![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Fr. Reginald Foster: “Tridentine” Indult not going to happen
In the Sunday Telegraph there is an article by Malcolm Moore about famed Fr. Reginald Foster, OCD, long-time Latinist for the Holy See. In the article Moore quotes Foster about the so-called "Tridentine" indult. Foster is not positive (emphasis mine).
He said reports that Pope Benedict will reintroduce the Tridentine Mass, which dates from 1570 and is largely conducted in Latin, were wrong – not least because of the Pope’s desire to avoid more controversies. A speech last year offended Muslims and more recently he gave initial support to a Polish archbishop who was eventually forced to resign, after admitting that he had collaborated with the communist-era secret police.
"He is not going to do it," Fr Foster said. "He had trouble with Regensberg, and then trouble in Warsaw, and if he does this, all hell will break loose." In any case, he added: "It is a useless mass and the whole mentality is stupid. The idea of it is that things were better in the old days. It makes the Vatican look medieval."
I have great respect for Fr. Foster, whom I studied with for many years. My Latin experiences with him changed my life. I know him to be a very kind and generous soul. I consider him a friend.
I also know that he rarely speaks in moderate terms. Hyperbole characterizes nearly everything about him. Fr. Foster often makes very strong statements to make sure he is understood and, perhaps above all, to provoke reactions. I have heard him say entirely crazy things and observe the looks of disbelief on faces around him. I do not think that he is insincere. I believe this is the way a man with 200ghz more brain speed than anyone else in the room copes with what he sees going on in the Church and the world.
That said… I think Fr. Foster is wrong about this. But may be right in one respect.
I think the indult is going to happen. However, recent controversies may have made the Holy Father decide to wait for a good moment.
Right now in Rome (with the exception Foster, obviously) there is sepulchral silence about this document. Fr. Foster, though in the Secretariate of State, may not be in the best position to know the status of the Motu Proprio. He is a translator, not a policy maker. It may be that he will be the one to make sure the Latin text of the document is clean. Perhaps he hasn’t seen it, and so he thinks it won’t happen. Maybe his statement is motivated by wishful thinking.
If Fr. Foster doesn’t want to see a return of the use of the older form of Missale he is perfectly within his rights. Good men and differ on this matter. It is entirely okay that he voice his opinions. There is room for discussion. don’t want… don’t like the "Tridentine" Mass? Okay, fine!
What needs to be done to help Holy Church find her liturgical bearings for the future?
Well, if Fr. Foster is correct and it is “the Pope’s desire to avoid more controversies,” I’m sure the Holy Father is well aware that after so many months of rumors about the Motu Proprio, deciding against it now might cause irreparable damage with traditionalsts within the communion of Rome who already feel like red-headed step children; not to mention the damage it would do to the relationship with the SSPX. I think the Holy Father is far too concerned with pastoral care and ecumenism for Fr. Foster’s comments to be true.
Comment by Jeff — 28 January 2007 @ 1:04 pm“It is a useless Mass and the whole mentality is stupid”
Is any valid Mass ‘stupid”? I know who is stupid here. The Mass is the most beautiful thing this side of heaven and the TLM is the Mass of the Saints. It is the offering of the Son to the Father and the unbloody re-presntation of that One Offering that was for our redemption. How can that be stupid?
Why is it these guys get the press?
And Latin is indeed begin stuidied in faithful seminaries; this man is stupidly wrong.
I hate it that the attack on the Mass, AND IT IS THE MASS THAT MATTERS, comes from within the church. Such a chastisement! And the people have not been told what the Mass is. My pastor said last week that it is a gathering of the community to give thanks. Well you can do that in any church; you can do it in a restaurant, but it is not what Mass is about.
The devil’s battle is to take out the Mass. Has been for 2000 years.
