Happy Birthday, Summorum Pontificum!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maximilian75

Guest
One of Papa Benedict’s greatest achievements, IMO

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Happy Birthday to Summorum Pontificorum.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Pope Benedict was outstanding. The more I find out about him the more I really appreciate his Papacy. He was Pope while I was a kid pretty much and didn’t really understand it then.

Just to clarify, Summorum Pontificum…it means that you can do the Latin mass and still be Roman Catholic? I know that it’s not the “normal” or “ordinary” mass. Anyways, happy birthday to it 🙂
 
I do not know for sure the answer. But my guess is that it was done to reconcile the ones who only want a Latin Mass and the ones accusing them of not being obedient enough and demanding a mass to their pleasing. And to open the door to SSPX to return in communion with Rome.
 
Yayyyyyyyyyy. Still no Latin Mass in my diocese though.
 
Mine is 55 miles away. Can’t go every week, sigh.
Anyway Happy Anniversary of a great work by a great theologian and pope!
 
Summorum Pontificum (it’s a short read):
https://w2.vatican.va/content/bened...otu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html

Pope Benedict XVI’s follow up letter to the bishops about their concerns over Summorum Pontificum (equally short read):
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi.../hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html

No. Summorum Pontificum was intended to free the bishop from having to make the decision for each and every case, while liberating the '62 liturgy to any priest who desires to say it and who is competent to do so. (Article 2)
2.) Was it instituted for a specific amount of time with the understanding that it would later be withdrawn?
Click to expand...
The Pope gives no indication that this is the case in either Summorum Pontificum (henceforth S.P.) or his follow up letter to the bishops. In fact, he explicitly mentions how many youths with no historical connection to the '62 liturgy unexpectedly grew attached to that liturgy due to the earlier indults of his predecessor Pope John Paul II. These earlier indults were indeed mainly envisioned to satisfy members of the SSPX and older Catholics without any expectation of “Latin Mass converts”, so to speak. S.P. was designed with these others in mind so I can’t imagine how he would expect S.P. to be temporary unless he expected this pool of “Latin Mass converts” to eventually dry up.
3.) Was it instituted that it would be used for special occasions and not as a regular scheduled OF Mass would be?
Click to expand...
No. S.P. allows for regular celebration of the E.F. Entire religious communities can make it their normative Mass if their superiors choose such (Article 3), priests can regularly celebrate it on Sundays, weekdays, or holidays (Article 5 §2), the laity can assist at such Masses if the priest celebrates them publicly (Article 4), the laity can request that such Masses be offered (Article 5 §1), and the '62 liturgy can be used for special occasions like weddings and funerals (Article 5 §3). If the priest deems it opportune he can also celebrate the other sacraments using the '62 liturgies (Article 9). There’s really no way to shoe horn S.P. into some conditional permission once you actually read the letter.

[Continued … ]
 
[ … Continued]
4.) Was it meant to be a choice for the Catholics to choose which type of Mass they preferred or to be implemented to eventually become THE Mass offered?
Click to expand...
“Meant to be”? S.P. envisions just about every possible combination of E.F. vs. O.F. balance and leaves all these decisions to individual priests and the local ordinaries. It could be as infrequent as an individual parishioner asking a competent priest to say his Nuptial Mass according to the '62 rites as a one time thing, or it could even involve a bishop erecting a personal parish for all the needs of the faithful attached to those rites (Article 10). In the latter case, that would obviously involve the E.F. becoming “THE Mass” for such parishes. Nothing in S.P. is meant to be a one size fits all fix, though.
5.) Did the Pope ever think it would cause the division in the Church that it has or did he implement it thinking it would unite Catholics.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure whether Pope Benedict XVI thought this would happen, but he evidently states in S.P. that the two forms are expected to coexist, and in his later follow up letter to the bishops he labors to assuage their fears that such animosity would occur. Indeed, he expected the two forms to “mutually enrich” one another.
Pope Benedict XVI:
In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, 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.
Click to expand...
 
