![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
“…all liturgies in the Diocese of Gaylord are to be celebrated entirely in English…”
A biretta tip o{]:¬) though a sad one, goes to Thrown Back for news of a liturgical decree from the Bishop of Gaylord, Michigan, His Excellency Most Reverend Patrick Cooney.
This is what we read from Fr. Johansen
At a gathering of priests of the Gaylord Diocese in late June (on the eve of the MP’s release), the bishop of Gaylord, Patrick Cooney, issued a directive stating:
Until other law is promulgated, all liturgies in the Diocese of Gaylord are to be celebrated entirely in English by the presiding celebrant.It then goes on to say:
The use of other languages in songs and hymns…can be used occasionally, but must never overshadow the use of English.
Any variance from this policy must be requested on an individual basis from the Bishop of the Diocese of Gaylord using the form that can be obtained from the Secretariat for Worship & Liturgical Formation or the Office of the Bishop.
This Policy takes effect immediately. [Bold text in original.]
The form mentioned above asks the person making such a request to explain the "reason for requesting this variance from Diocesan Policy on the Use of the Vernacular when Celebrating Liturgy."
(Scans of these documents can be downloaded here,here, and here.)
.... What the….. #&*$! ....
This is AMAZING.
His Excellency is effectively forbidding the use of Latin. No Latin, even for the Novus Ordo.
You have to ask PERMISSION to use Latin.
What would that mean for implementation of Summorum Pontificum I wonder?
With all due respect to His Excellency, I think any preist punished by the bishop for using Latin would receive a very sympathetic hearing in Rome.
The language of the Latin Church is… Latin. Canon Law states that Mass is to be celebrated in Latin (first) and other approved languages (secondarily). The normative edition of the Missale Romanum is in Latin… even the readings. The Second Vatican Council mandated that Latin be the language of the liturgy and that the vernacular could be used when appropriate, not must be used all the time. The same Council mandated that pastors of souls teach their flocks to sing and speak the parts pertaining to them in Latin and in their native tongue.
All of the above notwithstanding, His Excellency is requiring priests to fill out a form requesting permission to vary from using English! On the request form you can see also
Permission: Granted Denied
And then a space for "Comments from the Bishop"
But wait… there is even more!
It is now the official policy of the Bishop of Gaylord that… well read it yourself: My emphasis, but the italics are in the original. The error in grammar is in the original.
To enhance the active participation of the faithful in the Eucharistic celebration, Communion under both species is to be offered to the faithful at each and every celebration that takes place in our parish churches. Certain, appropriate preparation should be given to those congregations that have not yet had this experienced. [sic] Such preparation is presumed. (Revision effective June, 2007)
Someone in Gaylord should write to Cardinal Arinze and ask whether the local bishop can forbid mass in Latin.The Cardinal will answer.Not on ly does the bishop contravene canon law and Redemptionis Sacramentum but in his directive to priests on communion under both species he violates the norm set by the American bishops.The bishops voted to allow both species if a bishop of a diocese permitted it BUT then it would be up to the Pastor whether to do it.Sad but what more can be expected of a bishop whose mentor was no less than John Cardinal Deardon.
Comment by fr.franklyn mcafee — 11 August 2007 @ 1:28 pmThis amazing statement speaks volumes – be it of the diocese or the bishop.
My money’s on the latter, and I am curious as to his formation and pastoral experience prior to his episcopal ordination.
Comment by Paul Stokell — 11 August 2007 @ 1:32 pmWhat’s the old saying? The path to hell is lined with miters.
He doesn’t seem to understand that it is not his decision. I would love to see one of his priests challenge him on this. All it would take is just one: Bishop, we’ll go to Rome and settle this once and for all.
The next couple of years will be interesting.
Comment by RBrown — 11 August 2007 @ 1:33 pmHas this Bishop excommunicated himself? He is obviously in rebellion? Who the hell does he think he is?
Another issue: If this is his position on our Pope’s wisdom I would be loathed to follow this Bishop in anything he suggests or encourages. Therefore his suggestion of recieving under both species – why would he encourage this? what are the issues? I would like some advice from some wise and holy people here.
Comment by DoB — 11 August 2007 @ 1:34 pmHis Excellency’s decree (if indeed it was formulated as a decree should be) is null because it is in conflict with a higher law: Summorum Pontificum. It seems as if many of these USA bishops do not understand that the Supreme Legislator (the Pope) has taken away from them the right to do anything other than supervise the appropriate celebration of the usus antiquior when a parish priest or rector of a church (and not the bishop!) judges that it should take place in public, or when any priest of the Roman Rite freely decides to celebrate it any any of Christ’s faithful freely decide to attend it.
