One more thing: I was just re-reading Universae Ecclesiae, and the thought occurred that it's fair to say that this document empowers the people, the Christifideles laici, more than any other document in the history of the Church.

No wonder they shut it down. : )

I'm missing the title's connection to the content thus far: how is Summorum Pontificum at risk, except from an airline press conference?

Correct.

And, even though the issue was raised before the issuance of SP, the limitations on bination/trination was never addressed in it or UE. The effect of this is that most pastors will no cause to displace an OF Mass on the standing schedule with an EF Mass unless a majority of the regular attendees at that Mass request such a change.

This is an issue on Sundays for parishes with only one priest or in clusters where priests are already maxed out, as it were (which is an increasing number of parishes in the USA).

Had the legislator really wanted to enable more in this regard, the issue could have been addressed expressly and simply. But it wasn't done.

P.S. I just discovered this fascinating footnote in UE which pertains to the number of the coetus fidelium:

*When the Latin text was first released, there followed another sentence: ‘Ad numerum fidelium huius coetus designandum, pastoralis succurrit ratio, cautis tamen circumstantiis aequa lance ponderandis’ (‘Pastoral logic comes into play for deciding on the number of faithful in this group, yet bearing in mind that the circumstances are to be considered impartially.’) The sentence was omitted from subsequent versions released by the Holy See, including the official text published in the Acta Apostolis Sedis (AAS Vol CIII N. 6, p416).

Liam, I'm afraid you're reading into my words every bit as much or more than you think I'm reading into UE. Let me be clear in what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Holy Father said that if a group of people ask the pastor for the EF Mass and for the traditional Holy Week liturgy, the Holy Father said that the priest ought to accommodate their request.

That's all I'm saying, and that's all the document says. It says if the pastor cannot accommodate them, then the bishop should accommodate them. If the bishop cannot accommodate them, they should appeal to the PCED, and they will work things out for them. Nowhere did I say that pastors should be forced to change their Mass schedules, etc. All I said is that the document is very clear that the people have a right to request the Latin Mass and the traditional Holy Week liturgy.

Let's also be clear that the document does not say what you are suggesting. The document does not say that Mass schedules cannot be changed unless a majority of attendees request such a change.

The spirit of the document is clear that it is up to the pastor to harmonize the request for the traditional liturgy into the life of the parish and be as generous as possible to everyone, and that the bishop must allow the traditional liturgy to be preserved and flourish.

Let's also be clear that nowhere in the document does it say the Usus Antiquior is to be given last place on the schedule as if, because there is an existing Mass schedule, it is a commandment written in stone that the EF people will never have a conveniently scheduled Sunday morning parish EF High Mass as long as they live.

The document gives the EF neither first nor last place on the schedule, but merely makes it quite clear that the pastor, if he receives a request, should do his best to integrate this into the life of the parish in the normal way with all the usual considerations that means.

We all know that that both pastor and faithful need to work together in a spirit of generosity, flexibility, patience and kindness to bring about a situation where everyone's liturgical needs are met in the parish and where noone is made to feel like a second class citizen just because their liturgical document was issued later than their neighbors'.

(. . . parochus aut rector, aut sacerdos qui ecclesiae curam habet, prudenti mente agat, pastorali zelo, caritate et urbanitate suffultus.)

So here's a question, Liam: do you believe it is in keeping with UE that in my diocese of over 1 million Catholics there is no place where one can go to attend and participate in the traditional EF Holy Week rites?

SP... way too little way too late. The effort was like running to a house that had burned to the ground yesterday with a cup of water in hand hoping to change the circumstances. Go to the FSSP or the SSPX while they still havent compromised the liturgy, cause they might catch fire too soon the way things are going.

As much as I would approve in practical terms, limits on bination/trination are too generous as it is.

Chonak. you are correct. That's minutiae that even fewer people know.

.

I'm very glad to hear how the EF is allowed to flourish in London, tomjaw. It is to be hoped that such a generous atmsophere will be replicated in the northeast of the U.S. someday.

Regarding the notion that a pastor must ask permission of his ordinary in order to place an EF Mass on the regular parish schedule, I don't see where this is mentioned in SP or in UE.

