 |
| Pope Francis with leadership of the French Bishops' Conference, December 2022 |
EDITOR'S NOTE
Another blog, known for its extreme adulation of Pope Francis, is currently discussing the synthesis the French Bishops' Conference put out in 2021 in response to the Summorum Pontificum Survey. They exaggerate its significance and its pertinence as a document that reflects the true opinion of the bishops. Aside from the forceful misinterpretations, sophisms, and plain exaggeration, the article also shows a desperate attempt to control the narrative on Traditionis Custodes.
It should also be pointed out that the author of the hit-piece avails himself of one of Diane Montagna's articles concerning the content of the Survey, but does not mention two others of equal importance. All three are crucial for a full picture:
"Traditionis Custodes: Separating Fact from Fiction"
"Traditionis Custodes: More Facts Emerge (What the Bishops of the World Actually Told Francis)"
We recommend to our critics that they do their homework more thoroughly next time. - PAK
PART 1: The Conference of French Bishops on the Traditional
Liturgy: “Let It Fit Our Mold!”
The Conférence des Évêques de France has produced a
dossier entitled: “Synthèse des résultats de la Consultation sur l’application
du Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum demanded by the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith in April 2020”. The synthesis itself is a 10-page
document, which we publish here. It is followed by appendices (Roman
questionnaire, text of Summorum Pontificum, etc.).
This document is of major interest. In future Letters, we
shall be analyzing a number of passages from this dossier. We shall confine
ourselves here to a few general remarks:
- Politically, the production of this synthesis is
a kind of coup de force. The Roman Congregation itself should have analyzed the
bishops’ responses and produced a general synthesis. But both the Italian and
French conferences (and no doubt others as well) decided to do the work
themselves, which, in keeping with the usual inclination of bishops’
conferences, makes it possible to draw up a general line, in which a certain
number of bishops will not recognize themselves, and to formulate wishes that
are supposed to be those of everyone.
- On the whole, despite the list of positive
observations about Summorum Pontificum (pacification, response to a
pastoral need), systematically downplayed by the editor of the synthesis, the
CEF proves contemptuous of participants in the traditional liturgy: poor
training of priests, i.e. not conciliar enough, and suspicions, for the same
reason, about the teaching given by the FSSP and ICRSP; low missionary dynamism
(yet age and growth rate...); “mediocre” preaching; ignorance of the FSSPX
declared “outside the Church”.
- Even if the figures given are constantly revised
downwards in relation to reality (not to mention false assertions such as the
non-participation of the faithful in parish life), it is clear that the
celebration of the traditional Mass or TLM is now an established fact in
France.
- Fundamentally, however, the CEF does not support
the rather general exclusivism of priests and faithful, nor the catechism that
goes with it, and would like to mix the TLM with elements of the ordinary form.
The bishops - according to the CEF - would like to make greater use of diocesan
priests to celebrate the TLM, but are unable to do so for lack of personnel
(which is very regrettable indeed).
- Particularly interesting is the information given
throughout the pages: the confirmed interest of seminarians in this liturgy,
which they generally have to satisfy themselves; the inflections (given as
marginal) of the Ordinary Form due to the presence of the TLM; the infatuation
(worrying for the CEF!) of young people with the traditional liturgy.
- The wishes presented to Rome in response to question 9
(“What advice would you give regarding the Extraordinary Form of the Roman
Rite?”), boil down to two:
- Be careful not to extend the TLM;
- And, above all, to force TLM priests and faithful into
bi-formalism.
The CEF document rightly points out - but laments - that
attachment to the traditional liturgy has doctrinal foundations that diverge
from those on which the ordinary form rests. “A world apart, a parallel Church
is taking shape”, says the document pathetically, the mouthpiece of an
exhausted episcopate that wants to ignore the fact that Summorum Pontificum
was attempting to establish a peaceful coexistence. This coexistence is clearly
unbearable for the organs of the Conférence des Évêques de France.
PART 2: The Edict of Nantes Must Be Revoked!
The comparison may seem daring on our part: drawing an
analogy between the traditional world and Protestantism, which Louis XIV no
longer tolerated in his kingdom, between the TLM (the Extraordinary Form of the
Roman Rite) and the so-called Reformed religion! But beyond the
cum grano salis provocation, this is a good way of describing the position
of those who have never put up with the situation created by the Summorum
Pontificum”edict of tolerance”. They would be ready to revoke it, with
disastrous consequences - not economic, as in the 17th century, but pastoral,
in the 21st.
