Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Well said Shawn. I agree.
For the overwhelming majority of Catholics in the pews, the equivocal nature of the word "extraordinary" will pass right through one ear and out the other, as it were. Don't sweat it, either way; there are better things to focus on.
The TLM in my lifetime has been successively, reformed, "abrogated," suppressed, allowed-by-indult, revived as 'extraordinary form'... and the saga continues. Some of us pray that it make the full circle to becoming the ordinary form again.
As we slowly recover the liturgical patrimony of the Roman rite, these issues of terminology will take care of themselves.
Liam,
I agree that for many it won't necessarily be a question they would even think of, but I think its worthwhile having the discussion here, and also, I firmly believe that ideas do matter, as do our attitudes and approach to these things.
We also have some of our pastors here amongst us, and perhaps it will prove beneficial to them for their own parishes or dioceses.
While I was one of those who was vocal that "extraordinary" should not be discouraged as a term, I surely did not try to equate the implication of "extraordinary" in "XF" with that in "EMHC" - nor do I recall seeing anyone say that. Obviously that would be a problematic interpretation.
Just wanted to clarify. I was getting backlash against my very nuanced position in a comment box below, in the sense that I was being accused of something I was actually arguing against (i.e. I felt like I was being labeled unfairly, simply for supporting the term). It is possible to be very much in favor of the term "extraordinary form" and still be 100% behind what the Pope is saying about equally dignified uses.
That is all.
I come from a PP's point of view in a large Australian parish.We have begun a weekly TLM on Thursday evenings. I am encouraging parishioners to approach the TLM as something NEW (which it is for most of them) and to be open to its treasures as Pope Benedict asks us to be. To this end I have found it useful to use the abreviation EF Mass (Australians always tend to shorten words )This stresses the newness of the Popes initiative and helps to break down the caricature of the TLM as something only for poor people stuck in the past. Please note my coments come from the PASTORAL prespective of a PP desiring his people to meet the Lord in this sacred and new way for very many Catholics today
Artifex,
This discussion is pointed at no one in particular. Rather, it was from those discussions that the idea sprang up that it might be something worth exploring in a post and discussing here.
Okay. So long as the last point I made above can be acknowledged as legit, I suppose have no qualms.
Adveniat Regnum Tuum!
The point that the Pope uses different names for the "EF" is a good one. The difference between the EF and EMHC's is clear in the norms that surround each one: the norms are restrictive as far as the use of EMHC's goes (although generally not observed, I would argue), while the way the EF is discussed in Summorum Pontificum places little or no restrictions. There is no restriction on private celebration, on use in rituals, on the days it can be celebrated (aside from the subtle issue of the Triduum), or on the use of the other sacraments or the breviary. The only case in which it seems there is a "burden of proof" for the EF to meet is in the case of a regularly scheduled parish celebration, which requires a stable "coetus"--which can be presumed in most of the cases where such celebrations would occur.
In that sense, since I see "extraordinary" as primarily descriptive rather than prescriptive, it would not be contrary to the will of the Holy Father if, in a few decades, the people at large came to favor the EF such that it became in practice the "ordinary" form. I don't say that such a case is likely any time soon, but if it were to happen, it wouldn't be contrary to the Church's desire. The Holy Father simply wants all the faithful to have access to the form of the rite that will most benefit them.
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet..."
This is certainly the first analogy that would spring to mind, especially in the field of liturgy, but we are not sure that it is the best analogy, or even an appropriate one. It is clear from the documents of the Roman Congregations that extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are not to be used when sufficient and unimpeded ordinary ministers are available. If we were then to apply this analogy, the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite could not be used when the ordinary form was available. Few priests are in a situation whereby he could celebrate in the extraordinary form but not in the ordinary and hence by this analogy no priest could celebrate in the extraordinary form, which could not be the Pope’s intention when choosing the terms ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’.
I am of the opinion that the discussions regarding the propriety and the usefulness of the term "Extraordinary Form" should not neglect another related question. This is the question on whether the Novus Ordo and the "Extraordinary Form" are, indeed, but two forms of the one Roman Rite, or whether these two ways of liturgical worship actually constitute two different rites. As some would say, the Classical Rite and its related "Uses" and "Rites" constitute the genuine body of liturgical forms that deserve the name of "Roman Rite", while the Novus Ordo is, at best, a "Neo-Roman Rite."
I don't think that Summorum Pontificum intended to judge definitively on the matter; if the Classical rite was described by it as "EF", I think the intention was to thereby make it more acceptable to the hierarchical establishment, not to squelch legitimate debate as to whether the NOM is a true expression of the historic Roman Rite.
