Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
I think that in fact the Pope would find it problematic if a pastor somewhere decided to have all liturgical celebrations in the Latin language. Seeing as the vernacular is now the norm, imposing Latin as the norm in one place would be deleterious for pastoral reasons. And if you disagree, I dare you to try doing it!
A priest is free to celebrate privately in Latin.
It's worth noting that in order to be allowed celebrate the extraordinary Roman rite, the priest must be competent (1) rubrically (2) linguistically. I think it's a pity that a similar rule doesn't exist for the ordinary form!!!
Yes, but let us not forget that this can and does happen in non-diocesan religious communities as well. Moreover, not going beyond legit authority should be a maxim also applied to taking things in the other direction. Perhaps that is what "from Europe" is getting at in his comment?
But I do agree about the need for authority figures and liturgical commissions in dioceses to make sure they do not overstep their bounds in an effort to stifle.
I don't deny the importance of those considerations (which is why I make passing reference to such), but they are aside from the main issue being addressed.
Permission is one thing and the common sense application, bearing in mind pastoral issues on the part of the pastor (and the bishop acting as an intercessor if need be) is another.
If the bishop is concerned as such, the reasonable approach bearing in mind both pastoral considerations and the law is not to require English and require a form for a pastor to either get permission/denial for what is a normative liturgical option available to all Latin rite priests. Rather it is to do something like issue pastoral suggestions and guidelines for pastors who may be thinking of implementing such in their parishes, and leaving it for them to consider how that will play itself out -- with the bishop acting in an advisorial and intercessory capacity if need be. That's a rather big difference.
Also, none of this changes the fact of the law as regards Latin and the non-necessity of permission. Nor is it it limited to private celebrations.
So too is the issue of competent celebrations of the usus antiquior from "permission".
If a priest were to be wrongly disciplined for adopting a Latin liturgy or Latin vernacular liturgy, I have little to no doubt how the Holy See would respond to an appeal of such.
One of the problems raised by VII is the relationship between priest and bishop, the balance of authority and subsidiarity, not to mention the role of the priest as a successor of the Apostles.
Little has been done to address the honourable pre-VII concept of the bishop as an "unbound priest", except its denial.
Maybe the subtle mind of the Pope is raising this in the Motu Proprio. There is good master's thesis here on the concept of Holy Orders in Summ. Pont.
[I believe Father intended to say 'bishop' here -NLM]
Quod scripsi, scripsi!
VII speaks of the Bishops as successors of the Apostles, in their threefold role of teaching, governing & sanctifying, but the previous theology spoke of it terms of paricipating in priesthood.
Love the LOTR analogy. The first volley of liberal American bishops to the MP?
Oh, on another subject from the past; what, if anything, was resolved about getting the SARUM MASS on dvd from the U.K.? I believe you were working on that with the gentleman who had it.
Please advise and God's Blessings on you and NLM.
Fr. Blake,
What I meant in my parentheses was that your original statement read as follows:
"the role of the priest as a successor of the Apostles."
By which I presumed you intended to say:
"the role of the bishop as a successor of the Apostles"?
The reason why is because latter idea is of course very familiar (as is the idea of the Bishop as having the fullness of priestly Orders that you mention) but talk of a priest as being "a successor of the apostles" is not something I have seen or read.
Can you clarify? I may be misreading what you've written and if I've 'corrected' something I thought was simply misspoke, but which you've intended to say, I'll remove my parentheses in your original comment.
I'd love to send a copy of the Missale Romanum Editio Typica to the Bishop with a note, "Here's your other promulgated law."
As much as I abhor the Conservative Catholic Watchblogging we see far too much of, I REALLY hope someone forwarded that letter to the CDF. Although let's face it, in a diocese with a bishop like that there probably AREN'T many priests who intend to use Latin. And given the conservatism of rural MI, it's totally possible he may be attempting to discourage Spanish Masses (and just never viewed Latin as an option). Either way, he is waaaay out of line.
If he has banned Latin, he ought to rename his diocese "The English Diocese of Gaylord", because it sure isn't Roman Catholic.
Gaylord is my mother's family's home diocese and St. Mary's Cathedral their home parish. It is distressing to see its bishop making a fool of himself by issuing directives which are completely outside of his competence. One would think a bishop would know what his episcopal limits are.
Here in the neighboring diocese to the north, my bishop informed me last week that he intends to celebrate the extraordinary form of the Mass in his cathedral. So on the north end of the Mackinac Bridge, Latin is welcome while on the south end it's forbidden.
How the Bishop of Gaylord will try to make his prohibitions stick in flagrant opposition to Rome will be interesting to watch.
This is not the substance of my comment, which is about the theological relationship between priest and bishop, it is that which is important.
Briefly put: the question that was asked before VII was from where does the presbyterate come, what is its Dominical [biblical] origin. Christ places the Apostles as Overseers [episkope] of the Church, the Apostles create deacons to assist them, nowhere are presbyters appointed or created. There are in the New Testament, two kinds of oversight, plural and monarchical, in the 2nd cent, the monarchical oversight of the Church emerges and there is thus created a distinction between bishop and presbyter. It would seem that in this the Bishop emerges as leader from amongst the Presbyterate.
In the Middle Ages there are several instances of Abbots or others who were Priests, not Bishops ordaining or doing other things reserved to Bishops, this seems to have an ancient origin, and is understandable only if one sees Christ as establishing “priesthood” per se, which for practical reasons becomes divided into two Orders of Bishop and Presbyter, with the fullness of Order being conveyed in priestly ordination but being “bound” or limited until the conferral of Episcopal Consecration. One might interpret the “Lay-Investiture Crisis” as being the “unbinding” of this authority by the giving of symbols of office and the right to exercise that office, but that is another point.
