Robert Cardinal Sarah's message to 'Sacra Liturgia' 2015

[mcb]

The problem has been that, ever since, that small group has been telling the rest of us that they're right and we're all wrong. This is what was predicted to happen, and indeed it did, with unpleasant and unnecessary consequences in the life of the Church.

Don't know that I agree - I'm not sure the unpleasant consequences are all that tangible, and whatever they are they're outweighed by the implicit endorsement of cultural pluralism in the liturgy.

[mcb]

...this "small group" (which, actually, really isn't that small) are loyal and obedient Catholics who love the Church, and who respect and obey the hierarchy.

This is from a recent Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice newsletter:

My objective has been to awaken people from the diabolically induced delusion that we are dealing with misguided, ill-instructed or lazy bishops. Nothing could be further from the truth; these men are ferociously anti-Catholic, they are the enemy within intent on destroying the Church, and furthermore they are winning the war; unless the faithful wake up, man up, and confront the awful reality, the Church in many countries is doomed.
This self-serving Modernist cabal infesting our hierarchy are not just a bunch of funny clerics with a philistine penchant for pop-hymns, or socially awkward shepherds who always manage to embarrass us by saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. Their role as our shepherds gives them enormous authority; this, in turn, has empowered them to do immense damage... [continued p.94]

[IncenseTom]

My understanding of/take on the BXVI reforms, for what it's worth, is as follows:

Before the pontificate of BXVI there were (and still are) some who thought that everything that had happened before Vatican II was awful and what good news it was that it had been "abandoned" and "we've moved on", blah, blah, blah.
Equally, there were (and still are) some who thought the exact opposite - that everything that had happened since Vat II was a disaster and "it had gone too far", blah, blah, blah.

To my mind, Pope Benedict harmonised the two by infusing, if you like, a sense of the more solemn, sacred, etc, aspects of the Old Rite with the New Rite. I'm thinking of things like the now famous "Benedict arrangement" of 6 candles and crucifix on the altar on which the Mass is celebrated (rather than just on the reredos in the background). I also get a sense that there are many more priests who try to say Mass without imposing their own personality on proceedings so as to avoid making it about them or be in any way 'entertaining'. I have no evidence for this - just a sense I get from places I've been to Mass over the last few years or so.

I think this is what is meant when people suggest that he helped to show us how the New Rite should be celebrated 'properly' - i.e the New form of the Mass with elements, or (dare I say) the spirit of the Old.

A separate point is the provision for the EF to be celebrated, which when considered against the numbers celebrating the OF, is in the minority (although it has gained popularity). As others have said, I reckon this was a generous decision to those who wished for the EF to regain a more legitimate place and I can only assume that BXVI never celebrated the EF as Pope in public because the 'normative' form of the Mass remains the OF.

[Southern Comfort]

Benedict is on record as saying that SP was only intended to apply to a small number of people who did not wish to change to the new rite. In a brief interview on plane on his way to France, 12 September 2008, having been asked what he would say to those in France who fear that SP is a step backward with regard to the great insights of Vatican II, BXVI replied:

"The fear is unfounded because this Motu Proprio is simply an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim for people who were formed in this liturgy, love it, know it, and wish to live with this liturgy. It’s a small group because this presupposes a formation in Latin, a formation in a certain culture."

Southern Comfort, I'd love to see the original transcript, audio, or video footage of this interview. So far as I can see, there is only one source for this quotation, from Paul Inwood commenting on a post on the blog Pray Tell –– so not the most reliable of sources!

This was on Zenit at the time, but I have not succeeded in finding it again. Here is the complete transcript, with English translation:

DOMANDA: Que dites-vous à ceux qui, en France, craignent que le Motu proprio ‘Summorum pontificum’ marque un retour en arrière sur les grandes intuitions du Concile Vatican II ? Comment pouvez vous les rassurer ?

BENEDETTO XVI: C’est une peur infondée parce que ce Motu proprio est simplement un acte de tolérance, dans un but pastoral pour des personnes qui ont été formées dans cette liturgie, l’aiment, la connaissent, et veulent vivre avec cette liturgie. C’est un petit groupe parce que cela suppose une formation en latin, une formation dans une culture certaine. Mais pour ces personnes avoir l’amour et la tolérance de permettre de vivre avec cette liturgie cela me semble une exigence normale de la foi et de la pastorale d’un évêque de notre Eglise.. Il n’y a aucune opposition entre la liturgie renouvelée par le Concile Vatican II et cette liturgie.

