Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
I used to be the altar server for Monsignor Pope years ago at a Gregorian chant Mass at St Anselm's monastery. It was Novus Ordo but I am now curious to go visit and see it they have switch to the TLM.
I last saw him at a funeral in DC at a black church with a lot of Gospel music.
That link of continuity and tradition in the different occasions.
wow...Mass in a crypt.
go figure.
underground...
Msgr Pope - an excellent preacher and a humble and pious man. Check out his podcasts, recordings etc. @
frpope.com
Was there last night. Excellent. There apparently used to be a high altar that was ripped out of the wall. The outline remains, like a ghost.
I've never been to the campus before. Reminds me of a former Catholic institution that's been desacrated to Anglicanism. When I asked a student where the chapel is, he asked if I was looking for the Protestant one.
Afterwards, I went into Dahlgren chapel to get my Rosary in. No reserved Sacrament, as far as I could tell. The excellent stained glass windows were the only distinctly Catholic element.
Thank God for the spark this Mass represents.
Is Msgr. Pope a Canon of one of the papal basilicas in Rome? If not then someone needs to tell him that the purple tuft on his biretta is inappropriate. The use of the Extraordinary Form for mass doesn't send us back in time to do everything the way it was before the Council. The rules regarding the insignia of those prelates with the title "monsignor" should still be observed according to current not former practices.
Dustin Hoffman.
Altar Boy.
Serving Latin Mass.
"...yeah, Ad Deum qui laetificat, totally juventutem meam...definetly...definetly juventutem meam...
I was watching a video of a Mass in parish and sent the link to a friend and told her I felt young again seeing the Mass as it was in my youth. A full church with a lot of young people and kids. I later found it was a SSPX Church which explained a lot.
I told this to a friend who teaches at Mt St Mary's Seminary before Mass at my parish. He sighed but he has been a priest for 57 years and has seen a lot of changes. It's hard to keep up with them.
Fr. Selvester -- using your logic, the maniple would not be allowed at a traditional Latin Mass.
The beauty of using the 1962 missal is one doesn't have to worry about all the liberalizations since that year.
Ken (different from above Ken, by the way.)
There is no mention in "Summorum Pontificum" of abrogation of current liturgical laws, rather it gives a wide and broad use of the Missal of 1962. In areas where the law has changed the current law is to be followed by obedient Catholics. This is not a matter of opinion for we are all obliged to follow the general and particular canons and laws of our Churches "sui iuris".
In regards to Fr. Sylvester's point about the red pompom on the biretta, we should read "Ut sive sollicite" on the vesture, titles, and insignia of cardinals, bishops, and lesser prelates, 31 March 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 334-340. This document clearly aborgates from previous usage: "All things to the contrary notwithstanding, even those deserving of explicit mention."
In section 18 of the above document, the red tuft on the (black) biretta is retained only for the auditors of the Rota, the promoter general of justice, and the defender of the bond of the apostolic Signature, apotolic protonotaries de numero, papal chamberlains, and domestic prelates. Supernumary apostolic protonotaries, honarary prelates of His Holiness, and Chaplains of His Holiness wear the black biretta with black pompom.
The Circular Letter "Per Instuctionem" on the reform of choral vesture, 30 October 1970: AAS 63 (1971) 314-315 states in section 1: "This Letter abolishes all, even centuries-old and immemorial privileges, in keeping with the directives of the Motu Proprio "Pontificalia insignia", 21 June 1968, and the Instuction "Ut sive sollicite", 31 March 1969. It goes on to say in section 2: "Only those canons who are bishops may wear the purple mozzetta. Other canons are to wear a black or grey mozzetta with purple trim. Clerics holding benefices are to wear a black or grey mozzetta and pastors are to use only the stole."
It is not possible to make much progress with the "reform of the reform" if we take an attitude which is in contempt of Church law. When we disagree with the law, we should seek to change it, only if it does not touch upon faith and morals, (this is the case in such matters as vesture and attire). But to ignore it, or to break it, is to undermind our very position. Regardless of what we would like the law to be, if we are obedient, we will follow the law unless the law stands against Divine Law.
Fr Kennedy,
How does your analysis leave room for the introduction of a custom contra legem?
