This will be lengthy, so I’m putting the commentary below the fold so that it doesn’t clog up the front page of the blog (a clogged blog is no fun at all).
I’ll do a separate commentary on the accompanying apostolic letter so that we can keep what’s in the motu proprio and what’s in the apostolic letter separate (which is important for an element’s juridical status).
BTW, this commentary will be on the unofficial English translation. I may revise it when we get an official one or if mistranslations are discovered. This commentary may also be revised as I have the chance to look up points regarding the celebration of the Tridentine use of the liturgy. (I’m doing this on the fly, the same day as the release, so forgive me if I don’t have everything at the tips of my fingers.)
This will also be the first full-scale commentary on the motu proprio that I am aware of, so it may be of interest to other bloggers.
Click the link to read the full commentary.
Motu Proprio
Summorum Pontificum
Pope Benedict begins with a general pastoral statement that touches on the role of the pope in promoting the Church’s worship of God and the needed unity and continuity in this area.
It has always been the care of the supreme pontiffs until the present time that the church of Christ offer worthy worship to the divine majesty "for the praise and glory of his name" and "for the good of all his holy church."
As from time immemorial so in the future the principle shall be respected "according to which each particular church must be in accord with the universal church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition. These are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the church’s rule of prayer ("lex orandi") corresponds to her rule of belief ("lex credendi")."
Then begins a nice summary of how the Tridentine use developed:
Among pontiffs who have displayed such care there excels the name of St. Gregory the Great [who lived in the 500s; INFO HERE], who saw to the transmission to the new peoples of Europe both of the Catholic faith and of the treasures of worship and culture accumulated by the Romans in preceding centuries. He gave instructions for the form of the sacred liturgy of both the sacrifice of the Mass and of the Divine Office as was celebrated in the city. He made the greatest efforts to foster monks and nuns, who militating [note the masculine metaphor here] under the Rule of St. Benedict, in every place along with the proclamation of the Gospel by their life likewise exemplified that most salutary expression of the rule, "Let nothing be given precedence over the work of God" (ch. 43). In this way the sacred liturgy according to the Roman manner made fertile not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples. Moreover it is evident that the Latin liturgy in its various forms has stimulated in the spiritual life very many saints in every century of the Christian age and strengthened in the virtue of religion so many peoples and made fertile their piety.
Now we get to the reform of the Roman liturgy, and in particular the event that gave it the stamp "Tridentine" (related to the Council of Trent). BTW, I’m adding links for the popes he mentions so that you can see when they lived or otherwise read more about them. I haven’t read all these articles, but most of them should contain more detail on what the pontiffs did regarding the liturgy:
However, in order that the sacred liturgy might more efficaciously absolve its task, several others among the Roman pontiffs in the course of the centuries have brought to bear particular concern, among whom St. Pius V is eminent, who with great pastoral zeal, at the exhortation of the Council of Trent, renewed the worship of the whole church, ensuring the publishing of liturgical books amended and "restored according to the norm of the fathers" and put them into use in the Latin church.
It is clear that among the liturgical books of the Roman rite the Roman Missal is eminent. It grew in the city of Rome and gradually down through the centuries took on forms which are very similar to those in vigor in recent generations.
Note that he doesn’t say "the same as those in vigor in recent centuries." This is an ackowledgement that the original edition of the Missal of Pius V is not the same as that established by recent popes (differences between these edition are not to be glossed over).
Now we get to more recent history:
"It was this same goal that as time passed the Roman pontiffs pursued, adapting or establishing liturgical rites and books to new ages and then at the start of the present century undertaking a more ample restoration." It was in this manner that our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII acted.
Two notes about Bl. John XXIII’s reform of the liturgy:
First, this was the Missal of 1962, which is the one that permission is being given to use.
Second, this edition of the Roman Missal removed elements deemed offensive to Jewish people (e.g., the Good Friday prayer for "the perfidious Jews"). Because this edition does not contain these elements, the motu proprio does not restore them to use in the liturgy. MORE HERE.
Now we get to the development of the use of the Roman liturgy that succeeded the Tridentine use as its ordinary expression:
In more recent time, however, the Second Vatican Council expressed the desire that with due respect and reverence for divine worship it be restored and adapted to the needs of our age. Prompted by this desire, our predecessor Pope Paul VI in 1970 approved for the Latin church liturgical books restored and partly renewed, and that throughout the world translated into many vernacular languages, have been welcomed by the bishops and by the priests and faithful. John Paul II revised the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus the Roman pontiffs have acted so that "this liturgical edifice, so to speak, … might once again appear splendid in its dignity and harmony."
The first typical edition of the Roman Missal is the one put into effect in 1970. The second, not mentioned here, was that of 1975.
The third typical edition of the Roman Missal is the one that came out in 2000 and is currently being
translated. Expect the new translation to go into use in a couple of
years. B16 also made his mark on the new translation by insisting that
"pro multis" be rendered literally in the vernacular langauges as "for
many/the many/the multitude" (exact rendering still to be announced) rather than "for all."
Now we get the history of the Tridentine use subsequent to 1970:
However, in some regions not a small number of the faithful have been and remain attached with such great love and affection to the previous liturgical forms, which had profoundly imbued their culture and spirit, that Pope John Paul II, prompted by pastoral concern for these faithful, in 1984 by means of a special indult "Quattuor abhinc annos," drawn up by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty to use the Roman Missal published by John XXIII in 1962; while in 1988 John Paul II once again, by means of the "motu proprio" "Ecclesia Dei," exhorted the bishops to make wide and generous use of this faculty in favor of all the faithful requesting it.
The use of the phrase "a special indult" is noteworthy here. The establishment of so-called "indult" Masses suggested to many that the former use of Mass had been prohibited and that it could now only be celebrated by indult (concession), requiring permission. Yet there does not seem to have been a document abrogating the Tridentine use, creating the impression that it could still be used without a special concession. This confusing situation is one that B16 clarifies, both later in the motu proprio and especially in the accompanying apostolic letter. See subsequent commentary for more.
The pontiff now explains the history leading up to the present motu proprio:
Having pondered at length the pressing requests of these faithful to our predecessor John Paul II, having also heard the fathers of the consistory of cardinals held March 23, 2006, having pondered all things, [having] invoked the Holy Spirit, and [having] placed our confidence in the help of God, by this present apostolic letter we decree the following.
The consistory of cardinals that the pope refers to involved the elevation of B16’s first group of cardinals (including, e.g., Cardinals Levada, Dziwisz, and Zen). The records I have access to indicate that the consistory itself was March 24. There was, however, a private meeting on the 23rd, before the consistory, and this seems to be what Pope Benedict is referring to. It was widely speculated that the issue of the Tridentine use would be discussed at this meeting, and here he indicates that it was. I can’t recall off the top of my head if the discussion of the Tridentine use was made public after the consistory, though it may have been.
Now the motu proprio shifts gears. What follows are the norms that will henceforth govern the role of the Tridentine use. All of what is past is prologue. This is the legally binding stuff:
Art. 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is to be regarded as the ordinary expression of the law of prayer ("lex orandi") of the Catholic Church of Latin rite, while the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and published again by Blessed John XXIII as the extraordinary expression of the law of prayer ("lex orandi") and on account of its venerable and ancient use let it enjoy due honor. These two expressions of the law of prayer ("lex orandi") of the church in no way lead to a division in the law of prayer ("lex orandi") of the church, for they are two uses of the one Roman rite.
There are several things of interest here. First and most importantly, Pope Benedict establishes the long talked-about distinction between the Missal of Paul VI (currently in its 3rd typical edition) and the Missal of Pius VI (in the edition published by Bl. John XXIII) as the ordinary and extraordinary expressions of the Roman rite.
He also stresses that the latter missal is to be treated with "due honor," which is an effort to tell people not to diss it, but the inclusion of the word "due" is a subjective term that creates "diss" room. ("Oh, yeah. We’re giving it all the honor that it’s due . . . which happens to be not much.") This would have been stronger if the word "due" had been omitted.
The pope also includes a statement stressing that these two uses of the Roman rite do not bring about–or rather, are not to be interpreted as bringing about–a fundamental division in the prayer life of the Church. Which is as it should be. The Latin rite also includes other uses (e.g., the Anglican use), and the Church contains whole other rites (Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean, and Constantinopolitan). If the Catholic Church can contain these rites, nobody needs to throw a hissy fit about the Tridentine use or suggest that greater employment of it will be an unacceptable breach in the unity of the Church’s prayer life. The Church already has far greater diversity in its prayer life than is found in comparing the Tridentine use and the current ordinary use.
Hence it is licit to celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass in accordance with the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as the extraordinary form of the liturgy of the church.
The rubber meets the road here, with Pope Benedict saying that it is licit to celebrate Mass in accord with the 1962 Missal (as governed by the norms which follow). What is noteworthy here is that he states that the 1962 Missal was never abrogated. Okay, so now we have an authentic interpretation of liturgical law from the legislator on this point. How this squares with the previous impression to the contrary is something the pope explores more in the accompanying apostolic letter, which I’ll do a commentary on soon.
I haven’t checked the Latin on this, but note that in the English there is an ambiguity about what the expression "as the extraordinary form of the liturgy of the church" is modifying. Is it modifyingthe verb "celebrate" (i.e., it’s okay to celebrate it as the extraordinary form of the liturgy) or is it modifying "never abrogated" (i.e., it was never abrogated as the extraordinary form of the liturgy, but it was abrogated as the ordinary form). I’ll let you know if this can be resolved.
Either way, the interpretation of the term "extraordinary" is going to be the fulcrum on which a lot of future discussion turns. Heretofore liturgical progressives have taken "extraordinary" to mean "not the norm, but not necessarily uncommon" (hence the extensive use of "extraordinary" ministers of holy Communion in the United States), but now they may be tempted to read it as "rare," which is not the pope’s intention (the whole point of this document is to allow broader employment of the Tridentine use, not to stress that it is to be rare). The politics of what "extraordinary" means, and what situations its reading of "rare" gets applied to (EMHC vs. Tridentine use), will be interesting to watch.
The conditions laid down by the previous documents "Quattuor abhinc annos" and "Ecclesia Dei" for the use of this missal are replaced by what follows:
Okay, so those documents are no longer binding. The following norms are the ones that will henceforth govern the Tridentine use.
Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, any priest of Latin rite, whether secular or religious, can use the Roman Missal published by Pope Blessed John XXIII in 1962 or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, on any day except in the sacred triduum. For celebration in accordance with one or the other missal, a priest does not require any permission, neither from the Apostolic See nor his own ordinary.
This makes it clear that in private Masses the priest has discretion about which missal he is going to use. He doesn’t need permission from anybody. Now watch the two blue clauses in the following sentence, because they’re important: The only time he can’t use the Tridentine missal without permission at private Masses is during Triduum. This doesn’t say that he can’t get permission to use the Tridentine missal at a private Mass during Triduum. It also doesn’t say that the Tridentine missal can’t be used at public or conventual masses during Triduum. As the norm is written, it’s addressing the situation of private Masses during Triduum, presumably to keep priests from sneaking off to celebrate in this way privately and not participating in the public and conventual Masses that are offered then.
Now, this might be interpreted another way (and probably will be), but this is what the law indicates as written (insert the usual disclaimers about the way Rome writes law).
Art. 3. If communities or institutes of consecrated life or societies of apostolic life of either pontifical or diocesan rite desire to have a celebration of holy Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962 in the conventual or "community" celebration in their own oratories, this is allowed.
From the private Masses discussed in the previous norm, we turn to what you might call semi-private Masses–i.e., those celebrated for a particular community but not for the general public. The pope here allows such communities to have Masses celebrated on an occasional basis without permission, but when it comes to having them more hyabitually than that, the situation is different:
If an individual community or the entire institute or society wants to have such celebrations often or habitually or permanently, the matter is to be decided by the major superiors according to the norm of law and the particular laws and statutes.
So if a community wants to have such Masses regularly or permanently, it needs the permission of their major superior, the decision to be made according to their own particular laws and statutes (some may have particular laws requiring such Tridentine Masses, for example). They don’t, however, need Rome’s permission or the local bishop’s permission unless these are called for in their particular laws and statutes..
Art. 4. With due observance of law, even Christ’s faithful who spontaneously request it, may be admitted to celebrations of holy Mass mentioned in Art. 2 above.
In other words, any other law not impeding, the faithful (that’s plural, too–not an individual member of the faithful, but more than one the way the law reads) can be admitted to the private Masses celebrated by an individual priest in the Tridentine use. So if Fr. X is saying a private Mass in the Tridentine use, you can ask him if you can attend it, and he can say yes if no other law obstructs. Thus bishops are not to tell their priests "Okay, you can say the Tridentine use Mass in private, but you can’t let anybody else be there with you."
Note that this is not stated regarding conventual Masses–a fact that may or may not be intentional (usual caveats regarding the way Rome writes law).
Now we turn from private and semi-private Masses to public ones:
Art. 5.1. In parishes where a group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition exists stably, let the pastor willingly accede to their requests for the celebration of the holy Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962.
Here we have something interesting. The pre-release scuttlebutt for the motu proprio indicated that there had been a clause inserted regarding the size of the group of faithful (e.g., you needed 30 or 50 people–or something–in order to trigger this clause). This was reported frequently enough–with the question at issue being not whether the clause existed but what the number in the current draft of the document was–that I’m fairly sure it was in there at one time. However, it’s not here now, and I can only conclude that either those responsible for preparing the document decided, as a group, to strike it or that Pope Benedict himself decided to strike it.
The result of that is that the passage is ambiguous. On the one hand, nobody can draw a line in the sand and say "You’ve got to get this many people to trigger this norm, and you don’t got them, ha-ha-ha!" On the other hand, what constitutes "a group of faithful . . . [that] exists stably" is open to interpretation. This ambiguity is likely to become the focus of future discussions. On the face of it, the determination of whether such a group exists would seem to be in the hands, first, of the group itself, second, of the pastor, and third, of the bishop, each subsequent determiner being able to trump the judgment of the previous one.
Expect friction on this point.
That friction, however, is to be governed by the exhortation to the pastor of the parish to "willingly acceed to their requests."
Let him [the pastor of the parish] see to it that the good of these faithful be harmoniously reconciled with ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the governance of the bishop according to Canon 392 [NOTE THE LINK], avoiding discord and fostering the unity of the whole church.
This is a two-edged sword.
Its purpose is to foster the unity of the local church, but that can be read two ways: (1) Allowing the Tridentine use to be celebrated would foster unity by "willingly acceding" to the desire of a group of the faithful or (2) this is a case where acceding to this desire would create discord rather than unity.
Expect fireworks on this point in individual cases, too.
Basically, what B16 is doing here is punting to the local level to sort out such situations since either (1) or (2) may obtain in individual cases, and he doesn’t want to establish a universal rule governing which is to be occur He is thus conceding a measure of determinative power to the pastor and the bishop, the exercise of this power to be governed (hopefully!) by the overall intent of the motu proprio (to allow for greater employment of the Tridentine use) and the norm’s specific direction to "willinly accede" to the request.
It’s still a net gain for those who would like the Tridentine use to be employed in their parish, but not a slam-dunk for them.
5.2. Celebration according to the missal of Blessed John XXIII can take place on weekdays, while on Sundays and on feast days there may be one such celebration.
In other words, you can have more than one parish celebration according to the Tridentine use on weekdays, though on Sundays and feast days there is to be only one such Mass in a normal parish (i.e., one not specially devoted to the Tridentine use–see below).
5.3. Let the pastor permit celebrations in this extraordinary form for faithful or priests who request it, even in particular circumstances such as weddings, funerals or occasional celebrations, for example pilgrimages.
This norm confirms the pastor (not the bishop, though he could intervene) as the one who decides when and on what occasions such public Tridentine use Masses will occur in the parish (it doesn’t treat private Masses celebrated by assistant pastors at all). It exhorts the pastor to permit these celebrations at the request of either groups of the faithful or at the request of his associate pastors. It also exhorts this to be allowed not just for "daily Masses" but also for Masses celebrated for special occasions, such as weddings, funerals, and pilgrimages.
5.4. Priests using the missal of Blessed John XXIII must be worthy and not impeded by law.
So you can’t get a suspended or schismatic priest to say your Tridentine Mass for you.
5.5. In churches that are neither parochial nor conventual, it is the rector of the church who grants the above-mentioned permission.
This covers the case of churches that are neither parochial nor conventual, and it establishes the rector as the decision maker.
Art. 6. In Masses celebrated with the people according to the missal of Blessed John XXIII, the readings can be proclaimed even in the vernacular, using editions that have received the "recognitio" of the Apostolic See.
This says that at non-private Masses the readings can be said in the vernacular (e.g., English, Spanish), though for these one must use an edition that has receive the recognition of the Holy See. This is not the same as an ordinary Catholic Bible translation, since the latter are normally approved only by the national conference. It is usually the translations contained in lectionaries that have gone to Rome for its recognitio.
Also note that it doesn’t say that the readings have to be proclaimed in the vernacular, just that they can be.
We now turn to what happens when the pastor of a parish (or the bishop above him) do not "willingly accede" to the request of a group of the faithful:
Art. 7. Where some group of lay faithful, mentioned in Art. 5.1 does not obtain what it requests from the pastor, it should inform the diocesan bishop of the fact. The bishop is earnestly requested to grant their desire. If he cannot provide for this kind of celebration, let the matter be referred to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei."
This basically reaffirms the now-established chain of decision making for whether the Tridentine use is to be employed in a particular parish: pastor > bishop > PCED. If satisfaction is not obtained at one level, the next is to be appealed to. The bishop is strongly exhorted to allow for the celebration. Note also that the norm does not state who refers it to the PCED if the bishop denies the request. As the law is phrased, the faithful could elevate the matter to the PCED.
This norm is consistent with a strong desire on B16’s part to allow for the desire of the faithful to be granted, while still allowing local bishops to have their say in the matter.
In practical terms, the PCED is likely to uphold the bishop’s judgment if the group of the faithful is small or a Tridentine-rite-capable priest is not available. However, this norm contains the flip side of the fact that there is no minimum number of the faithful that is required for a group: As the law is written, a group of any number of the faithful can appeal to the PCED.
Art. 8. A bishop who desires to make provision for requests of lay faithful of this kind, but is for various reasons prevented from doing so, may refer the matter to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," which should give him advice and help.
The meaning of this norm is not entirely clear to me. It presumably refers to the case of bishops who would like to grant the request of the faithful in situations in which there is no priest who feels able to celebrate the Tridentine use of the Roman Missal. The advice and help referred to would then presumably refer to how to obtain or train such a priest–or how to deal with such a group in the interim.
Art. 9.1. Likewise a pastor may, all things duly considered, grant permission to use the older ritual in administering the sacraments of baptism, matrimony, penance and the anointing of the sick, as the good of souls may suggest.
We now snap back to the situation in an individual parish, but with the scope of the discussion broadened to beyond that of the celebration of Mass. In addition to allowing the celebration of the Eucharist according to the Tridentine use the pastor may also allow it to be used for four other sacraments (baptism, matrimony, penance, and extreme unction)–the exceptions not dealt with by this norm being confirmation and ordination.
This norm does not deal with what happens if there is a dispute about the celebration of these last two sacraments according to the Tridentine use, but the foregoing norms mutatis mutandis would likely apply.
9.2. Ordinaries are granted the faculty to celebrate the sacrament of confirmation using the former "Roman Pontifical," as the good of souls may suggest.
This deals with the celebration of confirmation according to the Tridentine use. It locates the decision-making power in the ordinary. The presumptive reason for this is that, in the Latin rite, the bishop is the one who is the ordinary celebrant of confirmation, not a priest (and thus not the pastor of a parish).
It is notable that, though six of the seven sacraments have been dealt with, the final sacrament–holy orders–has not been discussed. When and whether and by whom the sacrament of holy orders (ordination to the deaconate, priesthood, or episcopate) may be celebrated according to the Tridentine use remains a lacuna (hole) in the law as established by this motu proprio.
9.3. It is lawful for clerics in holy orders to use even the Roman Breviary promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962.
Besides the seven sacraments, the liturgy of the hours (as found in the Roman Breviary) is the other official liturgical action of the Church. This norm allows for its celebration according to the 1962 edition. No permission from the pastor or bishop is needed. It can be done by any priest–as the law is written (usual caveats appying).
Art. 10. It is lawful for the local ordinary, if he judges it opportune, to erect a personal parish according to the norm of Canon 518 for celebrations according to the older form of the Roman rite or appoint a rector or chaplain, with due observance of the requirements of law.
We finally get to the situation of parishes established specifically for the celebration of the Tridentine use of the Roman liturgy. The canon governing such parishes–518–allows the local ordinary to establish parishes, when it is opportune, for persons determined by a particular condition–in this case attachment to the Tridentine use of the liturgy.
The particulars of the law not obstructing, none of the foregoing norms touch the implementation of the Tridentine use in such a parish. Thus, for example, priests attached to this parish could celebrate the Tridentine use Mass in the parish and in public and during Triduum and more than once (if this is allowed). In other words, the law not obstructing, such parishes can celebrate the whole of the liturgical life according to the Tridentine use.
Art. 11. The Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," erected in 1988 by John Paul II continues to carry out its function. This commission is to have the form, duties and norm for action that the Roman pontiff may wish to assign to it.
This reaffirms the role of the PCED in regulating the employment of the Tridentine use of the Roman liturgy. It also establishes that the PCED has whatever authority over whatever tasks that the Roman pontiff gives it, preventing potential conflicts with other bodies, such as the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (which has jurisdiction over the ordinary use of the sacraments of the Roman rite) and possibly the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts (which would ordinarily have jurisdiction over the provisions in the Code of Canon Law that the motu proprio touches on).
As a result of this motu proprio, the PCED seems to be established as the dicastery (department) of recourse for anyone dealing with matters touching on the Tridentine use of the Roman rite.
Art. 12. The same commission, in addition to the faculties it already enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See by maintaining vigilance over the observance and application of these dispositions.
And so it’s the PCED that is the watchdog for whether the motu proprio is being correctly implemented.
It’s the key.
Whatever is decreed by us by means of this "motu proprio," we order to be firm and ratified and to be observed as of Sept. 14 this year, the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, July 7, in the year of Our Lord 2007, the third of our pontificate.
Benedict XVI
Let us all pray that Pope Benedict lives to September 14 so that any lingering doubts about whether this is a "dead letter" will be squashed.
Ad Jesu per Mariam,
Ora pro nobis.
Jimmy,
Very thourough, nice commentary, as usual – except for that last note on B16 surviving the implementation date. I never thought about it that way.
As a young person, I’m thrilled at this Motu Proprio. I’d also love to see you host a Catholic Answers Live episode on this document. The episode with the superior of the Christ the King order was spectacular!
Jimmy, thank you for the thoughful commentary. I’m sure this will be fodder for discussion for quite a while.
I could have done without your last comment about Pope Benedict surviving the implementation date. Remember, although he’s 80, the Pope appears to be in excellent health. People much younger than he is have done much less in the two years since he was elected Pope. And many of them have died at a much younger age. He’s a very vigorous man. Just pray that he has a long and healthy pontificate and let it go at that.
Jim
On how big a group qualifies for a Sunday Latin Mass, I suspect that in very many parishes there will not be a reasonable quorum so that some pastors may urge very small groups to attend such on a weekday or on a weekday at his private Latin Mass. Or he will pick the least populated time slot on Sunday even if the group is very small.
So if Fr. X is saying a private Mass in the Tridentine use, you can ask him if you can attend it, and he can say yes if no other law obstructs. Thus bishops are not to tell their priests “Okay, you can say the Tridentine use Mass in private, but you can’t let anybody else be there with you.”
This is good to know as we have a retired priest who does say this privately.
On the other hand, “we” (those who want to attend a latin mass in our area) will never be enough to qualify according to our priest, the use of Latin mass.
I still don’t understand what the Ecclesia Dei is or how it can help us (less than 10 people). Are we guaranteed the right to have mass said in Latin?
Thanks for the excellent commentary Jimmy. This is where your blog shines! It’s very hard to find such detailed and competent commentary on the web. So you provide an invaluable service to the Holy Church in this regard. The mandate to “Feed my sheep” is thereby fulfilled by your careful work, study and teachings on such important theological topics. To put it simply, you make the complex issues and aspects of the Faith easier to understand for all of us! I’m sure it’s appreciated by every truly devout Catholic, and any other true servant of God, searching for truth. Thanks!
Seems like Jimmy hit on the major areas of potential conflict; how large a group is needed to justify a seperate TLM, and would doing so work to “unify” the parish, or not?
The priests in our parish have so much to do NOW, I think it would take some desire for the TLM on their part for them to even consider another Mass. Then, if they are personally inclined against the TLM, they can always say there aren’t enough people requesting it OR that it would work against the unity of the parish.
They would likely end up before the Bishop on the matter sooner or later, and perhaps all the way to the PCED, but those things take time, and I don’t know how many parishoners would be willing to see it through. Then, if the TLM is granted, you have an unwilling, unhappy priest, whom you have fought for years or months, presiding.
God willing, this will not be the case in most places, and pastors will be sensitive and obedient to the intent of this Motu Proprio. As Jimmy points out, though, there is potential for conflict.
Basically, what B16 is doing here is punting to the local level to sort out such situations…
That is a compromise that B16 gave to the Bishops in response to the alleged whining of certain bishops who feared loss of control over Masses celebrated within their Dioceses.
Jimmy,thanks for your thoughtful and thorough commentary. I’m very happy for everyone who feels that loves the TLM.
I have one concern that may affect those that manage to have a TLM as one of the masses in a regular parish–
“In Masses celebrated without the people, any priest of Latin rite, whether secular or religious, can use the Roman Missal published by Pope Blessed John XXIII in 1962 or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, on any day except in the sacred triduum.”
I know that this passage applies specifically to private Masses. Nonethless I can see that pastors may use it to prevent congregations who celebrate the TLM from celebrating their own Mass during the triduum, which would be a great loss.
In my parish, where we have celebrated a Latin NO mass for 30 years, one of our pastors denied us the right to celebrate the Triduum separately from the rest of the parish, and the bishop upheld the decision.(note that there are 3 churches in our parish). We luckily found a monestary who lent us their chapel. Our current pastor has been quite supportive, even presiding from time to time. He gave us back our Triduum on the reasoning that we were an “established community” I’m worried, though, that the above passage may be used against us if we should have a pastor hostile to Latin masses.
From Fr. Z’s site, as I couldn’t put it more clearly:
For those who find their parish priest reluctant to go through the process of learning the rubrics of a TLM, they might be more open to a Latin Novus Ordo Missae since they won’t have to change rubrics, just language.
Ignatius Press makes a $4 worship aid for this type of thing.
There are significant differences between the version posted on the USCCB BCL site and those on the Vatican Site. Please be aware of this.
Just like with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there are games going on.
A word about the word “due”, as in “let it (the Mass) enjoy due honor”. I would take issue with the connotation that the word “due” necessarily allows “diss room”. It may be helpful to think about the word this way: when you owe money on a mortgage, you owe the bank an agreed upon payment of money that is “due” by a specified date. In that sense, the payment is “required”, i.e., “due”, or else one might find that, regardless of one’s subjective take on what (form of payment is offered) or when or how much (money) is due, that one may face sanctions of one kind or another (e.g., interest, lower credit rating). The word “due” is not really a subjective term in that context, nor is it a subjective term in the context of the citation in question. One could “diss” either use of the Mass, but then that person would necessarily be responsible for giving reason for such an interpretation in light of the honour that is “due”, i.e., required or demanded for the Mass by the faithful as articulated elsewhere in the citation [“The Roman Missal… is to (i.e., must) be regarded as the ordinary expression of the law of prayer (“lex orandi”) of the Catholic Church of Latin rite, while the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and published again by Blessed John XXIII (must be regarded) as the extraordinary expression of the law of prayer (“lex orandi”) and on account of its venerable and ancient use let it enjoy due honor.”). The key word is – “is” – which conditions the interpretation of the clauses that follow, hence my inclusion of the words “must” and “must be regarded as” in order to qualify the strength of the word “due”. The references to the “law of prayer” further reinforce a required honouring of the two uses of the Mass. The inclusion of the word “due” mandates an attitude of obligation, an obligation that recognizes that a response of honour is required toward the Mass. Mr. Akin acknowledges the import of the passage he quotes by stating: “This is the legally binding stuff…”. Such import conditions the interpretation of the word “due”. If the context is a legal and binding one (much like the mortgage payment analogy given above), then there is not so much wiggle room (to diss), is there?
Of course, we are dealing with an unofficial translation here, as Mr. Akin has mentioned. Perhaps subsequent renditions of the citation will provide the stronger statement for which Mr. Akin is looking. Thank you, Mr. Akin, for an otherwise superb analysis, and for your always insightful writing.
“I haven’t checked the Latin on this, but note that in the English there is an ambiguity about what the expression “as the extraordinary form of the liturgy of the church” is modifying. Is it modifyingthe verb “celebrate” (i.e., it’s okay to celebrate it as the extraordinary form of the liturgy) or is it modifying “never abrogated” (i.e., it was never abrogated as the extraordinary form of the liturgy, but it was abrogated as the ordinary form). I’ll let you know if this can be resolved.”
In Latin:
Proinde Missae Sacrificium, iuxta editionem typicam Missalis Romani a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgatam et numquam abrogatam, uti formam extraordinariam Liturgiae Ecclesiae, celebrare licet.
Both “never abrogated” and “extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church,” as well as “promulgated” are modifying “typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962” (all accuasative case). In other words, the document is saying that the typical edition of the Roman Missal, 1962 edition, was never abroagated, and that it is an extraordinary form of the liturgy of the Church. So the correct answer is that it is licet to celebrate it as the extraordinary form of the litutgy. It is not saying that it was never abrogated as the extraordinary form of the Liturgy, but simply that it was never abrogated. This is also clear from the Pope’s accompanying letter to the bishops: “As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a “Forma extraordinaria” of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.”
Jimmy said:
Besides the seven sacraments, the liturgy of the hours (as found in the Roman Breviary) is the other official liturgical action of the Church. This norm allows for its celebration according to the 1962 edition. No permission from the pastor or bishop is needed. It can be done by any priest–as the law is written (usual caveats appying).
Deacons, too, may use the 1962 Breviary. We’re clerics 😉
Pax,
Deacon Joe
This is what might (maybe ‘will’) happen in many parishes:
1) How many people does it take to ‘trigger’ the extraordinary rite? I work in a parish that already has mass in 3 languages. If ten people came to us with the desire for a mass in a fourth language, would we comply? No. Because the priests are already stretched thin by the three language groups we serve, because it would mean added expense for the music (which the collection from ten people might not cover) and because we don’t have the ‘slot’ available on a Sunday. I can’t imagine that we are that unique. You can also factor in that we have two priests avaialable, but something like 60% (?) of the parishes in the US have one priest assigned to them. How would he manage?
