Official statement of Bp. Matano of Burlington

Over at Amy’s I was clued into the reaction if His Excellency Most Reverend Salvatore R. Matano, Bishop of Burlington.

His Excellency’s response has some interesting points.

Before anything else, take careful notice of this:

Desirous of fulfilling the pastoral needs of those who seek the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy according to the rite of the 1962 Roman Missal, I will celebrate Holy Mass in this extraordinary form on the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, August 15, 2007, at Saint Joseph’s Co-Cathedral at 7:00pm.

This is exactly what needs to be done.  If any bishop would ever worry about authority and possible problems, then lead by example.  When a bishop gets involved in the older form of Mass, what Fr. X is doing suddenly pales. The moon isn’t so bright when the sun is shining, after all.

Let’s get into this Letter from His Excellency.  I can’t say it is all bad, but not everything in it is good.  There are problems.

My emphases and comments.


Letter to the Faithful
on
Summorum Pontificum
(The care of the Supreme Pontiffs for Divine Worship):

On the Use of the Roman Liturgy Prior to the Reform of 1970.

The Most Reverend Salvatore R. Matano
9th Bishop of Burlington

July 6th, 2007

My Dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI on July 7, 2007, promulgated his Apostolic Letter, in the form of “Motu Proprio”, Summorum Pontificum (The care of the Supreme Pontiffs for Divine Worship): On the Use of the Roman Liturgy Prior to the Reform of 1970. In this Apostolic Letter, the Holy Father explains two forms for celebrating the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Holy Mass: an ordinary form, as contained in the Missale Romanum (Roman Missal) of Paul VI, which is the liturgy now commonly celebrated in our churches, and an extraordinary form, which is the rite contained in the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V and published again by Blessed John XXIII, and which is the Latin Mass celebrated prior to the reform of 1970.  Pope Benedict XVI points out that these two forms make up the Liturgy of the one Roman Rite.

            Noting the above, the Holy Father has asked the Diocesan Bishops throughout the world, since each is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctium Concilium, 22; Letter of Pope Benedict XVI Accompanying the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum, p.3), to make the extraordinary form available to the faithful where there is “a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language.” (Ibid., p.2).  [Respectfully, the degree of liturgical formation and knowledge of the Latin language are not specified by the Holy Father, in the letter or the Motu Proprio. Would the faithful have to demonstrate knowledge of Latin and liturgical formation before they could have the older Mass?   Is there going to be a test?  Would the same be applied to Latin celebrations of the Novus Ordo?  If people would have to show their knowledge and formation, would that not make any Mass in Latin a desirable goal, a sign of successful implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium?  Sacrosanctum Concilium 54 requires that pastors of souls teach their flocks to sing and respond in Latin and their mother tongue.  Is setting the bar high for Masses in Latin an admission that Mass in the vernacular is okay for those who aren’t educated and aren’t well formed in matters liturgical?  But that can’t be the case.] Our Holy Father notes that the present vernacular celebration of the Sacred Liturgy “continues to be the normal form—the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy.” (Ibid. p.1).

            In making the extraordinary form available (1962 Roman Missal), Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged that: “Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them.  This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently lead to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear.” (Ibid p. 2).  [If there were no abuses in the Novus Ordo, if from the beginning the books had been followed in a spirit of continuity rather than of rupture, we wouldn’t be talking about Summorum Pontificum today!]

            In essence, with this Apostolic Letter our Holy Father is calling for a renewed solemn and reverential celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  Whether celebrated in the ordinary formextraordinary form, or the the Eucharist is for us the real presence of Jesus Christ in our midst, His very body, blood, soul and divinity.  As one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, Pope Benedict XVI, Supreme Pastor and Vicar of Christ, is asking “that the Church of Christ offer worthy worship to the Divine Majesty ‘for the praise and glory or his name’ and ‘for the good of all his Holy Church.’” (Summorum Pontificum, p. 1).

