Now its clear for everyone to see exactly what the mens, i.e., the intention of the Pope is according to someone who evidently worked closely in bringing about the Motu Proprio. Those who get stuck at "stable group" are like drowning men grasping at frogs legs. You won't float in the barque of St. Peter if you try to deprive the faithful of the mass using the lack of a stable group as an excuse.
Whilst many wish to suggest that the novus ordo can float by itself. We have had a generation to show, that without the background of the traditional mass, the novus ordo lacks buoyancy.
The novus ordo was meant to contain the values of inwardness of the older rite. For the Kingdom of God is within. Instead, outwardly directed priests and bishops caught up in the social movements of the sixties substituted an entirely outwardly directed ad lib rite in place of what Rome formulated. Thus, an entire generation has grown up in total ignorance of the Catholic spiritual method as applied in the Church's liturgy.
At this point, there is no other alternative than to make the Motu Proprio mass the center of liturgical life, whether this is done as the sung mass on Sunday or as one daily low mass during the week. Only then will people understand how the novus ordo is to be celebrated and in what spirit.
1) I would disagree with the idea that Trimeloni was the "Italian Forstescue" - if by "Fortescue" you mean the "best."
His work was good, but in his days, there were other books which I'm sure were more authoritative, especially the works in Latin (and others in Italian) by Italian liturgists.
In English, Fortescue, in my opinion, became a "big deal" not because of how great a liturgist he was (he was more of a historian), but because it was the best work in *English* - Americans did not and do not seem to like reading works in other languages, or they are not able to.
Trimeloni is a very good book, but if the analogy regards the quality, then there are other Italian works much better and with more authority than Trimeloni. Today, it's just the latest work (updated in 2003, etc.) and therefore the most common, but we must not forget about Mgrs. Martinucci, Menghini, Menghini-Dante... these men were Papal M.C.'s: if they did not know what they were talking about, then Fortescue and Trimeloni did not, either because they used these men's works!
2) If the Cardinal is not "contesting the prayer in the N.O.," then why even mention it? If the present one is "perfect," what about the other two: the older one and the one from the N.O.? What are they?
Odd title, "without contestation". It has nothing to do with the article. Isn't contestation part of being a Christian? And isn't holding fast to Tradition a divine command to all the faithful?
"For example, on March 28, I received a letter from a non-Catholic bishop, who has decided to enter the Catholic Church with other bishops and priests who celebrate the Tridentine Mass".
I Wonder who or whom these folk are...any have an idea, hum?
I would be willing to wager that the Motu Proprio serves as an added argument for some conservative High Anglicans, although they cannot be who His Eminence is talking about.
Eastern Rite?
Latinmass1983,
I only wanted to give readers unfamiliar with the book some idea what it was about, nothing more, no judgment of quality of either Trimeloni or Fortescue was intended.
Extremely important interview. Thank you for posting it. The future is bright indeed. Deo gratias.
This is fine to hear in an interview but as it stands, it is unofficial. All of the interesting clarifications need to be promulgated in some form of official capacity. Rome needs to come out with the explanatory document so that the faithful and clergy can move forward on the same page, otherwise bishops will simply ignore these "interesting" interviews.
"...I, who am a servant of the Pope, will only announce it when the Pope will say so..."
I certainly got a letter from Mgr. Perl saying that they wouldn't act on the refusals in my Diocese (half a dozen Parishes AND the Bishop) because the Instruction was due soon. He also said that, if the Instruction didn't solve the problem to let him know."
Who's serving who these days???
"For example, on March 28, I received a letter from a non-Catholic bishop, who has decided to enter the Catholic Church with other bishops and priests who celebrate the Tridentine Mass..."
Most likely one of the bishops of the Thuc (via Carmona, Zamora and Guerard des Lauriers) line or of the Duarte Costa line.
There are also independent "Traditional" bishops of Old Catholic lineage.