Comment by Ave Maria! — 28 January 2007 @ 1:40 pmFather,
It’s seven o’clock Sunday morning. My wife and I are readying to wake up our sons for Mass. We’ll get in the car and drive 80 miles round trip on a cold and snowy day to the only Traditional Mass in our diocese. In the process we’ll pass the nearby parish, only a half mile from our house. There our friends will gather along with those of our sons, but we won’t be with them. They’ll gather there and hear the music of Dan Schutte, in a large, bare room without crucifix where the Present Son of God is put away in a glass closet in a corner. There male and female will crowd the priest at the altar. There dozens of unconsecrated hands will press the Gift of Heaven into other unconsecrated hands and at least once that Gift will be dropped upon the floor. There the mealy sentiments of a greeting card will be preached from the pulpit instead of the Faith of Saints.
And we will go to our Mass, and we will go gladly and happily, and be greatful for the gift we have, and we will kneel and pray simply that the Vicar of Christ live up to his promise.
Okay, that was dramatic, and I know you know my story. I’ve told it before. But this morning, after reading Father Foster, I’m repeating it in the improbable hope that maybe that one person in the Vatican who’s looking in on this effort of yours might be moved, and will take my story down the hall with a tear and a message: Holy Father, no more. The day is now.
Comment by Jon — 28 January 2007 @ 1:48 pmThat’s it! I’m heading East! The Latin rite is now officially #$%#@#@ beyond repair.
Comment by Tim Hallett — 28 January 2007 @ 2:56 pmAve Maria said,
“the TLM is the Mass of the Saints”
Any mass is the “mass of the saints”. Grace makes saints. Let’s not limit the full power of the mass to the changeable qualities of the mass, however venerable.
“My pastor said last week that it is a gathering of the community to give thanks.”
Giving thanks is where we get the word “eucharist”. Your pastor should’ve explained it in more detail, but he is technically correct anyway. It IS what the mass is about, as a sacrifice anyway.
Comment by CatholicScoob — 28 January 2007 @ 2:58 pmDo not head east because of the deficiency of expression of one priest in the Sunday Telegraph.
Comment by Chris Gillibrand — 28 January 2007 @ 3:24 pmFr. Z:
I think Fr. Foster is right in one respect: the desire for Latin Mass without a corresponding desire for a healthy resurgence of Latin itself, is a contradiction of sorts. I know that most folks who clamor for the return of the ancient liturgy have little or no interest in Latin outside of liturgical use. Even if we were to get a motu proprio liberalizing the old Mass, not much will improve if the pitiful state of Latin will continue.
And sadly, you mention that Fr. Foster “is a translator”. Oh how sadly true that is. Those who speak the Church’s language have been relegated to a status of “translators” because everything is done in the vernacular, and then it is translated to “major languages” (whatever that might be) and to Latin, which is allowed to hold a seat among these “major languages”. What a joke!
Comment by Andrew — 28 January 2007 @ 3:28 pmHe also said—AFTER the promulgation of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis—that women were going to be priests.
He is a really good guy, a magical teacher, and one of the most generous people I’ve ever met in my life. But Fr RF is full of contradictions. On the one hand, he is a man who has little use for the by the numbers Church of his formation (save Latin), which I think explains his opposition to the 1962 Missal. But on the other, he is disgusted by the contemporary Latin-less Church.
Comment by RBrown — 28 January 2007 @ 3:32 pmI disagree that most people who attend the Latin Mass are not interested in Latin. Most of the priests from the traditional orders, I have encountered, have a working knowledge of the Latin and want to see it used more. All the schools associated with the traditional orders teach Latin. (I agree with Fr. Foster that Latin is being taught in a poor way. It should be taught as a living language). With regard to the adults that attend the traditional Mass, I think most are in favor of Latin, and would properly even learn it, if they had the time or will power (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak).
With regard to Fr. Foster’s comments, they make me feel very sorry for him. He must know deep inside that what he helped bring about in the Church, as destroyed the thing he loved. I have every confidence that Latin will make a come back in the Church, perhaps not in my lifetime (although I am still young enough to have hope) but eventually it must come back. I can not believe that Church could make a permanent change away from something it has done for 2000 years. Anyway, I would recommend that everyone on the list say a prayer for Fr. Foster. He has contributed to the survival of Latin in the Church, and for that we should all be grateful.
