The real importance of 'Summorum Pontificum'
by Fr. John Hunwicke
FR. HUNWICKE'S MUTUAL ENRICHMENT
July 7, 2017
A glorious day: the tenth anniversary of Summorum Pontificum, when Pope Benedict XVI made clear that, juridically, the Missal of St Pius V was never lawfully abolished.
I do not dissent from that judgement ... far from it. But I think that, as well as giving the Latin Church that canonical clarification,
Pope Benedict gave the Church Universal an even more important theological teaching. I tried to explain this in 2011, in a piece examining and rejecting the views of a canonist called Chad Gendinning. He, like some other canonists, had written critically about the assertion, in
Summorum pontificum, that the Vetus Ordo had never been lawfully abolished.
My assertion is that Pope Benedict was arguing, as I would argue, that
a pope ... any pope ... cannot abolish the classical Roman Rite. An attempt to do so, in other words, would be ultra vires['beyond the powers' of any authority] just as it is beyond the competence of any pope to change the Canon of Scripture.
Here, slightly adjusted, is what I wrote.
RATZINGER AND LITURGICAL LAW (2011)
Chad Glendinning quotes A S Sanchez-Gil as feeling that the Roman Missal, along with other liturgical books, cannot be reduced to a collection of liturgical laws. This is along the right lines, but does not, I feel, go nearly far enough.
The great Anglican liturgist Prebendary Michael Moreton saw the Canon Romanus - if I understood him aright in the six years during which we conversed - as being in a position not unlike that of the Canon of Scripture; a given in the Tradition which it is not for us to treat as disposable.
He spoke of the Canon as having auctoritas given to it by tradition, which far surpasses the merely canonical, legalistic, authorisation, which fly-by-night 'Eucharistic Prayers' composed by the Top Experts of one single decade might have.
I think it may be a coincidence that his term auctoritas occurs also in John Paul II's instruction Ecclesia Dei. It is a profound term with roots deep in the sense of the Orthodox as well as of Traditionalist Catholics that there are weightier imperatives than Canon Law. I remind you of the startling fact that the then Patriarch of Moskow welcomed Summorum pontificum as an ecumenically positive action.
Glendinning had informed us that Summorum pontificum, if it is not an "imprecise use of canonical terminology" was "a rather overt denunciation of the pope's predecessors and of the praxis curiae".
In a funny sort of way, I think this last bit is right. Benedict XVI was superseding the assumptions underlying the enactments of his predecessor Paul VI, and, unobserved by Glendinning, he was doing so on grounds which he had previously, before his election to the See of Peter, explained thoroughly lucidly.
Papa Ratzinger even restated those views of Cardinal Ratzinger, in the Letter to Bishops which accompanied Summorum pontificum: "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden forbidden". Note 'cannot'! We are talking about non potests [not able to] rather than non licets[not permitted]. We are talking about what it is not within the competence of a pope to do.
As for curial enactments, well, I think it has to be pointed out that the pope is not only, as Glendinning concedes, the Supreme Legislator, but, as Vatican I defined, also the Supreme Judge of the Church.
If his statements in Summorum pontificum went contrary to what Roman dicasteries had prescribed or implied, this was surely analogous to a court of appeal overriding an earlier judgement by a legislator of inferior jurisdiction. J Baldovini, quoted by Glendinning, wrote that "even someone with supreme legislative authority cannot undo historic facts".
ButBenedict XVI was not misdescribing (or even describing) historical facts, I suggest, but defining what the deepest law of the Church is. He based himself upon a view of history, Theology, and law which was broader than the juridical bases of those previous enactments. That is in fact what makes his declaration so significant; so much more in line with a Catholic - and Orthodox - and Anglo-Catholic - concept of Liturgy.
Benedict XVI identified (not created) a Principle deeper than mere legislation; a Law even deeper than the law; to the effect that "what earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too".
