Celebration of the Eucharist is at the heart of Catholic identity, to the extent that regular attendance at Mass usually defines who is and who is not entitled to call themselves by that name. This may be why liturgical controversy in the Church sometimes takes on a hard and bitter edge. The latest display of ill feeling has been triggered by the somewhat unenthusiastic welcome in some parts of the Church given to Pope Benedict's motu proprio of last July, licensing the more general use of the Tridentine Rite. Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship at the Vatican, this week accused bishops who were trying to limit use of the Tridentine Mass of being "in rebellion against the Pope" and guilty of "one of the gravest sins" - pride. Certain "theologians, liturgists, priests, bishops and even cardinals" had issued "interpretative documents that inexplicably try to limit the Pope's motu proprio", he complained.

The substance of his charge is somewhat perplexing, as the motu proprio itself implied some limitations, such as its restriction of the use of the Old Rite to "stable groups" who had "adhered" to it. That seemed to refer to strongly traditionalist Catholics who already had special dispensation to celebrate Mass in that form, and such groups are by no means either numerous or evenly spread. Thus the judgement of Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow, for instance, that no such groups existed in his diocese, seems a reasonable one and hardly an act of disobedience. If the Pope meant to give universal approval for the use of the Tridentine Rite without conditions, he would presumably have said so. And if Archbishop Ranjith's words signal his lack of confidence in the loyalty of various bishops to the Pope, such intemperate language will hardly gain him the confidence of the wider Church. He has made his own job immeasurably more difficult. Indeed one of those he appears to be criticising is Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds, chairman of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, who is a key player in the drafting of a new English version of the Mass whose final promulgation may be only months away. He too has written to his priests offering an interpretation of the motu proprio.

Bishops have every right to have reservations about the return of the Tridentine Mass, as it has long been the symbolic flag carried by elements in the Church which most disliked the reforms promoted by the Second Vatican Council. The bishops have a duty not to let this disobedient and anti-conciliar spirit spread. It is already present in some seminaries, where a proportion of young men studying for the priesthood seem particularly attracted to a backwards-looking style of Catholicism that was familiar in the novels of Evelyn Waugh. The Tridentine Rite reflected the Counter-Reformation theology that emerged from the Council of Trent, and the Second Vatican Council marked the moment when the Catholic Church decided, definitively, that the Counter-Reformation era was over. It is because the motu proprio seemed to give comfort and support to those with a nostalgic and obsolete view of the faith that many bishops worldwide felt the need to limit the damage it might otherwise have caused. It is a pity that some in Rome did not understand this.