Italian TV coverage of the MP story

38 Comments

1. Cody says:

   28 June 2007 at 8:09 AM

   I’m always surprised at how the media (at least in the US) tends to report on even the little things that the pope or the vatican does, yet they rarely understand it’s importance or strive to get the details correctly. All the major newspapers (at least in Boston) picked up the Joe Kennedy annulment story as a main headline (mostly because of his last name) but none of them understood the importance of it or why the Vatican cared after all these years. But what do you expect from an area where marriage is nothing more than a legal contract which everyone (and his dog?) can enter into.
2. Jonathan Bennett says:

   28 June 2007 at 8:37 AM

   I must admit, living in Canada (which is probably worse then the US in this regard), it will be interesting to watch the media blather on about a topic they know nothing about (yet again) and drag out all the old cliches about the traditional Mass et al.
3. jaykay says:

   28 June 2007 at 8:38 AM

   No coverage at all in Ireland’s main “paper of record” today. Whenever there is it’ll probably paraphrase that Tablet dross, or be even more condescending.
4. Fabrizio says:

   28 June 2007 at 8:42 AM

   RAI’s coverage on TG 1 and TG 2 was full of the usual errors and cliches but less than what one was expecting from the first newsflashes. There was even the recognition that the reform of liturgy has brought about a loss of solemnity and that the request for a derestriction was coming from within the Church and not just as a bone thrown at SSPX. Which, given the average quality of RAI analysis is nothing short of amazing!

   It isn’t even out yet and it’s already doing miracles!
5. Jonathan Bennett says:

   28 June 2007 at 9:11 AM

   I get daily emails from the Vatican Information Service with news updates from the Holy See. This is the report about the MP from today’s news:

   *******************************************

   MEETING DISCUSSES “MOTU PROPRIO” ON USE JOHN XXIII’S MISSAL

   VATICAN CITY, JUN 28, 2007 (VIS) – Given below is the text of a communique released today by the Holy See Press Office concerning Benedict XVI’s forthcoming “Motu Proprio” on the use of the Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962.

   “Yesterday afternoon in the Vatican, a meeting was held under the presidency of the Cardinal Secretary of State in which the content and spirit of the Holy Father’s forthcoming ‘Motu Proprio’ on the use of the Missal promulgated by John XXIII in 1962 was explained to representatives from various episcopal conferences. The Holy Father also arrived to greet those present, spending nearly an hour in deep conversation with them.

   “The publication of the document – which will be accompanied by an extensive personal letter from the Holy Father to individual bishops – is expected within a few days, once the document itself has been sent to all the bishops with an indication of when it will come into effect.”

   **************************

   So, it seems that the MP will be allowing the use of John XXIII’s 1962 Missal specificaly. Is there any chance the MP will open the doors for other Rites that have been dropped or “reformed” since Vatican II?

   As a side note- Fr. Z, I’ve noticed that at the top of every page in your blog your name has gained an o and your biretta has lost it’s tuft (not that I’m against tuftless birettas, ut I think they look better with the tuft).
6. Tim Ferguson says:

   28 June 2007 at 9:20 AM

   Jonathan, perhaps Fr. Z is missing Italy a bit and so is Italianizing his name – Don Zuhlsdorfo has a certain lilt to it. ;)
7. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf says:

   28 June 2007 at 9:21 AM

   Jonathan: As a side note- Fr. Z, I’ve noticed that at the top of every page in your blog your name has gained an o and your biretta has lost it’s tuft (not that I’m against tuftless birettas, ut I think they look better with the tuft).

   I don’t see that and cannot make that happen. What browser are you using? Restarted it lately?
8. Tim Ferguson says:

   28 June 2007 at 9:24 AM

   Fr. John, it’s appearing that way here too – using Internet Explorer
9. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf says:

   28 June 2007 at 9:30 AM

   Tim: Still, I don’t see that and can’t reproduce it with any browser on two different computers.
10. GCC Catholic says:

    28 June 2007 at 9:36 AM

    Fr. Z,

    No problems here with Firefox, even if I stretch the window width between where the biretta is on the first line and where it is on the second line. If I do the same thing with IE7, I can get it to recreate the problem.
11. Ole Doc Farmer says:

    28 June 2007 at 9:37 AM

    G – A – U – D – E – A – M – U – S
12. Jonathan Bennett says:

    28 June 2007 at 9:45 AM

    I’m using IE 6.0.

