“…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)

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

79 Responses to “…all liturgies in the Diocese of Gaylord are to be celebrated entirely in English…”

  1. fr.franklyn mcafee says:

    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.

  2. Paul Stokell says:

    This 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.

  3. RBrown says:

    What’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.

  4. DoB says:

    Has 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.

  5. Anon. says:

    His 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.

  6. Br, Pius says:

    The 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.

  7. Katherine Therese says:

    Therefore 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.
    *sigh* Why does Michigan get the most liberal Bishops?

  8. Pleased as Punch says:

    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!

  9. So, 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 >:-(

  10. Henry Edwards says:

    In 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 promulgated”.

    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).

  11. Larry says:

    *sigh* …

    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…

  12. fr.franklyn mcafee says:

    Even 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.”

  13. Stephen M. Collins says:

    OK. 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?

  14. Mark says:

    Stephen,

    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?

  15. Sean says:

    Until other law is promulgated

    Take care the door doesn’t hit you on the way out…your excellency.

  16. Fr. A says:

    Secular 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.

  17. Dionysius Harriedopolis says:

    I 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.

  18. ED says:

    Bishop 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!!!!

  19. Timothy James says:

    “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.”

  20. Actually, 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.

  21. Fr. Brian Stanley says:

    Sure 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].

  22. Fr. Brian Stanley says:

    Sure 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].

  23. Legisperitus says:

    These 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?

  24. Janet says:

    The 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).
    How does this older form of mass threaten any bishop? I just don’t get it.

  25. dad29 says:

    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.

  26. luke says:

    Bishop Cooney was born in Detroit on March 10, 1934.

    Therefore less than two years til retirement.

  27. Tim Ferguson says:

    This 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!

  28. Legisperitus: Maybe someone will volunteer to put it together and I can post it on its own page.

  29. How 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

  30. Vincent Uher says:

    Incroyable! Church and anti-Church declare themselves before our eyes.

  31. CarpeNoctem says:

    You know, like most of the comments here, I think this stinks for the people of the Diocese of Gaylord and my guess is that this policy would never hold water on a challenge to Rome. I am also sad that a bishop (and/or his staff) would be so afraid of this most exciting opportunity liturgical renewal.

    What comes to mind is the patient obedience of folks like St. Pio and the various theologians of the 20th century who were silenced and obediently held that silence until cleared by Rome (Balthasar and DeLubac- who ultimately were both raised to the dignity of cardinals- come to mind). My guess is that the bishop thinks he is doing what is right. A spirit of disobedience, even against this injustice, befouls righteous, holy anger. What is needed here is heroic charity and patience… even recommitment to the struggle of prayer and sacrifice for this intention.

    In this diocese, as well as others who are not going to receive cooperation with the Holy Father’s wishes, I would hope for a respecful appeal to proper authority by or on the behalf of the people of the diocese and then enter into holy waiting in the spirit of obedience for the good of that local church amd the greater glory of God when things are set right. Maybe that means no action until the bishop retires. Maybe it means vindication by a smack-down from Rome. Maybe it means a melting away of hardend hearts. I don’t know. I would trust the incredible movement of the Spirit in all of this– afterall, who would have ever guessed that after 40 years meandering through the liturgical desert that this MP would have even been possible without the influence and continued guidance of the Holy Spirit?

    I will say a Gloria Patri right now for this diocese and its bishop and priests, and I invite others reading this to do the same.

  32. bknotts says:

    I am not an expert in canon law, but I strongly suspect that there is no obligation for a priest to be obedient to a clearly illicit directive from one’s ordinary.

  33. D. Robert says:

    The good bishop has lost it…come to think og it, where is Gaylord?

  34. Bryce says:

    Rome!?! What can they do? This is low on the list of thousands of egregious actions, liturgical abuses and heresies committed by bishops all throughout the United States over decades. Cardinal Arinze truly does care about these things, but his office has a staff of 36 people (much smaller than most Archdioceses, I’d bet)! If Mahony et al have been running rampant over Catholicism for years, and now they are in their 70′s, do we expect Rome to do anything except wait for retirement.

