by Anura Guruge
Benedict XVI’s (#266) Summorum Pontificum motu proprio of July 7, 2007 (effective as of September 14, 2007) facilitated the wider use of the traditional Latin Mass, in effect permitting individual priests, once ‘petitioned’ by a ‘stable quorum’ of parishioners, to freely administer the Mass in pre-Vatican II [i.e., pre-1962] form. While this relaxation of the ‘rules’ was joyfully embraced by the more traditional, it has not, suffice to say, sat well with the ‘progressive,’ pro-Vatican II crowd. Among the cognoscenti it has become a polarizing issue diving the ‘conservative’/Benedict XVI/John Paul II camp (which includes the likes of Cardinals Cañizares Llovera, Patabendige Don and even my top papabili Ouellet) from the ‘liberal’/John XXIII camp. There has been a feeling that the current regime will favor (via Ouellet) new bishops, and via the pope, new cardinals, that favor the Latin Mass (the creation of the ‘dark horse’ cardinal from Sri Lanka, against the grain, tending validate this belief).
Today, May 13, the Vatican, through the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei‘ (acting as a proxy for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), issued a Benedict XVI Apostolic Letter, Universae Ecclesia (the Universal Church) with instructions, to bishops around the world, as to how the Latin Mass can be reintroduced if it is requested by a congregation.
Here is a good primer, from Reuters, on the Latin Mass issue — including coverage of the latest Apostolic Letter.
Here is a link to the English translation of the letter — plus a short video, from Rome reports.
10 Responses to “Benedict XVI’s Latin Mass ‘Summorum Pontificum’ Given More Muscle”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Dear Anura,
This polarizing issue is the issue that defines the liberal and conservative camps if you ask me. Where does Bertone sit on this one?
I think this issue is closely related to the ‘JPII franchise’ as you called it in an earlier post, as the liturgical reform is the most identifiable feature of Vatican II.
Cheers,
Will
Dear Will,
As ever you ask the deep, probing questions — the lawyer in you. I like it. I was waiting for somebody to ask me about Bertone, as it relates to this post, and I am glad it was YOU.
I was thinking of Bertone AS I wrote the post.
I could be wrong, but I can’t, in good faith, put Bertone into the ‘JP II franchise.’
Yes, we know that B 16 has publicly stated that Bertone is his closest collaborator — and one kind of expects that from who you have as your SoS (even in the case of Lincoln, over here, and his mixed-bag cabinet).
Will, as you also know, all JP II/B16 bishops and cardinals (per an oath they have to take) are, at a minimum, right of center and HAVE to confess to adhering to the JP II beliefs on: female ordination, clerical celibacy, contraception and Marian devotion. So, Bertone has to believe in some of this, in someway.
I, and I could be wrong given that I do not know the man, however, don’t see Bertone as a hard-liner and only a zealot when it comes to Italian soccer.
You can be a very close collaborator without having to be 100% in sync with your collaboratee. Look at all the folks I collaborate with. In many cases the total overlap of values, beliefs, practices is probably less than 1%!
So, I not convinced Bertone is totally wedded to the Latin Mass.
I am reading another book (albeit it amusingly inaccurate wrong on conclave facts, lore and history) about J23. Says that P 12 was told that Roncalli was ‘an easygoing chap.’ I think that sums up Bertone too. Laid back. Doesn’t get excited about much other than soccer. Nothing wrong with that.
******
Will, as for Latin Mass, being the polarizing issue that divides the two camps — is it FAIR to say that that is because it is the most visible, tangible and EASY to understand? I think there are other issues too. One close to your neck of the woods. The Australian bishop. Female ordination. Possibly clerical celibacy — and that, to me, is so hypocritical after all we have seen re. sex abuse. Clerical celibacy was dear to JP II but even when priests violated that, violating kids, he sat silent (and that was before the Parkinson’s).
So … that is where we are. THANK you.
Anura
P.S., Please read next comment … re latest Allen article
Yesterday, Friday, within the space of two hours, first Father John and then Andrew O. send me this link to Allen endorsing the papabili we had picked months ago … with Father John, bless him, muttering about how our work gets plagiarized. Nothing new here. Ouellet was #3 papabili, in my ‘The Next Pope’, and that PUBLISHED in February 2010. Over a year ago. And then for the last 6 months I have been saying Ouellet, Bertone, Ouellet, Bertone, Bertone, Ouellet.
