The Tablet: against Summorum Pontificum

What follows is ugly.

The author, Fr. Mark Francis, is superior general of the Clerics of St. Viator (Viatorians).  He is one of the darlings of the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions in the USA, producing such gems as Models for Multicultural Celebrations (Washington, DC: FDLC, 1998).  Check out the section on “Full Multicultural” Model for some stomach churning hijinx.  Here is a syllabus he created for a class on the multicultural parish.  The North American Academy of Liturgy had him for a seminar in 2004 on, guess what, multiculturalism.  Even the USCCB has used him on, yep, multiculturalism.  

Folks, Pope Benedict doesn’t need a defense.  The author of the piece that follows is surely attacking Pope Benedict in a disrespectful and dishonest way, but that is not the real problem.   This fellow, aided by the Tablet, is essentially urinating on anyone who prefers the older form.  This is a condescending and embittered public unburdening of hatred for those who are attached to previous liturgical forms.

My emphases and comments.

THE TABLET
Feature Article, 14 July 2007

Beyond language

Mark Francis

Pope Benedict’s sanction for wider use of the Tridentine Mass is an unprecedented change in the Church’s liturgical life. But as this professor of liturgy argues, it also has troubling theological and pastoral consequences

The long-expected motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI, permitting a wider use of the 1962 edition of the “Missal of Pius V” – the so-called Tridentine Mass – has finally been published, containing elements that are sure to displease traditionalists and progressives alike.

Understandably, the majority of Catholics “in the middle” may wonder what the fuss is all about since only a small minority has voiced an ardent desire to return to the old rite. It is very unlikely that Catholics will flock en masse to their local parishes to demand that altars be turned back to the wall and that money be set aside for the purchase of new baroque chasubles with matching maniples, [I think this might be is a suggestion that people who like maniples are effeminate.]  pax boards, [That's right... pick something weird] and the reinstallation of communion rails. [A reminder of humility, just as the other things are reminders of dignity.]

Nevertheless, publication of “Summorum Pontificum” is troubling. Given the negative reaction that the possibility of this motu proprio provoked among many bishops – especially in France – and despite Benedict XVI’s repeated statements in support of collegiality, it is disappointing that he seems to have given greater weight to a small group of advisers (and perhaps to his own personal piety) [what an insulting comment about the Pope] rather than to bishops who are more in touch with the pastoral life of the church.  [Who have, after all, been welll.......]

Until now, the Pope, who is not a trained liturgist, [unlike "Dr. Liturgy!  He knows more... than you."] has shown interest and sensitivity in liturgical matters. [Like any amateur.] The motu proprio, though, seems to betray a real misunderstanding of liturgy’s role in the life of the Church. [And so he will now educate Papa Ratzinger about what liturgy is all about.] It is ironic that, given the Pope’s often-voiced antipathy toward relativism as both the bane of modern life and a threat to the integrity of the faith, he himself seems to have succumbed to the very relativism that he has so often denounced. [Is he daft?]  It is legitimate to wonder, given liturgical history, theology, canon law, and pastoral practicalities, whether the liturgy is being taken seriously by this motu proprio or being treated as just another choice available in the “Catholic cafeteria”[Or maybe he doesn't have the slightest clue about what Pope Benedict is really trying to accomplish by this move.]

A logical place to start any discussion is the designation of the Tridentine Rite in the apostolic letter as the “extraordinary Roman Rite”. Such a designation has no precedent in the liturgical history of the Church and is based on the debatable presumption that the use of the Tridentine Rite was not abrogated [However, in this case, the Legislator, not the Pont. Council for Legislative Texts, but the Legislator himself said it wasn't.  Of course I suppose the writer is also "trained in law".  The problem with liturgists is that they think they are experts in everything.] by the publication of the liturgical books mandated by Vatican II.

From 1970, when the Missal of Paul VI was promulgated, to 1984 when the Congregation for Divine Worship issued an indult to allow a local bishop to permit celebrations of the old rite, the abrogation of the Tridentine Missal was taken for granted.  [I find it interesting that someone so well trained in liturgy, unlike the Pope, has forgotten that from the very moment the newer form was promulgated, Paul VI still allowed for older priests to say the older form and also gave an indult to the UK, long before the wider indult.] In 1988 Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei adflicta called for a “generous application of the directives” already stipulated in the 1984 indult. [I wonder what the writers record is like in the generosity department.] Again it emphasised that permission to use the old rite is a pastoral concession to those spiritually unable to adapt themselves to the new rite[This is a falsehood.  It was granted to those who, from rightful aspirations, were attached to the older form regardless of their reasons: 6.c: "respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition."]  provided that this did not imply a rejection of the Second Vatican Council or the validity of the liturgical reform. The use of the old rite was not presented in either of these documents as “normative” in any way.  [The late Holy Father's provisions were, however, normative.  They established norms. So are Benedict's.]

In the context of this rather ambiguous disciplinary situation, [If it was ambiguous, it isn't any more.]  it is helpful to reflect on the nature of a “rite” within the Church. The Roman Rite is one of 23 recognised “rites” of the Catholic Church. The term “rite” encompasses not only the Order of Mass and – at least traditionally speaking – is a way to describe how a given group of Christians expresses their faith in life and worship. [In other places, I mentioned that there were arguments in favor of the claim that the changes resulting in the Novus Ordo actually created a new Rite.  However, this is going to be a problem for the writer.  If was he is saying is true, then there was in fact a rupture between the older Rite and the newer.  That would mean that the newer rite would be an anomaly.]  It goes beyond issues of language, rubrics or ceremonial directives of the Mass to differences in designating liturgical time, the assignment of particular saints’ days, the particular style of liturgical prayer employed in all of the sacramental rites, along with distinctive gestures and movements used in these liturgical celebrations.

The adoption of a new calendar that altered the liturgical year and modified the relative importance of certain feasts and memorials, the removal of saints from sanctoral cycle that were deemed unhistorical, the revision of the celebration of funerals, the re-introduction of the adult catechumenate, all significantly changed the liturgy, no matter how much the Pope may argue for continuity between the old and new Roman Rites.  [This guy has ... chutzpah.]

Historical precedent also demonstrates that the “Tridentine Rite” was meant to be abrogated in 1970. It simply cannot be argued, for example, that after the sixteenth century there were two officially recognised ways of celebrating the Roman Rite. Designating the old and new rites “uses” within the same rite is an attempt at canonical sleight of hand and does not solve the problem. [Remember, as I explained elsewhere, the decision of the Pope in this JURIDICAL document was an elegant JURIDICAL solution.  By saying there is only one Rite that means that any priest of the Rite can celebrate that rite even in two uses.  If you say there are two rites, then a priest must have special permission to celebrate a rite different from his own.]  While it is true that when the “Missal of Pius V” was promulgated, there were local medieval “usages” in France, such as the rite of the City of Lyon, these were permitted as a concession to centuries-old territorial custom. Nor can it be reasonably argued that the “Tridentine Rite” ought to be accorded the same status as one of the Oriental rites, [I think this is unreasonable.  The older form of Mass is really pretty old, after all.  And it wasn't exactly the Rite of Gary, Indiana.  It was the Rite of Rome.] since the ancient rites of the Eastern Churches are the expression of Christianity lived over centuries by a given nation or ethnic group within a limited geographical territory.  [Rome isn't very big.   But it is ROME, after all.]

