Mass Updates: 7/07 & Later

[6/8]