2) I work in a diocese with three parishes which provide the 1962 missal mass under the old indult. I figured out a while back that no one in the diocese is more than about a 30 minute drive from one of these parishes. Even with a generous estimate about how many attend each of the 1962 masses, I don’t think that more than about .4% of the mass-going public avails themselves of the opportunity now. In our parish, that would be 5 people, at that rate of attendance. Note what I said above about resources being stretched. I would just give them the phone numbers and Mapquest directions to where the mass they prefer is already being offered.
3) All of that being said, one hasn’t even begun to factor in the purchase of new liturgical books, the training that goes into saying the mass according to the old missal, etc. (The one priest I know who is chomping at the bit can’t really pronounce Latin. So, he needs a bit more practice, I would say.) And, as I said above, there is the expense of the music ministry. (We could recreate the hurried and silent 15 minute masses of my childhood, but I don’t think that these fulfill anyone’s hopes (across the spectrum) for something beautiful, dignified, with full, conscious and active participation.)
So, what do I think will happen? A big yawn. No huge changes. Maybe a few more opportunities to experience the 1962 missal. And we roll on to the next thing that will clamor for attention.
For comparison, here are the norms that were in force under the indult of 1984 (and the 1988 Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, which explicitly said the norms of that original indult remained in force):
“a) That it be made publically clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.
b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases.
c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.
d) There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals.
e) Each bishop must inform this Congregation of the concessions granted by him, and at the end of a year from the granting of this indult, he must report on the result of its application.”
This motu proprio represents a significant change in the law, there is no question about that. No longer do the norms require there be no doubt that those desiring liturgy according to the 1962 Missal do not call into question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the 1970 a) That it be made publically clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.
b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases.
c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.
d) There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals.
e) Each bishop must inform this Congregation of the concessions granted by him, and at the end of a year from the granting of this indult, he must report on the result of its application.”
There is no doubt this motu proprio represents a significant change in the law. First, no longer is there the requirement that there be no doubt that the faithful requesting liturgy according to the 1962 Missal do not share the positions of those who call into question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the 1970 Missal, although the Pope in his letter to the bishops acknowledges that priests who totally exclude the newer rites as a matter of principle would prevent them from experiencing full communion. Still, it is significant that the Pope eliminated this condition from the new norms governing the use of the 1962 Missal.
Second, it is also significant that the requirement that such celebrations be limited to those who request it, and in the places authorized by the bishop, but not in parishes, except in extraordinary cases. It is very significant the new norms not only do not explicitly reject the possibility of allowing celebration according to the 1962 Missal in parishes except in extraordinary cases, but actively encourages such celebrations in parishes.
It appears the norm that these celebration must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin, except for the norm about the readings, which can be in the vernacular with approved texts.
It is also quite significant that the Pope’s letter to bishops said that new saints and some new prefaces can and should be inserted in the old missal, which changes the old norm that there must be no interchanging of texts and rites between the two missals. This indicates the Pope’s willingness to allow the extraordinary form of the Liturgy to develop and grow alongside the ordinary form of the Liturgy, as opposed to the previous norms which essentially froze the old liturgy in time. It will be interesting to see the reaction of the most radical traditionalists who despise the 1970 Missal to the possibility that the 1962 Missal could become “infected” with the Vatican II liturgical reforms.
The Pope is giving us an opportunity to widen things, and it’s up to us to take it up. Slowly or quickly, as we can and wish to.
Re: calendars
This is important, because many people who love or would love the extraordinary form if offered, would also like to celebrate newer saints. I mean, think of all the saints important to traditionalists who aren’t on the old calendar: Juan Diego, Mother Cabrini, Padre Pio….
Art. 3. If communities or institutes of consecrated life or societies of apostolic life of either pontifical or diocesan rite desire to have a celebration of holy Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962 in the conventual or “community” celebration in their own oratories, this is allowed.
From the private Masses discussed in the previous norm, we turn to what you might call semi-private Masses–i.e., those celebrated for a particular community but not for the general public. The pope here allows such communities to have Masses celebrated on an occasional basis without permission, but when it comes to having them more hyabitually than that, the situation is different:
I believe the permission given here is more expansive than your analysis indicates. The MP’s reference to “institutes of consecrated life or societies of apostolic life” includes priestly societies like the Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institue of Christ the King. They are typically established with oratories by the local bishop, at least if he is feeling generous. They are given by this MP the right to continue practicing the liturgy according to their own regulations. This perhaps codifies an extant condition.
I received this link and need some input
http://www.catholicismrevealed.blogspot.com
the questions on Peter seem to be valid and sound…
thanks
______
ad majorem gloriam
The Catholic.com website is a good place to start. This article in particular should be useful to you.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9906fea4.asp
As a layperson who likes to pray the Liturgy of the Hours:
(1) Where can I get a 1962 Roman Breviary?
(2) Is the whole thing in Latin?
(3) If I know how to pray the modern LOTH (which prayers go where, etc.), will I have to learn anything new to pray the 1962 breviary?
Just had feedback from the Catholic Youth Conference in Canberra, Sydney,
Australia this weekend. When the MP was announced at the conference, it was followed by huge applause by the 200 youth present – many of whom, especially the leaders, are already “Traddies”. Two of the three bishops present were enthusiastic about the MP, many youth attended the Solemn High Mass for the first time. The MP was in everyone’s conversations.
There is a real possibility in the future that the “extraordinary” Mass may become the Mass of choice by young people far removed from the arguments and prejudices of their parents and grandparents.
I know this is off topic, but Becky included a question in a post here about a link she received from an anti-catholic website arguing against Peter as the Rock, and against papal primacy in the Church. Here is the link:
http://www.catholicismrevealed.blogspot.com
The post Becky refers to is too long to respond to, and gives 25 reasons from scripture why the the Church is wrong on papal primacy. I would respond with other questions, such as, why, in Luke 22:31-32, does Jesus say to Peter alone (because in the Greek Jesus is speaking to Peter, and Jesus uses the singular form of the pronoun you), “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.” To me, this is proof that the only assurance we have that Satan will not sift us like wheat is to stay united to that single person to whom Jesus said, I have prayed for you, that your faith might fail: Peter, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, his successors for those who would believe in Christ after Peter was martyred.
If we were to say that Jesus did not provide for the successors of Peter as the way for those who would come to believe in Christ after Peter died, we would have to re-write history, which says that is precisely what happened. Even today, can anyone doubt that the popes alone, in modern times, have been able to withstand the assaults by secularists on such truths as the dignity of all human life, from conception until natural death, and that there is an intrinsic relationship between the act of conjugal love in marriage and the transmission of human life that renders artificial means of birth control gravely immoral?
Why did the non-Catholic ecclesial communities, which also taught that contraception was evil until the early twentieth century, cave in to this lie? Because they were not united to Peter, for whom Christ prayed that his faith would not fail. There is much more I could say in response to that post, but ultimately, what we believe about St. Peter is an article of faith, and the best we can do by human reason is argue why it is reasonable to beleive it as an article of faith. Make no mistake, and do not let these anti-catholic ravings shake your faith.
Jimmy wrote: “Yet there does not seem to have been a document abrogating the Tridentine use, creating the impression that it could still be used without a special concession. This confusing situation is one that B16 clarifies, both later in the motu proprio and especially in the accompanying apostolic letter. See subsequent commentary for more.”
But there were documents, for example, Instruction Constitutione Apostolica of 20 October 1969:
“14. The individual conferences of bishops are to decide on the date when the texts of the new Roman Missal are to become obligatory, except for the cases that are specified in this Instruction nos. 20-21. It is better that such a date be no later than 28 November 1971 …
IV. EXCEPTION
19. Elderly priests who celebrate Mass without a congregation and who might encounter serious difficulty in taking up the new Order of Mass and the new texts of the Roman Missal and Lectionary for Mass, may, with the consent of their Ordinary, keep to the rites and texts now in use.
20. Special cases of priests who are infirm, ill, or otherwise disabled are to be submitted to this Congregation.
Pope Paul VI approved this Instruction on 18 October 1969 and ordered its publication for the exact observance of all concerned.”
(From Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1982, ISBN 0-8146-1281-4, pages 536 – 537).
And another of 14 June 1971:
“3. Continued use, in whole or in part, of the Missale Romanum in the 1962 editio typica, as emended by the 1965 and 1967 decrees and of the Breviarium Romanum formerly in use is allowed, with the consent of the Ordinary and only in celebrations without a congregation, for all those who because of their advanced years or illness find serious difficulties in using the New Order of Mass in the Roman Missal, the Lectionary for Mass, or the book of the liturgy of the hours. …”
(From Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1982, ISBN 0-8146-1281-4, page 545). More at http://www.romanrite.com/summorum.html .
Correction:
My prievious post said, erroneously, “this is proof that the only assurance we have that Satan will not sift us like wheat is to stay united to that single person to whom Jesus said, I have prayed for you, that your faith might fail: Peter, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, his successors for those who would believe in Christ after Peter was martyred.” Obviously, I meant to say Jesus prayed that Peter’s faith would NOT fail.
bearing wrote:
“As a layperson who likes to pray the Liturgy of the Hours:
(1) Where can I get a 1962 Roman Breviary?
(2) Is the whole thing in Latin?
(3) If I know how to pray the modern LOTH (which prayers go where, etc.), will I have to learn anything new to pray the 1962 breviary?”
(1) I got one many years ago at a Catholic conference at the booth of a reseller of older Church documents and texts. It is in three volumes, if I remember correctly.
(2) In my edition, I know at least the lessons, which we today call the second reading at Office of Readings, were in English, and if I remember correctly, my edition had a translation of the psalms, but I am not certain of that. I do remember using it before I entered the seminary and did not know Latin, but I didn’t really know what I was doing – LOL – and didn’t know much Latin, so the answer is no, at least my edition was not all in Latin.
(3) I did look at the rubrics, and it was structured similarly. One major change included suppression of the hour of prime, between lauds and terce. There were also special liturgical days called “Ember Days,” (see this link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05399b.htm) that affected which prayers were said, and the rubrics themselves did not give a good way to tell when they occurred. Other than that, if you are familiar with the LOTH currently in use, you should be able to figure out most of it by carefully reading the rubrics. There are propers, commons, the ordinary, etc.
Regarding the 1962 edition of the LOTH, one other major change was that the psalter was prayed on a one-week cycle, but now it is a four-week cycle. It definitely will take longer to pray the 1962 edition of LOTH, but you will probably, as a benefit, memorize most psalsms if you pray it daily. I know I have memorized the psalms that come weekly, such as Psalm 51, and the psalms at night prayer, but have not, as a rule, memorized the psalms that occur less frequently in the current edition of the LOTH.
According to my reading of the RM John XXII 1962 there is no provison for the ministry of the deacon except in the Solemn celebration of the Mass. In that event, he is the proclaimer of the Gospel and presumably an ordinary minister of Communnion. The Pius V Mass did not arogate the role of deacon but let the celebrant absorb their functions. It wowuld seem approproate that one of the orders of sacred ministry renewed by Vatican II should be represented at the Sacred Liturgy where available. I would presume that the Tridentine ritual for baptism and Marriage would be done by deacons who presently have such faculties in the Novus Ordo. Has anyone found any directives for dacons in the commentaries?
Thanks FrChuckZ!
Bearing:
Finding a 1962 Breviary can be difficult and expensive, since the Breviarium Romanum has been out of print for a long time. They show up on ebay all the time, but often at exorbitant prices. The number of volumes varies depending on the particular publisher. Pre-1962 breviaries were often printed in 4 volumes, but the breviary of John XXIII is often found in two volumes – a great deal of Matins was removed in his reforms, thus reducing the number of volumes necessary to print it.
There are editions that have vernacular in them, but using a vernacular edition required a special indult – most editions are entirely in Latin, including the rubrics and forematter. The good news is that Baronius Press (the publishing house for the FSSP) is in the process of reprinting the 1962 Breviary in a parallel Latin-English format – it is expected to be completed this year, but it has experienced delays. One thing to take notice of in regard to this coming edition – it uses the traditional Vulgate Psalter of St. Jerome, rather than the new Psalter promulgated by Pius XII in 1945. The FSSP has permission to use the traditional Psalter. The new motu proprio does not mention this issue at all, so based on what is said in the document, I presume that the Pian psalter, which was in the typical edition of the 1962 Breviary, must be used by those using the 1962 Breviary to fulfill their obligation to say the Office. Of course, this is not of direct concern for a layperson, since they are not under canonical obligation to say the Office.
If you are comfortable with the LOTH, then the Breviary will not be totally foreign – it will just require a period of adjusment. The biggest change will be the calendar and ranking of feasts, though this is much less complicated than pre-1955 editions. In my case, switching to the Breviary from the LOTH has helped me understand the Office in both forms so much better. I have been using a 1943 edition and following the rubrics contained there, but I intend to switch to the 1962 rubrics now that its position is clarified in the universal Church. If you can find an older edition of the Breviary (like I did), it is not difficult to adjust for the 1962 rubrics, plus you get all that extra Matins material for extra reading. Depending on the year of the edition you got, you might have to find supplements for feasts added between the year of your breviary and 1962 (my 1943 does not include St. Joseph the Worker or the Queenship of the BVM, though I have supplements). In order to discuss in a more in-depth fashion moving to the Breviarium Romanum, feel free to email me at “aquinas138 at gmail dot com”. I’d be happy to offer advice to anyone who would like some advice from someone who has made the switch and mostly has things figured out.
Jimmy’s contentions about the older liturgy being able to be celebrated without specific permission and that there are no documents specifying this are both erroneous. Furthermore, the idea that we had to wait until Benedict XVI to receive clarification on the whole “juridical abrogation” question is also wrong. I cover those subjects to some extent in a posting to one of my weblogs which can be read HERE. Having noted those things though, I want to clarify lest there are any misunderstandings that nothing written in the above posting is intended to come across as in anyway refusing assent to the recently promulgated motu proprio which I receive serenely as His Holiness has requested.
The USCCB site has a pretty nice Q&A regarding the Motu Proprio.
Check it out.
anon identifies some practical issues of ‘supply and demand’, which I expect will result in a specialised ‘niche market’ which a minority will regularly enjoy and which the majority might sample occasionally, initially out of curiosity and variety.
As with food, perhaps some of the best features of the ‘niche’ celebrations might cross over to ‘mainstream’ celebrations eg a greater athmosphere of reverence and awe.
More importantly, I would suggest that in the pursuit of charity and unity in the church, those who consider themselves ‘traditional’ avoid any appearance of triumphalism and those who consider themselves ‘progressive’ overcome any ‘threat reflexes’ but instead think of this as a legitimate expression of catholic liturgical diversity.
Josh, thank you for the detailed answer. I am currently using the “modern” 1-volume breviary and enjoy it very much — I know many people complain about the ICEL translation, but it does not bother me much. I probably would continue using the “ordinary” breviary most of the time but would like to have a Latin one just to mix it up a little and to learn some more Latin. So maybe (unless I come across a low-priced old breviary) I will wait until the parallel Latin-English version you mention comes into print, as it sounds like exactly what I need.
Do you know if the modern breviary is available in Latin (much as the Novus Ordo may be celebrated in Latin)?
In my diocese there is a parish that celebrates the Latin Mass. My parents are parishoners and some people drive up to 2hrs to get to that church.
