Francis to Abolish Summorum Pontificorum?

[commenter]

runningdude:

I also cannot see how Francis could reverse this policy, without it being a rebuke of how his predecessors ministered to tradtionally-minded Catholics

With a proposed Personal Prelature for the FSSPX and possibly the FSSP and ICRSS among others, it may be the most workable solution in the long run. The SP has IMO not worked to bring out high numbers for the Latin Mass at the diocesan level.

The SSPX is in a very different situation from FSSP or ICRSS. The FSSP does not appear to be restrained in its ministry already in effect by being in union with their local diocese and other religious orders. They are de facto restrained only by the lack of priests to serve more dioceses.

Other than their oldest clergy, the great majority of SSPX priests have never worked in the Church itself, and were trained and supervised by those who never worked in the Church itself. Thus it is moving farther away from the Church each year, as those who have prior “Church experience” in a diocese retire. Other solutions may have been possible in the past, but at present the feasible SSPX solution is for individuals to “swim the Tiber” on their own.

My city has an SSPX chapel, almost hermetically sealed off from the diocese. The TLM community is very different, closely involved in diocesan programs such as prolife. It is served by part time diocesan priests who also say the OF. They laity would prefer a full time priest, such as FSSP or ICCRS; but any move to restrict the EF to only certain religious orders would be counterproductive, and eliminate Latin Masses from places those communities cannot serve.

 

[Randolph]

Indeed, Pope Benedict had a different goal in mind when he issued SF than the specific goals of religious communities (FSSP, ICCRS, etc…) SF affects the entire universal Church at the parish level.

The goal of SF and the specific goals of religious communities are not mutually exclusive, nor are they in conflict with each other. In fact, they can exist side by side and work quite well with each other. Do keep in mind that all religious communities are to serve the Church—not themselves.

(Note: I purposely left out SSPX in this conversation because they are still in talks with the Church about regularizing. I pray for them to be back in full communion with the Church as I believe they would be indeed a tremendous asset for the Church; although there would also be growing pains.)

 

[Augustinian]

Other than their oldest clergy, the great majority of SSPX priests have never worked in the Church itself, and were trained and supervised by those who never worked in the Church itself

Among the SSPX Faithful, do you know how many were raised as SSPX or converted from non-catholic status?

 

[ProVobis]

Their finances are also separate from the diocese and that’s perhaps the big sticking point.

 

[commenter]

On another thread a poster pointed out differences between the US and France. A solution which might be suitable or necessary in France might not be suitable or necessary in the US.

 

[Randolph]

Therein lie the constant challenges throughout the history and the life of the Church. Bishops, priests and the laity have always worked with and worked through local norms to evangelize and to pastor people. It is in the DNA of Church.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

To my knowledge CNA is not an official source but they are closely affiliated with the National Catholic Register (which is a faithful newspaper approved by the Bishops of the Church) and in my opinion they make an effort to give faithful reporting.

 

[commenter]

To my knowledge CNA is not an official source but they are closely affiliated with the National Catholic Register (which is a faithful newspaper approved by the Bishops of the Church) and in my opinion they make an effort to give faithful reporting.

True, not an official source, but a reliable one.
An “official” source would be a diocesan newspaper, maybe just the editorials, not necessarily the news articles or opinion pieces. Some Vatican publications might contain “official” content, but not necessarily all their content is official. Certain kinds of documents from a pope or bishop are official, for instance.

Most media labelled “Catholic”, means they have a relationship with their local bishop. Catholic Answers, EWTN, and many others, have a relationship. OnePeterFive, National Catholic Reporter, and others, do not.

Having a relationship does not mean the Church agrees with the content, it means it is more or less compatible. Some ministries, such as America or St. Anthony’s Messenger, are questionable in my opinion…or at least always on the edge.

I don’t recommend all “approved” media ministries, but recommend you choose sources from among those that at least meet that minimum standard. Once a newspaper (or “Catholic college” for instance) gets approved by their bishop, it is possible, but seldom happens, to rescind that approval if it goes sour years later. I suppose a bishop might reason it is better to have a weak relationship and some influence with St. Anthony Messenger (or Notre Dame University, for instance) than to have no relationship, and no influence.

 

[otjm]

As to your hypothetical question concerning how many people would want the vernacular Mass, at 71, I have been around long enough that I saw not only how the generation above me (my parents), but also the generation above them (my grandparents) took to the vernacular.

I come from a small local area in which two of my grandparents trace back to their grandparents who emigrated to the US; a third’s parents emigrated, and the last goes back to the Revolutionary war. Because they were mostly agrarian based, most stayed within a distance of about 50 miles or less. My mother had 70 first cousins.

