By CHRISTOPHER MANION
(Editor’s Note: The Wanderer first published this article on Summorum Pontificum on July 19, 2007, and we are reprinting it here in view of the upcoming ten-year anniversary of Pope Benedict’s landmark motu proprio, which allowed priests to say the Traditional Rite of the Mass without asking for permission.
(This interview appeared in two parts; we will publish part two in next week’s issue.)
+ + +
Part 1
Fr. Kenneth Baker, SJ, just celebrated his 36th anniversary as editor of Homiletic & Pastoral Review. He is a renowned theologian, and has closely followed events in the Church for decades. The Wanderer spoke with him just three days after the publication of Pope Benedict’s motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum.
Q. First of all, Fr. Baker, Pope Benedict wrote both a letter introducing the motu proprio, as well as the motu proprio itself. This week, why don’t you walk us through the letter?
A. The first thing is, the letter is addressed to “My dear brother bishops.” The letter is not addressed to the whole Church; it is not the law of the Church. The law of the Church is contained in the motu proprio.
He divides the letter into two parts, addressing two fears: the first is the fear expressed by the French and German bishops — that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council. He rejects that outright: “This fear is unfounded.” And he uses the same expression for the second fear: that the use of the Missal might lead to “disarray” and “divisions” among parish communities. That is also “unfounded.”
He then introduces the two forms of the Roman Rite, the Ordinary and the Extraordinary. He points out that it is not appropriate to speak of “two rites,” but that it is rather a twofold use of one and the same rite — there is one rite, with two equal forms. As you will see, this has very profound implications.
Q. What was the status of the Traditional Rite before the motu proprio?
A. The Pope emphasizes that the ancient rite was never abrogated. In 1970, we were made to think that it was gone, and that only retired priests who got special permission to say the Mass in private could say the Traditional Latin Mass. That was a misrepresentation of the law of the Church, but it was almost universally adopted by the bishops.
After making these points, the Pope goes into the deformations of recent years, and here he is a very personal — he uses the first person singular. He says, “I am speaking from experience, since I, too, lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
Here he is addressing the experience of all of us — the hootenanny Masses, the clown Masses — deformations which drove millions of people away from the Catholic Church.
He mentions Pope John Paul II, especially the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei (1988). In this document John Paul was trying to solve this problem for the people who have been alienated because they can’t stand the new liturgy. He wanted to assist these people, and, in particular, he also wanted to bring back the Society of St. Pius X. But the document is only in general terms. It contains no “precise juridical norms.”
Q. Did the bishops obey Ecclesia Dei?
A. Benedict does not deliver a direct rebuke to the bishops, but many bishops didn’t follow it. “I have to step in and solve the problem with new juridical norms,” he says, and he does that with this motu proprio: It is the new law of the Church.
Q. Is it just the aging pre-Vatican II population and the Society of St. Pius X that the Pope is concerned about?
A. Well, if only the old people are concerned about the liturgy, that’s one thing, but if the young people are concerned about it too, then we have to do something about it. Benedict points out that “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.”
Q. With that in mind, how does he resolve the earlier problems?
A. With this document, Benedict is taking control of the Mass out of the hands of the bishops and giving it to priests. He’s taking a giant step toward the St. Pius X Society by granting their first demand that every priest be allowed to say the Traditional Latin Mass.
Q. What is the “giant step”?
A. The “giant step” is that, in article two of the motu proprio, Benedict says that every priest now has the right to say the Traditional Latin Mass — he doesn’t have to ask the Pope, he doesn’t have to ask his bishop.
Remember that the second fear he mentioned was that the motu proprio would cause disarray and even divisions within the various communities. The Pope points out that there is only a small number of Catholics who are interested in it at the present time, and so it is not likely to cause such divisions. He points out that neither liturgical formation nor knowledge of the Latin language is found very often. So only a small percentage of the faithful to begin with — to begin with — is going to be interested in this.
Frankly, the French and German bishops should not be concerned about divisions in the Church, since 80 or 90 percent of the Catholics there don’t go to church anyway.
