Even more Traddies...

More questions about Catholic ''traditionalism''...Traddies are fond of Pope Benedict XVI (as am I, I think he is a very pious and erudite man), but are they not overly fond of him? They go on and on about Summorum Pontificum, even dubbing it the Motu Proprio (as if it were the only one in Church history!), and celebrate the '62 Rite merrily ''because the Pope says so''...maybe I am being rather fickle in thinking that since when did you need the Pope's permission to celebrate Mass? Personally, I am not in favour of Summorum Pontificum. Not only does it say nothing about the Old Rite (the Holy Father does go through a succession of Popes, beginning with Gregory the Great, and he mentions the Missal of Pius V in passing, but it's all about '62), but it also espouses a kind of pseudo, hitherto unfounded in the Latin West, ''theology'' of Liturgy, manifested in the distinction the Holy Father makes between the so-called forma extraordinaria and forma ordinaria of the Roman Rite. There should be no such distinction. The New Rite should not be the ''Ordinary form'' of the Church's lex orandi; it should not exist at all; it is in fact the bane of my life. I am afraid that I must re-echo the sentiments of Andrew Cameron-Mowat (Professor of Liturgy at Heythrop College): that there can be only one Roman Rite in the Catholic Church - the different ''expressions'' of this one Roman Rite being determined by legitimate local (national, diocesan, even parochial) custom. Where I disagree with him is that this one Roman Rite should be the Old Roman Rite, as it has been celebrated and honoured in the West since the most ancient days. This alone should be reason enough to celebrate the Old Rite. Summorum Pontificum is just another example of Papal interference in Liturgy.

This is not to say that I completely repudiate Summorum Pontificum, like so many liberal vegetarian homosexual teetotalers. I think there is only one benefit to Summorum Pontificum, and this is far over-shadowed by it's downsides: it has (''legitimately'' at any rate, not that Canon Law has much to do with Liturgy) freed the Old Mass, and does limit the power of liberal episcopal interference, but even this is barbed because this ''benefit'' is stimulated by an already false notion of Papal authority over Liturgy. What Summorum Pontificum has in fact done is relativised the Liturgy, made Liturgy subjective to preference, this preference being legitimised by the Pope himself! In pre-Summorum Pontificum days (which I remember well, unlike most modern Traddies - I was attending the Old Rite long before Summorum Pontificum), in the days when most Traditionalists were traditional, you went to the Old Rite and that was it - some with strong stomachs went to the New Rite on Sundays, but I had nothing to do with it. These days, in the days of the ''Extraordinary Form'', Catholics ''prefer'' (instead of repudiate) one ''expression'' of the lex orandi to the other. My attitude towards the New Rite was stupidly called ''wrong'' by a Traddie simply because I said that the New Rite was made-up liturgy. However, surely even to ''prefer'' one ''expression'' to the other means that you at least subconsciously think that there is something wrong with one?

I am being rushed off the family computer now so this post is going to end miserably since my thought has been disrupted. I hope I have demonstrated (baldly, I'll admit) the dangers of Ultramontanism and Liturgy. It is a great monster don't you know. As Faramir said of Minas Tirith: the Church is not a mistress of slaves, even a kind mistress of willing slaves. Apropos, Summorum Pontificum is inherently flawed, and you won't find this sort of post on the blog of any Traditionalist...