Motu Proprio guess: 2 June (tommorow)

Here is an article suggesting that the Motu Proprio to derestrict the older form of Mass may be issued,… ehem… tomorrow Saturday 2 June.

Frankly I don’t believe it.  With my luck it will actually be Monday when I am on an airplane.

Still, FWIW, yesterday evening I was out with someone VERY well-informed who offered on his own initiative that the document is "signed".  My emphases and comments.

Thus we come to the piece in the Telegraph.

A senior figure in the Vatican, a monsignor close to the Pope, has been told that the long-awaited motu proprio lifting restrictions on the Tridentine Latin Mass will be issued tomorrow.

The Latin Mass
A profound and numinous experience

I’ve cried wolf on this subject before, so don’t bet on it – but the announcement seems imminent, and traditionalists MUST be ready to react the second the document appears.

For, make no mistake about it, liberal European bishops – including English ones – already have a strategy in place to smother the Pope’s ruling. My guess is that the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales will try to claim that the motu proprio won’t make much difference in practice, that there already lots of Old Masses celebrated, that there’s not much demand for any more, etc etc.

Be very suspicious. If this ruling is just a minor adjustment, why have the ageing trendies in the Church fought tooth and nail to try to stop Pope Benedict issuing the document? [Exactly!]

We don’t know the contents of the motu proprio, but it is expected to curb the power of local bishops to restrict [Which would make it historic, in a sense.  It would be a document that favors priests rather than bishops.] the celebration of the Tridentine Rite, in which the priest celebrates Mass facing in the same direction as the congregation – eastwards, towards a symbolic Jerusalem.

To my mind, this Mass, in which the celebrant says the Latin words of the canon sotto voce – the “blessed mutter” – is one of the most profound and numinous experiences in the history of worship, [Very well put.]  so different from the game-show mateyness of modern services.

I hope the media will grasp the magnitude of the cultural shift signified by Benedict’s decision to restore parity to the Old Rite, and will put the Bishops of England and Wales (and those of America and Europe) on the spot.

The motu proprio may contain an opt-out clause which allows a local bishop to refuse to grant permission for the Old Rite, sending the decision to Rome (which will grant it in most cases).  [Cunctando regitur mundus.  Gosh!  How popular will that move make a bishop?]

If [IF] this clause exists, each bishop must be asked: will you be one of those invoking it, and therefore forcing traditional Catholics to go through some sort of appeals process?  [RIGHT!  "Which list do you want to on, Your Excellency?"]

Once the ruling is out, I’d like to see a detailed response from every bishop in this country, so we can work out which dioceses are prepared to enter into the spirit of Pope Benedict’s reform – and, equally, which ones will surreptitiously try to ignore it.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

100 Responses to Motu Proprio guess: 2 June (tommorow)

  1. danphunter1 says:

    Father,
    There are quite literally going to be dozens of bishops who “opt out”,of giving permission for the Tridentine mass.I know of at least 5 who have declared that they cannot stand the Classical Rite.
    And if there is,God forbid, an opt out clause, what is the difference between what we had before and what is now?
    Bishops say no now, they will say no then.If they do not stand up to pro-death pols and people,they will most assuredly continue to disobey the previous Holy Father and His present Holiness.
    Hope to the Lord Almighty there is no such thing as an “opt out” clause.
    Many bishops have decided to “opt out”,of obedience.
    God bless

  2. zathar says:

    Dan,

    If the opt-out clause is such that the TM has to be allowed UNTIL the Vatican approves the opt-out (which it won’t), then it shouldn’t be too big of a deal. Actually, it then appears to give the bishop power over the TM, but in reality, it won’t.

  3. arch167 says:

    It also puts the burden on the Bishop to justify WHY he cannot allow it. I would guess most Bishops would not want to go down that road.

  4. arieh0310 says:

    I vote for June 4. That is my birthday, and the MP is the only present I have been asking God for.

  5. I’ll believe it when I see it.

    And when I do see it, I’ll believe the results when I see those.

    But if the proponents are correct in what it will accomplish, I’d be well-pleased.

  6. Credo says:

    I think most bishops would have no problem going down the road of blocking and explaining why the old mass is no good anymore. Let’s pray for them.
    It is interesting to note that in Paul VI promulgation of the NO he praised the Old Rite as one of the great fruits of the Council of Trent… hmm. Maybe it was a political move, but for those who hang on every word he and popes since have written, it seems that the anti-trads should praise the old mass.

  7. Maureen says:

    Time for a little sotto voce practicing of my new song “Deo gratias America”.

    If it doesn’t come, I’m ready for a little more waiting. The more “cunctando”, the more the “mundus” seems to squirm. Which really rules. :)

  8. Luca says:

    Father, have you seen a recently published book written by a certain Grilli, from Sant’Anselmo Institute, in defense of the Liturgical Reform and who claims against “certain prelates” which are pro Old Rite?

  9. Londiniensis says:

    A rather delicious Glen Grant 1969 (still) stands on my sideboard ready to be opened – a good aged single malt beats Champagne any day (even the Widow)! Mind you, the weather here at the moment is more brolly than Bolly.

    And your 26th March post on correct Rules of Engagement, together with the recent John Allen article, should arm us against any triumphalist braying by the roaring boys and also serve to temper any impure thoughts within our own exasperated hearts.

  10. Nicholas says:

    Well… that is one of the only times I have seen anything remotely good written in an English newspaper on Religion, or anything else for that matter.

    All we can do is pray.

  11. Marko says:

    I’m a bit afraid of what’s been said in the rumours of the last few weeks: that the bishops could have an opt-out. Then, for example here in Finland, nothing would change, really. There is no priest here who would fight against the Bishop, at least not in this issue. And I suppose, no one would be interested to come from abroad, at least not any more often than now (which is about once in two years), if one couldn’t celebrate publicly. So then, I would feel a bit “fooled”. And probably not alone, since Cardinal Castrillon in his famous speech did mention Scandinavia: maybe there would be some other disappointed people up here in the North, after all?

    Still hoping and praying for the best, optimistically.

    Sancte Gregorii, ora pro nobis!

  12. Deborah says:

    I really hope there is no opt-out choice – that would be painful to read. Afterall, what on earth would a valid reason be for opt-out? It would be fun to make up a top ten list of opt-out reasons we’ll see spring forth from the anti-Classical rite groups.

  13. schoolman says:

    I don’t think many Bishops will dare to “opt-out” for fear of the consequences. For example, if they allow the TLM then they retain full jurisdiction over such Masses in their diocese. On the other hand, if they “opt-out” then they possibly open up the way for another entity with jurisdiction (e.g., under Ecclesia Dei) to provide for the needs of the faithful. Consider how the GSI was forced upon Cardinal Ricard.

  14. caleb1x says:

    An “opt-out” provision means that the traditional Mass will be prohibited in some places “for good reasons.” Here’s an example. I lived in a diocese where a priest requested to say the Tridentine Mass. The bishop refused permission, citing the possibility of the people’s confusing the diocesan priest’s Mass with the Mass of an independent who priest came to town once a month to say the traditional Mass. Never mind that the independent priest held his Mass in an office building and that the diocesan priest, of course, was well-known to everyone and had his parish church. The bishop thought the people would be confused about licitness. Well, I think this same bishop will take full advantage of an opt-out clause on these same grounds. And he will successfully forbid his priests to say the traditional Latin Mass.

  15. Brian Day says:

    …in which the priest celebrates Mass facing in the same direction as the congregation – eastwards, towards a symbolic Jerusalem…

    Also, give props to the reporter for not invoking the “priest with his back to the people” nonsense.

  16. Nick says:

    First of all I have to ask what “Cunctando regitur mundus” means (it was in Fr Z’s commentary).

    If the MP is issued tomorrow I probably wont sleep that night, I will stay up all night in prayer and literal tears of joy.