Comment by Christopher Sarsfield — 28 January 2007 @ 4:00 pmI apologize that my remarks above were a little harsh.
I am so tired of the attacks on the Mass…especially those from within the church.
My pastor does not ever speak of scrifice—well, our money I suppose. I do not know that he believes in the Real Presence. I have never ever heard one thing to lead me to believe that he does. I have almost asked him but that might be counterporductive. No, Mass is all about us—our songs are about us and the ‘homily’ is about us. I do not hear the Name of Jesus Christ mentioned essentially. This is one reason why so many leave the church for at leeast in a Bible church, they might hear of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Comment by Ave Maria! — 28 January 2007 @ 4:02 pmShortly after his election, Pope Benedict asked us “...to
Comment by Brian Anderson — 28 January 2007 @ 4:21 pmpray for him, that he not run for fear of the wolves…”. I don’t
think that is running. Let us all continue praying for him, and
let the wolves howl and gnash their teeth.
Christopher Sarsfield:
“I disagree that most people who attend the Latin Mass are not interested in Latin.”
Have you picked up any magazine written in Latin lately? A newspaper perhaps? You know anyone (a Catholic theologian perhaps) who’s reading a book in Latin presently, or who’s written something in Latin, at least an article or an opinion piece? You know anyone who has Latin books at home on their bookshelf published less than, say, 30 years ago? You know any websites where catholic priests from different parts of the globe and of different linguistic backgrounds discuss things in Latin?
“To be interested in Latin” means a lot more than just taking some little 3 month course in basic grammar.
Comment by Andrew — 28 January 2007 @ 4:50 pmFather Foster has a career because the Vatican has moved so dramatically toward the virtual nonexistence of Latin as a vital means of communication and sacred language in the Church.
If he were living in 1897 instead of 2007, in an age when the pope was composing hymns for the Office of the Holy Family and writing HIS OWN encyclicals in Latin, he wouldn’t have a job.
Further, the Latin style of modern Vatican documents isn’t anything to brag about. Calling Father Foster a leading Latinist in the world is only further proof of the state of Latin education and knowledge in the world today. He’s competent, workmanly…he’s not, however, a “leading Latinist”.
As for his comments on the so-called Tridentine Mass…they speak volumes about his mindset: neocon all the way.
Comment by LF — 28 January 2007 @ 4:54 pmI agree that it’s all right for someone not to like the traditional Mass. It’s not all right for someone to deride the traditional Mass as “useless” (!) and ridicule “the whole mentality behind it.” We would never accept a prominent liberal Churchman saying such things. If it were Card. Mahony, Bishop Brown, or Abp. Weakland we would be up in arms.
Comment by dcs — 28 January 2007 @ 5:00 pmI like the way this guy thinks:
“You do not need to be mentally excellent to know Latin. Prostitutes, beggars and pimps in Rome spoke Latin, so there must be some hope for us.”
Read the whole article –
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/28/wlatin28.xml
m
Comment by mike — 28 January 2007 @ 5:19 pmCould Father R. Foster be hyperbolic in the interest of provocation and hurrying the release of the motu proprio? I wonder if this might be the words of a person trying to have some “prove him wrong” so hard that this interveiw hurries along that release.
Comment by Jim McM — 28 January 2007 @ 5:50 pmAndrew,
I do know theologians that are currently reading books in Latin. Heck, I know one theologian that speed reads Latin. I also know historians who are currently reading books in Latin. I know a literature professor who visited the traditional Benedictines in France. He does not know French so he spoke to the Abbot in Latin. I also know families that are trying to make Latin their household language. With regard to Latin being written recently, I know people that own Latin versions of the Cat in the Hat, Winnie the Pooh, Ferdinand, Harry Potter (the Philosopher’s Stone, and just released Chamber of Secrets). I understand that these are children’s books, but that is where we have to begin if wish to change the system. BTW I would like to know of this 3 month Latin course, most of the Latin Books I have seen require a 2-4 year commitment. The CTN Latin group has over 1100 members. Now I will admit that the circles I travel are almost entirely Traditional Catholic, and the vast majority of them love Latin. There are some like me that have had years of Latin, taught in the dead way, Fr. Foster is speaking of, and are just know encountering Latin as living language (I recommend Hans Oerberg’s Lingua Latina: Per Se Illustrata), others that want to but are unwilling to take the plunge yet, others that are literate and finally some that are fluent.