It also seems clear that Pope Paul VI intended to replace the previous Missal and wanted to restore the liturgy by returning “to the original norm of the holy Fathers”  [As a "trained liturgist", you would think he would know that alot of those claims about the antiquity of certain things were found later to be too shakey to be sustainable.  Also, just because a thing is old, that doesn't mean it is necessary to keep it.  Pius XII warned of a liturgical archeologizing.  However, this fellow seems to want to pit one Pope against another rather than find continuity between them.] (general introduction to the 1970 Roman Missal). The sixteenth-century framers of the “Missal of Pius V”, which dates from 1570, were unable to do so because they lacked adequate historical resources, for they were unable to refer to manuscripts dating earlier than the pontificate of Innocent III, around 1216. As a result much of the Tridentine Rite is a hybrid of medieval Franco-Germanic elements fused to a Roman core that dates from the late sixth century. [On the other hand, it was the way things were done in Rome.  Also, this does not take into account the historical conditions.  There was a serious threat to the life of the Church in Northern Europe.  Also, notice how he approaches this as a modern liturgical "expert", who, from their superior vantage point think they are qualified to pass judgement on how people pray.  He looks at the post-Tridentine reformers through the lens of a wielder of the historical-critical method.   He loses the larger context of the needs of the Church in those days because like a pencil-neck he is focused on the documents they lacked and how much more sophisticated we are today with our modern tools.  We should reread the preface and first part of Papa Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth to get an idea of where this fellow is coming from.]

That is why Paul VI’s novus ordo is closer to “the original norm of the holy Fathers” than the Tridentine Rite. Article Six of the Preamble to the General Instruction of the “Missal of Paul VI” implies as much by stating that there was something that was incomplete about the old missal since “the older Roman Missal [that of Pius V] is brought to fulfilment in the new” [that of Paul VI]. [Not all would agree.  I think Klaus Gamber would disagree.]

As a product of the sixteenth century and compiled during the height of the Reformation, the “Missal of Pius V” reflects the Church’s antagonistic relationship to a larger world that was seen as opposing its authority and traditions.  [Hmmm... didn't Jesus and Paul warn about "this world"?] This can be easily seen in some of the Ad diversa Mass formulas which maintain earlier, medieval texts – for example, a Mass “Against the Pagans”.  [Perhaps we need a few more... for example: Mass "against Liturgists", Mass "against Modernists", Mass "against scandalous op-eds", Mass "in time of war on the Pope", Mass "for fostering swift retirements".]

Perhaps the most problematic aspect of the “Tridentine Rite” is its treatment of Judaism. [I see.  All this horror suggested by the Motu Proprio for the life the Church is less important that what some Jews might think about it.]  While the adjective “perfidious” describing the Jews was removed from the 1962 edition of the Missal there are still prayers that call for their conversion in direct contradiction to Vatican II’s “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions” (see Nostra Aetate 4). In much the same vein, the Missal refers to Christians of other Churches as heretics and schismatics [So?   Those terms really do have meanings and there really are heretics and schismatics around.] - descriptions of fellow Christians that are unlikely to promote much ecumenical dialogue. [Unless you want some real dialogue for a change.] And since the lectionary attached to this Missal proposes practically no readings from the Old Testament it represents a deficient liturgical presentation of God’s Word – a problem that the Council fathers sought to remedy (see Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy 51). [The addition of an extra Sunday reading gave the impression that Mass is a "didactic moment" and the Old Testament readings are beyond the ability of most priests to preach on with competence.]

The ecclesiology expressed by the old rite reflects the very limited liturgical attention the Counter-Reformation Church gave to the baptised faithful.  [Ya know... I think it was entirely about the baptized faithful.  This is why there was also a Catechism.] It was the role of the ordained that was highlighted, and the gathered assembly is not even mentioned in the introductory material and rubrics of the “Missal of Pius V”, thereby reducing their role to mute spectators.  [This is so wearisome.]

In addition to the ecclesiological problems, another weakness of the “Tridentine Rite” is its anaemic pneumatology [Remember.... he is smarter than you.] – or theology of the Holy Spirit. While the faith of the Church expressed in the liturgy is in the Triune God – we pray to the Father, with the Son, in the Holy Spirit – try as you may, it is difficult to discern an epiclesis (an invocation of the Holy Spirit over the gifts and people) in the Roman Canon; an element commonly agreed in East and West to be as an important element for a theologically complete Eucharistic Prayer.  [So.... is he saying that the older form is invalid?]

All of the new Eucharistic Prayers composed [right... introduced as novelties, cut and pasted together by experts] for the “Missal of Paul VI” have such an invocation.   Reverting to a pneumatologically weak formulation of the central act of the Church’s worship (the Roman Canon being the only Eucharistic Prayer in the “Missal of Pius V”) clearly impoverishes the worship of those who would exclusively use this Missal.  [Or, it enriches us, because it gives us a deeper experience of what the Sacrifice is about.  I guess we should distribute copies of Dominum et vivificantem as people go to Mass.]

While the theological problems of the “Tridentine Rite” are at odds with the teachings of the Council,  [This just gets more and more hysterical, doesn't it.  This person has absolutely no regard for the continuous vision the Pope has and insists on creating rupture.] the pastoral difficulties that will accompany the implementation of this motu proprio may prove to be an even greater problem, starting with the priests themselves. Where will competent priests, willing to celebrate the Mass and other sacraments according to the old rite, come from? Are we now to offer Latin and liturgy courses in seminaries to train our new priests to offer the Rite of Mass and the sacraments of the Medieval Rite [Remember, "medieval" is bad.] on demand along with the liturgical rites mandated by Vatican II?   [OMG!!!! OMG!!!!  OMG!!!! Disaster is STARING US IN THE FACE!   FROGS will FALLLLLLL from the SKYYYYYYYYY!!!!]

The official proclamation that this medieval rite [Notice how he just made the claim and then it is true for the rest of the article.] is “extraordinary” compromises the coherence of the Church’s self-understanding and threatens to reduce the liturgy to a simple matter of individual “taste” rather than what it is meant to be: an accurate reflection of what we believe as Catholic Christians who live in the twenty-first century.  [Because nothing good happened before 1963.]  Although cited several times in the document, the hallowed patristic axiom lex orandi, lex credendi (how we pray, so we believe) has been seriously ignored in this motu proprio.  [Or has it been enriched?]

