A New Commentary on Summorum Pontificum

Liturgische Versoehnung

Ein kirchenrechtlicher Kommentar zum Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” fuer Studium und Praxis

By Wolfgang F. Rothe
Foreword by Msgr. Camille Perl

Dominus Verlag, Augsburg 2009
(208 pages; price 14.80 Euro)

The reader may find it hard to believe that the second anniversary of Summorum Pontificum is fast approaching. In the general uproar that erupted over the lifting of the excommunication of the FSSPX bishops, the restating of the Church’s teaching on contraception and Obama’s visit to Notre Dame it is easy to lose sight of the slow, steady progress of the Traditionalist movement. Here in the greater New York area, for example, a Traditional solemn high mass or Missa Cantata was still a newsworthy event in 2007. Today, 5 to 10 might be celebrated on major feasts.

These developments are largely due to the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum (“SP”) on July 7, 2009 by Pope Benedict XVI. Yet the implementation of SP remains limited in many dioceses and still faces fanatical opposition in others. In Liturgische Versoehnung (“Liturgical Reconciliation”) Wolfgang Rothe clarifies some of the difficulties that have arisen and provides a road map for the implementation of the Motu Proprio. Liturgische Versoehnung is a concise canon law commentary on the text of SP (provided in both Latin and German). Rothe relies primarily on German language literature on the subject and tends to concentrate on those issues that have arisen in the German –speaking world (such as the restrictive views on the requisite qualification of the celebrant for the “Extraordinary Form” applicable in Germany).

Although in his preface, the author claims that his commentary should not be understood as a brief for or against the Traditional Mass, his own warm support for SP is evident throughout this work. The reader will find a wealth of detailed analysis to refute the spurious obstacles that have been raised in many dioceses. For example, regarding the famous “stable group” of the faithful necessary to petition for a regular Sunday parish mass in the traditional rite, Rothe concludes that only three members are necessary. Moreover, “stable” does not imply some preexisting group with formal membership or require that the group have established a track record of weetings, but only that that a group of the faithful desiring the Traditional liturgy does in fact exist.

Rothe makes clear that SP has fundamentally changed the position of the Traditional liturgy and the role of the local diocese. Under the indult, despite all calls for ‘generous application” its existence remained a matter of grace. It was derogation from the universal law, permitted at the discretion of the local bishop. Now, the “Extraordinary” and “Ordinary” forms are equal in intrinsic status. Any priest now has the right to celebrate private masses (which the laity may attend) in the “Extraordinary Form” without seeking any approval. Moreover, the faithful at the parish level have a right to petition for the “Extraordinary Form” If the pastor refuses a petition for the Traditional mass, SP provides for a right of appeal to the bishop. If no result is obtained at the diocesan level, the faithful are expressly authorized to appeal to the Ecclesia Dei commission. The guiding principle is that the local bishop is under an obligation to provide the Traditional Mass if requested. If he thinks he cannot do so, the Ecclesia Dei commission is tasked to help him deal with the difficulties. By the way, Rothe points out that the alleged danger of conflict or confusion among the faithful is not a valid reason for refusing the Traditional Mass.

Rothe emphasizes that the each of the two “forms of the Roman Rite” is to be kept separate without confusion. To introduce the reading schedule of the Novus Ordo in the ‘Extraordinary Form” is an abuse. Similarly, communion in the hand and altar girls have no place in the Traditional liturgy. This is not to say that the author uncritically accepts the entirety of SP or that he always applies a relentlessly expansive reading. For example, he is not totally convinced of the position of SP that the Traditional mass was never abrogated in view of the clear “factual prohibition” of the older rite (or as Rothe would say, the older form).

Although this book is a complete commentary, Rothe does not address certain issues that have arisen in the US, such as celebrating the Holy week Triduum in the “Extraordinary Form.” On the other hand the celebration of the sacraments other than the Eucharist in the Traditional Form is given a very thorough presentation.

Overall, I would highly recommend this work. It provides a working guide to understanding SP in order to advance the Traditional liturgy. I hope for a translation into English very soon.