I don’t really see all these “divisions” in the real world. In some areas, no doubt–like San Francisco–those who want to see same sex “marriages,” openly homosexual priests and lesbian “priestesses,” etc. become normative in the Roman Catholic Church may link the Traditional Latin Mass with opposition to their unholy agenda. But I’m just speculatin,’ based on my recently acquired and very imperfect knowledge of the dynamics in the Archdiocese of San Francisco.
 
Last edited:
anon10271182 said:
I don’t really see all these “divisions” in the real world.
Click to expand...
I do. My parish offers weekly EF masses. I have a few Catholic friends and associates who turn their nose up at the turn toward tradition here.
 
Last edited:
I haven’t seen any actual division other than when some bishop tells people they can’t have a Latin Mass, or when people argue about it on this forum.

I think it’s nice to have another option for Mass.
 
It’s probably that there’s a turn toward tradition, as you say, that riles people up. It’s human nature to resist change, and especially when we consider that many people flock to the E.F. once they hear about new parishes offering it like liturgical refugees, it’s not surprising to me that you see a form of what I guess we could call liturgical nativism. As more and more “Trads” cross county and diocesan (not to mention parish) lines to assist at the E.F. they dilute the influence of the locals in the parish. They should be worried because everywhere I’ve seen this happen eventually the parish embraces more and more tradition at the expense of novelty and those beholden to the novel ways are squeezed out.

I was such a refugee! I was mostly content in my O.F. parish though already attached to the E.F. from previous exposure. We just didn’t have one close enough at the time. With our new archbishop came a new priest at some other parish whose church I had never even stepped foot in. The E.F. started being offered there and once I got word I began assisting there instead. I watched there as the local parishioners complained about the new priest and his “medieval views”, and sure enough in time, the carpet was ripped out of the sanctuary, that ugly-as-sin I-don’t-even-know-what-it-was huge stage prop that sat in front of the altar was removed, the smaller free standing altar was removed, the altar girls were relieved of duty (as were the EMHCs), ALL Masses (including OF ones) were said ad orientem and now everyone receives kneeling at the altar rail and on the tongue. This transformation happened in about 5 years or so, and none of those original parishioners lamenting the arrival of the new priest remain. Many parishioners eventually got on board with the changes and have grown fond of them. Most parishioners today were not there 5 years ago as they followed the first generation of us migrants.
 
I can definitely relate to that.

As I was researching the church the first sites I came across were Father Z, Rotate Caeli, etc. it was during the time of Pope Benedict and so not that bad. Boy did things change with Pope Francis…

It put me off the Catholic Church for a number of years.
 
To be fair, I saw the same thing happen but in the opposite direction, still involving a loss of power: when my old parish that is otherwise liturgically conservative (though not “Trad”) began hosting the Charismatic Renewal. Same thing happened. Over time the parish became more and more charismatic in praxis at the expense of the practices of the original congregation. Culture really is a zero-sum game.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
As I was researching the church the first sites I came across were Father Z, Rotate Caeli, etc. it was during the time of Pope Benedict and so not that bad. Boy did things change with Pope Francis…
Click to expand...
I concur. I’ve had to moderate my consumption of articles from New Liturgical Movement because the antipathy has grown so much, and that’s despite me generally being sympathetic to their conclusions. I can’t stand the liturgical snobbery especially when its predicated on an almost political hysteria.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
As I was researching the church the first sites I came across were Father Z, Rotate Caeli, etc. it was during the time of Pope Benedict and so not that bad. Boy did things change with Pope Francis…
Click to expand...
I think at least some of us who are Catholics are used to such dissension in the church and just ignore it. About every other Sunday in the 70s my mother was blowing her stack about something that the priest or the deacon or the laypeople said or did at Mass or leading up to the Mass. Yet we would continue going to Mass because as Mom said it was all about participating in the sacrifice of Jesus, so it didn’t really matter what the priest, deacon, lector, nuns dancing in the sanctuary etc might do. I can see where it would put off someone who is just looking into the faith.
 
I’ve assisted at the SSPX chapel a couple of times this year. Before anyone starts in, both were Saturday Vigil Mass and both times I attended Diocesan Mass the next day. Nice folks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top