The Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige has described the reaction of some of the Bishops, and even Cardinals, to Summorum Pontificum as being in a state of rebellion against the Pope -see Rorate Caeli scroll down to Nov 5th.
The Archbishop is tipped to be the successor of Cardinal Arinze next year, as Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, so his words could well be indicative of statements that will come with even more force in future.
SCHISM
Rebellion within the Church is the stage before schism. The Pope issued the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum in part to heal the schism with the Bishops and Priest of FSSPX, but for anyone familiar with his writings, Benedict sees a need for reconciliation with our past, or with our Tradition. It is the Liturgy, that is the public face of the Church, for Benedict, as is obvious from Jesus of Nazareth that the Church of today is the same Church as that of the Apostles, of the Patristic period, of the Middle Ages, of Trent, of Vatican II.
GAMBLE
It was pretty obvious to Benedict that the issuing of Summorum Ponticum was going to bring about the reaction it has. More than any other theologian of the last 50 years, Benedict detests the notion of schism, and yet is willing to risk the type of revolt he now faces. It is a gamble, but he is not a gambler; it is a risk but he is not a risk taker. Obviously he believes that the short term discomfort is worth the long term gains for the Church, even if it damages his Papacy.
SACRED HISTORY
What is it then that he wants? The answer is incredibly important: he wants a Church that is at ease with its history, by this I mean more than just being comfortable with our past, because the Church's history is about the active involvement of God in the life of the People of God. The Pope takes seriously the words of Christ's promise, "I will be with you until the end of time." and, "..the Holy Spirit will lead you you into all Truth." The history of the Church is Sacred History, what was said and done in the past is still of relevance today, because we are called to see in it God's direct action.
"Lex credendi, lex orandi", the interaction between belief and prayer, means that the Sacred Liturgy, and its development, is crucial.
PLANTING A SEED
Benedict is not asking for a return to the Tridentine era, he is not expecting every bishop in the world to don gloves and tunicle to celebrate the Extra-Ordinary Form but he is asking them to take it seriously. To understand that what has gone before, is essential to the present. He has, whilst Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoken of the Ordinary Form as being created ex nihil, by a commission. He sees it as liturgy "without legs" or a house built on sand, something imposed rather than growing from within the Church itself. To counteract this he is creating a grass roots movement, by placing responsibility for the liturgy in the hands of the individual celebrant and removing it from the direct manipulation by individual bishops, or worst, the dreaded Diocesan Liturgy Committee, with its own agenda and ecclesiology. I am sure he doesn't see any dramatic change coming tomorrow, that is not the Ratzingarian way. Indeed he would see radical change, imposed on the faithful as contrary to a true understanding of what the liturgy - and the Church is. He is interested in evolution, or gradual development, not revolution. The fruit of revolution, as the 20th Century has taught us always carried in it the seeds of its own destruction. He is planting a seed, what exactly it is going to grow into is up to God, but one of the key factors for him is that liturgy is a thing given by the Church, albeit with legitimate diversity, not something made up on the hoof and imposed on the faithful.
ET ET
At the heart of his philosophy is the power of the Truth, he expects the Truth will eventually conquer. In his understanding of the liturgy, he seems to want to overcome the new liturgical "black legends", which are encapsulated in a hatred for the "old" liturgy, and the "old" Church. It is not the preference of one rite or as we should say one "form" over the other, that is too simplistic. The Pope is essentially an "et et", "both and" man. He is happy to live with contradiction, indeed he sees it as an essential part of theological tension, like the humanity and divinity of Christ or the heavenly and mundane within the Church. Summorum Pontificum is an attempt to heal the notion that the Church began in 1969 or there abouts, and that until then we were in some type of Babylonian captivity - a very Protestant notion, so un-Catholic.
TRIUMPH
All this is bound up with the other great Ratzingarian project of the Re-Evangelisation of Europe, reclaiming western, especially European history and culture as part of the Sacred History of the Church, of Christ's involvement with the world.
This is something that will not be accomplished in the next decade or two but something which will gradually unfold over time, it is not something that really depends on one papacy but on the Holy Spirit, but it does depend on Bishops, Priests and the Faithful knowing and responding to the Truth. The Truth, Ratzinger believes will ultimately triumph.
7 comments:
You put it so well...
I do not think the Pope is gambling at all. Do you think the faithful would follow their Bishops over and above the Pope. Yes, in circumstances where there is strong theological positions that are in dispute on both sides and you have men of great integrity. That is the recipe for schism. FSSPX is a prime example.
The modernist Bishops have no such qualms. They are content to bow their heads to Peter so that they can continue in their occupation. They completely ignore or misdirect his will. They are sede vacantes in much of what they do but refuse to admit it openly. They offer their parishes nothing but death and decay dressed up in an I'm a nice guy outfit, or the Holy Spirit is leading us this way so lets go with the flow.