In short, “Summorum Pontificum” weakens the unity of the Church by failing to support the foundational insights of the Second Vatican Council.  [I hope someone fires this guy's sorry keester.]

One last thing.  At whom is this aimed?  He didn’t write this for those who are convinced.  He didn’t write it for money.  Here is a multiculturalist trying to say that there must only be one form of Mass defined by him.  So, what is going on here?  Whom is he trying to persuade, or rather dissuade?

People will actually have a choice now.  The placement of this article in The Tablet indicates that this is aimed at clergy.  “Shame on you, Father, if you put on a chasuble and matching maniple.”  He’ll tell you what you need.

Remember: This article, as awful as it is, is really good.  The writer was scared.  They have lost on the issue of the English translation of the Novus Ordo.  They lost big time about pro multis and consubstantialis.

He is aiming at priests who will perhaps be interested in the older Mass.  He is trying to poison them against the older form before the provisions are in place.  He is afraid.  He is deathly afraid that the older form is going to catch on.   This is aimed at priests who are thinking, and there are lots of them, that the older form of Mass might be a good thing, that maybe they ought to learn it.

Technorati Tags: ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

67 Responses to The Tablet: against Summorum Pontificum

  1. Michael E. Lawrence says:

    Hmmm. Anaemic pneumatology.

    I seem to remember reading in one of those classic histories of the liturgy (Fortescue?) that, at least in certain places in VERY ancient times the Epiclesis was an epiclesis of the Word rather than of the Spirit. Seems to me that there’s room in the tradition for varying levels of “pneumatology.”

  2. michigancatholic says:

    I wonder how many Viatorians there are. And why there are even that many. What a nightmare he must be for somebody.

    He’s pretty big for his pants isn’t he? Especially seeing as how most of us have never heard of the Viatorians. Yeah, that’s one of the REALLY BIG orders (right) but I don’t think it’s big enough that he can tell the Pope(!) what to do. Not quite yet, anyway.

    Somebody needs to tell this guy where he can put all this complaining.

  3. Michael LaRue says:

    This is so hysterical it is not to be believed, not to mention disrespectful of the Holy Father, and full of the kind of faux learning that the left loves to sport. What is interesting is that the Tablet chose to print it. At least I now know that I needn’t bother with that particular publication any more.

    It does remind me of a couple of quotes: “The devil hath come down in fury and great wrath, for he knoweth that he hath a short time.” & “Oft evil will doth evil mar.” If we give them enough rope, they may just hang themselves.

  4. Matthew Robinson says:

    The only “anaemic pneumatology” is the flat tire on his car.

  5. Jordan Potter says:

    Mass “against Liturgists”, Mass “against Modernists”, Mass “against scandalous op-eds”, Mass “in time of war on the Pope”, Mass “for fostering swift retirements”.

    ROFL!! Oh, if only we had Masses for such intentions!

    threatens to reduce the liturgy to a simple matter of individual “taste” rather than what it is meant to be: an accurate reflection of what we believe as Catholic Christians who live in the twenty-first century.

    It’s a good thing we have Fr. Francis — Jesus and the Apostles were just too stupid to understand that liturgy is meant to be an accurate reflection of the beliefs of people who live in the 21st century. I guess the liturgy just was spurious and inadequate throughout the history of the Church until the 1960s. And here I thought the liturgy was meant to reflect the Catholic faith, that which is believed everywhere, always, and by all, not just what is believed (or what is the cultural fad) during the 21st century.

    Fr. Francis’ condescending lecturing of the Holy Father is so spectacularly wrong about so many things, but for me the shining lodestone of his error is his assertion that the Pope is not a “trained liturgist.” The Pope probably has more knowledge and understanding of the liturgy in his left pinky than Fr. Francis has in his entire skull, but somehow Fr. Francis fancies himself a Liturgical Expert while the Pope is some rube.

  6. Nicholas says:

    I think the recent suggestion in Christian Order (a British Catholic Publication); that the one of the ten ways for a Pope to drastically reverse the current the situation in England in Wales is to ban the Tablet. Quite a well founded suggestion after reading this. I didn’t know it was that bad.

  7. Guy Power says:

    A smile just crossed my face as I imagined an invitation from His Holiness, asking Fr. Francis to come to Rome and
    please help him understand liturgy better. My smile just got broader as I further imagined the invitation being extended to other bishops who have likewise stated how wrong and misguided is the Pope.

    Oh! but wouldn’t that be an interesting debate …. and education!

  8. Maureen says:

    This article is actually the first one that I’ve read that has given me real hope.
    The man is so obviously over the top in his remarks that I have wonder why. I suspect
    that he may know something that we don’t even dare hope for. I think that he is
    extremely fearful that there will be a real renewal of the liturgy which could put
    him out of a job. Perhaps the Latin Mass is a wave of the future that will sweep the
    modern liturgists into the unemployment lines.

  9. Jordan Potter says:

    I didn’t know it was that bad.

    It’s always seemed to me to be the British equivalent of the National Catholic Reporter.

  10. Seminarian says:

    NOT A TRAINED LITURGIST?

    He is the pope, as the head of the Roman Rite and Supreme Pontiff of the entire Catholic Church he is above having to be a “liturgist”… He sorta has authority to change whatever he sees fit.

    What rude remarks to our good Holy Father.

  11. nickwinker says:

    While it is true that when the “Missal of Pius V” was promulgated, there were local medieval “usages” in France, such as the rite of the City of Lyon, these were permitted as a concession to centuries-old territorial custom.
    I do not get it, anything local 2 centuries old, which was a lot more than Lyon, was allowed locally for the next 4 centuries, seems something universal 4 centuries old should be allowed universally for the next 8 centuries, it seems only fair for these renaissance “usages.”

    Also:
    Are we now to offer Latin and liturgy courses in seminaries to train our new priests to offer the Rite of Mass and the sacraments of the Medieval Rite on demand along with the liturgical rites mandated by Vatican II?
    Latin is already required by Cannon 249

  12. nickwinker says:

    While it is true that when the “Missal of Pius V” was promulgated, there were local medieval “usages” in France, such as the rite of the City of Lyon, these were permitted as a concession to centuries-old territorial custom.
    I do not get it, anything local 2 centuries old, which was a lot more than Lyon, was allowed locally for the next 4 centuries, seems something universal 4 centuries old should be allowed universally for the next 8 centuries, it seems only fair for these renaissance “usages.”

    Also:
    Are we now to offer Latin and liturgy courses in seminaries to train our new priests to offer the Rite of Mass and the sacraments of the Medieval Rite on demand along with the liturgical rites mandated by Vatican II?
    Latin is already required in seminaries by Cannon 249

  13. Fr Justin says:

    Others seem to have picked up the epiclesis thing—-the first commentator, Michael Lawrence, is right about the epiclesis of the Word.
    However, there is more: in addition, we have to remember the integrity of the whole rite, and, sure, if we use EP1 in the Ordinary Rite, there is no calling down of the Holy Spirit. But in the Extraordinary Rite, at the Offertory, the priest says ‘Veni Sanctificator, omnipotens aeterne Deus, et benedic hoc sacrificium tuo sancto nomine praeparatum’. What clearer invocation of the Holy Spirit does this chap want?

