Fr. Z in National Catholic Register
I was just informed by JM in Switzerland (go figure) that the National Catholic Register finally published an interview with me by Mr. Tim Drake about Summorum Pontificum.
Slavishly accurate liturgical translations & frank commentary on Catholic issues - by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf o{]:¬)




























I was just informed by JM in Switzerland (go figure) that the National Catholic Register finally published an interview with me by Mr. Tim Drake about Summorum Pontificum.
Last year on this day, in the Cathedral of Camden in New Jersey, I had the honor of delivering a sermon for the marvelous Solemn Mass with the 1962 Missale Romanum sponsored by His Excellency the Bishop and the Mater Ecclesiae community lead by the intrepid and distinguish Fr. Robert Pasley. I have wonderful memories of that Mass and the beautiful music.
Here is my sermon from that Mass last year.
Fr. Z's Assumption Sermon of 2006 in Camden, NJ [20:47m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Salve Regina excerpt [6:07m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | DownloadAt the end, there was a fine setting of Hail Holy Queen for the choir, orchestra and congregation raised the roof, I am sure, several inches off its mooring.
This recording was made with my little mp3 player and an external mike hooked onto the ambo.
I just got an amazing e-mail from a priest in Scotland (today seems to be the day for Scottish news).
He relates the salient points of a four page document issued by His Excellency Mario Conti, Archbishop of Glasgow about the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.
I think these excerpts from the Glaswegian Archbishop will astonish you. They strike me as being among the coldest, most hostile I have read so far... and that says a lot.
Keep in mind that the Scotish Bishops’ Conference official response was more positive: "The Bishops of Scotland acknowledge this responsibility and intend to study the Holy Father’s document thoroughly to ensure that that its provisions are fully available to those Catholics in Scotland who may wish to encounter the mystery of the Eucharist through the form of celebration set out in the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal."
Far and wide, bishops who are hostile to the provisions of the Motu Proprio will very carefully, and mostly inaccurately, parse terms from the unofficial and inaccurate translation of the Motu Proprio so as to find a way to restrict as much as possible the use of the older Missal. This is contrary not only to the spirit in which Pope Benedict gave those provisions, but also to the principle of interpretation of Canon Law that laws which grant favors are to be interpreted as favorably as possible.
Read this and consider if these comments are in keeping with that interpretive principle.
My emphases and comments.
"Notice that there is to be a "stable group", [Notice that His Excellency seems not actually to have read the Motu Proprio in LATIN and is referring to an inaccurate, unofficial translation? There is NO MENTION OF A "stable group" in the Latin! The Latin says "coetus … continenter exsistit". You can’t get "stable group" out of that.] a single request does not establish such a group. Moreover the group is to be identified as adhering to the earlier liturgical rite. [His Excellency, again sticking to an unofficial translation, does not take into accoun that "coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium" in Latin need not indicate that they "adhere" in a strict or juridical sense, but can simply mean "faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition"] A vague hankering for the old days is not an adherence to the earlier rite; this document has been issued to attempt to address serious divisions, not a generalised longing for days past. The word "adhere" is fundamental to the use of the extraordinary form. I find it difficult to envisage that there are any "stable groups" in our diocese who "adhere" to the 1962 Missal. [How many mistakes can we find in this? 1) "stable group" is not in the document, 2) "attached" not "adhere", 3) the M.P. says "attached to the previous liturgical tradition" not "1962 Missal"] There are clearly individuals who do so, but when offered a weekly celebration [Where and when? Easy for more than 30 people actually to attend?] of Mass in the 1962 Missal less than 30 people regularly attend. Furthermore it is difficult to say that people who do not regularly attend the 1962 Missal when it is actually available "adhere" to this Rite."
"I would not envisage a situation where the celebration of the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite meant that the ordinary form was not celebrated that day. It is to be noted that the canonical limits on bination remain intact" [Ho ho ho! I am forced to chortle. I wonder just how strictly the law about bination (a priest saying Mass twice in a day for pastoral reasons) is observed in the Diocese of Glasgow. I can just see it. Father Hamish "Just call me ‘Pooky’ MacWeirdo at St. Ipsidipsy can say as many Masses with the newer Missal (and probably a dozen too many extraordinary ministers of Communion) he wants to in a day, but Father Pius Romanus… nooo…. "Forget about the good of souls… or your soul for that matter, Father. One’s enough for you, Father!"]