There is another "independent Traditionalist" bishop -- Terence Fulham -- who has been seeking to enter full communion with Rome even before the Motu Proprio
http://www.olfatima.com/pastor.html
The term "Gregorian Rite" is a good choice as long as it is not confused with the chant of that name. I believe it encompasses not only the Mass and other sacraments,but the Office and Roman Ritual as well. I have always preferred the term "Mass of St. Gregory the Great" for the usus antiquior
"Gregorian rite" is an excellent choice of term IMHO ESPECIALLY because it will be confused with the chant!!!
"However, since it is the intention, the "mens", of the Pope to grant this treasure for the good of the Church, where there are no priests the best thing would be to offer a celebration according to the extraordinary rite in one of the parish Sunday Masses. It would be a Mass for everyone, and everyone, including the younger generations would benefit from the richness of the extraordinary rite, for example, from those moments of contemplation that in the novus ordo have disappeared."
My daughter (17) would probably testify to the latter clause in court!
I also hope that a certain approach by pastors who do offer the EF at present can be overcome: "we are the Latin Mass community: we are different, shhhhhh".
Let's just do it. Open the doors wide, invite all to enter!
If true, this is quite a shift from the original perception of SP! This "clarification" could turn out to be more consequential than a mere clearing up of questions. The concept that the Mass should be offered regularly "even when not specifically requested" essentially nullifies the issues of "stable group" and all of the associated regulations that have been put forward by various Bishops.
Also, his hint at " meetings, courses and means of electronic communication for a deep knowledge of the earlier liturgy" would imply some sort of coordinated training program for current Priests, wouldn't you think? It's unwise to read too much into interviews like this, but there does seem to be some "goings on" behind the scenes regarding the TLM.
Seems to be diametrically opposed to the recent letter to benefactors sent out by Bishop Fellay.
Very difficult to get an accurate read on the true lay of the land with so much Romanitas going on.
Umm, I'm confused about what the term Gregorian Rite refers to. The Tridentine Mass only? Or the full Roman Rite?
I like the skeptical questioning. Isn't it clarifying?
The Cardinal's statements very much confirm points I have been arguing from the beginning on various weblists and blogs.
First of all, as I conjectured regarding "idoneus" in Section 4 of Article 5 of "Summorum Pontificum", the intent there is to ensure that, in regularly-scheduled parish Masses (note that this Article does NOT restrict not-regularly scheduled 'private' Masses as mentioned in Articles 2 and 4), the celebrant must know the general sense of the prayers of the Ordinary, such that his bishop can ensure this.
That does not mean that the celebrant must be able to render an accurate translation of each word or phrase, only that he must know the general meaning and purpose of each prayer. The reason is that, in order to intend what the Church intends, he must know the purpose of each prayer.
His bishop does have the right to ensure that he knows the general meaning of each prayer, and that he can pronounce the words reasonably well (for the benefit of the people present), and that he knows the rubrics.
But why can the bishop not prevent a priest from being able to translate the propers? It is because a priest has a general right to celebrate EITHER Mass (N.O. or T.L.M.) in his proper lingua sacra. This is guaranteed by Canon 928. If the celebrant's grasp of Latin is poor, that is the fault of his seminary and his bishop, since he was supposed to be trained in Latin (cf. "Optatam Totius", e.g.)
In fact, the celebrant is required to know of the meaning of the propers--other than the lections--, but only immediately prior to celebrating a particular Mass! For only then is it necessary for the celebrant to know these prayers in order to intend what the Church intends (not that this is about the intention needed to confect the Eucharist but because a Mass must also fulfil the four ends of prayer).
So, then, what about the lections? Well, since every priest has a right to recite or repeat them in the vernacular, he needn't know the meaning in Latin, unless he intends to recite them ONLY in Latin, which is one option. But since his bishop cannot require him to celebrate in Latin only, that bishop cannot require him to know the meaning!
All of this points much better to where the P.C.E.D. is going in the interpretation of "idoneus". Some bishops have, in a rotten spirit, said, "Latin exams for the lot of you! Time to get out your Cicero and your Seneca! Ha!". The P.C.E.D. is saying, No way. A celebrant need only know the general meaning and purpose of each prayer, can, for practical reasons, only be tested on his understanding of the prayers of the Ordinary, and must be able to pronouce the words and follow the rubrics. Canon 928 guarantees that every priest has a right to celebrate Mass in his own lingua sacra, whether he uses the old Missal or the New one.
