The Key Points in Universae Ecclesiae

By Dr. Jeff Mirus ( bio - articles - email ) | May 13, 2011

It is difficult for me to be sympathetic to the endless quarrels over the liturgy. I like to think this is because the only factor of real concern to me in liturgical celebration is whether or not we imitate Christ by our obedience. But I must also admit that I am not particularly liturgically oriented, and I tend not to become emotionally attached to liturgy of any type. Nor do I believe that any particular approved liturgy is intrinsically associated with either better doctrine or superior piety. This may be helpful in trying to see the big picture, but it doesn’t help me bond with those who are passionate on the subject.

So what does a cold observer see in the latest Vatican Instruction on the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, Universae Ecclesiae? I see four major points:

1. The extraordinary form is just that, extraordinary. A presumably discontented user has already posted a comment in response to our news story on the Instruction to the effect that the terminology of “ordinary” and “extraordinary” do not reflect the “equal dignity” the Vatican claims for the older form. While this comment is not accurate, since dignity does not depend on frequency of use, it unwittingly underlines a central point in Benedict’s effort to make the extraordinary form more widely available, a point which is by the very nature of things presupposed in every provision of Universae Ecclesiae. The so-called Novus Ordo, the missal of Paul VI, is in fact the ordinary form of the Roman Rite. The so-called Tridentine Mass, in the form of the missal of John XXIII, is to be considered extraordinary, a liturgy to be celebrated when those who are particularly attached to it wish it. It is not—and is not intended to be—the ordinary or regular form of the rite, the form celebrated by default, as it were, in the universal Church.
    
2. Benedict XVI is enduringly serious about meeting traditional liturgical desires. This latest Instruction is yet another administrative effort to get bishops to provide the extraordinary form wherever there is a genuinely Catholic desire for it (see point 4, below). It makes it very clear that any stable group of the faithful is to be accommodated, it defines the terms, and it makes clear that even a collection of persons from an individual parish who manifest a fresh desire for the extraordinary form (i.e., not just before but after the promulgation of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum) constitute such a group. Moreover, any priest is to be judged qualified to celebrate the extraordinary form with a congregation if he can properly understand and verbalize the Latin text, if he presents himself voluntarily to do so, and if he has celebrated according to the Extraordinary Form in the past. Bishops are to make adequate training available and, in the absence of qualified priests, they may request priests from approved Institutes which celebrate according to the extraordinary form. Finally, all priests have the right to celebrate according to the extraordinary form sine populo (without the people, privately) without any further permission from their ecclesiastical superiors.
    
3. Some resistance to the extraordinary form will continue. Although larger disputes are to be handled by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, it is both natural and necessary that “in deciding individual cases, the pastor…is to be guided by his own prudence,” though “motivated by pastoral zeal and a spirit of generous welcome” (17.1). Similarly, it is inescapable that it belongs to the diocesan bishops “to monitor liturgical matters in order to guarantee the common good and to ensure that everything is proceeding in peace and serenity in their Dioceses”, even if this responsibility is to be carried on “always in agreement with the mens [mind] of the Holy Father clearly expressed by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.” Inevitably then, the attitudes of individual pastors and bishops will determine how easy or difficult it is for “stable groups of the faithful” to have their desires for the extraordinary form met. Universae Ecclesiae simply offers greater clarity and applies a little more pressure to accommodate them.
    
4. There is a “fidelity” requirement. I mentionied earlier that there must be a “genuinely Catholic desire” for the extraordinary form. Most proponents of the extraordinary form have argued that the ordinary form has contributed to the doctrinal confusion and moral laxity in the Church over the past two generations. But some proponents have gone considerably farther by refusing their obedience to disciplinary and doctrinal decisions of the Holy See and also by declaring the ordinary form of the Roman Rite to be invalid—that is, incapable of being used to confect the Eucharist. Whatever the sources of recent Catholic confusion, which the last two popes have so clearly attempted to correct on many fronts, neither Benedict XVI nor the Ecclesia Dei Commission are prepared to give a pass to proponents of the extraordinary form who remain disobedient. Thus the final requirement for fulfilling the requests of stable groups of the faithful reads as follows:

   The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church. (19)

Universae Ecclesiae also details the use of the Extraordinary Form for Confirmation, Holy Orders, the Breviary, the Sacred Triduum, and the rites of religious orders. One could also speculate on Benedict’s full range of motives in sticking with his program for the extraordinary form, but these are not at all addressed in the Instruction. In terms of what Universae Ecclesiae specifically covers, I believe the most important points to be taken from the document are the four I have enumerated above.