Francis to Abolish Summorum Pontificorum?

[Randolph]

It’s both too pre-mature and unwise to debate high/low numbers now as Summorum Pontificum (SP) has only been around for 10 years. It has been facing many headwinds and reluctance/opposition from bishops and priests from the Church. It must be reminded that reasonable folks do not expect a robust growth in breadth and in width for the EF and the use of Latin in a short period of time.

Although I just said I prefer not to debate numbers at this time, allow me to throw out one number worth noting. While it is still very small number, the number of Churches in North America offering the EF on Sundays now stands around 440 churches, and grows every year. Considering this number was closer to zero in the 80’s, it is not too bad, and it is moving steadily in the right direction—given SP largely is a laity/priests’ initiative.

SP has been a great blessing for those who love/appreciate it, for those who yearn for beauty and reverence in the Mass, and for those who favor silent participation during Mass. SP has allowed for seeds to be sown. It will, no doubt, take time and will face many growing pains. In fact, it may take many decades and even centuries to see clear results. I believe in the wisdom and foresight of Pope Benedict. He would not have taken this huge risk in issuing a highly controversial initiative without thinking through all the risks and rewards. I strongly believe SP will yield high quality fruits and its harvests will be plentiful.

 

[otjm]

I would also suggest that you keep in mind that 80% or better of those age 18 to about 29 do not go to Mass; some attend occasionally, but only about 20% attend mass regularly.

Out of those 20%, the vast majority attend the OF.

As to the other 80%, it is likely that sex outside of marriage is every bit equal to extremely poor catechesis as contributors to failing to attend Mass… And I sincerely doubt the EF is going to put them back in the pews.

From comments made (in particular in this forum, but also elsewhere) it appears that many of the young people attend the EF out of aesthetical desire. And I don’t see that type of desire formulating any large group to attend.

The Church clearly has one primary form; the EF came back in due to two factors; the SSPX (which were much stronger in France than the US), and a small handful of very conservative Catholics who did not bail to the SSPX, but made their concerns known.

The Church is not promoting the EF, and so your idea that somehow we start the equivalent of a road show of the EF is not going to get any traction whatsoever.

Further, should the young decide to go to an EF Mass, the odds are extremely long that they will have to travel to do so. Aside form the weekly disadvantage of having to travel, they also have the issues of leaving any parish they have been going to, meaning likely family and friends. If they are married and have children, and the parish they are in has a school, they may have further deep connections to that parish in spite of it being only OF. That too militates against them changing to an EF parish.

I have heard this issue several times, so you are not the first to say that many of the young - even most of the young - have no connection to the EF. The young, however, are the most technically savvy, and the age group that is most likely to poke around on YouTube to see an EF. If they were motivated by that, I would presume they would be motivated enough to go to a parish which had the EF.

That does not seem to be happening, or at least, to any significant degree.

I don’t think that even one of the 2,147 bishops who voted in favor of the document on the Liturgy ever envisioned that we would have two forms of the Mass; I even doubt the 4 who voted against it did. There is a message in there somewhere.

It was the grace of John Paul 2 which brought back the EF in limited release, and the grace of Benedict 16 which extended it. And in the 10 years since, it has less than 3% of the parishes in the US with any EF Mass at all; some have become EF parishes, and some have it only on a weekday, and that not every week. And of the few parishes which have had it, if the information is correct, a little over 9% have dropped it.

Right now the US has fewer priests than it has parishes. The primary focus is on providing the OF, the norm, to the vast majority of people who want that. The remainder is by grace.

 

[otjm]

According to Coalition in Support of Ecclesia Dei, approximately 67 parishes which have ahd the Ef no longer have it (and that is not counting parishes which had it, but the Mass was moved to a different parish). That amounts to a bit over 9% loss, when one adds them back in to your total.

With a 9% loss, at least over the last year it has pretty much been stasis. And there is no evidence to refute that.

Another statistic which militates against many more perishes providing the EF is the fact that curently there are fewer priests than there are parishes.

 

[Randolph]

It’s reasonable to expect there are/will be churches that once did and now no longer offers the EF for various reasons. I am quite certain inside the 440 number, over the past 15 years, there were subtractions factoring into the total number due to similar reasons. Yet, the number is still steady and growing.

A simple thought… There have been church closures in the US and and other parts throughout the world, should we now talk about the demise of the Catholic Church. Non-sense and of course not, despite the closures, new churches are being built, and the Church continues to march into glory to meet Christ.