    As for the “opt-out” issue, the fact is an opt out clause would effectively undermine the whole MP rendering it WEAKER than the previous MP TLM indult which already could only be celebrated with the Bishop’s approval. The Pope is not that dumb. As for the “appeal to Rome” reference, that sounds very interesting, it will effectively expose all Bishops for who they really are, friend or poor confused foe.

  17. caleb1x says:

    cunctando regitur mundus = by hesitation is the world reigned

  18. Brian says:

    Comment by caleb1x: “I think this same bishop will take full advantage of an opt-out clause on these same grounds. And he will successfully forbid his priests to say the traditional Latin Mass.”

    Until it is appealed to Rome. Then they’ll step in and create a GSI, ICK, or other traditional rite community outside of that bishop’s control.

    Or so we hope!

  19. Nicholas says:

    The problem with that, especially with the institute is that they simply don’t have enough Priests to staff as many parishes as Bishops are PRESENTLY requesting of them.

    The Ordinations of the Institute of 12/14 priests at once are still a few years away yet.

  20. Eric G. says:

    Don’t get your hopes up, folks.

    This will do to the Tridentine Mass what we already have with altar servers.

    Every priest is allowed to decide for himself whether he will allow altar girls at his Mass IN THEORY, but in practice the vast majority of priests will not ban broads at the altar for fear of being ostracized by his parishioners and/or because the bishop would punish him if he did — put him in “nursing home ministry”.

    That’s exactly what will happen here with the motu proprio. Bishops will have to let priests say the True Mass, but the Modernist bishops will retaliate by denying priests with this to propensity pastorships to the parishes, and otherwise he will exile pastors and others with this predliction to the nursing homes, prisons, hospitals, and other centers of “ministry” where they shuffle perverts and other “unwanteds”.

    The Holy Father needs to gird his loins and start deposing bishops. Yes, gang; he really has this right . . . and duty!

  21. zathar says:

    Eric,

    Not necessarily. If the MP states that the parish MUST provide a TM for 30 people or more who request it, then the pastor or parochial vicar will HAVE to say the TM by law (or find someone else to come to the parish). Either way, if it is only 30 people who are necessary to demand the TM, we’ll be seeing it at most parishes.

  22. Eric G.,

    The “True Mass”????????

    Um, a Catholic in good standing accepts the Novus Ordo as valid, as true. Now, maybe you didn’t mean to imply that the Novus Ordo is invalid, but by using such a phrase as “True Mass,” you open yourself up to being interpreted this way.

  23. Dana Cole says:

    A year ago I moved to St. Louis, MO, solely for the Latin Mass celebrated by the Institute of Christ the King. Archbishop Burke gave them a parish plant with magnificent church (St. Francis de Sales) and school buildings for minor seminary studies. When I read comments by those who don’t have access to the classic Roman liturgy, or who suffer a minimal version of it, I feel so fortunate. We have one or two Masses each weekday and two on Sunday. The solemn high Mass always has about 8-12 servers in addition to the deacons, and they are so reverent. We have Holy Hour every Thursday night. Last night 8-10 servers were in the sanctuary–young men,all of them with their eyes riveted on Christ exposed in the monstrance. Those of you who can, move to St. Louis!

  24. Janet says:

    Eric,
    I may be looking forward to the eventual treat of attending my first Latin Mass, BUT… I still find the N.O. Mass to be filled with great blessings. ANY mass that brings me the body and blood of Christ is beautiful! You might consider that what one gets out of Mass is dependent on what one is willing to put into it.

    And another point: the term “broad” is generally considered demeaning even to us ‘non-feminist’ women. Show a little respect, ok? :-)

  25. ThomasMore1535 says:

    I should let everyone know here that Eric G. has in previous posts said that he actively prays for the demise of the Holy Father. He has already been banned over at Closed Cafeteria. He has uttered things about the Holy Father that are quite vulger, to put it mildly. I say this just to warn everyone.

  26. caleb1x says:

    Comment by Janet: You might consider that what one gets out of Mass is dependent on what one is willing to put into it.

    Ever been to the Life Teen Mass? If so, you might have a context for re-thinking this comment. The Mass staged by that organization is insufferable.

  27. Ian says:

    Here in Colorado it will probably make little difference. There is an FSP in Denver and Colorado Springs. The parish in the Springs recently held a funeral where for an hour all you could hear was father whispering. There was no music and the pastor doesn’t like anything but chant and that rarely.

    For this reason, I doubt that the regular fair of borderline heretical music and careless celebration will change in the rest of the parishes.

  28. I think the Motu Proprio will be coming out this coming week, around Corpus Christi.
    Also, I truely think that there will be no “opt out” clause. The confusion and ill will it would cause will make the situation and hatreds between liberals vs. traditionalists much worse. Does the Pope which to throw more fuel on a fire. I don’t think so.
    The liberals will try to down play it , but won’t be able too, because the publicity of all this, and the growing popularity of the Tridentine Latin Mass will make them look like idiots.

    ON an aside (I’m surprised it wasn’t mentioned here), does everyone know that Archbishop Miller of the Sac. Congregation for Catholic Education was sacked today, and made coadjutor of Vancouver,BC, Canada?
    I say sacked, because I read somewhere that any time an Archbishop or Bishop who has served in the Vatican Curia, the highest position that they all strive for, to be transferred out to another positing is a demotion regardless of what others say. It’s a demotion.
    Now I wish Levada would get the boot (it’s been rumored He’s next)

  29. Andrew says:

    Folks:

    Many commentators here simply assume that the Bishops are the bad guys who will resist this wonderful provision. Is that true? I don’t know. Some might be opposed, some might be indifferent, some might be confused, afraid, concerned, whatever. But this is not about “Bishops vs the Pope”. There is another way to look at this – the main point is not to force bishops who would be opposed to this, to accept it, (that too) but more importantly, to provide a tool to those who are willing and ready to support this in good faith so that things can slowly begin to happen in a peaceful and orderly way. Will the average vernacular guitar playing parish switch overnight? No. But those catholics who are ready and willing to embrace the ancient rite will no longer be second class citizens in the Church. That is enough to open doors and to start changing the present climate. FSSP and similar clergy can move in and start things without a hindrance. I think there is room for optimism. But the stuff one reads here worries me. Some of you might be making things worse the way you talk. Gotta use a little diplomacy, no?

  30. caleb1x says:

    Comment by Andrew: Gotta use a little diplomacy, no?

    How do you use diplomacy with someone who’s invested in a 500 watt sound system and video screens? Will a silent Canon of the Mass be welcome there? In some respects, there are irreconcilables. It’s often a conflict of weltanschauungs, not simply an matter of accidentals.

  31. Augustine says:

    Father Z.,

    I hope your new Web hosting service is ready for this – if it comes tomorrow, this blog is gonna be busy!

  32. Credula vitam spes fovet et melius cras fore semper dicit

  33. Nick says:

    Andrew, it is about the Bishops vs the Pope. The MP by JPII almost 20 years ago allowed the TLM at the “mere” authorization of the local Bishop. But the fact is few Bishops allowed it, or when they did, they allowed it in one location at 7am Sunday in the sparsely populated industrial area on the outskirts of the city. I understand the Bishops have a tough job, but there is no excuse for them to put such restrictions, and it is very telling when they will go at lengths to forbid something that not only has nothing wrong, but to turn around and not enforce reverent NOMs. And look who gets hurt in all this, the ones who care the most about mass, they have no where to turn for just an hour of reverence on Sunday.

  34. Nick says:

    Andrew, it is about the Bishops vs the Pope. The MP by JPII almost 20 years ago allowed the TLM at the “mere” authorization of the local Bishop. But the fact is few Bishops allowed it, or when they did, they allowed it in one location at 7am Sunday in the sparsely populated industrial area on the outskirts of the city. I understand the Bishops have a tough job, but there is no excuse for them to put such restrictions, and it is very telling when they will go at lengths to forbid something that not only has nothing wrong, but to turn around and not enforce reverent NOMs. And look who gets hurt in all this, the ones who care the most about mass, they have no where to turn for just an hour of reverence on Sunday.

