Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
"He urged his audience to read books in preference to blogs!:
What? Don't read liturgy blogs? I bet if Father knew about the NLM he would add a caveat in there like "..read books *and the NLM* blog."
A wonderful post, Mr. Joseph Shaw. Thank you very much.
It is interesting to read that Fr. Saward mentioned the significance of Sacramentum Caritatis in relation to the Motu Proprio.
A Catechism group I attend on Saturday mornings is currently studying this Apostolic Letter, and even though I read it last year, it has now come fully alive and more significant to me after the Motu Proprio.
I haven't been able to articulate all of the reasons why as of yet but Fr. Saward caused me to again wonder.
He urged his audience to read books in preference to blogs!
Everything in its place. And sometimes - just sometimes - a blog can go beyond reinforcement of what we already believe, to encourage further thought and reading.
This entry is a case in point. Thank you, Joseph and Father Saward.
I had neglected to bring pen and paper and so was unable to take notes at Fr Saward's excellent talk... Thank you Dr Shaw for this service.
Mr Shaw?
Dr Shaw?
Nay, rather: Dr the Honourable A. Joseph Shaw.
I'm interested by the green of the Father Saward's chasuble. In England it's particularly associated with our Anglican cousins - it used to be the standard colour for chasubles, hymn books, kneelers, alter cloths ... It's far preferable to the vivid nylon-green alternative I'm more familiar with.
I've clearly been reading this blog for too long!
Am I the only one cheered at the idea of a married priest saying the TLM. I'd like a bit more of that.
Adveniat Regnum Tuum!
I knew then-Dr. John Saward about seven years ago when he was teaching in Gaming; he was one of a handful who would get up very early to attend a Low Mass celebrated in the upper chapel of the Kartause Gaming. I believe he had just finished translating The Spirit of the Liturgy at that time. I did not realize he had been ordained to the priesthood; the Church is very blessed to have him.
Can anyone explain to me if a "Priest in Charge" is different from a pastor? I have never seen the term before. Also, is the Novus Ordo at Fr. Saward's parish celebrated ad orientem or versus populum?
I appreciate Fr. Saward's point regarding the absence of prayers addressed directly to Christ and to the Trinity. However, I don't believe we can chalk their absence up to a dogmatic agenda, so much as to historical antiquarianism. The prayers to the Trinity are among the later additions to the Mass (Gallican, I think) and thus were excised by the reformers. However, I acknowledge the problem this historical attitude creates: one risks losing the fully developed theology expressed in later prayers, by trying to get back to a supposedly better "primitive" simplicity. The prayers addressed to the Father, of course, express important theological truths as well, but it is good to have both types.
There's a married priest here in Australia who says the TLM (as well as the N O), Dr John Flemming.
Ahem, Anonymous, I hardly think that the secular clergy before the Reformation were 'mostly' married; some were, and this was a scandalous contravention of Church law.
'Priest in Charge': my understanding is that Fr Saward has this title instead of 'Parish Priest' because he is married. If this makes any practical difference, I have yet to learn of it. Perhaps someone who knows more about canon law can enlighten us on this.
The late Archbishop Couve de Murville, the present Archbishop's immediate predecessor, was particularly welcoming to convert Anglican clergymen and there are quite a few in the Archdiocese of Birmingham. I noted in my post on the Priest Training Conference, there were many convert clergymen present; married or not, they are frequently pretty conservative in liturgical matters.
Dr Shaw - wonderful post. I look forward to reading Saward's Catena Eucharistica having listened to an outstanding talk he delivered at the CIEL conference in Rome last year in French about a spiritual reading of the depictions of St Philip Neri saying Mass.
As far as I'm aware, the provision provided for the ordination of married convert clergy excluded to possibility of these men becoming parish priests so as to avoid confusion amongst the faithful. Priest-in-charge would seem to be a formula that respects the law but allows for fuller pastoral involvement of these men. It respects the letter of the law, but perhaps the spirit of it is not quite adhered to...
Anonymous, clearly you're quite far from the mark on married clergy at least historically, but there are many and too varied arguments to go into here. Enough to say that modern scholarship does not support your view.
But more oddly you call the law against married clergy in the West invalid. This supposed invalidity seems to based in the (apparently) ungrounded assumption that this particular law is simply an expression of a neo-Platonic/encratitic view of sex as something evil. How odd.
Two points to consider - I wonder what St Paul ("it's better not to marry") and indeed the most famous and First celibate Priest - Our Lord - would have to say about this!
I also wonder what the 'invalidity' of this law does to notions of the Papacy, which continues to uphold this law in the West (at least as a norm), and which was defined by V.C.I as the Universal Legislator - meaning that we are in position to judge the validity of laws promulgated by his authority.
Yes, we all know that this is a matter of discipline, but we also know that even in the East the celibate priesthood is considered in some sense preferable (hence the exclusive use of celibates for the Episcopate in the Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox). It seems to me that the Western Church is merely keeping to the gold standard for all the clergy for the good of the Church.
I have read two of Fr. Saward's books and they are outstanding.
The problem I struggle with when I read critiques of the new form with respect to the old form (that is, "the old form is much better because...") is that both forms have their strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, no rite or form will ever be flawless.
While I appreciate the old form and am entirely in favor of the liberal use of it, we must constantly remind ourselves that the Church hierarchy repeatedly and legitimately called for its reform. While the new form has its problems, so does the old form.
Each age has its demands and the old form met the demands of the "reformation age" well. Our situation is different today (yes, it is) and I do believe that the new form - when properly celebrated in the light of our tradition - is better suited for our times.
Dylan, there are a few issues there, one is that the call for reform is one thing, but the "how" of that happened is an entirely different question -- how it was reformed; what was changed, etc.
In that light, Fr. Saward's questions about why certain aspects would not be needed today is quite pertinent and relevant.
As well, this also ties into the fact that it is important to not view our times as somehow radically different from other times for at root, human nature is human nature. Tradition does not have an expiry date in that regard and organic development does not radically alter it; it tweaks it.
Keep in mind as well that the ancient Roman rite is not simply the liturgy of the reformation age; it goes back into the pre-millenial church as well.
This is really neat. I'm going to put his books on my list.
In regards to married clergy, the Church in her wisdom has a pastoral provision that allows married clergy from certain ecclesial communties to be ordained to the priesthood in the Latin Church. This was done out of justice, charity, and compassion.
Theologically, celibacy is the preferd state for the ordained priesthood. On the other hand, it is true that priestly celibacy is a church disciplain and not doctranal. But that doesn't mean there will not be further development of doctrine. I have read some arguements from Ukrainian Rite theologians arguing for priestly celibacy to become the norm. My guess is the Church is waiting for the unification of the Curch before she defines this practice. My guess is married priests in the Latin Church will continue to be rare.
The chasuble, in response to the first question, is made by ZygZag of Poland who supply most of the new chasubles that Luzar Vestments sell.
Looking forward to Father's book. His insights are very interesting and rather hopeful. The only think which I think is a little creepy is the idea of a priest who celebrates the Tridentine Mass and who is married with kids. Granted it is all canonically in sinc, but it does not sit well with the young men who like the best of both worlds also.
the above remark demonstrates that orthodox catholics are just as capable of foolishness as modernists.
You people need to read, among other things, "The Banished Heart", by G. Hull.
The above 'Matt' obviously has his mind on 'creepy' things whilst he is at Mass. Perhaps he should examine his conscience?!
17 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
