Vatican: resistance to liberalization of old Mass disobedient

About two weeks ago, the following was reported by Catholic News Agency:

Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments blasted as "disobedience" the reaction of many bishops to the Pope's motu proprio document Summorum Pontificum, which lifted the restrictions of the older "extraordinary rite" of the Mass.

The article was entitled "Resistance to Latin Mass liberalization is disobedient and proud, says bishop" (London, CNA, November 23, 2007). The article continues:

Archbishop Ranjith decried the action "and even rebellion" of many bishops who are trying to limit access to the older Mass. “On the part of some dioceses, there have been interpretive documents that inexplicably aim to limit the ‘motu proprio’ of the pope,” he said earlier this month.

The archbishop's comments come in response to "interpretations" of the motu proprio supported by the bishops of England and Wales. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor provoked outrage from some Catholics after his commentary on the document claimed that priests still needed to ask permission from their bishops to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor also said that congregations requesting the old Mass must be "stable," though that requirement is absent from the Pope’s document.

The cardinal’s commentary was called an “ungenerous interpretation” and “a slap in the face of traditionalists.”

Another clergyman, Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds, claimed that the power of the bishops to stop the Tridentine Mass remained in effect.

Archbishop Ranjith said that, in these dissents, “there hide, on the one hand, ideological prejudices and, on the other hand, pride, which is one of the most serious sins.”

“The bishops, in particular, have sworn fidelity to the pontiff; may they be coherent and faithful to their commitment,” he said.

Notre Dame's stuck-in-the-seventies dissident professor, Fr. Richard McBrien, is also quoted (surprise, surprise) as criticizing young Catholics who like the old Mass, saying "it is a mystery how one can be nostalgic for something one had never experienced." Who says they need to be nostalgic about it in order to experience it? What's to stop them if they just happen to like it? McBrien is also said to have praised "liturgical scholars" who “have published articles which carefully pick apart the reasoning behind the papal document.” Why is McBrien's bloodless dissent so boring, and the Holy Father's bracing orthodoxy (like Chesterton's), by contrast, so exhilarating?

Damian Thompson, writing for the Daily Telegraph, by contrast, is quoted as defending the papal motu proprio, stating: "By failing to welcome the latest papal initiatives - or even to display any interest in them, beyond the narrow question of how their power is affected, the bishops of England and Wales have confirmed Benedict's low opinion of them."

[Hat top to C.B.]