  35. Father Bartoloma says:

    Here we go again!

  36. Stu says:

    The Motu Proprio Bandwagon is running on all cylinders! All welcome to jump aboard. :)

  37. JPG says:

    Alright I will throw the next log on the fire. What is needed is a return to the old Kalender and a complete refabrication of the current Liturgy in keeping with an organic development from the old rite as intended by the Council ie one in the vernacular, being a translation of the Old Rite; following the order of the old rite. I know BXVI was against such an idea lest it lead to confusion of the faithful,but no more so than the endless variations and improvisations and telephone book English to which we have been subjected for thelast forty years. (first thing to go would be the Prayer of the Faithful, put the liberal wonks out of a job or better yet replace it with a litany).
    JPG

  38. swmichigancatholic says:

    Andrew,

    Nick is right. It -is- about the bishops generally not wanting to obey what comes from Rome. Your guess is as good as mine on why, and Fr. Z probably doesn’t want to hear a big discussion on that, right Fr? Anyway, the trick will be to make it so it causes them no end of trouble–an embarrassing amount of trouble which might possibly risk making them look like restrictive ogres who want to stifle people–by restricting choice, beauty, meaning, speech, etc. (and not the other way round which is how -some of them- would like to present it.)

    I would suggest that this acceptance of the classical mass issue might be a pretty easy matter if enough people say the right things over and over. To wit, this is about religion & worship, but it’s also about respect for history and identity. It can be placed in a context that can be understood by anyone in the contemporary West by positioning it as an issue of choice, ie legitimate diversity. There’s a huge element of truth to this approach, as well, because of the nature of the situation (coercion, restriction of speech & behavior after V2, unspoken taboos everywhere, etc).

    And when the classical mass starts to become available, compliments should definitely go to the bishop who presides over this ability to chose in a graceful fashion. It should come off such that the message is “your respect for us gets credit, so you get the credit,” but restrictions are restrictions of choice, period. Thus, what he does should be his own choice which the laity will not deprive -him- of.

    So-called “conservative” and “liberal” probably aren’t very useful in comparison to this sort of choice approach, which is better on the pedestrian level.

    And so the argument goes: We should be happy with Catholicism’s beauty and peacefulness. We should be happy with Catholicism’s distinctiveness & variety, & it should make us happier Catholics. We should be happy to show everybody our parishes because we have so much that is wonderful. How could our happiness be objectionable if the bishop is a nice, fair man? (which is what some of them may want to be a whole lot if current indicators are any guide.)

    It’s only a starting place. But maybe it will get us jump-started on healing the huge gaping wound around the liturgy.

  39. RBrown says:

    To those who seem to think that the putative opt-out clause would allow bishops to stop use of the 1962 Missal:

    It is not likely that any bishop would want this matter taken to Rome, especially considering that he would be in opposition to the pope. For any bishop wanting promotion, it would be a career-killer. And most of those bishops with no prospect of promotion usually want no trouble.

  40. RBrown says:

    An “opt-out” provision means that the traditional Mass will be prohibited in some places “for good reasons.” Here’s an example. I lived in a diocese where a priest requested to say the Tridentine Mass. The bishop refused permission, citing the possibility of the people’s confusing the diocesan priest’s Mass with the Mass of an independent who priest came to town once a month to say the traditional Mass. Never mind that the independent priest held his Mass in an office building and that the diocesan priest, of course, was well-known to everyone and had his parish church. The bishop thought the people would be confused about licitness. Well, I think this same bishop will take full advantage of an opt-out clause on these same grounds. And he will successfully forbid his priests to say the traditional Latin Mass.
    Comment by caleb1x

    You miss the point. If the opt out clause is as expected, then the bishop would have no say–the priest wouldn’t have to get permission from the bishop. But the bishop would have to get permission from Rome to forbid it.

  41. RBrown says:

    Nick is right. It is about the bishops generally not wanting to obey what comes from Rome. Your guess is as good as mine on why,

    Comment by swmichigancatholic

    The answer is easy: 35-40 years ago Rome opted for vernacular liturgy, which was, de facto if not de iure, little else than turning over to bishops the authority over liturgy.

    Now it appears that Rome will begin to pull back some of that authority.

  42. swmichigancatholic says:

    Maybe, RBrown. But some of them still might nurture the hope that a progressive will get elected next and their ship might come in. Make no mistake, certain prelates were deep-sixed by their actions during the reign of PJP2, plus their age, and the subsequent election of BXVI. Maybe certain prelates will get the point of these recent lessons, current trends, or not. Hard to tell. Some of them are pretty hard cases.

  43. B Knotts says:

    I don’t understand the logic of an “opt-out” clause. Either the Missal of St. Pius V is or is not abrogated. If it is not (and has never actually been, or even could be, as the motu proprio allegedly says, and the Holy Father clearly believes), then how could the motu proprio allow a bishop to “opt-out” from allowing something that is legal?

  44. RBrown says:

    Maybe, RBrown. But some of them still might nurture the hope that a progressive will get elected next and their ship might come in. Make no mistake, certain prelates were deep-sixed by their actions during the reign of PJP2, plus their age, and the subsequent election of BXVI. Maybe certain prelates will get the point of these recent lessons, current trends, or not. Hard to tell. Some of them are pretty hard cases.

    There might be a few hard cases, but almost none in the US. Despite all the nonsense about American independence, the American bishops will follow like puppy dogs.

    Germany will be interesting because the bishops will be in an almost impossible situation. If they oppose the pope, they oppose the #1 German in the world–and this is inimical to Germany pride. Make no mistake about it: Believer or not, liberal or not, Germany is popping its buttons over this German pope.

  45. swmichigancatholic says:

    …..The bishop thought the people would be confused about licitness. Well, I think this same bishop will take full advantage of an opt-out clause on these same grounds……

    This is an insult coming from a bishop. To think that the laity is to be restricted from what is their legitimate right as ruled by the Holy See, because there is some chance someone might make a stupid mistake, is an injury accompanied by a gross insult. I submit to you that the laity are not the dummies we’re often made out to be. Name-calling & deprivation of his charges doesn’t befit a bishop.

  46. swmichigancatholic says:

    RBrown,

    I don’t want to use names, but there are some in the US who are not puppy dogs. Some are deeply committed to dissent & already have committed themselves to a political record, and some are compromised in other ways.

    The move to watch for will be the concerted ploy through the USCCB to move as a bloc, led by the movers & shakers of this in-group–if they still have enough clout. This is how all the on-paper liturgical “exceptions” happen in the US. They petition as a group because some individual bishops have been pushed on the notion of their autonomy to some extent, even if they have not lost it theologically, of course. There is a bit of wrangling that goes on in the USCCB to keep members in line. If petition happens as a group, things could become more difficult, but not impossible.

    Perhaps the Holy See will dictate that if there is an opt-out clause it has to come from individual bishops? That would be a winner. ;) Get em coming & going.

  47. Cody says:

    It’s 7:15 in Rome, right? What’s he waiting on? ;-)

  48. Irulats says:

    To: Eric G.

    You are in my prayers.

  49. RBrown,

    Are you asserting that the turn to the vernacular (and the responsibility of the bishops for translation) is chiefly responsible for the liturgical mess over the last 35-40 years? With all due respect to the noble efforts of Father Z, the liturgical issues of the Latin Church cannot be entirely ascribed to faulty translations.

    As I have said before, I personally hope the Tridentine Mass is permitted in the (1962) vernacular (or at least a mix of English and Latin), as this will also help ensure its widest usage.

    In ICXC,

    Gordo

  50. RBrown says:

    I don’t want to use names, but there are some in the US who are not puppy dogs. Some are deeply committed to dissent & already have committed themselves to a political record, and some are compromised in other ways.

    So?