            With filial devotion and obedience to our Holy Father, I will consult with our Council of Priests and the Deans to determine the most suitable manner for making the extraordinary form of the Sacred Liturgy available to those who request it in accordance with paragraph two above, namely that there is “a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language.”  [Again, is there going to be a test?    Shall we begin with a test in Latin for the Council of Priests and Deans?   Frankly, I don’t think this is in the spirit or letter of Summorum Pontificum.  Art. 2 says any priest of the Latin rite can use the older Missale without any permission from the Ordinary.  Art. 4 says people may attend it, with due observance of law – which probably means the parish and people aren’t under interdict or excommunicated or the liturgical calendar permits celebrations, etc.  Art. 5.1 states that the PASTOR of the parish makes the determinations about public celebrations and he is to be willing so long as everything is working harmoniously for the good of the parish and avoid discord.  Art. 5.3 says the PASTOR permits public celebrations.  Art. 5.5 says that rectors make these determinations where there is a rector instead of a pastor.  There is no indication in Summorum Pontificum the bishop makes these determinations in the parishes.  I want to read His Excellency’s statement that he will consult the Council of Priests to mean that he is looking for ways to be supportive of the pastors who will make determinations.  The fact that the bishop will celebrate the older form in the cathedral must be taken as a good sign.]

            To effectively implement this Apostolic Letter, I ask for patience on the part of all.  To celebrate the extraordinary form of the Sacred Liturgy with the proper reverence and honor it merits, careful preparation is needed.  It is now over thirty years since this venerable rite has been celebrated in our Diocese.  Thus, pastors able to celebrate the extraordinary form must reacquaint themselves with its rubrics.  Also, servers must be properly trained, as well as choirs and cantors.  [Fair enough.  We don’t want slop.  We want things to go well.  Perhaps what are needed are diocesan sponsored workshops, perhaps at the Cathedral, where the bishop can teach priests how to do it properly.  No, really.  Bishops should take charge of this and lead by example.   Control the situation.  Don’t be forced to react to what comes about in parishes as a result of poor preparation.]  At the same time, due to a severe shortage of priests, the first duty of the Bishop and the pastors is to make the Eucharistic Sacrifice available to as many people as possible, using the rite that is understood by the majority of the faithful in attendance. [This begs the question of how well people understand what is going on at Mass with the Novus Ordo.  Vernacular is not enough to assume people are getting it.  We need a deep deep liturgical catechesis across the board.  The older form will be of great help in this.] In this regard, Pope Benedict XVI notes: “It is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.” (Accompanying Letter, op. cit., p.2).  When this fundamental need is met, attention can be given to significant numbers of the faithful who seek the celebration of the extraordinary form of the Eucharistic Liturgy.  [Is a numbers driven thing?  Summorum Pontificum talks about "groups" of the faithful: coetus fidelium.  No certain size is required.]

            However, at this very moment it is possible for parts of the Mass to be sung in Latin[It is possible for ALL OF THE MASS to be in Latin, even the readings.  Every single word, spoken or sung, in the Novus Ordo can be in Latin.] such as the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, as well as appropriate Latin hymns from the Church’s vast treasury of liturgical music and Gregorian Chant.  This use of the Latin language in the Sacred Liturgy can provide an appropriate bridge [Fair enough.  Let’s get Novus Ordo Masses going in Latin too, right away.] between the ordinary and extraordinary forms of celebrating the Divine Mysteries of our Redemption in Christ until the implementation of the extraordinary form[The provisions of Summorum Pontificum go into effect at midnight the morning of 14 September.  If at midnight, Father the Pastor of St. Ipsidipsy happens to be strolling outside the church and a group of faithful of any size happens to be coming back after a parish curling tournament, and they happen to ask the pastor for the "Tridentine" Mass, Father the Pastor could say, "Yes, my dear little sheep.  Come into the church for an extraordinary experience."  Father the Pastor can do this on his own initiative.  THAT is what Summorum Pontificum says.]

