Category: Liturgy

I’ve been waylaid by recent events (like the trip to Europe) that have kept me from blogging about the forthcoming motu proprio on the liturgy in a timely manner (by my standards, at least).

We’ve had confirmation from more than one source that it is, indeed, coming.

MOST RECENTLY BY (#2 THE VATICAN MAN) SECRETARY OF STATE CARDINARL BERTONE.

Who says it’ll be coming "soon" (which in Vatican-speak could mean weeks or months, but means it’s coming).

A couple of thoughts:

1) Cardinal Bertone indicates that the motu proprio will be accompanied by a letter from B16 explaining the reasons for the change and hoping for a "serene reception" from the Church on the issue.

This is unusual.

I can’t remember the last time a motu proprio was accompanied by a letter from the pope himself. There may have been one, but I can’t remember it. In any event, it’s significant that the pope would write a letter to cushion the force of a motu proprio.

This signifies the sensitivity of the issue.

Why is it so sensitive?

Because the use of the Tridentine Rite of Mass is an identity marker.

Apart from the identity issue, nobody would get greatlly overworked about the fact that a certain (and relatively small) group of Christians are being allowed to celebrate the Mass according to their preferred rite. "Big deal," some might say. But when the preferred rite happens to be the majority rite of the by-far-the-largest ritual church, different stakes are in play.

People will look at this as if it is a symbol of approval or disapproval not just of the rite of Mass but of the whole set of changes that have affected the Latin Church in the last forty years, which is a much greater matter.

2) I’ve also read reports that the motu proprio will establish rights for Catholics who want to celebrate the other sacraments–not just the Eucharist–according to the old rites.

Normally the rites that govern the ways the sacraments are celebrated are handled through the Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, but I’m picking up vibes that the Ecclesical Commission Ecclesia Dei will have an expanded portfolio in the wake of the motu proprio, meaning that we may have two dicasteries that deal with liturgy–the CDW and the ECED.

Time will tell.

Hey, Tim Jones, here (not Jimmy Akin). I became a Catholic in 1993. In looking at the history of Christianity (with a lot of help) I became convinced that the Catholic Church constituted the authentic Church that Christ founded. On any reasonable, unbiased view of the evidence, it emerged as the great trunk from which every branch of Christianity sprung, if any Church could make that claim.

I think that my joining the ancient Church has only deepened my appreciation for old things in general. I’ve always been fascinated with old things, and found great satisfaction in working for a couple of historical museums and even illustrating an archaeological textbook. I have been privileged to handle and examine many man-made artifacts thousands of years old. One of the most damning marks of our present culture, from where I sit, is the tendency – or the reckless mania – for tossing out things of great (or at least unknown) value, simply because they are old. I’m all for looking at both tools and traditions to see whether they are still truly helpful or could be improved on, but our Western culture discards old ideas and structures with all the thoughtful consideration of a drunk tossing empty beer cans out the car window.

In short, I’m a traditionalist by nature and temperament, and it troubles me to see – in the Church or in the secular world – people so giddily enamored of novelty and "progress" that they lose almost completely the capacity to see the value of old things. For this reason, I have a great deal of natural sympathy for those who lived through the liturgical changes after Vatican II and found them deeply disturbing. I often hear in their communications a deep sense of mourning, pain and bewilderment behind all the anger and bitterness.

Imagine, having been raised with the old Latin Mass, going to your parish church one day and – with very little explanation – experiencing the equivalent of the average modern teen mass. For many people, this would be like entering a parallel universe, or some kind of Twilight Zone episode…"Where are the old Latin prayers and responses? Why is the priest facing the wrong way? Where are the hymns? Why is that guitar-strumming folk singer wailing at us? How did those drums get in here? Make them stop! I can’t breathe!! What’s going on?!?"

Then, imagine your response when you hear, "You’re at Mass. This is the Mass… the NEW Mass. This will be how we do Mass from now on, for ever and ever…"

"But," you might ask,  "what about the Old Mass? Can’t I go to the Old Mass?".

And that’s the kicker. I doubt, really, that most of these "Rad-Trad" folks would have had that big a problem with the mere existence of the Novus Ordo mass, had the Old Mass been allowed to continue alongside it. The problem – perhaps – wasn’t so much the introduction of the New Mass as the fact that the beloved Old Mass was, for all practical purposes, swept away to make room for it. If those strongly attached to the TLM still had access to such a mass in their own parish (or nearby) I doubt we would see the level of anger and the veiled – or explicit – charges that the Novus Ordo is invalid and a tool of the devil.

