AN EXAMPLE OF ARROGANT CLERICALISM AND AN EXAMPLE OF PASTORAL NON CLERICALISM

This is an example of institutional non pastoral clericalism:

One extreme is made up of those who ⎯⎯ claiming the strongest allegiance to the Church and the magisterium ⎯⎯ reject and repudiate in practice the very principles of the Council and their subsequent application and reformation as well as the measured carrying out of these principles by the work of the Holy See and the conferences of bishops under our Christ-given authority. Such people diminish the Church’s authority under pretext of tradition; their obedience to that authority is merely lip-service. They draw the faithful away from the ties of obedience to the See of Peter as well as from their lawful bishops. They repudiate the authority of today in favor of that of another age…

…For our part, in the name of tradition, we beseech all our children and all Catholic communities to celebrate the rites of the restored liturgy with dignity and fervent devotion. Use of the new Ordo Missae is in no way left up to the choice of priests or people…

…In virtue of the supreme authority granted to us by Jesus Christ we command the same ready obedience to the other new laws, relating to liturgy,  

discipline, pastoral activity, made in these last years to put into effect the decrees of the Council. Any course of action seeking to stand in the way of the conciliar decrees can under no consideration be regarded as a work done for the advantage of the Church, since it in fact does the Church serious harm.  

This is an example of pastoral non clericalism:

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden.  This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.  I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide.  You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections.  In return … widen your hearts also!” (2 Cor 6:11-13).  Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject.  Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal.  In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.  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.  It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.  Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.  The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.