Summorum Pontificum―A New Foundation for Liturgical Law

Dr Alcuin Reid

The Holy Father’s 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum pontificum deals principally with three of the older
liturgical books, the Missale Romanum, the Breviarium Romanum and the Rituale Romanum. It
provides for the celebration of Holy Mass, the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance and
Anointing of the Sick, and for the celebration of funerals according to the judgement of the pastor “for
the good of souls.” It states that the older Divine Office may be celebrated.

Summorum pontificum doesn’t mention the many other rites in the Rituale Romanum, and only briefly
mentions one from the Pontificale Romanum: Ordinaries may celebrate the older rite of Confirmation
“if the good of souls would seem to require it.”

Does this mean that the older rite of say, the blessing of houses or of holy water, may not be used by
priests or deacons without some further permission or indult? May bishops not use the rites of
consecration of altars or of ordination without the explicit authorisation of the Holy See?

In the case of the rites of the Rituale Romanum, the question is―effectively―answered in practice.
Where the persons concerned want the older rites, it would be pastorally absurd for a priest to insist
on blessing a rosary, crucifix or a statue according to the modern De Benedictionibus on the basis that
Summorum pontificum does not explicitly provide for such blessings according to the older Rituale
Romanum. The “good of souls” dictates the answer.

So too do the principles articulated in Summorum pontificum, as does the mens legislatoris so
eloquently set forth in the Holy Father’s letter to the bishops accompanying Summorum pontificum,
with which this answer is in perfect harmony.

The Motu Proprio’s fundamental principal is most certainly “the good of souls.” Where there is “great
love and affection” for “the earlier liturgical forms” these are not to be denied. This is possible
because the older liturgy “must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage” and because
the older liturgy was “never abrogated” (SP article 1 uses these phrases specifically in relation to the
Missale Romanum, but the principle is nevertheless applicable to the other older liturgical books, as is
demonstrated by SP’s later reference to their use.) Now, regardless of precisely what canonists make
of “never abrogated,” it certainly does imply that the older rites were never evacuated of their value.

The other fundamental principle of Summorum pontificum is that of subsidiarity. It is the relevant
pastor or church rector who is to decide upon the suitability of the use of the former rites. It is no
longer the preferences or policies of more distant authorities which are to dictate local liturgical
practice.

This subsidiarity is eminently more pastoral. It is also more practical: if the older rites retain their
value and meaning, a diocesan bishop does not need to be asked for permission by a priest who judges
it pastorally opportune to bless a new car with the older rite. If both older and newer rites are valid
and valuable, the best one for the local pastoral circumstances may freely be chosen.

Pope Benedict’s Letter to the Bishops accompanying Summorum pontificum, which in the history of
ecclesiastical legislation must rank highly as a clear and extensive explanation of the mind of the
legislator, gives us further guidance.
The Pope, who is the Supreme Legislator, states clearly that he wills reconciliation where there has
been division over the liturgical rites. “Let us generously open our hearts and make room for
everything that the faith itself allows,” he writes. “What earlier generations held as sacred remains
sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered
harmful,” he states. “It behoves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s
faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”

Summorum pontificum applies these motivations in detail in the principles it lays down for the
celebration of Mass and the Sacraments it mentions. Common sense, one would think, dictates its
application to the other ceremonies of the Rituale Romanum. But what of the Pontificale Romanum?
Apart from Confirmation, may a bishop (in fact, an Ordinary), freely decide to bless, profess, ordain
or consecrate according to its rites?

There appears to be some controversy over this at present, in particular in respect of the rites of
ordination. One can understand the canonical difficulty posed in respect of a diocesan bishop who
confers the subdiaconate―precisely what canonical obligations and status does the ordinand have?
―and that question requires clarification.

Liturgically speaking, however, if we apply the principles of Summorum pontificum to the question
and if we accord with the mens legislatoris, the answer must be affirmative: an Ordinary is free to use
the older Pontificale Romanum according to his pastoral judgement.

That is, where the Ordinary judges that this is for the “good of souls” and where there is “great love
and affection” for “the earlier liturgical forms,” which Summorum pontificum recognises as sufficient
justification for the use the older rites. Affirmative also because one cannot maintain the “abrogation”
of one older liturgical book whilst maintaining the “non-abrogation” of the others. The older use of
the Roman rite is an organic whole: the rites of ordination in the Pontificale Romanum are celebrated
with those of the Missale Romanum, not normally separately.

Affirmative, again, if one takes seriously the principle of subsidiarity. Whist the pastor of the parish is
to judge the form the presbyteral rites celebrated in his parish take, the diocesan bishop is, surely, the
appropriate pastor to judge the forms the pontifical rites are to take in his diocese, of which he is the
liturgical moderator, without constraint from authorities who are more distant from the pastoral
realities the bishop encounters.

This affirmative response is thoroughly grounded in and supported by the motivations manifested by
the Holy Father in his accompanying letter. It would be pastorally ungenerous to limit bishops (and
the faithful) in this way. It may be the source of further division and cause harm to souls. It would
prevent an Ordinary from giving the older pontifical rites their proper place in the liturgical life of his
diocese or ordinariate.

A notable feature of the writings of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is their contradiction of that liturgical
positivism which caused much so harm and suffering through the liturgical reforms of the latter half
of the twentieth century. It is perhaps ironic that as Pope, as Supreme Pastor, having judged it
opportune to try to repair some of that damage, it was necessary to begin to do so by positing new
ecclesiastical law.

It is less ironic―in fact it is most alarming―that there appear to be some who wish formally to
interpret that new law in ways which seem contrary to its very principles and to the clearly manifest
mind of the Supreme Legislator himself. Whether it be in respect of the question of ordinations or
professions or about the rites of particular dioceses or of religious orders, the principles articulated in
Summorum pontificum are clear and they are applicable. And the mind of the legislator is manifest.

Our beloved Holy Father has given us a great gift in Summorum pontificum. It is not the gift of new
liturgical law, but of a new foundation for liturgical law. He has reminded us of the generosity of
liturgical Tradition itself, and has demanded that we respect that generosity for the good of the
Church, for the good of souls. Whatever interpretations or instructions may come in respect of
Summorum pontificum, if they fail to respect this reality, they will do harm, and not good.

© Alcuin Reid 2011

The Rev’d Dr Alcuin Reid is a cleric of the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, France, and author of The
Organic Development of the Liturgy (Ignatius, 2005).