The Truth About Pope John Paul lI's Letter of Ecclesia Dei

(1) Ecclesia Dei,1 the motu proprio promulgated 5 years ago following the rupture between Msgr. Lefebvre and the Holy See, despite its recommendations for 'breadth and generosity, had given rise to some suprisingly restrictive interpretations. One among these could be summarized: 'The Intention of the Church, in accepting the celebration of Mass according to the preconciliar rites, is that of a temporary tolerance, with a view towards their progressive abandonment.'

(2) Don Pietro Cantoni, a priest of the diocese of Massa (Italy), is completing a Master's Thesis on the Magisterium from the Pontifical University of the Lateran in Rome. He gives us here, on behalf of several priests of his diocese, his point of view on the true interpretation of the motu proprio. The translation and [titles] are from the editors of Sedes Sapientiae.

(3) Let us first of all make a preliminary statement that may seem 'evident', but we believe must still be stated. Our firm intention is to conform ourselves to the will of the Holy Father, and to his intentions as they stem from his words: it is with a spirit of sincere submission and of filial solicitude that we have read and interpreted them (Ecclesia Dei). But we do not want our obedience to be purely 'theoretical', and such that we arbitrarily oppose the Pope to his collaborators. For this reason, we refer already, with a religious assent of heart and mind, to that interpretation of the Pope's acts authentically given now or at a later date by the competent organizations that the Holy Father himself trusts.

(4) A correct interpretation must safeguard the text. To interpret is not the same thing as to reformulate. Interpretation, therefore, must never contradict the text. Now, in the Motu Proprio in question, one reads the following passages:

(5) But, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, and of traditions of spirituality and apostolate. This diversity also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: such is the 'harmony' which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.2

(6) To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church.3 ... moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelinqs of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apsotolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.4 (7) In the first passage cited, [paragraph 5] diversity is appreciated as a value and not merely tolerated as a fact. It is ranked among the 'treasures' of the Church. It is from this appreciation that practical instructions are derived which require respect for the aspirations and interior dispositions of all those who feel attached to the disciplinary and liturgical forms preceeding the reform. As a consequence, the underlying intention of the disciplinary concessions must be interpreted in the light of this positive evaluation.

(8) The interpretation that has been proposed [paragraph 1], which takes as a goal the disappearance of preconciliar liturgical forms, would involve an intention contrary to that made clear above [paragraph 3], and would therefore involve an obrogation5 of the text itself. One can, it is true, voice the hypothesis that the first of the passages cited [paragraph 5], which is of a more doctrinal character, doesn't refer to liturgical tradition, which is not explicily mentioned. Liturgtical tradition is, however, mentioned in the two other passages, which are an application. From this one might conclude that there is a desire to dismiss the actual use of liturgical rites from the category of legitimate 'diversity'. From a strictly grammatical and logical point of view, this interpretation is possible, but it would make the text very ambiguous, due to the context, because it is unmistakable that what is at stake (and what causes the diffiiculty) is in no way made up of a simple difference in spiritual traditions, but of liturgical practice. It is a matter therefore of a spiritual tradition insofar as it is is embodied in liturgical forms.

(9) It is interpreted the same way by Cardinal Ratzinger. Indeed, in the preface to a laymen's Mass book, containing the 1962 Missal, he wrote: 'I willingly present the republishing of the Roman Missal current in 1962. This liturgy which Pope John Paul II has been pleased to allow for the use of all those who are attached to it, is an integral part of the treasure which represents for the Church the diversity of charisms and of spiritual traditions of the apostolate.'6

(10) The hermenuetical rule of 'helpful interpretation' requires that in order to determine the meaning of a text, one avoids a priori attributing to the author not only internal contradictions, but also hidden motives from the moral point of view. One must not abandon this principle altogether unless compelled by certain, objective fact. Now, if it is true that the obligation to tell the truth is not always and at every moment binding, nevertheless, it is equally true that one may never positively lead one's neighbor into error.

(11) This hermeneutical rule, moreover, takes on for a Catholic an entirely different religious value when the text being interpreted is a magisterial act.

(12) The passages cited above [paragraphs 5 & 6] absolutely require the reader who reads them without forewarning to understand that [church] authority welcomes diversity, including liturgical diversity, - under limited conditions - as a positive value and not as an obstacle to be overcome. As a consequence, to permit a meaning different from that which one qets from simply readinq the text amounts to presenting the matter as a fraud.

(13) The 'principle of totality' forces us - by analogy- to consider the text within the more general context of ecumenism. The Catholic principles of Ecumenism, making all necessary distinctions, can be applied equally here as an interpretative solution. Now, ecumenical dialogue derives benefit from all the differences which do not compromise the unity of faith, and from communion in what is necessary, according to the well-known saying: 'unity in necessary things, freedom in cases of doubt, and charity in all things.'7 At the same time, another characteristic that belongs to all dialogue, according to the Church's spirit, is sincerity and clarity of intentions.8

(14) To my knowledge, there are presently seven religious institutes - in full communion with the Holy See - that lawfully and even exclusively use the preconciliar rites. Certain of these institutes have been erected directly by the Holy See, through the Ecclesia Dei Commission. They obviously form their novices in this spirit and for this liturgical life. I cannot see how such acts as these could be reconciled with the character of a provisional measure that has been attributed to the [Ecclesia Dei] document.9

(15) I believe that the interior dispositions of those who feel attached to the old Latin liturgical forms can have legitimate theological justifications: they are not a simple sentimental attachment lacking doctrinal substance. First of all, does the acceptance of the orthodoxy of the new liturgical books necessarily involve the discarding of the ancient forms? Isn't it possible to advance criticism over the way the liturgical reforms have been carried out and to suggest their partial revision? Eminent theologicans have produced some serious criticisms, that are still useful and are not totally opposed - in principle- to the reform as such.10