There is a good, short Wikipedia article on the subject of Cognitive Dissonance that I think might help shed some light on the stridency and outrage of the Rad-Trads. The article begins with this short definition;

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one’s beliefs. More precisely, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior.

On the one hand, you have the thought (based on your own experience), "This is not the Mass", and on the other hand, you have the Church telling you "This is the Mass". But, the thought is too much, and just won’t fit into your mind.

You think, "No, that can’t be right", but there is the conflicting thought, "The Church – the Pope – speaks for Christ". While some are able – with time – to sort through these seeming contradictions, others are overwhelmed and something has to give. People just can’t go on thinking in one way and acting in another.

I’ve never experienced this uncomfortable dissonance, because I didn’t grow up attached to a particular kind of Mass. I became a Catholic for doctrinal and philosophical reasons and decided to convert before I had ever been to a Catholic mass. I was absolutely convinced of the authority of the Church, and for me it was a slam-dunk that The Mass was whatever the Church said it was. As Mark Shea put it recently, "Just give me my lines and my blocking". I don’t know exactly who gets to decide what goes into the liturgy and what doesn’t, I only know it isn’t me.  All the same, it’s my understanding that Benedict XVI may be of the opinion that the liturgical changes that took place after Second Vatican Council were too much, too soon. This does not mean the Church has gone apostate, or even that the Novus Ordo was a bad idea, only that as a matter of prudence, there may have been too many changes and that these changes could have been implemented in a less ham-fisted way.

I understand the feelings of the liturgical purists, but they make enemies when they go around hinting, or flatly stating, that the Novus Ordo is invalid and that the Pope and the Church are in apostasy (except for their little corner of it, where the True Faith is preserved).  What is needed is a bit of humility and charity on both ends. We need to try and understand the deep feelings of loss and disorientation that some experienced after the New Mass was so abruptly introduced, and they need to understand that the Latin Mass was no more immune to abuse than is the Novus Ordo. There were slovenly, irreverent Masses long before Vatican II.

Hopefully, some day soon, we will get to see the Latin Mass made available to a much greater degree, and maybe then we can leave behind some of this territorial chest-pounding and controversies over the How of the mass and focus instead on Who it is we encounter there.

Just a note; I will assertively implement Jimmy’s combox rules on this thread. Diatribes, harangues and tub-thumping of any kind will be mercilessly excised. I will suffer no attacks on the Holy Father, nor any laundry lists of perceived evidence that Vatican II was the work of Satan. The same goes for those who accuse all TLM enthusiasts of being schismatics. For once, let’s try to talk about this without consigning to the pits of heck those who hold a different view.

Catholic News Agency is reporting:

After over a year of work, the Holy See will release the post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist, titled “Sacramentum Caritatis,” on Tuesday, March 13th.  The document, which flows from the 11th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, held in October of 2005, has been highly anticipated in ecclesiastical circles.

A press conference for the document’s release will be held in the Press Office of the Holy See, led by Cardinal Angelo Scola, patriarch of Venice and relator general of the 11th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, and Archbishop Nikola Eterovic, secretary general of the Synod of Bishops.

The document is rumored to be a profound reflection on the Sacrament of the Eucharist and may call for a proposal and plan for liturgical reforms, including a greater use of the Latin language, Gregorian chant, classical polyphonic music.  According to one source, the document may also call for “more decorum and liturgical sobriety in the celebration of the Eucharist, excluding dance and, as much as possible, applause.”

SOURCE.

All I can say is, "It’s about time! The apostolic exhortation from the Synod on the Eucharist has been inexcusably delayed." (And not through B16’s fault; the holdup has been on the part of others, and even B16 has obliquely complained about it.)

Actually, that’s not all I can say. I can also say that I’ll be very interested to read it, and I would not be at all surprised if the items highlighted in blue turn out to be in the document, though we’ll have to see.

Also note that, if the title dof the document is correct, Pope Benedict is continuing his theme of love. The title translates as "The Sacrament of Love" or "The Sacrament of Charity."

UPDATE: Catholic News Service is reporting:

Meeting pastors from the Diocese of Rome Feb. 22, Pope Benedict said he was about to sign the document, which he hoped would "help in liturgical celebrations, in personal reflection, in preparing homilies and in the celebration of the Eucharist."

He also said he hoped it would "serve to guide, enlighten and revitalize popular piety," especially eucharistic adoration.

