[Question:]{.underline} Can traditional Catholics avail themselves of the Motu proprio “Summorum pontificum” to attend the traditional Mass?
[Answer:]{.underline} This document does not directly affect those of us who have always been convinced of our right to the traditional Mass. However, it is a major victory in our combat for the Church, and will, over a long period of time, be an important step in the return to Tradition. The most extraordinary and astonishing admission, made both in the document itself, and in the Pope’s letter to the world’s bishops, is that the traditional Mass was never abrogated. This means that since 1969 the traditional Mass has always been perfectly permissible, regardless of what we have constantly been told to the contrary. These are the Pope’s own words: “As for the use of the 1962 Missal as an extraordinary form of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle was always permitted”. The Pope even goes further. He goes so far as to say that it could not have been abrogated: “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.”
BENEDICT XVI VS PAUL VI
What a contrast this is to the statements of Pope Paul VI, who whilst never formally stating the abrogation of St. Pius V’ Quo Primum, nevertheless constantly maintained that the New Mass had “force of law” (April 3, 1969), that it would “replace” (April 6, 1969) the traditional Mass as of November 30, 1969, and that it was consequently obligatory. This is how categorically he described the obligation of this obedience, faced with objections, in his general audience of November 19, 1969: “The reform about to be implemented, then corresponds to an authoritative mandate of the Church. It is an act of obedience, an attempt by the Church to maintain Her true nature. It is a step forward in Her authentic tradition. It is a demonstration of fidelity and vitality to which we [all]{.underline} should render prompt adherence…We shall do well to accept it with joyous enthusiasm and to implement it with prompt and [unanimous]{.underline} observance”. (Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 557). He was to repeat the same obligation in his discourse to the Consistory on May 24, 1976: “The adoption of the New Mass is certainly not left to the free decision of the priests and faithful…The New Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old one.”
Until now, these statements have never been changed, but rather maintained by the Roman authorities. We are particularly grateful for this document because it is an admission that Paul VI was wrong, that he had a false notion of the Church’s tradition (that he invoked for it) and was in contradiction with St. Pius V. In fact, this Motu proprio is a direct contradiction of Paul VI. We saw this abandonment of post-conciliar reforms for the question of the translation of the “pro multis”, and now we have seen it with obligation of the New Mass. We can expect to see it in other areas of doctrine and practice that are in contradiction with the Church’s Tradition. However, it is particularly ingenuous, if not hypocritical, for Benedict XVI to now pretend that Paul VI never wanted to make the new rite obligatory, by this misleading statement: “At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal.” In truth, Paul VI foresaw no such “possible use”.
FINALLY A TRADITIONAL POPE?
Does this mean that Benedict XVI has suddenly become traditional? Not at all. This Motu proprio freeing the celebration of the traditional Mass from the stigma of illegality is nevertheless not a blanket permission. It is only allowed in certain circumstances, and is not to be allowed in public and in parishes unless it be “where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition” and who requests it (Art. 5, §1) or for special circumstances. The size and interpretation of “a stable group of faithful” is deliberately left ambiguous, but it seems to indicate that the group must already exist, and that the pastor is not to create it. It also states that, apart from the eventual possibility of personal parishes just for the traditional rites, only one Mass on Sundays and holy days is permitted in the traditional rite (Art. 5, §2).
However, most damning is Benedict XVI’s response to the fear, that he considers unfounded, that the use of the traditional rite of Mass will not cause division, for it does not call into question, he says, the authority of Vatican II. His gratuitous assertion does nothing to allay the bishops’ fear. Does not the traditional Mass express the un-ecumenical integrity of the Faith so effectively undermined by Vatican II? In any case, why would anyone want to celebrate it if it were not to call into question the liturgical reform of Vatican II? The pretense that it is but to be an “extraordinary form” of the Roman rite, for there are but “two uses of one and the same rite” is equally unconvincing nor does it do anything to change the reality.