P.K.T.P.
Second point, on stably-existing groups. This also reflects what I have been arguing from the outset.
First of all, a group need be no more than three people. That is its meaning according to the precedence of Canon Law.
Secondly, a group can be stable even if consists of people who merely *intend* to worship in a certain parish and who live outside of it. I have been saying this very clearly from the beginning. To manifest this intention, however, I would advice that three or more of them sign a declaration to that effect.
Thirdly, what limits access to the old Mass is never the size of a petitioning group per se but, rather, the pastoral needs of those attached to the New Mass. Since the New Masss is the normative liturgy in all territorial parishes (except those fo the Campos Apostolic Administration), rights arising from the New Mass have place of possession.
If, given its human and other resources, and given limitations on sacred places and canonical hours, a parish cannot reasonably accommodate a group attached to the old Mass, access to it might be denied there, but it should be provided elsewhere in the diocese.
New Masses taking precedence over the old would be (a) those having the right of possession from ongoing previous practice (i.e. established Masses) and (b) those needed for larger groups asking for additional new Masses.
P.K.T.P.
In regard to the non-Catholic bishops and priests coming across:
First, could these be from the Polish National Church or the Old Catholic Church? They cannot be the TAC bishops because their petition dates from October of 2007. The P.N.C. seems to be more likely because conservatives there don't like the liberal drift coming in that communion, I think.
Secondly, I would suggest to His Eminence that now is the time for him to erect an exempt international and personal apostolic administration. It could be excluded from those countries where concordats disallow it; and various groups could be incorporated into it, while others could choose to work under its auspices in some places but not in others. It could also reconcile future groups of traditionalist and independent traditionalist chapels.
P.K.T.P.
Fourth, notice the Cardinal's comments regarding stable groups. It there are inadequate priests [or other problems] which make it impossible or unreasonable to offer the old Mass in a certain parish, it should be offered elsewhere in the diocese. He is suggesting, first, that there should be at least one Sunday T.L.M. per diocese. Alleluia!
The Cardinal's comments also support what I have been saying over and over and over again (and which Fr. Zuhlsdorf has also declared, albeit more timidly, from the outset), which is that Section 1 of Article 5 is not restrictive. It informs us that, should there be a stable group of petitioners, the parish priest should offer the old Mass. But NOWHERE does it suggest that the same parish priest can proceed to offer it ONLY if a group petitions for this. Au contraire, a reading of Article 1 of S.P. together with Canon 837.1, combined with the parish priest's celebret from his bishop, gives that parish priest the general right to offer the old Mass even if NOBODY requests it; indeed, even if there IS no group of supporters for it in his parish. The only restriction on him is that he must respect the reasonable need of parishioners to have access to the New Mass. That means that he cannot easily cancel or move the times of New Masses without consulting those who benefit from them; nor can he easily reject a petition from other parishioners for more New Masses to meet their needs.
Lastly, a parish priest has the right to 'fly in' other priests who are available, not only active priests BUT ALSO RETIRED PRIESTS who are willing and able. Ultimately, the private priest is the final weapon of a parish priest against a bishop who is determined to proscribe the old Mass. The reason is that a retired priest has the right to celebrate according to EITHER Missal and cannot be prevented from celebrating at least once per day.
Bishop Ramirez of Las Cruces, are you listening? Archbishop Jordan of Reims, Do you get it?
P.K.T.P.
Once again, on the reference to a non-Catholic bishop who will bring with him other bishops and priests who want to offer the Tridentine Mass. This is most likely a reference to the Polish National Church or part of it. There are Thuc line bishops, but how many of them are working together in one organisation? Anyway, it will be exciting to see who this refers to.
It might also be a group in the Old Catholic Communion. That Communion has recently gone wacko in some places, and simulated ordinations for women, etcetera.
P.K.T.P.
P.K.T.P.,
This is all excellent. I agree with the substance of your remarks and with your analysis that His Eminence' words seem to endorse your reading.
Now I just wish that we could get a nice big OFFICIAL letter with a big red seal and a signature, addressed to the Clergy.