  14. Fr Justin says:

    And another thing; about the putative abrogation. I think that it is fair to say that Pope Paul VI THOUGHT he was abrogating the old missal, otherwise he wouldn’t have provided exceptions, nor made several comments about it to that effect in allocutions &c. The fact is, as Pope Benedict the Good has shown, that he hadn’t actually succeeded, either canonically (as Count Neri Capponi has always argued) or morally (as Pope Benedict himself points out). Deo gratias!

  15. Sue Sims says:

    While I’m not a fan of what C.S. Lewis called ‘Bulverism’ (assuming one has disproved a opponent’s argument by showing that he has an interest in the matter – I suppose a version of the ad hominem), it’s hard to resist the sneaking suspicion that le bon Père Francis realises, consciously or otherwise, that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass would put him out of a job if it were to become in any way normative within a parish. If you haven’t read the link that Fr Z provides, do so, and you’ll see what I mean.

  16. Richard says:

    After having read Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Spirit of the Liturgy”, I was bewildered when this guy asserted that Benedict was no “trained liturgist”. Then I started to wonder what qualifies someone in this guy’s book to be a “trained liturgist”. Then I decided to stop wasting my time wondering about that.

  17. Unitas says:

    I find it amusing he thinks he can tell a former inquisitor what to do.

  18. Francis Brennan says:

    “The Pope…is not a trained liturgist…The motu proprio…seems to betray a real misunderstanding of liturgy’s role in the life of the Church.”

    I was always vaguely aware that many liturgists have an inflated view of their own importance, and that modernist liturgists who are allowed to run riot in a diocese can be a real nuisance. Now here is some tangible evidence for the world to behold.

  19. ben whitworth says:

    Re. Epiclesis. The great Orthodox theologian Nicholas Kabasilas held that the Quam oblationem, though
    addressed to the Father, fulfils the function of the Byzantine epiclesis, so the Roman canon is not
    defective even in terms of Greek Eucharistic theology. (I write from memory and under correction, but
    that’s the gist.) And since the Roman Church recognises the validity of the anaphora of Addai and Mari,
    which lacks an institution narrative, any attempt to cast doubt on the ‘theological completeness’ (whatever
    that means) of the Roman Canon looks pretty desperate.

    Last week the Tablet editorial was telling us that bishops are the liturgists par excellence in their
    dioceses; now the bishop of Rome isn’t allowed to do anything about the liturgy because he’s not ‘trained’
    in that arcane art. I wish the liberals would make their minds up!!!

  20. Since he can’t even make up his mind whether the extraodinary Mass is a “Medieval rite” or a “product of the 16th Century” I don’t think we should take his “trained expertise” too seriously.

  21. Betty says:

    Methinks the new springtime is coming, and Fr. Mark Francis is trying to hold it back with his chilly little blast of air.

  22. Craigmaddie says:

    Again it emphasised that permission to use the old rite is a pastoral concession to those spiritually unable to adapt themselves to the new rite…

    Well, I was going to say what an incredibly condescending statement this is…when I realised that, yes, to a certain a extent I, as a 30-something recent convert, have been unable to adapt myself to the new rite (at any rate the way that the new rite is celebrated most Sundays). As soon as I was received into the Church I found myself hungering for something more substantial than “bind us together” and a stilted celebration of ourselves.

  23. jmgarciaiii says:

    Fr. Francis expertly crystallizes the thoughts of the ecclesial dinosaurs upon having seen the meteor hit.

    Typical.

    -J.

    P.S. Although! His comments give us ample opportunity to exercise charity.

  24. RBrown says:

    If he’s interested in pneumatologically oriented liturgy, then he’s headed in the wrong direction. The Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is, like the Eastern Church, grounded in a more pneumatological approach. And what do we see in Eastern liturgy? The Eucharist is celebrated by a priest hidden hidden behind the iconostasis. No communion in the hand. Lay participation? Compared to the Eastern liturgy, a 1962 Mass is a veritable free-for-all of lay participation.

  25. RBrown says:

    And another thing; about the putative abrogation. I think that it is fair to say that Pope Paul VI THOUGHT he was abrogating the old missal, otherwise he wouldn’t have provided exceptions, nor made several comments about it to that effect in allocutions &c. The fact is, as Pope Benedict the Good has shown, that he hadn’t actually succeeded, either canonically (as Count Neri Capponi has always argued) or morally (as Pope Benedict himself points out). Deo gratias!
    Comment by Fr Justin

    I think PVI wanted to suppress the old missal–but without a juridical abrogation. It was de facto rather than de iure.

  26. Jennifer says:

    “Are we now to offer Latin and liturgy courses in seminaries to train our new priests to offer the Rite of Mass and the sacraments of the Medieval Rite on demand along with the liturgical rites mandated by Vatican II?”

    I have two friends who are protestant pastors. Both were required to learn Latin and Greek during their theological studies. In fact, one of these gentlemen also learned ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and several other languages. If a protestant can be required to study Latin when that is not even the historical language for his faith, why would it be such a hardship for a Catholic, when that is the official language???

  27. RBrown says:

    It is certainly true what is said above about the Spiritus Verbi (which St Thomas famously refers to as Verbum spirans Amorem). To me there is little doubt that we (and he) are here referring to the Filioque.

    As I noted above, however, those Churches with a heavy pneumatological approach (i.e., no Filioque) have a much more strict structure of the mass (incl separation of the priest and people). This is because a true pneumatological approach means a more mystical, transcendental approach.

    What Fr Francis seems to be advocating is an Hegelian understanding of the spirit, the driver of historical progress. And that would place him in a group that includes Gustavo Gutierrez and the Grand High Equivocator himself Karl Rahner.

    BTW, I have to question the intelligence of a superior general living in Rome who writes against the pope.

  28. RBrown says:

    It is certainly true what is said above about the Spiritus Verbi (which St Thomas famously refers to as Verbum spirans Amorem). To me there is little doubt that we (and he) are here referring to the Filioque.

    As I noted above, however, those Churches with a heavy pneumatological approach (i.e., no Filioque) have a much more strict structure of the mass (incl separation of the priest and people). This is because a true pneumatological approach means a more mystical, transcendental approach.

    What Fr Francis seems to be advocating is an Hegelian understanding of the spirit, the driver of historical progress. And that would place him in a group that includes Gustavo Gutierrez, Leonardo Boff, and the Grand High Equivocator himself Karl Rahner.

    BTW, I have to question the intelligence of a superior general living in Rome who writes against the pope.

  29. Hammerbrecher says:

    Wow, I do say this guy must have hit his head? had and accedent? is off his medication?