Finally, I do not believe that Fr. Foster used the word interest to mean experts in Latin. Having an interest in a subject is not the same as having mastery of the subject.
Comment by Christopher Sarsfield — 28 January 2007 @ 5:52 pmI’m actually glad he said this because i think it will wake up many so-called
Comment by AC — 28 January 2007 @ 6:05 pmtraditionalists who actually think priests need the indult to pray the true
Mass. No priest needs an indult and no bishop can keep them from praying the true
Mass. If more of them would finally just stand up for us and say “no more,” then
there would be nothing stopping them from returning to tradition.
Father Zuhlsdorf,
Comment by Dan Hunter — 28 January 2007 @ 6:06 pmThe only way for the Catholic Church to have a resurgence of morality is for the Classical Rite Mass to be reinstituted in all our churches.
Aside from the validity of The Classical Rite,what could possibly be useless about a mass that was offered by St.Charles Borromeo,St.John Marie Vianney,St.Thomas Aquinas,St.Padre Pio?
Were they all engaged in fruitless wastes of time?
No.
God bless you.
Long Live Christ the King!
Father, I understand why you removed my comment of earlier today regarding Foster but I stand by it. I made it in the early hours of the morning my sleep pattern having been disturbed by a cold and in the knowledge that I would face another 6 hour round trip to the nearest indult mass leaving me awake 24 hours by the time it began. I did not go. I went to sleep instead. I would gladly suffer for my church at the hands of the state, islam, whatever but I will not suffer any longer at the hands of my church. I am withdrawing from the institutional church until it is made perfectly clear that I am no longer a second class Catholic. My only consolation is that I might remain part of the Mystical Body. My conscience is clear.
Comment by Sean — 28 January 2007 @ 6:22 pmMr. Hunter,
I know this is quibbling, but NO apologists seem to specialize in this, and I would not want you to be embarrassed by them. The Cure of Ars said the Gallican Rite or version thereof not the Roman Rite. I assume Thomas Aquinas said the Dominican Rite, not the Roman Rite. And Charles Borromeo was the archbishop if Milan, so I assume he offered the Ambrosian Liturgy. I hope you do not take this a challenge, your point is very valid, it is just you chose the wrong Saints. May our Lady keep you forever in the blue shadow of her mantle.
Comment by Christopher Sarsfield — 28 January 2007 @ 6:33 pm“It is a useless mass and the whole mentality is stupid.” I cannot believe that a Catholic priest would make such an irresponsible, indeed one might say heretical, statement saying it is a useless mass. Perhaps Fr. Foster needs to be sent on a retreat in the desert to rethink his way of presenting what is obviously no more than his opinion on so delicate a matter. I could counter his belief that the motu proprio would upset the modernist apple-cart and the Arabs by saying it would probably encourage the Orthodox to unify with Rome. I shall pray that he will see the Light. I respectfully disagree with the characterization of the speed by which this man’s mind works – it seems to me he fails to see the forest for the trees and, athough his mind may be racing, it’s racing in the wrong direction.
Comment by Paul Haley — 28 January 2007 @ 6:41 pmLF: “He’s competent, workmanly…he’s not, however, a “leading Latinist”. ... neocon all the way.”
If you think Foster is only a competent Latinist or that he is a neo-con, then you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 28 January 2007 @ 6:46 pmdcs: “We would never accept a prominent liberal Churchman saying such things. If it were Card. Mahony, Bishop Brown, or Abp. Weakland we would be up in arms.?
Why? What surprise would that be? There is no question that many hate the idea of a freeing-up of the older form of Mass. When it happens, we will need to demonstrate to them that we can use them with the charity they denied us.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 28 January 2007 @ 6:49 pmJim McM: “Could Father R. Foster be hyperbolic in the interest of provocation and hurrying the release of the motu proprio?”