Even if the number of churches offering the EF now stands at, say 300, or even lower. it is still good given the seemingly reluctance, opposition, and even outright hatred and prejudice in the Church toward the EF and the use of Latin. Need it be reminded again the EF and the use of Latin faced suppression to the point of virtual extinction by the very same opposition for decades.

The EF has been a tremendous spiritual gift in the Church for over 1,000 years. It is neither garbage nor a work of the devil. Most declared saints in the Church experienced it. It’s not going anywhere despite the opposition. People who experienced it will faithfully stick with it, and the young people as cited by Pope Benedict will continue to be excited about it. The EF deserves equal right and dignity as other rites. Per Pope Benedict, the EF and the OF are 2 editions of the same Latin rite. They can exist in harmony side by side while faithfully serving the Church. Let’s drop the opposition, the hatred and the prejudice toward the EF.

 

[ProVobis]

Right now the US has fewer priests than it has parishes

In Chicago and New York (I heard) many parishes (over a third) are closing or have closed because they cite fewer priests. But then how many new priests or seminarians would be drawn into such an atmosphere of decline? Seems like a downward spiral to me.

 

[otjm]

I am not quite sure why you would bring up comments like “garbage” and “work of the devil”. They are toally unnecessary in this conversation and add nothing. I hve never seen anyone in the forums ever say such things, nor have I ever heard it.

Some young people are excited about it. Most young people don’t go to Mass regularly, and of those that do, the vast majority go to the OF.

The EF is not the norm of the Church, and so it does not have equal tight. 2,147 bishops of the world wanted the Mass changed and had no idea whatsoever nor did they propose that we have two forms of the Mass.

The topic of the thread is the rumor, with no substantiation, that Pope Francis intends to eliminate it. No one has suggested that he should do so or that it is likely he will do so. But the fact of the matter is that the Ef was apart and parcel of the disobedience of Archbishop Lefavre and the 4 he ordained, and Pope John Paul 2 in dealing with that alos provided for limited use of the EF. While there was never an official termination of the EF, There is no evidence whatsoever that when the change was requested, that there was anyone proposing two forms. Pope Benedict further opened the EF under limited circumstances and wrote the document with a degree of vagueness leaving it to the bishops to work through that. There is only one diocese I am aware of which has no EF - Las Cruces in New Mexico (although I have not cross referenced the dioceses).

I have never spoken ill of the OF; I grew up on it, and served every position that was open to a non-ordained person including Master of Ceremonies at Solemn High Masses. I have no opposition to the EF, and when I teach RCIA, I am neutral about it’ that is, I don’t take sides.

There has been no opposition or hatred in this thread; let’s quit trying to manufacture it. I have been accused of hating it when I note the statistics about it; facts are simply facts. and the facts are that a very very small percentage of Catholics want the EF. That does not make them bad in the least.

 

[Augustinian]

In Chicago and New York (I heard) many parishes (over a third) are closing or have closed because they cite fewer priests.

I don’t think that’s the reason, its more of a shift in population that’s causing churches to be closed and parishes to be merged in the inner cities. Catholics moving out to the suburbs, and also ethnic groups breaking up. No need for a Lithuanian church and a Polish one, and an Italian church all within a few blocks. Those ethnic groups moved out.

In areas where the population is growing, new churches are being built. Very few Catholics in South Carolina until economic refugees -many Catholic- started moving there.

 

[Randolph]

You are wrong. The EF does have equal right as the OF. Per Vatican II, the EF has “equal right and dignity as any other rites.” As its name indicates, it is the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

The opposition to the EF in the Church has been well documented. You can check it yourself. It would be dishonest to deny it. The garbage and the work of the devil comments were intended to highlight the opposition, hatred and prejudice toward the EF and Latin.

If people like the EF, let them be and don’t belittle what the EF means to them. The fact that young people getting excited about the EF is a good thing. It is unbecoming to diminish its importance. The fact that more young people attend the OF then the EF has no relevance to it.

 

[Augustinian]

The fact that young people getting excited about the EF is a good thing.

I don’t know how many young people are excited. Latin Mass here in Pittsburgh isn’t said at any of our Catholic universities and colleges.

If people are jazzed up about Latin, that’s fine, but it is a pretty small minority.