    The move to watch for will be the concerted ploy through the USCCB to move as a bloc, led by the movers & shakers of this in-group—if they still have enough clout. This is how all the on-paper liturgical “exceptions” happen in the US. They petition as a group because some individual bishops have been pushed on the notion of their autonomy to some extent, even if they have not lost it theologically, of course. There is a bit of wrangling that goes on in the USCCB to keep members in line. If petition happens as a group, things could become more difficult, but not impossible.
    Comment by swmichigancatholic

    Disagree. The Germans already tried the petition strategy. The strategy by individual bishops (and their personnel boards) would be see that any priest wanting to use the 1962 Missal would not get good assignments.

    Perhaps the Holy See will dictate that if there is an opt-out clause it has to come from individual bishops? That would be a winner. ;) Get em coming & going.

    The putative opt-out clause would seem to be only a matter for an individual bishop, but the bishop would be powerless until Rome (read: Ecc Dei Commission) decided in his favor (and against BXVI).

  51. RBrown says:

    RBrown,

    Are you asserting that the turn to the vernacular (and the responsibility of the bishops for translation) is chiefly responsible for the liturgical mess over the last 35-40 years? With all due respect to the noble efforts of Father Z, the liturgical issues of the Latin Church cannot be entirely ascribed to faulty translations.

    Yes, the main problem is the vernacular. I recommend that you read JXXIII’s Veterum Sapientia.

    And no, it’s not merely a matter of bad translations.

    As I have said before, I personally hope the Tridentine Mass is permitted in the (1962) vernacular (or at least a mix of English and Latin), as this will also help ensure its widest usage.
    Comment by Gordo the Byzantine

    I don’t think that will happen. But I do think that BXVI wants to make certain adjustments to the Novus Ordo that will bring it closer to the 1962 Missal, among which are junking versus populum and ultimately putting the canon in Latin.

  52. On the “opt out clause.”

    The Holy Father wants to preside over a Church in which the truth and discipline are a matter of consensus, not one in which fiats result in de fact (or de jure) schism. That should be obvious from the concern obvious for SSPX aspects of the motu proprio in comments by curial cardinals.

    To issue a document running roughshod over the rights of the ordinary as the one responsible for liturgy in his diocese would be totally unlike the Cardinal Ratzinger we all know.

    I heard an American cardinal, who is totally favorable to both the old liturgy and the Reform of the Reform, remark that he was opposed to any move that would abridge the ordinary’s rights in this matter. I cannot image a motu without at least a jesture in the direction of the ordinary’s role as the primary overseer of liturgy.

    Those who have commented above are right, if the opt-out requires that the bishop petition Rome to forbid the old rite very few will bother. That one or two bishops try (and probably get turned down) is the price one pays for a liberalization of the old rite.

    Ultimately this is all in the Lord’s hands.

  53. Andrew says:

    Gordo:

    “As I have said before, I personally hope the Tridentine Mass is permitted in the (1962) vernacular …”

    You are not alone in this, but you fail to see the significance of Latin which can never be and should never be put on par with the vernacular. There are just way too many reasons for that – so many, in fact, it’s not even worth going into.

  54. RBrown says:

    To issue a document running roughshod over the rights of the ordinary as the one responsible for liturgy in his diocese would be totally unlike the Cardinal Ratzinger we all know.

    I heard an American cardinal, who is totally favorable to both the old liturgy and the Reform of the Reform, remark that he was opposed to any move that would abridge the ordinary’s rights in this matter. I cannot image a motu without at least a jesture in the direction of the ordinary’s role as the primary overseer of liturgy.
    Comment by Fr. Augustine Thompson O.P.

    If an ordinary (Cardinal or no) would hold that position, wouldn’t it follow that he would be actively opposed to a Bishops’ committee on the liturgy because it would abridge his rights? (My guess is that he is not.) Why should Bishop Trautman have any authority over the liturgy in said Cardinal’s diocese? Or, for that matter, in Lincoln?

    Of course, this touches on JRatzinger’s well known thesis that the Bishops’ conferences undermine the authority of the ordinary.

    And we can extend the theme. Assuming the reports of 20 years ago are correct, why should the German and French bishops have been permitted to exercise authority over liturgy in other countries?

  55. Gordo: With all due respect to the noble efforts of Father Z, the liturgical issues of the Latin Church cannot be entirely ascribed to faulty translations.

    I have NEVER NEVER written or said anywhere at any time that “the liturgical issues of the Latin Church cannot be entirely ascribed to faulty translations.”

    To be clear: NEVER have I said such a thing!

    This is a total misrepresentation which requires correction. I will not have it be on the internet that I made such a claim.

  56. No one has seen the putative MP, but there is talk about a supposed opt-out clause. If such a clause exists, one hopes it will be framed in such a manner that if a Bishop desires to opt out, his decision will only be effective upon review and confirmation. Id est the process will go like this:

    Priest: Excellency, I intend to offer the Mass according to the 1962 Miss Rom.
    Excellency: No, I am informing Rome we will opt out, you may *not*…unless Rome disagrees with me…it should take about 3-5 years to hear from them (soto voce) hehehehehe.
    Priest: Excellency, if you note the MP, I may *so* offer *without* your permission, I *must* notify you, however, and that I have just done.
    Excellency: !?
    Priest: Furthemore, until Rome responds positively to your petition to opt out – that is, agreeing with you that sufficient grounds do exist to opt out – I so may offer said Mass.
    Excellency: (weeping)
    Priest: Excellency you were saying something about 3-5 years?

    It would also be helpful if Rome makes clear what are sufficient reasons and what, prima facie, are *not*.

  57. RBrown,

    I’ve read Veterum Sapientia. I’m still not catching the connection between the deconstruction of Western liturgy and the use of the vernacular.

    My issue is with those who would hijack what really is an opportunity to restore the universal sensibilities of Catholic orthodoxy and instead see it as a means to restore Latin to worship. One wonders at times from posters on others sites (not here, really) if Latin is the object of worship, and not the Holy Trinity! To my mind, the loss of Latin constituted more of a symbolic – rather than substantive – change in Roman Catholic worship. It makes sense that some would see it as substantive change, since the progressives who hijacked RC worship attempted to make it thus. It became their symbol of a movement away from Holy Tradition. But why should the purveyors of liturgical inanity define this for us?

    To my mind it is equally important neither to overstate the value of Latin (it is not a silver bullet) nor to understate its value either ecclesiastically or liturgically (it certainly has a place in Western liturgy equal to the vernacular). My sense is that insistence upon the exclusive use of Latin in the celebration of the Tridentine Mass will virtually guarantee that it will not be as widely used as it could be with the allowance of the vernacular. Some will see this as a good thing, I certainly do NOT share that opinion.

    I believe that this topic will come up in spades once the MP is promulgated. I hear it from time to time when people say “They are bringing the Latin Mass back?” (meaning the language, primarily) Apart from the fact that Latin in the Mass never left the Latin rite (as evidenced by the great legacy of Father Schuler and St. Agnes – Eternal memory!), I think one should consider that the MP does not represent a restoration of language, but rather a restoration of rite and of orthodoxy to Latin Catholic sensibilities.

    A short anecdote:

    Here’s a little section of Veterum Sapientia that I recall hearing my father (who was at one time an instructor in Latin) discuss years ago:

    Sacred sciences to be taught in Latin

    5. In accordance with numerous previous instructions, the major sacred sciences shall be taught in Latin, which, as we know from many centuries of use, “must be considered most suitable for explaining with the utmost facility and clarity the most difficult and profound ideas and concepts.”16 For apart from the fact that it has long since been enriched with a vocabulary of appropriate and unequivocal terms, best calculated to safeguard the integrity of the Catholic faith, it also serves in no slight measure to prune away useless verbiage.

    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. Any difficulties that may be advanced by students or professors must be overcome by the patient insistence of the bishops or religious superiors, and the good will of the professors.