This is not so much a canonical principle as a statement of a theological truth ineradicably inscribed in the very nature itself of the Church Militant. It is what Moreton and I have called auctoritas. Papa Ratzinger concluded that "it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful".
It is worth remembering this in a post-Benedictine era. Subsequent legislators cannot legislate to abolish this datum because, established as it is in immutable historical facts, it is not accessible to the pen of a legislator.
Summorum Pontificum, qua legislation, is itself no more immutable than other piece of legislation. But the Principle underlying it is one of those principles which are integral to the life of the Church; unchangeably part of it for ever.
July 8, 2017
Fr. H has a P.S.
Here is what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 1998.
" ... It is good here to recall what Cardinal Newman observed, that the Church, throughout her history, has never abolished nor forbidden orthodox liturgical forms, which would be quite alien to the Spirit of the Church.
An orthodox liturgy, that is to say, one which expresses the true faith, is never a compilation made according to the pragmatic criteria of different ceremonies, handled in a positivist and arbitrary way, one way today and another way tomorrow.
The orthodox forms of a rite are living realities, born out of the dialect of love between the Church and her Lord. They are expressions of the life of the Church, in which are distilled the faith, the prayer, and the very life of past generations, and which make incarnate in specific forms both the action of God and the response of man.
Such rites can die, if those who have used them in a particular era should disappear, or if the life-situation of those same people should change. The authority of the church had the power to define and limit the use of such rites in different historical situations, but she never just purely and simply forbids them!"
Benedict XVI vs. the Barbarians:
'Summorum Pontificum' ten years later
by Thomas Woods
RORATE CAELI
July 7, 2017
The day the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum was released was an exceptionally unusual one for me: at last one of the seemingly lost causes I had championed for years had actually triumphed.
Knowing of the document's imminent release, I awoke early that morning and eagerly devoured the text itself along with its accompanying letter to the bishops.
What a delight to discover that basic Catholic truth so many of us had been called schismatics for defending:
"What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place."
It called to mind one of my favorite quotations from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:
I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It's impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent.
Contrary to what Roger Cardinal Mahony and other leftists had told their flocks, moreover, allowance for the traditional liturgy -- henceforth to be referred to as the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite -- was not simply for older folks who couldn't adapt.
According to Benedict XVI, i
t "has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them."
The old liturgy, Benedict further added, was "never juridically abrogated." Ah, the knots that so-called conservative Catholics tied themselves into to insist that the old Mass had indeed been abrogated. Well, they were wrong, which means they were likewise wrong to have demonized us for telling the truth.
I wound up writing a small book,
Sacred Then and Sacred Now: The Return of the Old Latin Mass, for the purposes of (1) explaining and defending Pope Benedict's decision; (2) walking newcomers through the Extraordinary Form; (3) replying to common objections; and (4) explaining why features common to the Ordinary Form -- "Eucharistic ministers" and Communion in the hand, to name two -- were not to be introduced into the Extraordinary.
Despite my profound gratitude to Benedict, who expended enormous political capital on behalf of a small, despised group of the faithful, I still feel compelled to note a most unfortunate omission.
We needed Benedict XVI to offer the Extraordinary Form publicly. My sources kept telling me such an act was imminent. It never occurred. [I echo that as I have said quite often on this Forum. I have been unable to imagine any conceivable reason why he did not.]
That more than anything else would have sent a message throughout the Catholic world. We know Benedict offered his private Masses in the Extraordinary Form. But the public celebration during his papacy never happened.
Had that event occurred, we would surely have seen more rapid growth in the number of Extraordinary Form Masses and communities. But even still, we should give thanks for what progress we have seen, especially in an age when truly sinister forces seemed to have triumphed virtually everywhere.
(Even now, I wish Benedict would offer the Extraordinary Form publicly. There would be no mistaking the meaning of that act.) [Perhaps at the next concluding Mass for the annual reunion-seminar of the Ratzinger Schuelerkreis.]