So it is not like I refer to 5 or maybe 10 relatives at the level of my grandparents.

They took to the vernacular like the proverbial ducks to water. The change was basically seamless, other than learning the specific responses.

i watched as Summorum Pontificum came out; if one were to follow the postings inthis and the prior format of the forum, the EF was going to resurrect with absolute gusto, and in no snort time it was imagined to threaten the OF.

In a day and age when information is at one’s fingertips via the internet, where YouTube has postings of EF Masses, and where various support groups of the EF hold forth their opinions, I would agree that the Church does not move swiftly. But information does move at the speed of electrons, and the information is out there.

And so currently, in the US with 17,290+/- parishes, we have 248 parishes which have the EF every Sunday: 4 start before 7 a.m.; 248 between 7 a.m. and 12:50 p.m., and 73 which start between 1 p.m. and 7 p.m.

Additionally we have other parishes which have the EF; some 3 Sundays out of 5; some every other Sunday or once a month; parishes which have no Sunday Mass but on some weekdays (one has every weekday but not Sunday), down to some parishes which have an EF every other month and one which appears to have an EF once a year for a total of 155 parishes.

The total of all parishes having an EF Mass, from Every Sunday and during the week to once a year is 480; so out of 17,290 parishes, 2.7762% of parishes have an EF.

That is from Coalition in Support of Ecclesia Dei, which appears to be reasonably accurate and updated.

They also note 57 parishes where the EF has been discontinued; that does not include those which noted the Ef was transferred to another parish.

I don’t think it benefits anyone to start the “he said she said” routine about what some on either side of the issue have said about the other side, whether that be comments about the Mass itself in the opposite form, or the people who go to them.

 

[otjm]

I suspect that Rome was overwhelmed at what the response to the vernacular was. I understand tradition and I understand also the issue of “great advantage” I do not suggest that the bishops were naive about how extremely few in the pews knew Latin; but I would suspect they found out rather quickly how appreciative people were to have the Mass in their native language.

And I point that rarely seems in evidence: therre are large swaths of the Church which were either colonialized, or have a language base far, far removed from European languages. The Eastern rites use native languages - granted that it may be far removed from the current day version (having taken Homeric Greek, I recall the total lack of ability to read a current Greek newspaper, so I get it). But Latin, in the Roman Rite churches throughout much of the world, was and is clearly a foreign language, a point we often overlook completely.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

i watched as Summorum Pontificum came out; if one were to follow the postings inthis and the prior format of the forum, the EF was going to resurrect with absolute gusto, and in no snort time it was imagined to threaten the OF.

Yes, I heard the same things from those who were adherents to the vetus ordo…they were saying them, actually, across years before Summorum Pontificum.

Those who know well the language of the Motu Proprio know precisely the terms that Pope Benedict employed.

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy.

The liturgical reform is anything but in question – it is the future of the Church, as Pope Francis very strongly reiterated in a gathering of liturgists weeks ago.

Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.

Just as certainly, there will be a new Motu Proprio issued at the proper time to bring its own further clarity to contemporary situations regrding the vetus ordo.

I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: /…/).

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.

The Pope will have the benefit of much feedback about the problems and issues which have arisen since the last Motu Proprio…it has been arriving in Rome now for years…and His Holiness will be able to make necessary adjustments and correctives.

 

[otjm]

The Church has one seemingly intractable problem, and that is the reconciliation of the SSPX. and for anyone who equates this with the EF/OF debate, they need to go back and read what Benedict 16 wrote them in a letter: it involves far more than just issues about being able to say the EF because they don’t “like” the EF.

I seriously doubt the EF is going to be outlawed. Whether or not it is or was a bargaining chip with the SSPX, it has viability, even if its use is minimal in the overall scheme of Masses said in a given week and the number attending.

Revoking SP will not further the dialogue with the SSPX. Maintaining it may not further the dialogue either, but there are others not involved in the controversy who are innocent of that fracas, and it would appear nothing positive could be obtained by reversing SP in regards to them.

It is possible that SP could be amended; for example, the question of how many members consist of a stable group. As we struggle in the area of vocations, and we have priests in some areas covering multiple parishes, the issue takes on more importance.

 

[Augustinian]

The Church has one seemingly intractable problem, and that is the reconciliation of the SSPX.

What percentage of current SSPX faithful were ever in a local church in good standing with the Vatican?

Its been almost 50 years since the Latin mass was commonplace in most places, how many SSPX adherents were born into the movement or converted from outside the Catholic Church to be part of it?

Is the term really “reconciliation” accurate, if most of the people involved were never “conciliated” in the first place.

