Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Absolutely NO to the little altar girls at the Tridentine Latin Mass.
And NO Extraordinary Ministerettes of the Holy Eucharist!
SOMEBODY SAY "AAAAAAAAMEN"!
If bishops put half as much effort into some other things as they have taken to 'defend against' the motu proprio the world would be a better place.
if anybody say's "AAAAAAAAYE-MENNN"
Ill shoot them.
(just kidding...or not..)
Since most parishes (including our nearest one which provides the EF) have both boys and girls serving in the OF, that and the question of the length of fast seem like two of the most relevant ones to parish use of the EF.
Given the two-forms, one rite formula: it seems like there would be a single answer to these questions for both forms, though I could certainly imagine that many traditional groups would choose not to use female altar servers.
If the answer is no on the female altar servers, I wonder if that would be a sign that it will soon be male-only again in both forms.
I just wonder if the Holy See and the Bishops worldwide understand just how seriously Traditionalists take these issues, especially women attending at the altar. If the Holy See cannot protect the Classical Liturgy from this phenomenon, then perhaps there is more to consider in the Lefebvrist cause.
Michael.
Question 3 of the dubia is amazing.
This question has been answered years ago! In essence the problem has arisen from the fact that the Acolyte was supposed to take the place of the 'sub-deacon' and was even permitted to be called sub-deacon by Paul VI but no one has ever done this in bar one or two churches! I hope Benedict VI does something about it in the OF.
Can't the USCCB do some research!
I echo Michael's concern. If through these pharisaical dubia female servers are introduced (imposed?) into the celebration of the extraordinary form the possible unifying effect SP was supposed to have will be severely compromised. Even though in theory who assists at any given Mass should be at the discretion of the celebrating priest the reality is quite different and it would have to be a brave priest who goes it alone - the evidence of the OF speaks for itself in this regard. As already suggested, such an outcome might result in some defections to the sspx etc.
As to these dubia somehow ultimately resulting in a removal of female servers in the OF, that would seem to me to be a highly unlikely outcome. The way in which John PaulII and his canon law advisers let that particular cat out of the bag meant that it would be extremely difficult to put it back in. Interesting that it was also the result of another pernicious dubium from quarters not the least bit interested in acting in accord with traditon.
As to the fast rules and the celebration of Mass in the afternoon/evening these seem utterly vexatious questions to raise designed to sow dissension and confusion. Not least considering that so many bishops in their tender pastoral ministrations not infrequently afford the Sunday celebrations of the EF timeslots of the ilk of 2, 3 and 4pm!!!
These matters are very important of course.
We need to pray that there will be a definitive answer forthcoming that is sensitive to the pastoral needs of those attached to the ancient form, and which is sensitive to the traditions of the ancient form itself -- just as there is sensitivity toward the Eastern churches liturgical rites and their customs.
This is the sort of thing to be afraid of and prudent about, that Summorum Pontificum will create more problems than it will solve, and post-Vatican II changes and legal chaos will be forced on to the Mass itself and the faithful. Let us be blunt and honest, people sought safety from the chaos, legal (institutionalized) and non-legal liturgical abuses (corruptions) and liberal/prog/neo-con orientation, by fleeing to the TLM and the traditionalist movement(s). Pope Benedict XVI said the two were the same Rite, and they should influence each other. That could result in the TLM being sucked into the prog black hole that is all too often the new Mass.
I suggest the Ecclesia Dei Catholics and the SSPX start talking with each other directly, and to the Vatican together/jointly on all issues affecting the TLM. IMHO Wake up!
==
Come to think of it, the new Mass (NO) is the TLM gone into the post-Vatican II black hole chaos.
==
"We need to pray that there will be a definitive answer forthcoming that is sensitive to the pastoral needs of those attached to the ancient form, and which is sensitive to the traditions of the ancient form itself -- just as there is sensitivity toward the Eastern churches liturgical rites and their customs."
Very well put. Pray and act.
My concern is that, based on the post-Vatican II track record, the authorities and experts have mostly not been "sensitive to the pastoral needs of those attached to the ancient form"; have not been "sensitive to the traditions of the ancient form itself"; and the TLM faithful are not considered to be "churches" like the Eastern churches (ignoring for now the whole issue of latinizations in the east); nor is the TLM considered by Pope Benedict XVI (contra Gamber) to be a unique liturgical rite (different from the NO) like that of the Byzantine for example. The TLM and the 1970 Missal are the same Latin Rite and equal, said the Pope in relation to Summorum Pontificum, and the NO is not really a rupture in the Latin Rite tradition itself. Does the TLM qualify for special protection, or is it 'living' and changeable? THAT is the question. If the TLM was its own Rite with protected customs, etc. then it would stand a better chance for the present and future, correct?
==
As to these dubia somehow ultimately resulting in a removal of female servers in the OF, that would seem to me to be a highly unlikely outcome. The way in which John PaulII and his canon law advisers let that particular cat out of the bag meant that it would be extremely difficult to put it back in.
