Understanding aspects of the present Pontificate

The Rorate Coeli website, which always makes for provocative reading, has an interesting post around a report by an established Vatican watcher. This seesk to explain the thinking, as yet not officially declared, behind the inquiry into the Franciscans of the Immaculate and various other moves, seemingly hostile, against others of a Traditionalist stance within the Church. It can be read at Influential Italian Vaticanist, bewildered, reaches shocking conclusion: "In the Catholic Church, it's now Open Season on Conservatives"

This assessment appears to make sense, given the "Court Culture" as it describes it - not a culture of outward ceremony and deference, but rather the underlying ethos of any such hierarchy, sacred or secular, of the left or the right, whether now or in the past, whereby officials seek to conform their actions to what they believe (rightly or wrongly) to be the attitudes of their superior. 

Understanding the Pope

The Catholic part of the blogosphere has been more than usually busy following the publication of the two recent interviews the Pope has given, with vigorous comments both for and against what the Pope has said or, perhaps more importantly, is thought to have said.

I have good friends who not happy at all with what they read and see, others who are cautious or positive in their reactions. I know those who might well be described as traditionalist, or indeed as Traditionalist (there is a difference) who are very positive about things the Pope has done or said. Others are dismayed and fear the worst. On occasion one person can express both sets of attitudes in the same or following conversations.

The publication of the Vatican decree about the use of the 1962 Missal by the Franciscans of the Immaculate and its implication for the application of Summorum Pontificum was seen by some as the thin edge of a very large wedge. Others saw it as a fairly technical regulation of one specific religious community, and who pointed out that permission for use of the 1962 liturgy had already been readily forthcoming.

For many I know, and thus not just for those who work in the media, the Pope's direct homely style has great appeal, although his daily Mass homilies are, I suspect, often not such as to appeal to Tabletistas who would otherwise enthuse about a South Americal Supreme Pontiff.

Some of the blogs I see, such as Rorate Caeli have posts which are definitely hostile or critical, whilst others seek to see a Hermeneutic of Continuity with Pope Benedict XVI - as for example in this piece by the head of the Knights of Columbus which a friend forwarded to me, and which can be read here.

Now we have Bishop Fellay from SSPX  making his views clear as reported by Rorate Caeli in For the record - Bishop Fellay: "we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement"

All this fuels debate, but also confusion. The always insightful blogger Fr Blake has been led to ruminating in his series of recent posts Disconcerted by Francis? , Disconcerted by Francis #2, Disconcerted by Francis #3  and Disconcerted by Francis #4 and also returning to the theme in his post Joseph Shaw on Pope Francis, with its links to Dr Shaw's blog and his recent set of posts on Traditionalism and the present pontificate on his LMS Chairman blog. This too seeks to see common ground between Traditionalists and the Pope, as opposed to those whom Dr Shaw describes as Neo-Conservatives.

On a slightly different, but related, tack Fr Blake has another good post at 'Clericalism' which refers to what the Pope has said about some clergy attitudes. 

 

I am sure we are going to see a lot more electrons temporarily inconvenienced as the speculation and interpretation continues, as this is an important debate both for the Church as an institution, indeed as the Body of Christ, and for communities and individuals.

Personally I simply watch the situation and wait - as the saying goes "Them's as lives the longest will see the most."

What the Pope really said

There was quite a flurry on the blogosphere yesterday about reports as to what the Pope had said or not said about the Extraordinary Form of Mass to a group of bishops from Apulia. The key report appears to be this one, from Rorate Coeli, which is usually a well informed and reliable source. It can be read at Did the Pope say to resisting bishops: "Summorum will not be touched"? Not really.

Universae Ecclesiae and Friday abstinence

I have now managed to read Universae Ecclesiae rather than just rely, as I had done hitherto, on digests on various blogs. In one way the document is rather bland, being a tidying up of various questions and procedural points. Doing that is good in itself, and underlines the fact that Summorum Pontificum is now part of normative practice - it cannot be dismissed as some tried or would have wanted to do as a concession to tiresome old fuddy-duddies.

The fears about the introduction of restrictions on the use of the Extraordinary Form seem largely to have been unfulfilled, or in the point about ordinations, is at least consistent.

As usual there seems to be a problem with translations from the Latin into the vernacular as in the point about the right of individual members of Orders to celebrate their own traditional rites. This is a not unknown problem of translation which one would think would be attended to before publication, but it is not a serious handicap, just a bit of a time-waster having to explain things with reference to the definitive Latin.

If Universae Ecclesiae reinforces traditional practice, then so too does the decision of the English and Welsh bishops to reinstate Friday abstinence on days other than Solemnities. The rule was, I understand, relaxed in 1985. Now I have observed the traditional Friday discipline for years, long before I became a Catholic, so it is no novelty for me. The argument about marking ourselves out from the rest of the population by so doing I find considerably less appealing that the point about personal discipline - and makes meat-eating on a Solemnity part of one's own participation in the sense of celebration.