    This is the way the description is appearing here:

    “Slavishly accurate liturgical translations & frank commentary on Catholic issues – by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf o
    {]:¬)”

    I was begining to think you decided to get one of those tuftless birettas ;)
13. jaykay says:

    28 June 2007 at 9:49 AM

    It’s appearing like that here as well. The tuft has become the Italianisation. The top line finishes: “… on Catholic issues – by Father John Zuhlsdorf o” (there’s a bit of space between the f and the o) and then the next line is just {]:-) – no tuft!

    Please don’t ask me about systems :(
14. Tim Ferguson says:

    28 June 2007 at 9:59 AM

    I think it must have something to do with the size of the monitor. When I view the page in full window format, the “o” appears after Zuhlsdorf and the rest of the biretta on the next line. When I shrink the page a little, the tuft pops back into its customary place. The monitor here is 12″ straight across (viewing area).
15. RBrown says:

    28 June 2007 at 10:03 AM

    So, it seems that the MP will be allowing the use of John XXIII’s 1962 Missal specificaly. Is there any chance the MP will open the doors for other Rites that have been dropped or “reformed” since Vatican II?

    If you’re referring to the Dominican, Carmelite and Carthusian rites, my understanding is that they are included, at least implicitly, in the MP.
16. Jonathan Bennett says:

    28 June 2007 at 10:15 AM

    If you’re referring to the Dominican, Carmelite and Carthusian rites, my understanding is that they are included, at least implicitly, in the MP.

    Ok, I was wondering about that. A friend of my family is from Milan and she used to rage about how the Ambrosian Rite was reformed and “Romanized”.

    Also, if the MP deals with the 1962 Missal, does this mean that the 1955 (which I have seen used in some Masses- or at least the second confiteor which doesnt appear in the 1962) has been banned?
17. dcs says:

    28 June 2007 at 10:17 AM

    I guess that IE will break on the “{” character (how silly).

    Fr. Z., you can probably fix this by enclosing the biretta’d priest emoticon “o{]:¬)” in [nobr] tags, i.e., [nobr]o{]:¬)[/nobr] (substituing angle brackets for the square ones of course).
18. Mary Ann McGrath says:

    28 June 2007 at 10:33 AM

    “Also, if the MP deals with the 1962 Missal, does this mean that the 1955 (which I have seen used in some Masses- or at least the second confiteor which doesnt appear in the 1962) has been banned?”

    I had the same question. Also, when was the second confiteor, kissing of biretta, priest’s hand, and thurible removed?

    Thanks!

    Deo gratias for the mp whenever it comes!
19. Jonathan Bennett says:

    28 June 2007 at 10:42 AM

    I had the same question. Also, when was the second confiteor, kissing of biretta, priest’s hand, and thurible removed?

    The Mass I serve at uses the 1962 Missal, which did not include the second Confiteor (although, and I could be wrong here, I think the second Confiteor is optional in the 1962 Missal). As for kissing, the rule is that when recieving an object from the priest, you kiss his hand and then the object: at Sung Masses the Master of Ceremonies, when he takes the biretta, kisses the priest’s hand and then the biretta itself; likewise when the MC takes the thurible from the thurifer, he kisses the chain and then the priest’s hand, and vice versa when recieving the thurible back. The acolytes will kiss the cruets before presenting them to the priest. None of this is usually done at Low Mass though.

    If I am mistaken about any of the above, I’m sure someone here will corect me ;)
20. Jon says:

    28 June 2007 at 10:44 AM

    I almost hate to pass this on, because I know the terror it’s going to create, but it’s already on the airwaves.

    A few minutes ago I received a panicked cell call from a friend in his car. He’d been listening to Paul Harvey (you read that right). I’m hoping this is just the ramblings of dear Mr. Harvey, a confirmed Pentecostal, but this is what he said, and you can hear it yourselves here, http://www.paulharvey.com/wma/thursdayam.asx, at 3:13 minutes into the broadcast. I quote:

    “Catholics can expect reforms within days. Pope Benedict decrees that Catholic clergy may celebrate the Mass in English. The OLD MASS may be said in local languages, with the priest facing the congregation.”