Q. What about the priests? Many priests don’t know Latin, and don’t know the Traditional Rite.
A. Here is where the Fraternity of St. Peter and of the Institute of Christ the King come in, because they’re in a position to train priests to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass. The Fraternity offered one-week courses in June in their seminary in Denton, Neb., training diocesan priests who want to learn how to celebrate the Traditional Mass. And they’ll offer more in the future. The Pope underscores the fact that “the two forms of the Latin Mass can be mutually enriching.”
But some traditionalists are concerned that endless tinkering might occur by the constant addition of new saints and new prefaces. Yes, Popes have done that in the past, but with all the changes that have been wrought in the past 40 years, why bring that up? What we’re looking for here is stability — we want the liturgy that is set in stone, that is fixed. We don’t want it changing every year.
Q. Well, if the bishop has no power over changing the Traditional liturgy, who would be making the changes?
A. The Ecclesia Dei Commission now has vastly increased powers. They would have authority over this.
Q. What does the Holy Father mean by “mutually enriching”?
A. I think it’s likely that the proper celebration of the Traditional Mass on a wider scale will bring about a more sacred celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass.
After all, in the Traditional Rite, the priest is facing east, he makes about 15 genuflections, he uses very particular liturgical language — and the Latin has the sacred character of mystery. All religions have sacred language — for example, the Jews use Hebrew in the synagogue, even though they never speak it anywhere else. It brings home the message that there’s mystery here.
We are dealing with the supreme majesty of God Almighty, and that language of mystery brings it all home — we do not express it in the language of the street.
The Pope explains: “I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this motu proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church.”
That’s essential to this whole thing — the Pope wants to bring back unity in the Church, he wants to bring back the St. Pius X Society, and he wants to bring back the millions of Catholics who don’t go to church anymore.
Q. One progressive editor asked the secular press, “Hey, if it’s a small minority, why bother reaching out to them?”
A. They’re afraid it’s going to grow. Once people see the Traditional Latin Mass and contrast it with the Novus Ordo, they realize what’s been lost. The sense of the sacred, the mystery of the Mass, the Latin, the facing east, the Gregorian chants, altar boys, Communion on the tongue, kneeling at the Communion rail, all of those things.
Q. How about the Fraternity of St. Peter? Is the Pope ordering them to say the Novus Ordo Mass because it is the “Ordinary” form?
A. No, he is not telling priests who consent in principle to the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass that they have to perform it.
The Role Of The Bishops
Q. If the priests are now free to say the Mass, what is the role of the bishops?
A. I love the passage where he assures the bishops that nothing lessens the authority of the bishop, after he’s taken all of this away from the bishop. He says to the bishops, “In conclusion, dear brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful.” So the bishop’s job is to oversee and implement the pastoral care of the faithful in the liturgy.
And in the next paragraph, he repeats it — their “role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity.” I love that, because what he’s saying is, you no longer have absolute control over the Traditional Latin Mass, but you have to see to it that the priests who celebrate it are doing it right. That has been the role of bishops for the last 400 years.
Q. Perhaps Benedict is saying that nothing is taken away from the bishop’s authority that is authentic — but rather, because of Ecclesia Dei’s generalities, many bishops took the authority upon themselves to manipulate, prohibit, punish, and otherwise obstruct the full implementation of Ecclesia Dei as Pope John Paul II had wanted it implemented.
A. That’s a good point: No legitimate authority that they ever had is taken away from them here.
Q. So the Pope is telling the bishop, “You’ve had this authority all along. Some of it you did not implement, some of it you abused, and you have assumed some authority that was not yours to assume. Hence I am taking this opportunity to clarify what your job is, and it’s the same as it’s always been, but you need to reread your job description.”
A. It goes back to the concept of precise juridical regulations that he’s going to give in the motu proprio.
Q. How do you think this will be received in the United States?
A. I think, from my experience watching the bishops’ conference, that two-thirds of the bishops are going to go along with it and perhaps one-third of the bishops are going to oppose it — one-third or less.
+ + +
(In the next issue, Fr. Baker comments on the text of the motu proprio.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress