Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
I hope the good Abbe is right. This has taken a bit longer than I would have thought. Perhaps, the Holy Father, is working hard to soften the opposition. Dum Spiro Spero! Tom
without the bishops being able to oppose it, except in a justified manner
I hope it says something like this:
a) the 1962 Missale Romanum remains valid
b) other venerable uses are good, such as Sarum, Ambrosian, etc.
c) priests are free to say them, period
d) if a bishop wants to refuse, he must submit a case for prohibition to the Holy See
In short, affirm the valid, venerable uses in principle. Liberate their use. Put the burden on bishops to prove a case for prohibition.
Something like that.
The bishop has a legitimate argument if the particular priest is not competent to say the old Rite. Tom
Uses like that of Sarum are very unlikely to form any part of this in my opinion, given that they haven't had regular use as uses for centuries.
Hopefully, however, those rites and uses as the Dominican, Carmelite, old Ambrosian, Cistercian, etc. which did have use up until the Council, will be understood as being encouraged in this Motu Proprio as well.
I could be mistaken, but it seems to me, that a priest who is not competent to celebrate the classical Roman rite, probably doesn't intend to celebrate it anyway--else he would seek appropriate training from competent folks--the FSSP fathers, or perhaps even the SSPX--if they are brought back into full communion. I suspect that when(if) the motu proprio is released, MANY priests trained in the new rite, will just continue in it--since in many places, people will want to continue with what they know, and have grown 'comfortable' with. I'm not arguing the merits--pro or con, it's just my humble observation, from my position in the pew.
Truefaith,
While I grant what you say may happen in "many" cases, I believe there will be "many" priests (who currently are only competent to celebrate the Pauline Mass) who will seek training in the Pian Mass, especially younger ones.
My concern will be how many will actually celebrate the old rite even if/when the MP is issued, particularly in places where the bishop is hostile. While the MP may "allow" a priest to celebrate the old rite without permission from his bishop, that does not mean the bishop cannot exercise his "right" to re-assign said priest to, shall we say, a much less desirous post. That fear is real here in parts of the left coast.
I more or less agree with the above, but I can imagine a very busy parish priest wanting to celebrate according to the 1962 Missal, but not having the time to make a trip to get trained. Priests in big cities could probably track someone down, but in other areas we are talking an overnight trip
I meant Truefaith's passage, not Paul's, when I wrote "the above"
When all is said and done, the tone, wording, and authority--will it have binding force? of the motu proprio, may all be the greatest determining factors, as to whether or not it leads to a 'renaissance' of the classical Roman rite--and whether or not some priests will choose to go out on the limb with their ecclesiastical careers to become active, open supporters of it. For all of our general impatience regarding the issuance of the motu proprio, perhaps the Holy Father is very correctly--and with great calculation, mulling over the exact wording, etc.--lest the motu proprio be seen as just another 'obscure' papal document, to be assigned quickly into oblivion.
Well,
Let us all continue in prayer for this intenion. Know that the Holy Father is taking heat for this initiative and will take much more when it is signed and issued. Any priest who decides to celebrate this Mass of the Ages, apart from his bishop, will pay a price and must understand and accept the cost. We must pray for all those who will undergo this persecution and remember to support them, encourage them and help them. We must prepare ourselves. Fast, do penance, go to confession and lift up this time as a sacrifice and lift up to heaven all the pain and costs to come.
bjr
A bishop is the chief liturgist of his diocese and it would seem right that he would have some say in the matter of the 62 missal.But since so many of the bishops are automatically inclined to do what they can to block it,it makes sense to require the bishop,if he deems the 62 missal innapropriate in some way to write to Rome and seek its permission to restrain it. I watched a video of a mass celebrated by a priest of SSPX in France and it was a mishmash of different forms of the 62missal.First the choirsang a hymn instead of the Introit then the priest and congregation recited the prayers at the foot tof the altar as at a dialogue mass,but thenthe people sang the kyrie and the priest used incense as at a missa cantata.They never sang any of the proper just a hymn and motets but they sang the ordinary and the priest said his part.If the SSPX cant celebrate the 62 missal correctly heaven help what others who know little of it may do.
Dear Fr McAfee,
God forbid that an ideal celebration of the Traditional Liturgy should gauged by the SSPX presentation of it.
Michael.
Saying the old Mass isn't "rocket science". Priests who genuinely wish to learn the rubrics will able to do so from others, from books and videos.
