Over the past week, episcopal reactions to Summorum Pontificum have been rolling in. Some are collected at the Summorum Pontificum blog, Fr. Z has been posting and commenting on some – The Stella Borealis blog has posted a useful index to his commentary. This comment thread at Rorate Coeli has 171 comments so far – most are reporting episcopal reaction, with some discussion here and there. (many in languages other than English.)

The general understanding of what this document accomplish is, has was long predicted, to shift the burden of proof in regard to the celebration of the TLM (I’m just going to use that for brevity’s sake). Beginning with the 1988 Ecclesia Dei statement, the process had been interpreted and lived out with the burden of proof being on those requesting the TLM, with the bishop as the final arbiter. This interpretation ultimately communicated that the TLM was about politics, and was the possession and interest of specific groups or movements within the Church, and, as always (and as is proper), it is a bishop’s role to direct and shape what such groups and movements can do in his diocese. (To put it more clearly, a group can’t set itself up as a Catholic apostolate (with the understanding that it is Catholic in the sense of being tied to Rome, not in the sense of a self-proclaimed "Independent Catholic Church" or something)  in a diocese without the bishop’s permission. Which makes sense.

So for twenty-five years, that has been the paradigm that most bishops have worked under in relation to the TLM – that is the activity of groups that he must, in his role as bishop, oversee.

What SP does is explicitly shift that paradigm. The MIssal of John XXIII, Pope Benedict says, is the patrimony of the whole Church, and every ordained Catholic priest may offer it and every Catholic has the "right" (an inadequate word, with all of its implications, I know) to assist at it.

(new lingo, right? Well, actually no. That is the traditional way of describing the congregation’s role at the Mass – to "assist." As opposed to what we generally say now: "attend." Which begs the question: Which term as a more participatory ring to it? Just food for thought – for the cross-ritual pollination B16 seems so keen on.)

It doesn’t take the bishop completely out of the equation, which it shouldn’t. But as I said, it puts the burden of proof on him to prove to the Ecclesia Dei Commission that this particular priest or this particular group should not be allowed to offer the TLM in his diocese. (Which could happen, you know. In the end, this act might actually give bishops a little more in their arsenal against Sedevacanist groups and others who have set up shop in their dioceses.)

One aspect of Catholic history that interests me a great deal is the relationship between bishops and Rome (and each other) as it developed, as it played out through the centuries. There is definitely growth and dynamism and change (obviously) – and that development continues as various factors – the changing role of the Papacy over the past two centuries, the advent of instant, mass communications – come into play. But just remember, there have been times in Catholic history, when the only way spiritual movements could survive and flourish was to take the bishop out of the picture – Cluny being the most obvious example, although the conflicts there were predictably mundane, although understandable – as the Cluniac movement grew, that mean it absorbed property, – lots of it – and that was property that would no longer belong to the bishop.

One can sympathize with bishops, then, even as one says, "Well, you brought this on yourselves, fellows."

As much as it seems like as simple thing, bringing this issue of the TLM into the pastoral life of a diocese with more freedom doesn’t necessarily bring joy to a bishop’s heart, and it is not necessarily because that bishop is hostile to the TLM (although it sometimes is.) What I’m guessing it represents is One More Thing. A bishop’s plate is already very full and this adds a whole other, in their mind, potentially problematic set of issues and demands on them – and demands on their already overworked presbyterate, a presbyterate that has, for twenty years or so, in almost every part of the country been focused on learning Spanish and ministering to the exploding Hispanic Catholic population. Now Latin? (A creative bishop could figure out a way to relate the two pastoral needs, but…)

So, now a bishop looks forward to another set of pastoral requests from groups that the general church bureaucracy has tended to mythologize as Big Problems, Divisive and Retrograde. Not totally and completely without reason. Fr. Phillips of the Anglican Use parish, Atonement, relates his past experience, here, as an example

I’m just sayin’.

On the other hand, if you have been paying attention for the past two decades you know what roadblocks – walls bishops have constructed against the celebration of the TLM. Many bishops have a responsibility for the ghettoization of those desiring the TLM, and any subsequent aggrieved victim mentality. A bishop, for example, finally granting permission for a TLM in his diocese after two years of requests to which he finally acceded to only after the group went to the Ecclesia Dei Commission  – on a weekday evening – , but absolutely forbidding anything from ever being mentioned about it in the diocesan newspaper about the celebration – no articles or even simple announcements of its existence – that’s what we’re talking about.

Bishops’ reactions have been all over the map – I think the extremes are well-represented by Bishop Trautman of Erie  and Bishop Lori of Bridgeport. Compare and contrast.

There will be a lot to watch and consider between now and 9/14…won’t there?