FIUV Meetings in Rome - 2006 (3)

The opening comments in the dossier presented to various Roman Congregations on 24th November 2006

Part 1 - Opening Comment.

During the months of September, October and November 2006 there has been much speculation in the media about a document from our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI allowing greater freedom for the celebration of the traditional Roman rite according to the liturgical books of 1962.

Much of this speculation has been uninformed, inappropriate, and controversial. It is also clear that this debate is being generated by the clergy and without any consultation with the laity. It is also clear, particularly with the declarations of the French episcopacy, that the only consideration seems to be with the followers of the Society of St Pius X, as though these were the only members of the faithful who wished to see greater freedom for the traditional rite of Mass.

On 30th October 2006 bishops in eastern France said that they wished to make their concern known to the Holy See that they feared Church unity could be damaged by relaxing restrictions on the Tridentine Mass. After their meeting in Lourdes the French bishops issued a statement (9th November 2006) in which they said: “The bishops expect from these faithful a gesture of unequivocal assent to the teaching of the authentic magisterium of the Church.” It seems clear from these statements that the French episcopacy are reacting only to a situation they perceive to exist in France and are unaware of the situation outside the boundaries of that country.

The role of the International Federation Una Voce.

The Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce is a lay movement that was formed in 1966 to act on behalf of lay people around the world who wish to ensure that the Missale Romanum of Blessed Pope John XXIII (editio typica 1962) is maintained in the Church as one of the forms of liturgical celebration, and to safeguard and promote the use of Latin, Gregorian chant, and sacred polyphony

The International Federation represents 30 member associations in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Chile, England and Wales, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and the USA.
In recent years the International Federation has made remarkable progress. Applications for information and assistance have come from Bogota in Columbia, from Katmandu in Nepal, from Madras in southern India, from Belarus, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, Spain, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Mexico, and Hungary.

The International Federation Una Voce, therefore, speaks for untold numbers of the lay faithful in the Church and we wish to make our voice heard in Rome to urge the Holy Father to loosen the bonds that currently restrict the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass (editio typica 1962). Our national organisations have worked within the body of the Church, through their bishops, since our formation in 1966 and all our members are absolutely faithful to the authentic magisterium of the Church. We acknowledge that the Church is hierarchical and we owe so much to our clergy but the liturgy is not the sole preserve of the clergy; it also belongs to the laity and we are desperate for our voice to be heard in this current debate.

Part 2 - A Reply to Prelates Who Are Against Greater Freedom for the Traditional Rite

The members of the International Federation Una Voce are deeply hurt and perplexed when reading the objections to a rumoured broadening of the authorisation for the 1962 forms of the Roman Rite; especially from some European bishops from France, Germany, and Belgium. Let us reply to some of the objections. Our fidelity to the Catholic Church and acceptance of Vatican II “in the light of Tradition” (parameter agreed upon by the late Pope John Paul II and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre) is called into question. This despite the fact that the members of the Federation have continually worked within the body of the Church and adhered to the authentic magisterium since its formation in 1966.

Reasonable people now agree that neither Pope Paul VI nor the other Council Fathers intended to suppress the 1962 forms of the Roman Rite. Therefore only a great leap of logic and the most fertile of imaginations could lead one to conclude that the Supreme Pontiff’s universal authorisation of those forms would lead to ecclesial disunity. The Successor of Peter is the visible principal of unity. How, then, can one logically assert that one disunites the Church by following a directive of a reigning Pontiff? Apart from the existing sectarian divisions, it is unclear how Catholics who avail themselves of a concession of the Supreme Pontiff could be less faithful than those who sought, or seek to obstruct, by anticipation, that concession.

Liturgical Unity and Uniformity.

An erroneous opinion as well as a national cultural characteristic leads some to confuse liturgical unity with liturgical uniformity. Some European peoples feel a compelling psychological and cultural craving for all forms of uniformity as an expression of unity. They therefore, struggle, if they succeed at all, to understand unity in complementary diversity. The Bishop is Sponsus Ecclesiae or espoused to his local Church. It makes sense therefore that since the Bishop is the Celebrant, traditional liturgies of the Eastern and Latin Catholic Churches flowed from the various sees which lend their names to those liturgies (eg, Roman, Gallican, Ambrosian, Sarum, Dominican). That alone precludes the notion of uniformity as a necessary expression of ecclesial unity. Even if one considers a single see such as Rome, history underlines the Angelic Doctor’s definition of beauty, unitas in varietate, et varietas in unitate. Far from afflicting the ecclesial unity, the differences between the liturgy of the Roman Curia and the liturgy celebrated in the Roman basilicas enriched the beauty of unity of the Roman Rite.

Perhaps some bishops have forgotten that the Pope is also a bishop. If, therefore, he were to authorise an alternative form of the Roman rite by ‘universalising’ the existing authorisation of the 1962 liturgical forms then he (the Pope) would be the one to ‘pick and choose’. Since each Pope signs his more solemn documents under the title of ‘Bishop of the Catholic Church’ one can safely affirm that, apart from other arguments, he can do for the universal Church what local bishops can do for their own sees. It follows, therefore, that that should a Pope create an alternative form of the Roman rite, individuals (laity and clerics) would merely avail themselves of the ‘picking and choosing’ already done by the bishop. Consequently, the free celebration of, or attendance at, the 1962 liturgy would be no more of an illicit picked choice than clerics who go to the altar and are expected to freely choose one of the four Eucharistic Prayers.

From what has been affirmed above, it is not difficult to make the due distinction between liturgical unity and uniformity. Uniformity of the Roman Rite became a fundamental issue, albeit not a defining quality, only subsequent to the Council of Trent. It is, therefore, ironic to see bishops appeal to an ethos of the Tridentine era, to object to a rumoured broadening of the authorisation of the “Tridentine” Mass.