I'm just an ordinary pastor and not up to date on various insignia and what is permitted to wear. I was given the biretta and was not aware I am not permitted to wear it. Some one had suggested this to me but was not sure. Some of the older Msgr's in my diocese wear the purple pom, I just figured I could too. I intend no offense and will discontinue the use of it unless I receive word from ecclesiatical superiors that it is permitted in a TLM.
The Mass was very nice by the way and it was great to celebrate in the role of deacon which I have not done in many years. I usually am the celebrant. Fr. Fields celebrated with great devotion and attention to detail and Fr. Siberski who is new to the Latin Mass also did a splendid job.
Reverend and Dear Msgr. Pope,
My comments are were not directed to you personally. If I have in any way offended you, I ask for your forgiveness. My comments on the red pompom were to create clarity not to remand yourself or anyone else. I was trying to clarify what ranks of honorary prelates had the use of the red pompom and what ranks did not, and that this is based on liturgical laws which "Summorum Pontificium" has not abrogated. Again, if I have caused you any offence, I apoligize and ask for your forgiveness Monsignor.
Fr Kennedy,
yes, that is what Ut sive sollicite and the instruction say. However, and just as a point of interest, all German cathedral chapters that I am aware of (that would be about 300 canons) continue to wear their purple mozzette to this day.
...and with the little hoods, too.
Dear Gregor,
You make a good point in regards to the practice. Possibly, those chapters that do not conform to the general law have an exemption?
Dear Breier,
You raise a very important point. If you would be kind enough to give me an example of what you are thinking of in regards to custom "contra legem", I will attempt a response if I have the requisite knowledge.
In regards to the maniple, the legislator, SC Rites (Consilium)"Tres abhinc annos": AAS 59 (1967) states in section 25: "The maniple is no longer required."
Here, the legislator does not prohibit the use of the maniple, but simply "it is no longer required". Thus, it may or may not be worn.
My own opinion (which is not law)is that if the liturgical text, i.e. the Missal of 1962, requires the maniple then the maniple is to be worn. If the liturgical text of the "Ordinary Form" of the Mass does not require the maniple, then it might or might not be worn. The decision here would lie with the celebrant, unless the local legislator has issued a more specific directive.
Fr. David,
My example in this case would be the monseignors of the German cathedral chapters continuing to wear the old vesture, despite the laws you cited that forbid this.
Canon law seems to allow for the licit development of customs that are contrary to the law. I'm thinking of Canon 24:
"A custom contrary to or beyond canon law (praeter ius canonicum) cannot obtain the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law, however, is not reasonable."
This seems to open the possibility of people disobeying the law, and that being alright, as long as the custom is reasonable and they haven't been condemned by the proper authority.
I'm not a canonist, but this seems to make things more complicated than simply citing the law. Maybe, rather than reverse the law, the Holy See would rather wait and see if traditional customs arise on their own? A kind of tacit changing of the law by its non-enforcement?
Fr. David,
Under this view, I'm wondering if some canonical regulations have a kind of two-strike policy, as opposed to a single violation being condemnable.
If a law came out banning the cassock for clerics, and then forty years later, in a completely different papacy, priests and seminarians started wearing the cassock, and nothing was done to them by the Holy See, wouldn't this be an example of a contrary custom starting to take force?
Dear Breier,
What I think is going on in the example you cite is simply the non-enforcement of the law. Usually, liturgical laws, unless there is a real question of validity are not enforced by the legislator. Matters such as the choir vesture of canons is not about validity and it is unlikely that the Holy See of Rome would be pre-occupied with this matter.
Canon 5 CIC touches upon the matter of custom as do Canons 23-28.
Unless there was an exemption for these chapters of canons, it seems that they are not in conformity with the liturgical legislation. I am of the opinion that no matter how long the contrary custom prevails, the contrary custom does not have the force of law when the law explicitly abrogates the practice of the custom.
Let me give you an example from the Ukrainian Catholic Church where there is a custom that appears "contra legem". The deacon's orarion (stole) is worn over the left shoulder above the sticharion (alb). The "Liturgicon" (service book) states: "Having kissed the orarion, he lays it over his left shoulder. Then he puts the cuffs on his hands."