In our Letter 780,
dated January 18, 2021, we revealed the contents of an internal document of
the Conférence des Evêques de France, “Synthèse des résultats de la
Consultation sur l’application du Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum
demanded by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in April 2020”. This
synthesis is of such interest for understanding the psychology of this
episcopal group, that we thought it would be worthwhile devoting several
letters to it.
In this one, we will address the basic theme that
underlies the entire document: the pre-Vatican II liturgy is no longer to be
placed on an equal footing with the Council liturgy (its celebration is a right
under Summorum Pontificum), but is to have a subordinate and controlled
place, its supporters having to accept the doctrinal principles of the new
liturgy and having to demonstrate this by practicing it from time to time.
Unbearable Motu proprio
We can agree that the CEF is right when it points out
that attachment to the traditional liturgy has doctrinal foundations that
diverge from those on which the ordinary form rests. But the document expresses
this very polemically by pointing to the “ecclesial conception” of the
supporters of the traditional Mass, which differs from its own, their “fixed”
faith reflection, their “mentality of resistance”, their spirit of “criticism
and even defiance” of the Second Vatican Council, the “risk of identifying the
Mass in the Extraordinary Form with the only ‘true Mass’”, and the “cause of
scandal” that some “deem it impossible to celebrate the present Mass”.
Factually, this is true. Besides, since peaceful
liturgical coexistence is a kind of ecumenism, it’s important for each side to
be extremely clear about what it stands for. There’s no hiding the fact that
the choice made by those attached to the traditional form to live the lex
orandi is, for them, a confession of faith.
Supporters of the traditional Mass have always explained
this: The doctrine of the Mass as an unbloody renewal of the propitiatory
sacrifice offered for the living and the dead, adoration of the Real Presence
of Christ, the specificity of the hierarchical priesthood and, in general, the
sacred character of the Eucharistic celebration are expressed in a
significantly weaker way than in the traditional rite (and in the Eastern
rites).
Yet Rome, through Benedict XVI’s motu proprio, has told
them that “there is no problem”. Pope Francis says “no problem” when he
welcomes the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage to his Vatican Basilica every year.
The normal reception of those attached to the ritus antiquior in Rome
and in the parishes is thus part of a desire for pacification.
But no one denies that there is “an ecclesiological
question underlying the application of the motu proprio”, as the CEF summary
puts it. There was indeed a desire in the liturgical reform to express the
ecclesiological novation that had been brought about by departing from the
traditional model enshrined by the Council of Trent. Parishioners, most of whom
had never read a single text of Vatican II, clearly understood that the Sunday
mass was no longer the same as the one they had known. Lex orandi, lex
credendi, one mass and the other correspond respectively to two conceptions
that the Church has of itself. That’s just the way it is.
Summorum Pontificum realistically accepted this
side-by-side positioning. Of course, it must be recognized that this peaceful
coexistence favors the spread of the “rich” form, the traditional Mass. Summorum
Pontificum has doubled the number of places where the old Mass is
celebrated. It’s a fact: numerous surveys of liturgical Peace in all parts of
the world, on the one hand, and the concrete experience of parishes, on the
other, prove that when theusus antiquior is made freely available to the
practicing faithful within their own parishes, the number of those who want to
take advantage of it increases significantly.
Benedict XVI took calculated risks. Many bishops have
never admitted it. Mgr Aumonier, for example, who has just resigned from the
episcopal see of Versailles, faced with a strong traditional presence in his
diocese, gave the impression, throughout his episcopate, of having received the
mission, or of having given himself the mission, of constantly putting
obstacles in the way of the old Mass. On October 23, 2008, he published a
pastoral letter, which we analyzed in our Letter 154
under the title “Une interprétation fallacieuse du
Motu Proprio par Mgr Aumonier” (“A fallacious
interpretation of the Motu Proprio by Mgr Aumonier”). While Summorum
Pontificum asserted that the celebration of the traditional Mass was a right
for all priests of the Latin rite, Eric Aumonier made it say practically the
opposite: “By giving parish priests the faculty to celebrate, or to authorize
the possibility of celebrating under certain conditions, according to the
Extraordinary Form, the Pope is not asking that the two forms of the Roman rite
be used at will, as two sides of an alternative”.
This remained a veiled criticism. As Benedict XVI is no
longer Pope, the CEF text can be much more direct: “The motu proprio has
introduced de facto bi-ritualism”. Or: “We must not misunderstand the
place of this form, which could come to be considered a rite”. And then: “Seminarians
should not be led to believe that there are two forms to choose from in the
Latin Church”. And finally, in the last line of the last page: “The concern for
the unity of the Church is not fully honored by the implementation of the motu
proprio. The application of this letter ultimately raises ecclesiological
rather than liturgical questions”.
