![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Motu Proprio news in The Times
A kind WDTPRSer sent me a link to a story in the The Times about the Motu Proprio.
An article by Ruth Gledhill mentions the resistence coming from German bishops to the MP. She claims that the Pope will not be deterred. Here it is, edited and with my emphases.
"Modernist French bishops"!!The Pope is going ahead with plans to bring back the traditional Latin Mass in spite of objections from German bishops, sources have told The Times.
Pope Benedict XVI is understood to have signed an “indult”, or permission, that would allow Roman Catholics worldwide to celebrate the Tridentine Rite whenever they wished. At present the old rite can be said only with special permission from a diocesan bishop.
The return of the Tridentine Rite would represent a triumph for traditionalists and be an indication of the Pope’s determination to reinforce conservative Catholic doctrine as one of his most powerful weapons in the fight against secularism.
...
The document had been expected earlier but is understood to have been delayed after a seven-page document of objections by German bishops was sent to the Pope.
Among other things, the Germans were anxious about a Good Friday prayer calling for the conversion of the Jews. A wider revolt by bishops’ conferences around the world would have seen off the indult, but in the end the Germans were isolated in their protest. However, when the permission is published, it is thought likely to exclude prayer for the conversion of the Jews, which leaders of the German and the British councils of Christians and Jews have spoken out against.
It could also include an “opt-out clause”, allowing bishops to prohibit it at a local level, which would placate both the German and the modernist French bishops.
...
In any event, I seriously doubt there will be an "opt-out" clause for any individual bishops. That would entirely negate the point of the document.
I also suspect the permission will be granted for use of the 1962 Missale Romanum as it is.
Part of the problem comes from the fact that many priests saying the "old Mass" are using some edition previous to the 1962 Missale.
Modernist French Bishops?
Since last week, and the nomination of Mgr Ginoux at Montauban, there are with Mgr Centène, appointed in 2005, two bishops friends of the benedictin 1962-missal abbey “Le Barroux”...
2 between 100 modernist: pray for them, please!
Comment by abbé F.H. — 14 May 2007 @ 2:23 pmIn any event, I seriously doubt there will be an “opt-out” clause for any individual bishops. That would entirely negate the point of the document.
That always puzzles me about many journalists. I know that most have to grasp fairly complex issues on short notice. And I understand that most are trained to present the conflict in any news event by showing at least nominal opposition to the main theme. But it has to make some kind of sense. Doesn’t she realize that she is contradicting her own text?
The opt-out sentence would seem to indicate another source, probably some liberal(s) trying to undermine the document before it’s actually made public. But why didn’t she say: “Other sources”?
Comment by RBrown — 14 May 2007 @ 2:46 pmSince last week, and the nomination of Mgr Ginoux at Montauban, there are with Mgr Centène, appointed in 2005, two bishops friends of the benedictin 1962-missal abbey “Le Barrouxâ€...
2 between 100 modernist: pray for them, please!
I have been told that Abp Vingt Trois has visited Fontgombault. My guess is that is happened when he was ordinarius of Tours.
Comment by RBrown — 14 May 2007 @ 2:51 pmTaking out the Good Friday prayers is ridiculous. If the pope did that, I would be very angry. The Jews need to convert, and maybe this motu propio will be a good opportunity to get some of them to the Church’s side. And it’s not anti-Semitic to pray for their conversion at all.
Comment by Andrew — 14 May 2007 @ 3:52 pmWith the qualifying “perfidis†removed, one needs to ask these bishops what objection there could possibly be to the rest of the prayer.
As Sister taught us long ago, it is the most loving thing we could possibly pray for: conversion of others to the Roman Catholic Church.
Older Missals also have a Good Friday prayer “Oremus et pro Christianissimo Imperatore nostro . . . †– no question of turning that into the feminine form for Angela – or even Mr. Sarkozy!
At any rate, even as regards “perfidis,†I always liked Monsignor Knox’s translation: “Pray we also for the misbelieving Jews . . . †and his explanation: “They are not unbelieving. They believe. But wrongly. Or, please God, not yet fully.â€
(sorry, I had posted this to the wrong entry)
Comment by Tonus Peregrinus — 14 May 2007 @ 4:27 pmRuth Glendhill is a big spin journalist, when it comes to reporting on Roman affais. Hardly reliable at all.