I don’t think the idea is to necessarily add another mass to already overworked parishes, but rather change an existing mass. We have a parish nearby that is so big it offers masses 2 at a time and also in several languages. Maybe a nearby parish that isn’t so burdened could take on the Latin Mass. Another nearby parish has been awaiting this announcement and I think will be ready to go in September. In other words, not all parishes will or have to offer it. There are plenty of options and solutions.
Also,homeschooling has become so popular and I know a lot of home educators want a Latin mass. My children are in public school but both take Latin. I realize it’s not church Latin that they are studying, but they are both very excited about the prospect of a Latin Mass being more available.
So, not a very scientific analysis here, but I just wanted to make the point that in some places people drive for hours to get to the Latin Mass, others ready and willing to support it, and plenty of parishes available.
“I received this link and need some input
http://www.catholicismrevealed.blogspot.com
the questions on Peter seem to be valid and sound…
thanks
______
ad majorem gloriam”
To save time just click on “Becky” and it takes you to Andre’s blog or Becky’s, take your pick. This blog appears to promote some form of Seventh Day Adventism.
May God bless Andre as long as he is still seeking the truth.
One thing that the Motu Proprio does not appear to specifically cover is the broadcast of the “extraordinary rite.” I’m sure EWTN would be interested in the answer to that question.
Bearing wrote:
Do you know if the modern breviary is available in Latin (much as the Novus Ordo may be celebrated in Latin)?
So glad you asked! I bought mine at http://www.paxbook.com/algorithmiS/servusPrimus?iussum=monstraScriptumEditum&numerus=1218 and it is magnificent! If you can afford it (ninety bucks times four — luckily I bought it before I got married 🙂 I highly recommend it. Be warned, however, that you may find your satisfaction with the English version decreasing the more you use the Latin; the Latin is truly beautiful.
The issue of the clashing calendars really bothers me. I like the NO cycle of readings and calendar. The TLM seems more cramped, calendrically and reading-wise. Seems to me that this calendar issue will detract from the unity of worship within the Latin church. Too bad we can’t take the best from both forms.
1. An observation: I agree with Warren Anderson about the phrase “due honor.” In fact, this is probably directed more towards the branch of traditionalists who don’t see the Pauline mass as “due” any honor.
2. A question: Could the ommission of holy orders from the list of Sacraments that can be celebrated under the old rite have something to do with the sub-orders that were abolished?
3. A suggestion: Let’s be realistic: we all know that our priests have their hands full as it is. How is a pastor of four parishes, each with a Sunday Mass, going to work in a Tridentine Mass? Probably not gonna happen unless he personally has a strong devotion to it.
In such cases, a first step in getting the Tridentine Mass celebrated more would be to find other people who want it. See what kind of numbers you have and what kind of geographical spread/concentration you have. Perhaps your parish doesn’t have much demand for it or a priest who could celebrate it, but if you group together with others in, say, your county or more appropriately, your vicariate, perhaps a Mass could be obtained at that level. A generous bishop should be able to work something out with you, but it seems to me that the best thing to do is establish demand for the Pian-Johannine Mass by finding other people who desire it.
So are the 1970s officially over?
Jarnor23 said:
“Those Masses are usually performed as the highest form of the Novus Ordo in the parishes I’ve attended. Respectful, reverent, often with extensive Latin usage, and all the “smells and bells”.”
You are lucky. The last English Easter Mass I attended at our parish included NOT ONE hymn specific to Easter. Just the same old pablum. Give me Victimae Paschale Laudes any day. But although I enjoy the Latin Mass I can live without it if I can find a place to worship reverently. In our parish that means the Latin Mass or nothing.
Y
I am not sure if others have already made this point. If they have, pardon me.
One of the great things about SP is that it has the potential of lessening the polemics (of which I have sometimes engaged) between conservatives and traditionalists — both of whom are usually orthodox. Now, since both the Trid and the Novus are legitimate options AND that the bishops will not be able to squelch the requests for Trids (as they have done since 1988), conservatives and traditionalists can come together again on the important questions of doctrine. Divide and conquer is always the tactic of the evil one. Conservatives and traditionalists should be unified to fight the heterodox progressives, who are the real danger (in human terms) to the Church militant.
The 1970s are over! Liturgical sanity has been restored.
I think too that Benedict wants to use this to jumpstart his program of the reform of the reform. I think that the practice of regularly offered Trids can only help novus priests to say that liturgy more reverently and traditionally.
because it would mean added expense for the music (which the collection from ten people might not cover) and because we don’t have the ‘slot’ available on a Sunday.
A low mass doesn’t require music. Gregorian chant is sufficient. And a Saturday evening slot can be done, or a Sunday afternoon slot.
If there’s a will, there’s a way.
I received this link and need some input
Becky, please don’t post anti-catholic stuff here. Take that site to the Catholic Answers forums where it will be refuted to the hilt.
Posting that here is doing nothing but derailing the discussion.
For those wishing to pray the modern LOTH in Latin, Fr. Peter Stravinskas has edited an edition with side-by-side Latin and English for Lauds and Vespers. It’s available via Amazon.com or directly from the publisher, Newman House Press. The blurb on the publisher’s page states:
For the older version of the Breviary, Angelus Press (the SSPX pubishing house) has a version with the complete Sunday Offices and the offices of Prime, Sext and Compline for the rest of the week. In Latin and English.
Baronius Press, mentioned above as preparing an edition of the Breviary, is located at http://www.baroniuspress.com/, and allows you to sign up for notices on forthcoming books.
Finally, for printed books, the Diurnale Romanum is available from Southwell Press and other UK resellers (it didn’t show up on Amazon.com). This is the Breviary, minus the Office of Matins. I believe this edition is only in Latin.
It should be noted as well that both Baronius Press and Angelus Press publish Daily Missals of the 1962 Mass.
For those interested in the older form of the Breviary, but whose Latin is shaky and who don’t have an obligation to the Office, the Anglican Breviary, published by the Anglican Parishes Association, publsher for the Anglican Catholic Church (one of the Continuing Anglican Churches) may be of interest. It is an Elizabethan English translation of the pre-Vatican II Breviary.
The Breviary is also available online.
I think the comparison table on page 27 of the USCCB newsletter is a wee bit skewed. (see link in Scott W’s post above)
I was glad to read their acknowledgement of the Pope’s actual reasons for the MP in question 6. Its the first time I’ve seen or heard the USCCB admit the existence of liturgical goofiness within their borders. Acknowledging the 800 lb gorilla in the room (if even indirectly) is a good start!
And how awesome was it that B16 said the new Norms are meant to “free the Bishops” from having to evaluate various requests for the older rite!
I hope he continues to free his brother Bishops from other tasks that have been so burdensome for them – such as actually enforcing correct usage of the newer rite. (chortle, chortle…)
“I received this link and need some input
http://www.catholicismrevealed.blogspot.com
the questions on Peter seem to be valid and sound…
thanks
______
ad majorem gloriam”
To save time just click on “Becky” and it takes you to Andre’s blog or Becky’s, take your pick. This blog appears to promote some form of Seventh Day Adventism.
May God bless Andre as long as he is still seeking the truth.
Posted by: LJ | Jul 9, 2007 7:38:49 AM
Becky is indeed Andre.
ANDRE WAS BANNED from this blog.
In other threads, he had, in fact, demonstrated that he was more interested in spreading calumny about the Catholic Church than he was in engaging in an actual discussion regarding what Catholicism really entailed.
DO NOT GIVE HEED TO ANDRE (aka “BECKY”) ANTI-CATHOLIC NONSENSE.
ANDRE, IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS CATHOLICISM, AS I’VE TOLD YOU BEFORE, FIRST KNOW WHAT CATHOLICISM IS ALL ABOUT VS. YOUR TWISTED NOTIONS REGARDING IT!
If you are having three masses in three languages, perhaps you ought to stop pandering as that IS what you are doing.
“If ten people came to us with the desire for a mass in a fourth language, would we comply? No.”
How nice of you. It isn’t just about the language, is it? Your objection is a little deeper than that, isn’t it? And who many came to you viz. the second language? The third? What if 100 showed up for the fourth? 500? What was the trigger for the second, the third? Have those numbers gone up, stayed the same, decreased? Why are you wasting time and resources offering three of the EXACT same masses to people who, in some cases, ought to learn the language of the dominant linguistic group? Your playing the old “pastoral difficulties” card, difficulties you have created. We have a similar issue in my own parish, it is pandering.
Latin is the official and universal language of the Church: not ebo, not vietnamese, not english, not spanish, not polish…and there is no “English Mass of Paul VI” nor “Spanish” nor “Russian” there is the Mass of Paul VI in the vernacular (and what about the Latin?).
Wherever you are, you ARE somewhere (most likely) with a dominant language, let me guess…English? Catholics ought to learn the language of their neighbours. I am probably wrong, but I wonder if the intent of of Paul VI was to permit Mass in a myriad of languages (talk about division?) in parishes situated within a “dominant linguistic group”.
I am sorry, but, in the US for instance, the first you offer should be in English Mass of Paul VI (what about Latin?) Then you offer the Mass of 1962, and THEN and only then do you offer Mass in other languages. In anycase, what happened to Paul VI in Latin as intended? Oh…
About Latin, folks, can we please keep in mind the wise words of then Cardinal Ratzinger:
“Generally, I think it was good to translate the liturgy in the spoken languages because we will understand it; we will participate also with our thinking. But a stronger presence of some elements of Latin would be helpful to give the universal dimension, to give the possibilities that in all the parts of the world we can see “I am in the same Church.””
Let us therefore remember that LATIN IS PART OF OUR CATHOLIC HERITAGE!
Andre’s tactics are as deceptive as his false logic. Welcome to the Disinformation Superhighway.
I do hope this Motu Proprio will lessen somewhat the tendency for those closely aligned with one Mass to view adherents of the other Mass as second class citizens.
This goes both ways.
We should be deeply grateful for any Mass at which we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord. The best Mass is whichever one you’re at (pardon the grammar).
I also am hopeful that we might see more reverence at ALL our Masses, and less glib “creativity”.
Tim J.,
I do hope this Motu Proprio will lessen somewhat the tendency for those closely aligned with one Mass to view adherents of the other Mass as second class citizens.
This goes both ways.
Apparantly, what you say here is, unfortunately, true.
Interestingly enough, on this blog, I have often defended the validity of the Novus Ordo and the 2nd Vatican Council.
However, in actual life, I have often found myself defending the preservation of the Tridentine Rite and the timeless wisdom of Catholic tradition.
Needless to say, I find little difference between these two parties of which such vital elements of Catholicism need to be continuously safeguarded against.
Both wrongly seek what is nothing else but a breach of Catholic beliefs and tradition; not to mention, a break with our Christian Past as well as its continuation into the Present!
We have an abundance of latin mass churches in Canada but unfortunatley a very few of them are a bit snobish about ‘latin’. You know it’s all got to be in latin, latin, latin….
Or so they say…However nice latin is, they simply cannot read, speak or translate it and for that matter niether can I.
The vast majority of the non-snobish trads are quite willing to learn latin and appreciate it. to these I am happy to be friends with and (tongue in cheek) I refer to them as ‘Catholics of the Strict Observance”.
Dear Jimmy Akin,
About what you have written here:
He also stresses that the latter missal is to be treated with “due honor,” which is an effort to tell people not to diss it, but the inclusion of the word “due” is a subjective term that creates “diss” room. (“Oh, yeah. We’re giving it all the honor that it’s due . . . which happens to be not much.”) This would have been stronger if the word “due” had been omitted.
I believe “due honor” as used in the Motu Proprio corresponds more objectively to “right tribute” rather than the subjective interpretation given it here.
In fact, “Due honor” is a term commonly used by even the Fathers of the Church as well as past popes.
For example, St. John of Damascus spoke of the honor due to the Saints.
I think, as well, that the whole system of latria, dulia, and hyperdulia also revolves around the concept of “due honor” in terms of ‘right tribute’ given to each of the respective people: Saints, Mary, God.
Pope Pius XII himself utilized the same term in Mystici Corporis Christi:
“If the faithful strive to live in a spirit of lively faith, they will not only pay due honor and reverence to the more exalted members of this Mystical Body, especially those who according to Christ’s mandate will have to render an account of our souls, but they will take to their hearts those members who are the object of our Savior’s special love: the weak, We mean, the wounded, and the sick who are in need of material or spiritual assistance; children whose innocence is so easily exposed to danger in these days, and whose young hearts can be molded as wax; and finally the poor, in helping whom we recognize, as it were, through His supreme mercy, the very person of Jesus Christ.”
Also, remember in Tobit 12:7:
“A king’s secret it is prudent to keep, but the works of God are to be declared and made known. Praise them with due honor. Do good, and evil will not find its way to you.”
However, I am very much grateful for your Commentary here, Jimmy, and thanks for the links as well!
It was posted:
“The vast majority of the non-snobish trads are quite willing to learn latin and appreciate it. to these I am happy to be friends with and (tongue in cheek) I refer to them as ‘Catholics of the Strict Observance”.”
Why would you label someone who wants to worship as catholics have done for centuries as “snobs”? Would you call your mother of grandmother who were catholic before the changes took place from 1962-1970 as “snobs”?
And so what is wrong with being “Catholic of the Strict Observance”?
That is a great compliment you have actually paid them tongue in cheek and exactly why Our Holy Father has issued this Moto because so many have taken things to far and like a parent, once a child sees they can get away with something, they push for the next. And we as humans born with original sin and always in temptation (recall the words of the “Our Father”?) need rules that are clear and concise, and the traditional teachings and mass offered just that
Deo Gratias for B16!!
Mr. Jimmy,
If your reffering to him surviving an assasination, I think because of his very italian-style of writing this mp (it is definetely not a german thing) he should not gain the ire of those who work against the Church. St. Pius X reached that limit, John Paul I was about to, and they (as many of those who know the way things really are)in turn were ki…died.
Yet the wind are changing, and this year will give many splendorous things in the line of the great punishments, as sin is reaching those limits that God said no to in Sodom and the Great Flood, but also those who are truly champions of Mary are also gaining an unprecedented strength in the world.
But again, excellent way of presenting the MP on part of His Holiness.
He is the Prime of Vatican Diplomacy.
He did it with nobility and tact. No side can complain, and yet it is critical of both extremes.
Even before, when I would see his picture hanging in my home, I wish I could pray to him, for I can only pray and hope he is a saint!
Long Live Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Chris, Successor of Saing Peter, Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican State and Servant of the Servants of God!
Petrus Imperat!
Look, not just traditionalists are guilty of snobbery. When I asked my novus bishop for an indult 10 years ago, he sniffed that “that mass is a relic of the dark ages….” Now that is snobbery!
Well, now the “burden” of choosing who apt to celebrate TR mass is not on the Pastors, but rather the individual cleric. So the poor bishop does not have another load on his shoulders. How dare you insult a Prince of the Church! Snobbery?! He was concerned with the state of your soul!
Gosh did you not read the MP and Letter!
“War is just an extreme form of Diplomacy”
– I forgot
Rick,
I believe that’s what Tim J. and I were attempting to point out earlier.
There is that “attitude” from both sides of the fence.
In the end, it almost seems that the extremes from both sides, the Rad Trad and the Liberal, end up declaring themselves as Supreme Pontiff.
With all that has taken place recently, I just thank Pope John Paul II for having prevented then Cardinal Ratzinger from retiring and helping pave the way for him to become our current Pope!