A reader writes:

I found you in the search engine looking for information on preaching by the laity.

Our Congregation of Sisters is having a general assembly. A few Sisters are upset by the fact that we have asked Sisters to give the homily each day after the Gospel. Each of the members of the Steering committee and liturgy committee received a scathing letter today,  flaunting Canon law codes that specifically forbid this practice.

Do you know of any loophole "allowing" Sisters to preach at liturgies during their "closed" liturgies which take place in their own motherhouse or conference centers?

Thanks so much for any help you can give us.

I assume that the passage from the Code of Canon Law which appeared in the letter that your steering and liturgy committees received was this one:

Can. 767 §1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year. [SOURCE]

In citing this, the authors of the letter are correct. The homily is reserved to the priest or deacon, and lay people–including sisters–are not permitted to preach it. This is a norm that, prior to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, had certain exceptions, but these were eliminated with the release of the 1983 Code.

Not even a bishop has the ability to dispense from this norm, as was established by the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative texts when it issued the following authentic interpretation:

The doubt: Whether the diocesan bishop is able to dispense from the prescription of
c. 767.1, by which the homily is reserved to priests and deacons.

The response: Negative. [SOURCE]

The 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (American edition) also stresses the reservation of the homily to the priest or deacon:

66. The Homily should ordinarily be given by the priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to the deacon, but never to a lay person. In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate. [SOURCE]

And the Holy See has expressed the same thing in Ecclesiae de Mysterio and Redemptionis Sacramentum. The former states:

The homily . . . also forms part of the liturgy.

The homily, therefore, during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, must be reserved to the sacred minister, Priest or Deacon to the exclusion of the non-ordained faithful, even if these should have responsibilities as "pastoral assistants" or catechists in whatever type of community or group. This exclusion is not based on the preaching ability of sacred ministers nor their theological preparation, but on that function which is reserved to them in virtue of having received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. For the same reason the diocesan Bishop cannot validly dispense from the canonical norm since this is not merely a disciplinary law but one which touches upon the closely connected functions of teaching and sanctifying.

For the same reason, the practice, on some occasions, of entrusting the preaching of the homily to seminarians or theology students who are not clerics is not permitted. Indeed, the homily should not be regarded as a training for some future ministry.

All previous norms which may have admitted the non-ordained faithful to preaching the homily during the Holy Eucharist are to be considered abrogated by canon 767, 1. [section 3:1; SOURCE]

And the latter states:

[64.] The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself, “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson. In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate”.

[65.] It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1. This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

[66.] The prohibition of the admission of laypersons to preach within the Mass applies also to seminarians, students of theological disciplines, and those who have assumed the function of those known as “pastoral assistants”; nor is there to be any exception for any other kind of layperson, or group, or community, or association. [SOURCE]

In light of these, I cannot offer you a loophole allowing sisters to preach the homily at liturgies that are not open to the public, for no such loophole exists. The Holy See is really serious about this. Not even the local bishop can dispense from this norm, and one certainly cannot depart from it on one’s own personal initiative. The Code of Canon Law also provides:

Can.  846 §1. In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority. [SOURCE]

Although the laity cannot preach the homily, there are instances in which they can preach. The Code of Canon Law provides:

Can. 765 Preaching to religious in their churches or oratories requires the permission of the superior competent according to the norm of the constitutions.

Can. 766 Lay persons can be permitted to preach in a church or oratory, if necessity requires it in certain circumstances or it seems advantageous in particular cases, according to the prescripts of the conference of bishops and without prejudice to can. 767, §1. [SOURCE]

The American conference of bishops has established the following complementary norm regarding lay preaching:

Preaching the Word of God is among the principal duties of those who have received the sacrament of orders (cc. 762-764). The lay faithful can be called to cooperate in the exercise of the Ministry of the Word (c. 759). In accord with canon 766 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops hereby decrees that the lay faithful may be permitted to exercise this ministry in churches and oratories, with due regard for the following provisions:

If necessity requires it in certain circumstances or it seems useful in particular cases, the diocesan bishop can admit lay faithful to preach, to offer spiritual conferences or give instructions in churches, oratories or other sacred places within his diocese, when he judges it to be to the spiritual advantage of the faithful.

In order to assist the diocesan bishop in making an appropriate pastoral decision (Interdicasterial Instruction, Ecclesiae de Mysterio, Article 2 §3), the following circumstances and cases are illustrative: the absence or shortage of clergy, particular language requirements, or the demonstrated expertise or experience of the lay faithful concerned.