Chaque jour (du Concile, ndlr), les pères conciliaires ont célébré la messe selon l’ancien rite et, en même temps, ils ont conçu un développement naturel pour la liturgie dans tout ce siècle car la liturgie est une réalité vivante qui se développe et conserve dans son développement son identité. Il y a donc certainement des accents différents, mais quand même une identité fondamentale qui exclue une contradiction, une opposition entre la liturgie renouvelée et la liturgie précédente. Je pense quand même qu’il y a une possibilité d’un enrichissement des deux parties. D’un côté les amis de l’ancienne liturgie peuvent et doivent connaître les nouveaux saints, les nouvelles préfaces de la liturgie, etc… d’autre part, la liturgie nouvelle souligne plus la participation commune mais, toujours, n’est pas simplement une assemblée d’une certaine communauté mais toujours un acte de l’Eglise universelle, en communion avec tous les croyants de tous les temps, et un acte d’adoration.
Dans ce sens, il me semble qu’il y a un enrichissement réciproque et c’est clair que la liturgie renouvelée est la liturgie ordinaire de notre temps.


QUESTION: What do you say to those in France who fear that the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum marks a step backwards with regard to the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?

BENEDICT XVI: The fear is unfounded because this Motu Proprio is simply an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim for people who were formed in this liturgy, love it, know it, and wish to live with this liturgy. It’s a small group because this presupposes a formation in Latin, a formation in a certain culture. But for these people, having the love and the tolerance to allow them to live with this liturgy seems to me to be a normal requirement in faith and pastoral care for a bishop of our Church. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.

Each day [of the Council – Ed.], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass according to the old rite and, at the same time, they conceived a natural development for the liturgy in this whole century, for the liturgy is a living reality which develops and which conserves its identity in its development. There are therefore certainly different emphases, but all the same a fundamental identity which excludes a contradiction, and opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy. I think, all the same, that there is a possibility of an enrichment on both sides. On the one hand, the friends of the old liturgy can and should know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc... On the other hand, the new liturgy has a greater emphasis on communal participation but, always, it is not simply a gathering of a certain community but always an act of the universal Church, in communion with all believers and all times, and an act of adoration.

In this sense, it seems to me that there is a reciprocal enrichment and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary [= normal] liturgy of our time.

The problem has been that, ever since, that small group has been telling the rest of us that they're right and we're all wrong. This is what was predicted to happen, and indeed it did, with unpleasant and unnecessary consequences in the life of the Church.

I think this is a gross exaggeration. In my experience, this "small group" (which, actually, really isn't that small) are loyal and obedient Catholics who love the Church, and who respect and obey the hierarchy. Who, exactly, predicted Summorum Pontificum would have "unpleasant and unnecessary consequences in the life of the Church"? And what exactly are these "consequences," anyway?

Tom,

The group is tiny. Estimated at less than half of one percent of the total Mass-going population, and probably even that is generous. In the UK the proportions are something like 1.5% maximum. In the USA it's 0.2%. In the Third World, considerably less than that.

The French and British hierarchies begged Benedict not to issue Summorum Pontificum, because they knew the trouble it would cause. He went ahead regardless. Those hierarchies were right. The consequences are, as already mentioned, a tiny but very vocal minority telling the rest of the Church, at best, that their liturgy is all wrong and that only the Extraordinary Form is right, at worst, that the rest of the Church consists of heretics.

[Tom_Neal]

...this "small group" (which, actually, really isn't that small) are loyal and obedient Catholics who love the Church, and who respect and obey the hierarchy.

This is from a recent Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice newsletter:

My objective has been to awaken people from the diabolically induced delusion that we are dealing with misguided, ill-instructed or lazy bishops. Nothing could be further from the truth; these men are ferociously anti-Catholic, they are the enemy within intent on destroying the Church, and furthermore they are winning the war; unless the faithful wake up, man up, and confront the awful reality, the Church in many countries is doomed.
This self-serving Modernist cabal infesting our hierarchy are not just a bunch of funny clerics with a philistine penchant for pop-hymns, or socially awkward shepherds who always manage to embarrass us by saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. Their role as our shepherds gives them enormous authority; this, in turn, has empowered them to do immense damage... [continued p.94]

I think that's a very unfair example. Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice is a fringe group, and not a well-respected one at that. You will never read any such comments from the Latin Mass Society, the FSSP, the ICKSP, or any of the other official and/or respected traditional Catholic bodies.