No. I don’t think so.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 28 January 2007 @ 6:50 pmAC: “No priest needs an indult and no bishop can keep them from praying the true Mass.”
Oh yah? In theory that works just fine. In practice, you are out of touch with reality.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 28 January 2007 @ 6:53 pmMy comment that Father Foster is neoconservative is based on his (outrageous) statement about the Tridentine Mass. It’s a remark that actually reveals much of the neoconservative idea behind the Tridentine Mass…i.e., not something we need or want to see around as the mainstream form of Roman liturgy.
As for my remark about his being a leading Latinist…has he edited texts? Has he published commentaries on classical and medieval Latin authors? Does he have a doctorate in classical philology? Has he conjectured emendations of medieval, let alone classical authors whose textual traditions are less than sound?
If not…he isn’t a “leading Latinist”. Competent, workmanly, sure. But the Latin style of modern Latin documents doesn’t hold a candle to the style of previous days…especially the high points of the neo-Latin Renaissance (last seen in the late 19th century).
Comment by LF — 28 January 2007 @ 6:54 pmSean: “I am withdrawing from the institutional church until it is made perfectly clear that I am no longer a second class Catholic. My only consolation is that I might remain part of the Mystical Body. My conscience is clear.”
Then your conscience is not formed properly. You are now dictating your terms for your deigning to be a member of the Church Christ founded. Kindly review: Lumen gentium 14
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 28 January 2007 @ 6:59 pmFather Foster is a genius
Father Foster has been abused by the Jesuits
To paraphrase Gny Sgt Hartman: “Father Foster, he’s silly and he’s ignorant, but he’s got guts and guts is enough.”
m
Comment by mike — 28 January 2007 @ 7:03 pmMr Sarsfield,
Comment by Dan Hunter — 28 January 2007 @ 7:13 pmAll the branches of the Mass you have mentioned fall under the umbrella of the Classical Rite.
God bless you.
P.S.His Excellency Archbishop Borromeo offered the Tridentine Mass,and edited The Catechism of the Council of Trent.
Mr Sarsfield,
Comment by Dan Hunter — 28 January 2007 @ 7:23 pmAccording to The Catholic Encyclopedia,The Gallican Rite was offered from,”the earliest times until about the middle or end of the eighth century.”
Since the Cure of Ars lived during the ninteenth century he missed offering this mass by 1000 years.
God bless you.
Father Z said: “When it happens, we will need to demonstrate to them that we can use them with the charity they denied us.”
I don’t believe that this can be stressed too much. Thank you Father.
Comment by Jeffrey Stuart — 28 January 2007 @ 7:53 pm@Andrew:
At least I know that the Society of St. Pius X hosts an all-Latin Summer Academy for College and University Students and Professional Academics, Scientists and Clergy near Bonn (Rhineland, Germany). Dr. Heinz-Lothar Barth hosts these, supported by e.g. the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé (France), who are affiliated with the SSPX. It is called „Latinitas Vivans†or „Romanitasâ€Â, I am not entirely sure.
So those interested in the „Latin Mass†are also very much interested in cultural and historical Latin and the use of it in culture, music and science.
It is not like you say. In fact Cicero, Suetonius etc. have a prominent place in many traditional Roman Catholic high schools and internates, as do Goethe, Dante, Savonarola, Molinière and Agatha Christie.
Comment by Alex — 28 January 2007 @ 8:01 pmAlex:
Pope John XXIII had this to say (Veterum Sapientia):
“In accordance with numerous previous instructions, the major sacred sciences shall be taught in Latin … [] Hence professors of these sciences in universities or seminaries are required to speak Latin and to make use of textbooks written in Latin. If ignorance of Latin makes it difficult for some to obey these instructions, they shall gradually be replaced by professors who are suited to this task.”
That’s what the Pope had to say some forty years ago. Not that here or there someone used Latin, whoopee. But “hey, if you can’t talk Latin you’re out of here”. Where is this being practiced today? What professor has lately been removed from teaching, say, theology, simply because he could not speak Latin or teach from a Latin textbook? Not even the FSSP folks follow that.