Then we can sit back, watch them pick holes in it, and pray that the Holy See will enforce this nice big OFFICIAL letter. It could happen.
EXEMPT PERSONAL AND INTERNATIONAL APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATION
Whereas, in 2000, Rome has offered an exempt personal and international apostolic administration to the disobedient S.S.P.X,
And whereas, the same S.S.P.X has declined the offer,
And whereas, Rome has granted an exempt but local personal apostolic administration in the Campos Diocese of Brazil,
And whereas, a non-Catholic bishop has asked to be reconciled to the Church to offer the Traditional Rite of the Roman Mass alone,
And whereas, this same non-Catholic bishop speaks on behalf of several other bishops and a number of priests, deacons, religious, and laics,
And whereas, the Transalpine Redemptorists wish to reconcile on the ground that Rome is now offering them "ordinary jurisdiction",
And whereas, there are now about thirty other societies of apostolic life and institutes of consecrated life which are dedicated to offering the Gregorian Rite of Mass,
Be it proposed that His Holiness establish an exempt, universal and 'personal' (i.e. in reference to Canon 372.2) apostolic administration, diocese or archdiocese--a Campos writ large--,
That he appoint a prelate of his choosing as its proper ordinary, a man whose loyalty to the Pope and attachment to the Gregorian Mass is unquestioned, a man such as Bishop Fernando Rifan,
That various priestly societies and religious orders be incorporated into it,
That various other societies and orders be able to opt to work under its auspices in particular places (and under that of local bishops in other places, as convenient),
That it be able to reconcile various independent chapels which are attached to the Gregorian Rite,
That it be able to establish territorial parishes and missions, no one of which shall comprise the territory of more than three contiguous dioceses or their equivalents,
That, in order to erect a parish or mission, it offer Mass every Sunday for three consecutive months and never fail to offer Sunday Mass for more than four consecutive weeks,
That it have the Gregorian Rite as its normative and proper Rite exclusively, both as regards the Mass and the Office and as regards the Rituale,
That faithful may become subjects of it by registration in one of its parishes or missions in which it exists and provided that they have a residence there or live there regularly (in regard to vagi),
That it be excluded from those countries so long as and no longer than its operation there would violate concordats signed by their governments and the Holy See,
etcetera, etcetera.
P.K.T.P.
P.S. Given what the the Cardinal says about the non-Catholic bishop and his episcopal and priestly followers, I am wondering if His Eminence *asked* them to write him a letter! At any rate, since all priests are now free to offer the Gregorian Rite of Mass, local bishops have no reason to complain about a universal diocese for it! It is there to 'help' them do their duty, to ensure a better distribution of priests and resources, blah, blah, blah.
I would like to add that the words of Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos have brought great joy to me. He seems to be saying that a clarification of S.P. need not be imminent. In the mean time, he is indicating the direction a clarification might take.
I think that he is closing the door on certain misinterpretations of S.P. which have been employed by various bishops in attempts to limit its applicability. Idoneus [qualified], for example, does not mean Latin exams for the lot of our celebrants. Not so, since Canon 928 gives them a right to celebrate BOTH Masses in Latin. Rather, he suggests that bishops may only test prospective celebrants of the T.L.M. on their knowledge of the general meaning, the intention, of each of the prayers of the Ordinary, as well as their ability to pronounce the Latin words reasonably well and follow the rubrics. A priest could memorise a standard translation of the prayers of the Ordinary one by one and that would suffice. If we apply logic to the Cardinal's words and to the words of S.P., we can add that celebrants should also know the meaning of the prayers of the propers (other than the lections) before celebrating the particular Masses to which they pertain. (But this is not practically testable by their bishops.)
In August of last year, Bishop Fernando Rifan very astutely outlined how the Holy Father had provided for priests to learn the old Mass. First (as an addition to his scheme), a priest could celebrate 'dry Masses', then he could offer 'private' Masses with only one server, then 'private' Masses for invited guests, and, finally, 'public' parish Masses. The Holy Father, in the way he orders the content of Articles 2, 4, and 5, has suggested a plan!