In practice there are few deacons in the Ukrainian Catholic Church who follow this rubric. The rubric implies that the deacon is to wear what would be called a 'single' orarion. In practice most deacons wear the 'extended' orarion. This is not only fastened on the left shoulder but must be wapped around the body and is fastened twice on the left shoulder. The extended orarion has its origins in the double-orarion which was orginally two oraria: both fastened on the left shoulder and also fastened about the right hip. This double orarion was an horific or award given to archdeacons/protodeacons from the later part of the 17th century. The two oraria distinguished the archdeacon/protodeacon from the hierodeacons and deacons. This custom is still in practice with the Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox but not with the Ukrainian Catholics generally speaking, nor in the Greek Rite. This is an example of a custom that doesn't follow the law but neither is it invalid or illicit.
As the rubric above states after putting on the orarion, the deacon puts on the cuffs. There is a separate prayer for each cuff to be said while they are put on. In practice very few deacons in the Ukrainian Catholic Church wear the cuffs. This is the custom but here the custom is illicit. It does not over-ride or supercede the "Liturgicon". This is a custom "contra legis". There is no sensible rational for this custom, yet no one does anything about enforcing the "Liturgicon", and therefore the custom prevails but it doesn't become law. The Congregation for the Eastern Churches requires that the "Liturgicon" be followed, they publish it, but they don't act like a police force. This is but one example of many, where the custom prevails "contra legem". If a custom arises and it is not opposed to the law, it may eventually become law.
However, I am making no direct judgement on chapters of canons who do not follow the directives of liturgical law. I simply do not know their particular situations. My comments are about what the legislator has legislated.
If you would like to see visual examples go to www.saintelias.com and click on "Youtube" site. The Holy Saturday post will show you a deacon wearing the single orarion as he reads the Gospel. The Palm Sunday post will show a protodeacon wearing the double-orarion at the ninth ode of the Canon of Matins.
Thanks for your questions, I enjoy this.
So sorry I did not put my name on the last comment.
Fr Protodeacon David
Re: the cassock example
What one still has to face when law becomes statutory is that the current practice is not in conjunction with the legislation. The sensible action is for the legislator to abrogate the old law and possibly enact new law. Thus, the custom is not "contra legis".
Your excellent question also raises the problem of how does one decide if a custom is to be followed and who is to make this decision? In an age of relativism, canon law provides one way in which the Church's Tradition can be handed on faithfullt to the Apostolic witness.
I am not of the opinion that customs are essential to the Tradition, nor many of the things that people think are "traditional" are actually the Tradition. Canon law upholds the Tradition that the Church has a diversity of ministries, yet it is also hierarchical. When persons ignore the liturgical law at the basis of their action is an "a prior" assumption that the Church is not a hierarchical communion, since the person does not believe they are bound by the law.
A strait forward principle is 'obey the law', unless the law is a bad law, i.e. a law opposed to Natural Law or Divine Law. Obeying the law teaches us the virtue of obedience which leads to the virtue of humility, and humility is fundamental to the practice of the Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love.
Dear Fr Protodeacon David Kennedy,
No offense taken at your observation on my pom. I am grateful for the clarification on what is proper and have enjoyed the discussion between you and others on liturgical law. I want to do what is right and am happy for the information.
Dear Msgr. Pope,
Thanks so much for your understanding and kind words, for your gentleness and humility.
In Christ.
To the so-called "priests" who are attacking Msgr. Pope on an issue as nominal as a purple pom: please stop.
This is not your fight and it's none of your business.
Stop trying to be the novus ordo enforcers. Stop trying to stomp out tradition. For Pete's sake, get some charity in your hearts and open yourselves up to tradition.
Do you not tremble whatsoever when you think of what all the saints and martyrs think of your attacks on tradition?
Do you not fear for your souls when you think about how so many people gave up their lives for that tradition?
Shame on you.
Isn't it arguable that the intent of the legislator in 1969 and 1971 was for the new rite only? The continuance of the old right not then being envisioned?
This interpretation would seem to fit with that reportedly (see:http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/06/buckle-up/) used by Pietro Siffi in the modern edition of Compendio di Liturgia Pratica (Milano: Marietti 1829, 2007) with a preface by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos.
He reports: 'According to the Roman ceremonial, all clerics and those who serve in church, as cantors, sacristans, etc., ought to wear shoes with buckles (It. fibbie). The buckle is of shiny steel for members of the inferior clergy and servers, in silver for priests, monks and prelates belonging to religious orders. Gold and gilded silver are reserved for secular prelates.'
(This is, I think Fr. Z's translation.)
This despite Ut sive sollicite's "18. ...shoe-buckles are abolished". (And other references.)
Commenting by HaloScan