The continued cultivation of and devotion to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is urgently necessary, and not simply because it is the ultimate rebuke to the ignorant barbarians who despise Western civilization. It is, in the Father Faber formulation of which Michael Davies was so fond, "the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven."
To Enlightenment man in his most degraded form - who believes that nothing is immune to change, that the family itself is subject to redefinition according to human whim - the piety and reverence of the Extraordinary Form, in its beauty and stately reserve, and in its reservation of sacred tasks to the priest alone, reminds us that some things really are not to be touched by man.
As the late Alfons Cardinal Stickler pointed out more than once,
there was once a time when a priest could have said Mass anywhere in the world. There was also a time when Catholics could have attended Mass around the world and found it the same Mass with which they were familiar -- a testimony to their membership in a universal, supernatural organization. That world is gone. Roman Rite Catholics have been rendered spiritual orphans, rootless and rudderless in a hostile world.
The Extraordinary Form was and is the center of unity in the Roman Rite. And it stands for the very opposite of the casual familiarity in the presence of the sacred that characterizes the vast majority of parish Masses today.
If the Church is to be restored in our lifetimes, it will begin with the liturgy, and will flourish thanks in no small part to Pope Benedict XVI and
Summorum Pontificum.
On the 10th Anniversary of Summorum Pontificum:
We thank in particular...
RORATE CAELI
July 7, 2017
IN PRIMIS... Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Castro Mayer: long may their memories live!
The beautiful words of that great French hero of the Traditional Mass, Jean Madiran (1920-2013: Rest in peace!), who lived to see the miracle, remembering the names of some who died in the battlefield:
"For thirty seven years, a whole generation of militant Catholics, religious or lay members of the Militant Church (a generation reaching from 7 to 97 years of age) suffered, without giving in, openly defying the arbitrary interdict on the Traditional Mass. We think of our dead: Cardinal Ottaviani, Father Calmel, Father Raymond Dulac, Monsignor Renato Pozzi, Monsignor Lefebvre, Father Guérard. And, among the laymen: Cristina Campo, Luce Quenette, Louis Salleron, Eric de Saventhem. The pontifical goodwill is for them as a light breeze, which sweetly brings peace to their tombs. Wherever they are now, they do not need it anymore. But it is their memory amongst us which is appeased and elevated."
And also: Father Gamber, Michael Davies, Tito Casini, and so many, many others (priests, laymen and laywomen- God knows their names!), each of whom placed his own brick, large or small, in the great dam built for decades against the tumultuous tides of the late twentieth century.
Thank you, thank you, thank you dearly! The heat of the battle has caused so much personal attrition, exaggerations, and misunderstandings... Yet, justice cannot be denied: gratitude is owed to those who did not live to see, on this earth, the glorious date of July 7, 2007.
On the 10th anniversary of 'Summorum Pontificum',
we can safely say the doomsayers are wrong
Despite predictions of chaos and division,
Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio has enriched the church
by Dom Alcuin Reid
CATHOLIC HERALD
Friday, 7 Jul 2017
At noon Rome-time on 7th July 2007 it was my privilege to be present at the first solemn Mass of a recently ordained young priest. As a member of the Fraternity of Saint Peter he (licitly) sang the Mass according to the
usus antiquior—the more ancient form of the Roman rite, as used prior to the reforms following the Second Vatican Council. It was a beautiful occasion, but one which harboured a lingering distraction.
For up until that time the faithful, lay men and women, religious and even clergy, did not have free access to the older liturgical rites. It was commonly (but erroneously) held that permission was required to celebrate them.
Certainly, the Holy See had encouraged bishops to be generous in granting such permissions, but as many recall only too well and with no small amount of suffering, in many dioceses around the world this was not the case: the parsimony of a good number of prelates was immovable.
One English liturgist even called for “a period of compulsory transition…for all priests ordained after 1970, with perhaps five years for them to prepare for the celebration of the Novus Ordo exclusively.”