Another fallacy should be addressed. Some bishops claim that there are too few traditional Catholics to warrant broadening the indult for the 1962 liturgical forms. Were that true, one would fail to see why those bishops would misplace valuable time from more pressing questions to objecting to an issue of apparent little importance.

Some of the objecting bishops express a fear that the request for the traditional forms of the Roman Rite hides an adverse political agenda. No doubt this expresses a fear of extreme right wing politics or, perhaps, the love of monarchy. Quite apart from the fact that many traditional Catholics are the civil subjects of monarchies (e.g. the United Kingdom, Belgium, etc.), one fails to understand why any rational person would “hide” one’s political views behind one’s preference for liturgical questions.

The Orthodox Dilemma.

Finally, some bishops object to any broadening of the traditional liturgical forms because, they claim, the theological-pastoral perspective of the traditional liturgy opposes the theological orientation of Vatican II. The myth of a new theological-pastoral orientation was created after the Second Vatican Council by those who concocted a theological ideology suited to their own purposes during the early 1970s. Be that as it may, many Eastern Orthodox bishops are perplexed, if not scandalised. The liturgical theology of the Orthodox is identical to the theological orientation of the traditional Roman Rite. The fact that many Catholic bishops object to broadening the authorisation for the traditional Roman Rite, leads the Orthodox to wonder how Rome could welcome the Orthodox back into her bosom.

Part 3 - The Problems with the Current Indult

Many of the difficulties under the current motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta were described in May 2005 by canon lawyer R. Michael Dunnigan who said: "...some bishops will not consider approving celebration of [the traditional Latin Mass] even when it is desired by a large number of the faithful and even when a priest is available who is willing and able to celebrate it. The prerogative of local bishops arbitrarily to refuse permission for this Mass is a blemish on the Church's legal system. This blemish fortunately is not so large that it obscures John Paul's achievements in (1) showing true pastoral concern for Catholics attached to the traditional Mass, (2) giving voice to their legitimate aspirations, and (3) making this Mass in fact more widely available during his pontificate......Indeed, the rest of the Church may come to recognise the faithful attached to the traditional Mass not as a faction to be shunned or merely tolerated, but rather as a dynamic force for liturgical reverence and even evangelisation."

We who love the traditions of the Church in their entirety carry the spiritual DNA bequeathed to us by our religious forbears. What can be more cruel, therefore, for souls who truly love the Church, to be considered barely welcomed and tolerated guests in the Household of God? What is more daunting than clerics and religious who are more or less constantly maligned, shoved aside and sometimes dismissed on false allegations simply because they wish to follow the Catholic faith of their ancestors? Anyone who has never felt that pain to the depths of their soul has never truly loved the Church.

Is this concept of a spiritual DNA not a beautiful way of looking at the Tradition of our Church that we are trying desperately to maintain and bring to flower again? Who cannot fail to be inspired by our glittering ancestry in the faith – on the face of it, many of whom were very ordinary people indeed but infused with spiritual DNA that led them to do extraordinary things. It has always been the ordinary people who did the simple things well that have sustained our Church through its darkest times, and who would not give up their faith no matter what pressures were put against them. I doubt that we will be called upon to give up our lives for our faith but we should be prepared to live our lives for the faith we love. We, the members of the International Federation Una Voce, make our plea to Rome and to our Holy Father to grant those faithful and priests their wish to avail themselves freely of the liturgical books in existence in 1962.

In an address to priests in Cologne in 1970 about the crisis in the Church (and published under the title of Die Situation der Kirche heute in 1977) Cardinal Ratzinger said:
“The road we are called upon to travel today is a difficult one. Those undertaking to live Christian lives need nowadays to possess the strength to be different and the courage it takes to be unmodern – in the way that all tomorrow’s children, and the old-fashioned are unmodern. They must be daring enough to anchor their roots in the eternal even though in the contemporary world God’s death has been proclaimed.”

The members of the International Federation Una Voce throughout the world have travelled a difficult road for the past 40 years. We have possessed the strength to be different and unmodern so that the traditional liturgy of the Church will not be lost to tomorrow’s children. We have dared to anchor our roots in the eternal and also in the age-old traditions going back to Calvary. On the Cross of Calvary were the initials INRI expressed in Hebrew, Latin and Greek. The traditional Mass that we love also includes prayers in Hebrew, Latin and Greek. When Christ died he was facing the West. When we assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Traditional Mass everyone, priest and people, face East towards our Blessed Lord on Calvary. Such is our love for this age-old liturgy of the Church that we find it deeply offensive to have to beg on our knees to be fed scraps from our bishops who sometimes refuse even to acknowledge our existence.

Our Penny Catechism lists the three Theological Virtues and states that the greatest of these is Charity. The greatest problem with the current indult Ecclesia Dei adflicta is the complete absence of charity and pastoral concern shown by a great many bishops towards their flocks. It is, as R. Michael Dunnigan states: “a blemish on the Church’s legal system.” But it is much more than this; it is a scandal that the legitimate aspirations of an unknown number of good, faithful Catholic men, women, and yes, children, around the world are dismissed on the whims of their local ordinaries, who demand an absolute and harsh obedience yet publicly refuse to show obedience to their lawful superior – our Holy Father the Pope. It is for reasons such as these that our Holy Father must order our bishops to grant absolute freedom for the celebration of the ancient and traditional liturgy of the Church for those who wish it unless they, the bishops, can prove such celebrations could be harmful for the Faith. There will not be a single bishop in the world who could prove such a case, or would dare to do so.