    Archbishop Vlazny in my own diocese (Portland, OR) had tried to suppress Latin for years, but he was forced to allow one TLM; and WHEN CHALLENGED by priests, had to admit he could not prevent them from doing Mass Parts in Latin one Sunday per weekend. (Just the Agnus Dei, Gloria, etc, not the N.O. Mass!)

    THIS IS THE TRUTH: A huge groundswell must come from the LAITY. The people must speak out, loud and clear and in LARGE, ORGANIZED groups, insisting on their priests giving them Latin, or even the extraordinary form if enough want it. Hammer the bishops with letters and visits and letters to the EDITORs of their Catholic newspapers, even secular papers that have “religion and culture” sections. Yes, tell Rome and the Apostolic Nuncio too, but nothing will happen until the protests are in the thousands and thousands.

  35. Teddy says:

    It must be very frustrating as a priest to have to take a directive that all masses should be said in English from such a bishop who cannot spell or use correct English grammar. What value can this bishop presume the vernacular to have when he has so poor a command of the language? As this directive is in response to Summorum Pontificum, can we even be sure the bishop possessed the reading comprehension skills necessary to understand the document – and, if he DID read it?

    The USCCB should have some multicultural policy somewhere stating the need to have Masses celebrated in the primary language of culturally and linguistically diverse populations. I wonder if such populations exist in Gaylord. In this regard I find this statement to be very Anglo-centric and wholly insensitive to culturally and linguistically diverse peoples.

  36. danphunter1 says:

    Maybe His Excellency can fabricate a law that changes the name of the Diocese.

  37. Teddy says:

    I take back what I said a few above about the bishop’s intelligence; it was wrong. He just needs prayer. I do, too.

  38. Diane says:

    Fr. Z said, “…. What the….. #&*$! ….”

    Yah! I was just about to say that part way through that introduction. Oy vey!!!

    Ok, that’s kind of like saying “I’m the bishop and I’m going to make a directive that no one may use anything but Eucharistic Prayer 2″.

    Would a priest have to follow that?

    I don’t think so on the basis that it is in conflict with higher norms which allow for Eucharistic Prayers 1, 3 & 4.

    In my humble opinion, his Excellency is forbidding something which is not within his jurisdiction to forbid.

    Is there a Canon Lawyer around. Where’s Ed Peters???!?!!!

  39. Diane says:

    Fr. Brian Stanley said, Sure 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].

    I sent him an email with a link to this blogpost. I too would be very interested in his thoughts, if he has any to offer on the subject.

    Henry Edwards said, In 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 promulgated”.

    But, Henry: What about a parish such as mine (nearby Archdiocese of Detroit) which celebrates the Novus Ordo in Latin?

    I don’t see how a bishop can mandate that only English be used. I don’t think he would be on the winning side of any “Notitiae” out of Cardinal Arinze’s office should an appeal be made in the case of the Latin Novus Ordo if anyone were using it. Setting aside Latin, what about ethnic parishes? I know of many such communities where one Mass out of 3 or 4 is in another language other than English or Latin, such as Croatian, Slovak, Polish, Italian, Spanish, etc.

    I wonder if His Excellency is a little more accepting of a Mass in Spanish than he is of a Mass in Latin (Novus Ordo).

  40. Brian Day says:

    “Until other law is promulgated,…” probably means no extraordinary rite Masses prior to 14-Sept.

  41. RBrown says:

    Bishop Cooney has only 2 years left before retirement.
    Comment by ED

    Rome can take care of the situation easily by naming a coadjutor. And I think giving the coadjutor authority over the liturgy in the diocese is an option.

  42. RoninVA says:

    These traditionalist bishops always upset me. They never want to accept any of the new stuff in the church like SP. They ignore everything that has happened since the last council. No matter what the document says, they want to interpret it “in light of the Spirit Of Vatican II” Whjat is with these Traditionalist Bishops? They need to get with the program and change!