The distraction on that July 7th was the fact that
at that very hour Pope Benedict’s long-awaited Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, on the use of the older rites had been published. It was, perhaps, an appropriate sacrifice to have to wait an hour or so before reading its long-awaited provisions.
The first months of 2007 had seen a battle royale waged over what it would contain. Pope Benedict himself wrote in his letter to the Bishops of the same date:
“News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.”
Indeed, it is known that he personally telephoned several bishops before July to insist that they end their public opposition to a document they had not even read.
The issue was “the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions — the liturgical reform — is being called into question.” The Pope’s response was clear:
“This fear is unfounded.”
And he was right: the modern rites as reformed following the Council remain what one ordinarily encounters in parishes to this day. There have been no widespread public burnings of the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy or of the liturgical books produced in its wake.
Another issue was
the fear that a wider use of the older rites “would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities.” Pope Benedict replied:
“This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded.”
Notwithstanding some instances of pastoral imprudence by clergy imposing older (or even newer) rites on congregations without adequate preparation and formation,
the Church today is not riven with parishes divided over the inclusion of the older rites in their schedule. Indeed, many people find their life of faith and worship to be enriched by this legitimate ritual diversity.
For Pope Benedict,
Summorum Pontificum was
“a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church” — of taking away obstacles to that communion and unity which Our Lord so desires amongst all the baptised.
It is a fact that
the liturgical reform following the Council was abrupt and controversial, and disenfranchised many Catholics, some of whom simply stopped coming to Mass. Those small pockets of priests and laity who continued with the older rites were ostracised. When, rather than dying out, they attracted young people, they were proscribed. The divisions were real and became entrenched.
In line with efforts made by St John Paul II, in 2007 the Holy Father Benedict XVI sought to do what he could to heal these divisions, insisting that:
“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.” [I have yet to read a single Novus Ordo fanatic who has rebutted this statement, or even sought to.]
So too he noted a seemingly curious phenomenon:
“Immediately after the Second Vatican Council, it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them.”
This is an oft-missed element of
Summorum Pontificum. Pope Benedict’s authoritative establishment in Church law that
all of the faithful have the legal right to the older liturgical ceremonies, including the sacraments, and that parish priests and not bishops had both the duty to provide these and the authority otherwise to decide when their celebration is appropriate, is not motivated by nostalgia.
Rather, it is also a response to the new and somewhat unexpected reality of the Church at the beginning of the twenty-first century where young people who never knew the older liturgy (or even the battles fought over it) find that at celebrations of it — often much more so than in some other liturgical celebrations they have experienced — they are able fully, consciously and actively participate in the Sacred Liturgy, the “the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit,” precisely as the Second Vatican Council desired. Accordingly, Pope Benedict wrote:
“It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”
When finally we read
Summorum Pontificum on July 7th, and the letter accompanying it, it was clear that Pope Benedict had acted as a “scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven…like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old”
(Mt 13:52).
But not all reactions were as calm.
- One Italian bishop lamented that
“Today, a reform for which so many laboured, at the cost of great sacrifices, animated solely by the wish to renew the Church, has been cancelled…today an important reform of the Council was undermined…” [Classic closed-mind thinking by 'spirit of Vatican II' progressivists!]
- Fr Mark Francis would lament that:
“the Pope, who is not a trained liturgist, has shown interest and sensitivity in liturgical matters,” but that with Summorum Pontificum he demonstrated “a real misunderstanding of the liturgy’s role in the life of the Church,” and adopted a liturgical “relativism,” ignoring “the hallowed patristic axiom lex orandi, lex credendi.” [Unbelievable chutzpah and ignorance!]
- There were many other ‘prophets of doom,’ including some bishops who summarily rejected any suggestion of their seminarians being given time to learn how to celebrate the older rites.
Yet no liturgical doomsday has arrived and many seminarians seem nevertheless to have found the means to familiarise themselves with the older rites. For
Summorum Pontificum established an entirely new situation in the liturgical life of the Church, one which augurs very well indeed for the Church of today and of tomorrow.