    An interesting effect of the Motu Proprio is that we are really seeing into the mind of the left wing. They are really unloading with all they got now in a vain hope to stop the 62 Missal. It is for naught. It sure is pretty scary how these people think and view the Church and the Mass. Only by the mercy of God are they finally fading away..

  30. Bruce T. says:

    Fr Z.,
    I hope you’ve considered writing a response to the Tablet. As we do, its readers would greatly benefit from your sane and astute comments.

  31. Widukind says:

    I want to gag everytime an “expert”, a “doctoral degreed”, or a “noted” something-or-another, is trotted out with pontifical fanfare (and with the great papal feathered fans held in hands of their equals, wafting them in adulation.) They are deified for their erudite and incisive insight into the really real, that no other comment is ever needed again!
    Instead of “erudites”, they are “hermaphrodites”, sterile in all things necessary, and engenerding nothing. All too often these experts slice and dice the truth to oblivion,condemning it wholesale. However, as expert as they are, they have yet to come up with something just as substantial to replace that which they condemn. For as an example, the expert would condemn any orthodox youth movement as counter to the needs of the Church. But, where oh where is THEIR “Hans Kung Youth Group” or their “Regnum Currani”. It simply does not exist, because it would never fly!
    It is far easier for them to condemn and to fear the truth!

  32. Don says:

    What about this?

    Pope John XXIII
    Apostolic Constitution – Veterum Sapientia
    On the Promotion of the Study of Latin
    February 22, 1962

    …But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West.

    …Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

    … For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority “as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws.”

    … Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

    … In addition, the Latin language “can be called truly catholic.” It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed “a treasure … of incomparable worth.”. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

    … It will be quite clear from these considerations why the Roman Pontiffs have so often extolled the excellence and importance of Latin, and why they have prescribed its study and use by the secular and regular clergy, forecasting the dangers that would result from its neglect.

    … And We also, impelled by the weightiest of reasons — the same as those which prompted Our Predecessors and provincial synods — are fully determined to restore this language to its position of honor, and to do all We can to promote its study and use. The employment of Latin has recently been contested in many quarters, and many are asking what the mind of the Apostolic See is in this matter. We have therefore decided to issue the timely directives contained in this document, so as to ensure that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained and, where necessary, restored.

    … It is a matter of regret that so many people, unaccountably dazzled by the marvelous progress of science, are taking it upon themselves to oust or restrict the study of Latin and other kindred subjects…. Yet, in spite of the urgent need for science, Our own view is that the very contrary policy should be followed.

    With the foregoing considerations in mind, to which We have given careful thought, We now, in the full consciousness of Our Office and in virtue of Our authority, decree and command the following:

    1. Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.

    2. In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

    3. As is laid down in Canon Law (can. 1364) or commanded by Our Predecessors, before Church students begin their ecclesiastical studies proper they shall be given a sufficiently lengthy course of instruction in Latin …

    4. Wherever the study of Latin has suffered partial eclipse through the assimilation of the academic program to that which obtains in State public schools, with the result that the instruction given is no longer so thorough and well-grounded as formerly, there the traditional method of teaching this language shall be completely restored. Such is Our will …

    … 8. We further commission the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities to prepare a syllabus for the teaching of Latin which all shall faithfully observe.

    … Finally, in virtue of Our apostolic authority, We will and command that all the decisions, decrees, proclamations and recommendations of this Our Constitution remain firmly established and ratified, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, however worthy of special note.

    Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on the feast of Saint Peter’s Throne on the 22nd day of February in the year 1962, the fourth of Our pontificate.

  33. Sid Cundiff says:

    A multiple choice test: Mark Francis is

    a. wanting to be anything and everything but “Roman”; e.g. Eastern Rite Quaker (“no epiclesis!’), “Mainline” Protestant, Ritualist/Latitudinarian Anglican John-Shelby-Spongist, Modernist, Process-ist, Social Gospel-ist, Backsliding Unitarian, you name it.

    b. a crypto foot-washing Primitive Baptist (“there weren’t no church nohow frum A.D. 54 [a.D. 590] or The Book of Revelations [sic] to 1517 [1963], cuz them mackerel-snapper, cracker eating, toe kissing Papists Cath-Licks [Medievalists, Counter-Reformers, Gregory the Great] done hid it!”)

    c. a 19th Century Liberal Lutheran in the tradition of Reimarus, David Strauss, Ritschl, Troeltsch, Harnack, Schweitzer, Bultmann

    d. a sympathizer of … well, see the Wikipedia q.v. “Queer Theology”

    e. a member of the Mickey Marx Club, a Hallmarxist

    f. all of the above

  34. Karen Russell says:

    “threatens to reduce the liturgy to a simple matter of individual “taste” rather than what it is meant to be: an accurate reflection of what we believe as Catholic Christians who live in the twenty-first century.”

    I am fortunate enough to attend a parish where the NO Mass is celebrated with care, respect and dignity. However, if the ordinary rite as I have seen it too many times elsewhere–and as most of us here have seen–is indeed “an accurate reflection of what we believe as
    Catholic Christians who live in the twenty-first century.” then we are in deep trouble.

    (Note that I said “if.” Done well, the ordinary rite is good, and it can be done beautifully. And I have no desire to see it taken away from those who find it spiritually more beneficial; it’s just that my own preferences are much more traditional.And the NO as it is done in my parish should be the norm, not the exception.)

    And of course, the horror that seminaries might have to teach Latin is a bit rich, given that, as I understand, that has been officially a requirement all along.

    That said, I personally did not find this as repulsive as the Boston Globe piece. I think it is because Mr. Carroll is speaking from extreme anger and hatred, whereas Fr. Francis writes with extreme arrogance. But under the arrogance there are some shreds of faith.

  35. Clayton says:

    The thing that many people forget is that the Old Mass DOES have an epiclesis; it’s located in the Offertory prayers as, “Veni, sanctificator omnipotens eterne Deus: et benedic hoc sacrificium, tuo nomini preparatum.”
    True, if I remember correctly, the Carthusian rites do not have this, but they do not lack the prayers mentioned above, “Quam oblationem,” as well as still having the offertory elevation.

  36. Danielle says:

    “Are we now to offer Latin and liturgy courses in seminaries to train our new priests to offer the Rite of Mass and the sacraments of the Medieval Rite on demand along with the liturgical rites mandated by Vatican II?”

    Actually, the other day, my parish’s Priest (who was trained in the NO. In fact, he wasn’t alive before Vatican II) was helping me with my Latin studies.