The Pope knows this so he does the sensible thing. Drill through to holy priests and free them from the kosh of their unfaithful masters. Some of the Bishops will co-operate because they are faithful and are with Peter. Some of them will force themselves to co-operate because they recognise the threat to the Church and they know that they have failed to withstand it in their own diocese. They have produced little or no fruit. This is humility and wisdom. Some will co-operate because it suits their career to do so. Some are not the brightest pennies and do nothing. Then there are the wolves, who by their action or inaction content themselves in overseeing the destruction of the Catholic Church. They will continue to manage decline and disobey Peter. These, like all wolves must be chased away either by defiance or direct action from below, or dismissal from above. To collude with them, under a blanket of false obedience as they damage the body of Christ surely must be wrong and sinful.
I think the Pope is counting on, and freeing priests to follow him. In this way the new life will emerge. The priest's fiat is essential. You are right that it cannot be too traumatic a process. Care and preparation of the faithful is essential. Bit by bit. Follow the Pope's lead as he adjusts gently. He will show priests in his own masses. He has already made a start. Faithful Priests and Bishops are so blessed to be living at this time and can be part of this great work. So many graces will flow. Thanks be to God.
In the meantime, we must pray for priest, Bishops and ourselves and thank God for Pope Benedict.
Benfan,
"Gamble" is supposed to be provocative and hyperbolic.
In the context, I suggest that he is taking a gamble on the acceptance of the MP by bishops and clergy. What he risks is his own credibility, in the short term, in the long term he is bound to win.
In some ways the MP has begun to work by pulling the sheeps clothing from the wolves. We are beginning to see (from the pews) who are loyal to the pope and who are less trustworthy.
I'm doing St Catherine of Siena with my 13yr old at the moment. Seeing what she went through gives hope.
This is a most thought provoking and very readable post.
The thoughts which Father Ray has set forth seem to be inspired by Archbishop Ranjith's recent words regarding the state of rebellion among some bishops.
I am very taken with one thing Father says :
Rebellion in the Church is the stage before schism.
The recent statement from Cardinal Catrillon Hoyos when he made the distinction between a schismatic act and an act of schism, without quite explaining what he meant, is an indication of the fine line between rebellion and schism.
I cannot ignore the reality that there are in the Church men of a schismatic mindset.
In the case of "Summorum Pontificum", those who publically oppose the will of the Pope (which in this document is expressed with the force of law), depending of course on the nature of their opposition, certainly are guilty of disloyalty, if not defiance.
When it is directed at a superior authority, I am not sure I can see the difference beween an act of defiance and an act of wilful disobedience.
Men who would persist in this become rebels.
And we know where that leads.
Fr. Ray,
The stance that many (most?) bishops are adopting vis-a-vis Summorum Pontificum is putting lay Catholics into the position of having to choose between Rome and their local ordinary. It is not a choice we are supposed to have to make at all - after all, bishops are appointed by Rome, swear allegiance to the Pope when they are installed and are supposed to be in peace and communion with the Holy See.
I remember a sermon given by a priest who was explaining (after our then bishop had retired at 75) what a newly installed bishop is required to do: "Swear to uphold the Apostles Creed to ensure that he is not a heretic, and swear fidelity to the Holy See to ensure that he is not a maverick..." Well so much for that!
Why is there such apparent tension between the episcopate and Rome? There seems to me to be a fundamental divergence of view on the nature and extent of papal authority. In England, one almost gets the impression that the majority of bishops find the pious layperson's attachment to the Holy Father as being in no way praiseworthy but rather as being risible, infantile and naive.
This is partly because our bishops set too much store by collegiality and are jealous of their power, and partly because they have taken the mantra of inculturation to heart and think that "English Catholicism" has to be distinct from "Roman Catholicism" in order to work in a UK context. I also put some of the friction down to the traditional animosity and incomprehension between Northern and Southern Europeans, the English bishops habitually seeing the monsignori as a bunch of blundering Latins - rather like Basil Fawlty sees Manuel. When Joseph Ratzinger was prefect of the CDF, another British comedy series came to mind - one had the sense that the English bishops saw themselves as Captain Mainwaring standing up to the German U-boat captain.
The group of left-leaning English bishops who control the levers of power in the Bishops' Conference (the "magic circle", as Damian Thompson calls them) have missed a very important trick, however, namely the internet. It is now possible for ordinary Catholics to look to Rome directly for leadership by visiting the Vatican website, reading the encyclicals and other papal documents online, perusing the conciliar texts and studying the reams of sermons and preachings given by the Popes on a daily basis. The average pastoral letter pales in comparison.
By being insubordinate, the bishops are relegating themselves from being the successors of the Apostles to being mere allocators of clergy among parishes. No-one speaks about their bishop in hushed tones any more. Instead, Bishops' pronouncements are routinely fisked on the Catholic blogs - and are studied on a daily basis by junior and middle ranking officials at the Vatican, who are now able to get real-time feedback on exactly what is happening in the global Church, and pass the news up the line.
This direct line of communication that has opened up between Rome and lay Catholics around the world is the most important change in the dynamic of the Church for centuries. It can only lead, in time, to the strengthening of the role of the Roman Pontiff, and the diminution of the role of the local ordinary.
England didn't do so well with its bishops in 1534 either, when St John Fisher was the only one to hold out to the end.
Post a Comment