The Pope goes further in his promotion of the New Mass. Not only does he claim that the “ordinary form” of the Roman liturgy remains the Mass of Paul VI, but he goes on to praise its sacredness, all the while deploring the “arbitrary deformations” that the creation of the new Missal made possible. “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.”
It defies all common sense to see how it could possibly be said that such disparate sets of ceremonies could be called “one” rite. What kind of unity can one possibly speak of? On the one hand we have the unchanging, traditional ceremonies that perfectly contain the three qualities of Catholic liturgy, as laid down by Saint Pius X (Tra le sollecitudini, §2, 1903), and on the other hand the ever-changing novelties of the new rites that directly contradict them.
The first of these conditions is “sacredness” or “holiness, which consequently must exclude everything that could render it profane”; that which has purity, which speaks only of heavenly and eternal truths, in which there is no stain of the world, nothing secular. Is this the silence of the mystery of the traditional mass or the constant noise of the humanism of the new? The second is “nobility”, the beauty and proportion that expresses the highest ideals, that makes is “true art”. Is this the measured movements, genuflections, graceful Gregorian chant, sublime Latin prayers, or is it altar girls, offertory processions, communion in the hand and guitars? The third is “universality”, “which reveals the Catholic unity of the Church” (Pius XII, Mediator Dei, §188), that excludes change and novelty and is a reflection of the constancy of eternity. Is this the unchanging Latin Canon received from the Fathers of the Church and last changed by St. Gregory the Great in the sixth century, or is it the constant novelties of inculturation, of charismatic experience, of lay interference with the altar and the sacraments? Many other illustrations could be given, but it is perfectly clear that the new rite and the traditional rite are NOT one rite, nor could anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear deny it.
Which then is the ordinary rite? An ordinary rite is one which follows order, which is prescribed, which is determined, which is constant and regular. The extraordinary is a departure from this rule. Surely the new rite, which is of its very nature open to novelty and experimentation, which is by definition constantly changing, in which no rules are followed, could never be considered as “ordinary”? Surely the new rite, a deliberate compromise with protestant and modernist teaching, obscuring on purpose the essentially propitiatory character of the sacrifice of the Mass, could never ever be considered a Catholic rule? If the new rite were the ordinary rite, there would then no longer be any order, nor any rule, nor any authority. The Church would be destroyed. If the New Mass is ordinary, it is ordinary for modernism and most assuredly not for Catholicism. Let us not for one instant, then, accept the preposterous offer that the traditional Mass become the extraordinary form of the one rite. The Tridentine Mass is the only Roman rite; it is the only Canon, the only rule for the celebration of Mass; it alone is ordinary, it alone is the rule for the Latin rite, always has been and always will be.
BENEDICT XVI’S MOTIVE: RECONCILIATORY NON-RUPTURE
Why, then, did Benedict XVI issue this Motu proprio? What is his motive? He seems to be in full contradiction with himself. He is making this big effort to allow the traditional Mass, and yet at the same time he states that what he really wants us is for us to accept the holiness of the New Mass. The answer is in the “positive reason” he gives for it, namely “interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church”. It is not really at all for the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre, as the Indult had been, for Benedict XVI discounts those who do not accept “the binding character of the Second Vatican Council”.
The reconciliation that he seeks is much deeper. It is a doctrinal and liturgical reconciliation with the Church’s past; it is the effort to show continuity, to prove that there is “no contradiction”, “no rupture” that is his entire focus. If the Church is to stay Catholic, if it is to continue to exist, it cannot be in rupture or contradiction with itself, as the modernists with their aggiornamento stated after Vatican II. What was once said to be a novelty must now be regarded as living tradition, in continuity and not in rupture with the past. Tradition is called living because it is no longer the passing down of an objective deposit of Faith, but is of its very nature changing. Living tradition is evolution with continuity, and so likewise is truth, dogma and liturgical worship. The peaceful coexistence of both forms of the liturgy, new and traditional, and the consideration that they are but two uses and not two rites, is supposed to prove the continuity, to establish the fact of non-rupture, just as the coexistence of Vatican II and preexistent teachings on the necessity of belonging to the Church is proof of non-rupture.
