nitially, there were unrealistic expectations. Many
who favor the older Mass were overly optimistic that
the floodgates would crash open. The naysayers, often
in positions of power, tried to stem the tide by
speaking very negatively, not only about the older
Mass, but also about the people who desire it.

Many diocesan bishops, incredibly, threw up
unreasonable obstacles to the good provisions the Holy
Father generously promulgated. That resistance is now
crumbling under the scrutiny of the blogosphere and
pressure from the Holy See.

The other factor is that very many young priests want
to learn the traditional Latin Mass. For example, I
hear that over 1,000 priests have requested the new
training DVD that the Fraternity of St. Peter made
together with EWTN.

Scores of priests are attending training workshops in
Chicago and Nebraska, in Oxford, England, and
elsewhere, whenever they are offered. As priests learn
this form of the Mass, they will begin implementing it
in parishes.

Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, Benedict XVI's point
man in these matters, stated that the Holy Father
hopes the vetus ordo will be offered widely, even if
it has not been requested by the faithful.

University chaplaincies are being pushed by students
to make the traditional Latin Mass available. This
trend will only increase on an upward curve.

Q: The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei is
reportedly preparing a document to clarify some
ambiguities related to implementing "Summorum
Pontificum." What have been the main difficulties thus
far that such a document should address?

Father Zuhlsdorf: The document will probably clarify
some terms in the "motu proprio" that have been used
by some diocesan bishops and priests to block what the
Holy Father is trying to accomplish.

For example, "Summorum Pontificum" says priests must
be idoneus, "capable, competent" to say Mass with the
older book. Idoneus, a technical term, refers to the
minimum requirements for competence, not to expertise.

Edward Cardinal Egan of New York, a distinguished
canonist in his day, correctly stated that idoneus, as
far as the Latin language is concerned, means that the
priest must be able to pronounce the words properly.
That is the minimum.

Of course we hope for far more than that. But some
bishops are subjecting priests to exams in Latin
before they determine whether he can exercise his
right to say Mass using the 1962 Missale Romanum, or
even in Latin with the Novus Ordo, that is to say,
Mass in his own rite, as a priest of the Latin Church.

Another issue is how large a group, a coetus, making a
request for the vetus ordo must be before the parish
priest is required to act in their favor. Those and
other questions pertain to the interpretation of the
"motu proprio."

Practical questions have arisen as well. For example,
the Holy See should give direction about the
relationship of the two liturgical calendars. I think
the Holy See should issue an "ordo" for the
traditional Mass, a yearly booklet indicating which
Mass must be said each day.

Clarifications about the style of vestments that may
be used, or the sort of music, could be useful. There
are questions about Communion in the hand or altar
girls, how those fit with the spirit and the rubrics
of the pre-conciliar Mass.

Smaller details, for example about the so-called
second Confiteor before Communion, or some traditions
people desire from before the 1962 Missal should be
made clear.

This upcoming document, and its particular
authoritative responses, will help make the
implementation of "Summorum Pontificum" orderly and
serene.

Q: You have argued that "Summorum Pontificum" is the
centerpiece of Benedict XVI's "Marshall Plan" for the
Church. But the term "Marshall Plan" implies
rebuilding from the ground up. Can you describe this
plan and the role you believe the vetus ordo fits
within it?

Father Zuhlsdorf: Useful as they are, analogies limp.
After World War II the United States rebuilt
war-ravaged Europe both for humanitarian reasons, and
also to help create trading partners and a prosperous
bulwark against Communism.

After Vatican II, many spheres of the Church were
devastated, ravaged by internal dissent, a loss of
continuity with our tradition, and from erosion by the
secularism and relativism of the prevailing modern
world.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had been concerned for years
about the loss of Christian identity, which is at the
heart of Western Civilization. Now Papa Ratzinger, I
believe, is working to reinvigorate our Catholic
identity, within the Church herself among her members
and spheres of life, so that we can resist the
negative influences of secularism and relativism.

Only with a solid identity can we, as Catholics, have
something positive and healthy to offer to the world
at large, a clear voice offering important
contributions in the public square.

Our identity as Catholics is inextricably bound
together with the way we pray as a Church.

To give shape and strength to our Catholic identity in
these difficult times, we need an authentic liturgical
renewal, a renewal that reintegrates us with our
tradition, brings us into continuity with the deep
roots of our Catholic Christian experience of two
millennia.

Contrary to the notions of most progressivists, "the
Catholic thing" did not begin in the 1960s.

Benedict XVI is guiding us to a healthier vision of
the Church's doctrine, history, public worship and our
very identity as Catholics. There can be no authentic
change for a better future without continuity with our
past. Liturgy is the tip of the spear.

To read part 2- go here.