  43. Seamas O Dalaigh says:

    Father,

    The fellow is acting ultra vires.

    james Daly

  44. tleatherland says:

    Folks, this is just “collegiality” in action. You can thank Vatican II for this. Every bishop is now the “pope” of his diocese. The good old days of bishops falling in line behind the Pope are long gone. “By their fruits…”

  45. magister63 says:

    The Diocese of Gaylord is a Catholic wasteland. There are no vocations (check their diocesan website to see the six that are there), and the priests we have met on our travels there have been very weird. The liturgies where we stopped- several different parishes- were also very strange to us, and the churches looked, well, either protestant or diabolic. They just spent a lot of parishoners’ money to renovate the church in Grayling. We went in and were shocked. In the center was a big gurgling fountain. The very strange artwork and orange glow cast by the large window behind the “altar area” gave it an underworld kind of feel. We did not see the tabernacle, so we asked. The Blessed Sacrament chapel is behind the altar area. We went around back and entered. There were a couple of chairs facing a hideous tabernacle on a pedestal. It was obvious that the room doubled as sacristy- there was a cabinet and albs and processional candles laying around. We were so scandalized the last time we were there, that we went to the SSPX chapel which was full of refugees like us and was served by a young, holy, masculine priest. There were also lots of children there- something we did not see in the parishes we visited.

  46. christomaszewski says:

    I’d just like to call attention to the page where the Diocese of Gaylord seminarians are listed:
    All six of them. All of them over the age of 30 as well, by the looks of it, and at least two previously
    married: one was annulled. I guess all the other vocations must want to say the Mass in Latin or even (gasp)
    the Tridentine Mass. Needless to say, they were not accepted. Too orthodox.

  47. Christopher Sarsfield says:

    I believe Cardinal Arinze made it clear that a bishop could forbid the use of Latin for public masses in parishes. If you read the section on Latin in Redemptionis Sacramentum it says:

    “Except in the case of celebrations of the Mass that are scheduled by the ecclesiastical authorities to take place in the language of the people, Priests are always and everywhere permitted to celebrate Mass in Latin.”

    Notice “except in the case…” A priest only has the right to say the NO in Latin on his days off in private. At other times the bishop/pastor can mandate the public celebrations of the Mass be in the vernacular for the good of the people. Cardinal Arinze when commenting on this paragraph made this very clear in an interview. As for the rest of the decree, I am not sure, but a bishop can forbid the use of Latin in public celebrations of the NO, in my opinion.

    BTW, I do not like this fact, and was very disappointed by Cardinal Arinze and the promulgation of Redemptionis Sacramentum. Hopefully, better things will continue to come from this pontificate.

  48. RBrown says:

    I believe Cardinal Arinze made it clear that a bishop could forbid the use of Latin for public masses in parishes.

    So what? Nothing in that document can be interpreted as contradicting the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

  49. Christopher Sarsfield says:

    Mr. Brown,

    My point was that the Motu Proprio does not say anything about the New Mass. I believe it is easier now for a parish priest to say a public TLM, than to say a public NO in Latin from a legislative stand point. Also many of the commentators seem to be under the impression that the Bishop can not schedule all public celebrations of the NO in English, which would severely limit a priest from celebrating the NO in Latin. I think that the current legislation gives the bishop this power.

  50. CBM says:

    wow. It would seem that in his fear of “LATIN” he has effectively encouraged the evangelicals to take away more Hispanics from the Faith of their baptism (not to mention the other thousands of Catholic non-English speakers in Gaylord. Or perhaps it is actually his fear of non-English speakers that now effects those who wish to worship with Latin. Either way it is really shocking, really sad, really Anti- Catholic (universal????).

  51. Dr. Lee Fratantuono says:

    Redemptionis Sacramentum speaks of ecclesiastical authorities, to be sure. If a curate were to be assigned a 9:00 am ordinary Mass by his pastor, a Mass that has been in the vernacular for decades, it would be imprudent and, POSSIBLY, against the rubrics of RS for that curate to take it upon himself to use Latin for that Mass. But a pastor is also an ecclesiastical authority, and he can certainly decide that a given Mass on Sunday will be…1962…or 2002 Latin. The bishop can’t stop him.