Your playing the old “pastoral difficulties” card, difficulties you have created. We have a similar issue in my own parish, it is pandering.
My goodness. You talk about numbers– how many souls are you willing to trade for the ideal of a common language? People might never muster up the courage to even go to Mass if they can’t talk to anyone there. I agree that Latin is the ideal for multilingual communities, but as almost no Catholics are familiar with prayer in Latin we obviously are not at the ideal. In the meantime, Our Lord had some serious things to say about millstones that I think should keep us from dismissing too lightly good-faith efforts at flexiblity.
With regard to Article 6:
It would appear that some commentators believe that this means that the reading cycle from the Novus Ordo may be used. You silence on this point seems to indicate that you agree with me that it means no such thing.
With regard to Article 2:
I understand that all private Masses of any kind are prohibited in any case during the Easter Triduum. If that is the case, all the last provision does is to make clear that this applies even in cases where a priest wishes to celebrate privately with the older use. I.e., nothing in the Motu Proprio changes this rule about private Masses in the Triduum.
If the previous Missal was never abrogated, does that mean that every priest can use it for private Masses even now, without waiting for September 14?
It was posted:
“In the end, it almost seems that the extremes from both sides, the Rad Trad and the Liberal, end up declaring themselves as Supreme Pontiff”
Let it be clear that one can be a traditionalist and not declare themselves the supreme pontiff. A “Rad trad” is a stupid term as being “too Catholic” or “too bound to faith and tradition” and is far less dangerous than those bent on continued liturgical expirimentation, female ordination, and the destruction of all that was Catholic for centuries. A cry for a return to sanity, sanctity, reverence, piety, sacred and love for Our Lord, the mass and sacraments is all that a “traditionalist” asks. Is that asking for to much?
If it was not for those traditionalists, many I guess the poster above would be considered “Rad trad” as he has coined me hundreds of times before, We would not have been granted this MP today as it was reported today on “Inside the Vatican” that the pope did grant such not only for reconcilliations but because of the countless letters he received on this subject. It was also reported that priests have been denied the ability to perform this rite, as I have been asking my bishop for years now to grant more masses instead of only one mass in a bad neighborhood, and his reply has always been that the clergy is just to busy. I guess though they are not to busy to have their countless intereligious dialogues in our towns synagogues and joint events, but that is another story
In the Providence Journal it was reported today that there are already 20 young priests who have asked one priest who taught himself the TLM how to celebrate it!
This is a grass roots effort to get the clergy at the earliest stages of formation involved, as where the shepherd takes them the lambs will follow. Masterful stroke by B16
http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2007/newsflash-july8-07.htm
John,
There’s a difference between a Traditionalist and a Rad Trad.
As usual, you haven’t paid attention to my past posts where I’ve already explained this time and again.
Out of respect for Jimmy and those who have tired of these futile sessions with you, I will not repeat the explanation.
Suffice it to say that my friends who have advocated the Tridentine Rite, who have remained obedient to vital elements of the Faith prominent in Pre-Vatican II Catechism, among these being that of strict assent to the Teachings of the Church as well as the commands of the Vicar of Christ and acknowledgment of his Authority as Successor of Peter; this is what distinguishes a genuine Traditionalist from a Rad Trad.
John,
Of course I appreciate the old mass and the people that worshipped that way for centuries but they were not snobs – it was simply the mass and that was it.
Would I call my mother or grandmother who were catholic before the changes took place from 1962-1970 a “snob”? YES!! if they could be defined as a snob:
snob (snŏb)
n.
1. One who tends to patronize, rebuff, or ignore people regarded as social inferiors and imitate, admire, or seek association with people regarded as social superiors.
2. One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect.
So if you (not meaning you) are a Trad because you regard Novos as second class citizens who couldn’t worship thier way through a wet paper bag, then yes you (not meaning you in particular) are a snob.
For the most part the real Trads I appreciate are the ones who appreciate beauty and solemnity in the Tridentine and they are identical to the Novos who also appreciate beauty and solemnity as found in the N.O. These trads are the ones I lovingly (albeit somethime cheekily) refer to as the ‘Catholics of the Strict Observance’. There is no disrespect. Thier way is simply more rigorous.
I have found some Trads rather elitist.
I have found some Trads rather elitist.
Pseudomodo:
I can certainly understand this.
The first time I attended the Indult Mass, there were those folks who were indeed snobs.
Yet, when I observed the reverence and beauty of the Traditional Latin Mass when celebrated, I could care less of the Snobs that were there. I wasn’t there for them. I was there for the Lord.
When the priest who celebrated the Mass retired, I ended up attending the Novus Ordo. Although, admittedly, there were hardly any such snobs as those I found at the Traditional Roman Mass, I did find some liberals whose behaviour were just as despicable.
Now, how about this situation:
A priest celebrates a mass once a week prior to classes at a Catholic high school. The Mass is attended by a small amount of people, usually under 5, in a small chapel in the school. Does the MP allow for the celebration of the Latin Mass in this situation even though it is not a parish and I’m not sure its technically a private Mass either?
“Let us all pray that Pope Benedict lives to September 14 so that any lingering doubts about whether this is a “dead letter” will be squashed.”
How very morbid.
Here’s some observations:
1) Since the Summorum Pontificum lacks a formula to determining what would trigger real consideration of a request, expect many bishops to sit on their hands until one of the bishops creates one. I’m guessing that the magic ratio will be 51-100% of the least attended local parish’s Sunday Mass.
2) Expect many bishops to side step this issue by inviting Trid order communities from Christ the King and others to diffuse the situation. The hope will be that Trid lovers will be attracted to parishes that embraced their value rather than the possibility that a 1962 Mass might divide the local parish Church. If I was a bishop who was planning on consolidating some parishes, I think it would be wise to set a few aside for Trid order communities.
3) Does this mean that any priest can use the Carmelite, Cistercian, Dominican, Norbertine, Franciscan, Friars Minor Capuchin, and Servite Rites since they were Roman Rites in use at 1962?
Steve Cavanaugh:
I, too, recommend using the Anglican Breviary – it is what I used before I got my hands on a copy of the Breviarium Romanum. It is a very well-designed Breviary, and includes material from the Sarum liturgy as well. Since it is not Roman Catholic but rather Anglican, there are a few things to be aware of:
1. While it is not an officially approved form of the Breviary, there is nothing contrary to the Catholic Faith contained therein. Some pastors of the FSSP have recommended it for use by laity who desire to pray in the spirit of the traditional Breviary, but do not know Latin.
2. References to the “Chief Bishop” in some of the prayers would need to be changed to “Pope” or “Supreme Pontiff” by a Catholic.
3. The Anglican Breviary follows the calendar and rubrics in force in 1954. Thus there are some differences from the 1962 Breviary – more octaves and vigils, some feasts deleted from 1956-1962, does not contain St. Joseph the Worker or the Queenship of the BVM, etc. These are all relatively easy to overcome in order to celebrate in accordance with the 1962 rubrics, but you should be aware of that.
4. On the Immaculate Conception, where the Pope Pius IX’s Bull is read, an Anglican essay describing the historical development of the idea of Our Lady’s purity is substituted (though there is nothing contrary to the Catholic Faith contained in this essay – it does not call into question the definition of the Immaculate Conception). Also, the III Nocturn Gospel lections and homilies are occasionally different from the Roman Secular Breviary – why I do not know.
All in all, I can totally recommend the Anglican Breviary, especially if you are drawn to traditional language.
Hartmeister:
The motu proprio does not permit any priest whatever to use the religious orders’ books in force in 1962. Only the 1962 edition of the Missale Romanum is mentioned explicitly. The spirit of the motu proprio does not appear opposed to a religious order permitting the older books to be used, but that determination would be made by superiors in the Order, probably in consultation with Ecclesia Dei.
Posted by: Hartmeister “Does this mean that any priest can use the Carmelite, Cistercian, Dominican, Norbertine, Franciscan, Friars Minor Capuchin, and Servite Rites since they were Roman Rites in use at 1962?”
Hartmeister,
No.
They were not Roman rites, they were “rites of the Latin church.” The predominate rite of the Latin church is Roman, but not all latin ritual expressions can be called Roman. More accurately, they are Latin. Evem the Glagolithic Rite in Croatia even though it was, ironically, the Roman rite in Slavonic.
There ARE communities celebrating those traditional monastic rites. In Wyoming a group of Carmelites celebrate the old Carmelite rite exclusively.
Pseudo
I appreciate your honest answer, but remember snobs come in all shapes and sizes. What I have to admit I have found among traditionalists is a sense of protectionism, a sense of feeling not part, and chastised, which could lead to snobbery ( a word?)
Pray for both snobs on both sides as neither is good
God bless you
Esau
I appreciate your charitiable answer (and I think you should be charitable not only for Jimmy, but for me as a person and for yourself as well).
But please note that a traditionalist only wants what ONCE WAS and not something that was NEVER the Norm
A Liberalist wants the complete opposite
If a Traditionalist petitions the Vatican as I and many have done for years to RESTORE what once was such as the Traditional Latin Mass-and you label that “Rad”-then you are mistaken, as it was due to these petitions we have got as far as we have in 1988 and now again in 2007
God bless you
It has been said that a reasonable man accepts things as they are and goes on. But progress comes from the struggle to change the status quo and therefore all progress is due to unreasonable men.
Similarly, it is fashionable to bash the radtrads. They are, after all, obnoxious and not socially acceptable while, in all the charity we can muster, it can be said that some less radical traditionalists do not display those traits and so are okay. The irony is that without the obnoxious radtrads (they simply would not shut up or go away) none of us would be where we are today praising the Pope’s MP. Reasonable people would simply have accepted the situation as it was and gone on as best they could.
So the next time the temptation to bash a radtrad comes up, perhaps we should say a small word of thanks first before we get into the condemnations. Or perhaps it is even better to contemplate that even they may be playing a role in God’s plan for the Catholic Church.
Michael,
“
”
Would you extend that word of thanks to protestants?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
About the mass in English and in Latin and priests being stretched thin:
1) We are a ‘national’ parish and the only one for our language group in the diocese. The mass in that language was established decades and decades ago, when the mass was in Latin but the HOMILIES were in the language of the immigrants we served then. The bishop has expressly told us that he wants the mass in that language to continue. (Not a liberal bishop. You might even be a fan of his.) But our situation is not uncommon, as my grandparents went out of their way to attend a mass in their own language group as well (a long time ago and far away from here.) It is a matter of gathering the folks with whom they could speak, of the homily and of the music as well.
2) Despite the snide suggestions about Gregorian chant – which I love – I don’t think I ever had heard it live until long, long after the council. And it takes someone schooled in music to present it, teach it and enable it. And in my experience, I have not seen those people leap forward to volunteer. You have to hire them and pay them.
3) The other language group we serve is indeed Spanish. Since many, many more Catholics speak Spanish rather than English (certainly in the world and also in some dioceses of this country), maybe we should go out of our way to speak that rather than forcing people to worship (and, again, hear a homily) that they do not understand in the ‘dominant language’. As far as I can tell, that ‘dominant language’ for Catholics is Spanish.
4) Both these masses were instituted when our parish, in its history, had a majority of the parishioners speaking those languages. So the ‘trigger’ in each case was the majority of parishioners, not just a few asking that their own needs be met. Our demographics have shifted again, so that neither of these groups is the majority. But it is pretty hard to tell people who have worshipped and contributed for decades, “Go away. There are new people here and we just want to talk to them!”
5) I am fine with the Novus Ordo in Latin. I took a lot of Latin. I’m comfortable with it. No issues with me. But the few times we’ve ventured in that direction, the push back from the folks was pretty strong. Especially among the youngest (in their 20’s and 30’s). My experience is that those who have seen the 1962 missal in action mostly think it is a quaint museum piece, not something that they would come to week after week.
I’m glad that those who want the 1962 missal to be their worship experience have the right to it. To just inject a note of reality in the discussion: there are still very few people looking for this experience – counted as a percentage of the whole. The vast majority would like mass in English (or Spanish or Vietnamese or Polish.)
And lastly, please try to be charitable in your discussions of the situations of others. The accusatory note in your post was quite distressing.
Would you extend that word of thanks to protestants?
Exactly which protestants have been advocates of Catholic tradition? Which ones helped to bring back the old liturgy?
Michael
Great post
Inoncencio posted:
“Would you extend that word of thanks to protestants?”
I am baffled by this-Are you comparing Protestants who demanded liberal reforms to that of the so called “rad trad” who only wants to worship as the church once had and was the “norm” before things were liberalized?
I see no correlation in your analogy to be charitiable
Michael,
Since the protestants are the reason the Council of Trent and Pope Pius V gave us the Tridentine Rite and they fit your description of “unreasonable men” do you also extend a word of thanks to them?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
I appreciate your reply. I would caution, however that a liberal does not want the opposite as a rule.
A liberal may want to add things they find more comfortable (whatEVER those thing may be – and therefore potentially dangerous).
A liberal may also delete things they find uncomfortable (whatEVER those thing may be – and therefore potentially throwing out the baby with the bathwater).
Yes the Trad may be protecting something that has been beautiful for many centuries but hopefully not like a person who is protecting thier beautiful little white suburban house with the beautful white picket fence and neatly trimmed lawn with matching topiary shrubs but at the same time sneering at the more liberal country house with the equally and carefully manicured English country garden.
Protectionism is fine until it evolves into an air of bigotry but hopefully not.
I do agree with you about protecting beauty in the catholic tradition…
I have a few statues of Jesus at home – one is beautifully cast and painted – the other is a plastic glow in the dark cross-eyed Christ. I think I can appreciate the better artistically executed one, but I can’t see it in the dark.
The other one reminds me of the transfiguration especially after I pray the fourth luminous mystery.
God works in mysterious ways….
Innocencio,
The protestants you speak of were unreasonable and obnoxious, but they also went away to pursue the future as they dreamed it would be. I thank the Council of Trent and Pius V for the codification of Catholic teaching and the Mass of Trent, not those who would become Lutherans or Calvinists or Anglicans.
I thank radtrads for continuing to remind of us of that treasure of Catholicity when the easy path was simply to forget it. And I thank them for all the letters they have written over the years to the Curia petitioning for a redress of their grievances. I thank them for remaining Catholic although there are others who disapprove who would like to see them disallowed of that status. Did the protestant reformers you speak of continue against all hope to pursue their cause with Rome or did they leave? Are you not able to see the distinction?
About the mass in English and in Latin and priests being stretched thin:
1) We are a ‘national’ parish and the only one for our language group in the diocese. The mass in that language was established decades and decades ago, when the mass was in Latin but the HOMILIES were in the language of the immigrants we served then. The bishop has expressly told us that he wants the mass in that language to continue. (Not a liberal bishop. You might even be a fan of his.) But our situation is not uncommon, as my grandparents went out of their way to attend a mass in their own language group as well (a long time ago and far away from here.) It is a matter of gathering the folks with whom they could speak, of the homily and of the music as well.
Oh, I guess you misunderstood, the homily would be in a vernacular not in Latin. So there is no reason why one of the masses couldn’t be in Latin and people could about the homily and the of the music.
The fact of the matter is that the abandonment of Latin is the principle reason we now have divided communities like yours. Latin was always the uniting factor, so you could go to mass in any country and following the mass aided by a missal in the vernacular of your choice. Of course, if the homily was in a foreign tongue, you wouldn’t receive that benefit, but in light of eternity, it’s not the principle reason for assisting at mass anyways.