            Desirous of fulfilling the pastoral needs of those who seek the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy according to the rite of the 1962 Roman Missal, I will celebrate Holy Mass in this extraordinary form on the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, August 15, 2007, at Saint Joseph’s Co-Cathedral at 7:00pm.  [Excellent!  And this a full month BEFORE the MP goes into force.  This is what we need.  I remind everyone that any bishop RIGHT NOW can implement in his diocese everything in Summorum Pontificum with the flick of a pen.  Since 1988 he can give every priest faculties for the old Mass and sacraments.  Since 1988, he can set up parishes or oratories or religious institutes.   The bishop has held all the cards, all this time, and still does until 14 September.  Then some, not all, the cards will change.] This celebration will invoke our Mother Mary’s intercession, asking that all we do to celebrate Her Son’s presence among us will bring glory to His name and harmony and peace among His people.

            In closing, let us remind ourselves that the Eucharist is the August Sacrament of Unity, intended to unite us in faith and in love for one another.  Let us approach our Holy Father’s Apostolic Letter in this spirit.

            Asking the Lord’s blessing upon us as we seek to celebrate the Sacred Mysteries of our salvation with devotion and hearts filled with praise and thanksgiving, I remain,                            

Sincerely Yours in Christ,


The Most Reverend Salvatore R. Matano
Bishop of Burlington

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.

28 Responses to Official statement of Bp. Matano of Burlington

  1. victor herman says:

    Fr. Z, relax, it’s an OK letter, the bishop is trying to comply, but is probably stretched a little thin.

  2. Rod says:

    I, who am under the “care” of this Bishop, and having suffered the slings and arrows of the N.O., find it a bit ironic that those of us who for years have been told that it is the spirit of VII which is to be followed, not the letter(s), are now being held to the letter of this document.
    It seems that following the spirit of the document gets dropped as soon as it is convenient.
    I doubt I will soon find my liturgical weeping turned to gladness here in Vermont.

  3. Serafino says:

    No, with all due respect, it is not an ok letter. As Father Z has pointed out, the bishop is placing his own restrictions on the MP. The Holy Father is clear about his canonical intent regarding the freedom of Pastors, priests and members of the laity to avail themselves of the Missal of Blessed John XXIII as of 14 September 2007. If other bishops and chancery officials follow this bishop’s attempt to circumvent the Holy Father’s MP, we are in big trouble.

  4. Serafino: Try as I did, I found in His Excellency’s letter a spirit quite contrary to Summorum Pontificum. However, in the final analysis it will be deeds, not this letter, that count. I noted with real joy that His Excellency will be himself pontificating on 15 August. That should be a grand occasion. I hope and pray that the people who want these older liturgies there treat His Excellency with great respect. They don’t have to cringe. But they do have to be kind and supportive. If hearts need to be changed, that is the way to do it. If His Excellency has a very positive experience of singing that pontifical Mass, perhaps he will see things through a different lens, maybe even a “hermeneutic of reform”.

  5. Richard says:

    I think it is difficult to argue with Fr. Zuhlsdorf that the interpretation of SP by Bishop Matano is not quite all that it really should be.

    Nonetheless: He is at least trying to implement it, as evidenced by his intent to celebrate the extraordinary form next month. So there is some openness here. Charity should beget more charity.

    The thing for those in his diocese desiring to see this succeed to do is: make a real effort to make the drive and attend this mass. Stop and thank the bishop profusely for doing this. Offer to help out in setting up personal parishes or establishing regular celebration in their own parishes. Give him something positive and proactive to feed on. Show him there is an interest. If this becomes a positive experience for him…

  6. James says:

    How strange that such a perplexing letter ended on such a high note.

    The bishop himself celebrating the extraordinary form of the rite? In a diocese without a single indult? Can you believe it? The Motu Proprio in action!

    I live in Boston, and I do not have a car, but I am going to take the bus to Burlington for this mass!

  7. RJackson says:

    I too think you might be being a little tough on His Excellency. I consider His Excellency choosing to offer mass according to the extraordinary use a very powerful sign of goodwill. Further, I don’t think His Excellency is necessarily trying to place limits on the Motu Proprio but rather exercising his rightful duty as bishop to ensure celebrations according to the classical use are done properly. You are, of course, correct, the true test will be actions not just words. If His Excellency tries to throw up roadblocks to celebration according to the classical use rather than legitimately ensuring that those who want to celebrate it do so with the proper training, then I’ll become cynical. I think your idea about the bishop (of every diocese in the country God willing!) leading a workshop on proper celebration of the classical use; all those that are qualified to do so at least.