  52. Jordan Potter says:

    Christopher Sarsfield said: I believe Cardinal Arinze made it clear that a bishop could forbid the use of Latin for public masses in parishes. If you read the section on Latin in Redemptionis Sacramentum it says:

    “Except in the case of celebrations of the Mass that are scheduled by the ecclesiastical authorities to take place in the language of the people, Priests are always and everywhere permitted to celebrate Mass in Latin.”

    Notice “except in the case…” A priest only has the right to say the NO in Latin on his days off in private. At other times the bishop/pastor can mandate the public celebrations of the Mass be in the vernacular for the good of the people. Cardinal Arinze when commenting on this paragraph made this very clear in an interview. As for the rest of the decree, I am not sure, but a bishop can forbid the use of Latin in public celebrations of the NO, in my opinion.

    Your interpretation of this law doesn’t make any sense. How can a priest “always and everywhere” have a right to celebrate Mass in Latin if a bishop has a right to tell him that “always and everywhere” means only in private? The wording of the law obviously means that there can be mostly vernacular Masses in public with a few Latin Masses in public, or perhaps even mostly Latin Masses in public with a few Masses that are scheduled by the ecclesiastical authorities to take place in the vernacular. But it means nothing to say “always and everywhere permitted” if it really means “hardly ever and only in a dark, dank closet somewhere.”

    I don’t know what Cardinal Arinze said in that interview, but comments by prelates in interviews are not legislation nor authoritative interpretations of legislation. If we want to have this interpreted authoritatively, then we’ll have to have a bishop attempt to ban all Latin Masses and then have a priest or layperson challenge the ban on the grounds of this law in RS.

  53. Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R. says:

    It would seem that no bishop can make any laws regarding the language of the Mass. Canon 928: “The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out either in the latin language or in another language, provided the liturgical texts have been lawfully approved.” Canon law thus allows a priest to celebrate the Mass using any lawfully approved text. Since universal law takes precidence over local law, the bishop’s decree cannot be enforced. This would even take precidence over Redemptionis Sacramentum which would, I believe, have to reference canon 928 in oreder to be binding. I am not a canonist so I can’t be absolutely sure about this.

    In no way do I wish to cast aspersions on Cardinal Arinze whom I greatly admire. However, I have come across instances where documents are issued in Rome were not thoroughly checked out before publication, as seems to be the case with Redemptionis Sacramentum.

    As far as these bishops who have been trying to snatch and grab at control and power and authority, it will come back to bite them. The recent and continuing scandals will not pass from memory any time soon and both priests and laity have had their fill. Perhaps those who fear that Pope Benedict is trying to bring us back to the Middle Ages should look to the bishops. It seems they are the ones trying to be medieval in their use of power. Perhaps they, and all in authority of any kind in the Church, need to be reminded of what Christ himself said: “I came to serve, not to be served.”

  54. RBrown says:

    Mr. Brown,

    My point was that the Motu Proprio does not say anything about the New Mass. I believe it is easier now for a parish priest to say a public TLM, than to say a public NO in Latin from a legislative stand point. Also many of the commentators seem to be under the impression that the Bishop can not schedule all public celebrations of the NO in English, which would severely limit a priest from celebrating the NO in Latin. I think that the current legislation gives the bishop this power.
    Comment by Christopher Sarsfield

    I see your point, but the fact is that Latin Novus Ordo masses have really never been available. De iure? Yes. De facto? Latin mass is mass acc to the 1962 Missal. Vernacular mass is mass acc to the 1970 Missal.

    We can talk about the 1962 and 1970 Missals, the Confiteor before Communion, prayers after mass, etc. But the controversy can be reduced to two components: Latin or the vernacular and versus populum or ad orientem.

    If the 1962 Missal were translated into the vernacular and the priest were to face the people, it wouldn’t be long before the precise rubrics would start to melt away, replaced by idiosyncratic gestures performed so the liturgy would be “meaningful”.

