Damian Thompson has written about a recent Ad Clerum letter from Archbishop Conti: Archbishop Conti tells clergy: do not promote the Extraordinary Form of the Mass – there is 'no call for it'. Having read through the Ad Clerum carefully several times (someone sent me a photocopy) I would simply add a couple of points to Damian's analysis.
Strictly speaking, it would be just about possible to defend the position that Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae do not explicitly offer any requirement or encouragement to promote the usus antiquior (though I, and many others, would defend the thesis that they do.) What cannot be denied is that both documents certainly encourage and require us to give it due honour:
"On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with appropriate honour." (Universae Ecclesiae n.6. Cf Summorum Pontificum art.1)Pope Benedict expressed his mind clearly in his explanatory letter to the Bishops of the world:
"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."Therefore, with the deepest respect, I disagree with His Grace when he refers to the older form of the Mass as "mysterious" in opposition to genuine "mystery." That would mean that it was harmful; moreover it would mean that there was a radical contradiction between the two uses. Does it not also fall short of maintaining the forma extraordinaria with appropriate honour to imply that it has "extravagant gestures"?
I wonder why it should be necessary to warn priests so sternly against the usus antiquior if there is in fact "no call for it."
8 comments:
What comes first, the chicken or the egg? There is always "call" for the Roman Catholic mass, and the weight of history is on the side of tradition, not Conti. Due honor at this point specifically means promotion for a sacred action which has been shamefully abused to the detriment of the church.
In the long run, though, the biological solution will win out over the Conti's of the church, since those practicing tradition will be the only Catholics left, the rest having been won over to secular paganism. A letter of sound and fury, signifying...you can finish the thought.
It's so sad to see the deeply emotional reaction that priests have towards the Extraordinary Form, a reaction that I think is particularly acute among priests who experienced the EF in their youths, before 1969. I think for many of them, it was such a huge emotional shift to dedicate their lives as seminarians/priests/Catholics to this new way of worshipping God that the idea of people wanting to return to the EF strikes them as a personal attack against their own choices or commitments. I'm not saying this is true of the Archbishop in question here (about whom I know nothing), but I feel like this may be true of a number of American priests I know.
I know of one young priest in Glasgow who has been severely criticised for celebrating the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.
I agree with Fr Finnigan's comments. I recently attended a Traditional Mass in Glasgow and although the congregation was not huge there seems to be a band of consistent worshipers who attend weekly. This to me would constitute 'a call for it'. It is no secret that there is another parish in which the extraordinary form is celebrated and that the parish priest in an interview with the Glasgow Herald said he felt bullied and supressed over his choice to celebrate it. It is no secret either that both parishes are in the poorer more out of the way areas and that the Traditional Mass is celebrated at inconvenient times, thus discourgaing families from attending. I do not believe this is coincidental. It seems incredible that a man who has been criticised for making comments which are clearly in line with traditional catholic teaching should be so against traditional liturgical expression, given that the liturgy is the most immediate and apparent experience, sacramentally speaking, that Catholics have of the Church and of our Blessed Lord.
It is hardly surprising that there is no 'call' for the EF when it has been practically banisjhed for 40 years, and when offered, is in out of the way places at inconvenient times.
The point of SP though is not to promote one rite at the expense of the other. The fact that the old continues, even if it is a minority rite, is proof for all that there is no discontinuity, that the Mass remains the Mass as it has always been understood.
One cannot understand the vehemency of the responses of some regarding the EF. Even some parishioners with whom I have spoken say that they "hate" Latin in the Liturgy. Others do not want to give up the clericalization of the laity, such as Extraordinary Ministers and altar girls for the TLM. Much prayer is needed. I find the attachment to the Novus Ordo is frequently based on the "me" factor, the over-emphasis on the lay involvement, rather than the sublime transcendence of the Mass.
John's point is a fair one. Many of Conti's generation, both lay and clerical, simply can not grasp the reality of the collapsed post-conciliar Church. Like corrupt bankers they demand bail out after bail out for their disastrous project. The new Mass translations are the latest in a long line of initiatives. For them, Vatican II is just too big to fail even at the expense of the Church itself.
The Archbishop said "there is no call for it [the EF]". But this is ambiguous. Its most common idiomatic meaning would be that there is no need for it or good served by it. It would not usually man that no people have asked for it.David Braine
Post a Comment