"Art 5.3 also permits the extraordinary form for marriages, funerals, or occasional celebrations. The reference is to the Missal and not to the Tridentine Ritual. [NO! NO! NO! The marriage and funeral rites were NOT in the Missale Romanum. You used the Rituale Romanum for these! The Missale was used for the Masses that went with those rites. Furthermore, if we actually read the article in an accurate translation: "§ 3. Let the pastor [PASTOR
PASTOR
] permit to the faithful or priests requesting it, celebrations in this extraordinary form also in particular circumstances as are marriages, funerals, or celebratory occasions, for example, pilgrimages. What is hard about this?]."
"Priests ordained after 1970 are unlikely to be qualified [Here we go with the Idoneus Dodge.] to celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 ritual. It is certainly clear that a one week course would be insufficient to so qualify a priest. The discernment is mine... [Nope, again. The discernment is the Church’s law and practice. Idoneus means a minimum qualification. A priest ought to be able to pronounce the words and know the rubrics. That is it.] As the chief liturgist of our diocesan community I expect to be consulted so that I may confirm that any particular priest, before he begins to do so, is "qualified" to celebrate the extraordinary form in parishes. In that way I may exercise my responsibility in collaboration with you and help prepare in my mind the required report to the Holy Father which he requests within the next three years." [My heavens. I am left amazed.]
"Article 9 refers to the permission granted to parish priests to use the earlier Ritual for four of the sacraments…it is to be noted that this article falls under the same requirements that there be a stable group with an attachment to the prior rite, [NO IT DOESN’T. Art. 9, § 1: "Similarly, a pastor, [PASTOR
PASTOR
] everything having been well though out, can grant permission for using the older Ritual administrate of the sacraments of Baptism, Matrimony, Penance and Anointing of the Sick, as the good of souls suggests." This says NOTHING about any "stable group" or even the group referred to as coetus … continenter exsistit.] that the ordinary form is not displaced and that the priest be suitable qualified....I require that you consult me before making use of these rites so that I may verify the circumstances for the use of the earlier Ritual and your suitability for its use".
"...no-one may be forced [GOOD GRIEF!] to take part in the 1962 rituals when they would wish to celebrate according to the ordinary Rite".
"I look to you, the priests of the diocese to cooperate with me [OR ELSE] in this matter so that all may be done in the spirit of [repression] unity that the Holy Father so urgently [tried to avoid] seeks."
This has not yet been publicly released, I am informed. It has been sent to the clergy of Glasgow. My sender urged me not to mention his name. Judging from this terrifically hostile statement, I can understand why.
I think I better leave the comments OFF. You can e-mail your comments and if they warrant posting, I will add them myself.I received this note via e-mail:
Just letting you know that tonight (Feast of the Assumption) the Cardinal of St Andrews and Edinburgh in Scotland is presiding at the Tridentine Mass at the Church he allows the FSSP to use.
At the NO Mass today at the Cathedral he preached about Benedicts’ theme of love in his pontificate which has further extended in the Church the extraordinary right – one rite 2 forms he correctly said.
Back in the day, I did a patristiblogger series called The Patristic Rosary Project. Some newcomers to the blog may not have seen it. Here is a slightly modified review of my entry for the 4th Glorious Mystery, appropriate for today’s wonderful feast!
____________________
We continue our Patristic Rosary Project today with the:
4th Glorious Mystery: The Assumption
We do not know if Mary died and was assumed body and soul into heaven or if she was assumed without dying. Either way, it was fitting that the Mother of God, who had never known the stain of sin, while requiring a Redeemer just like every other human being, should not experience the corruption of the grave.
Our humanity is seated at the right hand of the Father in the divine Person of our Lord, but now also in the human person of our Lady.
Christ is consubstantial with the Father. Christ is consubstantial with His mother.
Mary is Mother of a divine Person with two natures. She is not Mother of part of Christ, but Mother of all of Christ in His integrity. And so, we can call her Mother of God and Mother of the Church.
Her heavenly Assumption was fitting.
There are not elaborate reflections in the writings of the Fathers on the Assumption, because it was not a main point of reflection. Still, we can find their thoughts on some passages of Scripture which help us to understand Mary’s role in the plan of our salvation.