Comment by Anon. — 11 August 2007 @ 1:36 pmThe Bishop cannot command what is beyond his power. An individual Bishop has no power to overrule the universal Church. He could not command a single priest to believe night is day. Under our current law, any decree forbidding the use of Latin in the Latin Rite is void.
Comment by Br, Pius — 11 August 2007 @ 1:42 pmTherefore his suggestion of recieving under both species – why would he encourage this? what are the issues?
I think he did this just to insure that there will be no Extraordinary form in his diocese.
Comment by Katherine Therese — 11 August 2007 @ 1:53 pmsigh Why does Michigan get the most liberal Bishops?
From the bishop’s biography on the Diocese of Gaylord website:
The Bishop describes one of his abiding interests as a deep love for the liturgy of the Catholic Church.
The irony! God bless this man!
Comment by Pleased as Punch — 11 August 2007 @ 1:53 pmSo, what his excellency is saying is that priests cannot say the Mass in current Sacramentary (even if it is in the appendix)?
I find it hard to believe a bishop has the authority to say that. If this is allowed then the motu proprio and even the Latin Mass in the modern use are null and void. Rome needs to act in a prompt manner on this. OH WAIT, how convenient, all of Italy is on vacation during August!
While I know it is not the Vatican’s job to “police” diocese, the lack of discipline from Rome and the fact that bishops are allowed to get away with so much is really hurting the faithful.
Grrrrr >:-(
Comment by Roman Sacristan — 11 August 2007 @ 1:55 pmIn fairness to Bishop Gaylord – whatever his intentions – perhaps we ought to note that his announcement was made (in late June) prior to the motu proprio’s promulgation, and included the proviso “until other law is promulgatedâ€.
Well, of course, “other law†has now been promulgated, law that would appear to negate Bishop Gaylord’s directive, in that a priest does not now require his permission in order to celebrate a Latin Mass (whether in ordinary or extraordinary form).
Comment by Henry Edwards — 11 August 2007 @ 2:03 pmsigh ...
OK, everyone—take a deep breath. The directive states, “until other law is promulgated”... well, guess what? Other law has been promulgated since this directive has been issued! The law of the Church, which will go into effect on 9/14, will overrule this directive, and make it void.
That doesn’t mean that the Bishop is in open rebellion with Rome; his directive went into effect before SP was promulgated.
Now, if you wish to speculate as to whether this was some sort of “pre-emptive strike”, you’re free to do so. I’ll choose to wait and see, thank you very much.
Here’s what really strikes me, though: did you notice to whom the directive was addressed? Among others, it was addressed to ethnic apostolates—among them, the Hispanic Apostolate.
Hello? He’s just told his Hispanic flock that they cannot celebrate mass in their vernacular?
?! In a directive entitled “Diocese of Gaylord Policy on the use of the Vernacular when Celebrating Liturgy”...?
?!
Hmm…
Perhaps—just perhaps—in the absence of advance knowledge of the 9/14 effective date, he was hoping to avoid impulsive behavior (yes, apparently, with some seemingly impulsive behavior of his own). Perhaps he was just trying to ensure a more smooth transition. Of course, in doing so, it appears that he risks disenfranchising ethnic communities in his diocese!
Only time will tell…
Comment by Larry — 11 August 2007 @ 2:10 pmEven when the bishop wrote his decree he was in violation of the law.He is saying a priest cannot celebrate mass in Latin(he means the NO because he wrote it before the MP) and therefore contradicts Redemptionis Sacramentum where it says a priest may do so.The late Bishop John Keating of Arlington once told me ,”If tomorrow all the priests of the diocese started saying mass in Latin and ad orientem,there is nothing I could do.It is their right.”
Comment by fr.franklyn mcafee — 11 August 2007 @ 2:27 pmOK. This is in writing, and maybe doesn’t even count after Holy Cross Day. It would seem that any Diocesan priest under this Bishop would be bound by his Vow of Obedience, even in his Bishop is in the wrong. Maybe the only option is an appeal to Rome.
But here is another question that I have – one based upon an opinion I heard from some one else, not a priest. Is a priest bound by his Vow of Obedience to acquiesce to known desires and preferences of his Bishop? IOW, if a priest knows that his Bishop prefers to not have any Latin in his Diocese, is every priest in that Diocese bound to never use Latin, even thought there is not written edict to that effect?
Comment by Stephen M. Collins — 11 August 2007 @ 2:43 pmStephen,
Isn’t it an academic question, because the Bishop has forbidden things he may not? Father, have I understood rightly, that if a Bishop tries to order something he not competence for, then canonical obedience is not a question?
Comment by Mark — 11 August 2007 @ 2:54 pmUntil other law is promulgated
Take care the door doesn’t hit you on the way out…your excellency.