The enemies of peace
“The concern for the unity of the Church is not fully
honored by the implementation of the motu proprio” .... It’s true that Summorum
Pontificum sought to unite fire and water, as it were. He was quite
successful in establishing a balance of peace, which is by definition fragile.
The CEF is in line with those who want to see Summorum Pontificum
cancelled or reduced as far as possible (see our Letter
744 of May 4, 2020 ).
It is therefore asking Rome concretely:
- 1°/ To preserve the traditional liturgy in a minority
state: “be vigilant not to extend the EF”.
- 2°/ And to force TLM priests and faithful into
bi-formalism. “The specificity and exclusivity of celebration according to the
EF by certain communities wound the unity of the presbyterate”, says the
document. Very overwhelmingly,” it adds, ‘the bishops return to the exclusivity
of the celebration, the use of the lectionary, the same liturgical calendar
(sanctoral) and adherence to the current magisterium’.
Except that the bishops of France hardly have the means
to impose their will on this point. They regret - and we regret even more
deeply than they do - that they no longer have enough diocesan priests to
enable some of them, more numerous than at present, to devote themselves to
this ministry. To tell the truth, most bishops don’t really care, because when
priests from the diocese celebrate the EF, it’s much easier to integrate it
into the landscape. They prefer to criticize the “closed” nature of the
traditional world (“closed group”, “inward-looking”, “inward-looking”, etc.),
rather than integrate it into the parish environment.
In concrete terms, the CEF lists a number of tips:
- Reverting to the exclusive use of the Extraordinary
Form of the Roman Rite”. As we noted above, the CEF considers that “it is a
cause for scandal” that some priests only want to celebrate in the traditional
form (although the CEF has no objection to the fact that many priests refuse to
celebrate the Tridentine Mass).
If priests celebrating the old ordo were obliged to say
the new Mass as well, while those celebrating the new ordo would not be obliged
to celebrate according to theusus antiquior, the motu proprio would be
abolished in practice: de facto, the status of “right” recognized by Summorum
Pontificum for the traditional liturgy would cease. The same would apply if
provisions were introduced forcing the traditional faithful to attend the new
Mass (for example, by deciding that the old celebrations must alternate from
Sunday to Sunday with the new celebrations), without of course any reciprocal
obligation being imposed on those practising the Paul VI Mass.
This is the “Revocation” dreamed up by the enemies of
peaceful coexistence. It is doubtful that Pope Francis will follow such wishes.
On the other hand, Ecclesia Dei institutes could well come under pressure in
favor of bi-formalism, if they were placed, as is likely to happen, under the
jurisdiction of the Congregation for Religious and no longer under that of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
But as far as the faithful are concerned, who now benefit
from a great many traditional celebrations, it is hard to see how we can take
away from them what they have obtained. The Church of France, without strength,
whose haemorrhage of practising faithful, priests and, quite simply, money,
continues dramatically, no longer has the possibility of resuming the war it
thought fresh and joyful in the post-Council years.
The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum is all about
peace, to borrow a famous phrase from the Prince President! Peace between two
inherently heterogeneous worlds. We insisted on this in our last Letter (782 -
February 1, 2021): the difference between the pre-Council liturgy and the
post-Council liturgy carries with it a difference in ecclesiological
perception. And so it is. And the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum has
established a peaceful coexistence between the two.
However, many of France’s bishops are unable to accept
this. To put it trivially, they want to have their cake and eat it too:
liturgical peace with the traditionalists, on condition that the latter abandon
tradition (or to keep it trivial: the product of traditional Masses, without
the traditional Masses). Hence the repeated complaints that punctuate the CEF’s
summary of their responses to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s
questionnaire: “Liturgical sensitivities take precedence over ecclesial
communion”; “the Eucharist that should unite separates”; there is “tension over
sacramental pastoral care”, “difficulties for catechesis (different paths)”.
Episcopal ignorance of the traditional Mass
One wonders, moreover, whether the bishops for whom the
CEF acts as interpreter are really making an effort to understand this world
that worries them so much. The bishops’ remarks reported by the CEF reveal a
misunderstanding that is often contemptuous, self-assured and, in a word,
clerical. For example, the peremptory judgement on traditional liturgy: “It
weakens the community dimension of the celebration”, a judgement which in fact
presupposes a conception of the community dimension modelled on that of secular
festive gatherings, which confuses participation with noise and fury. And yet,
what could be more powerfully communal than a Tridentine Mass, where priest and
assistants are engaged in a static procession towards the Christlike East, and
commune perceptibly, without the obstacle of a face-to-face encounter, with the
whole Church on earth, in heaven and in purgatory!