As a perfect model for our own Christian discipleship, we can consider, among many texts, Proverbs 8:
And now, my sons, listen to me: happy are those who keep my ways. Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it. Happy is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors. For he who finds me finds life and obtains favor from the LORD; but he who misses me injures himself; all who hate me love death.
While this concerns Wisdom, in a sense it harks to Mary, Wisdom’s seat.
Here is the reflection of Athenagoras on this section of Proverbs:
[The Son] is the first offspring of the Father, I do not mean that He was created, for, since God is eternal mind, He had His Word within Himself from the beginning, being eternally wise. Rather did the Son come forth from God to give form and actuality to all material things, which essentially have a sort of formless nature and inert quality, the heavier particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit agrees with this opinion when He says, "The Lord created me as the first of His ways, for His works." Indeed we say that the Holy Spirit Himself, who inspires those who utter prophecies, is an effluence from God, flowing from Him, and returning like ray of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear those called atheists who admit God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who teach their unity of power and their distinction in rank? ... We affirm, too, a crowd of angels and ministers, whom God, the maker and creator of the world, appointed to their several tasks through His Word, He gave them charge over the good order of the universe, over the elements, the heavens, the world, and all it contains. [A plea regarding Christians 10]
This fellow sounds a bit like a subordinationist, but he is fascinating. This passage is interesting also for its hints at the cosmology and physics of late antiquity. Also, it aims at the spiritual hierarchy in which Our Lady has a privileged place.
Consider that the reward of assumption into the beatific vision stems as well from Mary’s perfect act of free will when she gave her "Fiat" to God’s will as expressed by the angel.
Here is St. Augustine speaking of the impact of free will:
Man in paradise was capable of self-destruction by abandoning justice by an act of will; yet if the life of justice was to be maintained, his will alone would not have sufficed, unless He who made Him glad had given him aid. But, after the fall, God’s mercy was even more abundant, for then the will itself had to be freed from the bondage in which sin and death are the masters. There is no way at all by which it can be freed by itself, but only though God’s grace, which is made effectual in the faith of Christ. Thus, as it is written, even the will by which "the will itself is prepared by the Lord" so that we may receive the other gifts of God through which we come to the Gift eternal – this too comes from God. [Enchiridion 28.106]
God’s grace … Mary’s "Fiat", which was by grace. Mary was drawn with love into God’s plan and, later, into God’s presence.
The Fathers made frequent use of the Song of Songs. St. Gregory the Great writes about the exchanges of heaven and earth which marked the plan of salvation:
The Church speaks through Solomon: "See how he comes leaping on the mountains, bounding over the hill!" ... By coming for our redemption the Lord leaped! My friends, do you want to become acquainted with these leaps of His? From heaven He came to the womb, from the womb to the manger, from the manger to the Cross, from the Cross to the sepulcher, and from the sepulcher He returned to heaven. You see how Truth, having made Himself known in the flesh, leaped for us to make us run after Him. [Forty Gospel Homilies 29]
Our Lady, who would feel Christ leap beneath her heart, would herself leap after Christ in her heart by her "Fiat". She leapt to spark His public ministry when she said at Cana "Do whatever He tell you." She leapt up Calvary with Him when the Blood and water flowed down. Her motherly and Christian heart leaped in joy in seeing Him gloriously risen. She leapt to Him in heaven when her earthly life was concluded.
In heaven Mary shines with the glory God shares with her.
In the book of Revelation we have a description chapter 12 of the woman clothed with the sun. The Fathers speak about this image. They will mostly consider the woman as an image of the Church. We cannot reduce the Church to Mary. Nor in talking of the Church as Christ’s Body reduce Christ to the Church. But the three, Christ, Mary and Church are intimately associated.
Hippolytus (+245) writes:
By the "woman clothed with the sun", he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father’s Word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by "the moon under her feet," he referred to [the Church] being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words "upon her head a crowd of twelve stars" refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded.
Of course Christ founded the Church on the Apostles, and chiefly upon the Rock who is Peter. The description of the woman, however, fits Mary the Mother of the Church as well as the Church herself.
