by William H. Johnston
Today, July 7, 2014, marks the seventh anniversary of the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum (SP) and its accompanying Letter to Bishops. The anniversary is still worth noting, for though Benedict XVI is gone and succeeded by a pope with different liturgical sensibilities and largely non-liturgical priorities, the extraordinary form (EF) remains a constitutive element of the Roman Rite, and to understand – and explain, teach, canonically interpret, and pastorally practice – that Rite in its fullness still requires understanding SP and the EF.
This can be challenging. SP has aroused strongly negative and positive reactions – but sometimes by finding in or drawing from the document more I think than it says or intends. In many ways it is not as bad as some critics contend (“Wrong in so many ways… where to begin…!”), nor does it imply what some supporters may wish (“Finally, the ammo we need…!”).
For example, it would be a misunderstanding to attribute to SP or Pope Benedict what one wing of TLM supporters want. Even if a small group of intransigent Vatican II opponents take SP as encouragement in their opposition, it would be mistaken to attribute such intransigence or opposition to SP itself or its author, who supports the council and affirms its reformed liturgy (see, e.g., his other major liturgical document of 2007, Sacramentum caritatis, described recently on another Pray Tell blog post as “a very beautiful and very VII document”).
What can we say, then, of SP? As a reminder, here are seven short theses – basic points of orientation.
- SP does not displace or diminish the postconciliar reformed liturgy which remains, by clear intent and design (and naming it the “ordinary form”), the ordinary liturgy Catholics celebrate as a matter of course.
- SP does give the 1962 Missal new standing as a structural component of the Roman Rite, its “extraordinary form”; it is now legally established, though secondary or subsidiary to the OF.
- SP does not assert or assume the priority or superiority of, or otherwise preference, the EF over the OF in the church’s liturgical life.
- SP does call on Catholics today to respect the EF “on account of its venerable and ancient usage” (SP, Art. 1).
- SP imposes the EF on no one. Catholics wishing to have nothing to do with it need never celebrate it (with the exception of clergy called upon to provide EF celebrations).
- SP does authorize, for Catholics who desire it and take steps to seek it out, a wider-than-before yet still restricted access to the EF.
- SP subjects each form, in its ritual elements or manner of celebration (ars celebrandi), to the influence of the other form. Though little has happened in seven short years, SP intends the EF to change, as also the OF. How much change results from their “mutually enriching” influence, whether much or little, of what kind, in which direction, is not predetermined by SP, and depends first of all on members of the church who celebrate the liturgy in each/both form(s) and what they discern to be desirable – thus enacting a kind of “grass roots” liturgical theology and process of ritual reform.
What SP wants above all is “internal reconciliation in the heart of the church” (Letter, paragraph 8). I think this worthy aim is best served by a reading of both documents (SP and the Letter) that is appreciative wherever possible, while critical when necessary. To borrow a hopeful phrase on the topic from Kathy Hughes’ 2010 NPM annual convention keynote address: “let a thousand flowers bloom” is a generous and healthy approach.
This interpretive method aids in understanding the documents as their author intended and makes more likely that “more fruitful dialogue” the council encouraged, conducted with mutual esteem, reverence, harmony, and charity (Gaudium et spes, no. 92). It is this kind of reading (appreciative, critical, constructive) I attempt and develop in Care for the Church and Its Liturgy (Liturgical Press, 2013), hoping it brings some clarity in interpretation and equanimity in discussion to the sometimes turbulent waters of debate on the extraordinary form.
I cannot help thinking this an important task because, again, anyone who explains, teaches, canonically interprets or pastorally implements the Roman Rite needs to understand SP and the EF with as much clarity and little misunderstanding as possible. Many questions arise here that the book tries to address, but let me conclude with one final thought. I’ve wondered what response to SP and its EF would most likely foster whatever positive potential it may contain. Active opposition, arguing against its premise and provisions? Silence, hoping it fades of its own accord? Genuine, measured support for the real, carefully designed and limited place and function of the EF in the church’s liturgy? With hope, I propose the third as a possible approach that can serve the church and its liturgy going forward.
William H. Johnston is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Dayton. Before that, he spent twenty-seven years in parish and diocesan ministry. He holds three degrees from Notre Dame, with studies in church history and liturgy.
Please leave a reply.