    As it turns out, his seminary at the time was ordered to begin teaching all classes in Latin. Professors and students struggled, flailed and failed their way from one class to the next. It was an unmitigated disaster! One of my dad’s seminary buddies pointed out that this would never last. The reason? The decree posted around the seminary had to be translated into the vernacular!

    Gordo, who is a great fan of the saintly brothers from Thessaloniki, Cyril and Methodius, and their missionary philosophy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_Cyril_and_Methodius

  58. Father Z,

    Please forgive the misunderstanding here. My point was to say that, “with all due respect to your hard work of ensuring a proper translation of the Ordo of Paul VI…”

    Not to say that you held to the notion that one should chalk up all of the issues to bad translations.

    I hope I have clarified the intent of my statement and apologize for not being clear the first time!

    In ICXC,

    Gordo

  59. Maynardus says:

    Fr. Augustine identifies the essential issue regarding the putative opt-out clause: how are the rights of the priests and faithful to the 1962 Missal to be reconciled with the legitimate rights of diocesan bishops with regard to the liturgy in their dioceses?

    Certainly B16 intends to right a longstanding wrong with his m.p. but hard cases make bad law. More than any other question related to the m.p. I believe that this one is the sticking point which has delayed its promulgation. When it finally comes out there will certainly be some provision which is at least minimally acceptable to the bishops…

  60. Brian says:

    Comment by Maynardus: “how are the rights of the priests and faithful to the 1962 Missal to be reconciled with the legitimate rights of diocesan bishops with regard to the liturgy in their dioceses?”

    What right does a bishop have to disobey clear directives from a Pope? What right does the bishop have to refuse petitions for a TLM, many times, over many years, given the language of the 1988 indult?

    Bishops rights? They should only have the right to remain silent — when it comes to trying to suppress the TLM, in disobedience to Ecclesia Dei and the upcoming Motu Proprio.

  61. Henry Edwards says:

    Andrew,

    Wow! You’ve packed a lot of insight into just a few sentences! But let me underline a few of your points.

    Many commentators here simply assume that the Bishops are the bad guys who will resist this wonderful provision.

    I doubt that many U.S. bishops will overtly resist the liberalization of the TLM. In the past, even well-intentioned bishops may have had reason for prudent inaction, which in practical effect amounted to opposition.

    There is another way to look at this – the main point is not to force bishops who would be opposed to this, to accept it, (that too) but more importantly, to provide a tool to those who are willing and ready to support this in good faith so that things can slowly begin to happen in a peaceful and orderly way.

    This is the key. To give bishops an inviting way to just “let it happen” in a non-disruptive way. In the future, even benign episcopal neglect may amount in practical effect to support of the TLM. Change of the burden of proof changes everything (in the Church as in court).

    Will the average vernacular guitar playing parish switch overnight? No.

    Obviously. In many cases, the bishop can do no more with a dysfunctional parish than the pope can do with a dysfunctional diocese. In either case, merely changing the pastor or bishop may not be enough. There will be some dioceses where the immediate change is major, others where it is minor. Most of us may see evolution rather than revolution. It may take years or decades rather than weeks or month.

    But those catholics who are ready and willing to embrace the ancient rite will no longer be second class citizens in the Church. That is enough to open doors and to start changing the present climate.

    This is by far the most important point for those of us actually working in our parishes and dioceses on the restoration of the TLM (rather than just talking and posting blog comments). Whether those doors are open makes all the difference when you try to walk through them.

  62. TJM says:

    This is a very interesting thread, but I’d like to throw my two cents in nonetheless. The bishops of the United States, aka the “steak and eggs” bishops are not going to risk ecclesiastical preferment and defy Benedict on this issue. The most they will do is to demand (which is their right and reasonable) that the priest who celebrates the Rite be competent to do so and if they’re really hostile they will probably only allow it at an inconvenient time on Sunday so the TLM will die a natural death (which would also occur to the “progressive” form of liturgy if it were so treated and instead the TLM were given the most convenient times). Alas, many clergy delude themselves into thinking that the “progressive” liturgy has been accepted by the nature of its content rather than the fact it has a monopoly on the best times on Sunday. Tom

  63. swmichigancatholic says:

    *I heard an American cardinal, who is totally favorable to both the old liturgy and the Reform of the Reform, remark that he was opposed to any move that would abridge the ordinary’s rights in this matter. I cannot image a motu without at least a jesture in the direction of the ordinary’s role as the primary overseer of liturgy.*

    That’s exactly what I was suggesting earlier as “getting them coming or going.” Individual bishops have a different kind of authority than the USCCB, especially in their own dioceses. I am suggesting that each bishop has the right and that he be expected to stand up and take some responsibility for the most important thing that he is charged with in his own respective diocese, namely the liturgy, from which all else flows.

    It’s currently set up by the movers & shakers of the USCCB so that neither proper behavior toward the statutes of Rome (for example, generous Ecclesia Dei provisions, use of Roman Missal norms as given) nor the use of individual bishops’ own full liturgical authority in their own name over their own dioceses (ala Bp. Bruskiewicz) is considered admissable.

    Individual bishops ought to be expected to work productively with the Holy See or individually be able to give the reason why they don’t. This hiding behind paperwork and bureaucracy has become excessive. It’s wrong on many levels, as pointed out by the Cardinal in Fr. Augustine’s quote above. It’s become a ideological power struggle rather than the administration of religion for the members of the Church and the goals of the Gospels. Either they should have to recognize their proper authority and act on it properly or they should take the responsibility for that, in a sentence.

    Asking that individual bishops petition for exceptions to the MP would require that either they accept it directly (contra USCCB expectations) or that they break ranks to petition (contra USCCB expectations).

    It’s interesting that in this way, the MP could function as not only a permission for the laity and priestly clergy, and as a cross-fertilization for a liturgical reform, but as a “power bloc-breaker” for the Holy See. This is really what the progressives ought to be screaming about, not the fact they might have to plug their oh-so-sensitive ears when they hear the slightly more occasional oh-so-hated Latin. The fact that they largely aren’t is a hugely amusing indicator of their abject horror of Latin, qua Latin. {This in an era where you are as likely to hear Mandarin as Swahili, Spanish or Thai in the neighborhood supermarket…heh}

    The other ludicrous thing is that the USCCB *could* be used for so much good instead of this incessant wrangling over things that should be so easy.

  64. swmichigancatholic says:

    “This is really what the progressives ought to be screaming about, not the fact they might have to plug their oh-so-sensitive ears when they hear the slightly more occasional oh-so-hated Latin.”

    Or perhaps they aren’t screaming loudly about it because perhaps even some of them are starting realize how bad it sounds *in public* for them to be the restrictors of religious liberty, bigots with respect to legitimate diversity, the censors of language and the suppressors of the rights of bishops, clergy and laity, which they have shown themselves to be in their policies and structures.

  65. So in a way, the Pope is fulfilling his Petrine vocation by “strengthening his bretheren”…even IN SPITE of themselves!

    To me, this is simply the right of the patriarchal head of a ritual church to define which rites are to be celebrated within his jurisdiction. It is not a matter of “bypassing” the Latin bishops who are under him.

    Gordo

  66. Father Bartoloma says:

    I am going to be very depressed if there is no Motu Proprio before the end of this month when the Vatican begins the usual summer shut-down.

  67. Liam Maher says:

    Just a thought here and I’d like to know what others think of this possibility….might the liberalization of the old missal lead to an eventual fusion of the two missals similar to what the Byzantine Church has with the Liturgy of St. John C. and the Liturgy of St. Basil?

    I can imagine the eventual required use of the old missal during Lent, on Rogation and Ember days and for the Roman feasts (St. John L., St. Peter in Chains) or on the feasts of Roman saints.

    Additionally, will the liberalization of the old missal now encourage altar missals to include both usages? Can we expect the USCCB to publish the old missal once again?

    Any comments – is it a pipe dream?