This is the reconciliation that must be established at all costs. Contradiction there cannot be, according to the Pope’s Hegelian mindset, as long as we are mutually understanding and accepting. For truth, reality and sacredness lie in the continuous changing process, in the “living” aspect of Tradition as much as in its content. The value and sacredness of the liturgy does not consist in certain ceremonies, prayers, gestures, but in the way they are lived and experienced. The objective opposition between the symbolism and meaning of the traditional rite and the new rite is not relevant. They are two uses, for they represent one living experience. The actual coexistence of both uses is absolutely crucial to establishing the Pope’s point that in fact there has been no rupture; a reconciliation deplored by truly traditional Catholics and modernist bishops alike.
WHAT OUGHT TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS TO DO?
But, you might say, surely we can attend these Masses. They will be traditional Masses. They are not Indult Masses, for they no longer presume a special indult or permission, but are based upon the correct principle that the traditional rite was never abrogated. The Motu proprio itself does not attach any explicit and unacceptable conditions, as did the Indult. This delicate question can be resolved on two levels, one doctrinal and one liturgical. The first consideration is doctrinal. If we have won a battle for the celebration of the true Mass, we have not yet won it with respect to the profession of the true Faith, uncontaminated by the errors of Vatican II. Our attendance at Mass must be a profession of this true Faith, whole and entire. Hence the obligation of assisting at the Masses of those priests who stand up against the errors of Vatican II and refuse the idea of “non rupture”.
The second consideration is liturgical. Benedict XVI assures the Novus Ordo bishops of their ultimate control: “Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop…the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene”. Furthermore, he encourages the assistance at each of the two opposed rites. In fact, he goes so far as to propose that they be mixed in the same celebration, a confusing desecration not even permitted under the Indult: “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 mind boggles at the consequences of such a principle, the practical application of which the Ecclesia Dei commission is supposed to study. The principle of alternating and mixing celebrations seems important to the Pope to establish non rupture between the two “uses”. However, it would inevitably greatly weaken the traditional Faith and the convictions of the faithful. It is for this reason that Archbishop Lefebvre, when giving profound reasons why our faithful ought not to attend the Indult Mass, pointed out that they must not attend the traditional Masses of those priests who still celebrate the New Mass, and who are not determined to combat the evils of the New Mass. These were his precise words in 1985:
“Generally speaking, we counsel the faithful against attending the Mass of those priests who have abandoned the combat against the New Mass. It is much to be feared that one day they will be obliged by their bishop to also celebrate the New Mass, to celebrate both Mass, and even to concelebrate, to accept giving Communion in the hand and of celebrating Mass facing the people. All of these things are entirely repugnant to us, and that is the reason why we counsel the faithful not at attend the Masses of these priests…As for us, it is always the same advice: we think that one ought not to go to these Masses because it is dangerous to affirm that the New Mass is just as good as the old one.” (Quoted in La messe de toujours, p. 431)
These words apply absolutely literally to the situation of Masses celebrated by non-traditional priests in parishes under this Motu proprio. As much good as such Masses will certainly do for those who are still in the Novus Ordo, and as much as we ought to encourage our Novus Ordo acquaintances to request their celebration, so much ought our faithful not to attend, even if they have no other Sunday Mass available. It would be an unacceptable compromise to attend the Masses of priests of the new rite, who celebrate and administer sacraments according to the new rite, or who are at least willing to do so. It would be precisely to cooperate in the Holy Father’s iniquitous policy of a reconciliatory non-rupture, a clever way to mix a little honey with the bitter pill of Vatican II, so that we might swallow it down without even realizing it.
Let not these realistic considerations, however, dampen the gratitude that Bishop Fellay requests that we have towards Almighty God first, and Archbishop Lefebvre second, who have permitted this victory. The Good Lord will bring much more good out of it than we could imagine, and will draw souls to the unchanging truth of Catholic Tradition.
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.