As has been noted, the Motu Proprio established that the older liturgical rites are to be freely available when the faithful request them. Today, the majority of the faithful, including myself, grew up following the Second Vatican Council.
We did not know ‘the old days’ — when, certainly, the
usus antiquior was sometimes, indeed too often, celebrated poorly, and when sung Mass was an exception rather than the norm that it should be. When we discovered the older liturgy and continued to come back to it, it was with the expectation that we would indeed participate in its rites and prayers fully, consciously and actually and in optimal, not minimalistic, celebrations.
And we discovered an immense treasury of faith and culture in which to participate — a treasury which stretches back to the early Church which had not been pushed through an ideological sieve in the 1960s.
This encounter of our post-conciliar generations with the pre-conciliar liturgy is in fact realising, at least in part, the stated aim of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: to impart an ever-increasing vigour to the Christian life through a profound and engaged participation in the liturgy — though the irony of the means of this being the unreformed liturgy is significant. (This raises questions about the necessity and utility of the specific liturgical reforms effected, and gives the lie to those ‘Vatican II fundamentalists’ who would idolise them —but discussion of that is for another place.)
The demands of the traditional Mass bring forth a response in us. We find that the restraint and beauty of the ritual, the silence in which we find space to pray interiorly, the music which does not attempt to imitate the world or soothe the emotions but which challenges us and facilitates worship of the divine - indeed, the overall ritual experience of the numinous and of the sacred - we find uplifting and nourishing.
This dynamic has also changed how we approach and celebrate the reformed liturgical rites. They are, in comparison, quite ritually streamlined — too much so for some. And certainly, the theology of their texts is at times quite different or diminished. But their celebration is now being enriched by those immersed in the unreformed liturgical tradition.
Pope Benedict spoke of this “mutual enrichment” in 2007 as a possible outcome of his Motu Proprio. It has been an increasing factor in the liturgical life of the Church ever since.
Many young priests speak eloquently of how celebrating the usus antiquior has enabled them to celebrate the usus recentior with greater reverence and meaning. This new approach to and manner of celebrating the modern rites so that they are in greater continuity with preceding liturgical tradition is certainly more in line with the intentions of the Council than some applications and interpretations of it heretofore.
This doesn’t address the greater question of a ‘reform of the liturgical reform’ — a question which will not go away simply because people don’t like it — but it does do a good deal to correct the erroneous and sometimes even abusive celebrations of the modern rites we have experienced all too often.
Some commentators are just as enraged by
Summorum Pontificum as they were in 2007 and claim that
it promotes a “traditionalism” which is having “a negative effect on the acceptance of other documents from Vatican II, such as those on ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue and missionary activity of the Church.” (As with many “-isms,” traditionalism is an erroneous exaggeration and is to be avoided.)
But if the new and life-giving encounter with unreformed liturgical tradition made possible by Pope Benedict XVI ten years ago leads to a critical reappraisal of the liturgical reform and of the implementation of other Conciliar documents, who are we to judge it adversely?
For if this arises from faithful Catholic clergy and laity for whom the label “traditionalist” is simply outdated, might not this new situation in the life of the Church in fact be one of the “signs of the times” in our day — a sign in which Church authorities may well hear something of what the Holy Spirit is saying in our midst?
Thanks to Pope Benedict XVI, laity and clergy (should) have had access to the unreformed liturgical tradition without having to be anything other than Catholic for ten years now. The fruits of this measure are real, and they are growing — for the good of the whole Church.
Following Mass on July 7th 2007, we celebrated the young priest’s ordination with greater joy as we read Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio and accompanying letter.
This priest now gives thanks to Almighty God for ten years of fruitful ministry just as the Church can give thanks to Almighty God for the genuine fruits of Pope Benedict’s paternal wisdom and profound insight in promulgating
Summorum Pontificum.