Also, please don't be under any allusion that these kinds of misguided attitude are the preserve of traditionalists; such views can be found on both ends of the political spectrum.

[Tom_Neal]

It is, however, true that the Holy Father didn't ever celebrate the Extraordinary Form in public during his pontificate.

It's fascinating and puzzling that he didn't. (To me, anyway; I know I should get out more.) Why do you think this was, Tom?

This was debated endlessly during Pope Benedict's pontificate. It was widely reported that the Holy Father frequently said a Low Mass (EF) in his private chapel -- even Bishop Fellay made reference to that. And from all we know of the Holy Father, I would say that it's extremely likely.

But saying the traditional Mass in public would likely have jeopardised his position, and potentially discredited (in the eyes of some, at least) his teachings on the sacred liturgy.

What are your thoughts, mcb?

[Tom_Neal]

Benedict is on record as saying that SP was only intended to apply to a small number of people who did not wish to change to the new rite.

"It’s a small group because this presupposes a formation in Latin, a formation in a certain culture."

I think, Southern Comfort, this is a bit of 'wishful thinking' on your part. Remember this article from a few years ago? http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/20 ... lder-form/

Everywhere I look, the traditional liturgy is a 'growing point' in the Church. In the parishes I have been involved with, attendance at the traditional and modern liturgy is divided evenly. In my own church, around 15 or 20 people attend Mass every day irrespective of whether it's in the EF or OF. Traditional churches, pilgrimages, and retreats are packed with young people (in the last month alone, just look at the two Chartres pilgrimages). The FSSP and ICKSP are opening churches and building seminaries, when dioceses are closing churches and struggling to maintain their seminaries. There is no vocations crisis in the Ecclesia Dei congregations. And the SSPX seminaries are so over-crowded that in the USA they have seminarians sharing four to a room.

Also, seeing as you're so fond of quoting Pope Benedict XVI, consider these words of his from the Apostolic Letter which prefaced Summorum Pontificum:

Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio.

There are literally hundreds of articles and blogposts about this. For example:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/the- ... mass-youth
http://www.lmschairman.org/2014/09/youn ... -mass.html
http://reginamag.com/update-latin-mass-america-today/

Who, exactly, predicted Summorum Pontificum would have "unpleasant and unnecessary consequences in the life of the Church"? And what exactly are these "consequences," anyway?

Southern Comfort, you've still not really answered these points... A "tiny but very vocal minority," even if it existed, could hardly be described as an "unpleasant and unnecessary consequence in the life of the Church"! There will always be voices of dissent; some people will always be upset. These are serious accusations, and shouldn't be made if you can't provide any evidence to support them.

The consequences are, as already mentioned, a tiny but very vocal minority telling the rest of the Church, at best, that their liturgy is all wrong and that only the Extraordinary Form is right, at worst, that the rest of the Church consists of heretics.

Again, please provide examples and evidence. You're making some serious accusations and wild generalisations without providing any evidence. It's really unfair to depict people in this light without supporting your assertions. Where are these Catholics defaming the Ordinary Form of the Mass? Where are these Catholics describing the rest of the Church as "heretical"? Give us good, solid, reliable witnesses, Southern Comfort!

[Dom Perignon]

Could we please "cool it" a bit here. Whilst I have seen relatively rare examples of extreme intolerance at both ends of the spectrum, my experience has been that the vast majority of the devotees of, on the one hand, the Ordinary Form and, on the other, the Extraordinary Form, are reasonable and tolerant (and devout) Catholics, and I would like to see the continued demonstration of those virtues on this forum.

[mcb]

"It’s a small group because this presupposes a formation in Latin, a formation in a certain culture."

I'd suggest an internet search on the words "presupposes a formation", which provides a link to any number of sites, including Zenit. Do you still maintain that SP was meant to apply to more than a small number, Tom?

To my mind, the fact that Pope Benedict didn't himself publicly embrace the provisions of SP is a clear indication that he saw nothing mainstream about it.

[Southern Comfort]

Many of the smaller traditionalist blogs (and some of the larger ones, like Regina Caeli) regularly contain much vitriol. I'm sure it's therapeutic for those who write on them, but it's rather disedifying for the rest of us. Some people find it scandalous. Those commenting always seem to be the same small coterie of unhappy individuals, and the same people seem to crop up on numbers of different blogs.