 

[Randolph]

I will lead you to the words of Pope Benedict about young people in his Motu Proprio in 2007. It’s in the 7th paragraph toward the end.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/bened.../hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html

“…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. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations…”

 

[Entwhistler]

Also, if the EF does not deserve equal right because the OF is the norm of the Church, then the Melkite rite, the Maronite rite, the Ambrosian rite, the Gallican rite, etc, should also not have equal place. Just because a bunch of people go to a certain rite doesn’t mean the other rites have problems.

 

[commenter]

commenter:

I suspect it is growing.

Do the sons and daughters of Lat(name removed by moderator)hile Catholics continue to support and attend Latin Mass when they move out of the nest and raise their own families? Even if and when they marry mainstream Catholic spouses?

Not sure how to respond to this. There is one group, SSPX, who are almost a separate denomination. In my area there seems to be no intermingling.

What applies to them does not apply to others like myself. I am a “mainstream Catholic”, active in my parish and diocese. I belong to the K of C, volunteer in diocesan prolife ministry and other ministries. But besides my parish, I often attend the diocesan approved Latin Mass in another parish, sometimes go to special events there.

I see frequent attendees there also in attendance at prolife, evangelism, or religious liberty rallies. Their children are often home schooled, but a few attend parochial schools. They would like it if the diocese gave them a personal parish, but in the meantime they attend the OF for daily Mass, or perhaps on Sundays if their schedule does not allow the TLM.

Using terms like “Lat(name removed by moderator)hile” or “mainstream” seems misleading. The bishop is much more likely to see their faces at prolife rallies than most other Catholics. Of course they “intermingle”, they likely belong to their own geographical parish since there is no TLM parish as such.

The great majority are too young to remember the pre Vatican II Latin Mass.

 

[omgriley]

To add to and to amplify your point, initially Pope John Paul asked the bishops to be “generous” in providing the EF to the older people who lived prior to Vatican II that were still so attached to the EF, and to the few communities that wanted it. (Although I have no affiliation with SSPX, nor do I support them, to be fair they deserve a lot of credit for pursuing it). But, in a short period of time, young people began to attend the EF and fell in love with it. Per Pope Benedict, in his letter to the bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum, that was a phenomenon that had not been anticipated by Pope John Paul and the Hierarchy. The enthusiasm and the growth in participation among young people was one of the many reasons Pope Benedict cited for issuing Summorum Pontificum.

I think this is the real topic no one is talking about: The Catholic youth of this generation love the EF mass. You’re totally right. That the gross number of Catholics in the US attending EF masses is much less than those attending OF masses says nothing about the popularity or value of the EF Mass. As you point out, the EF mass was suppressed for decades. Despite the fact that in many places in the US, it’s still being suppressed, we’re nonetheless seeing a growth in it’s popularity.

Imagine the EF mass was embraced (as in “made a priority”) tomorrow by the entire USCCB. Imagine how many people you would see flooding back into the pews. I’m not saying the OF necessarily drove people away from the Church, but the clown masses which grew out of the OF’s certainly did.

 

[Augustinian]

Using terms like “Lat(name removed by moderator)hile” or “mainstream” seems misleading. The bishop is much more likely to see their faces at prolife rallies than most other Catholics. Of course they “intermingle”, they likely belong to their own geographical parish since there is no TLM parish as such.

Actually here in Pittsburgh, there is a TLM parish. I don’t know how many folks are official members of the parish and how many are just regular attendees, although looking at the website, 1st Communion is limited to registered members only not just attendees.

Of course, even if young people are members in the TLM parish, that doesn’t mean that they won’t intermingle with other Catholic youth in their own community. In fact I’d expect that to be the rule as the TLM parish covers such a wide geographical area

 

[otjm]

Per Vatican 2, in the Constitution on the liturgy, there was to be a revision of the one form of the Roman Rite, and absolutely nothing in the document indicated that the bishops intended there be two forms; one that was revised and one that was not.

And in fact, for a significantly long time the presumption was that the EF was revised and that ended the discussion. Some refer to it as whether or not the EF was suppressed. If it was revised, and nothing indicated that there were to be two forms, the issue of an actual suppression seemed moot.

It was brought back in very limited use under John Paul 2. Benedict addressed the issue of any “suppression” (there never was an officla one) but did not address the issue of the intentions of the bishops in the Constitution.

There is no question it is specifically allowed, per Summorum Pontificum. And there is no reason, as the decision is disciplinary, that it could not be withdrawn.