Dom Alcuin Reid, a monk of the Monastère Saint-Benoît in the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, France, and a liturgical scholar of international renown, is the author of “The Usus Antiquior—Its History and Importance in the Church after the Second Vatican Council,” (A. Reid, ed., T&T Clark Companion to Liturgy, Bloomsbury 2016).
The legal achievement of Summorum Pontificum
by Gregory Di Pippo
NEW LITURGICAL MOVEMENT
July 5, 2017
I propose here to consider what Pope Benedict XVI meant, and what he achieved, by categorizing the traditional Roman Mass and the post-conciliar reform of it as two Forms of the same Rite, the one Extraordinary and the other Ordinary. Before doing that, I believe it is necessary to establish a distinction between the terms which have historically been used to describe variations with a liturgy or liturgical family, namely, Rite and Use.
To the best of my knowledge, the distinction between Rite and Use has not been officially laid out anywhere in law by the Church; this is therefore purely my take on the matter.
For clarity’s sake, the variants of the same Rite should properly be called Uses, like the Sarum Use or Carmelite Use; this is what they were most commonly called before the Tridentine reform. For example, the frontispiece of the Sarum Missal says “
Missale ad usum insignis ecclesiae Sarisburiensis – the Missal according to the Use of the famous church of Salisbury.”
It is true that even before Trent, there was some confusion between these terms, and Rite was occasionally said instead of Use; after Trent, the term Use became rare. The terminology was certainly never uniform, and many liturgical books do not use either term, and have just an adjective modifying the words Missale, Breviarium etc. The Dominicans said either “according to the Sacred Order of Preachers,” or “according to the Rite of the Sacred Order of Preachers.”
However, if we wish to establish a distinction between
different liturgies on the one hand, and
variants within a given liturgy on the other, while still keeping to some kind of historical terminology, it seems obvious that
Rite is the more appropriate for the former, and Use for the latter.
It would be absurd to describe the liturgies of the Eastern churches as “the Byzantine Use, the Coptic Use etc.,” when comparing them to “the Roman Use”; they are clearly and entirely different Rites.
“Use”, on the other hand, was the predominant term for variants of the Roman Rite when there were many such variants celebrated throughout Western Europe.
All of the essential characteristics of the Roman Rite, such as the Ordo Missae and the structure of the Office, are the same from one Use to the other. They are not the same in other Rites. This applies not just to the Canon, but the whole structure of the Mass: Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Collect(s), Epistle, Gradual, Alleluia etc. With minor variations, which are more variations of order than of wording, the bulk of the liturgical texts is the same as well.
Searching through every missal or antiphonary of every Use of the Roman Rite, one will find the Introit
Ad te levavi on the First Sunday of Advent,
Populus Sion on the Second, etc. It is true that some of the later features of the Rite, mostly notably the Offertory prayers and the Sequences, differ considerably from one Use to another. These variations are nevertheless confined within certain clearly recognizable limits, have much in common with one another, and can therefore be grouped into families.
Furthermore,
any proper Mass or Office written for one Use can be transposed into any of the others with no difficulty at all. (The same is true for any set of Offertory prayers or any Sequence.) For example, St Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican, and wrote the Office and Mass of Corpus Christi according to the medieval French Use followed by his order. (The Office had nine responsories at Matins, rather than eight as in the Roman Use, a versicle between Matins and Lauds, etc.) Almost nothing needed to be done to adjust these texts for the Missal and Breviary according to the “Use of the Roman Curia”, which in the Tridentine reform became the Missal and Breviary of St Pius V.
However, when the Mass of Corpus Christi was added to the Ambrosian
Rite, all kinds of adjustments had to be made: the addition of a first reading, the antiphon after the Gospel, the Oratio super sindonem, and the Transitorium, none of which exist in the Roman Rite, and the removal of the Sequence, which has never existed in the Ambrosian Rite.