  37. Tim Hallett says:

    “since the ancient rites of the Eastern Churches are the expression of Christianity lived over centuries by a given nation or ethnic group within a limited geographical territory”

    Since when is Byzantium a “limited geographical territory”? He has inadvertently committed a mortal sin for progressives, alienating non-Catholics (Ooops! I forgot! This applies only to non-apostolic types like protestants, Jews, Wiccans, Al Gore, etc., Orthodox don’t count!;-)
    In addition, although the respective liturgies of the church are materially sufficient, it does not follow that they all share equal emphasis on various points of theology. The Antiochian is very Pneumatological (or more precisely Triadological), the historical Roman highly incarnational (the saddest moment of my life was when I read an Easterner claim that one of the advantages of the Byzantine tradaition was that it was “much more incarnational” than the Roman. “Once upon a time”), the eastern Syraic, highly patriarchical, etc.

  38. Barbara says:

    Apocolypse 11:1
    “And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and it was said to me; Arise and measure the temple of God, and the altar and them that adore therein.
    But the court, which is without the temple, cast it out, and measure it not: because it is given unto the gentiles, and the holy city they shall tread under foot two and forty months.”

    The devil is on notice now that his time is indeed short.

  39. P.S. How much do you want to bet there aren’t that many young or new Viatorians?

  40. Maureen says:

    My archdiocese’s seminary apparently stopped teaching Latin for many years, and only put it back into the pre-theology program last year. Our archvishop (who presided over said lack of Latin) simultaneously is proud of the new program and doesn’t seem at all interested in instituting a makeup Latin program for all the priests who got gypped — but will test priests who wnat to celebrate the extraordinary form on their Latin skills. Catch-22?

    Meanwhile, many of the gypped priests seem to think Latin is some horrendously hard thing to learn and are scared of it, as many Americans today are scared of foreign language learning because they’ve never been exposed to them.

    The whole thing makes me sad. And yet, a concerted effort by archdioceses to op play catch-up would be helpful. Heck, it would offer priests an incentive to get together and study (even if only over the Internet), thus promoting fellowship. And it’s not as though modern learning and distribution tools aren’t available. Even if priests never “used” Latin, they’d get a brain boost and a feeling of achievement. Team-building! Professional development! It’s be awesome!

  41. Prof. Basto says:

    I didn’t read everything. I couldn’t stomach it. However, I read the last line:

    “…by failing to support the foundational insights of the Second Vatican Council”

    Here the author proves that he gets everything wrong: The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council has no foundational autority: it neither founded, nor intended to found, nor could found the Church .

    The idea of the Council as foundation of something new is the key to the hermeneutics of rupture, repudiated as an error by Pope Benedict XVI in his Christmas Adress to his Curia in 2005.

    Also, Popes are not servants of Ecumenical Councils. There seems to exist nowadays a kind of neo-conciliarism. Well, conciliarism is heresy. The Pope, is, in his own right, as successor in the Primacy of Blessed Peter, one of the holders (subjects) of the supreme ecclesiastical authority. What is more, it pertains to him, who heads the College of Bishops, to determine when that authority will be discharged in a collegial manner with the participation of the rest of the College, and when he will discharge authority monocratically. The authority, however is the same.

    So, if the Pope decides monocratically to change or supress some pastoral or disciplinary rule willed by an Ecumenical Council, that is within his authority; just like, in matters pastoral and disciplinary, a Pope can change laws enacted by previous Popes.

    The Pope has graces of state proper to his office. When he chooses to discharge authority monocratically there is no less assistance from the Holy Spirit then when he chooses to discharge authority in a collegial manner, even in the solemn gathering of an Ecumenical Council. Therefore, the liturgical reforms willed by the Second Vatican Council are not set in stone.

  42. Sean says:

    “the horror…the horror” – Fr. Kurtz, somewhere upriver.

  43. jaykay says:

    I can’t say I’d ever heard of them before but then they don’t operate in the British Isles. I’ve just been checking out their website: http://www.viatorians.com. Nothing overtly stomach-churning (in contrast to their Superior General’s article in that rag) but there’s a lot of pc-sounding buzzwords including a “vision statement”. Amazingly enough I didn’t spot the word “empowerment” but then it was only a quick skim-through. I’m sure it’s in there somewhere. It’s that sort of site.

    I have to say that if I were a young man with a vocation nothing in the website would attract me to join them although they seem to have ordained 2 in the past couple of years in the Chicago area.

  44. Summum Pomposium Liturgicarium says:

    Just to clarify, for the Epiclesiators, the Epiclesis has to be located in the Canon or else it Just Doesn’t Count. See, those Latins were always a few cards short of a full deck, anyway. Sure, they whomped us Greeks way back when, but they were so dumb they let us conquer them in the arts and philosophy. So they didn’t know what they were doing and somehow they put the Epiclesis in the Offertory where it ceases to be an Epiclesis and becomes just a tiddly old invocation of the Holy Spirit.

    So when we say there has to be an Epiclesis, that’s shorthand (which if y’all weren’t so irreformally Latinly dumb, you’d have understood) for “there to be an Epiclesis in the Anaphora” (that’s Greek for Eucharistic Prayer, for all you Latin dullards out there).

    Anathema sit anepiklesii! as my grandma always used to say.

  45. David Nelson says:

    About the size of the order, a very telling comment on their own website which they offer as an “interesting fact”:
    Sacred Heart-Griffin High School
    Springfield, IL
    Viatorians Arrived: About 1930
    Current Viatorians: Fr. Thomas Pisors, c.s.v.
    Interesting Facts: When Fr. Pisors arrived in 1962 to begin teaching here, there were about twenty-two Viatorians on the staff; he is the only one there now.

    Sounds like endgame to me.

  46. Dana Cole says:

    Fr. Justin, thanks for the apt moniker for our beloved Holy Father–Benedict the Good! There are several “great” popes in our history, but Benedict would be the first “good,” and I’ll take good over great any time.

  47. Brian Crane says:

    Dana:

    There is “Good Pope John” (referring to Bl. John XXIII). Wouldn’t that count? In any case, while I also like the title “Benedict the Good”, I do also hope that he will be “Benedict the Great”!!

  48. My first comment before the postscript has disappeared.

    It is legitimate to wonder, given liturgical history, theology, canon law, and pastoral practicalities, whether the liturgy is being taken seriously by this motu proprio or being treated as just another choice available in the [Roman] “Catholic cafeteria”.

    So, Fr Francis, the pre-conciliar church was evil because among other things it was monolithic (common knowledge!) but you’re angry because now your church won’t be monolithic. (Guess that’s not what you mean by ‘multicultural’.) Let’s take your statement to a logical conclusion applying it to the Eastern churches. Michael Davies and Thomas Day sussed out your kind years ago. Sure and begorrah, underneath the patronising ‘I love icons’ ecumenicism you’d like to ‘warmly invite’ the people you think of as those backward Oriental greaseballs, erm, your Eastern brethren to modernise their services… or else.

    The RC liberals are the shadow of the first kind of these folks.