  8. The Sheepcat says:

    With great respect, Father, for all your most enlightening commentary, and admitting that I’m not familiar with the bishop in question, I’m with victor herman in finding your analysis in this case a bit overheated. By my interpretation, you’re reading a lot into the bit about “a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language.” Conceivably the answer to “Is there going to be a test?” might be no, verdad?

  9. Ted says:

    Prior to Bp. Matano the use of any Latin was virtually banned in all the Masses celebrated in Vermont. Indeed the hostility towards Latin in the diocese still remains great. Bp. Matano was only installed recently, but it seems that as a Canon lawyer he has found ways to disallow the widespread use of the 1962 Missal to keep the peace in his diocese: a)you must know Latin and be a liturgical expert to benefit from the motu proprio either as a priest or layperson, b)failing that all priests must serve the Novus Ordo until the priest shortage is over, which means for the next 50 years or so. I think Fr. Zuhlsdorf is quite right to point out his Excellency’s attitude to be quite contrary to the spirit of Summorum Pontificum.

  10. Paednoch says:

    Sorry gang I don’t know this bishop. Here is my Take….I get the impression that this feller is sending a message to his diocese that if the Extraordinary form is going to be used…then it is going to be done right. He is going to offer Mass on August 15, 2007 to flex his liturgical prowess on the subject. He wants to let anyone and everyone know that he knows how to celebrate the Old Mass and has pleanty of knowledge on it to spot a bad TLM when he sees one. Perhaps he is being slightly obstructive…but I get the impression that he wants the Exraordinary mass done correctly to a T.

  11. athanasius says:

    FATHER: [If there were no abuses in the Novus Ordo, if from the beginning the books had been followed in a spirit of continuity rather than of rupture, we wouldn’t be talking about Summorum Pontificum today!]

    Father, are you saying that if the NO mass was done by the books, no one would want the traditional Mass?

  12. athanasius: Pretty much, yes. I am saying that if the Novus Ordo had from the very beginning been implemented according to the books and with a spirit of continuity (rather than of rupture) with tradition, today there would be virtually no call for the older form of Mass. I am not saying that that would be a good thing or a bad thing. I am saying that that is how it would have been.

  13. Jeremy Kryn says:

    Wait and see! Since his appointment, Bishop Matano has sought a faithful translation of the ordinary form of the Mass…Time will reveal the bishop’s intentions. Have faith!

  14. David Carruthers says:

    Wait and see! Since his appointment, Bishop Matano has corresponded with the USCCB and supported a faithful translation of the ordinary form of the Mass…Time will reveal the bishop’s intentions. Have faith!

  15. “Matano was only installed recently, but it seems that as a Canon lawyer he has found ways to disallow the widespread use of the 1962 Missal to keep the peace in his diocese…”

    If he’s a canon lawyer, he already knows that a lower authority cannot restrict that which a higher authority allows. To implement this with anywhere near the enthusiasm that some here suggest, would require a complete change in attitude toward the Latin language in his diocese, especially on the part of priests, to be able to say it competently. I know of at least one occasion in my locality, where a priest who was assigned to an “indult” parish, was insufficient in his Latin skills, to the point of misspeaking the words of consecration. An alert FSSP seminarian, acting as emcee, was able to correct him.

    The issue here, it seems to me, is not so much what the good Bishop is doing or saying now, but what will he do or say next?

  16. athanasius says:

    Father: does that assume ad orientum? does that take into account any of the 83 novelties like communion in the hand, eucharistic ministers, saturday obligation, etc?

    I’m assuming not, but please clarify. If if not, I still think you may be underestimating how may people would still be calling for the old Mass. I know in my case, I still have a hard time accepting some of the changes from the ’45 to the ’62 Missal. And it more than bothers me when i see a so-called ’62 indult Mass that is really the ’65 Mass. So i’m not sure how there wouldn’t have been a schism in either case.

  17. athanasius: I am not going to go down the rabbit hole with you today. I know exactly what I am talking about and I am convinced that had the reform been implemented properly, today there would be little call for the older form of Mass. Would there be people who wanted the older form? Sure. But the numbers would be far smaller and there would be far less urgent desire. This is not the topic of this entry, however.