So last week was a good one for reinforcing good practice on both the liturgical and personal front. In both cases the important thing now is to use that practice to build up the life of the Church.

Petition in support of Summorum Pontificum

Following on from my post yesterday about this matter I am sure many of my readers will already have signed the petition addressed to the Pope in respect of Summorum Pontificum.

The story of the possibility of restrictions being placed on the use of the Extraordinary Form was first publicised by Rorate Caeli , and that site has coverage that is worth looking at. Fr Tim Finigan has a good piece about the issues, which you can read here, at Motu Proprio Appeal

If you wish to sign the petition, as I have done, you can find it by clicking here. 

Rumours about Summorum Pontificum

Laurence England had two posts yesterday on That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill about the rumours about the letter of clarification about Summorum Pontificum - rumours that there may be attempts to restrict its application. I copied the links so that you can read his posts, Pray for Pope Benedict XVI, Now Gloriously Reignin... and Help me with this letter...

If these rumours are true, then it is important for all those who are concerned for the success of Summorum Pontificum and for the liturgy of the Church to pray and give voice to their concern. I have said online that I would sign the letter Laurence has drafted as one means of registering that concern. True liturgical renewal, of which Summorum Pontificum is one, if not the, keystone, must not be frustrated or limited.

That said it is worth bearing in mind that these are at the moment only rumours, and the Church seems to be borne aloft on a sea of speculation. So whilst we await developments we should certainly pray and expound the merit of the Extraordinary Form, and its vital importance to the very being of the Church. It is a time to be resolute, and not to panic. There may be those in the Vatican who want to frustrate the Pope's plans, but there are also those, like Cardinal Burke, as in my recent post, who are insiders and who are definitely supportive of the Holy Father's project.

Paix Liturgique British survey

Fr Blake has an interesting account of the survey of British Catholics undertaken by Paix Liturgique. You can read his post here, and from it there is a link to the full report. It is in many ways an optimistic assessment, or should I say a not unoptimistic assessment, of attitudes towards liturgy and worship in this country, and more positive than many European, and outwardly Catholic, countries. It is of particular interest to those of us favourable to the Extraordinary Form of Mass.

Summorum Pontificum Three Years On

Yesterday was the third anniversary of Summorum Pontificum. The blogs seem to have quite a bit about the fact and the Catholic Herald has an online debate on whether the Papal initiative has been successful. The very fact that the Pope issued it is a thing to continue to be grateful for - I recall celebrating with modest glass of champagne back in 2007 - and I am thankful for all that has been achieved in consequence of the Holy Father's initiative.

Like many others I would like it to have had greater impact already, but a great deal has been achieved, and solid progress made. A great deal has been achieved and a great deal recovered for the liturgical life of the Church. In this country it is clear that some dioceses are more favourable than others, and that in some places the laity are more responsive or pro-active than in others. This may not entirely be the responsibility of individuals in the clerical hierarchy - it may be that there simply is not, at present, a constituency for traditional forms in certain areas. The reasons for that may be complex. Resolving then may require not only practical action but also research to understand developments over the last half century and maybe longer.

With both clergy and laity it is partly, though by no means entirely, a matter of different generations. The signs of a favourable attitude towards the Extraordinary Form amongst younger clergy and religious, as well as laypeople is very encouraging. The success of the various training conferences in this country is very hopeful, as has been the support given at an international level by leading members of the Curia. The New Liturgical Movement has some very positive stories today, including Cardinal Canizares at Wigratzbad for the ordinations there, a Usus Antiquior parish being established in Dayton, Ohio and a well attended EF Mass at St Charles Borromeo in Hull, of which the following is one of the photographs:

A few years ago such a restoration would have been barely imaginable. A great deal has been achieved.

This is despite some bishops seeking to claim a power to control the application of in their dioceses, and a sense that in not a few places the Papal motu proprio has never been heard of - that seems to include large parts of some avowedly Catholic countries.

To some extent supporters of the traditional liturgy have been over-optimistic as to the response of others, and now feel disappointed that more has not already happened. The zeal of some may indeed have intimidated members of the hierarchy, who themselves feel unsure about celebrating Mass in front of what can be so critical an audience. For some of them it must also be a shock to the system to see the return of that which they had, for whatever reasons, assumed belonged to the past. "We don't do that anymore" can now be answered with "Yes we can", and indeed "Yes we will."

On the whole I am optimistic, but I also feel impatient to see more achieved - but that may just be me. We should give thanks for what the Pope has given back to us, and work to make it more available. Traditionalist minded Catholics need to cultivate further the arts of positive evangelisation in these matters. I stress the positive aspect - simply denigating much that does indeed deserve denigration in contemporary liturgical life may relieve the feelings, but it may not achieve much more. The continuing positive promotion of the Extraordinary Form, as is being done by organisations and authors, but by all who support it, can, I am sure bring real benefits to both individual souls and the life iof the Church. That may be the way to cure impatience and the causes of impatience at the same time.