The Pope is simply wrong in declaring that the two Masses are forms of one Rite; on the contrary, they are two distinct Rites of Mass. The reason is that the additions, deletions, re-orderings, substitutions and alterations, rubrical directions, and musical settings--all the established categories for marking change in a liturgy--are radical, even revolutionary. The Pope is not infallible in matters of liturgy. We need to respect his considered opinion but not to follow it. I reject it, with the greatest respect to him.
It is false to say that we must at least avoid refusing to call the old Mass 'extraordinary'. We have no such duty. The old Mass is best called the Traditional Latin Mass because it is properly celebrated in Latin, and becasue it has been 'handed down' over countless generations (tradition means 'handed down' and not specifically 'old').
I was surprised that Rome chose the terms 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary' for other reasons. English is one of the most important languages in the Church, and, in English, ordinary has a secondary meaning to refer to that which is banal, pedestrian, insipid, uninspired, prosaic. That about sums up the character of the New Mass! It is indeed a very ordinary Mass!
Let's call a spade a spade and the Mass of the Ages the Traditional Latin Mass. We have absolutely no duty to call it an 'extraordinary form'. No pope is an authority in lexicography.
Peter Karl T. Perkins
Victoria, Canada
Is not Richard McBrien one of those making the purported parallel between extraordinary ministers of Communion and extraordinary form of the Roman Rite? (Fr. Zuhlsdorf has a thread up on McBrien right now.) If so, I would advise against "feeding the trolls." The parallel is bogus. It has the word "extraordinary" in common but nothing else. Normally that sort of wild word association would be dismissed out of hand. I suggest we not give aid and comfort to those who have drawn up this purported parallel as a way of undermining the MP.
If the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite was as common as the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, then none of us would ever have to suffer through bad liturgy again.
You needn't worry about the EMHC argument because virtually no one on the ground refers to them as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion - it's a very limit piece of jargon that has not escaped into general use and shows zero signs of doing so. So fear not.
"The Pope is simply wrong in declaring that the two Masses are forms of one Rite..."
...except he's the Pope, which sorta trumps the rest of us -- yes, even you sir. And while you MAY be correct in the historical or even liturgical sense, as Father Zuhlzdorf has pointed out, he is empowered to make this distinction in the juridical sense. And while the statement could remotely be considered misleading (which is already a stretch given the source), it is not wrong.
The Pope, I think, is seeking a solution for the present situation.
Whether the situation will persist or change, that has been left to divine providence and the future.
I think you offered a very good analysis of the question, Shawn, but I would throw out that it seems we have to deal with a provision of the MP that backs up the skewed interpretation of "extraordinary", namely that the text can be construed to limit non-personal parishes to one EF Mass on a given Sunday or feast. While I agree that ordinary and extraordinary seem to be practical descriptions, how do we fit this provision into that interpretation?
Reply to David Alexander:
It doesn't trump the rest of us in the least. The Pope has specific authority in various determined contexts. Outside of those contexts, he does not, although he must always be accorded due respect. Yes, he can determine the canonical meaning of a term but that is distinct from the general meaning of a term. I will give you an example. The term 'chapel' has a very large meaning in the English language and not only the strict one given in the Code of Canons.
The Pope has no special authority in the general use of terms. He is not a lexicographer and no more an authority in lexicography than he is in painting or historical studies. The term 'extraordinary form', being polysyllabic and double-barrelled, will not likely catch on.
But it also should not catch on because it reflects an error on the part of the Holy See: the two Missals are not expressions of two forms of one Rite (as S.P. claims) but of two distinct Rites of Mass. The Pope also has no infallibility in liturgical fact. We needn't and shouldn't agree with him when we think him, in all charity, to be mistaken.
P.K.T.P.
"The Pope also has no infallibility in liturgical fact. We needn't and shouldn't agree with him when we think him, in all charity, to be mistaken."
Pope Benedict is well aware of the limitations of his authority, as indeed he mentioned to the priests of the diocese of Aoste the summer before last.
But your posts, both their general tone, which is more that of a master than of a disciple, and in particular the passage I just quoted, bear a too close resemblance to the specious distinction between "fact" and "law", and to the pretence of "respectful silence", used by 17th & 18th century Jansenists to try to wiggle out of assenting to the condemnation of the 5 propositions condemned by the bull "Ad sacram". Both these positions are inadmissible, and indeed started the course of development that led to the promulgation of "Ad tuendam fidem", and in particular the addition to canon 750: "Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church."
The question of whether of not the Holy Father was correct in the matter at hand is not of course one that falls within the scope of canon 750, and I am not advocating a "Rex Mottram" approach to papal authority. But I do feel I should warn that by indulging in this sort of attitude, one puts oneself in somewhat disreputable company.
Good points, Shawn.
Honestly, I keep going back and forth between different terms and most often fall back on using the TLM in conversations because it's short and that's what most people are familiar with in my diocese.
When inviting others to the TLM it seems odd to ask whether they would be interested in joining you at the extraordinary form Mass. Not too appealing, in my opinion.