I disagree with the last posting, and think that the reason that "nowhere are presbyters appointed or created" in the NT is simply because it was taken for granted that the diaspora Jewish (and possibly Palestinian Jewish) practice of "boards of elders" (i.e., presbyters) governing synagogue-congregations would continue among Christians. Among the Jews, these "presbyters" did not lead worship, but exercised authority and discipline within the synagogue and over its members -- but nevertheless they were "ordained" by other elders with a laying-on of hands which was thought to convey the "governing Spirit" which had come down from Moses (this "ordination" was for some reason discontinued in the Third/Fourth Centuries as the rabbinate established and consolidated its authority). And as to deacons, it is a matter of debate whether the institution of "the seven" in Acts has anything much to do with "the diaconate" as we know it, as opposed to the synagogue office of chazzan/hyperetes, or "beadle," the servant(s) of the synagogue and of the presbyterate who were responsible for the orderly keeping of the synagogue and its worship paraphernalia, and for the distribution of charity among its needy members.
The real novelty among Christians was the episcopate, and considering how slowly, and at first only occasionally, presbyters came to celebrate, by delegation from the bishop, the Eucharist (and considering that celebration by deacons in similar circumstances, although regarded as an abuse, was not unknown, and only eliminated by the imposition of draconian sanctions against the practice in the Fourth Century), then i seriously doubt that an undifferentiated "priesthood" came first, and was only subsequently divided into "the episcopate" and "the presbyterate" -- despite the opinion of St. Jerome (almost unique among the Church Fathers) that this is what happened.
It is true that there are examples of the papacy allowing abbots to ordain to the diaconate, and even the priesthood, in the Middle Ages, but all of these examples (five or six as regards the priesthood; more for the diaconate) come from the period 1389 to 1499. Unless one is to regard anything that the papacy allows or permits to be ipso facto good and valid, it is possible to see these "permissions," especially in the light of the "high view" of the episcopate embraced by Vatican II, as an abuse and an error rather than as a firm precedent. The Anglican Thomist theologian Eric Mascall (1905-1993) zeroed in on precisely these same episodes in his moderate but pointed critique of the papacy in the last two chapters of his *The Recovery of Unity: A Theological Approach* (1958) and the Anglican Church Historian Trevor Jalland adduced cogent reasons to doubt the original identity of the episcopate and the presbyterate both in his essay in the (of very mixed quality) collection *The Apostolic Ministry* ed. K. E. Kirk (1946) and in his own forgotten but eminent
ly readable book *The Church and the Papacy* (1944).
Just last night, when "surfing the web," I discovered that numerous copies of the Jalland book are listed as available, most at very reasonable prices and mostly from English booksellers, at www.abebooks.com. I acquired my own copy of Jalland over 20 years ago, but only got around to reading it this summer, and I have to say that it is subtle, judicious and very readable, and that Jalland's own "bias," so far as it is discernible, is of a rather strongly "pro-papal" sort. What interested me is that I read the Jalland book in conjunction with another Anglican book on the papacy, *The Church Universal and the See of Rome* by H. Edward Symonds (1939) -- a book which is evidently much better known and which was described to me as "a favorable study of the papacy by an Anglo-Catholic monk" -- but that I found the Jalland book both more "nuanced" and more implicitly to what used to be termed "the papal claims" than the Symonds book.
Thank you for the clarification father. I'll remove my parentheses. My apologies.
4:30pm Community Mass (Do what, now?) in Spanish and English --all are welcome.
(At St. Joseph's parish in Mapleton, Diocese of Gaylord.)
Are they going to say that because it's in "Spanish and English" (huh?) that it's exempt?
After he gets slapped by Ecclesia Dei, we can say along with Gandalf,
"So ends the reign of Denethor, son of Ecthelion."
William Tighe,
"no where are presbyters appointed or created"
my appologies, I meant in the NT that there doesn't seem to be a seperate order of presbyter or bishop, appointed or created (unless Stephen and the "deacons" are actually presbyters) but that was not my point in my comment and only became highlighted because of Seans "editing".
My point is that this Bishop's statement isn't a mere matter of an upitty or foolish bishops. There is a theological problem here in the relationship between bishop and priest which is brought into play by the Motu Proprio's emphasis on the rights or jurisdiction of the priest that isn't addressed by VII or later Church documents, in fact in is raised by them.
P.S.
If you google "Polka Mass Gaylord", you will get a lovely article about what the Bishop considers a good alternative to Latin.
A priest is free to celebrate privately in Latin.
A priest is free to celebrate privately or publicly in Latin.
Can anyone provide information regarding the minimum requirements for a willing priest to celebrate the extraordinary form in a typically modern church? For example: altar, altar rail or not, candles, vestments, choir, etc. If so, please distinguish between high and low Mass.
Fr. Zuhlsdorf noted the following: "The priest does not have to be an expert Latinist. He must have sufficient knowledge to pronounce the words. That is what idoneus is all about: it is minimum qualification, not expertise."
I argued that point with someone yesterday who not only made a big deal of the lack of a priest’s knowledge of Latin, but also that of a huge expense of acquiring candles and vestments and altering church architecture.
Thank you.
Seeing as the vernacular is now the norm, imposing Latin as the norm in one place would be deleterious for pastoral reasons.
Actually, Latin is the prescribed norm, and Vatican II expressly said so (see Sacrosanctum Concilium).
wouldnt it be wonderful if Fr. Z. was appointed archbishop of some wayward episcopate in southern California or Bishop in a town called Erie?
I’m placing my e-mail address here in case someone desires to reply to my previous comment. Thanks
fredi@prolifeamerica.com
Commenting by HaloScan