  18. athanasius says:

    Understood, thanks Father.

  19. David Kubiak says:

    The Bishop’s letter represents what is a built-in tension (classic Romanitas) in the document between what the Holy Father mandates and his clear affirmation that bishops control the liturgy in their own dioceses. Celebrating the Novus Ordo in Latin has always been a right of priests, but their bishop also has the ability to make their life hell if they try to exercise it. I fear that the same problem will affect the force of ‘Summum Pontificum’.

    On another note, the Bishop’s celebration of the old rite in his Cathedral will raise again the question of precisely how closely the old forms must be followed. I doubt that a proper Pontifical Mass at the Throne is possible in any diocese today without the help of one of the old rite societies.

  20. dcs says:

    Fr. Z. writes:
    I know exactly what I am talking about and I am convinced that had the reform been implemented properly, today there would be little call for the older form of Mass. Would there be people who wanted the older form? Sure. But the numbers would be far smaller and there would be far less urgent desire.

    I offer the following as food for thought.

    As Michael Davies pointed out many times in his Remnant column, however, had Monsignor Schuler’s Mass been the one adopted by the universal Church after the Council it is unlikely there would have been such an urgent need for traditionalist counterrevolution.

    This is from Michael Matt’s column in The Remnant eulogizing Msgr. Schuler.

  21. Joe says:

    I’ve attended N.O. masses in Latin, with Gregorian chant, candles, incense, bells, and all the pomp and solemnity one gets from the Tridentine. Reverance on behalf of the celebrant is what makes or breaks any liturgy. If one gets the feeling that the priest REALLY BELIEVES WHAT HE’S SAYING… i.e. the real presence of God, angels, and saints hidden from sight only by a thin veil, then the people’s souls will respond accordingly.

    But conversely, if the priest doesn’t believe or is unsure of his theology, sloppy in preparation, miserly in vestments and the necessary pomp and decorum, then it all leads the people to conclude that either he doesn’t really believe or mean what he says about Our Lord’s presence and the spiritual world, or that it’s ritual for the sake of ritual – something we can make, change, flip, distort, twist, etc. on whim or to placate the local religious terrorists (aka feminist nuns & “liberal” so-called “theologians”).

    It won’t matter if the rubrics are the 1962 or 1945 version if the priest is sloppy, irreverent, and lazy. Post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning by blaming all troubles since 1970 on the Novus Ordo changes (as opposed to the bishops and priests responsible for not implementing it correctly) fails to account for the stupendous crash of Christendom from the 1500s to the the 20th century; The tridentine rite alone didn’t save Europe from becoming a post-Christian place in the 18th century or somehow keep the formerly Catholic nations from becoming utterly depraved in the 19th and 20th centuries. It’s the men, not the rubrics that count.

  22. athanasius says:

    Joe and DCS: You both make great points. I wouldn’t go as far as Joe to say it’s all about the men and nothing about the rubrics, however.

    I just cannot see how you can have a holy, reverant Mass facing the congregation, with communion in the hand, etc. Those acts alone make that impossible.

    Now, the way you describe the Msgr.’s Mass, that does make me think. I wish I could see one — I’ve never seen a reverant NO Mass as you describe there. I’d never leave my traditional Mass but I would really like to see a NO Mass as you described. Sounds very nice.

  23. dcs says:

    I just cannot see how you can have a holy, reverant Mass facing the congregation, with communion in the hand, etc. Those acts alone make that impossible.

    I think Fr. Z. is saying that if the reform had been implemented properly that there would be no Mass versus populum and certainly no communion in the hand, altar girls, etc.

  24. David: I doubt that a proper Pontifical Mass at the Throne is possible in any diocese today without the help of one of the old rite societies.

    They were hard to do correctly even in the old days! So, let’s look forward positively to, first, the effort they will make to do it right and, next, the wonderful experience it will be for many people. I am confident that after issuing such a letter, His Excellency will make sure that this is well-done. He is offering the paradigm.

