An Old Rite Priest and Msgr. Charles Pope on the Old and New Forms of the Roman Rite

In writing this recent article on the restrictions imposed by the Diocese of Rome on celebration of the sacraments in the traditional form of the Roman Rite (it has banned six out of seven of them, allowing just the Eucharist), I included some of the comments below but, as usual, due to space constraints, it wasn’t possible to use them in their entirety.

Please therefore see below their comments in full, the first by a traditional priest who, due to the current climate of suppression preferred not to be named, and the second by Msgr. Charles Pope, dean and pastor in the Archdiocese of Washington, DC:

 

Old Rite Priest

What is the general difference between the two forms of the Roman Rite?

In general one finds with the other Sacraments in the usus antiquior (UA) [also known as the extraordinary form, or the Tridentine rite] the same key differences as one finds in the different forms of the Mass. Namely, the new rite of the Mass (NO) presents much less clearly the truths of the faith and lacks in a substantial way the pedagogical helps that are constantly presented to us through the UA.

This difference is critical because souls desperately need today to be strengthened in their faith. As we see in the Gospel, faith is the key that unlocks the door to God’s action. There is a great difference between 1) being taught the truth about the sacrificial nature of the Mass and about Our Lord’s Real Presence but experiencing those mysteries daily or weekly in the NO versus 2) being taught these two truths and living them daily or weekly in a rite which has you on your knees to begin the Mass, fosters sacred silence, and has all the gestures and helps that you are well aware of.

To give a personal example: When I first began celebrating the UA I was struck by the effect on children. I was the same priest with the same sermons — with whatever strengths and weaknesses those had — whether I was celebrating the Mass in Spanish, English, or in the UA (and in the former I was normally celebrating ad orientem and using the Communion rail for distribution). The families attending had, for the most part, never experienced the UA before. But when they came for a couple of months I was really struck by the additional good fruits in the children and young people, as well as adults. This is one sign of the pedagogical strength of the UA.

How is the Rite of Baptism different in the Old Rite compared to the new one? Why would it be a problem? 

The old rite has stronger and more repeated exorcisms and the use of exorcised salt. Moreover the entire rite is notably more sacred and solemn by the fact it is in Latin, starts outside the Church (often in the vestibule) to symbolize that the child is still under the power of Satan and does not yet have the grace of Christ, etc.

I have often celebrated this rite in the UA for couples who had never experienced it, some of whom were not even going to Church and were poorly catechized. They have universally said how beautiful and helpful it was.

In brief, Baptism in the UA 1) conveys more clearly the truths of the Faith such as the reality of Satan and need to be washed clean or original sin, the call to holiness, etc. and 2) better imparts grace.

Of course the sacramental grace is conveyed in either rite by the formula of Baptism. But the other prayers each call down graces from God and so there is a real difference as to whether they are prayed or not in terms of the graces the soul receives.

The Eucharist aside, are the other Sacraments very different? Does Baptism have the greatest divergence?

I would say that the other Sacraments have similar differences to what I have indicated above. The anointing/extreme unction also has substantial differences (comparisons can be found online, showing the various prayers in English).

Once again the aspect of spiritual battle is quite present as is the reality of sin. The formula of absolution has the strong phrase calling on Jesus Christ Himself to absolve the soul before the priest, in persona Christi, absolves. This is lacking in the NO.

What are your own views about this restriction? It seems ominous.

It is indeed ominous. It is not a matter of being told to do something good but not quite as good. Rather, 1) to not teach the truths of the faith clearly by how we celebrate the Sacraments, 2) to remove gestures and prayers that have a strong pedagogical value, 3) to not allow souls to benefit from these extra prayers that make a real difference in graces received (again, not the sacramental grace that is conveyed in either form but additional graces), and 4) to convey to souls that continuing to live the Sacraments in the way that generations of Saints and Christians lived them is somehow harmful or bad (which in turn casts suspicion on what we receive as handed down in general). All of this is seriously harmful for souls.

