Br., this is very disheartening.
It almost sounds like you’re saying the Holy Father said something like,
– Folks, the Bishops have to do their best to allow you to have an EF mass because it feeds you folks spiritually. If they don’t try, you can complain to Ecclesia Dei.
– Bishops, try your best to give them their EF mass. After all, it is the EXTRAORDINARY form of the mass. (Wink wink)
I hope that is not what you’re saying.
There is no “wink wink” involved. People have misunderstood SP and UE since they came out. Canon lawyers, bishops and religious superiors have been looking at these documents and observing the language that it uses and the statements that it makes. The language is important, because the Church has a tradition of speaking in a certain way that is not the way that most people speak. Part of it is due to the fact that these things are translated from Latin and part from the fact that the Church has had its own linguistic tradition for centuries. Words don’t necessarily change in meaning in the Church, as they do in the secular world.
In essence SP said:
The Tridentine Form of the mass was never abrogated.
Any secular priest may celebrate it without asking for permission to USE THE FORM, not without asking for permission to juggle around parish schedules.
The bishop remains the highest ranking liturgical authority in the diocese. This is where the parish schedule comes into play. The pastor must answer to the bishop.
The Tridentine form is the “forma extraordinaria”. Here is the subtlety of the language. It becomes evident that he deliberately chose the word “extraordinary”. This word is only used in law to mean that something is not the norm and is not intended to become the norm. Hence the current problem with the EMHC.
The mass that has been called the Pauline Mass is the “forma ordinaria”. Here is the next piece of subtlety of language. It becomes evident that the revised mass is the norm. The norm cannot be replaced by that which is the exception unless it happens with ecclesiastical approval.
But then we get the next few sentences that say a great deal.
Priests who belong to religious communities can say the EF only in private. To say it for the laity or for their community they must have the permission of their superiors. This is very important. The first sentence gives the impression that every priest can choose to celebrate the EF, because it was never abrogated. But here, Canon Lawyers and Superiors General raise a question. If the Tridentine form is still legal, why do priests who are religious need permission to celebrate it for the public? Why can’t you just do what is legal?
The answer comes back, those priests who belong to religious communities must abide by what the superior says and the superior must govern according to the law of the religious community. In effect, the religious community can vote that theTridentine Form is not allowed by the community and no priest of that community can be given permission to celebrate it. If a religious community votes that way, the Church will not interfere. He says “in accordance with the superiors major and common law” I believe is the exact wording in SP. Here is where it becomes very evident that the Tridentine Form is not the norm, because religious superiors and religious constitutions do not have the right to prohibit that which is the norm of the Church. But he’s acknowledging the right of religious superiors general to prohibit the EF, even if the faithful ask for it.
Now what happens? He goes on to tell the bishops that they have to be attentive to those who request the EF and make an effort to provide it. In UE, he makes it clear that there is no magic number needed to start an EF mass in a parish. But he repeats that this does not mean to take away from the authority of the local bishop. In essence, he has no intention of running rough shot over the bishops. To do that would create a nightmare.
He offers the bishops the assistance of the ED Commission to help them meet the requests of the Trad faithful. He makes not promises to anyone that there will always be an EF available or that there will be many places with an EF available. I believe that it is in UE that he make reference to the possibility of consolidating by putting an EF in one place and people can come from outside the parish boundaries.
He is trying very hard to be accommodating without stepping on the toes of the bishops, religious superiors and the priests themselves. He’s asking the bishops to be accommodating, but not to abdicate their role as the liturgical authority.
Then he goes on to say that the two forms must enrich each other, not compete. He is another subtle message to all of us. In essence, “Stop campaigning.” He comes back to this point again, “they are two holy and equal forms of the one Roman Rite”. Again, “you can’t juxtapose them, because they are absolutely the same thing. It is a matter of personal preference,not a matter of holiness. Both forms are sacred.” Basically, “stop comparing them.”