    Liam

  68. JPG says:

    It is 11:30 AM EDT 6/2/2007; any word?
    Also with regards to the jurisdiction of the local ordinary, the ultimate arbiter, legislator of all liturgical matters in the Latin Rite is the Bishop of Rome. Although an appeal to the Vatican by an individual priest may seem out of the tradition it makes eminant sense for such a provision. In this age of endless liturgical innovation what is neede is more Roman supervision not less.
    JPG
    Fairfield, CT

  69. JPG says:

    It is 11:30 AM EDT 6/2/2007; any word?
    Also with regards to the jurisdiction of the local ordinary, the ultimate arbiter, legislator of all liturgical matters in the Latin Rite is the Bishop of Rome. Although an appeal to the Vatican by an individual priest may seem out of the tradition it makes eminant sense for such a provision. In this age of endless liturgical innovation what is neede is more Roman supervision not less.
    JPG
    Fairfield, CT

  70. swmichigancatholic says:

    I’m not sure I will be, Fr. Bartoloma. I can get very impatient too, but I’m starting to see that the Pope is showing himself to be not only very holy, but also a very shrewd governor of the Church.

    We became accustomed to another administrative pattern before PBXVI which we still are acting upon sadly. This pope is different; his mode of thinking and operation is different. It’s time for us to behave differently re our hopes, too.

    I think some form of relief will be coming, probably in the form of this MP, when the time is right. First, the realization of what the past has meant has to dawn across a few sectors of the church, and then……

    We have more legitimate orthodox liberty within the Church than we have ever imagined, Fr. It is becoming apparent. Meantime, there are many things we can do which have heretofore been closed to us because of the restrictive politics of the last 40 odd years. I’m going to a Gregorian Chant workshop in a week or so, a new thing in this diocese brought to us by a recently-founded local chapter of a religious order. The more people who go and learn, the more widespread the seed is cast. How about you?

  71. Liam,

    I’ve wondered the same thing, especially seeing that the Ordo of Paul VI will probably be seen as the Low Mass of the Weekday and the Tridentine Mass as the High Mass of Sunday and the Feasts. It would seem that one issue will be the combination of calendars and readings. Perhaps that will be the next step?

    It is too bad that this was not done from the beginning. (I know – a painfully obvious statement, but there you are.)

    Gordo

  72. Gordo ,your suggestion makes eminent sense.As for Rome shutting down in June,I would be concerned both for the motu proprio and that oft delayed Letter to the Chinese church.But to what extent does Rome shut down?Appointments are still made and as for important documents being released,if my memory serves me well Humanae Vitae was issued in 1968 in July.I believe I know why the MP is so delayed.The Vatican claims that the letter to theChinese has been delayed several times because of problems in translation.So I can surmise that the MP is delayed because it is being written in Mandarin.

  73. Geri says:

    “Ever been to the Life Teen Mass? If so, you might have a context for re-thinking this comment [that what one gets out of Mass is dependent on what one is willing to put into it.] The Mass staged by that organization is insufferable.”

    I have, to my great regret, been to a Life Teen Mass — but she is still correct.
    What one “puts into it” is certainly not the ONLY factor, but it is A factor, and what I “got” was the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; and the opportunity to suffer (albeit mildly,) for the opportunity to receive Him.
    Oh, and the chance to work on my charity as I resisted praying that the trap set and amps would burst into flames….

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

  74. Father Thompson, you’ll find the gesture “in the direction of the ordinary’s role as the primary overseer of liturgy” already contained in Sacramentum Caritatis, though some men focus on the rights of the Bishop (yawn) rather than his obligations (to the *Mystical Body of Christ*), so SC may have gone right over their heads. why? I mean, *why* do so many who purport to be so tolerant, and liberal, so progressive and open, so sweet and light see the Bishop as a locus of *power* rather than service? Two words: they are actually possessed of a *false humility.* If I hear one more priest or Bishop lecture me on the will of God whilst simultaneously violating the rubrics and order of the Mass I think I’ll hurl.

    see Sacramentum Caritatis section 23., focusing on “we need to stress once again that the connection between Holy Orders and the Eucharist is seen most clearly at Mass, when the Bishop or priest presides in the person of Christ the Head.” and “priests should be conscious of the fact that in their ministry they must never put themselves or their personal opinions in first place, but Jesus Christ. Any attempt to make themselves the centre of the liturgical action contradicts their very identity as priests. The priest is above all a servant of others,” and “seen particularly in his humility in leading the liturgical assembly, in obedience to the rite [comment: causing the priest / bishop to die to himself], uniting himself to it in mind and heart, and avoiding anything that might give the impression of an inordinate emphasis on his own personality. I encourage the clergy always to see their eucharistic ministry as a humble service offered to Christ and his Church. The priesthood, as Saint Augustine said, is amoris officium, (74) it is the office of the good shepherd, who offers his life for his sheep (cf. Jn 10:14-15).”

    Sections 34. “celebrated authentically” 35.”the liturgy is inherently linked to beauty” and “Beauty, then, is not mere decoration, but rather an essential element of the liturgical action, since it is an attribute of God himself and his revelation. These considerations should make us realize the care which is needed, if the liturgical action is to reflect its innate splendour.” 36.”The “subject” of the liturgy’s intrinsic beauty is Christ himself” 37.”Since the eucharistic liturgy is essentially an actio Dei which draws us into Christ through the Holy Spirit, its basic structure is not something within our power to change, nor can it be held hostage by the latest trends.” 38. “The primary way to foster the participation of the People of God in the sacred rite is the proper celebration of the rite itself. The ars celebrandi is the best way to ensure their actuosa participatio. (114) The ars celebrandi is the fruit of faithful adherence to the liturgical norms in all their richness” 39.”a correct ars celebrandi necessarily entails a specific responsibility on the part of those who have received the sacrament of Holy Orders. Bishops, priests, and deacons, each according to his proper rank, must consider the celebration of the liturgy as their principal duty” and “I would ask that every effort be made to ensure that the liturgies which the Bishop celebrates in his Cathedral are carried out with complete respect for the ars celebrandi, so that they can be considered an example for the entire Diocese”

    And so on…

    With *those thoughts* in mind, read Section II of SC again. I repeat, I am still amazed at how many Catholics speak about the rights and power of ordinaries rather than their duties and obligations. With all *that* in mind, the Holy Father said today, June 2nd, to the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, “whoever collaborates with the Successor of Peter, Supreme Shepherd of the Catholic Church, is called to do his best to be himself a true shepherd, ready, as Jesus the Good Shepherd, to give his life for his flock.” [thanks to Rorate Caeli for the translation from the Italian] Perhaps we should all re-read the sections I indicated, especially our beloved Bishops.

  75. Diane says:

    Maynardus says: Fr. Augustine identifies the essential issue regarding the putative opt-out clause: how are the rights of the priests and faithful to the 1962 Missal to be reconciled with the legitimate rights of diocesan bishops with regard to the liturgy in their dioceses?

    Perhaps the diocesan bishops should have reconciled with the wishes of Pope John Paul II when he called upon them to consent generously to the old Mass, rather than sparingly.

    As a whole, the bishops have had ample time and opportunity to humbly obey their shepherd. Now, Peter does what any good parent does when the kids don’t want to bother with something – he gives them a taste of their own medicine. In this case it will be the reverse when they – the bishops – have to petition Rome if they don’t want it in their diocese.

  76. Parochus says:

    Just for the record: apart from the Assumption holidays, or “ferragosto” (Aug. 14-16), the Roman Curia continues to function throughout July and August. The offices are not open on Tuesday and Friday evenings, but have longer morning/early afternoon sessions. However, many of the officials take their summer vacation during this time, as do the superiors, so there is notably slower pace of work (I know “slower” is hard to imagine), but the work goes on. As Fr. McAfee correctly noted, documents do come out in the summer, too.

  77. caleb1x says:

    What one “puts into it” is certainly not the ONLY factor, but it is A factor, and what I “got” was the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; and the opportunity to suffer (albeit mildly,) for the opportunity to receive Him.