The use of earlier editions of the “Tridentine” missal can hardly constitute an offense, in comparison to what else in going on in the world today with the new Roman rite. There is credible arguments to suggest that the pre-conciliar changes to the liturgy, were not all that good as they were hyped out to be (e.g. Holy week changes to Holy Saturday reduced the prophecies from 12 to 4, but in the 1970 Missal about 5 more were restored making it 9 in total). John XXIII could never get used to the new Pius XII psalter of 1945 and continued saying the old vulgate one right upto his death.
Comment by Andrew — 14 May 2007 @ 4:32 pmThe Holy Father will change nothing.
Comment by danphunter1 — 14 May 2007 @ 5:10 pmGod bless you.
It only makes sense that he would do it now, after his trip to Brazil. If it were before, they would have obscured his message to Brazil with the indult.
Comment by Fr. Jay Finelli — 14 May 2007 @ 5:15 pmFor the first time in the last two years i’m FINISHED speculating about this. There’s always an excuse why it hasn’t come out: His Holiness doesn’t want it to distract from Advent, then from Christmas, then from Easter, then from the fight in Italy, then from his Brazil trip. There will always be something it will distract from
I’ll just keep going to my indult. If that’s taken away, find a traditional chapel and pray for forgiveness. But enough of the speculation—it obviously isn’t helping the situation!
(OK, ready to receive my sour grapes award!)
Comment by gravitas — 14 May 2007 @ 5:34 pmsigh…. Any point in practicing my Tridentine rubrics for Ascension Thursday, Fr. Z?
Comment by Father Bartoloma — 14 May 2007 @ 5:56 pm“…that would allow Roman Catholics worldwide to celebrate the Tridentine Rite whenever they wished.â€
Comment by Fr Raymond Blake — 14 May 2007 @ 6:16 pmSurely it is going to allow priests worldwide to celebrate the Tridentine Mass, at THEIR choice, as they might nowadays opt for a particular Penitential Rite. A diocese where no priests are willing to celebrate the Tridentine Rite, is in some parts of the world, a distinct problem for the laity. Indeed, here in the UK, as in the US, I would imagine that the numbers of priests making this option would be quite low, though the number is growing. For me it makes it all the more interesting that in France and Germany, the Bishops are obviously worried about losing control of, and even the ability to celebrate in part of their diocese.
What it is going to do, which they should regard as positive is allow parishes to be run by those priests who only celebrate the Tridentine Rite, with diminishing numbers of priests this should be blessing, though having parallel usages will change the face of the Church.
The whole point of the MP is that the local bishop will not be able to say “no” to any priest who wants to use Latin Mass. Why would the Pope want to give the bishops a way to to “get around” the whole deal? I can’t understand why some bishops are so against the Latin Mass in the first place.
Comment by Justin — 14 May 2007 @ 6:44 pmActually, if executed properly, the opt-out clause could be a very good thing:
1. Don’t clearly define the opt-out clause in the document (shouldn’t be a challenge—Rome stopped defining things in the mid 1960’s).
2. Bishops wishing to exercise the opt-out will be instructed to contact the Papal Nuncio, who will
3. Give a refresher course to the bishop in question on the significance and perpetuity of the motu proprio Quo Primum as well as
4. Inform the bishop in question that in this case “opt out” means the bishop submits his resignation to the Holy Father.
Following these simple steps with even the most casual degree of Italian “efficiency” should work wonders in changing the “modernist to Catholic” ratio among the bishops conferences of France and many other countries.
Comment by HeartlandCatholic.com — 14 May 2007 @ 7:05 pmWhether or not it would make any sense, and however unwise it might sound, I wondered whether this “journalist” was trying to allude to the possibility that the Pope might make some concession to the French and German bishops for their dioceses in France and Germany—while liberating the TLM for the rest of the world without these French and German restrictions.
Comment by Henry Edwards — 14 May 2007 @ 7:11 pmHeartland Catholic: Having read it, I vastly prefer your much better opt-out clause. And it would be very unfair to apply it only to the French and Germans. We need it just as badly here in the U.S.
Comment by Henry Edwards — 14 May 2007 @ 7:16 pmHere’s an idea for a better opt-out option:
“if a bishop has concerns about the propriety of one of his priests offering the Tridentine Mass, that bishop should have full access to the Ecclesia Dei commission.
Based on a bishop’s written and well-documented petition, the Ecclesia Dei commission should then be required, within a reasonable time period, to respond to the bishop’s request to disallow an individual priest from offering the Tridentine Mass. It would only be fair, of course, that the priest in question be permitted to continue offering said Latin Masses until the Ecclesia Dei commission completes its examination of the bishop’s plea. Such examination would justly weigh the evidence submitted by the bishop against the clear intent of the Motu Proprio in question.
