What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

Does anyone find it funny, in an ironic sort of way, that in a 48 hour period we get stories about two truly different runaway Catholic groups?  On the one hand we are into Milingo Hijinx, again, with the truly wacko heretical syncretistic group of “His Holiness” George Stallings, with its Koran and Kwanzaa.  On the other hand we have new rumors about the blogosphere’s favorite fantasy, reconciliation of the SSPX and lifting restrictions on the “Tridentine” Mass.  The latter group is at least Catholic.  The former… well… not so much Catholic, no.  Still, I find this ironic.

That said, with a serious does of skepticism and with a sturdy biretta tip to Rorate Caeli I read in Il Giornale. Here is the text: emphasis mine (skip to the red if you don’t read Italian):

Il patto è pronto, ma Fellay non ha ancora deciso

da Roma (n. 164 del 13-07-06 pagina 19)

Tutto è pronto per l’accordo tra la Santa Sede e la Fraternità San Pio X fondata dal vescovo «ribelle» Marcel Lefebvre. Il Vaticano ha inoltrato già da diverse settimane delle proposte precise per sancire la pace e il rientro nella piena comunione con Roma dei lefebvriani. Le trattative, iniziate già nel 2000, com’è noto hanno subito un’accelerazione dopo l’elezione di Benedetto XVI, che lo scorso agosto aveva ricevuto a Castelgandolfo il superiore dei tradizionalisti, il vescovo Bernard Fellay. Da Menzingen, dove risiede il capo dei lefebvriani, fino a questo momento non è però giunto l’atteso segnale affermativo.

Proprio due giorni fa lo stesso monsignor Fellay è stato riconfermato alla guida della Fraternità dal capitolo generale, per i prossimi dodici anni. La guidava dal 1994. Come suoi «primo e secondo assistente» sono stati eletti don Niklaus Pfluger e don Marco Nely. Il primo appartiene all’ala più intransigente, mentre il secondo a quella più dialogante. È possibile che nell’ultimo periodo, sapendo che il suo mandato era in scadenza, in attesa di un’eventuale riconferma, Fellay abbia temporeggiato. Ora però in Vaticano attendono dei segnali precisi. I termini dell’accordo proposto prevedono la sottoscrizione dell’accordo teologico già siglato nel 1988 da monsignor Lefebvre e dall’allora cardinale Joseph Ratzinger, [Now in the Vatican, however, they are waiting for concrete signs.  The terms of the proposed Accord require the ratification by signature of a theological agreement which was already concluded in 1988 by Monsignor Lefebvre and the once Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger] la revoca delle scomuniche comminate dalla Santa Sede dopo l’ordinazione illegittima di quattro vescovi compiuta dallo stesso Lefebvre e una struttura canonica simile a quella dell’ordinariato militare, che permetta alla Fraternità San Pio X di conservare i suoi seminari e di incardinare sacerdoti.

Contestualmente all’accordo, la Santa Sede annuncerà una forma di liberalizzazione del messale preconciliare di San Pio V. Provvedimento molto atteso anche dai tradizionalisti in comunione con Roma.

There is a list of things involved. 

First, the excommunications of the bishops would need to be lifted: piece o’ cake – the Pope can do that with the flick of a bik.  Second, a canonical structure would need to be set up: again, it’s pen stoke time – provided they can be a little creative and, importantly, pick the right guy to head it up (I have suggestions).  Third, the SSPX wants to continue to exist: – again, noooo problem. 

However, the Accord would include statements of a theological nature.  First, they would need to agree that the Novus Ordo is valid: okay… this can be done – the hardliners will demure but most will do this especially if we all see some real liturgical discipline being inplemented in the world.  Second, they will need to admit that the Second Vatican Council was vaild: yah yah… Lefebvre signed all the documents, didn’t he.

But here is where things get tough: There will be some kind of statment on religious liberty and this is where things will come to a halt with the more theologically minded on both sides.

It all sounds doable but the religious liberty issue is the real thorn here. 

Keep in mind that the SSPX reelected Bishop Bernard Fellay.  Given his past open attitude to the Holy See, he would not have been reelected if there was not sympathy in the ranks for his position.  I would say this election was a blow to Williamson and the crypto-Sedevacantist hardliners.

I read some very interesting comments on CWNews (to which if you don’t subscribe, you ought to).  Here are the comments of the Secretary of the CDWDS.  Read the whole thing, however.