    When it comes to Life Teen Masses (and the Masses at the average Catholic school as well), the phrase could be put more accurately like this: what one gets out of Mass is dependent on what one is willing to put up with. At least, that’s what your comment about charitably stopping yourself from praying for the destruction of the amplifiers implies. I’m pretty sure that most Catholics, even among those who enjoy songs like “Awesome God” and “Go Make A Difference,” have a hard time comprehending the Sacrifice of the Mass when it’s surrounded by a veritable rock concert.

    My point is that it’s possible for the trappings of the Mass to prove offensive, both to God and to the congregation. The fact that Christ is truly present at even the most campy Life Teen extravaganzas is a cause for alarm. It means that Christ is suffering humiliation at the hands of those to whom he’s nearest. This was Christ’s lot when his own people put him to death, but unlike the Jews of old, our abuses aren’t mitigated by a plea of non enim sciunt quid faciunt.

    I may be overly-disillusioned because of my being required to attend such Masses. (I wouldn’t consider such attendance “suffering,” though, especially since an air-conditioned, semicircular “gathering place” is a comfortable space physically.) But in truth, I believe these Masses shouldn’t even exist for anyone to attend.

  78. I guess rather than cast aspersions upon the liturgical antics of LifeTeen, wishing for a divine pyrotechnic display not unlike the request of the “Sons of Thunder” to Jesus in the Gospels, I would ask, “And what have you done lately to help ensure the Gospel is reaching Catholic Teens?”

    Having grown up in the Charismatic Renewal, I have seen my share of liturgical strangeness. I still have some friends in the CCR and, interestingly enough, many have opted for a more traditional expression of faith as it pertains to Holy Mass and their Catholic devotional life. Anyone who is familiar with the CCR knows that this has been a steady evolution from semi-Pentacostalism to an almost Latin Catholic traditionalism in certain circles. (Madonna House of Canada went throuh a similar transformation, but in an Eastward direction.) Might LifeTeen find a similar path? It is quite possible. My own sense is that the drums and the guitar music are fine for “praise and worship” events outside of the Mass. But they kids need to see something different – something profound – for the Mass. LifeTeen suffered in many ways from the aspirations of (Father) Dale Fushek, who even asserted once that he wanted his LifeTeen Masses to exist as a separate “rite” within the Latin Church! Since his tragic “fall”, things are moving in a different direction. LifeTeen is focused on orthodox teaching and helping kids develop a fully Catholic devotional life. For some, it is the threshold of the mansion. I hope it evolves into much more, especially after the MP comes.

    Wy not start an orthodox-TLM “LifeTeen” type of movement on your own? Make Don Bosco of “reason, religion and kindness” fame your patron and get kids excited (and committed) to living a fully Catholic life. Huffy, puffy and stuffy do not appeal to natural youthful ideals, no mater what kind of vestments you use. Don Bosco and the TLM movement – what a great work of the Holy Spirit that could be!

    Gordo

    PS: Here’s an interesting site…you’ll be pleased to see out the prayer books and devotional aids it offers…all with a youthful twist. I think it represents the cusp of a youthful traditionalism that offers more than sentiment. Anyone ready to reap the harvest for Christ?

    http://www.monkrock.com/s/

  79. ThomasMore1535 says:

    Gordo,

    I think you’re onto something. Here in St. Louis, while everyone focuses on Archbishop Burke, his auxiliary bishop, Robert Herman, often gets overlooked. For many years, Bishop Herman was in charge of the LifeTeen Masses. He was also ordained in 1964, right before the Old Rite was replaced by the ’65 missal, so he did celebrate the Old Liturgy for a little whilt.e

    Anyway, even though he is heavily involved in LifeTeen still, as a Bishop, he has also visited St. Francis de Sales here in St. Louis, run by ICKSP, twice in the last year-and-a-half, and has celebrated a Pontifical High Mass both times. It was quite funny–when he gave his first sermon there, he joked how this was the first time he had celebrated mass in that rite in over 40 years! He absolutely loved celebrating it again, and he also said that it brought back many fond memories of when he was first ordained.

    Anyway, I bring this up because I think it does show that LifeTeen has the potential to retain its vibrancy and passion for the faith while at the same time having a reverent liturgy.

  80. Patrick Rothwell says:

    Liam,

    That is definitely a pipe dream, but one of the more intriguing ones that I have encountered recently. Of course, we would need to restore the Ember Days and Rogationtide. Curiously, given much interest in promoting vocations and “green” issues, shouldn’t we be reviving those observances anyway?

  81. Thomas,

    A very interesting anecdote. Yes I would think channeling the energy of LifeTeen into an apostolate which supports traditional worship could be very powerful – and really reach the next generation with the Gospel.

    At the same time, let’s be clear I wouldn’t want to see this!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-S3K6wXYpg

    :-) Gordo

  82. Like Gordo I am a supporter of the Charismatic Renewal and I actually work in a Life Teen parish. I also realize that were either the N.O. in Latin or the Tridentine Mass more widely available that many of the teens I see at XLT and Youth Mass would be there in droves. These kids are not Cafeteria Catholics. Most are better catechized than their parents.
    As it is the nearest Tridentine Mass is at a chapel some 35 miles away. As far as I know my bishop has no problem with its celebration. I’ve seen pictures of both he, and his predecessor celebrating Mass there. Another parish, not ten miles from the Cathedral celebrates the rite routinely.
    The problem is not the bishop. Of the seven parishes in the city where I live I can say for certain that over half of the priests are anti-Latin. Note they are not specifically anti-Tridentine rite, they are anti any use of Latin routinely in the Liturgy. All in the name of “participation of the Laity.” I foresee here that there will very little change until the pastors change.

  83. caleb1x says:

    I don’t believe casting aspersions on Life Teen Masses precludes anyone from helping to ensure the Gospel is reaching Catholic Teens, as is if the former excludes the latter. In fact, I might consider it a prerequisite of the latter.

  84. Seumas says:

    The LifeTeen Mass at my home parish is no different from the ordinary Mass, except the instruments are electric and the music is better. Yes, better. So you have an idea how bad the normal music is.

    And yet, though I will always opt for a more reverent and beautiful Mass if possible, if I have to go to Mass at my home parish, I use it as an opportunity to practice virtue, and to unite my suffering with Christ.

    He not only emptied Himself and became man so that He could suffer and die for us, but He also suffers at these liturgies. He no doubt suffers because of them more than we do, yet He doesn’t refuse to be present at them, for us. We should not refuse to be present at them, either, for Him.

  85. Liam and Gordo,

    NO! I had thought that this would eventually come up. I even told a friend of mine that people who support the “reform of the reform” (usually people from the newliturgicalmovement blog) would want the two rites to be something like what the Eastern Catholics have. This is a BIG no no.

    This would not be a reform of any sort and it would not be the actual Roman Liturgy. Why have two Roman Orders? No matter how much you can “reform” the new order, it would still not be seen as a continuation of the Old Liturgy — they are that different, at least externally. As long as they are both used, people will very easily see them as two separate rites!

    In addition, why would we have to imitate the Byzantine practice of having two Liturgies? We never had a need and we surely do not need it now, either (we already have too much confusion). Because if people who are part of the “reform of the reform” want to have something like that, THEN the Charismatic movement people would also ask for their own way of having their Masses (and any other movement in the Church for that matter!).

    As I told Shawn Tribe in one of my comments, THIS is why I always saw the “reform of the reform” as a dangerous movement. He did not like it, but that is the truth.

    All this obscure the real meaning of “sacredness” in the Liturgy, since everyone gets to have a say and come up with their likes and dislikes, which leads to many “hypothetical” Orders and Missals.

    This is dangerous with capital D!