Here is an extended piece by someone not too many in the West may read, Oecumenius (6th c.) called the "Rhetor" who wrote the earliest Greek commentary on Revelation:
The vision intends to describe more completely to us the circumstances concerning the antichrist…. However, since the incarnation of the Lord, which made the world his possession and subjected it, provided a pretext for Satan to raise this one up and to choose him [as his instrument] – for the antichrist will be raised to cause the world again to fall from Christ and to persuade it to desert to Satan – and since moreover His fleshly conception and birth was the beginning of the incarnation of the
Lord,
the vision gives a certain order and sequence to the material that it is going to discuss and begins the discussion from the fleshly conception of the Lord by portraying for us the mother of God. What does he say? "And a sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sum and the moon was under her feet." As we said, it is peaking about the mother of our Savior. The vision appropriately depicts her as in heaven and not on the earth, for she is pure in soul and body, equal to an angel and a citizen of heaven. She possesses God who rests in heaven – "for heaven is my throne" – it says yet she is flesh, although she has nothing in common with the earth nor is there any evil in her. Rather, she is exalted, wholly worthy of heaven, even though she possesses our human nature and substance. For the Virgin is consubstantial with us. Let the impious teaching of Eutyches, which make the fanciful claim that the Virgin is of another substance than we, be excluded from the belief of the holy courts together with his other opinions. And what does it mean that she was clothed with the sun and the moon was under her feet? The holy prophet Habakkuk, prophesied concerning the Lord, saying, "The sun was lifted up, and the moon stood still in its place for light." calling Christ our Savior, or at least the proclamation of the gospel, the "sun of righteousness". When He was exalted and increased, the moon – that is, the law of Moses – "stood still" and no longer received any addition. For after the appearance of Christ, it no longer received proselytes from the nations as before but endured diminution and cessation. You will, therefore, observe this with me, that also the holy Virgin is covered by the spiritual sun. For this is what the prophet calls the Lord when concerning Israel he says, "Fire fell upon them, and they did not see the sun." But the moon, that is, the worship and citizenship according to the law, being subdued and become much less than itself, is under her feet, for it has been conquered by the brightness of the gospel. And rightly does he call the things of the law by the word "moon", for they have been given light by the sun, that is, Christ just as the physical moon is given its light by the physical sun. The point would have been better made had it said not that the woman was clothed with the sun but that the woman enclothed the sun, which was enclosed in her womb. However, that the vision might show that the Lord, who was being carried in the womb, was the shelter of His own mother and the whole creation, it says that He was enclothing the woman. Indeed, the holy angel said something similar to the holy Virgin: "The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." For to overshadow is to protect, and to enclothe is the same according to power. [Commentary on the Apocalypse 12.1-2]
Take careful note of the image drawn on by the interesting Oecumenius, which also speaks to the cosmology of late antiquity. Oecumenius either knew that the sun gave light to the moon, as it does, or he extrapolates this from the glory that Christ gives to Mary.
All our Marian feasts, all our reflection, to keep the sunlight and moon theme going, always must draw us back to the Person of the Lord. We reflect on the face of the Lord who is reflected in the face of His Mother.
Our recitation of the Rosary brings us to know the Lord more and more and, in turn, know ourselves better. We reflect His image and likeness and He came into the word to reveal us more fully to ourselves.
Yesterday, which in the old calendar was the Vigil of the Assumption, was in the new calendar St. Maximillian Kolbe.
It is hard to know how those using the old calendar would celebrate the feast of St. Maximillian.
Some people, I am one of them, are concerned that the calendars don’t match.
Yesterday, a possible solution suggested itself.
When I used the old calendar yesterday, for the Vigil, there was a second set of prayers to recite for the commemoration of St. Eusebius.
Perhaps a solution to the calendar problem would be to produce a new old Missal, with adjustments and additions such that on days like the Vigil of the Assumption the commemoration could be that of St. Maximillian, such an important 20th c. saint. It was ever the practice of the Church to adjust the calendar, removing and adding feasts as needs arose.
In any event, today, in addition to the glorious feast of the Assumption, is also the feast of St. Tarcisius. I don’t think we need to bump the Queen of all saints for any saint, however!
2. Romae in coemeterio Callisti via Appia, commemoratio sancti Tarcisii, martyris, qui, Christi defendens sacratissimam Eucharistiam, quam insana gentilium turba profanare conabatur, lapidibus usque ad mortem mactari maluit quam sacra prodere canibus. ... At Rome in the cemetery of Callistus on the Via Appia, the commemoration of Saint Tarcisius, martyr, who while defending the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, which a raging gang of gentiles was trying to profane, preferred to be slaughtered by being stoned to death rather than that sacred things be given to dogs.
This reminds me of the great Sequence for Corpus Christi by St. Thomas Aquinas ... "non mittendus canibus".