Archbishop Ranjith said that two extremes must be avoided: a liturgical free-for-all in which "every priest of bishop does what he wants, which creates confusion;" or a complete abandonment of liturgical reforms, leading to a vision that is "closed up in the past." Today, he said, those two extremes are becoming more prominent, and the Church needs to establish a middle ground.

Every day, the archbishop disclosed, the Congregation for Divine Worship receives new complaints about serious liturgical abuses, and complaints that local bishops have failed to correct them. If the Church fails to curb these abuses, he said, "people will attend the Tridentine Mass, and our churches will be empty." Liturgical guidelines are set forth clearly, he observed, in the Roman Missal and in Church documents. Now "some discipline is necessary regarding what we do at the altar."

In another thread in this blog there is heated discussion about whether or not the Sign of Peace is always to be done at Mass, even if and when the priest does not ïnvite it.  I (correctly) say that the Sign of Peace is an option at the discretion of the priest celebrant.  Others (incorrectly) say that the Sign of Peace must be done anyway, invitation or not. 

Today I found a piece on Zenit in the liturgical Q&A section.  I will let it speak for itself.  I include here the relevant part of the response.  Do look at the original for all the quotes of the relevant documents and a great summary of the context of Mass and the rubrics.  Emphasis mine in what follows.

ROME, JULY 11, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Does the rubric "The priest or deacon may say, ‘Let us offer the sign of peace’" still mean the exchange between the people, rather than that between priest and people? I am informed that the people may never omit this exchange between themselves, even if the invitation to do so is not given.—G.D., Thornley, England

A: .... These documents show that both the invitation and actual exchange of peace form part of a single act and are done "if it is appropriate." If for some good reason the celebrant decides to omit the invitation, then the faithful are not required to exchange the sign of peace among themselves.

"Redemptionis Sacramentum" highlights another reason. The peace exchanged is the Lord’s peace coming from the sacrifice of the altar. An exchange of the sign of peace without an invitation from the altar in a way changes the symbolic value of the rite and could reduce it to signify merely human benevolence.

All the same, pastorally speaking, it is preferable to have some stability in using or omitting the invitation to the sign of peace. If a priest occasionally or irregularly omits the rite he will probably find that the faithful start shaking hands anyway from force of habit. This can lead to confusion.

Some priests omit it for weekday Masses, others include it always. There is no absolute criterion for all cases.

 

Okay… a couple things are clear.  First, the Sign of Peace (= SOP) on the part of the CONGREGATION is not obligatory.  It is up to the priest to invite people to do it or not.  Nothing prevents people from doing it anyway, but they are not obliged to do it.  Furthermore, there is a good theological reason NOT to offer a SOP if the priest has not invited one: the SOP is directly connected to the SACRIFICE OF THE ALTAR and NOT to the good will among the people in the congregation.

POINT SET MATCH

Today’s first reading for Mass (in the Novus Ordo) is from Hosea 11. The reading ends…

My heart is overwhelmed,
my pity is stirred.
I will not give vent to my blazing anger,
I will not destroy Ephraim again;
For I am God and not man,
the Holy One present among you;
I will not let the flames consume you.

St. Theodoret of Cyr (+c. 457) has something to say about this passage in the prophet.

God imitates a father and mother who are naturally worried and cannot turn away from their children for too long. He says that, however, not because he wills one thing now and then changes His mind. Rather, He expresses His thought in different ways. In anger and love, in threat and mercy, chastising and persuading. (Commentary on Hosea 11 – PG: 81:1612)

Now don’t get all excited, but today is the Commemoration of St. Silas.

In the Martyrologium Romanum we read

3.  Commemoratio sancti Silae, qui, ab Apostolis ad Ecclesias gentium una cum sanctis Paulo et Barnaba destinatus, praedicationis officium, gratia Dei plenus, instanter consummavit.  ...  The commemoration of Saint Silas, who sent by the Apostles for the Churches of the gentiles together with Saints Paul and Barnabas, filled with the grace of God zealously fulfilled the duty of preaching.

See? It has nothing to do with Opus Dei.

Today we have an Old Testament figure as well:

2. Commemoratio sancti Esdrae, sacerdotis et scribae, qui, tempore Arataxeris regis Persarum, Babylone in Iudaeam rediens populum dispersum congregavit et omni studio enisus est, ut legem Domini investigaret, impleret et doceret in Israel.

I will let someone else try his hand at this second one!  And it is well worth it!