What I do see in SP is this statement:

Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

This characterization of the local ordinary's role is re-emphasized in UE:

13. Diocesan Bishops, according to Canon Law, are to monitor liturgical matters in order to guaran- tee the common good and to ensure that every- thing is proceeding in peace and serenity in their Dioceses[5], always in agreement with the mens of the Holy Father clearly expressed by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.[6] In cases of con- troversy or well-founded doubt about the celebration in the forma extraordinaria, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will adjudicate.

Thanks, Liam. I certainly don't claim to be an expert on these things and have no way of knowing what regulations pastors are subject to by their bishop, but what I don't understand is, if you're saying that the bishop is still the one to decide when a Latin Mass can be put on the regular parish schedule, then what is the point of SP and UE if the priest still doesn't have the right to put a Latin Mass on the schedule even though the Pope has recognized that right in those two documents?

I just don't get it. If the bishop is indeed the ultimate arbiter of what goes on the regular Mass schedule of every parish in his diocese, why isn't that fact mentioned in those two documents?

The second point I don't understand is that the Pope said in SP that the 1962 Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted, so given this foundation from which the Pope appears to be drawing his norms, how can the priest ever be restricted from saying either form of the Roman rite?

It seems like you are operating by the norms in the 1984 indult and acting as though SP and UE had never appeared at all. At least that's what it looks like to me.

Two things are always striking about the western Roman church: 1.The propensity for making " documents", a seemingly endless production. 2.The limited effect that these documents have of local practice. Sometimes i think the Roman church believes that making a document about an issue will solve the problem and resolve the question. This thinking seems to be unique with Rome. After all, does anyone ever refer to "documents" in the Othodox churches or even our Lutheran or protestant brethren? The (perhaps sad) reality is that there are no teeth to these pronunciations, an most bishops and preists feel free to interpret them freely.The Moto of Benedict is a case in point. You would think that all bishops would be receptive and responsive to the desire of the faithful to establish a EF mass is a visible part of each diocese, but is that the case? It does seem to me that all these documents are ignored generally, except fot folks on this forum who refer to them as law.

ClergetKubisz wrote:

I wonder how many of these "very vocal modernists" are Protestant converts who like things they way they are because they remind them of their former, Protestant churches.

Since there are numerous converts from Protestantism on this forum, perhaps you could ask us what we think of this question.

Clerget,

Yes, many do retain attachments to their former way of life and credal system. On the other hand, there are some who retain knowledge of, but not attachment to, their former life. (Hence, you will see people such as Jackson Osborn claim that Beati Quorum Via, of Sir Charles Stanford, is Catholic.)

Some of us found ourselves counted "traditional" Catholics because we wanted the whole thing -- some people call it "high octane Catholicism" -- not something which was Catholic but didn't seem much like it.

>> Do converts often retain some of their old Protestant ways?
I don't know about often, but it does happen - take Scott Hahn for example. The Church doesn't really have a place for ... uh... lay preachers.

however in my own experience the vast majority of converts are probably stronger, better Catholics than the average 'cradle' variety, and it makes sense. Fidelity to grace and all that.

No, I'm not saying that modernism makes the Mass look like a Protestant service. I'm saying that the NO looks like a Protestant service because it was designed that way.

I'm retracting my other statements because they are indefensible and have caused confusion.

those are all Byzantinisms.

Yes, they are from the east and as I understand, also from the western empire days of the Latin Rite liturgy. However, that doesn't mean they are always or even usually done well.

Romanitas may be many things but linear is not one of them. Linearity is an American value but not really a Roman one.

Sorry if I didn't use exactly the right word. I just meant to say that the teaching of the Church has an easily traceable lineage.

Let me approach it another way. Pope Benedict gave a talk in December, 2005, about what he called the hermeneutic of continuity. This talk was very significant because the Holy Father gave us an exacting standard with which to interpret the acts of the magisterium.

As Cardinal Newman did in his masterful work, The Development of Christian Doctrine, the Holy Father strongly reiterated what the Church has always taught concerning the proper interpretation of the Church's doctrine, namely that any innovations must always be interpreted in the light of tradition, that is to say, in the light of the Church's constant and perennial magisterium.

There is never, as the Holy Father has said, a Ground Zero in the magisterium which contradicts anything that came before, but rather, at times, there is instead an increase in understanding in what has always been there.

So, the Holy Father used as his principal example the proper interpretation of the Second Vatican Council, which, he told us, must and can only be understood in the light of the Church's perennial magisterium being seen only in continuity with what went before.