In a more than secondary way, the Second Vatican Council has been clearly contradicted by the liturgical reform as it has been carried out. Indeed, while the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, in paragraph 36, 21, decreed: 'The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin Rites.' There has now, in fact, been success in almost totally abandoning Latin. A surrender which, in Italy at least, has been unequivocally interpreted as the obligation to celebrate the Mass "cum populo" (with people) in the common language.11

(16) The wishes of the Council Fathers, during the vote on the definitive text of the Constitution on the liturgy, were certainly not to confine Latin to permission in exceptional cases.12 This shows that there can always be legitimate changes (for example, to return to a practice that conforms to what the Council demanded) and that, keeping in mind respect towards authority and safeguarding communion, any of the faithful may legitimately suggest such changes. Equally, it is a standard principle that the laws of the church are not always and necessarily the best possible. Recognized writers maintain that laws may contain accidental errors.13 If this is so, is it not permitted to work - within legal means - in order to eliminate these defects?

(17) The use of various liturgical forms does not destroy unity, if there is communion in faith and in charity. This seems to us to be the obvious meaning of the words of the Pope in the Motu Proprio [Ecclesia Dei]. Let it not be said, that since there are no serious dogmatic reasons for remaining attached to old liturgical forms, there is no reason or basis for doing so, but only an obtuse and sentimental attachment. One might as well claim that the separated Eastern churches, in case the dogmatic differences should be surmounted, must renounce their particularities - liturgical, spiritual, theological and canonical, to conform in every way to the Latin West. This claim is not new. On the other hand, does it not confirm the extreme traditionalists' arguments, who support their "non possumus" with properly dogmatic reasons, in accordance with their refusal of all pluralism? Certainly, pastoral reasons may come up, dealing with the good order of the community and with the need to avoid any reason for division and argument. But hasn't the Pope rightly given us an invaluable pastoral instruction when he invites us to a new sensibility, rather than to disciplinary measures, as means of preventing and remedying all possible division?

Don Piero Cantoni 14

Footnotes

1. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 80 (1988), pp. 1495-98., Translation from L'Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, N. 28, 11 July 1988, Vatican City.
2. Ibid, p. 1497, #5,a.
3. Ibid, p. 1498, #5c.
4. Ibid, #6,c.
5. Obrogation: 'Suppression or indirect abrogation of a law by a later contrary law of the same degree' (R. Naz, Dictionnaire de droit canonique, fasc. XXXV, Paris, 1957, col. 1064)
6. Missel quotidien complet, (Le Barroux, Editions Sainte-Madeleine, 1990), p.7.
7. 'In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.' Cf. Decree Unitas redintegratio, n4; pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, #92.
8. Cf. Paul Vl, Encydical Ecclesiam Suam.
9. This interpretation emerges clearly from the fact that these institutuions were erected 'in conserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions in light of the protocol signed by Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre on the fifth of May last.' (Ecclesia Dei #5,a). Unless one attributes fraudulent intentions to the Holy See, the protocol clearly did not include the intention progressively to abandon preconciliar rites.
10. Cf., for example: Louis Bouyer, Le metier de theologien, entretiens avec Georges Daix, Paris, Editions France-Empire, 1979, pp. 49-79; Klaus Gamber, Die Reform der romishcen Liturgie, Vorgeschichte und Problematik, (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Background and Problems), Regensburg, Pustet, 1979; Joseph Ratzinger, Das Fest des Glaubens, Versuche zure Theologie des Gottesdienstes, Einsiedeln, Johannes Verlag, 1981, pp. 73-78; Idem, preface to Klaus Gamber, La reforme liturgique en question, Le Barroux, 1992, pp. 6-8.
11. Cf. Italian Conference of Bishops, Precisazioni, no. 12, in Messale Romano (Rome 1983) page 1.
12. Reporter Msgr. L Enciso Viana, in the presentation of the definitive text: 'We wish to signify that those who wish to celebrate the whole Mass in the Latin language must not impose their opinion on others; likewise, those who want to use the vernacular in certain parts of the Mass must not force others to adopt their practice.' (Acta Synodalia Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani Secu ndi, Vol. II, para. II. Congregation es generales XL - XIVC. Poliglotta Vaticana, Roma, 1972, p. 291) It is with this interpretation that the text was accepted by the conciliar assembly and it is in the light of this precision that it must subsequently be interpreted. One cannot, then, speak of a reform wished by the Council 'if one considers all that the reform is, in fact, to-day. This does not mean that all the changes that followed are illegitimate per se, for the Council is not, in its specifically canonical parts, irreformable.
13. Cf., for example, Melchior Cano, De locis theologicis, book 5, chap. 5; in J.P. Migne, Theologiae cursus completus, vol. 1, Pairs, 1837, col. 387-390; R. Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book 4, chap. 5; F. Suarez, De fide, disp. 5, sect. 8, no. 7; Jean de Saint-Thomas, Cursus theologicus, traite De kRomano Pontifice, disp. 3, art. 3, no. 5, ed. Vives, vol. 7. pp. 31 0-31 1; F.X. Wernz - Petrus Vidal, lus canonicum, vol. 1, Normae generales, Rome, 1952, pp. 268-269; Charles Journet, L'Eglise du Verbe incarne, vol. 1, DDB, Bruges, 1962, p. 473. 14. Address: Via della Chiesa. 15 - 54030 Canevara (MS) - Italie.

Return to Una Voce Netsite