 

[commenter]

And I point that rarely seems in evidence: therre are large swaths of the Church which were either colonialized, or have a language base far, far removed from European languages

This was much more true in the 1960s, when it was argued all the time, than at present. English, or another language related to Latin, has permeated Asia and Africa to a level not foreseen at Vatican II. In my US diocese the Latin Mass is usually said by a young priest native of Africa.

 

[commenter]

i watched as Summorum Pontificum came out; if one were to follow the postings inthis and the prior format of the forum, the EF was going to resurrect with absolute gusto, and in no snort time it was imagined to threaten the OF.

The total of all parishes having an EF Mass, from Every Sunday and during the week to once a year is 480; so out of 17,290 parishes, 2.7762% of parishes have an EF.

Keep in mind the vast majority of young Catholics have had no exposure, no explanation of the EF. It is not included in Catholic schools, CCD, or hardly any of their parishes. My observation is that of those rare teenagers and young adults who are exposed to it, a fairly high percentage do choose to attend on their own, at least some of the time.

Suppose 10 out of 1000 Catholics under 50 attend the EF. But only 20 out of 1000 have been exposed to it. Would you say the percentage is a tiny 1% - 10 out of 1000 - or would you say it is a robust 50% - 10 out of 20?

 

[commenter]

otjm:

The Church has one seemingly intractable problem, and that is the reconciliation of the SSPX.

What percentage of current SSPX faithful were ever in a local church in good standing with the Vatican?

Its been almost 50 years since the Latin mass was commonplace in most places, how many SSPX adherents were born into the movement or converted from outside the Catholic Church to be part of it?

Is the term really “reconciliation” accurate, if most of the people involved were never “conciliated” in the first place.

True. In terms of the SSPX, the Latin Mass is become less and less the relevant issue. It was more important as an issue decades ago, but by now the SSPX organization is carried on by momentum, like many organizations.

The “March of Dimes” organization was founded to raise money for research for a Polio vaccine. We have had this vaccine since the 1950s, but the “March of Dimes” organization goes on.

In my diocese there are 2 parishes with approved Latin Masses on Sunday within a 20 minute drive of the SSPX chapel.

 

[Augustinian]

In my diocese there are 2 parishes with approved Latin Masses on Sunday within a 20 minute drive of the SSPX chapel.

The SSPX and diocesan approved Latin Mass are just 8 minutes apart here in Pittsburgh.

 

[ProVobis]

I suppose Rome was overwhelmed at the number attending the vernacular Mass. But how do you account for all those Catholics who decided to attend Protestant services?

 

[Augustinian]

I suppose Rome was overwhelmed at the number attending the vernacular Mass. But how do you account for all those Catholics who decided to attend Protestant services?

Actually, there has been a decline in Protestant church attendance since the 1960’s as well- and they always used the vernacular and didn’t have any changes at all as a result of the Vatican council.

 

[stpurl]

Overwhelmed? As somebody who remembers the great change, the vast majority of the people attended Mass because it was Mass. . .just as they had attended Mass for centuries before. Most, even if they were more overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the changes, ‘gave it time’ and especially gave obedience to what the Church had ‘decreed’ (even if, when one studies the documents of Vatican II and the testimonies of the council members, much of what ‘changed’ was neither mandated nor had been approved by said members).

Between the vast exodus of the teaching sisters, the battering of the sexual revolution, the disillusion that came about with Watergate, and a culture that encouraged the broadest hedonism and materialism (the 70s are well known as the “me” decade), and let it be said a notable politicization of many of the clergy and lay people along with things like the “Jesus Seminar”, and the accommodations of the mainline Protestants to ‘the world’, many Catholics were bombarded with all the above AND were presented with a Church which at best appeared, and at worst cooperated with, all the secularization above. When it appeared to some that the Church had rejected its own heritage and had embraced the vast majority of the secular and Protestant teachings, some felt they had ‘nowhere to go’. Some felt that there really WAS no true church anymore and became atheists. Some were drawn to the Protestant faith. Some stayed in the Church as long as they could but just ‘went through the motions’ and their children fell away.

And in the years since, many of those who enthusiastically embraced the change have had the same things happen. sometimes they have ‘lost their spark’ and become atheists. Some were drawn to the Protestant faith. Some stayed in the church but went through the motions. And some decided things hadn’t gone far ENOUGH and have been advocated for more, and more, and more change.

So don’t just assume that those who found difficulty with the "new rite’ were the only ones who left and that out of pique and disobedience. Far more of those who remained with the new, who even ‘loved the new’, have left and not returned. So if the idea was that people ‘had trouble with Latin’ and needed "to understand in their own language’ to keep being practicing and involved Catholics. . . it seems that ‘the vernacular’ didn’t work well in that regard at all. . .