Comment by Sean — 11 August 2007 @ 2:58 pmSecular priests do not take vows; we make promises. A bishop cannot command something that goes against the universal law of the Church, as this bishop is trying to do.
Comment by Fr. A — 11 August 2007 @ 3:05 pmI do think that this sort of egregious overreach needs to be directly disciplined from Rome. It ought to be done publicly to make an example of him, but of course that will never happen. The best one could even hope for is a strict private reprimand. I still cannot believe my eyes—that he thinks he can forbid the celebration of the Missal of 1970 in Latin? There really are no words to describe the outrage.
If the Congregation for Divine Worship does not get out in front of this sort of effrontery, it will encourage the rest of the diehards.
Comment by Dionysius Harriedopolis — 11 August 2007 @ 3:28 pmBishop Cooney has only 2 years left before retirement. One comment stated we must not not be unfair to the Bishop,do you see the liberal bishops holding up the liberal organizations in the diocese to the same strict standards(if only they would
) that the Motu-Proprio must be held too.What a lot of hyprocrisy comes out of their mouths
!
Comment by ED — 11 August 2007 @ 4:07 pm“To enhance the active participation… ”
Another “active participation” misunderstanding. Perhaps his Excellency should listen to Fr. Z’s podcazt featuring Cardinal Ratzinger on “active participation.”
Comment by Timothy James — 11 August 2007 @ 4:19 pmActually, wacky behavior like this is encouraging. It shows the liberals are losing it, and they know they’re losing it. This was an act of desperation.
Comment by Anita Moore OPL — 11 August 2007 @ 4:21 pmSure would like to know what Ed Peters, the canonist at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, has to say about this bishop’s “decree” [for lack of a better, more accurate term].
Comment by Fr. Brian Stanley — 11 August 2007 @ 4:28 pmSure would like to know what Ed Peters, the canonist at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, has to say about this bishop’s “decree” [for lack of a better, more accurate term].
Comment by Fr. Brian Stanley — 11 August 2007 @ 4:28 pmThese are mounting up. Might it be a good idea to create a special page where all the dioceses that have issued “responses” to the Motu Proprio are listed alphabetically, with links to the blog posts corresponding to each?
Comment by Legisperitus — 11 August 2007 @ 4:33 pmThe letter of this bishop, for whatever reasons or interpretations, leads me to a question that may be really simplistic and even ignorant on my part:
What do the Bishops stand to lose by allowing a generous use of the “Tridentine” mass? I understand the politics of power and control must somehow be coming into play in this area, but I really don’t understand how specifically.
If the people want the TLM available, how does it somehow weaken a bishop’s power or control by allowing such to take place? (Let’s assume this question is asked based on the state of things just before the Motu Proprio was issued).
Comment by Janet — 11 August 2007 @ 4:35 pmHow does this older form of mass threaten any bishop? I just don’t get it.
http://www.dioceseofgaylord.org/inside/biography-34/
That’s the link to the Bishop’s bio.
There are PLENTY of red flags on that page. Now we know why he’s posted to Gaylord, MI., where the largest part of the warm-blooded population is coyotes.
Comment by dad29 — 11 August 2007 @ 4:41 pmBishop Cooney was born in Detroit on March 10, 1934.
Therefore less than two years til retirement.
Comment by luke — 11 August 2007 @ 5:15 pmThis decree would also seem to preclude the use of Spanish Masses, or Masses in any other language other than English. I wonder if His Excellency intends to have this decree apply to all vacationing groups in the diocese as well? A quick scan of the diocesan website sees at least one parish already violating this decree by offering a Mass in Spanish, though, perhaps they have permission.
Since the Mass must now be celebrated entirely in English, I wonder what is done at the Alleluia, or the Great Amen?
And to the commenter above bemoaning the bishops assigned to Michigan, I just have to say: Robert Carlson in Saginaw, Alexander Sample in Marquette… the times they are a’ changing!
Comment by Tim Ferguson — 11 August 2007 @ 5:26 pmLegisperitus: Maybe someone will volunteer to put it together and I can post it on its own page.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 11 August 2007 @ 5:29 pmHow much authority does a local bishop have over the particulars involved in celebrating Holy Mass within his diocese in the Latin Church?
Insofar as his episcopal edict is intended to greatly restrict the use of the Tridentine Mass, I am saddened for his diocese. (As an Eastern Christian I am, of course, naturally more sympathetic to the bishop’s positions on the use of the vernacular and communion under both species.) I believe the 1962 Missal has been celebrated using the vernacular translations – would he then permit its celebration in English or Spanish? To me, that is a fair question that should be posed to him.
Also, might not communion in the Tridentine Mass be distributed under both species through intinction (as the Maronites observe)? Perhaps there is a way to still celebrate the Tridentine Mass within his diocese.
In ICXC,
Gordo
Comment by