IF the bishop has made a clear case, based on Canon Law and the express desires of the Motu Proprio, then by all means, the bishop should maintain the authority to replace that individual priest with another priest who is capable and willing to continue offering the Tridentine Mass in that location.”
Comment by Brian — 14 May 2007 @ 7:50 pmThe opt-out options mentioned so far all envision the possibility of a bishop who allows too few priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. And of course that is the current situation in some places.
But with a wide-open indult, one can envision the sudden new possibility of bishops who permit too many priests to celebrate the TLM, that is, by not screening them for the necessary qualifications to do so. If there is a greater demand for the TLM than can easily be met, then celebration of the TLM could become a feather in a priest’s cap (imagine that!), and priests who are unqualified to celebrate the TLM may attempt to do so anyway if not prevented by their bishops. Could this not turn out to be a serious problem that threatens abuses in the TLM?
Comment by Henry Edwards — 14 May 2007 @ 8:29 pm“one can envision the sudden new possibility of bishops who permit too many priests to celebrate the TLM, that is, by not screening them for the necessary qualifications to do so”
I would tend to think that bishops who encourage widespread celebration of the TLM would tend to be orthodox, and thus more concerned with liturgical praxis than your average NO bishop. So this is a remote possibility, but probably not a primary concern.
Comment by Brian — 14 May 2007 @ 8:39 pmFather Bartoloma: sigh…. Any point in practicing my Tridentine rubrics for Ascension Thursday, Fr. Z?
Father, there are many Catholics in New Jersey longing for the Old Rite. Why not just start praying the Mass
for the faithful and see what happens? If you’ve never been directly told no by your bishop than why just assume
he’d be against it?
I’m not saying all priests should defy their superiors but if you’ve never been told no, and the old mass has
Comment by gravitas — 14 May 2007 @ 8:52 pmnever been abrogated, then I can’t see a reason that you shouldn’t be able to pray the mass this Thursday …
According to Bishop Fellay, when he met the H Father in August 2005, the Bishop
pointed out that Archbishop Lefebvre believed that he was acting in a state of
emergency in 1988 (which, if accepted, would make his excommunication null &
void). The H Father replied, ‘Yes, but since Ecclesia Dei, there is no longer a
state of emergency … except possibly in France and Germany.’ If Bp Fellay
recalled and reported that correctly (and if I have remembered it right), then
the LAST THING the H Father is going to do is let the French and German bishops
off the hook.
But anyway, it’s all still speculation. I’m sure Ruth Gledhill’s sources are no
Comment by Ben — 14 May 2007 @ 8:56 pmmore authoritative than Fr Z’s; which is why I visit this blog more often than
I read the Times!
“...if you’ve never been told no, and the old mass has
never been abrogated, then…”
There is much, I think, in what you say, Gravitas. That was certainly the case for a certain priest in London who in the middle of a report on parish school inspections informed the archibishop that he was also plunking down a Tridentine mass in the middle of the Sunday schedule. The archbishop’s response was, “Oh. Tell me how it goes.” It has been an enduringly and manifestly successful integration.
I think if more priests employed this tack to begin with, we would be witness to a moot point regarding Moti Proprii. (Is that latin correct?!)
Comment by John Polhamus — 14 May 2007 @ 8:57 pmWhether or not it would make any sense, and however unwise it might sound, I wondered whether this “journalist†was trying to allude to the possibility that the Pope might make some concession to the French and German bishops for their dioceses in France and Germany—while liberating the TLM for the rest of the world without these French and German restrictions.
But excluding the French and Germans would have little effect on bringing the SSPX back into the fold. Besides which, why have any exception for the French and Germans?
From what I’ve read and heard, this is my GUESS at what the putative MP will contain:
- A society of Pontifical Right, headed by a bishop and under a Papal Commission.
Comment by RBrown — 14 May 2007 @ 9:13 pmBut with a wide-open indult, one can envision the sudden new possibility of bishops who permit too many priests to celebrate the TLM, that is, by not screening them for the necessary qualifications to do so.
The whole point of the de-restriction is that use of the 1962 Missal is permitted by the Holy See, not a local bishop.