2) Despite the snide suggestions about Gregorian chant – which I love – I don’t think I ever had heard it live until long, long after the council. And it takes someone schooled in music to present it, teach it and enable it. And in my experience, I have not seen those people leap forward to volunteer. You have to hire them and pay them.
Actually according to custom, Gregorian chant is the principle music of the mass, and has been for centuries. Pius X requested that the congregation participate primarily by means of the chant. The Church’s opinion is that it is not difficult to learn, as opposed to those awful protestant Haugen&Haus ditties that are so common.
3) The other language group we serve is indeed Spanish. Since many, many more Catholics speak Spanish rather than English (certainly in the world and also in some dioceses of this country), maybe we should go out of our way to speak that rather than forcing people to worship (and, again, hear a homily) that they do not understand in the ‘dominant language’. As far as I can tell, that ‘dominant language’ for Catholics is Spanish.
Red Herring.
4) Both these masses were instituted when our parish, in its history, had a majority of the parishioners speaking those languages. So the ‘trigger’ in each case was the majority of parishioners, not just a few asking that their own needs be met. Our demographics have shifted again, so that neither of these groups is the majority. But it is pretty hard to tell people who have worshipped and contributed for decades, “Go away. There are new people here and we just want to talk to them!”
I guess that would be what happened in 1970 with the Latin Mass? Again you seem to think that Latin mass attendees converse in Latin, which is really just not so, furthermore, we do not seek the TLM to meet some need of personal comfort, it is a deep spiritual need of the Church as a whole, one that we, along with the Holy Father, is important to restore.
5) I am fine with the Novus Ordo in Latin. I took a lot of Latin. I’m comfortable with it. No issues with me. But the few times we’ve ventured in that direction, the push back from the folks was pretty strong. Especially among the youngest (in their 20’s and 30’s). My experience is that those who have seen the 1962 missal in action mostly think it is a quaint museum piece, not something that they would come to week after week.
Well, according to the Holy Father, Latin is still the principle language of the Church. So take it up with his Holiness.
I’m glad that those who want the 1962 missal to be their worship experience have the right to it. To just inject a note of reality in the discussion: there are still very few people looking for this experience – counted as a percentage of the whole. The vast majority would like mass in English (or Spanish or Vietnamese or Polish.)
How would you even know?
And lastly, please try to be charitable in your discussions of the situations of others. The accusatory note in your post was quite distressing.
Ditto.
It seems that there are so many people that see mass as a “service” rather than the supernatural event that it truly is. The important thing about mass is not what you “get out” of it, but what He does for us, and what we do in response – offer the only True Worship that is worthy of Him. This is clearly related to the casual way in which mass is typically celebrated as a result of the changes which were made both authorized and unauthorized, and the lack of good catechesis in favor of this “experiential” notion that is typical.
God Bless,
Matt
Michael,
I thank all who have stayed and accept the authority of the pope. And I pray for those who have a contradictory notion of Tradition.
Because as Pope John Paul II said “It is impossible to remain faithful to Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ Himself entrusted the ministry of unity in His Church.”
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio posted:
“Since the protestants are the reason the Council of Trent and Pope Pius V gave us the Tridentine Rite and they fit your description of “unreasonable men” do you also extend a word of thanks to them?”
Inocencio are you insinuating that the Tridentine Rite was “formulated” by the Council of Trent?
You are quite aware I am sure that the Traditional Mass was one of 4 rites spoken at that time, and all Trent did was solidify this mass and make it the norm throughout the church. Trent did many other things as well, but I am sure I would be called thread hijacking if I starting going into this.
To thank the Protestatns for the Traditional Latin Mass which grew organic and was in place before Trent and in use after is absurd
Pseudo
I like the way you phrased your post and I do agree that the church much like everything in life needs a little “tweeking” from time to time
But wholechanges as we have experienced lead people to question what they were, and how they were worshipping before hand and if the church was “wrong” then for holding fast to the norms and traditions-what is to stop them from being wrong now and just leads others especially our youth to lose the faith at an early age and reject the church
Like a custodian-the church must be unwavering in her teachings but she has not been and has wavered these past years
She can restore her place in the world and in peoples minds by going back to the teachings she once stood by so firm, even to the point of losing entire countries (England, Germany, etc)but she was always looked at with respect and she is back on her way thanks to B16 to reclaim that glory
Innocencio,
Excommunications are above my pay grade.
In the spirit of the week – Gaudeamus Igitur!
John,
Pope Pius V called it a new rite and I accept that and refer to that new rite as the Tridentine Rite.
Pope Benedict XVI has made clear that the missal of Blessed John XXIII is the extraordinary form of the current rite.
He specifically stated in his letter to the Bishops on SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM:
As for Tradition my earlier quotation of Pope John Paul II stated it best.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Michael,
Yes, let us rejoice. Amen.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John:
If a Traditionalist petitions the Vatican as I and many have done for years to RESTORE what once was such as the Traditional Latin Mass-and you label that “Rad”-then you are mistaken, as it was due to these petitions we have got as far as we have in 1988 and now again in 2007
You still don’t get it at all!
I don’t label Traditionalists “Rad Trads”.
As I mentioned many times in the past, I, in fact, endorse a group who are actually Traditionalists.
Those who are the “Rad Trads” are the traitors to Catholic Tradition & Teachings who have made themselves into their own Pontiffs and have gone to the extent of usurping the powers of papal authority, declaring folks heretics, excommunicating others as if they have the authority to do so, even excommunicating the Pope himself!
Just as somebody I know here on this blog who had similarly done the same.
Jimmy,
I apologize for my comments here.
But I find it quite distressing the idea that has arisen from some Rad Trads here:
“Acknowledge the Authority of the Pope IF and ONLY IF he does what you want of him; otherwise, insist that he is a heretic, an apostate.”
If anything, this is more venemous, more subversive an act than that of any liberal out there.
At the very least, liberals, deep down, know that what they do oppose Catholic tradition.
However, for some reason, Rad Trads believe that this very subjective, not to mention, very Protestant idea (i.e., subject to one’s own interpretation) is actually traditional Catholic Teaching.
This can be considered more dangerous than the work of any liberal out there since Rad Trads submit to a very Protestant notion, disguising it as traditional Catholic teaching, spreading the errors of this Protestantism into the Church in this surreptitious manner.
At the very least, the things that liberals do are so egregiously erroneous, so against Catholic tradition that many can see that and, indeed, many liberals themselves do admit to that.
In short, it must be reiterated that the Authority of the Vicar of Christ exists not because somebody says so but because Christ Himself says so!
For Rad Trads to declare the Authority of the Vicar of Christ null and void is to declare likewise that the Authority of Christ is Null and Void!
2) Despite the snide suggestions about Gregorian chant – which I love – I don’t think I ever had heard it live until long, long after the council. And it takes someone schooled in music to present it, teach it and enable it. And in my experience, I have not seen those people leap forward to volunteer. You have to hire them and pay them.
Actually according to custom, Gregorian chant is the principle music of the mass, and has been for centuries. Pius X requested that the congregation participate primarily by means of the chant. The Church’s opinion is that it is not difficult to learn, as opposed to those awful protestant Haugen&Haus ditties that are so common.
With all due respect
1. The chants for the Mass Ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, etc) are not too terrifically difficult for the average singer. However they are in a radically different style from what most people are accustomed to and required quite a bit of effort and patient teaching to master.
2. The chants for the Mass propers (Introit, Graduale, etc.) can be quite difficult and require professional level direction with skilled singers. It is not at all uplifting to hear badly performed music no matter what kind of Mass you are attending.
3. Musicians are professionals. When I sing in a choir I volunteer; when I am cantor or director I expect to be paid. The church pays its secretaries and its plumbers, it should also pay its organists and choir directors. To my mind its a moral imperative. If a given professional musician chooses to return the salary or honorarium back to the church, then he or she is making a laudible sacrifice. To expect musicians to work for nothing is wrong.
I have a friend who was the full-time music director of a Catholic parish, but quit to work in a Protestant church. The pastor asked him why and he responded “You are not pro-life enough for me.” The pastor was astonished until my friend added, “you don’t pay me enough to support my family.”
Esau posted:
“Jimmy,
I apologize for my comments here.
But I find it quite distressing the idea that has arisen from some Rad Trads here”
When Mr Akin was asked to please have Esau tone the rheteric down on another thread Just YESTERDAY, Mr Akin replied to Esau DIRECTLY:
“Also, calling someone a “Rad Trad/Plagiarist” is not helpful. From what I’ve seen, John has been making a good faith effort to comply with the rules.
Please keep the discussion polite.”
Jimmy, Once again Esau cant help himself from calling other posters names such as Rad Trad and his hatred is so deep that he cant help but reveal such with his uncharitable explosions towards all Traditionalists under the guise of his supposed protection of the Vicar of Christ, who does not need Esau to protect him as he has the love and prayers of all
Please put a stop to him as his rants get very tiresome and will only lead to a reversion of what was taking place before
God bless
Matt:
It seems that there are so many people that see mass as a “service” rather than the supernatural event that it truly is. The important thing about mass is not what you “get out” of it, but what He does for us, and what we do in response – offer the only True Worship that is worthy of Him.
Very well said!!!
I totally agree with what you’ve stated here!!!
I believe this is the very reason why belief in The Real Presence has dwindled over the years, where the Eucharist has become nothing more than a Symbol, unfortunately.
Also, respect and reverence for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been awfully neglected and, at worst, absent in some of the Masses celebrated in these modern times to the point where Mass has become nothing more than a social gathering to some folks due to how there have been rogue priests out there who have taken extreme liberties with the Novus Ordo, degrading the Mass into nothing more than a “service” rather than what it should be: A Great Act of Worship of the Church, The Holy Sacrifice Instituted by Our Lord Himself!
John:
with his uncharitable explosions towards all Traditionalists
Towards all Traditionalists???
Again, you’ve failed to comprehend my comments.
under the guise of his supposed protection of the Vicar of Christ, who does not need Esau to protect him as he has the love and prayers of all
He only got your love and prayers just because of the Motu.
Prior to the Motu, you only had such hatred of Pope Benedict XVI.
What I fear, and the reason why I make this an issue (which I hope Jimmy will understand), is that if Pope Benedict XVI did not do what he did, if another Pope were to succeed B16 who was more like Pope John Paul II, in no time at all would Rad Trads like you suddenly cover the Seat of Peter with scurrilous insults and accusations of apostasy!
This is why I find it quite disconcerting:
“Acknowledge the Authority of the Pope IF and ONLY IF he does what you want of him; otherwise, insist that he is a heretic, an apostate.”
Esau posted once again in another blazing name calling attack:
“What I fear, and the reason why I make this an issue (which I hope Jimmy will understand), is that if Pope Benedict XVI did not do what he did, if another Pope were to succeed B16 who was more like Pope John Paul II, in no time at all would Rad Trads like you suddenly cover the Seat of Peter with scurrilous insults and accusations of apostasy!”
I will not respond, but the name calling is so uncharitable and makes conversing so difficult, that I hope Mr Akin puts a stop to you once and for all
materfamilias:
Musicians are professionals. When I sing in a choir I volunteer; when I am cantor or director I expect to be paid. The church pays its secretaries and its plumbers, it should also pay its organists and choir directors. To my mind its a moral imperative. If a given professional musician chooses to return the salary or honorarium back to the church, then he or she is making a laudible sacrifice. To expect musicians to work for nothing is wrong.
This is simply wrong on so many levels.
I know professional musicians who donate their time and effort, their very singing to their local Parish without compensation at all.
You mean to tell me that if Jesus Himself was physically present, you would demand of him wages for having sang praises for Him in His Church?
Even in Protestant churches, there are professional singers would donate their time and talent to their church.
In fact, don’t the Gospels teach us as much?
I go to a partial Tridentine Mass (half Latin, half English, style of Novus Ordo with the priest facing the front) which the bishop has allowed in our diocese in the UK. I love it – the contemplative nature and although there was a time I enjoyed singing hymns and all that, I now as I get older want something more contemplative so I can concentrate on what is going on – the Mystery of the Mass. There is room for both rites, as you said.
I wonder whether new priests in seminaries will be trained in the Mass. I assume they are trained in Latin, so it would not be much to train them to say the Mass. I know there are not many being ordained in Europe – time to get the seminarians from the 3rd world where they can’t build enough seminaries to hold them and bring them up here. It would be refreshing to have their perspective in the pulpit, solve the shortage of priests and if these young men were trained in the Tridentine would give us a chance to have more said according to our spiritual needs.
God bless.
byrdele
I assume they are trained in Latin, so it would not be much to train them to say the Mass.
Seminaries I know of do not even have Latin as part of their curriculum and even if it is, it is not at all a mandatory course.
I would not recomend anybody to take Latin in the U.S.
I am very sorry and I don’t mean to affend anglo-saxon peoples, but they cannot pronounce Latin correctly at all. You MUST here it outside of the English speaking world. Trust me, I never studied Latin, but the simple fact of speaking Spanish and Portuguese means I can pronounce Latin correctly. You have to leave the English world. No other choice.
(Now Germanic peoples won’t help much either.)
And that music piece there, that is not a purely moral issue. What is moral is upholding a contract.
If the cantor didn’t ask, the pastor can or cannot give him something. If he has a good economic situation, then that is a conscience issue with the “love others” commandment.
Now the same applies with the cantor. If the priest gives him a salary, and he is in a good situation, than that is a conscience issue again.
This isn’t relativism, but rather not being a “square gringo” (no insult intended)
On a whim, speaking of Latin, along with a greoup of 10, I went to church today at lunch to go and meet with the pastor. He was an old priest and we started off by asking him if Latin would be an obstacle to the bringing back the Traditional Mass at his church, and hopefully all through the diocese
He said “Latin is the Language of the church, so be it!” That was all we needed to hear
Deo gratias I say to all!
If the previous Missal was never abrogated, does that mean that every priest can use it for private Masses even now, without waiting for September 14?
No, the right to celebrate the older missal apart from certain limitations was juridically obrogated in 1969 and only allowed in certain limited situations. This broadened in 1984 and again in 1988 but it has never been allowed since the promulgation of Missale Romanum to celebrate the older liturgy without the consent of the local ordinary. On September 14, 2007 -the date Benedict XVI specified- that will change but not until then.
I would not recomend anybody to take Latin in the U.S.
I am very sorry and I don’t mean to affend anglo-saxon peoples, but they cannot pronounce Latin correctly at all. You MUST here it outside of the English speaking world. Trust me, I never studied Latin, but the simple fact of speaking Spanish and Portuguese means I can pronounce Latin correctly. You have to leave the English world. No other choice.
(Now Germanic peoples won’t help much either.)
Posted by: Some Day | Jul 10, 2007 3:27:46 PM
Some Day,
This is pure nonsense.
I know people in the U.S. who can speak Latin be it in its ecclesiastical pronounciation, classical pronounciation or even restored.
Some Day,
About the Professional musicians, when I attended the Indult way back when it was offered, there were those there that donated their talent and time to the Church.
It was some of the most heavenly, most sacred music I’ve heard by far for a Sunday Mass. Yet, though these were actually professionals, they didn’t even give a thought of monetary compensation.
Though, when I had to start attending the Novus Ordo because the Indult priest retired, I heard some of the most awful music there was.
In the latter situation, those musicians should’ve paid me to listen to their crap!
Esau,
if I can forgive you for suggesting that I’m not a genuine Catholic, perhaps you might consider easing the rhetoric, and allow John to participate respectfully in the conversation. All you’re doing is shouting him down, and it’s rather unbecoming. Don’t keep bringing up the past, that’s not how we do things in the Catholic Church.