Those who don't care about the rubrics probably won't celebrate it at all.Let's not allow the best to become the enemy of the good.
I think too that there will need to be generosity of heart on the part of those priests who have celebrated the Old Mass at a certain cost to themselves. No one owns the Mass. The more often it is celebrated the better. The temptation to dog-in-the-mangerism has to be rigorusly avoided.
Salutary indeed.
God bless you.
Folks are being unrealistic if they want a declaration that completely eliminates the problem of a bishop's opposition having the effect of chilling his priests' willingness to offer the Mass. Even if you said priests could do what they want, cutting the bishop out entirely, the fact remains that a priest who stepped forward to offer this Mass would be a "marked man."
And it's amazing to me that some are so insistent on the right liturgy, as they see it, that they don't care about the right ecclesiology! Which is to say, you can't just cut out the bishop, no matter who he is.
I wonder how this Motu Proprio will affect seminary formation, I wonder if it will even be addressed in the document.
I do wish other Uses such as Sarum would be allowed more often. Just because it hasn't been used for centuries, well why not revive to some extant?
I would think that the best way to involve the bishop, yet curtail the knee-jerk reaction of most against this would be a process like the following:
1)Priest/community (I am not sure how that works) requests permission to celebrate TLM. (and other sacraments? That's the other big question)
2) Bishop refuses, but then...
3) Bishop must write to Rome explaining why he has denied permission, Priest/community may appeal as well.
It seems to me that would cut A LOT of nonsense.
I am not quite certain what Abbe Barthe means when he says "Je crois que le choc psychologique que la liberté produira sera salutaire, même si elle entraîne des difficultés...." He does not think that the freedom to celebrate the TLM will become a constraint on the certain Bishops, insofar, I would assume, as they would no longer be able to say no to the TLM. But in what sense would the MP be a psychological shock to them, and how would the shock appease? If anything, the MP could more likely inspire some "bad feelings" in which such bishops would expend a lot of energy figuring out ways of getting around the MP.
Thank you, Pes and Mel,
...for your suggestions. They make very good sense to me.
I can see a problem if a particular congregation or priest wanted to use the Tridentine liturgy for sedevacantist ends, but I can't imagine another reason why on Ordinary would prohibit the use, unless he felt it would be divisive of the Church, or if he thought it would take power away from him.
Of course, I think it would be good if more bishops (and the rest of the faithful) would listen more to the Holy Father in the first place, in this and in other matters.
I think many of us are assuming the younger bishops have a mindset of a Cardinal Mahony or Bishop Trautman. In fact, there are younger bishops (e.g. Bishop Perry of Chicago) who themselves have celebrated or been present for the celebration of the Classical Rite. I recall seeing a website which actually lists the American prelates that have celebrated the Classical Rite and I was pleasantly suprised at the growing number.As more and more younger priests desire it, and if the parishioners desire it, I doubt that these younger bishops will oppose it. Keep the Faith! Tom.
With regard to the sensitive question of the bishop and his role within a diocese as pertains to the liturgy.
There is a delicate balance which will hopefully become more evident and pronounced with the Motu Proprio which is that while the bishop is indeed in charge of the faithful of his diocese, and sits in legitimate authority over them, at the same time, that authority is not absolute, and must not be arbitrarily exercised. (In effect, what the Pope has said about his own Petrine Office.)
In short, I am hopeful there will be the nuanced recognition of both the authority of the bishop, while moving away from mere authoritarianism, which isn't careful to look at the limits naturally placed upon that authority by what is either in force or has been received and handed on down the millenia.
I think an important question in this regard, and how this relates to the local bishop, could well be the sticky question of the "legal status" of the classical liturgy.
If it is declared that a rite of that antiquity and constant use could not be (and thus was not) abolished by a mere juridical act, excepting in a way foreign to the Church, at that point, this actually places some burden of responsibility upon the bishop in regards to those particular liturgical books, just as he has a burden of responsibility with regard the current liturgical books, to ensure they are celebrated in accord with the mind of the Church and liturgical law.
This particular point may well hold the key to why and how the bishops are expected to act.
All the documents in the world won't help if we have hapless (or worse) bishops. If we have good bishops, the documents will hardly be needed.
I'd like to see the MP soon, but I hope we someday get a pope who sees the appointment of good bishops (and the removal of bad ones) as the mission of his papacy. Until that mission is carried out, all others will falter.
Commenting by HaloScan