As regards the interpretation of "adhærentium" and "cœtus ... stabiliter exsistit" in Article 5.1, the Cardinal is apparently saying that petitioners for the old Mass need not live in the parish where they submit their petition; they need only be attached to the Gregorian Rite of Mass and intend to worship there according to the 1962 Missal on some regular basis. I would add that at least three such persons should sign a declaration manisfesting their adherence to the Gregorian Rite and their intention to worship in a parish in accordance with it. This declaration need not be submitted to anyone unless the group was called upon to prove its members' intentions.
If you regard the Cardinal's words and compare them to Articles 5.1, 8, and 12, he seems to be saying that, if a group of petitioners cannot gain a Mass at a parish church, it is the duty of the diocesan bishop to see to their needs by having the old Mass offered elsewhere in the diocese. The group can even appeal to the P.C.E.D. if the bishop is unable to help them. As far as I can see, this duty is not a strict obligation (a weak should: it is better that) but, since, under Article 12, the P.C.E.D. has the authorty to supervise the implementation of the Articles of S.P., it may be that the president of that pontifical commission intends to insist that there be at least one Traditional Latin Mass per diocese where this has been requested by some group of petitioners.
It is all great news!
P.K.T.P.
I wonder who the “non-Catholic bishop” the Cardinal is referring to in the interview. This bishop apparently wants “to enter the Catholic Church with other bishops and priests who celebrate the Tridentine Mass”.
So, the people in question need not necessarily be using the Gregorian Rite at present. I think a Thuc-line bishop to be unlikely because these do not, to my knowledge, have close association with other “bishops and priests”. The S.S.P.V and C.M.R.I. are unlikely, since they are sedevacantist-tolerant. The S.S.P.X and its affilates is out because, in the Cardinal’s view, it is not “non-Catholic”. Some possibilities:
1. Easterners Orthodox, since they have bishops. But they would likely want to preserve their own rites.
2. A group of Lutherans. They have Bach, so they can’t be all bad.
3. A group of Anglicans, but apparently not those of the TAC, whose submission was given in October, not March.
4. A group from the Polish National Church, or all of it.
5. A group of Old Catholics.
I think that #4 is the most likely. Comments?
I wonder: is this leading to the hoped-for international ordinary structure? After all, these fellows are not likely applying to work under the likes of Daneels and Mahony.
P.K.T.P.
I also think we should consider these words of His Eminence:
Q: After the Motu Proprio have some of the Society of St. Pius X returned to communion with the Church of Rome?
“Yes, and others have desire to do so. But I hope that the whole group comes, I don’t want them to split up. But if a single person comes and says he wants unity with the Pope right now, he must be accepted.”
Presumably, a single person coming over could enter the I.B.P., for instance. But I suggest that the Cardinal’s comment suggests a veiled threat to the S.S.P.X: if entire groups of you want to come over, we shall accommodate them. I think that the Cardinal is indeed considering the international ordinary structure for all those groups who desire incorporation in it, including, perhaps, whole groups of “non-Catholic bishop[s]”.
I pray that the S.S.P.X will do the right think and agree to work in such a structure.
P.K.T.P.
Well, in my thesis: state of necessity of Mons. Lefebvre = lack of a Bishop in order to pursue Tradition, IF
this "non-Catholic bishop, who has decided to enter the Catholic Church with other bishops and priests who celebrate the Tridentine Mass..." was granted the faculty to ordain traditional priests in an international lebel (unlike Bishop Rifan of Campos), then it will signify the END OF THE STATE OF NECESSITY OF MONS . LEFEBVRE. We will wait and see.
The pity is that FSSPX authorities are not aware of that point and if they are devanced by others they will make the ilicit of 1988 to revive.
All these matters concerning the Holy Mass are of the utmost importance to all of us, catholics.
This issue will certainly be solved - it should have been solved by now - and we expect to regain that sublime pleasure.
However, it's strange, nobody seems to be concerned with the actual fact in relation with the catholic divorce which is a serious cause for so many disasters.
That results in a painful future for the couple but, in particular, for their children.
This is so clear that there is no need for further explanations.
8 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