So far, I find the dissenters in my diocese are insistent on saying "Latin Mass" and when I mention any other titles from the SP there is either silence on the phone or a blank stare.
Perhaps there will be some clarifications coming from Ecclesia Dei on a universal title.
Deborah
Clarification: the original condemantion of the 5 propositions was contained in the bull "Cum occasione". "Ad sacram" confirmed "CO" a few years later.
In response to Dom Christopher:
My, my, aren't we grand today! This has nothing to do with tone or with Jansenism or with faith and morals. It is not a matter of faith and morals, whether infallible or not infallible but still requiring assent. It is a matter first of all of terminology and, in the second instance, of a question of fact in law. But even should S.P. be published in the Acta Apostolicć Sedis, this does not mean that the Pope's view need be correct. Consider that "De Missali Romano" of 1971 must have been incorrect about the status of the Traditional Latin Mass and the right to celebrate it. Why? Because it directly contradicts "Summorum Pontificum" in the assertion of the latter that the old Mass was never abrogated and is therefore, in principle, able to be used. Unless we reject the principle of non-contradiction, D.M.R. cannot be right in restricting the old Mass to older priests and infirm priests celebrating privately.
Regardless of whether or not the Pope is wrong, which he is, we are completely free to refer to the Mass of the Martyrs as the Traditional Latin Mass, and that is what we ought to do. I suspect that most people will call it (inaccurately) "The Latin Mass" for short and "The Traditional Latin Mass" to be more precise. They are right to do so.
Anyway, to reiterate, I find the extended meanings of 'ordinary' in English to be hilarious. I'd say that the Pope's advisors shot themselves in the foot on that one. They should have considered the connotative value of words in the more prominent languages used by the faithful. Yet again, the New Mass is very ordinary indeed because it is banal, it is insipid, it is pedestrian, it is uninspired, it is prosaic, it is vapid.
P.K.T.P.
One more comment:
The Traditional Latin Mass may or may not be a form of the one Roman Rite. This is a legitimate matter for debate. However, there is no question that it is Traditional, whereas the New Mass is not. Traditional means that which is handed down, and the T.L.M. has been handed down for at least 1,500 years.
So why not use a term that is certainly correct, rather than one that may or may not be right (but is likely wrong)?
Better to go with a certainty than with an unlikely possibility.
Of course, the Pope is free to call it anything he likes, and so are the bishops. But we needn't and shouldn't follow their example on this.
P.K.T.P.
Aaron,
I know the passage of which you speak: "...on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held."
The statement is defined by what came before it of course. It is clear is that it is making reference to non-personal parishes, and therefore, parishes where the modern Roman missal is the norm in other words.
Two criteria are mentioned immediately preceding this as considerations for these places:
1. "the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962"
2. [the pastor should] ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish"
We see a dual pastoral concern here; for those attached to the ancient form, that they should receive it; but also the same for those attached to the modern form.
It seems clear to me that the issue here, again, is not meant to be a restriction in any negative sense, but simply addressing the pastoral side of the issue. [Positive reasons]
This does not speak to marginalizing or a spirit of something being "secondary". This speaks to my original point in and of itself.
Now, even beyond this, it can legitimately be asked [and the Ecclesia Dei commission may be able to clarify this] whether this even intends to suggest an actual numerical limit on Sundays and Feastdays or whether it merely intends to make clear such is not a problem or inconsistent with "the ordinary pastoral care of the parish."
The latter seems more likely to me, particularly when you consider:
- there is no such limitation mentioned as regards "working day" Masses (which is found within the same article and paragraph)
- that the pastoral side of the issue is what seems to drive this whole section
Typically as well, the Holy See has seemed reticent in recent years to establish absolute, universal rules of such a sort given the pastoral variances that can exist from a small rural parish of a few hundred people, to a significantly large urban parish with 1000's of families -- such as a London Oratory for example. In the latter, for example, having two Sunday liturgies in the ancient form may not only still harmonize very well with the ordinary pastoral care of the faithful attached to the modern form, but may also better harmonize with the pastoral care of those attached to the ancient form.
It seems hard to imagine, given all else, that such would be hard and fast, and not simply a matter of pastoral consideration from place to place.
But as I say, this is where Ecclesia Dei can help.
I suppose this debate is important for the purpose of understanding the Holy Father's thinking on the matter. And, it is an important debate for those who write scholarly commentaries.
However, I think it makes little difference to the average folks in the pews. I can't envision them using the term "extraordinary form." It is long and clumsy. Ordinary folks will probably continue to use terms such as "Latin Mass" or "Old Mass."
Doesn't our word "Mass" derive from our peasant ancestors hearing the words of the dismissal (Missa est)?