  49. TJM says:

    This guy is a left-wing loon extraordinaire (no pun intended).
    I stopped reading his rant when he suggested what Benedict
    has done is unprecedented in contrast to Paul VI
    promulgating a New Missal (the Bugnini Committee Special)_)
    This guy must think everyone (save he)is dumber than
    a box of rocks. I love Father Zuhldorf’s idea of votive
    Masses (but which one would apply to this loon?) Tom

  50. Royce says:

    Wow, I feel so stupid. I’ve been reading all these books by the Pope on liturgy, never knowing he isn’t a trained liturgist! Gosh, I’m such an idiot.

    The old rite lacks attention on the Holy Spirit? Where is the prayer to the Holy Spirit in Eucharistic Prayer II? Oh, right, it isn’t there! Gosh, that old Roman Canon is so deficient.

    Number of times the NO (with EPII) mentions the Holy Spirit: 9.
    Number of times the extraordinary form mentions the Holy Spirit: 11.

    Maybe Fr. Francis was never informed that Holy Ghost = Holy Spirit.

  51. I’ve read there are mediæval variants of the Roman Canon that have an explicit descending epiclesis like the Byzantine anaphoras AND that its usual form without one shows it’s older than the anaphoras that do. (Many Eastern things are older than Roman ones but not everything.)

  52. Kris says:

    A smile just crossed my face as I imagined an invitation from His Holiness, asking Fr. Francis to come to Rome and
    please help him understand liturgy better.

    My smile came from imagining an invitation from His Holiness, asking Fr. Francis to come to Rome and explain to the “Ecclesia Dei” Commission his interference with the continuum of corrections that would authentically carry out the true directives/guidance in the documents of Vat II. There may even be some meat in there for a session at the same time with the CDF that might call for a setting aside of his consulting usefulness to various liturgical committees for the time being! It simply appears that this fellow has been duped along with the “gang of cosmetic liturgists”. Any degree that he may point to for his authority to speak looks like some mail order thing compared to the experience, training (esp. in music), scholarly background with years of recourse to the only meaningful texts for such a discussion that this pope in particular has in his background. Even with all of that Pope Benedict can relate his teachings to ALL of the faithful regardless of translations without having to arrogantly promote himself with a couple of big words as proof!

    This fellow seems incapable of seeing that he’s been in a spiritual schism to the point now that is openly erupting into some new self made position for the church as “pope of the liturgy”!

  53. Prof. Basto says:

    My comments on Fr. Z’s final toughts: I agree completely.

    And that is why, in my view, there must be a revival in the application of the Church’s penal canons, especially in matters of heresy, disobedience, etc – and if need be, a reform of the canons, to close the impressive number of loopholes in the penal part of the 1983 Code.

    We live in an age in which very few people are sanctioned by name – be it with declarations of excommunication latae sententiae, imposition of excomunication ferendae sententiae or with other punishments. We watch probably a record in terms of inertia of the Church’s penal action compared with past ages.

    The Church needs to separate the wheat from the weed explicitly, to send a message to all – its a question of general prevention. That’s why the Church’s penal law must be enforced, instead of remaining just ink on the books. People, and institutions, such as rebellious means of social communication, need to be exposed as violators of the Church’s law if that’s what they are.

    If someone is against pro multis and consubstantialis being correcly translated, if someone believes that the Mass of St. Pius V is harmful and should not be used in our age, if someone claiming to be Catholic defies the will of the Holy Father and dares to place one’s personal judgement above that of the Pope, who is the one aided by the Holy Spirit and invested with the graces of state proper to the leadership of the Church, if one espouses a heremeneutic of rupture, if one holds to conciliarism, or believes that a Council held more than 1900 after the foundation of the Church can change her unchangeable constitution dictated by Our Lord, if one ignores the several statements of the CDF concerning erroneous interpretation of the last Ecumenical Council, if one believes that a Council can change the past Deposit of Faith and interprets it in that light, if one rejects the hermeneutics of continuity that the Pope has declared as the only interpretative key to reading the acts of the same last Council, if one has an Agenda of undermining the Church’s tradition of prayer and of belief, promoting instead novelties and aberrations, then I suggest that one should face the Church’s penal system, in order that innocent people be warned that the views of that person (who is often a religious, or a member of the clergy, or a professor of an university that calls itself Catholic, or journalist in a newspaper that pourports to be Catholic) are not those of the Church, and that the Church rejects those errors.

    Unfortunately, however, the Church’s penal system is in a state of almost total paralisys, and, in the mean time, ill intentioned liberals with spin skills are able to spread the seed of “liberal Catholicism” among innocent members of the Laity who are not deeply tuned in the so called “Church politics”.

  54. Prof. Basto says:

    My comments on Fr. Z’s final toughts: I agree completely.

    And that is why, in my view, there must be a revival in the application of the Church’s penal canons, especially in matters of heresy, disobedience, etc – and if need be, a reform of the canons, to close the impressive number of loopholes in the penal part of the 1983 Code.

    We live in an age in which very few people are sanctioned by name – be it with declarations of excommunication latae sententiae, imposition of excomunication ferendae sententiae or with other punishments. We watch probably a record in terms of inertia of the Church’s penal action compared with past ages.

    The Church needs to separate the wheat from the weed explicitly, to send a message to all – its a question of general prevention. That’s why the Church’s penal law must be enforced, instead of remaining just ink on the books. People, and institutions, such as rebellious means of social communication, need to be exposed as violators of the Church’s law if that’s what they are.

    If someone is against pro multis and consubstantialis being correcly translated, if someone believes that the Mass of St. Pius V is harmful and should not be used in our age, if someone claiming to be Catholic defies the will of the Holy Father and dares to place one’s personal judgement above that of the Pope, who is the one aided by the Holy Spirit and invested with the graces of state proper to the leadership of the Church, if one espouses a heremeneutic of rupture, if one holds to conciliarism, or believes that a Council held more than 1900 after the foundation of the Church can change her unchangeable constitution dictated by Our Lord, if one ignores the several statements of the CDF concerning erroneous interpretation of the last Ecumenical Council, if one believes that a Council can change the past Deposit of Faith and interprets it in that light, if one rejects the hermeneutics of continuity that the Pope has declared as the only interpretative key to reading the acts of the same last Council, if one has an Agenda of undermining the Church’s tradition of prayer and of belief, promoting instead novelties and aberrations, then I suggest that one should face the Church’s penal system, in order that innocent people be warned that the views of that person (who is often a religious, or a member of the clergy, or a professor of an university that calls itself Catholic, or journalist in a newspaper that pourports to be Catholic) are not those of the Church, and that the Church rejects those errors.

    Unfortunately, however, the Church’s penal system is in a state of almost total paralisys, and, in the mean time, ill intentioned liberals with spin skills are able to spread the seed of “liberal Catholicism” among innocent members of the Laity who are not deeply tuned in the so called “Church politics”.

  55. berenike says:

    Whit’s a keester?

    and have you all signed up to the Lumengentlemen Critical Mass Builder MP database?

