Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
ALL parishes! Just wonderful!!!
Bishop Trautman and Cardinal Mahony, our uber-popes, will not be amused. However, the good cardinal's words were measured and reasonable. And very encouraging. Tom
Yes, very reasonable for any reasonable traditionalist to understand. He has a very delicate task before him. I especially, liked how he warned the faithful in advance not to expect perfection in every prudential decision -- there can be mistakes. The important thing is to be willing to make small sacrifices for the good of the entire Church.
It seems quite clear about the intentions of the Holy Father, and hearing it from Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos bears a lot of weight. At the same time, until any of it is spelled out by the Holy Father in a documented mandate, all of this is still technically hearsay, and the conflict between bishop, priest and Faithful in the efforts for the Tridentine Mass will continue. Sadly.
I have no idea what the Holy Father is waiting for regarding the Clarifications. The "right moment" seems to have come and gone unless he is waiting for the first anniversary of Summorum Pontificum. While it may be considered a significant date, too much inaction and continued conflict has gone on ( but may great accomplishments also ) since its publication so the anniversary would be somewhat meaningless.
"The Holy Father wants this for pastoral reasons as well as for theological ones."
This will be a point of interest. The Holy Father, it would seem, considers that there is a distinct "theological" tradition to preserve in the Gregorian rite. This does not mean that it is contrary to other theological traditions (e.g., eastern, etc.) -- but distinct none-the-less.
I would suggest that we storm the understaffed Ecclesia Dei Commission with many letters stating that we believe it to be a serious mistake to judge optional the proclamation of readings in Latin. This is the slippery slope that leads to the vernacular verbosity of the Novus Ordo. One of the most moving aspects of the EF -- not only when sung but also when recited -- is the simple but noble enunciation of those scriptural readings, which are inevitably more chiseled, more polished, in the Vulgate than in their vernacular costumes. The loss of the Latin readings would not be an improvement but an impoverishment.
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos is telling us that the opinions of traditional Catholics MATTER. Please, let our voices be heard, with politeness but with the firmness born of experience and disillusionment.
Peter, I understand that the use of the vernacular in the EF occurred prior to the council. At any rate, the SSPX have readings in the Vernacular.
I would also further note that Cardinal Hoyos says nothing against having the readings in Latin, only that the vernacular may be used and importantly on less solemn occasions. If anything, the last phrase suggests a link between solemnity and the use of Latin, which is moving further than the Motu Proprio (for instance).
Rather than rack up petitions, there is another and simpler option for preserving the tradition of having the readings in Latin (which I prefer, by the way, both from considerations of beauty and also of liturgical appropriateness), which is simply to continue doing them. On the other hand, one can see that having the readings in the Vernacular should not be a stumbling block for people coming to the EF.
My further question is: Where does this leave the Bishops of England and Wales?
May I make a tactless analogy with an Anglican controversy that is echoed by some of the above comments? When the General Synod of the Church of England voted in favour of the ordination of women in 1992, some of the women who had been campaigning for decades to this end expressed regret that they would no longer be able to make a nuisance of themselves in a public forum. They would miss protesting, writing angry letters, interrupting meetings, harassing bishops, attending demonstrations.
The same mentality remains alive and well in what used to be called Tridentinist circles, as some of the comments demonstrate. Why not read and pray over what Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos said in his recent address and sermon, or find another cause in which to vent your anger? Still more, thank God for giving the Church our Holy Father and the miraculous liturgical fruits that are ripening in his reign and pray that they may continue. We are living in a time of grace.
I realize, of course, that this pious injunction will not be welcomed by all because some enjoy a life of vexatious protest baptized by a veneer of religious justification, but, for once, read, think and pray. By the way, the adjective 'vexatious' used in this case is defined as an action seeking only to annoy.
Summorum Pontificum is not yet a year old, and look at the difference that has been made in a short time. Give it time to germinate and, as the Cardinal urges, be patient.
The problem is really one of perception. We’re told that the two rites will be “mutually enriching,” but so far the flow seems to be all one way. The Good Friday prayer, extra prefaces etc, vernacular readings, Holydays moved from their proper days – all changes at the expense of Tradition, and what have devotees of the Moderne Rite be asked to sacrifice?
Until such time as the … err … “enrichment” begins to go in both direction one can only fear that the Holy Father is simply trying to achieve by stealth, what his predecessor Paul VI failed to achieve by force – the Abolition of the Traditional Rite.
I think that the Cardinal has done us and the Church a great service by speaking as he has done - and a service which has probably cost him dearly, knowing that many of his fellow bishops will not be happy to hear this.
The Holy Father is owed our gratitude and our obedience and we should give it, unquestionably. 'Slippery slopes' et al have no place in the discussion. I support wholeheartedly Fr Symondson's comments.
And note, please, that there is no obgligation for vernacular readings to replace their being read in latin. The vernacular could just as easily be read afterwards as they were when the Gregorian form was the norm.