Vice versa, if one wanted to take the Ambrosian Mass of St Ambrose, for example, and transpose it into the Roman Rite, one would need to change it very considerably, adding a psalm verse and Gloria to the Ingressa to make an Introit, and removing the first reading, the antiphon after the Gospel, the Oratio super sindonem, and the Transitorium.
If we accept these definitions of Rite and Use, it seems to me very clear that
neither of them is appropriate to describe the relationship between what we now call the two Forms of the Roman Rite.
On the very basic level of what we usually see and hear in a Mass of the Ordinary Form and a Mass of the Extraordinary Form, they immediately appear to be two different Rites.
The liturgist Fr Joseph Gelineau SJ famously declared à propos of the reformed Mass, “This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” A statement of this sort cannot be glossed over as just the opinion of a single man; Fr Gelineau was a prominent figure in the liturgical reform, and highly esteemed by its most famous architect, Archbishop Annibale Bugnini.
Similar statements, pro and con, have been made by many others.
I cannot imagine any serious liturgical scholar applying similar language to any previous change within the Roman Rite.
On the basis of my transposition argument given above,
(texts can easily be moved from one Use to another, but can be moved from one Rite to another much less easily, or not at all), it can be said that
the EF and OF do share a certain identity.
Most of any given block of Mass texts can be moved from one to the other fairly easily, or at least, much more easily than they could be moved between the Byzantine and Ambrosian Rites.
However, considering that the post-conciliar reform was a far greater displacement of liturgical texts than had ever taken place before in the Roman Rite, and the significant ritual differences, it is much harder to argue that the EF and OF share an identity. Historically, this is an absolutely anomalous situation;
there has never been a case of two Rites or Uses which shared so much and yet were so radically different.
Because of this, the identity of the two Forms of a single Rite as established by
Summorum Pontificum has sometimes been described as a “legal fiction.” I submit that this is a wholly appropriate way of describing the situation, that
the identity of the two Forms as a single Rite IS a legal fiction, and that this is a good thing. A legal fiction is not the same thing as a lie.
Adoption, for example, is a legal fiction, which states that in terms of law, this person is the child of that person. This is most emphatically not a false statement, even though the adopted child is not the natural offspring of the parents. The law’s recognition of the bond between parents and children is perhaps the least significant thing about it, precisely because it does not create such a bond and cannot dissolve it. In this sense, adoption simply declares that the absence of a genetic relationship between two specific people is legally irrelevant, and a parent-child relationship exists.
In a similar way,
Pope Benedict’s action in creating two “Forms” was not intended to speak to the relationship between the EF and OF as a matter of liturgical or historical scholarship, but solely as a description of the relationship between them in law. It simply declares that the tenuous relationship between the two Forms is legally irrelevant.
As a matter of law, a priest of one Rite legally needs special faculties to celebrate Mass in another. This is a useful and perfectly sensible legal provision for a variety of reasons, and a long-standing one, but hardly a moral necessity per se; where deemed pastorally useful, the Church has been fairly flexible in granting such faculties.
However, the whole point of
Summorum Pontificum was to establish that a priest of the Roman Rite does not need any special faculty or permission to say the Mass according to the traditional Missal, as was the case under the indult
Ecclesia Dei.
I believe that Pope Benedict acted very wisely and conscientiously in adopting a completely different category from any other previously used,
Form instead of Use or Rite, to get around an important legal problem, namely, that by any other solution, he would have made the vast majority of Catholic priests “bi-ritual.” That would have been a legal abomination without precedent.
[Joseph Ratzinger obviously had decades after the Novus Ordo came into force to think about what he would eventually decree in SP, not in terms of what he himself would do if he were Pope (since that was never a possibility considered by anyone until just before the 2005 Conclave), but in terms of what could realistically be done to restore full liturgical citizenship to the traditional Mass co-equal to that of the Novus Ordo. Therefore, his decision to use the term 'FORM' to distinguish the two modalities of saying Mass in the Roman rite - now both legitimate - was surely well-studied and prepared for.]