Here is the link: http://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/three-possible-popes
Thanks.
In TLM-friendly quarters,the Reuters story is decried as biased against it.Bertone is likewise seen by them as no friend.(I see him as the short-term favorite of the Pope if of no other,but the clock is ticking against him).Canizares Llovera (celebrant of the first 1962 Mass at the altar of the chair in St. Peters since,well,the 1960s) and Piacenza are more authentic traditionalists (though no current cardinal could please the rad-trad fringes who think their bishops are the only real Catholic bishops in the world).
Dear Anura,
Thanks for the response. In regards to Bertone, what you have said certainly fits his persona as a ‘wily old fox’ – maybe he’s keeping his cards close to his chest on this one..
In terms of the JPII franchise – female ordination I can’t see that changing. I think it would take a ‘Vatican III’ to do that! Maybe the next pope will do just that. But clerical celibacy could change in the wake of this crisis – I think it is a viable long term solution – whether the church views it the same, I doubt it.
In terms of the Australian Bishop – yes I am somewhat familiar with his case. I will put it like this: generally, the NZ and Australian Bishops are more ‘heterodox’ in their approach to these issues. However, at the head of the Australian Church is Cardinal George Pell. Now, he is a conservative – big time. I remember when I was in Australia 10+ years ago and ‘George’ was the Archbishop of Melbourne. The Archbishop of Sydney was Cardinal Clancy – he was a liberal. There were clashes.. What ended up happening was Pell was appointed Archbishop of Sydney – and got his Red Hat.. while Clancy’s Auxiliary Bishops, Robinson & Ingham were ‘passed over’ as it were to the primary Australian See..Naturally, Pell’s Auxiliary, Denis Hart became Archbishop of Melbourne. (Perhaps he is Cardinabile…) This caused a lot of chatter… In any case my point is that Pell has taken a hard line to the ‘heterodox’ approach and this is why the Queensland Bishop got the boot, the hierarchy has slowly become more conservative under in the last 10 years (not NZ though!).
Like I have said before – I don’t think the issue of celibacy is that big a deal. I know it is to the curia, but the fact is this a a question of church practice – not doctrine. It can be, and should be, relaxed. I think if married men could become priests in the Roman Rite then you would have a more balanced clergy that would be less inclined to abuse children. Do you agree?
Female ordination though is a different kettle of fish (as we say out here). This is a question of doctrine. And the tradition goes all the way back to the origin of the Mosaic Law. Also, the church wanted to differentiate itself from the Pagan practices in the Roman Provinces where they had ‘priestesses’. So, for this to change, there would have to be a doctrinal paradigm shift for the church to even consider ordaining women. This wont happen under Benedict’s reign. I think this issue even has the potential to cause an actual schism with the conservative camp.
When it comes to the Latin Mass this is seen as the ‘locomotive’ as it were, and its the ‘carriages that follow’ that have the liberal camp worried. These carriages include, celibacy (to remain), ecumanism (of acceptance) to cease, curtailing religious freedom, and undermining the collegiality in favour of a more autocratic pope. Basically, to reverse Vatican II. That’s what I think anyway. I might be wrong though!
As always Anura, those are my thoughts.
Cheers,
Will
Just reading that link you placed in your second post, there was a remark by someone to ‘elect all three’ of Fr. John’s papabile. Now, I know this is nonsense – however, what do you think of the possibility of the Cardinals refusing to adhere to UDG and not elect someone?
I know this has happened before, I can’t remember when. I think what ended up happening was the people of Rome forced the Cardinals – or Roman Priests as they were to elect someone. The last remnant of this was the chaining of the doors post ‘extra omnes’.
Could this happen again?
Cheers,
Will
Will,
[If you are referring to the remarks against that link and the 3 papabili named in it ... that was NOT Father John's picks. It was John Allen and I think he would OBJECT, vehemently, to being called 'Father.' Given his services to the popes, he would want at a minimum, Mnsgr. Allen.]