I think the likelihood of it being withdrawn is at best minimal, and exceedingly unlikely while Benedict is alive; and even after his death I think it is highly unlikely. It may well be adjusted, as suggested by OraLabora, to make some definition, for example, of what constitutes a “stable group”.

Not quite a year ago a priest who has been very involved in the EF wrote a public article expressing his view that the EF could easily just disappear. I don’t have a copy or a link to the article (it showed in the forum), but his opinion might be worth reading.

I don’t diminish the importance of the EF. The facts speak for themselves. It is a minority of a minority who desire it. When working with people coming into the Church, I present the two forms of the rite neutrally; I don’t take sides. I answer questions with facts, not emotions or personal opinions.

 

[OraLabora]

Per Vatican 2, in the Constitution on the liturgy, there was to be a revision of the one form of the Roman Rite, and absolutely nothing in the document indicated that the bishops intended there be two forms; one that was revised and one that was not.

Exactly and if one is to read the preamble of the Roman Missal it is even clearer:

The current norms, prescribed in keeping with the will of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and the new Missal that the Church of the Roman Rite is to use from now on in the celebration of Mass are also evidence of the great concern of the Church, of her faith, and of her unchanged love for the great mystery of the Eucharist. They likewise bear witness to the Church’s continuous and unbroken tradition, irrespective of the introduction of certain new features.

 

[Randolph]

Here are the facts (I had posted them on this thread before) about the EF and the use of Latin. I take the words and wiisdom from the Vatican II documents, and from Pope Benedict over any opinions/interpretations of any CAF posters any time.

–Sacrosanctum Concilium, #4; December 4, 1963:
“Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.”

–Sacrosanctum Concilium, #36; December 4, 1963:
“. . .the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”

—Sacrosanctum Concilium, #116; December 4, 1963:
“The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”

—Orientalium Ecclesiarum, #2; November 21, 1964:
[From the Second Vatican Council document concerning the Eastern Rite Churches.]
“The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate churches or Rites. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.”

Also, an excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI to the bishops on his Motu Proprio in 2007:
—“There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.“

 

[OraLabora]

On language, from the Roman Missal:

Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin, the Council was also able to grant that “the use of the vernacular language may frequently be of great advantage to the people” and gave the faculty for its use.1[16] The enthusiasm in response to this measure has been so great everywhere that it has led, under the leadership of the Bishops and the Apostolic See itself, to permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the people participate to be in the vernacular, for the sake of a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated.

Concerning Gregorian chant: “Pride of place” does not mean every time and in every place. And I say this as a chorister in a Gregorian schola. It takes years to train to a proficient level in Gregorian chant, especially for the more melismatic propers. If people want chant, then step up to the plate and provide chant! It won’t fall from heaven! You need to work at it. Form, or join a schola, and kiwtchyerbellyachin!

 

[Randolph]

The denial of the existence of suppression—official or otherwise—of the EF and the use of Latin for decades in the Church is simply at best naive, and at worst dishonest. I am reaching a point where I am tired of repeating myself on this thread. I will state my points again. The EF has been a tremendous spiritual gift to the Church for over 1,000 years. It has served the Church very well, There is something uniquely special in something that has been so loved and revered for so long. Most declared saints in Church benefited from it as are so many souls who are in heavens. The EF is not a threat to the Church nor it is a competitor to the OF. It should not be feared. The EF and OF themselves are gifts to the Church, are 2 editions of the same rite, and can exist in harmony side by side to serve the Church. There is nothing in the Council to say that there can not be 2 editions of the same Latin rite—as insisted by Pope Benedict.

It has only been 10 years since the issuance of Summorum Pontificum by Pope Benedict. In Church time, we often deal with decades, centuries and even millennium. Therefore, the number of people attending the EF at this time is not surprisingly very small, and the same for the number of Churches offering it. We should be charitable and, perhaps even rejoice, in news regarding growth, popularity, and enthusiasm particularly among young people about the EF. Don’t diminish or belittle them—even when the numbers are small. Let’s face it, for decades now, the Church has faced mostly bad news in terms of any kind of numbers, period.

In sum, let the EF and those who love it be. The fruits it bears will determine its success. There is no doubt in my mind that it will be.

 

[ProVobis]

It is true the intention was to “revise” the Roman Missal. However, Pope Paul did promulgate “Novus Ordo Missae.” And furthermore he granted an indult (Agatha Christie) on a limited basis of the older missal. This is in addition to allowing older priests to keep saying the older missal. It is clear that two forms were in play in 1970.