Mr. Tribe's last comments are correct, in my view, but need some completion. First of all, what is not forbidden in law is allowed. Second, the last paragraph of Article 1 establishes a general right of all priests to celebrate the 1962 Mass. This does not mean unscheduled Masses, which are, by definition, exceptional given Canon 837.1. Last, and most important, the Article about the number of parish Masses is not restrictive: it does not say "only" one Mass on Sunday; therefore, it does not mean "only" one.
Mr. Tribe's interpretation is correct in light of Article 5.1. Clearly, the diocesan bishop can interfere in the scheduling of parish Masses to ensure a "harmonisation" between access to the new and old Masses. What this means is that, if canonical times for Sunday Masses are all taken up by New Masses, the parish priest can nevertheless allow one 1962 Mass in those times, but no more than one. However, if available times are not all taken for Masses, he can allow more than one 1962 Mass. The best times for Masses will usually go to the New Mass because it is normative and therefore faithful have a superior right to it (cf. Protocol 1411-99, No. 2).
Also, what is acceptable or reasonable access will be largely determined by past conditions. Therefore, the best way for a parish priest to proceed is to schedule 1962 Masses at times not already taken by New Masses (or, second-best, to alter the times of New Masses as little as he can). If, in the past, he only had one New Mass at 10.00 a.m. on Sunday, and if there is no pressing demand for more of them on Sunday, he could certainly schedule one 1962 Mass at 8.30 a.m., another at 11.30 a.m., and even a third at 1.00 p.m. or even a fourth at 5.00 p.m.
Of course, a priest is restricted in law and cannot celebrate more than thrice on Sundays and, then, only with episcopal permission. In fact, the bishop could restrict him to one Mass on Sunday but not to zero. However, a parish priest can invite other available priests to assist him, including retired priests.
Bishops can assign active priests to various places when their appointments have expired, but they can't touch retired priests, who are always free to celebrate once a day if they are in good standing, and they can use either Missal exclusively or both.
Anyway, to return to the question, no, Article 5 does not restrict parish priests to only one 1962 Mass per Sunday, although rights arising from the New Mass can restrict the number of 1962 Masses to one. It all depends on demand in the parish in question.
P.K.T.P.
Well, the radical elements surely seem to have come out in force in this comment box, eh?
I really don't understand why those who so vehemently deny what the Pope says in the Motu Proprio (e.g. one Rite, two forms) even feel that they can constructively contribute to a conversation about the term "extraordinary."
Also, was I the only one who caught the gross oversimplications in this above statement? - "The Traditional Latin Mass may or may not be a form of the one Roman Rite. This is a legitimate matter for debate. However, there is no question that it is Traditional, whereas the New Mass is not. Traditional means that which is handed down, and the T.L.M. has been handed down for at least 1,500 years."
No matter which way you slice it, the Missal of Pius V was not the same Missal used by Gregory the Great. Yes, there is organic development in liturgical history, and the Missal of Pius V is the fruit of this. But to so unqualifiedly conflate the 1570 Missal with the previous 1,000 of liturgical tradition is absurd. Be careful what you say, and forget not that the universalization of the Roman Missal after Trent was itself an upheaval of sorts.
As far as the title "Traditional Latin Mass," I personally cannot help but be bothered with the implications. Especially by inserting a capital-T "Traditional" into the title, there seems to be an implicit identification of the older use with "Tradition" in the sense of immutable doctrine that was part of the original Deposit of Faith. I'm just not sure why there could be such a backlash against "XF," but no concurrent consideration (at least in the form of some serious discussion) of the overreaching implications of "TLM."
Lastly, on another note, I really have not seen, in the four months since SP's release, this purported conflation between "extraordinary" in "XF" and "EMHC." Also, pointing to Fr. Richard McBrien's comments as a reason to avoid "XF" is the height of ridiculousness. We lend credence to the fringe positions of people like him (who have already worked themselves largely into the "non-issue" corner) only by allowing his twisting of legitimate papal juridical terminology influence us into forsaking that helpful terminology.
Artifex,
Keep in mind that regardless of whether you have personally seen such a comparison or not, that does not mean it is not out there. I've certainly come across it, and more than once, so let's move on from this point.
I think your suggestion that those who use "Traditional Latin Mass" (a phrase I don't myself use incidentally) are implicitly trying to equate it with capital-T "Tradition" and thereby doctrine is quite a stretch indeed however.
First, the T is not always capitalized by people; second, people who use that use it in the same way some people says "Latin Mass" or "Holy Mass" -- its a phrase that is a designator and therefore often finds itself having each word capitalized -- which further happens when one also uses it also as an acronym: TLM.
There's really nothing more to read into it than that. In that regard, its quite unlike our discussion about extraordinary which does relate to juridical questions about how one use of the term may be either similar or dissimilar.