The lay faithful who are to be admitted to preach in a church or oratory must be orthodox in faith, and well-qualified, both by the witness of their lives as Christians and by a preparation for preaching appropriate to the circumstances.

The diocesan bishop will determine the appropriate situations in accord with canon 772§1. In providing for preaching by the lay faithful the diocesan bishop may never dispense from the norm which reserves the homily to the sacred ministers (c. 767§1; cfr. Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law, 26 May 1987, in AAS 79 [1987], 1249). Preaching by the lay faithful may not take place within the Celebration of the Eucharist at the moment reserved for the homily. [SOURCE]

Ecclesiae de Mysterio also provides:

2. A form of instruction designed to promote a greater understanding of the liturgy, including personal testimonies, or the celebration of eucharistic liturgies on special occasions (e.g. day of the Seminary, day of the sick etc.) is lawful, if in harmony with liturgical norms, should such be considered objectively opportune as a means of explicating the regular homily preached by the celebrant priest. Nonetheless, these testimonies or explanations may not be such so as to assume a character which could be confused with the homily.

3. As an expositional aide and providing it does not delegate the duty of preaching to others, the celebrant minister may make prudent use of "dialogue" in the homily, in accord with the liturgical norms.

4. Homilies in non-eucharistic liturgies may be preached by the non-ordained faithful only when expressly permitted by law and when its prescriptions for doing so are observed. [section 3; SOURCE]

While the law does not permit your sisters to preach the homily at Mass, or to preach something else at the time reserved for the homily during Mass, the law does allow for the possibility of their preaching in other contexts and–provided the requirements of the passages quoted above in this post are met–it would permit them to preach in some form at your upcoming general assembly.

This is just a liturgical pet peeve of mine, but you know how, during certain times of the year, some parishes decide to get "creative" with the response that is used in the prayers of the faithful?

You know, instead of having the faithful say "Lord, hear our prayer" at the end of every petition, they’ll want you to say something else, typically based on the liturgical day or season, like "Come, Lord Jesus" at Christmas or "Come, Holy Spirit" at Pentecost?

I really hate that.

The reasons I hate it are five:

1) It just feels unnatural. I’m used to saying "Lord, hear our prayer," which is a perfectly good response that everyone is comfortable with and that makes sense when it comes at the end of any petition that may be offered.

2) It’s too distracting. Since I’m not used to saying the alternate petitions, they’re distracting, and I find myself thinking more about the response than about the petition, which is what my mind is supposed to be focusing on. Worshipping with unfamiliar responses is like dancing with unfamiliar footwork. You’re thinking too much about the mechanics of what you’re doing and not enough about the flow of the dance.

3) The alternate response is invariably inappropriate for some petitions–or at least it sounds awful odd ("That the Holy Spirit may give us a greater awareness of God’s love for us . . . " —> " . . . Come, Lord Jesus"? That sounds like the Third Person of the Trinity is being identified with the Second). Or even if it doesn’t, I have to devote mental processing time to the question of whether it is appropriate for the petitions.

4) The alternate response may be inappropriate to the day or season in which it is being used. "Come, Lord Jesus" just doesn’t fit for the Christmas season. Once it’s Christmas, Jesus has already come! That response would be more appropriate for Advent.

5) Some people find the force of habit too strong and end up saying "Lord, hear our prayer" anyway, then feeling clumsy about it.

When this kind of response substitution occurs, I personally tend to just give silent assent to the petitions rather than using an oral response.

I thought of all this because this weekend I noticed that my parish was (refreshingly) back to "Lord, hear our prayer" after having dabbled with others during the recent holidays.

Would that it had never been otherwise.

Those are my thoughts. What do you think? Have you heard particularly "creative" responses? Any particularly odd juxtapositions with the petitions?

A lot of people have e-mailed me links to the video of the Halloween Mass. As soon as I saw it, I thought, "Okay, this is never going to stand. One way or another, action is going to be taken to rectify this situation."

I also thought, "It’s going to be a lot harder for people to get away with extreme liturgical abuses from now on. YouTube brings a whole new level of accountability, as it is now possible for the local bishop and the Vatican to see the abuse being committed and not just rely on verbal reports of it."

This led to the thought, "I’m sad about the idea of people doing hidden camera videos of the Masses in their parishes, but it’s going to happen now and will play a role in cleaning up the liturgy."