If there is a greater demand for the TLM than can easily be met, then celebration of the TLM could become a feather in a priest’s cap (imagine that!), and priests who are unqualified to celebrate the TLM may attempt to do so anyway if not prevented by their bishops. Could this not turn out to be a serious problem that threatens abuses in the TLM?
I doubt that will be a problem.
Comment by RBrown — 14 May 2007 @ 9:18 pmBased on a bishop’s written and well-documented petition, the Ecclesia Dei commission should then be required, within a reasonable time period, to respond to the bishop’s request to disallow an individual priest from offering the Tridentine Mass. It would only be fair, of course, that the priest in question be permitted to continue offering said Latin Masses until the Ecclesia Dei commission completes its examination of the bishop’s plea. Such examination would justly weigh the evidence submitted by the bishop against the clear intent of the Motu Proprio in question.
Of course, the irony is that most of those bishops want nothing to do with the Ecclesia Dei Commission.
Comment by RBrown — 14 May 2007 @ 9:20 pmALL: If you are posting a RESPONSE to someone PLEASE have the courtesy to begin your comment with the NAME or HANDLE of the person to whom you are speaking.
If you don’t provide the NAME as the FIRST WORD, it becomes impossible to see who is talking to whom.
Would you all kindly consider this an ironclad rule?
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 14 May 2007 @ 9:50 pmJohn Polhamus:
It’s actually Motu Proprio, but you were close.
Yes, you’re exactly right. I think too many priests and laity ask when there is no need to ask. The mass went from assumably banned, to never banned and every priest can say it privately, to the indult, to where we are now. If
even an eigth of the priests would just start publicaly praying the traditional mass then there wouldn’t be an issue.
There’s an old line, “Do first and ask for forgiveness second.” I think more of our clergy need to, as Nike would
say, “Just Do It” and ask for forgivess, if needed, afterwards.
Again, not suggesting to disobey if their bishops come down on them—although i wouldn’t mind!—but that’s
Comment by gravitas — 14 May 2007 @ 9:56 pmassuming that the bishops will come down on them. Many will but some won’t. And it can’t hurt to try!
Gledhill, who seems to me to be as well informed and direct as any MSM writer, has more to say on her story at this link:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/05/latest_on_tride.html
Comment by Fr. Augustine Thompson O.P. — 14 May 2007 @ 10:07 pmThanks for the follow-up link, Fr. Thompson. I was very interested to see the following in the last paragraph:
[i]”But the Pope seems to have strangely little real power. He is surrounded in the Vatican by people who oppose the Latin Mass. Cardinal Arinze is on the side of the German bishops, and Cardinal Sodano still won’t get out of his [former] office…[/i]
Fr. Z, any insights into this? I know you are on good terms with Cardinal Arinze; why would he be on the side of the German bishops?
Comment by Paul Murnane — 14 May 2007 @ 11:45 pmWhat about priests who wish to offer exclusively the Traditional Mass? Do you think the motu proprio would permit that?
Sean
Comment by Sean North — 15 May 2007 @ 12:33 amCardinal O’Malley of Boston feels that the Universal Induit is only of interest to Europeans?!
That response was part of a even-handed report on the TLM by a local cable news show.
Comment by Lynne — 15 May 2007 @ 12:55 amI am so tired of hearing these ridiculous reports of the upcoming Motu Proprio.You would think by the reaction of so many priests and bishops that the Pope was going to end the ban on abortion or something like that!I will believe the Indult when I see it and not a day before.I love when I read that the Holy Father will release it in his own good time.I guess two generations of Catholics being denied the old mass is not enough.lol Thanks
Comment by Ryan Logan — 15 May 2007 @ 1:24 amIf, as rumored, the motu proprio is delayed, because the Holy See is preparing an “updated” edition of the 1962 Missale Romanum or a supplement to it with the feasts of the saints added to the universal calendar since Vatican II as well as some new prefaces, I fear that all the Good Friday prayers in the 1962 Missale will be suppressed and replaced with those in the 1970 and later editions of the Missale in “keeping with the spirit of Vatican II.” Also, they may be “permitted” to be said in the vernacular, as the renewal of baptismal vows is done at the Easter Vigil, and also because those prayers are the equivalent of the prayer of the faithful (or universal prayer) recited in the vernacular at “Novus Ordo” Masses.
Comment by Alter Tomassus — 15 May 2007 @ 2:41 am[Comment by Andrew — 14 May 2007 @ 3:52 pm] “Taking out the Good Friday prayers is ridiculous.”
[When there are lots of comments, it would be good to put the date/time down, too, folks!]