As usual, we have the failure here to distinguish between Missal and Rite, or, if you follow the Pope's argument, between Missal and form. In either case, the Missals from Gregory the Great (approximately) to John XXIII are Missals of the same Mass in law. If you read "Quo Primum Tempore" of 1570, you will see that Pope St. Pius V acknowledged that the earliler Missals of the one Roman Rite are merely variations over time. The Rite (like others) is distinguished by slow organic growth, although the rate of growth was greater between the eleventh and the fourteenth centuries than at other times. But, even then, most of the changes are merely additive (e.g. the addition of the Gloria in the eleventh century or the addition of the Roman Offertory in the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century).
Pope St. Pius V informs us clearly that he does not seek to replace the Mass of the Roman Rite with any New Mass; nor does he seek to replace a right to celebrate based on the law of custom with a right based on enactment (and, indeed, Cardinal Stickler clarified that the 1986 Commission of Cardinals found that the right still not abrogated does *not* come from Q.P.T.; no, it comes from immemorial custom). All St. Pius V does is to issue a new Missal that will correct errors and accretions that have crept in over the centuries, and to standarise spelling conventions, things that were also done (exclusively) in the revisions of 1607 and 1637. In fact, the text of 1570 is EXACTLY the same in content as the text of the Roman Missal of 1474, which was the first one printed by a press.
So there is no Rite of St. Pius V, only a Missal of St. Pius V, for St. Pius V was not even alive in 1474. The changes from St. Gregory the Great to 1474 were almost entirely additons and are not considered significant enough by liturgiologists to result in a change of Rite at any time (cf. the situation with the Byzantine or Ambrosian Rites.)
In stark contrast, the Mass promulgated in 1970 was concocted in committee by a man thought eventually (1974) by Paul VI to be a Freemason, and assisted by six Protestant advisors. It is not the product of slow organic change but of enactment, the very thing St. Pius V considered to be unthinkable. It made drastic changes in every single category enumerated by liturgiologists: additions, deletions, substitutions, innovations, re-orderings, rubrical re-directions, and musical settings. It is a different Rite of Mass, whereas the Rite of St. Gregory the Great is the Rite still in normative use until 1970.
Tradition gets the capital T because it is meant to be a proper name. It is not meant to imply a specialised use of Sacred Tradition in the dogmatic sense. The dogmatic sense is not the only sense of the term in ecclesiology.
In 1970, there was a rupture in which the very *means* of liturgical change was altered. From the sixth century to the twentieth, slow organic change was entered under the inspiration o
Perhaps I shouldn't have approached the "TLM" critique with the dogmatic analogy. But I will maintain that the title "TLM" is loaded, and can stand as a obstacle to (forgive me, Mr. Perkins) the hermeneutic of continuity. Sure, not all use it as such; but I have seen it used as such more often than not (including, well, in this comment box).
Mr. Perkins, I assure you that I did not mean to merely conflate Missal and Rite. I just spoke of the Missal for the sake of ease. While I agree with many assessment about the differences between XF and OF, the fundamental question remains whether one is on board with the Holy Father's attempt to make a continuity reality by operating within the Missal of Paul VI, with an appeal to a renewed ars celebrandi.
Artifex:
I have only one comment remaining. It is simply that most of the faithful who are attached to the T.L.M. call it the Traditional Latin Mass. A few call it the Tridentine Mass. Many call it the Latin Mass for short. Nobody will call it an extraordinary form. People think of it as traditional in the same way they think of Christmas trees as traditional, as things handed down through the centuries and therefore having a certain mystique. I think that that is good.
The sort of person who prefers 'extraordinary form' to 'Traditional Latin Mass' is the sort of person who prefers "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" to 'Holy Office'.
P.K.T.P.
I began using the name "Traditional Latin Mass" years ago. I use a capital "T" because I consider the name to be a proper noun. I believe the word "Traditional" is thrown in there to distinguish the Tridentine Mass from the Novus Ordo Mass in Latin.
None of us were around 1500 years ago, but I believe the pre-Trent Mass was probably closer to the Tridentine Mass than the Novus Ordo is to the Tridentine Mass. The late Michael Davies has written on the subject, and I trust his expertise.
Well said, Shawn. The Motu has great significance for our understanding of the scope of the Reform of the Reform. As you point out, the integrity of both forms is upheld, and so too are the fact and value of organic development within the wider tradition of the one rite. This confirms the proper subject of the Reform of the Reform as the organic development of that tradition in both its forms. Debate about their respective merits is still possible, but our primary concern should be the working out of this wider vision in thought and practice.
extraordinary ministers are often reffered to as special ministers.There are obvious tactical reasons for this usage among those who want to bend or even break the law on the subject.
With asense of mischief can I analogously suggest the term special use for the 1962 missal ?