We’ll have to see how my latter two thoughts play out, but the first has already happened. The priest in question has written a letter of apology to his bishop, Tod Brown. Here’s the text of it:

November 8, 2006

Dear Bishop Brown:

Since 1998, when we first began celebrating liturgies here in Aliso
Viejo, a particular dynamic has always been the youthfulness of our
community with an obvious abundance of children. With this in mind,
many of our programs have been developed to be of service to them and
it was in this spirit that we began inviting children to wear their
Halloween costumes to the Masses on the weekend prior to Halloween.
Many parents inquired if they too could wear costumes so as to make it
a family event, and thus, a Halloween tradition of having parishioners
in costume at Mass was born. Based on our Catholic-Christian grounding
of faith in Jesus Christ, we know that the assorted costumes of
Halloween are a manner of poking fun and holding up to the light of
Christ’s Resurrection the things that may have
once frightened us. 

I am aware that my enthusiasm for our family celebration of
Halloween has caused me to neglect my pastoral duties of providing
appropriate direction and instruction to our people regarding
appropriate/inappropriate costumes. Prior to the weekend of October
28-29 I failed to adequately instruct our assorted liturgical ministers
as to what might be appropriate apparel for their ministry. Because of
this oversight on my part, we had some lay ministers of communion
attired in devil horns and assorted other costumes that, in hindsight,
I could easily have prevented if I had been more attentive to my
pastoral duties. Bishop Brown, I stress to you the goodness and
faith-filled integrity of the ministers who were so attired, they are
some of our most involved and faithful members. They accepted me at my
word in regards to their costume making fun of fearful things, and
would be mortified to think that they gave offense to people of good
faith. The lay ministers are innocent of any wrongdoing, the offense is
mine and I take full responsibility.

I realize that my pastoral neglect and lack of prudent judgment has
caused great concern and offense to many in the Church. I have given my
life as a priest to the Church of the Diocese of Orange and it causes
me great pain to realize that my lapse in judgment could so easily
transform a wonderful family tradition into something questionable and
repugnant to people of good faith. From my heart I apologize to you and
to the larger community of the faithful for my pastoral neglect.

I await your counsel and assistance in  determining an appropriate manner of  making amends for this matter.

Sincerely, Reverend Fred K. Bailey

MORE FROM ROMAN CATHOLIC BLOG.

You’ll note that Fr. Bailey in a praiseworthy fashion accepts full responsibility for the abuse, but this does not change the reality that the parishioners who dressed up in devil costumes to attend Mass and hand out Holy Communion were doing something extraordinarily boneheaded. They have a jaw-droppingly astonishing sense of what is appropriate at sacred liturgies. Setting aside the question of whether a costume is even appropriate at sacred liturgies, devil costumes are undeniably and obviously inappropriate, and these parishioners failed to discern that.

CHT to the reader who pointed out the location of the letter from Cardinal Arinze. Diogenes had already posted it over at CWNews. Here ’tis:

This is something I’ve really been hoping and praying for. I’ve even thought about writing Cardinal Arinze and imploring him to do this, because the release of the new translation of the Mass is the perfect opportunity to do this, and with B16 in office, the pope would have the sensitivity to the issue to realize how much benefit this change would be.

I was therefore DEE-lighted when a reader e-mailed this story from Catholic World News:

Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules

Vatican, Nov. 18 (CWNews.com) – The Vatican has ruled that the phrase pro multis should be rendered as "for many" in all new English-language translations of the Eucharistic Prayer, CWN has learned.

Although "for many" is the literal translation of the Latin phrase, the translations currently in use render the phrase as "for all." All new English-language translations will use "for many" when they appear.

Cardinal Francis Arinze, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has written to the heads of episcopal conferences of the English-speaking world, informing them of the Vatican decision.

The translation of pro multis has been the subject of considerable debate because of the serious theological issues involved. The phrase occurs when the priest consecrates the wine, saying (in the current translation):

…It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.

The Latin version of the Missal, which sets the norm for the Roman liturgy, says:

…qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

Critics of the current translation have argued, since it first appeared, that rendering pro multis as "for all" not only distorts the meaning of the Latin original, but also conveys the impression that all men are saved, regardless of their relationship with Christ and his Church. The more natural translation, "for many," more accurately suggests that while Christ’s redemptive suffering makes salvation available to all, it does not follow that all men are saved.

YEE-HAW!!!

BIG CHT to the reader!