And by the way: all of the examples given by Christopher Sarsfield (Cat in the Hat, Winnie the Pooh, Ferdinand, Harry Potter, etc.) are examples of Latin promoted by secular institutions. None of those were published by Catholics. I know that there is interest in Latin in secular circles, and there are seculars who speak fluent Latin, but they also have an agenda that is or can be harmful to the Catholic cause and even to the promotion of Latin in the long run: long story and not appropriate to discuss at length at this point.
Comment by Andrew — 28 January 2007 @ 8:38 pm(I agree with Fr. Foster that Latin is being taught in a poor way. It should be taught as a living language).
I don’t really think that is Fr Foster’s points. His approach to learning Latin doesn’t involve the use of the Renaissance method, e.g., memorizing the case paradigms (Spartacus, Spartaci, Spartaco, Spartacum, Spartaco . . . ). He prefers immediate experience with the language itself, with gradual introduction of the cases.
Comment by RBrown — 28 January 2007 @ 8:46 pmIf Fr. Foster is correct, that is inexpressably sad.
Comment by P — 28 January 2007 @ 8:56 pmTo all,
For myself, it is all too easy to make a snap judgment about someone when one does not know the person. I take Father Z’s assessment of Father Foster at face value. What is most interesting to me is that God permitted this to be said.
I have found devout priests and Catholics who fear the restoration of the Traditional Mass for various reasons. I would not necessarily call the ones I know “neocons”. But it is always concerning and hurtful to those of us who are attached to the traditional liturgies to be thought of as “stupid” and “medieval”. Yet we are called to bear this cross for the honor of Christ. I agree with Father Z that carrying ourselves with charity will be very important. If we take an “I told you so” attitude, no matter how tempting, we are not acting as Christ did.
We must also remember that the Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist has not been released either. People think I am with rose colored glasses, but I believe that the Pope will issue the motu proprio and I also believe that the Apostolic Exhortation will have some bombs in it for the Modernists. It must be of some consequence as Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II have written quite strongly on the Holy Eucharist with little effect on the Modernists. Let’s keep praying for our Holy Father who has such a difficult job to do, pray for the release of the motu proprio, and pray that all of us will benefit from it.
BTW, I cannot read Latin in the sense of being able to look at something and translate it, but I do read the Traditional Mass in Latin and look at the English translations with an effort to enjoy the meaning of the Latin more. I also have a Latin dictionary and look up words. When I hear the Mass in Latin and participate in the Holy Sacrifice, I am filled with a great sense of peace – much different from when I attend the NO in my area. Why that is I don’t know. I only know I love Latin and really miss all the sacraments from the 1962 books. The words are so powerful. Reading Latin out loud is a pleasure for me. I love the cadence of the language. Wierd, huh, for someone who has forgotten the meaning of ablative and dative?
Comment by Barb — 28 January 2007 @ 8:57 pmBarb
How can any Latinist, who can read the Ancient Roman Rite, ever say that it is useless or stupid?
Has he ever understood or taken to heart what he has read therein?
Comment by Discipulus Romanus — 28 January 2007 @ 9:18 pmA few random comments:
Oh we are all so righteosly indignant. But why get angry? The only opinion that counts when the rubber hits the road is Benedict XVI’s.
As far as the writing of contemporary Latin goes, all one needs to look is to the introduction to various critical editions as in Corpus Christianorum, Oxford Classical Texts, and so forth.
Finally, let’s remember, Dante and Petrarch were writing in Italian long before Vatican II.
Comment by Brian — 28 January 2007 @ 9:37 pmFr., are you sure it is I that am out of touch with reality?
For sure, it could be a difficult road, resisting a bishop. But a priest has a
reponsibility to his flock, not to a man—if that man is leading him down the
wrong road. I know of two priests that have done this and, while they’ve been
reassigned to places they’d rather not be, they are as happy as they have
ever been because they’re doing the right thing.
Sooner or later, the time for excuses must come to an end.
Comment by AC — 28 January 2007 @ 9:39 pm