  56. Hugh says:

    “While the adjective “perfidious” describing the Jews was removed from the 1962 edition of the Missal there are still prayers that call for their conversion in direct contradiction to Vatican II’s “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions” (see Nostra Aetate 4).”

    Rubbish. In no place does Nostra Aetate forbid praying for the conversion of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or any other non-Christians.
    ****

    Nicholas, “The Tablet” is justly referred to as “The Pill” by genuine Catholics in the UK

  57. Derik says:

    The epistle Quo Primum Tempore from Pope St. Pius V allows several rites to be used. The Hispanic Mozarabic rite in Spain, and the Ambrosian rite in Italy are still in use, while other rites, like the Dominican is almost entirely abandoned. The Summorum Pontificium and the Quo Primum Tempore recogize one Roman Catholic Lithurgy with multiple forms or uses. People who make a living on multiculturalism should be able to recognize the great oportunity this gives for all to live according to our faith.

    I believe multiculturalism in the Catholich Church is not about deforming the mass in order to attract more customers from many countries around the globe, and never instructing them in the faith. Multiculturalism is perhaps the ability to live as a Catholic in any culture.

  58. Guy Power says:

    Oor guid fere abuin speirs: Whit’s a keester?

    Judging from your “whit’s” and the “Ahm nae ganne dae it” on his web site, I’m guessing he’s a Scot or Geordie. Therefore, allow me to translate from American English into Scots (which Geordies also understand). Ra “keester” is yin’s behoochi, dowp, or hurdies.

  59. Inquisitor Generalis says:

    Isn’t The Tablet the weekly that has a column signed by Rocco “Scoop the Pope” Palmo, of the blog Effeminates in the Loggia?

  60. Nicholas Picini says:

    His Holiness writes a book about Jesus…
    Cardinal Martini comments and notes that the Pope is not a Scripture scholar…

    His Holiness issues a Motu Proprio on the Tridentine Mass…
    Fr. Mark Francis comments and notes that the Pope is not a trained liturgist…

    Reader reads both comments by Cardinal Martini and Fr. Francis…
    Reader would like to comment and note that neither one of them is the Pope.

  61. Richard says:

    Fr. Z,

    If you go on the USCCB wedbsite, there is on the home page a link to a newletter which reprinted Sumorrum Pontificum and then at the end of it a question-and-answer section which answers the questions given in a way which says things in an incomplete matter. For example, the first question states, “What was the purpose of the Holy Father issuing SUmmorum Pontificum?” and it goes on to answer that question by saying he wanted to bring about unity in the Church with those who are still attached to the old liturgy. But that’s ALL its says. I would be interested to get your thoughts on this newsletter which may very well be a representation of the USCCB’s sentiments on this.

    Thanks

  62. Tina in Ashburn says:

    Fr Z, who are you??? I just came across your site here. You are hilarious!!!! Yay for you!

    I wondered as I read Fr Francis’ take on the apparently non-historical old Mass. How does he ignore all the other rites of the Church that are so similar to our old Mass of the centuries? And none of these other rites bear the same munber of similarities with the Novus Ordo. Yea, right, this Medieval Mass just came outta nowhere!!

    Gee all that brainwashing of the clergy that happened in the 60s and 70s certainly took on ONE certain individual!

    A former Viatorian seminarian is a friend of mine. He totally has lost his faith. But then, not sure he ever was taught much. Been married a couple of times though. Not funny.

  63. Dr. Peter H. Wright says:

    Oh dear.
    Father Mark Francis really ought to get out more in the fresh air.

  64. jarhead 462 says:

    OH….MY….GOD!

    was Paul VI a “trained liturgist”?

  65. Oscar says:

    I hope you’ll now turn your attention to this week’s lead article in The Tablet, by Nicholas Lash. Online now!

  66. Bruce Harbert says:

    Though many will disagree with his opinions, I believe Mark Francis was right about the recent motu proprio in what it ignores and its missed opportunities.

    For the most part, (to quote the motu proprio) ‘Christ’s faithful who spontaneously request it’ and ‘parishes where a group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition exists stably’ are already well catered for under the existing arrangements.

    And for all the talk about ‘leaving the ninety-nine to go after the one lost sheep’ the new arrangements (to come into force from 14 September) will not bring the Lefebvrists ‘into the fold’ – their problem has never been liturgy but ecclesiology – they just do not believe in the same Church.

    Once the dust has settled, the newly all-powerful Ecclesia Dei Commision has made its mark with one or two star chambers, and everyone has calmed down, the main difference will be that some seminarians and younger clergy of a certain persuasion (most of them, incidentally, bloggers and all of them knowing the private email addresses of the Roman curia) will be wearing more lace and promenading a little more grandly.

    For the most part, the plebs sancti Dei will be unaffected by all the affectation.

  67. Bruce Harbert: I am grateful for your service to the Church.

    I am grateful for your comment.

    Your comment underscores the true objective of Fr. Francis’s attack. Fr. Francis, clearly frightened, is trying to influence priests who might be interested in the older Mass or who may be on the fence about it. His article was a smear job. He wants to intimidate anyone who might get interested in the older form: If you get involved with this, people will think you are effeminate. His “matching maniple” comment reveals his real motive.

    You did the same thing when you talked about “seminarians and younger clergy of a certain persuasion (most of them, incidentally, bloggers and all of them knowing the private email addresses of the Roman curia) will be wearing more lace and promenading a little more grandly.”

    This is a smear job.

    Now we have two examples of this same tactic from well-placed members of the dominant liturgical establishment.

    PS: Plebs sancta Dei

    UPDATE: CAVEAT!

    The comment from “Bruce Harbert”, above, may or may not be from Msgr. Bruce Harbert, Executive Secretary of ICEL.  In The Tablet in the full, subscription version we find this letter:

    Mark Francis  was right about the recent motu proprio in what it ignores and its missed opportunities. For the most part, (to quote the motu proprio) ‘Christ’s faithful who spontaneously request it’ and ‘parishes where a group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition exists stably’ are already well catered for under the existing arrangements. And for all the talk about ‘leaving the 99 to go after the one lost sheep’ the new arrangements  will not bring the Lefebvrists ‘into the fold’ – their problem has never been liturgy but ecclesiology – they just do not believe in the same Church. Once the dust has settled, the newly all-powerful Ecclesia Dei Commision has made its mark with one or two star chambers, and everyone has calmed down, the main difference will be that some seminarians and younger clergy of a certain persuasion (most of them, incidentally, bloggers and all of them knowing the private email addresses of the Roman curia) will be wearing more lace and promenading a little more grandly.
    Chris Grady
    London SW4

    I am operating on the theory that the same person wrote both, though I cannot rule out that two monkeys found different computers and by randomly punching keys created these texts for The Tablet and for WDTPRS.

    If someone misappropriated the name of Msgr. Harbert on this blog, I would kindly ask him to stop “Chris Grady-ing” around and act with some honor.

    In the meantime, I invite Msgr. Harbert to clarify the situation at anytime.