Or these remarks, which are as derogatory as they are
untrue: “The liturgical formation of these communities is ritualistic, not
theological”; “for many of the faithful practicing in the Extraordinary Form,
Christian life boils down to Sunday practice, without any further spiritual or
theological formation”. They show a strange ignorance of the liturgical
catechesis deployed by the priests serving traditional Masses, of the books and
magazines read by the faithful, of the catecho-cultural formation received by
children in the schools where this Mass is celebrated. There can be no doubt
that the majority of ordinary liturgy-goers are far less concerned about the
meaning of the worship they practise than are extraordinary liturgy-goers, who
are, for their part, deeply concerned about the treasure they love, obtained
and preserved at the cost of a thousand difficulties.
Finally, like a refrain, the CEF document reiterates the
complaint that explains the bishops’ bitterness: these people are not
conciliar. “One might have hoped that a dialogue would have been opened on the
fundamental adherence to conciliar teaching”: dialogue on adherence...
Groups that shut themselves off -- or are shut off?
The overall observation,” says the CEF, “is that we are
observing two worlds that do not meet. She goes on to speak of a “closed,
isolated group”, a “community apart, among itself”, marked by “subjectivism”
and “individualism”. “The challenge is to maintain and nurture full communion
between certain communities and the Catholic Church”.
Isolated environment? How could it be otherwise, given
that traditional celebrations are confined to marginal churches and chapels,
sometimes located out of town, and which, if hosted in the main church, take
place at times no one wants?
On the other hand, experience proves that when the parish
priest makes the effort to welcome traditional parishioners like normal people,
in his main church, at convenient times, good relations are established quite
naturally with the other parishioners. It’s true that there’s a great “risk”
that parishioners of the ordinary liturgy will also get into the habit of
attending Mass in the extraordinary form. The famous “mutual enrichment”
applies in the fact that the richer form naturally attracts a certain
number of Catholics who were unfamiliar with it, and who discover it with joy.
In truth, it is this suspicious view of a certain number
of pastors towards a category considered less Catholic that builds
psychological walls around them and locks them into virtual ghettos, an
imprisonment that these same pastors then make a crime of to those “Catholics
on the bangs of the diocese” who suffer it.
Do they claim that Catholics of the various Eastern
rites, Armenians, Maronites, etc., whose customs, liturgies and even calendars
are far more different than those of traditional Catholics, form “a world apart”,
“a parallel Church”? Their criticism of the TLM world is obviously
ideological.
Too little RRIF involvement in diocesan pastoral work?
It’s up to the bishops to broaden it.
And that’s it for the CEF: the TLM has a “weak
missionary dimension”! So the conciliar liturgy has a strong missionary
dimension? This would be laughable if it weren’t so dramatic: the ordinary
form is hemorrhaging like never before in the history of the Church, and
nothing seems to be able to stop it. On the contrary, TLM congregations are
steadily increasing in number; no churches are closing for lack of priests; the
faithful who attend are clearly younger, as the document acknowledges with
painful surprise; and vocations are flourishing in incomparably greater
proportion.
With regard to traditional members, the synthesis
laments: “no participation in diocesan life; difficulties in involving them in
diocesan celebrations”. And again: “The FSSP could also deploy its zeal towards
people other than communities celebrating in the Extraordinary Form”. And she
adds: “It is important to make the priests of the Ecclesia Dei institutes more
sensitive to the needs of the people of God than to questions of personal
sensitivity.”
That’s a bit rich, my lords! Priests from Ecclesia Dei
institutes would like nothing better than to be entrusted with apostolates.
Some of you have even entrusted them with chaplaincies in hospitals, retirement
homes, pastoral care for the deceased, and even - in some rare cases - high
schools. It’s all just pennies thrown at beggars. What would it cost you, Dear
Father Bishops, to entrust to them the rural sectors of your dioceses, now
abandoned, which would regain their worship life to the rhythm of the
traditional Mass? Better the Mass of St. Pius V than no Mass at all, don’t you
think? There’s no reason why we shouldn’t gradually, and pedagogically,
accustom those present to it.
The CEF also states that “the attitude of certain priests
from outside institutes sometimes weighs on communion and fraternal life in the
diocese”. On the contrary, experience has amply demonstrated the good relations
and mutual sympathy between local priests and priests from Ecclesia Dei
communities.
These priests are, after all, only auxiliaries: their
communities were created for the sole purpose of providing a service that would
otherwise have disappeared. We’d like the bishops to take seriously another
remark they make in the synthesis: “The training of a few diocesan priests at
the TLM could make it possible to respond to the various demands without
calling on other institutes, and also contribute to diocesan unity”. As we said
in our previous letter, we regret even more deeply than the bishops of France
that they do not have enough diocesan priests to enable more of them to devote
themselves to this ministry. And we noticed that, unfortunately, most bishops
don’t really care, because when priests from the diocese celebrate the RRCF, it’s
much easier to integrate it into the landscape.