    Normally I’d just chalk this up to a Protestant who doesn’t know any more about the Mass than he does proverbial rocket science. But a few months ago I did read a “rumor” that the MP was going to allow the ’62 Missal to be celebrated in the vernacular. I only read it once, but God forbid…
21. GCC Catholic says:

    28 June 2007 at 11:06 AM

    Jon,

    Not to say for certain one way or the other, this seems to beg a question: How is it that Paul Harvey would have this detail that seems to have eluded virtually everyone else, regardless of whether they love or hate the Tridentine Mass?
22. mike says:

    28 June 2007 at 11:09 AM

    Paul Harvey is a bizarre dude.
23. I am not Spartacus says:

    28 June 2007 at 11:15 AM

    Jon. Next time, just remind him he was listening to Paul Harvey. Paul Harvey. Since when has anything Paul said convinced anyone he is tight with the Vatican :)
24. Henry Edwards says:

    28 June 2007 at 11:22 AM

    Jon: “The OLD MASS may be said in local languages, with the priest facing the congregation.”

    This would have to mean the 1965 missal — surely the only thing that could be pulled off the shelf to these ends — but has anything other than the 1962 missal has ever been mentioned, either officially (e.g., this mornings Vatican announcement) or unofficially?
25. Fr. Augustine Thompson O.P. says:

    28 June 2007 at 11:22 AM

    On the status of the Order Rites and this Motu Proprio. I do not know the status of the Cistercian, Carmelite, or other western rites because I don’t know the terms under which the affected groups adopted the Roman liturgy, if they did.

    In the Order of Preachers, use of the old Dominican liturgy has been governed by the rescript of 2 June 1969, which gave authority to provincials (for their subjects) and the master (for the whole order) to give permission to use the rite “hocusque in vigore.”

    After Ecclesia Dei, the noted historian, theologian, and canonist, Pere Pierre-Marie Gy, O.P. (RIP) was asked about what its promulgation might meant for our practice. He gave the opinion that we were, in use of our rite, to follow analoguously whatever the “Roman” discipline was. E.g., the rubrics of the Dominican Rite to be used would be that of 1962, not 1969 (as some had thought “hocusque” had implied), that permission was to be “given freely,” etc. This has been the practice whenever I have seen the rite used.

    What his opinion will mean for “analoguous” changes after the M.P., I don’t know. But his opinion strikes me as good canonical sense.
26. Jon says:

    28 June 2007 at 11:49 AM

    All,

    Of course I know those things. I did remind my friend he WAS listening to Paul Harvey after all. But error has winged feet, and I could well imagine Mom & Pop newspapers running with it to the confusion of Mom & Pop’s everywhere.

    Besides, for those of you who saw it, what else could explain that ear to ear grin on “Cardinal Sean” as he worked the Holy Father’s arm like a water pump yesterday? ;^)
27. Jonathan Bennett says:

    28 June 2007 at 11:51 AM

    This would have to mean the 1965 missal—surely the only thing that could be pulled off the shelf to these ends—but has anything other than the 1962 missal has ever been mentioned, either officially (e.g., this mornings Vatican announcement) or unofficially?

    Considering that most of the current indult Masses, and even the SSPX Masses, use the the 192 Missal, I highly doubt that anyone would try to make use of a short-lived transitional Missalthat probably wouldnt sit well with either the supporters of the “Tridentine” Mass or the those who support the Novus Ordo.

    As for the use of vernacular in the old Mass, I can’t see the rubrics being changed for the
    to accomplish this in the 1962 Missal (nor for that matter can I see too many people supporting such a change- we all know how well the vernacular translations of the NO turned out).
28. GCC Catholic says:

    28 June 2007 at 11:57 AM

    Jonathan,

    That is very true. The “Missal of Bl. John XXIII” implies being the Missal that he promulgated in 1962 with St. Joseph being placed into the Canon. Nothing more, nothing less; no vernacular, no turned altars, no alternate lectionaries, no prayer of the faithful, etc.

    To add in any of those things would be to lose the support of many on both sides and to perpetuate the FUD that we so often get from the ultra-traditionalists as well as from the ultra-progressives.
29. Syriacus says:

    28 June 2007 at 11:57 AM

    GREAT: Italian Excellencies-owned Sat2000TV 19:40 news edition just said: “The Vatican announced that it will published in the next days the Motu Proprio about the celebration of the Missal Promulgated by John XXIII in 1962” . Nothing more.

    By the way: it would seem that several media received some ‘phone call’ from Oltretevere this afternoon. From the ‘triumphalistic’ tone “Latin is back” around noon, the news was absolutely downplayed in the evening editions, during which Italians have dinner… The leftist TG3, which fairly reported the news in the 14:20 edition, didn’t bother to mention it already in the subsequent edition at 19:00 . Really , but really, suspect.
30. Le Renard says:

    28 June 2007 at 12:04 PM

    “Catholics can expect reforms within days. Pope Benedict decrees that Catholic clergy may celebrate the Mass in English. The OLD MASS may be said in local languages, with the priest facing the congregation.”