The sort of person who prefers 'extraordinary form' to 'Traditional Latin Mass' is the sort of person who prefers "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" to 'Holy Office'.
That's a pretty sweeping suspicion, and a very false implication. I know plenty of very orthodox and traditional Catholic who have no problem frequently calling the usus antiquior the "extraordinary form" - precisely because they know what it's supposed to mean. Also, I and many others have no problem calling the CDF the CDF, without dumbing down its purpose.
Labeling people on the basis of whether they call the "CDF" according to its Vatican-given title is silly at best.
Regardless of what is liturgically meant by "ordinary" and extraordinary", what one experiences at the pre Novus Ordo Mass is "exceptional to a very marked extent" such as in "her extraordinary beauty" (“out of the ordinary”).
P.K.T.P.
Isn't it grand to be grand! I can live with that.
My concern is double, and has to do both with tone, and with the question of fact.
It is inappropriate for a Catholic to adopt a superior sort of tone, to sound like he is speaking from a soap-box, when discussing what the Sovereign Pontiff may or may not do. "Prima sedes a nemine iudicetur"; the pope does have to render an account for his stewardship, neither to you nor to me, but to Almighty God.
This is not to rule out all discussion, but it should always be carried out in humility and in a spirit of submission and obedience. In some monasteries of my monastic congregation, monks kneel when they speak to their abbot in private. Our last three abbots have received their monks seated. However, my novice master told me that if I ever wanted to tell the abbot I thought he was wrong about something, it would be a good idea to kneel down to do so. It is pretty hard to use an inappropriate tone when you are kneeling. So if you want to say that you think the pope has made a mistake, you should try to do so as though you were kneeling down, adopting the mental attitude that comes naturally when you are in that posture.
The other aspect of my concern is the "question of fact in law." The Jansenists I mentioned claimed that the 5 propositions which the pope said were in the "Augustinus" were not in fact there. (Materially speaking, they aren't, at least not in the terms used in the Roman documents. However they are there in that they are present as the end point of the tendency of the doctrine of the book.). So they were willing to say that the propositions were false, while maintaining at the same time that they were not IN FACT in the "Augustinus." They distinguished between the question of law (the 5 propositons as being heretical, which the pope was qualified to judge in a definitive manner) and the question of fact (which the pope was not qualified to judge).
They were wrong. The pope is capable of settling a question in a definitive manner, one that imposes a serious moral obligation of inner assent, in matters concerning "those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith" even if they do not form part of that deposite and are not therefore matter for an infallible pronouncement. The status of the rite of Mass is certainly such a matter, since "lex orandi statuat legem credendi."
I will commit no more grandstanding on this question!
Dom Christopher:
Unless the Pope is a member of this blog, I am not addressing him directly. I stated quite simply that I consider him to be wrong in this matter and for good reason; and I delivered the message in a respectful tone, saying several times that proper respect must be shown. You are evading the arguments here. I am sure that I would kneel before the Pope; in fact, I favour returning to the practice of kissing the Pope's feet. I am a traditionalist, you know! But papolatry is a false and dangerous position as well. Popes frequently make errors of judgement and Benedict XVI has said as much himself: "The Pope is not an oracle", as he said last autumn. In matters of law per se, the Pope has no special protection of infallibility.
Secondly, the tone to be used in an informal blog need not and should not be that adopted in a formal academic paper, for example. Let the context determine the form, as long as proper respect is given. There are some people who send thank-you notes for receipt of other thank-you notes. That is not humble; it is just silly.
As to your second point, I was well aware of it and it does not apply in this case in hand. The question of whether the two Masses are two forms of one rite or whether they are two different rites does not affect any keeping of the deposit of faith. Clearly, two different rites can and do express the deposit of faith, as the Byzantine and Armenian Rites do; so do two different Missals; and so, by an extension of logic, would two different forms.
There is a debate here over a matter of fact, but it does not, in itself, concern the deposit of the faith. Of course, some related questions might concern the deposit, such as whether or not it is heretical in practice to concoct liturgies by committee from human knowledge rather than to allow the Holy Ghost to inspire them over time. But that was not the question in hand.
P.K.T.P.
Actually the name "extraordinary form" has caught on rather well. Google shows 51,000 hits. In fact, it is already a close rival to "traditional latin Mass" in this respect.
Correction. You can see here that EF beats TLM
"When inviting others to the TLM it seems odd to ask whether they would be interested in joining you at the extraordinary form Mass. Not too appealing, in my opinion."
Then say instead: "Would you be interested in joining me in an extraordinary celebration of the Holy Mass"?
Whatever the number of 'hits' may be on the Internet so soon after publication of Summorum Pontificum, 'Traditional Latin Mass' or just 'Latin Mass' will obviously win out. The sort of people who speak of 'extraordinary forms' are the sort of people who say that Johnny will be late for liturgy instead of late for Mass.