According to the CEF, the bishops also regret that it is “impossible
to organize times of common prayer (vespers or adoration)”, that “the refusal
of concelebration” is “among the main difficulties”, and that it is difficult
to involve the faithful of the Extraordinary Form in pilgrimages and
ceremonies.
Let’s not forget that concelebration, including on Holy
Thursday, is not obligatory (canon 902). There is nothing to prevent diocesan
pilgrimages from including traditional celebrations for those who wish to take
part, as some bishops do. Couldn’t bishops be a little more daring? Celebrate,
from time to time, a mass of diocesan interest in the traditional form? The
need for communion is not a one-way street.
The touchstone of seminaries
The instruction Universæ Ecclesiæ of April 30,
2011, a text implementing the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum,
contained the following provision in n. 21: “Ordinaries are asked to offer the
clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in
the Extraordinary Form. This also applies to seminaries, which should provide
for the proper formation of future priests through the study of Latin, and, if
pastoral requirements suggest it, offer the possibility of learning the
Extraordinary Form of the rite”.
The CEF summary shows that only three dioceses in France
felt that pastoral requirements suggested such training for seminarians:
Bayonne, Toulon and Versailles. Elsewhere, we are told, “some seminarians form
on their own, through their own network or through stays in religious
communities celebrating in the Extraordinary Form; others take advantage of
their vacations to familiarize themselves with the TLM”.
But shouldn’t the reality of the situation make the
bishops of France ask themselves some serious questions? While the situation in
diocesan and interdiocesan seminaries has never been so alarming, there are
encouraging signs:
- In the three above-mentioned seminaries, which have a
decent recruitment, particularly the Toulon seminary, which is on a par with,
and even better than, the Paris seminary.
- In the seminary of the Saint-Martin Community, which is
showing astonishing growth in annual ordinations.
- And in the seminaries of traditional institutes,
including the SSPX, which are in excellent health.
Couldn’t the bishops learn from this for their
seminaries? At the very least, the classicism of Évron (Cté Saint-Martin)
should be emulated: cassocks possible, Thomist training, community Masses
facing the Lord. Better still, there should be an official place for TLM training everywhere.
Strangely, the CEF slips in this plaintive remark: “Rare
are the dioceses where the bishop is asked to perform ordinations; only the
bishop of Fréjus-Toulon celebrates ordinations in the Extraordinary Form every
year”. This is rare, in fact, because there are only one or two ordinations a
year in traditional institutes, and they take place infrequently in France. But
when they do take place in France, diocesan bishops are also called upon. As
for the Bishop of Fréjus-Toulon, if he is the only one to celebrate ordinations
in the Extraordinary Form every year, it’s because he is the only one to train
seminarians destined to celebrate as priests in the Traditional Form.
Here again, we can only say to the bishops of France: it’s
up to you... The aborted experiment at the Maison Sainte-Blandine in Lyon,
alluded to in the CEF summary, clearly shows that half-measures are not enough
(or 1/7th of a measure, since in this case there was only one year of
traditional mass, the propaedeutic year, after which seminarians were reduced
to the dry regime of ordinary mass).
All this calls for a modicum of pastoral audacity. This
does not seem to be the prevailing note in the Church of France.
Yes, boldness! After all, 50 years after Vatican II, the council which sought to place ecumenism at the heart of the Church’s life, why are these small steps towards TLMs, which could be described as ecumenical, costing our bishops so much? Perhaps because it’s a real, concrete step. Ecumenism with Protestants and Orthodox is at a standstill, as we know, and in any case has made no real headway in bringing the separated back into ecclesial communion. In the case of users of the traditional Mass, efforts at communion would normally be much easier to accomplish, since they are aimed at members who are already Catholics (including members of the FSSPX, despite the fact that the CEF calls them “outside the Church”, and would agree that they are very close, since their bishops are no longer excommunicated, and they receive powers of confession and marriage).
We’ve been told over and over again that, in an
ecumenical perspective, we need to decentralize, to welcome others as they are,
to recognize the riches that have been lost as a result of ruptures, and so on.
Is it really so difficult for the bishops of France to do all this, in an area
where it is actually feasible?
It has to be said that the CEF document doesn’t go any
way towards pacifying hearts. To put it another way: we expect the French
episcopate to stop building walls around "extraordinary Catholicism," and instead
build bridges between ordinary and extraordinary Catholicism.