Actually, it seems like there would be one very straightforward way: It could be made much more common to institute men and older boys as real acolytes in parishes, and then serving at mass could be relegated to those who were so instituted.
That might actually be a good way to try to turn it back into something of a tool for growing vocations, something which I've seldom seen it function as in the last twenty years.
"to institute men and older boys as real acolytes in parishes, and then serving at mass could be relegated to those who were so instituted"
I like the thrust of that, but I'm not sure how it would work out practically. The Australian OF experience (in very general/generalised terms) is that acolytes are older men (senex) and any other servers are very young, frequently girls. In fact I'm not at all sure how acolytes are selected (except in the seminary context).
I'm disappointed that the issue of female choristers was not raised. Their presence, whether in the Gallery or the Sanctuary, is a modern development, and a concession to fashionable ideas of organic development. If we're going to take conservatism seriously, then we should put the clock back in this respect, too.
I thought it was long well-established that the Eucharistic fast obligation is one-hour regardless of liturgical form, since the length of the fast is preceptual rather than rubrical. And that the fast no longer exludes water. (One may in piety choose a stricter fast, of course.)
"If we're going to take conservatism seriously, then we should put the clock back in this respect, too."
If one wanted to foster the possibility of building a realistic bridge between the OF and EF, recalling that despite significant gains the EF remains almost universally the exception, this is a very reckless course to counsel. That is a pragmatic reason. Doubtless there could be debate over the substance, but I think the view expressed could be very robustly resisted.
I must also note that in all my 14 years of almost exclusive attendance of the EF this objection has been raised rarely and when seriously raised, almost always by those directly associated with or sympathetic to the sspx.
Peter
Yes. It would be one of the surest ways to bring the EF into disrepute.
Leaving aside for a moment the thorny issue of the resolution of these dubia - in which matter I absolutely second Shawn's sentiments - I would like to comment on two of the Q&A.
1) I contest the answer given to no. 6: "May a pastor impose the extraordinary form of the Mass on a parish?
No. The extraordinary form is celebrated publicly only in response to a request from a group of
the faithful."
While the tendentious use of the word "impose" is of course already predetermining the answer, I don't believe that such a restrictive reading is supported by Summorum Pontificum. I recommend the excellent post of Fr. Tim Finigan: http://the-hermeneutic-of-contin...ot-only-
if.html
2) I found very interesting the answer to no. 35: "Does the 1962 Missale Romanum presume that the Priest celebrates Mass with his back
to the people?
Yes. By its frequent rubrical directives to “turn toward the people,” the Missal expresses this
presumption." Excellent argument. I suggest that we apply it to the Novus Ordo missal, too - it, likewise, often tells the priest to turn towards the people, so by admission of Msgr. Trautmann, no less, it presupposes ad orientem celebration!
It would be highly edifying where the great fast made law again for both Novus Ordo and Tridentine Mass.
We have become such a soft society penitentionally speaking and the reinforcement of denying ourselves food for a significant period is a magnificent way to wear down the body's pride and show great reverence to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.
This is a beautiful practice and I pray we see it again for this in no small manner is conducive to bringing one much closer to our Divine Saviour.
How weak we have become if it is only 1 hour that we can fast before recieving God into our systems.
God bless you all.
I should think any priest attempting to use female servers at a TLM would quickly feel the weight of several hefty 1962 Missals on the back of his skull.
As many have commented before, the altar girls, eucharistic ministers, etc. were at least part of the motivation some folks have for being fervent adherents of the TLM. I seriously doubt any priest wishing to offer the TLM would introduce such "reforms." As a matter of fact, I could see things going the other way eventually, the abandonment of altar girls (since they can never be ordained anyway, what's the point) and the curtailment of eucharistic ministers. Tom
The first “dubium”:
“Whereas:
The Latin text of Art. 5, § 1 of the Apostolic Constitution given to the USCCB by the Apostolic
Nunciature under embargo on July 4, 2007 differs from the text found on the Vatican website. In
referring to a group seeking the celebration of the 1962 ‘Missale Romanum’, the former text uses
the adjective ‘stabiliter’, while the latter uses the adjective ‘continenter’.
DUBIUM: Which word is used in the authentic text, and how is it to be understood in describing
the nature of the group approaching the pastor with a request for celebration of the 1962 ‘Missale
Romanum’?”
May I most respectfully object that both “stabiliter” and “continenter” are adverbs, not adjectives?
I wrote in respect of the modern development of female choristers:
"If we're going to take conservatism seriously, then we should put the clock back in this respect, too."
In response, the following was suggested:
"...I think the view expressed could be very robustly resisted."
and:
"Yes. It would be one of the surest ways to bring the EF into disrepute."
Oh dear, what was meant to read as reductio ad absurdum seems to have been taken seriously. Please accept my apologies.
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