Now, I have been around, I know some of the things John has said in the past were out of line, but as long as he remains respectful, in charity, we must do likewise.
God Bless,
Matt
ps. I’m not demanding an apology for your earlier slander, but you know in your heart it’s due, so I’ll leave it at that.
matt,
I never actually said you weren’t a genuine Catholic.
In fact, from the subject thread, you see that throughout I had supported you even.
It wasn’t until you purposely used the word “injustice” with respect to the Novus Ordo that I actually took issue with you.
But, after having read your comment earlier on this thread, I couldn’t help but admire the remarks you had made which I concur with as I felt that it indeed featured some very good points.
As to our past discussion regarding the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Rite, that’s old news; water under the bridge.
Given other remarks you’ve made herein as well as on some other threads, I must say there are certain things you’ve said which I actually do agree with and respect.
Matt:
Now, I have been around, I know some of the things John has said in the past were out of line, but as long as he remains respectful, in charity, we must do likewise.
If you’ve actually read the viscious remarks John had previously made regarding Pope Benedict XVI as well as when he was then Cardinal Ratzinger, then I hope you can come to understand why I take issue with John.
Nothing he had said then was in accordance to traditional Catholic teaching — most especially declaring a valid Successor of Peter as an apostate.
What happens if the one to succeed Pope Benedict XVI is a man similar to Pope John Paul II?
Will he and others like him again declare the Pope apostate?
As you can see, this clearly wreaks of Protestantism.
That “I am the one who holds the final and ultimate authority” attitude, not caring what the Church teaches and, thus, in the end, not really caring about what Christ actually taught.
However, you are right.
Jimmy Akin is right as well.
I guess one must leave the past as past and, hopefully, John and others like him will remain true to the actual traditional teachings of the Church and be obedient to it in every kind of weather and not only when he and others like him find it convenient, as in the favorable times we find ourselves now.
So, with that, I end it.
Esau,
I am not mentioning the instances of good Latin, but the majority pronounce Latin horribly.
Not that they mean it badly, but they say it like its English, and it is not.
Mr.Jimmy knows languages and he can tell you that languages must me read like the people who speak it read it. Its not Dayo gratsseas its Deo Gratias.
Like I said, its not in ill intention.
But rather a defect.
Oh and lets be diplomatic like Our Pope is.
Its not the Tridentine rite and the Novus Ordo rite.
They are two forms of the same Latin right.
Eh.
Some Day,
am not mentioning the instances of good Latin, but the majority pronounce Latin horribly.
Not that they mean it badly, but they say it like its English, and it is not.
Mr.Jimmy knows languages and he can tell you that languages must me read like the people who speak it read it. Its not Dayo gratsseas its Deo Gratias.
I think that after what you mentioned here, I know where you might be coming from.
There are actually those who speak Latin in this manner here; that is, those I know who do so with a cowboy accent — not that there’s anything wrong with having a cowboy accent — just that it doesn’t really blend well when speaking Latin.
However, I am still rather curious about how the Romans actually spoke Latin.
The closest I believe we have to that is Restored Latin, I think.
Well, maybe the Romans could have spoken differently.
But well, we don’t have to go into the ultradox errors of that all progress is evil. Latin is Latin, but it could be perfected. New words and such.
New prefaces…saints…
No comment in Latin yet. Thank God!
Esau,
I never actually said you weren’t a genuine Catholic.
It was strongly implied, and never clarified.
It wasn’t until you purposely used the word “injustice” with respect to the Novus Ordo that I actually took issue with you.
And I believe my point (that the manner in which the Novus Ordo was imposed was an injustice) was supported by the Holy Father’s letter.
Enough said.
God Bless,
Matt
Esau,
I know I’m a day behind in responding to you. I’ve been busy doing Mommy things. Anyway–I really should take a deep breath before I post on issues that hit my buttons. I’m new at this still. So to explain: Yes, I know that many, many fine musicians donate their time to the church. What I have a problem with is when that is what is *expected*. I have sung and played often without remuneration; I am doing so now. But there is a problem when a) people think that difficult music can just be thrown together by anyone who can sing and/or b) all musicians should always donate their talents to the church because they’re singing for God. As I said, this is often true, but in the larger picture musicians have to earn a living, too, and performing in churches is one way that they do that. Our choir is all volunteers, but like many we are short on men’s voices. So when we do a special mass we hire “ringers” who get paid. Is that a bad thing? Are they bad people to expect to be paid for their services?
“You mean to tell me that if Jesus Himself was physically present, you would demand of him wages for having sang praises for Him in His Church?”
I have no idea where you are coming from here. We pay priests, right? I teach in a Catholic School–I get paid, right? I consider all that I do in church and in my teaching to be for the greater glory of God, but getting paid for doing a job is not evil. Donating your talents is a good thing, but asking for pay is not evil, especially when you need the money, which many musicians (and teachers) do.
My initial point was that Gregorian chant is not simple. I would hate see a TLM or Latin NO be marred by slipshod singing of the church’s great musical treasury. Maybe I expressed myself inadequately because I got sidelined by a pet peeve. If you disagree with me, that’s fine.
matt,
May I ask you clarify your point? The manner in which the Pauline Rite was imposed was an injustice caused by whom in your opinion?
May I also ask you to quote the part of the letter that you think supports your point?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
materfamilias,
I agree with you.
Gregorian chant as well as sacred polyphony is indeed a masterpiece of music that is not simple. It cannot be done without skill, without painstaking organization.
I appreciate your follow-up post. It certainly made things clearer.
Initially, I thought you were promoting the idea that some folks have where we should never do something for the Church unless there is monetary. To me, that is just wrong.
However, comments in your most recent post have clarified matters and I appreciate them.
As far as the wages of priests are concerned, believe me, they’re nothing to brag about. A priest’s salary is more like a pittance donation to the priest by the diocese than anything else.
God bless you, materfamilias!
Great to hear about efforts you’re making in your Church to expertly maintain its sacred music.
Now, if only people in my parish were just as conscientious about its music.
If I may, I’d like to make an observation on Gregorian music.
Some background in music is neccesary, but not too much as opposed to polyphonic. The very manner of writing Gregorian eliminates that.
With a decent ear you’ll get by, but not with a heavy heart. I’ve experienced that the best way to sing Gregorian is to really pray and not just appear there. And certainly, with great admiration for the prayer being sung. I knew some that had much more musical talent than me, but messed it up in Gregorian because he was a vain egocentric person, who wanted to promote himself more than to worship God.
But definetly, it is hard, esspecially with normal lay people. I mean if many religious orders have sort of killed the Gregorian by the way they sing it, imagine the lay people. To learn it you really have to love it.
Remember to know something, brings it to you. To know an ant brings it to your lever. But when you love something, something greater than yourself, like Gregorian music, you will rise up to it.
Oh and to explain that “injustice” piece,
it talked about in the letter.
It would be an injustice to impose the Tridentine form of the Latin rite on everyone, because it could crystalize people in a bad way. Apostasy is certain.
But in the same way, it was wrong to uniformly proclaim the Novus Ordo, and leaving it at the mercy of the bishops to give indults.
Everyone knew that was never going to happen.
The Devil is astute and he got what he wanted.
The decent people that had good counterrevolutionary reactions were swiped by Mon.Lefebvre, so they ended up excommunicated. And the liberals got a free ticket to a samba dance. Both ended at extremes of evil, and very few were able to realize the errors of both.
That is an injustice that those who did it will suffer their punishment.
I just wish the faithful who’ve fallen off the ends would move back to the Church. I certainly hope that Summorum Pontificum brings back at least some of those traditionals who left the Church so foolishly, and makes them think about why we must trust in the Holy Father.
Some I hope will. I know some won’t, I saw some letter from some schismatic group SNEERING at this declaration. The devil has them well.
Inocencio,
May I ask you clarify your point? The manner in which the Pauline Rite was imposed was an injustice caused by whom in your opinion?
Certainly, although I’ve not time to provide all the evidences.
1. it was a non-organic change that didn’t seem to be called for by the ecumenical council. (responsibility of the Holy Father)
2. it was imposed in a very short time while the existing rite was suppressed by the Holy Father
3. as it was imposed the language of the mass was changed contrary to the ecumenical council and repeated requests of the Holy See to retain Latin. Committed by all the pastors and shepherds of the Church who permitted and performed this.
4. orientation of the priest changed without any justification (pastors and shepherds)
5. massive disregard for the rubrics themselves (pastors and shepherds)
May I also ask you to quote the part of the letter that you think supports your point?
It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.
To the music minister’s: if Gregorian chant demands so much then it behooves you to abandon all the other less suited music, and focus all your efforts on it, say good by to Haugen and Haus. It would be a great way to renew and refresh the faith in your parishes.
God Bless,
Matt
Jarnor23,
I agree, but I am perhaps more worried about the 75% of contracepting “Catholics” who cheerfully participate in the Mass and share in the Eucharist every Sunday somehow unchallenged by any sense of conscience.
God Bless,
Matt
Matt
Your points are well taken
I have had discussions with Inocencio and to be honest no matter how much proof you put in front of him it wont make a difference
Traditionalists have 1970 years of history, saints and martyrs and of organic growth to support their cause and the Traditional Latin Mass.
All those who support the Pauline Mass is a bunch of modernist theologians, 6 protestant ministers and Annibale Bugnini and 37 years of failure
That will be my last comment on the New Mass so as not to be construed as “Vatican II bashing”
The choice is clear and the holy father has come full circle and the next pope after him will hopefully see the same and with a new group of priests all wanting to learn the mass, the New mass within 40 years will be a footnote
matt,
There are points I disagree with but thank you for clarifying your statement.
John,
Josh said “I presume that the Pian psalter, which was in the typical edition of the 1962 Breviary, must be used by those using the 1962 Breviary to fulfill their obligation to say the Office.” That’s a reasonable presumption, but I’m not sure it’s true. As I understand it, the “versio piana” was recommended but never required for the Divine Office; the gallicana was always allowed. It doesn’t surprise me that the “editio typica” of the Roman rite would not be printed with two psalters, nor does it surprise me that the one they would choose to print is the recommended psalter, rather than a variant that was merely allowed. But I suspect that the gallicana is missing only to save space, which is at a premium in a breviary.
All those who support the Pauline Mass is a bunch of modernist theologians, 6 protestant ministers and Annibale Bugnini and 37 years of failure
There you have it!
Benedict XVI is, as had been declared before, nothing but a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” since Ratzinger also supports the Pauline Mass and so, therefore, a Modernist!
EXCERPT FROM CNS:
As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a “real improvement” in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.
In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old “low Mass,” with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, “was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people” when it disappeared.
The most important thing, he said at that time, was to make sure that the liturgy does not divide the Catholic community.
The choice is clear and the holy father has come full circle and the next pope after him will hopefully see the same, if he doesn’t, he shall be declared Apostate!
John,
…”the holy father has come full circle…”
Open your eyes. Read. Think. The latest documents simply do not support your conclusions.
You may think that the Holy Father has made some massive shift in his thinking, but he has not.
The fact of the matter is that your opinions about what Vatican II taught, about what Pope John Paul II taught, about what pre-Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) taught are mistaken. You are every bit as mistaken as the liberalizers that Pope Benedict is trying to correct. The only difference between you and them is that they thought all of the erroneous opinions were good, and you thought all of the erroneous opinions were bad. The fact of the matter is, you both held erroneous opinions.
When Pope Benedict tries to point that out, you have the audacity to claim that he has come full circle, and he has seen the light.
Pathetic.
Precisely, Esquire.
Amazingly, Radical Traditionalists and Radical Liberals make exactly the same mistake regarding Vatican II, supposing it to be some kind of rupture… a break with the past.
They run in different directions with this error – one to Pride and the other to Despair – but the error is the same.
They run in different directions with this error – one to Pride and the other to Despair – but the error is the same.
Tim J.,
Actually, I’ve got to disagree with you there.
Both run to Pride.
You have the one side, the Rad Trad, with so much pride that they believe they actually have the power to excommunicate the Pope himself, the other, being the Liberal, with so much pride that they believe they can do whatever they want with the Mass in spite of the Pope himself.
Esquire,
Only reads what he wants to hear then repeats it. His …”the holy father has come full circle…” statement is just regurgitating what Pat Buchanan wrote about the MP.
John only accepts the authority of those who say what he wants to hear.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Sorry my comment was addressed to Esquire but was referring to John’s statement about the holy father.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Matt, did I say it was either/or? Yeah, they’re in trouble too, as I had mentioned about “those at both ends falling off”.
Although I wouldn’t want to be either, for some of the contracepting fools you can legitimately see their ignorance, especially given that, as you say, many priests in some areas don’t seem to cover this little tidbit. (It seems to be a much better situation up here in that matter, but I digress.)
On the other hand, those refusing to listen to the Pope and then sneer at him when he tries to give them an olive branch are willfully and knowingly disobeying the Church. I cannot help but think this will go badly for them, especially since this grave matter is being committed with full knowledge and intent of the free will. That’s a surefire recipe for mortal sin.
And despite their clap-trap about how they don’t believe the Pope is the real Pope, every evidence is out there. They couldn’t possibly believe that without willful self-deception, which does not reduce the gravity of the sin, but rather increases it.
Certainly, some of the contraceptors out there fall into the same category. However, most that I know are simply blindly ignorant. The doctor they visit who is in charge of their health says this is normal and healthy, every person they meet says the same. They don’t hear otherwise from their priest, so they assume that that’s an old silly Catholic idea like Limbo, and only silly old priests must care about it anymore.
They couldn’t be more wrong, but surely, in our messed up society you can see how easily one can be mistaken about that. I try to educate people where I can, when they’ll listen, which ain’t often, sadly. I try to approach them with love for them and sadness and pity for the trap they’ve caught themselves in.
It’s harder for me to believe someone can’t figure out that when the Cardinals meet to pick a new Pope, you don’t get to personally veto the choice if you don’t like it.
End block quote!
Man, that had been going on for like three pages or so, didn’t even realize it anymore. 🙂
John,
you’re on your own with that comment.
By the way, Esau et al, why not address the objective error in John’s statement rather than going directly to the cries of heresy and rad-trad. You’re neither liberal nor radtrad but there’s something wrong when you can only resort to such tactics.
God Bless,
Matt
Matt,
I have several times in the past presented John with much documentation corroborating my position which clearly demonstrated that his position is contrary to traditional Catholic Teaching.
Also, please refer to my Jul 12, 2007 9:13:15 AM post.
John called all those who support the Novus Ordo nothing but a bunch of modernists.
Well, I provided a citation that shows that Ratzinger had given his support for the Novus Ordo wherein he even considered the new missal “a real improvement”.
So I guess since Ratzinger supports the Novus Ordo, he, too, is a modernist!
Matt posted:
“John,
you’re on your own with that comment. ”
Please explain what you mean by that-what comment are you so unwilling to support?
That the New Mass is supported and desired by Modernists? Gee, that is a surprise, one does not need to be a Rhodes Scholar to clearly come to a conclusion that the progressive wing of the Catholic church including some of the clergy desire the new mass
I must fall in line and support a mass that is destructive, banal, boring, and meant for those who desire to “participate” (ever hear of cleaning the church after mass, doing charity work at a catholic soup kitchen, praying the rosary at abortion clinics and old age homes etc-better use of ones time then trying to be seen by all and “participate”)!!-and that is destroying the church from within and without!!