 

***

 

Msgr. Charles Pope

Do you think that the baptismal rite in the old form conveys more clearly the truths of the faith as it has repeated exorcisms, extra prayers calling down graces from God? 

To some degree, yes. However this conveying presupposes that the faithful are taught well by the Church as to the meanings of all this. In the 40s and 50s, even as many of the Sacraments used more and more vernacular, the exorcisms remained in Latin. I support reinvigorating the new rite of Baptism with a more vigorous exorcism. The current rite has an exorcism, but it is written more as a suggestion or wish that evil and the effects of sin depart. It has been my experience that demons don’t respond very well to suggestions or wishes on our part. They reply to the voice of command, the Church, in Christ’s name commands them to leave in no uncertain terms. The exorcisms of the Old form surely did that. Hence, I do think the older form conveyed more clearly the truth that those baptized are snatched from Satan’s power; they are transferred from the kingdom of darkness, to the Kingdom of Light.

Do you think baptism is weaker in the Ordinary Form because the aspect of fighting the devil is “practically blurred” compared to the old rite? Are the sacraments in the traditional form fuller and more complete than in the Ordinary Form?

I hesitate to use the word “weaker” since Sacraments have power ex opere operato. I prefer to speak as St. Thomas does, of fruitfulness. He teaches of the role of exorcisms in baptism and addresses critics in this way:

Some say that the things done in the exorcism have no effect but are mere signs. But this is clearly false; since in exorcizing, the Church uses words of command to cast out the devil’s power, for instance, when she says: “Therefore, accursed devil, go out from him,” etc. Therefore we must say that they have some effect, but, other than that of Baptism. For Baptism gives man grace unto the full remission of sins. But those things that are done in the exorcism remove the twofold impediment against the reception of saving grace. Of these, one is the outward impediment, so far as the demons strive to hinder man’s salvation. And this impediment is removed by the breathings, whereby the demon’s power is cast out…. The other impediment is within, forasmuch as, from having contracted original sin, man’s sense is closed to the perception of the mysteries of salvation…..(ST, III, q. 71, a. 3, Resp).

I have written more of Thomas’ teaching on the matter here:

https://blog.adw.org/2014/01/should-the-church-consider-reintroducing-the-exorcism-prayers-in-the-rite-of-baptism/.

As to the older v. newer forms of the sacraments in general, I prefer to speak of a mutual respect. I like both forms, but for different reasons. The older forms are, in general, more theologically precise and emphasize the mystery and glory of what is taking place and that we are worshiping and encountering God.

The newer rites emphasize an accessibility, are more inclusive of the faithful in the celebration of the rites and are rich in scripture. Hence I would prefer to speak of both forms having pastoral advantages that can be accessed according to the discretion of the pastor and bishop. I am glad to like both forms of the Mass and the sacraments and to access whatever advantages they supply.

What is your own general reaction to the decision from the diocese of Rome in terms of fostering unity and furthering Francis’ hopes for one Roman rite, namely the Ordinary Form? 

I deeply regret it and fear that many bishops may view it as a model to follow, even though Francis’ Motu Proprio addresses only the Mass and the head of Congregation for Divine Worship indicated as much. Doing this can amount to a pastoral rejection of those who find these older forms both meaningful and reassuring. It may also drive some of them further to the margins and deprive them of their right to access these more ancient forms.

While some may regard the concerns and preferences of traditional Catholics as persnickety or fussy it seems that charges like these ought to apply to both sides and that we can adopt a live and let live attitude.

Here in America at least, Catholics of different liturgical preferences live in significant peace when options are available to them. Why not just largely let this matter be and permit the diversity and inclusion so often hailed by many?

Edging people to the margins does not seem to foster the unity Francis seeks. Holding people close to the heart of the Church who desire only what the Church has done for centuries seems far more unitive.  As for “one Roman rite” — such has never been the case. There are other forms or rites that coexist with the Roman Rite: Ambrosian, Gallican, Dominican, Anglican Use and so forth. The unity is in the fundamentals, there is legitimate diversity the Church has permitted liturgically since the beginning.