P.K.T.P.
"The sort of people who speak of 'extraordinary forms' are the sort of people who say that Johnny will be late for liturgy instead of late for Mass."
This is seriously absurd. Come up with some real arguments.
Come on, Artifex, 'lighten up'. It is not a serious argument for the simple reason that it was not meant to be.
Still, it does point to something real. I just don't think that too many adherents of the Traditional Latin Mass will refer to it as some 'extraordinary form'. This tag is more likely to be used by (a) the (mostly liberal) bishops, to show their respect for the Pope who used it, (b) neo-conservatives, who favour the Pope's initiative mainly because they favour anything this or any Pope does, (c) and liberals, because they know that such a technical name for the Mass that sustained countless saints removes its emotional content, a content that worries them.
I repeat that there is a sort of people who prefer 'extraordinary form', 'liturgy', and 'Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith' (not to mention 'Pontifical Commission for the Interpretaton of Legislative Texts') to Traditional Latin Mass, Mass, and Holy Office. There is a sort of people who relish "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" and another sort who prefer "Take each day as it comes". Some cherish 'Whither thou goest, I will go"; others think superior, "Where you will go I will go". And some see more art in a line of dots than in an arch (an example from C.S. Lewis).
No, it's not a serious argument. But it's true nevertheless. The difference between a traditionalist and a conservative is that the former has some sense of poetry and some love for beauty. No, no need to respond. De gustibus non est disputandum.
P.K.T.P.
"The pope is capable of settling a question in a definitive manner, one that imposes a serious moral obligation of inner assent, in matters concerning "those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith" even if they do not form part of that deposite and are not therefore matter for an infallible pronouncement. The status of the rite of Mass is certainly such a matter, since "lex orandi statuat legem credendi."
I have problems with the idea that the declaration of Pope Benedict XVI that the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass are but two forms of the one Roman Rite, is magisterial if not dogmatic in nature, as some here seem to assert. "The status of the rite of the Mass" is or is not covered by "lex orandi lex credendi", depending on what the definition of status is.
Now, if by status we refer to the validity or not of the Mass, then by all means, the Novus Ordo is valid. However, I fail to see how the question of terminology or of historical origin of a certain form of the Mass could be vital to the lex orandi. Whether or not the Novus Ordo is part of the one Roman Rite, or is a new Rite, has nothing to do with its validity or its official status. (Take note, I am talking here not of the NOM's juridical status but of its proper historico-liturgical categorization)
In the same way, liturgiologists may debate to death the question of whether the Maronite Rite is a branch of the "East Syrian" Rite or is a distict rite; or whether the Armenian Rite is but a hybrid of the Byzantine and West Syrian rite or a distinct rite too. These debates have nothing to do with the importance, much less the validity, of these rites.
The question of "which Rite" has more of a practical application. In the case of the NOM, the question of whether it is of the Roman Rite or a "Neo-Roman Rite" has everything to do with the extent to which the "Tridentine" / Classical Roman liturgical patrimony can or should serve as a guide to the proper ars celebrandi (and "physiognomy" or ritual interpretation) of the Novus Ordo.
The anti-Jansenist Bulls of the 17th and 18th century popes were proposed as binding upon the consciences of the faithful and enforced upon the bishops with a rare solemnity, and some of these have been invested by not a few theologians (e.g. Edmond Dublanchy with regards to Cum Occasione) with the status of ex cathedra declarations. To turn to Cum Occasione and its attendant documents in order to help clarify the authority of Summorum Pontificum strikes me as something of a stretch.
Not all papal assertions regarding "historic fact" are considered as infallible or binding, even when these are proposed as an integral part of the argument of a document of the papal magisterium. For example, numerous papal bulls and letters have referred to the "rosary legend", the "scapular legend" and the Sabbatine privilege as historical facts, despite the fact that as early as the 19th century, many historians of unimpeachable orthodoxy(some of them priests) were already questioning the historical reality of these "events". Today, practically all Catholic historians -- orthodox or not -- regard these as pious legends. Even the official brochure published today by the Carmelites doesn't mention the scapular legend anymore, and focuses upon its role as a privileged sign of consecration to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
I might also add "Testem Benevolentiae" and "Humani Generis", both of which defined and condemned certain heresies. Nobody denies that the heresies condemned in these documents are indeed condemned. But did anybody actually hold the heresies as they were condemned in these two documents? That is a matter of legitimate debate. At least, Cardinal Gibbons thought that nobody really held to "Americanism" as defined in Testem, while Henri de Lubac and his associates, "fellow travellers" and disciples (among them Balthasar and Ratzinger) denied that the "New Theology" was indeed the theology condemned by Humani Generis.
The degree to which a certain historical fact is infallibly defined as such by the Holy See, is itself also defined by the document proposing the said fact.