******
Will, as to the cardinal electors ‘refusing to adhere to UDG and not elect someone.’
This is an interesting scenario that has always intrigued me. This, when generalized to its very core, is an antipope scenario – because the cardinals and the Church will still require (even demand) a leadership – at SOME POINT. So, if a pope isn’t elected then you have a case when a non-pope has to run the shop at some point. I assume YOU are familiar with Conclavism and sedevacantist. According to them the past conclaves were not legit.
******
Will, as for past instances of them not electing a pope … I think you are referring to the ultra-long, sede vavcantes – which, though, in the end still elected a pope. I think you are thinking in particular of the 1,006 day sede vacante (it was only a conclave towards the end) which elected Gregory X. That was in Viterbo. Actually only one of the really long sede vacantes were in Rome. You have ‘The Next Pope’ … right? Chapter V. Page 147 has a handy table.
******
UDG is contingent on the cardinals adhering to their vow of obedience to Church and prior pope. Plus, in the end, the cardinals still need, at some point, to face the public. So public pressure (from the Catholics), vow of obedience, sense of duty, pride, ambition and just plain inertia is what makes sure that cardinals, these days, adhere to the law and rules (as far as we know). Also remember that in general the electors are a bunch of old men, not noted for dissent for most of their lives.
If they dissent, and you really would need ALL of them to do so in bloc, you essentially have a coup. Yes, they can say to hell with UDG. We are taking over the Church. Of course, such things happened. That is how we got antipopes.
*******
As with any coup the success depends on how much popular backing they can muster. Yes, they could be holed up in the Vatican somewhere.
Yes, I think there are some safe guards.
I have talked about this one before – when Sardi, then Vice Camerlengo, was created. The vice camerlengo cannot be a cardinal. He is the first line of defense against the conclave going rogue.
The vice camerlengo is supported by the BLACK NOBILITY, e.g., Pius XII’s family. Italian families of long standing given various charters, some no longer valid, to protect the papacy.
PLUS [and YOU might (as a lawyer) want to study this], I think there are safeguards built in by Mussolini in the 1929 Lateran pacts. I think, basically, if the papacy fails, thus putting the Vatican State at risk, Italy has the right to march in and take control.
So those are all the safeguards.
Will,
Please read the comments TODAY against Andrew O.’s papabili post of yesterday — as they relate to celibacy.
I will respond to the rest of this later.
THANKS. I liked it.
P.S., Mary Magdalene? Weren’t there female heads of churches in the Middle East in the days of St. Paul?
Cheers
Will,
A couple of rogue conclave related points I missed in my first reply.
We have had cardinals, as recently as the 20th C. (definitely at the 1903 conclave … and possibly later) voting neminem eligo — I vote for no one. But that is individual cardinals.
*****
Plus, as I had commented ‘recently’ conclave secrecy means we really don’t know what actually happens WITHIN the Sistine during the supposed balloting. During those periods, the only physical souls inside the Sistine are the Cardinal Electors. They could do anything — as long as they are in cahoots.
Take Ruini’s ill advised comment. Per that there was AN ILLEGAL capitulation at the 2005 conclave.
So, you can ask … what else took place.
It is possible that there was NO VOTING at all. The cardinals had AGREED, in bloc, prior to the conclave that they wanted Ratzinger as pope. So they could have played bingo for a day and a half or do stand-up comedy with each cardinal coming to the front of the altar to do 15 minutes of banter. They burned blank ballot papers and waited long enough to make it look like there was some deliberation.
As I document in ‘The Next Pope,’ in each conclave post Paul VI, there are CLAIMS that there was a redundant, last vote — even after the 2/3 majority had been met. Is this true? If so … what other irregularities took place?
I have documented some — to do with ‘nice, foxy, chain-smoking’ Villot.
But, Will, IF there was no intrigue and conclave mystery to keep me amused I would have lost interest by now.
P.S., I will be getting the galley proofs to my Dwarf Planet book tomorrow.
Cheers.
Dear Anura,
Thanks for those posts I appreciate your learned response – they are very informative – Thank YOU.
Now for child abuse…
Cheers,
Will