I have nothing the apologize for and will continue to petition the vatican along with thousands others until this mass is done away with all together for our childrens childrens sake hopefully in my lifetime
If that is being “disobedient” or something you cant support Matt then run for the hills with Esau!!!
Esquire posted”
I dont know Esquire, Pat Buchanan among many others seem to think as I do!!
“And so the pope has come full circle. At Vatican II, the future Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Holy Office for the Defense of the Faith under John Paul II, went about in coat and tie and was seen as a radical reformer and modernist theologian in the mold of his friend Hans Kung.
Now, Kung is silent, Ratzinger is pope, and the Latin Mass, which had fallen into disuse with the introduction of the new rite in 1970, is back.
The introduction of the new Mass has been attended by a raft of liturgical innovations by freelancing priests that are transparently heretical. And the years since Vatican II and the introduction of the new Mass have been marked by a crisis of faith in Europe and the United States.
Churches have closed. Faithful have fallen away, or converted to other faiths. Congregations have dwindled. Convents have emptied out. Vocations are a fraction of what they once were. Belief in the creedal truths of Catholicism is not what it was in the years before Vatican II – the halcyon days of the great pope and future Saint. Pius XII.
One cannot know the effect of Pope Benedict’s decision. But the ferocity with which it was fought suggests some bishops are aware of the power of the old Latin Mass and the appeal of its mystery and solemnity to the young.
Pope Benedict, raised Catholic in Nazi Germany, once a reformer, but shaken by the events of 1968 and the social, cultural and moral revolution that followed, seems to have concluded that the Catholic Church’s apertura a sinistra, its opening to the left, has run its course theologically, liturgically and morally, and failed. Restored tradition can do no harm and may offer hope for the revival of a faith that is in its deepest crisis since the Reformation.”
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56587
God bless him our Pope!!
Inocencio
Do you have a problem with Pat Buchanan as well !!
Anybody you agree with????????
Esau posted:
“The choice is clear and the holy father has come full circle and the next pope after him will hopefully see the same, if he doesn’t, he shall be declared Apostate!”
JIMMY-DOES NOT ESAU’S CONTINUED RANTS CONSTITUTE A “HOBBY HORSE”?? SHOULD HE NOT FINALLY BE PUT DOWN?? HIS HATRED OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLICISM, WHICH IS NOW IN FULL FORCE AND FLOURISHING AS THIS HORRIBLE EXPERIMENT IS COMING TO AN END TACTFULLY BY OUR POPE HAS FILLED HIM WITH RAGE
PLEASE STOP THIS CONTINUED RANTS OF HIS!!!
John,
You originally posted:
The grammar makes it difficult to ascertain exactly what your point is, but one reading is certainly that if one supports the Pauline Mass he is a modernist. If you meant something different, you should make an attempt to be more clear with your language.
You then followed up with the following:
The context seems to indicate that you think these two statements are the same, but they are far different. It is one thing to say that all modernists support the new Mass. It is an entirely different thing to say that everyone who supports the new Mass is a modernist.
Nobody has said you must like the new Mass. But your wholesale character assassination of anyone who speaks out in favor of it is unwarranted.
As for Pat Buchanan, I have read his commentary, and it is not at all clear to me that he means the same thing that you do. One interpretation of his comments is that, in effect, the perception of Pope Benedict has come full circle — in the 60s he was viewed as a reformer and now he is viewed as more traditional. I believe Pope Benedict himself has made similar observations in the past, without suggesting in any way that his past ways were mistaken.
You, on the other hand, have clearly stated (correct me if I am wrong on what you intended) that Pre-Benedict made a mistake back in Vatican II in contributing to LG, among other things, and that now he has reversed field and “seen the light.” Your take on this cannot be squared by what he actually says in the document, but for some reason you have yet to address the actual language.
John,
Do you deny that if the next Pope were a mirror image of John Paul II that you would declare him to be an apostate?
That is certainly a fair assessment based on your past statements about John Paul II, but if you have changed your mind and decided that he was not apostate, you should let us know that.
While not necessarily productive, I don’t think you can really complain about that statement of Esau’s as being unfair.
And your constant lobbying to Jimmy so that he will give Esau as many warnings as he has had to give you is, frankly, childish.
Esquire posted:
“John,
Do you deny that if the next Pope were a mirror image of John Paul II that you would declare him to be an apostate?”
Esquire-why concern ourselves with the hypothetical?
If a pope acts and does those acts which are by definition apostate and heretical are we not bound under the pain of mortal sin not to call this out?
Let me turn the table my good friend and pose a hypothetical on you:
If the next pope, as you seem to have already written this one off as he has not been the “JPII” you so desired, was to ask you and issue a document telling all Catholics that they should start worshipping in Mosques and you can fullfill you Sunday obligation by attending interfaith worship services much like JPII held at Assisi (denounced by B16 when he was Cardinal)-what would you do?????
John,
Why do you insist on doing to others what you claim they are unfairly doing to you?
On what possible basis do you assert that I have “already written [Benedict] off”? You are the one who brought up the “next pope.”
I love Pope Benedict XVI, and hope he reigns for as long as Pope John Paul the Great did. But if he does not, I will support the next pope as well. (I may or may not love the next pope, but I will support him to the extent it is my duty to do so regardless of my personal feelings.)
You complain, on the one hand, because Esau has pointed out that you have no misgivings about declaring the Pope apostate if he doesn’t agree with you, and then on the other hand, you freely admit that you feel bound to declare the Pope apostate and heretical if he does something that you feel meets those definitions.
That is not Traditional Catholic belief, and if you ascribe to it, you are in error in holding yourself out to be a Traditionalist.
I merely asked you to clarify if your position had changed, since you took such offense at Esau’s suggestion that you would call a pope an apostate if he didn’t agree with you.
With respect to your hypothetical, you seem to disregard the protection that the Holy Spirit affords to the office of the Vicar of Christ. Your question is somewhat akin to asking if God can create a rock so big he can’t lift it. In other words, your question seems to be will the Holy Father oblige Catholics to do something which is against the will of God? The answer is, according to real Traditional Catholicism, “No,” so if the Holy Father obliges me to do something that pertains to faith and morals, I most certainly will obey, whatever my personal distaste.
In doing so, I will be following the guidance of St. Pope Pius X, who very astutely noted that the roots of modernism will be found in the disregard of authority, in the substitution of personal judgments for those that have been given authority to make them. I would suggest that you (and all others) follow St. Pope Pius X’s advice as well.
Esquire posted:
“In doing so, I will be following the guidance of St. Pope Pius X, who very astutely noted that the roots of modernism will be found in the disregard of authority, in the substitution of personal judgments for those that have been given authority to make them. I would suggest that you (and all others) follow St. Pope Pius X’s advice as well.”
Esquire, Pope Pius X feared that his clergy were being infected with the stain of modernism and asked them to take such an oath against, which of course was quickly done away with by John XXIII if I recall
Additionally, the Papal Ordination Oath was taken by all Popes back to the 6th century and that was done away with. If indeed the church believed that all Popes could never be led astray, why would Vatican I take the painstaken time to clearly define what his authority was and is, when he is and not infallible, and why would the church ask all Popes to take this Oath, which was done away with as well by JPII? It is quite clear why, because they intended on changing tradition and to modernize the church
I do not want to continue this discussion for fear of being accused of thread hijacking, but the proof I think is quite clear, two Oaths, one from the 6th century and one from Pius X whom you referenced I follow disguarded by the modern clergy and Popes
This sacred oath is taken by the pope upon is elevation to the Chair of St. Peter. Every pope since Pope Saint Agatho on June 27, 678 has taken it. Many believe it was even taken by several predecessors of St. Agatho. At least 185 Supreme Pontiffs took this solemn oath over the past 1300 years. In this oath, the Vicar of Christ vows to never contradict the Deposit of Faith, or change/innovate anything that has been handed down to him. This sacred oath was taken religiously up until October 1978. Thus meaning that John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul I all took this oath. The oath states that should the pope break the oath, they would excommunicate themselves from the Church, and therefore, cease being pope. John Paul II is the first since the 7th century or before to not take it.
Papal Oath
“I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;
To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;
To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;
I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.
I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.
If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.
Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone — be it Ourselves or be it another — who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.”
John,
You seem to think that everyone but you should listen to Pope St. Pius X.
Or rather, you seem to think that everyone but you should listen to what you think Pope St. Pius X meant, because you continually refuse to engage what he actually said.
But let’s get your nonsense on the table for all to see, and quit dancing around it: Do you claim that Pope John Paul II was excommunicated as soon as he was elevated to the papacy and did not take your oath?
John,
Since you claim that refusal to take the oath results in automatic excommunication of the pope, are you also positing that Pope Benedict XVI has been excommunicated?
And where does that leave Summorum Pontificum?
You complain, on the one hand, because Esau has pointed out that you have no misgivings about declaring the Pope apostate if he doesn’t agree with you, and then on the other hand, you freely admit that you feel bound to declare the Pope apostate and heretical if he does something that you feel meets those definitions.
That is not Traditional Catholic belief, and if you ascribe to it, you are in error in holding yourself out to be a Traditionalist.
Esquire,
Thank-you.
God bless you always for faithfully defending the Truths of our Church in their entirety!
John,
I do not have a problem with Pat Buchanan and I occasionally read his articles.
I have a problem with your inability to comprehend what you read.
I ask you again to read others comments slowly and then read them again before responding.
Rather than just regurgitate what you read elsewhere and pretending it is your own thoughts just provide a quotation or link.
Yes, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
This thread is a repeat of the Francis Beckwith Interview post and you better tread lightly John.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Mike (re: Canberra Australia),
You are slightly wrong about the Canberra ‘Youth’ Gathering.
You are absolutely correct about the bishops that were there which included Archbishop Chaput from Denver, but there were 350-400 students & young adults – we don’t like the tage youth!!!
And yes, much of the leadserhip including myself are ‘Traddies’ and there a Tridentine Rite Mass celebrated on the Friday night. It was optional but 160-180 attended.
The end of the Novus Ordo as we know it???
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070730/NATION/107300063/1001
Old rite wins new Mass appeal
By Julia Duin
July 30, 2007
A woman prays during a Tridentine Mass July 22 at St. Mary Mother of God Catholic Church in Northwest. (Astrid Riecken/The Washington Times)
——————————————————————————–
The Tridentine Mass, the Latin-only rite both loved and hated by many Catholics for its medieval qualities, is roaring back into use after a July 7 papal decree loosened the rules on celebrating it.
Two traditional priestly societies dedicated to the rite report that priests from all over the country are signing up in droves for weeklong classes to learn the rituals and language of the Mass, named after the 16th-century Council of Trent.
Monsignor Michael Schmitz, vicar-general of the Florence, Italy-based Institute of Christ the King, said he has received hundreds of calls from interested clergy.
“This is a nationwide phenomenon,” he said. “Many more parish priests and younger priests are interested in learning to celebrate the Latin Mass.
“Whenever the Latin rite is celebrated, you get many young people,” he added. “They are looking for something that speaks to the soul, and the beauty of the liturgy is awe-inspiring. The heartfelt presence of God really affects them.”
The Elmhurst, Pa.-based Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter trained 50 priests on performing the rite this summer at its Our Lady of Guadalupe seminary in Denton, Neb.
Its September session is already full and its Elmhurst bookstore got a “big upsurge” in demand for priestly training materials within two days of the announcement, said the Rev. Carl Gismondi, a Fraternity priest studying theology at the Dominican House in the District.
“It is a detailed liturgy, so there’s a lot of books and videos needed to teach a priest how to say this Mass,” he said. “There’s something about it that’s very attractive to people. It’s more than nostalgia because a lot of young people are interested in it.”
THANKS FOR THE LENGTHY LEGILIZED INTPRETATION OF THE MOTU PROPRIO, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM. A POPE HAS FINALLY CLEARED THE STINK OF 40 YEARS AND STRAIGHT OUT THE CONFUSION REGARDING THE TRIDENTINE LITURGY, IN THAT IT WAS NEVER ABROGATED NEVER ABOLISHED NEVER ILLIGAL TO CELEDRATE IT BY ANY LATIN RITE PRIEST IN THE WORLD. THIS POPE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ORTHODOX IN A SEA OF HETERODOX AGING 1960’S PRELATES, PRIESTS & RELIGIOUS. IT IS THOSE REACTIONARY CLERICS LIKE CONOR IN ENGLAND WITH HIS HENCHMEN BISHOP ROCHE, MAHONEY AND BROWN IN CALIFORNIA, THE REVISIONISTS IN FRANCE, CANADA, GERMANY THAT ARE IN SCHISM AND DISOBEDIENCE IN THEIR PHONY TAKE ON THE MOTU PROPRIO, IT MAY HAVE WORKED 20 YRS AGO BUT THANKS TO THE INTERNET AND BLOGGERS OUT THERE, THE DISOBEDIENCE OF THESE BISHOPS GETS BACK TO ROME IMMEDIATELY. IS IT NOT TIME TO LAISIZE DISRESPECTFUL AND DISOBEDIENT CLERICS LIKE RICARD, DANEEL, MAHONEY CONOR AND “DON’T U DARE KNEEL” TOD BROWN OF ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA??? MILLIONS ARE GOING TO THE “TRIDENTINE MASS WORLDWIDE THERE IS A GROUNDSWELL OF CATHOLIC YOUTH ABANDONING THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE OF PAUL 6 IN FAVOUR OF THE ANCIENT LITURGY. TRADITIONAL/ORTHODOX SEMINARIES ARE FILLED TO CAPACITY THE SAME WITH TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS ORDERS WHO ARE BURSTING AT THE SEAMS WITH NEW CANDIDATES ENQUIRING INTO TRADITIONAL VOCATIONS. THE ONLY VOCATIONAL CRISIS AMOUNG ORTHODOX-TRADITIONAL CATHOLICISM IS THEIR LACK OF SPACE TO ACCOMADATE THE THOUSANDS SEEKING THE TRADITION PRIESTHOOD AND RELIGIOUS LIKE. TO VERIFY SIMPLY ENQUIRE OF THE FRATERNITY OF ST. PETER, CHRIST THE KING SOVEREIGN PRIEST, ST. JOHN CANTIUS,FRATERNAL ORDER OF THE GOOD SHEPARD AND YESS THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS 10TH THE LARGEST OF THE TRADITIONAL MOVEMENTS IN THE CHURCH. YUP, FOLKS SSPX IS IN THE CHURCH IN AN IRREGULAR STATUS BUT SOON TO BE RECONCILED WITH ROME (AS SOON AS THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF HER FOUNDER AND BISHOPS IS WITHDRAWN). WHEN RECONCILIATION COMES SSPX WILL BE A POWERFUL FORCE AT THE SERVICE OF THE HOLY FATHER—–SHALOM
ADDENDUM———-FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE DAYS OF THE DISFUNCTIONAL PINK/GAY SEMINARIES IS COMING TO A SCREECHING ASS CLOSE, SOON TO BE REFORMED ARE PEDOPHILE PRODUCING SCHOOLS LIKE ST. JOHN CAMARILLO IN CALIFORNIA AND THE PINK PALACE NOTRE FLAME IN NEW ORLEANS. TO DO THAT YOU NEED ORTHODOX BISHOPS WHERE THESE GAY FRIENDLY SEMINARIES RESIDE TO CLEAN THEM UP. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN UNDER THE AEGIS OF NARCISSISTIC PRIESTS LIKE ROGER MAHONEY