To Peter A. Kwasniewski and Kiran: why not have the readings both in Latin and in the vernacular. As you allude to the SSPX, let me point out that this is what they usually do. This would be the best of two worlds and, by the way, it is exactly what Pius XII provided for when he issued a general permission for readings in the vernacular. He explicitely stated: first in Latin, and then in the local language(s).
"It should be noted that the dates of these Holy Days remain the same in both the Missal of 1962 and the Missal of 1970. When the Holy See has given the Episcopal Conference of a given country permission to move certain Holy Days to the following Sunday, this should be observed by all Catholics in that country. Nothing prevents the celebration of the Feast of the Ascension, for example, on the prior Thursday, but it should be clear that this is not a Mass of obligation."
This is very interesting, it would seem that it is possible to celebrate the Ascension in the Roman Rite on the Thursday, in both forms of the Rite. How interesting...
When one speaks of the "Gregorian form" which Pope Gregory is being referred to? Gregory I, Gregory VII, Gregory XIII. Pope Gregory XIII would recognise and be familiar with the Liturgy as published under Pope Pius V, the other two would certainly not.
Oberon;
When you are standing in a room of a house with flood waters rushing in, the water does indeed seem to be flowing only in one direction. This doesn't mean that the waters are not also going somewhere else, only that from your perspective they are only going in one direction. Many zealous advocates of the NO would claim that the recent emphasis on posture during communion, proclamations about laity cleansing sacred vessels, the entire movement towards reigning in wacky music, a set of music guidelines that actually suggests (gasp!) that the assembly know at least the ordinary in latin chant...not to mention the new translation of the Missal... such zealous advocates of the NO would certainly see these as water flowing in THEIR direction. It all depends on your perspective. All of these issues have appeared in the last two years (the translations of course have been a bit longer in coming).
As much as I believe that the EF should be preserved in it's venerable form, I also understand the need to have it be a living tradition if it is to continue to be a living part of the Church. I do not believe, as you said, that Benedict is trying to abolish the TLM. That is an evil insinuation.
UNfortunatly, there are still 2-3 years before the likes of Trautman, Galeone, Mahony et al are out of office.
I did read today that one old time Vatican Curia personality, Archbishop Elio Sgreccia, 80, was replaced as Pres. of the Pontifical Committee for Life by Bishop Rino Fischiella, Grand Rector of the Pontifical Lateran University. I read once that Sgreccia was violently against the Tridentine Latin Mass, while I also read that Fischiella is in favor of Catholic tradition and the TLM. Also in favor of priests,monks,friars and nuns wearing their traditional cassocks or habits.
The new Prefect for the Family, Cardinal Antonelli is also in favor of the TLM ( or now we say, Gregorian Rite" )?
Slowly (a bit too slowly), Benedict XVI is removing the remant populations in the Curia of JP II men opposed to Catholic tradition, and replacing them with traditional-minded people.
"...a life of vexatious protest baptized by a veneer of religious justification"
A brilliant turn of phrase, Father Symondson -- but ,sadly, one that is all too true here as elsewhere.
I am just going to sit back and enjoy this moment. This direct acknowledgement of and commendation for enduring the sufferings of the last forty years from Cardinal Castrillon is a great encouragement, and should be recognized by everyone for what it is.
The same for his frank plea for patience and understanding.
It's so much easier to endure with this kind of encouragement.
Deo gratias!
I still find it interesting the the Cardinal mentions that the ancient RITES should be celebrated. This is more than just the Roman Liturgy of 1962 but would also include the Dominican, Ambrosian, etc.
Cardinal Castrillon called the older rite "Gregorian" published in the March 28, 2008 edition of the L'Osservatore Romano. The reason he gave is that the "rite" has been used for "more than 1400 years" and since the time of St. Gregory the Great. Therefore, he said that this is a "rite, that we may call Gregorian."
pjsandstrom: Pope Gregory the Great regularized and made uniform the celebration of the Mass as it came into the fifth century. The prayers, motions, and organization doubtless go back much further, however.
God bless
It has not even been a year since the Motu Proprio was issued and in those few weeks since last July (or September depending on how you see things)the world has changed--for the better at that. Let us rejoice and give thanks to God for having given us the grace to witness something most of us did not think would happen in our lifetime.
A digression: Isn't 'monsigniori' spelled with the extra 'i' or am I mistaken?
Fr WTC
Well-said. I wish others would also express the gratitude which many of us have for Summorum Pontificum and the Holy Father's initiatives. And I wish, too, that the implied criticism of Pope John Paul II would stop. As well as being objectionable, it is also unintelligent.
Thanks for posting this, Shawn. I was there and listening hard, but I didn't catch all of it; the combination of the Cardinal's accent and inadequate amplification.
Dan Hunter makes a good point. In fact, Summorum Pontificum gives an historical overview of the development of the Roman liturgy -- beginning with St. Gregory the Great. He was the first to order the preservation of (codify) the liturgy as it had developed in Rome during the preceeding centuries. Therefore, the basis for calling the EF the "Gregorian Rite" can really be found in the Motu Proprio itself.
