(regarding Summorum Pontificum, eventually issued in July 2007)
If we closely consider the arguments advanced this time, especially by the French episcopate, but also at Rome
and in Germany, one notices that the bishops in fact are afraid of this Mass. Even Rome is being extremely careful not to disavow Paul VI’s reform while outlining the possibility of a return to the old Mass. The progressivists’ fear is such that it is necessary [for Rome] to go to great lengths and to argue forcefully for broadening the permission for priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. Certainly, that also explains why we have not yet received either thanks or a response to our letter from the Sovereign Pontiff or even the Vatican.
In the present situation, we can and we must draw some conclusions for the future, even if we do not yet know
the exact terms of this much talked-about motu proprio.
1) If we consider how Roman documents have been received during the last decade by the episcopate and the faithful,
we are obliged to say that what prevails is a very great indifference that has frustrated the measures recommended in
them by Rome. Whether it be the place of laymen in the liturgy or, more recently, liturgical prescriptions; whether it
concern the Declaration Dominus Jesus or the condemnation of abortion and euthanasia, one cannot fail to notice that
the documents have had no real effect. One can well wonder even now whether the motu proprio will not have the
same fate.
2) Nonetheless, since the document extends a favor rather than imposes a restriction, and since, moreover, it is
addressed to persons who are very interested in the matter, it could well be that the expectations of the faithful and
priests will awaken the hierarchies in some countries from their lethargy and disturb their resistance. This is what certain bishops are thinking of when they warn of a risk of liturgical anarchy in their dioceses. Considering the multiplicity of forms the New Mass has taken in reality, one might wonder where this new-found fear of “division” can be coming from. On the contrary, the traditional liturgy has always proven to be a factor of unity, especially because of its sacred language, Latin.
3) It is quite unlikely that this motu proprio will be followed by a mass movement. The priests and faithful who desire
the old liturgy are proportionally few in number, and the others have lost the taste for it or the interest. It will take many serious efforts to restore to its place of honor in the whole Church the venerable and sacred rite that sanctified
centuries and centuries of Christendom.
4) It will be, rather, a movement that will take off slowly, but which will slowly gain strength as the riches and beauty of
the lost liturgy are rediscovered. Indeed, simply by granting the Tridentine Mass the right to exist (this Mass was never
suppressed!), it will gradually impose itself since the New Mass cannot rival it.
5) At any rate, a broader permission to celebrate the old Mass is a blessing for the Church. Certainly, the publication of
this document might engender a certain confusion “among us,” in the sense that it will create the impression of a
rapprochement between the official Church and Tradition. When it happens, an appeal by Rome for renewed unity
should be expected. For the SSPX, a greater liberalization of the holy Mass is a cause for rejoicing, a step towards the
restoration of Tradition; however, the distrust born of years of self-defense and combat against “those who should be
our pastors” will not be easily allayed. Indeed, the New Mass should be considered an effect much more than a cause of the crisis that has afflicted the Church for nearly forty years. In other words, our situation will be practically unchanged by the return of the old Mass so long as it is not accompanied by other absolutely essential rectifications.
6) Ecumenism, liberalism, and this spirit of the world that defiles the Bride of Christ are still the principles animating the
Conciliar Church. These principles kill the spirit of God, the Christian spirit. We must understand more than ever the
roots of the crisis in order to keep ourselves from rushing blindly into the new situation that would be created by the
motu proprio. Before thinking of the measures that will need to be taken for our canonical regularization, an in-depth
discussion of these questions is indispensable. We hope that Rome at last understands our demand to see any
discussions preceded by what we call our preliminaries or preconditions, one of which would be met by the motu
proprio. For thirty years we have refused to take the poison; it is for this reason that we have been rejected, and it is still the condition (more or less hidden) that Rome imposes for accepting us. Ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality remain the points of contention over which we will not budge.
Entering Lent, let us remember that the gifts of Heaven are obtained by purifying prayer and penance; that God listens
more willingly to the prayer of a pure and humble heart. Let us continue, then, our crusade of prayer, and join to it some voluntary penances to wrest from Heaven what the Churchmen find so hard to give to our souls. Even if God does not seem to listen to our supplications, let us not be discouraged. He is putting us to the test, and wants to make us earn even more merits.
† Bernard Fellay
February 25, 2007