    Normally I’d just chalk this up to a Protestant who doesn’t know any more about the Mass than he does proverbial rocket science. But a few months ago I did read a “rumor” that the MP was going to allow the ‘62 Missal to be celebrated in the vernacular. I only read it once, but God forbid…

    Does anybody here actually know Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, or read his works???

    If anything, he’s a staunch proponent of Latin in the Church as well as versus orientem.

    In fact, he was the one who advocated Latin to be used in the Novus Ordo Missae (as made even evident in his Apostolic Exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis):

    ”But a stronger presence of some elements of Latin would be helpful to give the universal dimension, to give the possibilities that in all the parts of the world we can see “I am in the same Church.”
31. Le Renard says:

    28 June 2007 at 12:13 PM

    Just to be clear, the quote above came directly from Cardinal Ratzinger in a past Interview.
32. Henry Edwards says:

    28 June 2007 at 12:21 PM

    Jon: But error has winged feet, and I could well imagine Mom & Pop newspapers running with it to the confusion of Mom & Pop’s everywhere.

    And of course you also know — but some of the youngsters here may not — that this is precisely how almost every regretable innovation that’s now falsely associated with the Vatican II council snuck into the liturgy. The vernacular, versus populum, gutting of churches and removal of alter rails, reception while standing, in the hand, female altar boys, swarming EMHCs, everything. Which each was still illicit, false rumors of their legitimacy were planted in the mass (no pun) media and were believed not only by mom and pop but also by many priests and bishops who in those chaotic times frequently had little more access to authoritative information than did mom and pop, and in any event who (as Cardinal Ratzinger himself has explained it) had lost control of the liturgy to largely self-appointed committes of self-proclaimed “experts”. Only when by this process the previously illicit practices had become fait accompli did the Church cave in self-defense and legitimatize them retroactively.

    Le Renard: Does anybody here actually know Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, or read his works??? If anything, he’s a staunch proponent of Latin in the Church as well as versus orientem.

    And so this is precisely how so many unfortunate liturgical aberrations were wedged in, despite the the firm opposition of powerful figures in the Church (for instance, according to some accounts, extending up to Paul VI himself).
33. RC says:

    28 June 2007 at 12:23 PM

    One wire service report had some confused talk about Bl. John 23 having introduced the vernacular. That’s probably the source of Paul Harvey’s error.
34. I am not Spartacus says:

    28 June 2007 at 12:27 PM

    Henry. In the past, Our Sweet Jesus on Earth has said some things about the Immemorial Mass you’d think came from the pen of Fr. Richard McBrien.
35. Jon says:

    28 June 2007 at 12:30 PM

    Le Renard,

    To clarify what I believe, I have no doubt the MP is all about the 1962 Missal as it was in 1962. Mr. Harvey’s bafflement notwithstanding. I’ve read Cardinal Ratzinger’s works, at least those on liturgy. I know how he feels about the role of Latin in the Church. This vernacular “rumor” I read about months ago purported that the MP would contain a permission to celebrate the ’62 Missal in the vernacular as well as Latin to provide the people in the pews, who by my anecdotal experience fear Latin above all else in the old rite, a swift bridge to tradition.

    I only mentioned the Harvey story because it was out there on the airwaves. I believe the man was confused. Unfortunately I don’t remember the source where I read the vernacular “rumor,” but I do recall it was normally respectable. It was the only place I ever read it. I’ve never read, as Mr. Harvey reports, anything about celebration ad populum.

    Now, no more speculation on my part. I humbly and gratefully await the document. Deo gratias.
36. Different says:

    28 June 2007 at 1:47 PM

    What would be so bad if the MP included the option for a priest to use the 1962 missal translated into the vernacular?

    Wouldn’t such an option be a good way of introducing the post-Vatican II group to the Traditional Mass?
37. swmichigancatholic says:

    28 June 2007 at 6:41 PM

    So who exactly would do that translation, Different?

    The oldies around here (like me) all remember “a translation” in the pages of some missal from some publishing house about 1962, but which version would we take?

    No. It would be an unofficial translation if we did that. It’s not that all that simple. We’ve had our fill of ad hoc translations–that is precisely the point of doing Latin. We have to fix this shambles the liturgy is in.
38. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf says:

    28 June 2007 at 7:26 PM

    swmichigan: Interesting points. I will post another entry about this.

Comments are closed.