Each section of this document seems to be written to respond to complaints that have been made about local practice. I'd say the decision was made to issue a document that will stand to bring the miscreants into line. Mild to you and me...but not to them.

My take: the continued push to insist that these are two forms of the same rite has very strong implications for the future of the ordinary form in particular. This is why the document has significance for the broader Catholic world.

This past Thursday, I attended two Traditional Masses.(7AM and 11 AM). My boys were doing double duties as altar boys.

The 7 AM Mass has been growing since the priest started as his private Mass, and now we had a first communion last week. The boy and the family decided to it at the Traditional Mass. (The boy is in my children's schola, and he commented that the music he got a CD for the communion at the Novus Ordo were not very inspiring to him.:-) Since he is a homeschooling boy there were many homeschooling families at the Mass. Many of them had never attended the Traditional Mass before. They were so impressed by the beauty of the Mass that they decided to invite the priest this week to the homeschooling group and had the Traditional Mass. We had to move chairs and the table around in the sanctuary, and give a brief instruction to the families and the children before the Mass. It was like a miracle! The Mass was celebrated beautifully, and the children were following the Mass amazingly well. (It took a couple of years for me.) It was a low Mass, and the congregation did the dialogues and Ordinary parts from 'the red book'. The group wants to continue to have the Traditional Mass at least once a month when they meet together, but there are only two priests we know available to do so. (one has to drive about 40 minutes.) And the other priest is a pastor for two parishes, extremely busy. I really wish there are more priests who can celebrate the Traditional Mass. (there is another homeschooling group I teach chants also wants to have Traditional Mass, but don't have a priest who knows how to do it.)
I found out in the class on the new translation I attended yesterday that many people, even devout Catholics, really don't have much knowledge on liturgy, and they were so happy now that they have a class on liturgy and the prayers. People were asking so many questions about the liturgy and made lots of positive comments, such as the Mass is not about me, faith isn't based on feelings, appreciate the riches and reverence in the new translation and not so casual dialogues in the Mass, especially in 'And with your Spirit." ... My pastor who is very careful with introducing Latin in Mass even repeatedly mentioned that these are all in Latin already, and very enthusiastic about the richness of the forthcoming translation, and people started to feel the importance of the tradition and the root of our faith. Because of the misunderstanding of Vatican II and the absence of the Tradition, the tradition which was almost wiped out in celebrating Novus Ordo in many parishes, especially in this area, many Catholics are so confused and at loss in terms of celebrating the Mass. Mostly we just did what others did during Mass without thinking. The experience and the knowledge of Traditional Mass can be truly valuable for many Catholics to understand and appreciate the Mass and deepen their faith through it.

Thanks for your very helpful comments, ProfKwasniewski. Suffice to say that our beloved Pope is not a traditionalist, despite his support of the OF through many years. I'm not sure that some traditionalists want to accept this.

The original Latin of the phrase translated as '"where pastoral needs suggest it" is "adiunctis id postulantibus" which Fr. Z translates literally as "as additional circumstances demand it." So it could be argued that far from imposing a restriction, the document is actually an invitation for seminaries to implement training in the EF (though it does not lay down a mandate for them to do so). The other inaccuracies and misleading phrases in this one paragraph and throughout the document lead Fr. Z. to wonder: "Was the old lame-duck ICEL team reassembled?"

Sam Schmitt

Isn't this surprising? I take this from Whispers:

As an added backgrounder, meanwhile, it's worth recalling that -- aside from the text of Summorum itself, and that of its accompanying letter to the world's bishops explaining the move -- B16 has only directly addressed his "one rite, two forms" policy twice, both instances during his September 2008 visit to France, where the clash between particularly formidable factions of traditionalists and progressivists has arguably roiled the church's life more than in any other place.

Asked during his in-flight press conference en route to Paris to respond to concerns among some French that his motu proprio represented "a step backward" from Vatican II's reform of the liturgy, the Pope responded as follows:

[BENEDICT XVI:]
Their fear is unfounded, for this 'Motu Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group, because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.

On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its development, retains its identity. Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy. In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc.... On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community, but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time.

The biggest gift I see in this is the allowance for an EF Triduum, even if it means having two services on Holy Thursday and Good Friday. I've been told that one couldn't do that, but now it seems allowed. OTOH this has happened informally for other languages besides Latin (here it is Creole and Spanish).

JQ (et al)

As I said to another poster who "Whispered to me"
Yeah, yeah- I get it.
But, you know- I don't get.


As a liberal (in the classical sense absolutely; and in the contemporary sense somewhat) myself, I'm overall very pleased with Benedict and his approach to liturgy:
-Want the new Mass? ok
-The old one? ok
-Face the people? alright, go ahead
-Face the tabernacle? that's even better
-Compromise between the two, for pastoral reasons? of course!
-Anglican-use? great
-specific rites for different orders? woo hoo
-Ambrosian? pretty sweet

Even wherein I don't care for his particular liturgical style (and I prefer OF in English versus populum without giant candles in the way, BTW) how can I possibly get mad that he lets other people do different things because they want to and because he understands that it's pastorally appropriate? He even uses the words "tolerant" and "pastoral" when he talks about this stuff.



Liberals are often described as soft-headed, while conservatives are described as hard-hearted.
Benedict seems to have the mind of a conservative and the heart of a liberal. Deo gratias!

Part of living in the traditions of Catholicism, one would think, is being aware that the Mass in each Rite has changed in the past and will change in the future. If you went to Mass at Chartres in 1211 with a priest careful about following all the rubrics and doing it right, you wouldn't get exactly the same format as from a careful FSSP priest on the Chartres pilgrimage in the summers; and so you can expect and make predictions about how things may have changed by 2112. A lot has changed, a lot will change, it happens naturally, and it's not a big deal unless you change things unnaturally and at warp speed.

I mean, if you want to dump all these newfangled feasts like Corpus Christi, you'll experience some difficulty. :)