by
don Marco Begato
From Aldo
Maria Valli's Blog
July 15,
2021
Breaking news
from the liturgical world suggests that the publication of a document that
would abolish, or at least re-dimension, the scope of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum is close. This rumour has given rise to something more
than apprehension, most of all in those dioceses ( and therefore - in most Italian
dioceses) where the defense of the celebration of the Vetus Ordo is protected only by Summorum
Pontificum and certainly not in dialogue with the Shepherds.
Even two princes of the Church,
among others, have spoken out in defense of the status quo: Cardinal Müller
and Cardinal Zen.
My comment however today focuses attention
on the question of authority.
My thesis is that a move to harm Summorum Pontificum - especially if
initiated while Benedict XVI is still alive - would be a cheap shot against the
Liturgy, but would most of all be a traumatizing blow to authority.
The question I put forward is what
value could be acknowledged in a document, which in the course of a few decades,
could be turned and twisted inside out? I would say very little. But the value
of the document in our case speaks also of the value of its author, and since a Motu proprio is an eminent, autonomous intervention by a Supreme
Pontiff, it speaks of the value of pontifical declarations and their
relationship with the episcopate (for instance: of the willingness of an
episcopate to obey a Motu proprio).
An so then, faced with the 'write-down' of a Motu proprio would it not run the risk of removing credibility from
the Pope’s interventions as such? Would it
not risk generating the impression that the interventions of a Pontiff are
highly dubious, valid at the maximum for a decade or two, worth nothing but to
be pulled apart?
In this sense, in my view, touching Summorum Pontificum, would mean touching the credibility of the
Papacy itself as well as the hierarchy's authority. And this, mind you, I
affirm not to vent a personal, psychological sentiment of betrayed trust, but to
indicate a radical and objective state of confusion that the Anti-Summorum ipso facto would attach to the highest
offices.
The reasoning is as simple as it is
disarming: if the hierarchy are not clear about what they want to do and why, if
they are acting to change curial balance or social trends and not according to definitive,
stable, theological presuppositions, why
should we obey them? Better still,
what should we obey? To ever-changing writings? To the intention leaked by the
newspapers? To the declarations of priests on television? To Pope I or Pope II
? To the bishop who follows the letter
or the one who follows the spirit? To trends or convenience? To the first five years or the second?
I repeat, mine is not a
psychological reaction, but a serious interpretative difficulty. I am bound to
obey those who certainly reveal the will of God to me, but an ecclesial
community that presents itself in a confused way, that changes continually its
own instances, that supplies fewer theological explanations, that tends not to
respond or evade the doubts raised, that in the millennium of liberty and in
the Post-Conciliar Church finally free
from legalism, pushes for an intransigent obedience; how can such a reality consider itself
credible or trustworthy? What should be believed
and followed from it? For how long? With what criteria? How seriously should it
be taken? How much, on the other hand, can I interpret and re-read at will? Who establishes it?
These are indeed
open questions, which, as of today I don’t know how to answer.
When Summorum is castigated, a definitive
answer will become even more difficult for me, since giving credibility to the
authorities, will be, by definition, a hazard, a roulette, a game. What's more
- one less and less fun and increasingly
more hazardous.
Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana
Source Il ridimensionamento del “Summorum Pontificum” e il problema dell’autorità – Aldo Maria
