Shopping around

I was talking recently to what the media might describe as "a leading Catholic layman". He was concerned about one or two things that might be presented at the Ad Limina visit of our bishops to Rome, which he said was to take place in January. I must say I have heard nothing. Foremost, he suggested, was an attack on Summorum Pontificum which he said was going to be presented as

• It is not wanted, that there is no demand for the TLM.


• That Summorum Pontificum is divisive.

There is no demand for the TLM
I think that there might be a bit of mileage in SP not being wanted, but then one has to ask who doesn't want it. Plainly the Pope does, plainly most of those around the Pope do. Despite the huge numbers who attended the Mass celebrated by Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos last year, one argue that the TLM is not the choice of most people on a Sunday.
I think that is missing point, the issue is that the TLM is a sign of the hermeneutic of continuation, not just of the Mass but of a style of worship that is specifically Catholic, it is about our roots. I am sure the Holy Father regards what he has chosen to call the Extraordinary Form as a sort of gadfly to "annoy" what have become preconceptions of liturgy and theology in short those things we call the "Sprit of Vatican II".

Summorum Pontificum is divisive
Yes it is. It is the gadfly effect. It is also about union and communion with the past, as well as those who adhere to -and have discovered- the older form, I am surprised by the number of young men who attend our weekly Mass.
Creative Minority deals with the division between older and younger priests, it quote s from an article by Andrew Hamilton who says:

...three out of the four priests ordained for the Sydney Archdiocese celebrated their first Mass in Latin. Given the place of the first Mass as a symbolic statement of how a priest views his ministry, this majority choice is of some significance. The concerted choice of Latin suggests that many young priests share a distinctive vision of the Church, of priesthood and of pastoral priorities that older priests would not share.

I don't see much evidence of new priests choosing to celebrate Mass in Latin but I do see that younger priests of the John Paul and now of the Bendictine pontificate are different, but then I think there was a tension when I was ordained 25 years ago between priest ordained before and after Vat II. There often are tensions between older and younger men, whether they are priests or not.
Hamilton goes on to say:

It seems inevitable that the unity of priests under the local bishop will be put under pressure if there are substantial divisions between them about the desirable form of worship, the pastoral needs of their people, their ways of relating to Catholics and the broader society, and about what it means in practice to be a priest. When they gathered around their bishop they would be facing in opposite directions, just as they might do when celebrating the Eucharist.

....

Will congregations be subjected to the conflicting styles and preferences of priests who succeed one another? Will there be a settlement by which individual congregations are reserved to Latinophile or Anglophile priests? Will Catholics be encouraged to shop around to find priests and congregations that offer congenial brands of Catholic life and worship?

In England and Wales, it strikes me, that our Bishops are justifiably frightened of a division, in imition of Anglicanism, of High and Low Church, but old men have always been crying "Eheu, O tempores, O mores", over 40, it has ever been.

In a city where there are twelve churches within a space of four or five square miles, "shopping around" has been a feature of Brighton Catholicism from time immemorial. People look for a funny, short, English, Irish, traditional, contemporary, youth/child oriented Masses or priests, even a warmer or cooler church.

In recent years, without the rigid rubricism, and legalism of the past Bishops of course have always done their best to ensure there is a "standard product", either by insisting on strict adherence to their own "diocesan" policies or invented rubrics, or simply by moving priests around every few years. Despite this people still "shop". In fact moving priests encourages both shopping and lapsation.

If my "leading Catholic layman" is right, then our bishops will certainly receive a sympathetic ear from those around the Pope because ensuring unity and cohesion is a Benedictine priority but the answer may not be quite what is expected. Summorum Pontificum identifies the role of the bishop clearly: the bishop is to ensure priest's celebrate Mass according to the proper rites. Benedict's policy is "say the black, do the red", whether it is antiquior or recentior. Giving priests the freedom to choose between the newer or older form is actually medicinal, two ends of a liturgical spectrum working on one another, it reflects Benedicts "both and" theology.

There is a danger for us older men in seeing things in "either or" terms, like the bishop who apparently refused to give over a large crumbling church to one of the new movements, saying, reportedly, to his clergy, that he "did not want is a cathedral to traditionalism in his diocese". It is sad if one's care fo souls appears to be narrowed by a refusal to think outside of a narrow box.

The dreadful thing is today we are all shoppers, the wide variety of new movements in the Church reflect our diverse needs, or if you want to be disparaging, our diverse tastes.

In England we have been more than cagey about the new movements, the Friars of the Immaculate had real difficulty not just finding a suitable parish but a suitable bishop, the same can be said about the FSSP, the Institute of Chist the King, Opus Dei, the Neo-Catechumenate, the Legionaries of Christ.