  86. Thomas says:

    Until I place my cursor on the website, and run my hands over the paper, I shall not believe.

    thomas@doubtersanonymous.org

  87. Gordo says:

    latinmass1983,

    I still am not convinced that it is a bad suggestion. In fact, it would probably lead to the liturgical realignment which needs to happen in the Latin Church.

    As to multiple Western rites, there is a rich tradition of it with the Gallican, Ambrosian, Mozarabic and Roman. (and then you have the order ritual traditions…)

    Actually, we Byzantines have three major liturgies within our Rite:
    – the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
    – the Liturgy of St. Basil
    – the Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem (rarely celebrated – mostly in monastic settings)

    The problem with your suggestion as I see it is that it simply codifies the state of division within the Roman Patriarchate (yes – it still is a patriarchate). You’ll continue to have NO parishes and TLM parishes functioning within the same ritual church (the same Latin rite). We Byzantines really have nothing of the sort, since we all tend to celebrate our two major liturgies at specific times within the festal calendar. I see more DANGER with a capital D in the all or nothing mentality which says “either TLM or we go our own way and separate. That D turns to Divisive…and, IMHO, Disastrous.

    As to whether the CCR should have its own way of celebrating Holy Mass, I’m not following how you reached that conclusion from what we suggested.

    The Ordo of Paul VI is not going away, but hopefully its abuses will. IMHO, it is a good vernacular Low Mass, especially for the weekday daily Mass crowd. Then pull out all the stops with the Tridentine for Sundays and the Feasts.

    Of course, we Byzantines don’t have a “Low Mass” either in our tradition, but you Do! (with a capital D!) :-)

    Gordo

  88. Gordo says:

    Caleb,

    You wrote:

    “I don’t believe casting aspersions on Life Teen Masses precludes anyone from helping to ensure the Gospel is reaching Catholic Teens, as is if the former excludes the latter. In fact, I might consider it a prerequisite of the latter.”

    Unless your aspersions involve the use of Holy Water, I don’t see much use for them.

    Criticism is easy…rolling up one’s sleeve and doing something constructive is not.

    Is that Don Bosco I hear calling? I would start with “Don Bosco’s Life and Work” by Pietro Stella and also Francis Desramaut’s “Don Bosco and the Spiritual Life”. I found these two works to be quite the inspiration in my years of youth work.

    http://www.salesians.org/lit.asp

    The fields are white and ready for the harvest with the MP and the Traditional Mass!

    In ICXC,

    Gordo

  89. caleb1x says:

    Silence isn’t appropriate in the face of these liturgies. They demand someone to speak and act against them. In truth, I can’t see where in these comment I’ve “cast aspersions,” if that term is taken to mean leveling gratuitous insults. And I think your assumption that your “years of work” represent a calling which others haven’t heeded is glib.

    As to the idea that we have a duty to attend bad liturgies in order to unite our sufferings there with Christ’s, this is a disastrous logic which, taken to its end, seems to say that someone who seeks to attend a bad liturgy is acting more in conformity with Christ than someone who seeks to attend a good liturgy.

  90. ThomasMore1535 says:

    Thomas,

    “Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet believe”

  91. ThomasMore1535 says:

    Thomas,

    “Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet believe”

  92. Rose says:

    Took my 12 year old daughter to see Into Great Silence and she stayed wide awake and interested for at least 2 hrs. and 15 minutes and loved it (to be cool, she says it was boring until the cats showed up). She also behaved with great consideration for the silence throughout (which is not customary). Will not surprise me if she is much more quiet and reverent and attentive at a Tridentine Mass.

  93. michigancatholic says:

    Let’s not turn this into some kind of intermural referendum on the spirituality of teenagers complete with links to the Salesians, which would be OFF-TOPIC. The original thread dealt with the probability of the MP coming soon, especially in light of Fr Z’s dinner out and his impending trip back to the States.

  94. Alexander says:

    Caleb, will you be joining us again at the DCF boards?

  95. caleb (and to some extent michigancatholic),

    You wrote:

    “Silence isn’t appropriate in the face of these liturgies. They demand someone to speak and act against them. In truth, I can’t see where in these comment I’ve “cast aspersions,” if that term is taken to mean leveling gratuitous insults. And I think your assumption that your “years of work” represent a calling which others haven’t heeded is glib.

    As to the idea that we have a duty to attend bad liturgies in order to unite our sufferings there with Christ’s, this is a disastrous logic which, taken to its end, seems to say that someone who seeks to attend a bad liturgy is acting more in conformity with Christ than someone who seeks to attend a good liturgy.”

    LifeTeen has become something of a punching bag for what is wrong with the NO by those in the TLM movement. I guess my point was not to puff up my own work with youth (my reference to my own very small apostolate was only as a means to say I found these resources on the saintly priest from Turin quite helpful), but rather to say that it is far better to do something constructive – to “overwhelm evil with an abundance of good” if you will – by creating an alternative TLM youth movement. (And I will only point out that your comments did not involve the pyrotechnics I referred to). My suggestion of Don Bosco as the patron of this had to do with the fact that his apostolate was to youth and his work symbolizes what an authentic TLM Youth Apostolate – in light of the impending MP – could look like.

    And if one doesn’t think the reaction of teens to the TLM is important to the average parent in the pew, they either don’t have teenagers or don’t know parents who do! My own hunch is that parents will react to the MP largely based upon how their kids see and experience it. It is a topic at least as important as to what the bishops think of it, and involves something of a concrete pastoral plan of action.

    I will also point out that I did not initially broach the topic of LifeTeen Masses.

    As far as being off topic, I’m happy to defer to Fr. Z on this. I guess how the MP will be received by youth – the present and the future of the Church in the words of our Holy Father – is at least worth discussing at some point. I think it will be largely positive if they are properly catechized. Much of the issues with the NO seem to be a generational thing – a Boomer phase, as we are seeing with the pushback by the bishops, and no doubt their chanceries, populated usually by aging progressives. Perhaps that is a thread unto itself someday.

    As to your references, Caleb, to obligations to attend bad liturgy in conformity with the sufferings of Christ, I’m not sure if that comment was directed at me since I made reference to neither. I’m all for good liturgy, which is why I became Byzantine. But I certainly wish the Tridentine movement well, since I believe it can only strengthen the communion of our one, holy Catholic Church.

    In ICXC,

    Gordo

  96. Richard Catti says:

    It is a fact that a certain number of Catholics, although
    admittedly subject to the teaching authority of Ecclesia Dei, find it either extremely difficult or even impossible to make their own their participation in the Novus Ordo Mass. In particular, the argumentation and foundation implied in the document that it is an act of disobedience to participate in the Tridentine Liturgy as celebrated by the Bishops and priests of the SSPX, has failed in many cases to win the assent of men of good Catholic faith who share in the love and devotion to that venerable rite and the rites of the Sacraments of the Roman Catholic church according to the norms established by the Church before the Second Vatican council. We must appreciate the difficulty experienced by those in accepting some aspects of Ecclesia Dei. And we must make every effort to learn from the insights of those Catholics, who are of undoubted loyalty to Catholic truth, to the Church and the authority of the Holy See. Since they are not denying any point of divine and Catholic faith nor rejecting the teaching authority of the Church, these Catholics should not be considered or consider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithful. But they should remember that their good faith will be dependent on a sincere self examination to determine the true motives and grounds for such participation and on a continued effort to understand and deepen their knowledge of all that the Church teaches and does.

  97. caleb1x says:

    Alexander,

    On DCF, I was creating for the moderators an ongoing burden, which they handled discreetly. When I became aware of the problem, I realized that my characteristic posts weren’t likely to change, so I voluntarily refrained from participating on the board.

    caleb

  98. Alexander says:

    Caleb,

    Well a lot of posters and some mods like myself miss your posting.
    We had a discussion about it and no one seemed to not want you back.
    We really wish you’d come back!

  99. Dan O. says:

    Alexander or Caleb,
    Excuse my ignorance, what is DCF?

  100. Jordan Potter says:

    Defenders of the Catholic Faith, the message board of Steve Ray.