It's interesting, too, how many blogs and forums are devoted to preconciliar forms of worship compared with the few devoted to postconciliar forms. The numbers appear to be in inverse proportion to the numbers of adherents.

Just one statistic for Tom_Neal, taken from one of the splinter group links he provided above (Regina Mag):

The number of Extraordinary Form Latin Masses in the USA had risen to a little over 400 per weekend by the end of 2013.

Now, there are between 17,000 and 18,000 parishes in the US, not counting Mass centres and outstations. If each of those had only one Mass per weekend, that would give the EF Masses 2% of the total. But in fact most parishes have at least 3-4 Masses every weekend, and 6-8 is far from uncommon. The largest parishes routinely have 10 or more. Between 90,000 and 100,000 Masses are celebrated every weekend, so 500 (by now, let's say, though it probably hasn't reached that figure yet) EF Masses are still a tiny proportion of the total number of Masses celebrated. I don't see this as a significant growth area at all, and trying to pretend that is appears fairly pointless. I appreciate that Tom and others would like it to be true, but the reality is actually different in the grand scheme of things.

[Southern Comfort]

"It’s a small group because this presupposes a formation in Latin, a formation in a certain culture."

I'd suggest an internet search on the words "presupposes a formation", which provides a link to any number of sites, including Zenit. Do you still maintain that SP was meant to apply to more than a small number, Tom?

To my mind, the fact that Pope Benedict didn't himself embrace the provisions of SP is a clear indication that he saw nothing mainstream about it.

Thank you, mcb. To save others looking it up, the link is http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pontiff-denies-claim-1962-missal-is-a-regression

[mcb]

To save others looking it up...

... or clicking on the word Zenit in my post.

[Tom_Neal]

The problem has been that, ever since, that small group has been telling the rest of us that they're right and we're all wrong. This is what was predicted to happen, and indeed it did, with unpleasant and unnecessary consequences in the life of the Church.

In response, some words from Pope Benedict XVI (my emphases):

“I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent.”

“For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 [the older Latin Mass] should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her at present if things are that way?”

[IncenseTom]

One small point about the popularity of the EF - I know a priest who recently went on retreat to a Seminary in Bavaria run by the Society of St. Paul (I think). They use the Old Rite exclusively, and there are 150 seminarians currently there with an average age of 25.

Now if I could I attempt to move the discussion on a bit again by leaving aside the issue of whether or not the EF is gaining popularity, and restate my opinion that Pope Benedict provided us with both forms of Mass to co-exist alongside each other and, my main point, that aspects of the EF can inform the 'proper' celebration of the OF?

I really do think he tried to 'bridge the gap' rather than there being such a clean break after Vatican II.

More parishes singing chant, burning incense, raising standards in terms of their Altar Servers, more periods of silence during the Mass, slower, calmer, more peaceful movements, less jokes from the celebrant, less imprinting of ones personality onto the liturgy by the celebrant, the 'Benedict arrangement' on the Altar are all things I've witnessed over the last few years in a number of parishes. And all to the good in my mind.

I'd be interested to hear if others agree or have had similar experience. I'd be happy to admit if I've drawn false conclusions, but that does seem to be the way things have gone in the last few years.

[Tom_Neal]

Do you still maintain that SP was meant to apply to more than a small number, Tom?

Summorum Pontificum did not simply grant a handful of traditional priests and “splinter groups” (as Southern Comfort put it) permission to celebrate the traditional Mass; it opened up the Church’s rich liturgical heritage to anyone who wanted it. It went a long way to removing the stigma attached to the traditional Catholic liturgy, and also allowed any priest to say the traditional Mass without first having to seek permission from his bishop. Clearly the Holy Father gave Summorum Pontificum to the whole Church, not just to a “small number”.

However, if you want to talk numbers in relation to Summorum Pontificum, here goes. In 2007, there were regular Masses in the Extraordinary Form being celebrated in 26 locations across England and Wales; by 2012, there were 157 (that's an increase of 131 churches in just five years). In 2007, there were 10 Masses in the Extraordinary Form celebrated on Holy Days of Obligation; in 2012 there were 60. (Source: The Latin Mass Society.)