So what he was saying was that the only correct way to understand the Second Vatican Council is if it is interpreted in full continuity with the previous magisterium, and not, as some had suggested, in discontinuity, or rupture, whereby the previous magisterium would somehow be magically changed to be seen to conform to this new, mythical interpretation of the Second Vatican Council.

The same struggle can be seen being played out last week where Arbp. Chaput, in full conformity with these principles laid out by P. Benedict XVI, told us that the only proper way of understanding AL is in the light of Familiaris Consortio and every other document that came before it, and, as such, there was absolutely no possibility of the divorced and remarried and any other Catholics in irregular situations to receive Communion, unless they observe the conditions laid out by St. John Paul II in FC, which were the reiteration of what the Church had always taught.

It is no secret that the teaching of Arbp. Chaput was contradicted by Cardinal Schonborn, who laid out as the basis of his claim the exact opposite principle taught by P. Benedict XVI in his famous "Hermeneutic of Continuity" address. Instead of the Cardinal teaching as Pope Benedict XVI did, that every act of the magisterium must be interpreted in the light of tradition, His Eminence claims the exact opposite, namely, that tradition must be interpreted in the light of every new act of the magisterium, thus these two bishops are teaching two completely different things.

that tradition must be interpreted in the light of every new act of the magisterium

Does the good Viennese Cardinal have Justice Kennedy's phone number on speed dial?

well, this is very heady, but puts the unchangeable magesterium in proper perspective, and pretty much says we don't view anything in light of VII but it is the other way around. VII is in a theological soup once the right questions are brought forward from the perspective of the unchanging magisterium. We just need people brave and smart enough to ask the right questions and then we need people smart and brave enough to answer the questions and not run away from the truth.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/07/book-launch-in-london-20th-july-fr.html?m=1

Staffing is a big issue, as well. We have gone from a full-time and hard working associate, to a part-timer who teaches multiple classes every day. At some point, it may be necessary to reduce the number of Sunday masses, simply because the priests are not available. Generally, the mass affecting the fewest number of people is the one to be cut. Guess which one that usually is.

We hear a lot of talk about how we can't really do anything significant to change things, because there's basically so few people interested in the old rite in our parishes that's it's just a lose-lose proposition to try to make the EF a part of our parish lives again.

https://gloria.tv/video/K775UiyUyEh23PpoZfBRL2LSr

If you look at this video of a Marian procession with our FSSPX friends at St. Mary's, Kansas, one has to wonder if they've maybe tapped into something that so many of the rest of us aren't able to right now. One has to ask why it is that they are able to attract so many people who are willing to sacrifice so much for a traditional expression of the Faith and why it is so rare to see such enthusiasm and devotion in other parishes.

Is there something that they're doing that we could learn from?

I think it's because they're giving people the whole package, an organic, systematic and comprehensive parish life that has meaning and purpose from beginning to end. From cradle to grave, these priests offer the people the entire package of EF Catholic life and not just one Mass a week inserted into an otherwise OF existence. This includes their parish life of catechesis, EF Missal, EF sacraments, EF Divine Office, and EF Rituale Romanum as well as a parish social life that is centered around the traditional liturgy.

They seem to be doing quite well, and I'm happy for them, and they're showing the world that the Usus Antiquior can succeed when everything and everyone is on the same page to support this vision. Perhaps it is all or nothing. I don't know.

why it is so rare to see such enthusiasm and devotion in other parishes.

I think it may be because some people think that "enthusiasm and devotion" means blow-the-doors-off-the-church congregational singing and overwhelmingly loud congregational vocal responses during the liturgy: all external.

Another analogy: Transplanting a fully actualized EF Missa Cantata into the life of a typical OF parish with little attempt to integrate it and harmonize it with the OF is like bringing an evergreen tree into your home at Christmas. You carry in the beautiful, vigorous (sempervirens) tree, its full branches bursting with health and vitality, and its glorious pungent aroma filling your house, but despite your efforts to keep it watered with a preservative solution, it isn't long before it starts to fade and die.

Unless you are prepared to go to substantial lengths to care for a live evergreen, the alien environment of your house is just not going to sustain it for long.

So, you can't expect the EF to thrive and bloom in an environment where not much is invested in its care and sustenance (esp. when the official attitude is that "the extraordinary form must not take the place of the ordinary form".)