My Opinion on the Universal Indult

My opinion on the possibility of the Holy Father granting a universal indult for priests to celebrate Mass in Latin according to the Missal of 1962 of their own accord, is that I am opposed. I oppose it for the reasons I gave in my first post on the matter and I oppose it because whatever progress Pope Benedict XVI has made in exercising the Petrine ministry in a more collaborative manner will be wiped out in one fell swoop. The last is even more important given the overwhelming opposition by the bishops, best articulated by the French bishops during their recent meeting at Lourdes. I have no burning desire to return to the missal of 1962 or to the Latin, especially given that for me and for most Roman Catholics it is not a return. On that same point and in a strange twist, many of the arguments made opposing introduction of the novus ordo can now be made against the reintroduction of the Latin, at least at the discretion of the parish priest. This seems to me a ready-made recipe for the acrimonious division of parishes and even whole dioceses.

It is easy to forget, or to never have known, how disconnected people were from the liturgy in the pre-Vatican II days. Of course, even before the Council, this was a matter of pastoral concern and liturgical renewal had been underway over the previous forty years or so. This renewal was aimed at bringing about more active and conscious participation in the Eucharistic liturgy on the part of the whole Church. Over the past thirty-seven years there has been a lot of silliness with the novus ordo, but much of that now seems passé. My preferred manner of reform has been articulated well by Monsignor M. Francis Mannion in such articles as Liturgy and Beauty. A nice, succinct articulation of one aspect of Mannion's thought, specifically on liturgical agendas in the Church, can be found in a book review of a collection of essays by Richard J. Mammana, Jr. in Touchstone magazine. Some resonance of his ideas still remain in the Statement of Principles of The Society for Catholic Liturgy, founded by Msgr. Mannion in 1995. The principles of the Society were originally composed in 1995. They were revised in December 2005. I prefer the original principles, as they were clearer on the need to celebrate the novus ordo Mass and all the newly revised rites of the Roman Rite with beauty, reverence, and dignity. The original principles were also clear in rejecting the agenda of "traditionalism and restoration". This agenda seems to be one the Society now embraces in their new principles, which is unfortunate. Monsignor Mannion, to my knowledge, played no role in the new statement, which is also unfortunate.

That being made clear, let me also write that I support Pope John Paul II's lifting of the suppression of the Latin Mass with his motu proprio allowing its celebration with the approval, permission, and under the pastoral oversight of the diocesan ordinary. While we certainly long for and work toward communion with the schismatic SSPX, I do not see the need for the Church to make concessions as the liturgy is the least of their gripes, which is the main point of the French bishops. Whether the novus ordo exceeds the liturgical reform called for by the fathers of Vatican II is a question of much contention, a contention I am not qualified either liturgically or canonically to weigh in on with much authority. However, SSPX rejects many of the decrees of that legitimate ecumenical council- religious freedom, to name just one. So, the liturgy is not the fundamental cause of their schism. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, in full communion with the Church, has the correct idea as far meeting a legitimate, albeit small, pastoral need that has arisen in many local churches. Contra Monsignor Gamber, the novus ordo is here to stay, almost 40 years constitutes a long enough ad experimentum period. There is no great call for a return to the Latin Mass by the people, the clergy, or the bishops. In fact, most oppose it.