  25. Chironomo says:

    It seems to me that the Bishop is trying to enact some “damage control” tactics, the type of which you often see in big corporations when government controls are about to be put in place… namely that you enact the same policies on your own, putting them at last minimally under your control, and therefore taking the “high ground” in terms of public perception. By publicly celebrating a Mass at the Cathedral before the September 14th enactment date, he can at least make it appear as though he is on board, and deflect criticism from the traditionalists who might come forward. It is true that he seems to be imposing some limitations on celebrations of the Mass after September 14th with the reqirement of “a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language”, but if his attempt here is to undermine the priest’s permission to act on their own behalf, it isn’t likely that he would be able to get away with requiring such a standard for very long. I think that this is the plan of a bIshop who sees the writing on the wall. (sorry for the use of such a tired cliche)

  26. Mark Johnson says:

    athanasius:

    I don’t know where you live, but Sts. Peter & Paul Church in Wilmington, CA (L.A. area) has been doing a wonderful N.O. mass in Latin for years. The church has been gorgeously restored, and there is an excellent organist/cantor who sings in Latin. The priests are faithful and reverent, and the servers (all male) are AWESOME. They wear white gloves and every movement is performed with polish and “professionalism” (so to speak).

    The first time I went there, I had never been to a T.M., but I was deeply touched by the beauty and reverence shown. I had that “coming home” feeling that all Catholic converts are familiar with, although my conversion had taken place years earlier.

    As a result, my belief is that similar levels of beauty and reverence are possible with the N.O. Therefore the problem with the N.O., I think, was in the way it was implemented: Carelessly, at least in terms of ensuring continuity with what had gone before. Too much, too fast, I think, which gave people the impression that everything was open to change.

    Instead, they could have introduced the vernacular, then ten years later, on a limited basis, experiment with changing the orientation of the priest, all done under the strict supervision of the bishop, etc. Then three years later, reported to the Holy See on any problems that may have arisen, so that solutions might be sought. In other words, proceed as cautiously as some are now proceeding with implementing the M.P. : )

  27. Fr Arsenius says:

    “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” [Hamlet]

    Very good analysis, Fr. Z. I’m inclined to concur with “chironomo” about the appearance of a “damage control” tactic on the part of His Excellency. I don’t know this bishop at all, and can draw my conclusions only from what I read.

    He writes:

    [T]he Holy Father has asked the Diocesan Bishops throughout the world, since each is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese[…], to make the extraordinary form available to the faithful where there is “a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language.”

    It is good that the chief liturgist of the Diocese of Burlington desires to raise the level of liturgical formation among the flock entrusted to his care. But in context, this appears to be raising an artificial barrier in light of what Summoroum Pontificum actually says. And perhaps a double standard: has His Excellency required a similar “degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the [English/Spanish/Portuguese/Vietnamese…] language” for Masses and sacraments celebrated according to the ordinary form?

    P.S. I suppose there is a delicious irony in noting that the “Latin-free zone” (as some have described) which is the Diocese of Burlington is the home of the only monastery of Carthusian monks in North America — the Charterhouse of the Transfiguration, outside Arlington. That’s where my grasp of liturgical Latin was cemented in situ.

  28. Pius VII says:

    I’m glad you commented on this, Father; I read it yesterday and it was kinda irritating at times. But you’re right, let’s wait and see; actions speak louder than words.

    Unfortunately, it seems that some American clergy (at least one with whom I’m acquainted) look at those attached to the Extraordinary Use much as they would a group who is petitioning for, say, a Mass in Chinese or something; they wish to be seen as tolerant and allowing diversity, and so they’ll make an allowance for those crazies who like LATIN (when in reality, we’re not exactly pushing for Latin for Latin’s sake; and we’re more interested in the Use itself in its entirety, not merely the use of Latin during Mass).

    I’m going to guess, however, in the case of His Excellency, that he’s probably just going to inquire as to whether or not people know the Credo, Gloria, Agnus Dei, etc., and what it all signifies. If he’s actually testing for knowledge of Latin grammar and such, there would probably only be 10 people in the audience; the fact that he himself is going to celebrate the Old Mass indicates to me that he won’t put that rigorous a test on the people.