I am no expert, but there sure does seem to be a lot of variety in the translation of the Good Friday prayers.
The Boston College Center for “Christian-Jewish Learning” gives this translation:
2) For the conversion of the Jews. Let us pray also for the Jews that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ.
Let us pray: Almighty and everlasting God, You do not refuse Your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of Your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord…
http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/1962_missal.htm
My Saint Andrew Bible Missal, printed by Biblica in Bruges, Belgium , “Prepared by a Missal Commission of St Andrew’s Abbey”, Nihil Obstat (Danneels) March 25, 1962; Imprimatur (De Keyzer), May 16, 1963; Copyrights 1960 and 1962; Forwarding letter by Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston (undated) has this translation:
[8]) For the conversion of the Jews. Let us pray also for the Jews[.] [May] the Lord our God [tear] the veil from their hearts [so] that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ.
Let us pray[.]
[Let us kneel.]
[Comment: It is only by loving them that we will invite our brothers of Israel to join in our march to the land of real freedom.]
[Arise.]
Almighty and everlasting God, You do not refuse Your mercy [the word “even” omitted here] to the Jews[.] [Hear] the prayers which we offer for [the words “the blindness of” omitted here] that people[.] [May] they may acknowledge the light of Your truth, which is Christ[.] [May they be brought out of all]darkness. Through the same our Lord…
The Second Vatican Council first convened on October 11, 1962
My St Andrew’s Missal has 1,536 pages. Will the Motu Proprio be stopped because of two sentences?
Comment by ray from mn — 15 May 2007 @ 4:13 amRBrown:
“A de-restriction of the use of the 1962 Missal (also OP, OCart, and OCarm rites) covering any private mass and 30+ people (cf SSPX).
The Dominican rite is not restricted in the first place, at least not by Rome. I attend one quite often at my Dominican parish.
What I am personally hoping is that, in addition to giving specific permission to use the older missal, he also gives permission for the use of the older rites for all the sacraments, and the Divine Office, plus the older book of blessings.
Comment by Seumas — 15 May 2007 @ 4:47 amThe Dominican rite is not restricted in the first place, at least not by Rome. I attend one quite often at my Dominican parish.
Comment by Seumas
That has varied from place to place. Fr Augustine knows the history of the situation well.
My understanding is that the OP rite was restricted in the same indirect manner as the 1962 Missal, simply by Paul VI making it clear that the Novus Ordo was to be the norm.
Comment by RBrown — 15 May 2007 @ 5:24 amI’ll believe it when I see it. And if it does come out, which I do pray for. I doubt I will see it in any of my local RC parishes for many, many years to come. I have asked local priests in my area, if they would have at least one Tridentine Latin Mass a week, if the MP comes out. And got the negative attitude from all of them. Of course they only listen to members in their own age group or if your rich and give allot of cash to the Parish. Hence why I will stick with my local Eastern Orthodox Parish, and the Divine Liturgy. And not the feminist Divine Liturgy that the EC are working on. My soul can’t wait for a miracle!.
Comment by Bob K. — 15 May 2007 @ 5:30 amAlter Tomassus said: “If, as rumored, the motu proprio is delayed, because the Holy See is preparing an ‘updated’ edition of the 1962 Missale Romanum or a supplement to it with the feasts of the saints added to the universal calendar since Vatican II as well as some new prefaces, I fear that all the Good Friday prayers in the 1962 Missale will be suppressed and replaced with those in the 1970 and later editions of the Missale in ‘keeping with the spirit of Vatican II.’”
That rumor is false. Cardinal Kasper has already told a Jewish group in Germany that the decision the Pope has made cannot now be unmade, and that therefore there is nothing that can be done about the 1962 Missal’s prayer for the conversion of the Jews. The Pope has signed the Motu Proprio, granting freedom to use the 1962 Missal, with the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. Just be patient and let the Holy Father make the Motu Proprio public when he deems it is best.
Comment by Jordan Potter — 15 May 2007 @ 5:40 amAs Robert Brown has asked. The use of the Dominican Rite by priests of the order has been governed since June 2, 1969, by this decree of the SCR:
“At the request of the Most Reverend Father Aniceto Fernandez, Master General of the Order of Friars Preachers, by a letter of 23 May 1969, we willingly grant, in virtue of the powers given to this Sacred Congregation by the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, that the following may be adopted for the Order of Friars Preachers as a whole, namely:
“1. The Roman Missal established b