Now, since we don’t have the letter from Cardinal Arinze in hand, this is still officially only a rumor. However, it feels like a substantive one. The rumor doesn’t say that they’re going to do this. It says Arinze has already written the bishops’ conference heads. This is precisely the way the Vatican would make a change of this nature (note the recent letter of Cardinal Arinze I published regarding the change on purification of vessels), and the story has the ring of truth to me. My guess is that one of Phil Lawler’s sources in the Congregation for Divine Worship or the curia of a bishop who has seen the letter leaked it to Phil.

If it’s true, the letter should be appearing in the BCL Newsletter soon, and I’ll keep y’all informed.

Even if it’s not true, a flurry of coverageon this could raise the profile of the issue and result int the CDW taking action. In other words, this could turn into a self-fulfilling rumor.

Either way, I’m very heartened by this news and really hope that it’s true.

A substantial part of the "Novus Ordo is invalid" hoo-hah stems precisely from the mistranslation of pro multis as "for all."

And it is really embarassing to have a boneheaded mistranslation right there in the consecration. The Holy See should never have approved that. Pro multis clearly means "for many" or "for the many" or "for the multitude" and not "for all."

Admittedly, Jesus did shed his blood for all, and the mistranslation is not one that would affect the validity of the consecration since it deals with why Jesus did what he did (and he did truly do it) and not what the elements have become.

But we shouldn’t even have to argue this point! The mistranslation shouldn’t be there and raise needless doubts in the minds of the faithful, who then need to be talked through why this isn’t invalidating.

The simple step of getting rid of the mistranslation will help enormously with anti-rad trad apologetics.

What will be interesting to see is if the Holy See proceeds to mandate the same change in the texts of other languages that have the same mistranslation . . . like Italian.

Kudos to His Awesomeness Cardinal Arinze and His Most Awesomeness B16. Y’all’re aces!

Fr. Edward McNamara’s answers to liturgy questions on Zenit can be uneven, but when he recently addressed the rad trad argument that the 16th century bull Quo Primum irrevocably defined the "Mass of Pius V"  as the only one that can be validly or licitly used, he delivered a real smackdown.

Here’s a taste:

[L]egal expressions such as "which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein" cannot be literally interpreted as binding on possible later actions of Pope St. Pius V or upon his successors. The strictures fall only upon those who act without due authority.

If it were otherwise, then Pope St. Pius V would have excommunicated himself a couple of years after publishing "Quo Primum" when he added the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary to the missal following the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, not to mention Pope Clement XI who canonized Pius V in 1712, thus altering the missal.

Among the many other Popes who would have thus incurred "the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul" would have been St. Pius X for reforming the calendar, Pius XI who added the first new preface in centuries for the feast of Christ the King, Pius XII for completely revamping the rites of Holy Week as well as simplifying the rubrics, and Blessed John XXIII for adding St. Joseph’s name to the Roman Canon.

GET THE STORY.

A reader writes:

When I went to church for All Saint’s Day,  I was happy to hear the
Litany of the Saints announced.  But then I started hearing saints I had
never heard of …well, there are some of those.  But I saw the people
in the choir looking significantly at each other as they said these
names, and some of them sounded like common names in our area…so I
asked afterwards.   It turns out that this "worship site " of my
territorial parish has a custom of including the names of all the people
in the parish who died in the previous year, in the litany of the
saints.

I expressed some reservations about this to the priest….we don’t know
that these people are in heaven, we don’t know their eternal fate, some
might be damned although we hope not,  most probably had some "time" in
Purgatory during which they would need our prayers.  He seemed to be
upset by my statement that it was conceivable that some of these people
were damned and that probably most would be in Purgatory.

What do you think of this practice?

Two things:

First, it’s prohibited by law. According to the Code of Canon Law,

Can.  1187 It is permitted to reverence through
public veneration only those servants of God whom the authority of the Church
has recorded in the list of the saints or the blessed.

Since the people who have died in your parish in the last year have not been recorded in the list of saints and blesseds by the authority of the Church (either of which listings requires the approval of the pope), they cannot be given reverence through public veneration. You can pray to them privately if you want, but not under church auspices. As the litany of the saints is a form of public veneration, including non-saints/non-blesseds in the litany of the saints is prohibited by law.

Second, doing this on All Saints Day undermines the purpose of the following day, All Souls Day. The whole point of All Souls Day is to encourage us to pray for those souls who have not been declared saints. That’s why they have their own separate day. If you go and quasi-canonize them by venerating them the previous day, it works againt the purpose of the day that is devoted to them on the liturgical calendar.