That said, I think we're missing the point here. To talk about the size of this supposed 'target group' (as mbc and Southern Comfort have done, albeit in different terms) is to misunderstand the Holy Father's words. In the interview cited above, Pope Benedict said (my emphases):

“It’s a small group because this presupposes a formation in Latin, a formation in a certain culture.” (C’est un petit groupe parce que cela suppose une formation en latin, une formation dans une culture certaine.)

The Holy Father was clearly saying the 'target group' was "small" simply because so few people had experienced a traditional culture and formation. When Pope Benedict spoke these words, Summorum Pontificum had only just come into effect; the vast majority of people, then, were still effectively living in the pre-SP era, when the traditional Mass was very much on the counter-cultural fringes of the Church. Very few people had had the formation that the Holy Father spoke of.

In the minds of some, both Ecclesia Dei (1988) and Summorum Pontificum (2007) were intended to cater only for those who had known the Mass as adults before 1970, as a concession to the difficulty they had in adjusting to the new Mass. But none of the documents even give the impression that this was intended to be the case. In a response to a query on this matter, Msgr Perl wrote (my emphasis):

The Motu Proprio [Ecclesia Dei, 1988] does not speak of any restrictions, including age limits, on those who aspire to worship according to the liturgical books of 1962. Neither does it state that only those who had previous experience of the Latin liturgical tradition could have such an aspiration.

Indeed, Summorum Pontificum not only gave "pastoral provision" to the surviving pre-conciliar Catholics; it also opened up the riches of the traditional liturgy to a whole new generation. The Holy Father himself commented on this in his Apostolic Letter introducing the Moto Proprio:

“Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio.”

What the Holy Father said in the Zenit interview, then, makes absolute sense. Of course the initial attraction to the traditional Mass was going to be small, because (as the Holy Father said) it requires a “certain formation” which has not been provided by the Church since the new Mass was introduced. There may not have been a break in doctrine, but there was a break in culture and formation, meaning that only those who had been brought up in the ‘old’ liturgy could really understand and appreciate the traditional Mass for what it is.

My point is this: my generation are ‘children’ of Summorum Pontificum. (I am 24 years old.) We have been brought up in a Church in which the traditional liturgy is widely available, and a culture in which it is perfectly normal and ‘socially acceptable’ to attend either or both the OF and EF. The Motu Proprio was never going to seriously affect the older generation, who for most (or even all) of their lives have known only the new Mass. It was always unlikely that many of that older generation––-the ‘children’ of Vatican II, if you will––-would embrace the traditional Mass.

Despite the encouraging statistics I cited above, it is still too early to judge the success or failure of Summorum Pontificum, because it’s only eight years since the decree was issued. But even in that short space of time, we have seen the traditional Mass gain in popularity beyond all expectations; vocations to the traditional priestly societies (the FSSP and ICKSP) are constantly on the rise (as IncenseTom pointed out above); newly-ordained priests coming out of diocesan seminaries are much more traditional than their predecessors (and some of them even say the traditional Mass); and we’re witnessing the rise of a young, zealous, and well-formed generation of Catholics. I’m not saying Summorum Pontificum achieved this alone, but it was certainly the main factor.

To return to mcb's point: further evidence that the Holy Father wanted Summorum Pontificum to “apply to more than a small number” (mcb’s words) is the principle of “mutual enrichment” between the two forms of the Roman Rite. The Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form are meant to be “one alongside the other” (Universae Ecclesiae 6) and it is natural, therefore that they will influence each other. Again from the Apostolic Letter which introduced the Moto Proprio (my emphases):

... the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

This is a topic which the Holy Father returned to on many occasions, and which we all saw starting to be put into practice in the Papal liturgies over which he presided. I’m sure you’re all aware of these issues and know of specific examples, so I shan’t go into them here. But the Holy Father’s point was that a wider celebration and knowledge of the traditional Mass would be central to the “reform of the reform”:

“For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 [i.e. the 1962 Missal] should be lifted.”

Finally, I'd like to restate a point made by Pope Benedict in the aforementioned Apostolic Letter of 2007. Writing of the benefits to the new Mass of mutual enrichment, the Holy Father said that celebration of the new liturgy "with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives" is "the most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI [i.e. the new Mass] can unite parish communities". In other words, rather than being the cause of division, as some have claimed, the more widespread understanding and appreciation for the traditional Mass could impact the new Mass in a positive way, and actually unite parishes. Provided that both liturgical forms (the lex orandi) are in accordance with the faith (the lex credendi), there is no reason that the use of multiple liturgical uses should cause disunity.