I think the Latin requirement for the readings is optional so that it will be easier for priests learning the TLM to offer it. Once proficient in the Mass itself, then they can then work on their Latin in order to do the readings.
No Jeffrey,
The requirement for the readings in latin as optional is NOT, as you say, to make it easier for priests to say the EF with the intention that in time they can then beguin to say the readings in latin on a regular basis.
It was a direct requirement of V2's Constition on the Scared Liturgy which called for greater use of the venacular, particuarly in regard to the scripture readings.
I'm guessing that this will also become the norm for EF masses although readings sung or said in latin may be used less occasionally (eg Solemn High Mass).
Let's not forget that SC also applies to the celebration of the EF. I know many traditionalists would like to forget that V2 ever happened but those things pertaining to the liturgy which were directly (and/or indirectly) called for will, in time, be incorporated into this rite too. As is I believe Benedict's long-term intention.
I agree that sometimes the comments on blogs can get out of hand. But is it really so hard to understand that some of those who have suffered over the absence of the Traditional Mass all these years are apprehensive at the appearance of movement towards Ordinary Form practices so quickly?
If patience is the order of the day, then why not let the Traditional Mass get settled in first, and restored in more locations, before the urge to tweak it in the name of "organic growth" with many options that appeared after it was exiled?
SW, I have no problem with that at all. I have seen that done (at low Mass) by other priests, and in case my previous comments did not make that clear, I think that having the readings only in the vernacular at Low Mass is not really an issue, one way or the other. I think it is more appropriate to have them chanted in Latin at Solemn Mass and at Missa Cantatas, and I do have a minor niggle about the readings and their proclamations being scripted parts of the Mass and hence appropriately in the same language as the rest, but at the end of the day, it is not something that makes me wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat. I do think further that, if people are going to be aided in a (non-exclusively-EF) parish situation to appreciate the EF by having the readings in the Vernacular, then that is not a problem at all.
Jack Peter Gunning, around the time of Ascension, there was a list put up here of English parishes offering the Mass of the Ascension on Thursday. I thought that most of them weren't in the EF, but I might have been wrong.
pjsandsrom, and you are saying this because the Ss. Gregory appeared to you in a dream and told you, I presume?
big benny, I am not sure on what basis you claim that SC mandated that the readings should be in the Vernacular, as opposed to recommending it. Also, there are problems with maintaining that SC applies to the Gregorian Missal. If you want to say that, you would have to (for instance) have intercessions in the EF. My understanding is that the preservation of the Gregorian Missal is akin to the preservation of the rites of the Religious Orders after Trent, as a whole. The Pope retains authority over it, and can make changes, but liturgical reforms subsequent to 1962 do not automatically apply. And while I agree that Pope Benedict and his successors will modify the liturgy in many different ways, they will have to actually apply it to the EF, just as we had the revision, specifically, of a certain prayer in the EF, and just as the rites of various religious orders evolved after Trent.
God bless.
Unlike you youngsters, I lived pre- Destruction of the Faith Council II. In the Sunday Mass, the readings were proclaimed in Latin at the altar and then re-proclaimed right before the celebrant handled the announcements, etc. Tom
Tom, and presumably you are going to tell us about the Destruction of the Faith Council I too, which you must surely have lived through as well, because I can think of quite a few things which were wrong with the Church prior to the 60s, going by what we know.
In all honesty, I think it is wrong to turn the pre-Vatican II era into some kind of golden age. And I speak as someone who almost exclusively attends the EF. The justification for the EF is considerably deeper than any harking for an Age of Faith, which never really existed.
Those who wish to idolise the 'Gregorian Rite' as coming from Pope St. Gregory I should spend some time reading the "Ordines Romani". There is a multi-leveled development and history which needs to be paid attention to. I meant it when I noted that the first of the Popes Gregory to recognize the "Roman Rite" as celebrated before and codified by the work under St. Pius V would be Pope Gregory XIII (the one to whom we owe the Gregorian Calendar also).
What worries me about the "necessary adaptations" is this. Implicitly though we may not like to admitt it, we prefare the Gregorian liturgy as it is the perfect expression of Catholic Faith as proclaimed by the Council of Trent. How does one improve on perfection? The Pauline Mass is certainly lacking in this regard as made evident in the Ottiviani intervention.
Now Lefebvre was not opposed to an authentic reform of the Liturgy, one that would follow the principles that Saint Pius X used when he made the "liturgical books apppear once more resplendant."
Are altar girls, eucharistic ministers, lay readers, dancing children et al apart of this "necessary adaptation?
Ciaran,
No, they are not. It's important to remember that the Pope leading the charge is Benedict XVI (remember, Michael Davies said Cardinal Ratzinger was someone traditionalists could trust) and not Paul VI. The idea of necessary adaptations makes me queazy too in light of recent history, but I don't think we'll be disappointed by trusting the judgment of this Pope.
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