Given Papa Ratzi's own restrictive views on the exercise of papal primacy, I find it implausible to think that he intended to bind the consciences of the faithful to believe that, indeed, the NOM and the TLM are but different forms of the same rite. For one thing, there is an absence of solemn, binding formulae regarding this description. Besides, the Pope is on record -- when still a Cardinal -- as describing the new liturgy as a "fabricated liturgy" (Preface to Gamber).
P.K.T.P.
Your response has reassured me. It does happen that people, even given the sort of tone that may be used in informal conversation, go too far in St. Blogs comboxes.
And CAPP
I don't actually think the Holy Father's assertion is one that binds in conscience. I ought to have made that clear. Of course he would have made it clear in saying so if he did. Although, once again, I am not advocating a "Rex Mottram" approach, I am not convinced that the Pope intends to make a merely juridical distinction.
But I do think that this question of there being "one rite, two forms" could one day be the object of such a magesterial act. Is it possible for a rite that is really and truly "fabricated", that is in discontinuity with what preceeded it, to be a Catholic rite? Or is it in some way in continutity, despite characteristics which one may legitimately regret? It may be necessary to have a definitive answer to this sort of question. That is why I quoted St. Prosper.
So how is this to be understood in the light of some of Cardinal Ratzinger's remarks about the Novus Ordo? Perhaps he will elaborate on this some day.
But when discussing these questions, we should avoid setting pope against pope, or Cardinal Ratzinger against Benedict XVI. It would be much more useful to try and see how to understand divergent elements together, in a sort of "concordia discordantium canonum." We need a neo-Gratian.
"It would be much more useful to try and see how to understand divergent elements together, in a sort of 'concordia discordantium canonum.' We need a neo-Gratian."
Probably what the Holy Father had in mind when he released the motu proprio and the explanatory letter. This is what I conclude by actually (drumroll, please!) reading it. And I think that's what's going to have to happen, no matter how eloquent our reasons for it not happening. I read a lot of comboxes with stuff about the MP written by people who know a lot less about what the MP actually says, than what they wish it said.
He could have just taken a nap and let a bunch of us on the internet write it for him. But he didn't do that, now, did he?
PKTP,
You are calling the Pope incorrect in his assertion that there are two usages of the one Roman rite (sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani). Yet, the Pope states this motu proprio and so has the force of canon law. Are you claiming that canon law is incorrect?
Also, it seems that much of the confusion here comes from the fact that the word "rite" has two related but distinct meanings. The dictionary states it this way:
RITE: 1. a formal or ceremonial act or procedure prescribed or customary in religious or other solemn use: rites of baptism; sacrificial rites.
2. a particular form or system of religious or other ceremonial practice: the Roman rite.
According to this usage of the word, we could say that there are two rites of the Mass that both belong to the Roman Rite. Perhaps the Holy Father used the term "usage" in order to avoid the confusion of saying "two rites of the Roman rite."
What we can be sure of (because Summorum Pontificum defines this) is that the extraordinary form is not a separate rite from the ordinary form in the same sense that the roman rite is separate from the byzantine rite.
Dear Different:
We cannot be sure of your final claim at all. The Pope can err in matters of law per se. Consider "De Missali Romano" of 1971. It was also a part of ecclesiastical law (not the Code, just as S.P. is not in the Code). It and S.P. directly contradict each other on the matter of whether or not priests have a general right to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass. Both cannot be correct; on is wrong. This is not surprising in the least.
I reject the statement of the Pope, with all due respect, that the two Masses are two forms of one rite. They are two separate rites. I have explained why in detail and see no reason to repeat it.
Of course, whether they are two forms of one rite or two Rites of Mass does not alter the matter or rights of priests and faithful in regard to them. But the question, I feel, is important for historical and liturgical reasons.
By the way, while Benedict XVI certainly assented to this distinction and while that is what counts in law, I do not think that it represents his considered view. Judging from the terminology, it looks as if it oozed from the pen of the infamous Msgr. Camille Perl. But I agree that that is beside the point.
P.K.T.P.
"I reject the statement of the Pope, with all due respect, that the two Masses are two forms of one rite. They are two separate rites. I have explained why in detail and see no reason to repeat it."
Does this mean you're finished? Thank God.
You're really not in a position to bring your contention to bear. It's only an opinion. An educated opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. Sufficient fodder for an august panel of malcontents on an e-mail list. But in the end, it has no power, no authority. At some point, those who have begged for access to the Traditional Latin Mass (by whichever of the growing number of names by which it is known) will have to find a sense of true Christian joy in their victory. But most of all, they will have to accept the fact that they have one less reason to complain. And on that day, far away though it may seem, they will finally have summoned the resignation to let Rome be Rome! And Rome has spoken on this issue.
Take a deep breath, and get used to the idea. Because there's work to be done.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