  55. tleatherland,

    You wrote:

    “Folks, this is just “collegiality” in action. You can thank Vatican II for this. Every bishop is now the “pope” of his diocese. The good old days of bishops falling in line behind the Pope are long gone. “By their fruits…””

    Perhaps you should study Church history. Those “good old days” quite frankly never existed. And you should neither blame an infallible ecumenical council (I assume you regard it as both infallible and ecumenical) nor the apostolic principle of collegiality for the ills sufferend within the communion of Latin churches. The issues are far more systemic.

    Bishops, however, are indeed “popes” of their in dioceses insofar as they are the spiritual fathers within their respective churches. They are not simply the servants or acolytes of the pope of Rome, although Latin hierarchs in particular do owe him a large measure of obedience and deference as the bishop of elder Rome and patriarchal head of the Latin Church. (I will only point out that none of his activity regarding the MP has been exercised as supreme head of the Catholic Church, where he is rightly regarded as successor of St. Peter exercising universal jurisdiction. Rather, it has been in his role as primate within the Latin Church.)

    I ask my question again: how much authority does an idividual hierarch within the Latin Church have to regulate the celebration of the Mass within his own diocese? If he is not telling his priests to engage in something that is immoral or which destroys or damages the rite, why condemn him? Why treat him as if he is abusing his authority?

    If he has presided over a devastated vineyard as some have suggested, it is for God to judge and hold him accountable. Inciting the laity (or even his priests – and they are his priests) to revolt, as some seem to suggest to be the answer, is not only unbecoming, it is decidedly un-Catholic.

    In ICXC,

    Gordo

  56. Jordan Potter says:

    Fr. Bailey said: Canon law thus allows a priest to celebrate the Mass using any lawfully approved text. Since universal law takes precidence over local law, the bishop’s decree cannot be enforced..

    Indeed, and we can also refer to the authority of the oecumenical council known as Vatican II, which explicitly declares Latin to be the language of the Church and the proper language of the Roman Rite. No bishop’s decree or policy can go contrary to what the Church Universal decides in council.

  57. Jordan,

    You wrote:

    “…we can also refer to the authority of the oecumenical council known as Vatican II, which explicitly declares Latin to be the language of the Church and the proper language of the Roman Rite.”

    I believe the relevant passages to which you refer are below (from Sacrosanctum Concilium)

    “36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

    2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

    3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.”

    I will only point out that nowhere is it said that Latin is the language of the Church.

    I will, however, concede that it does indicate authoritatively that it is to be preserved among the Latin rites, with due consideration for the needs of the faithful to hear and celebrate the worship of the Mass in the vernacular. I think, despite the fact that he remains spiritual father of his diocese, you make a fair point regarding his unlawful restriction of the Mass to the vernacular. It contravenes both the letter and the spirit of Sacrosanctum Concilium for particular Churches of the Latin rite.

    That being said, since the bishops of the US permit the celebration of Holy Mass in the vernacular, I would assume then that the Tridentine Mass can thus be celebrated in the vernacular with the approved translation of 1962 since the Ordo of Paul VI did not even exist at the time of the approval, decree and establishment of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

    So to my original point, I think it would be interesting to see how the bishop would respond to a priest in his diocese who, following his directives, celebrates the Tridentine Mass of 1962 in the vernacular and offers communion through intinction. For him to intervene in any way, I believe, would show his true colors.

    God bless,

    Gordo

  58. fr.franklyn mcafee says:

    Cardinal Arinze never said that a bishop could forbid mass (NO) in Latin.RedemptionisSacramentum said that a priest anywhere and always had the righ to celebrate mass in latin.The exception is when the diocesan bishop or pastor has designated certain masses as vernacukar i.e.spanish masses or korean masses.This means ,the Cardinal explained that a priest could not go into a parish and celebrate the mass designated as a spanish mass,in latin in contravention of the pastor’s policy.This was made very clear by Cardinal Arinze (whom I know) to several priests who met with him and brought up this very point.

  59. Jeremy says:

    A quick search of Masstimes.org reveals:

    Sunday 4PM Spanish Mass @ St. Joseph’s Church in Traverse City, MI

    Someone better notify them of the bishop’s directive!

  60. Dan O says:

    I would assume then that the Tridentine Mass can thus be celebrated in the vernacular with the approved translation of 1962
    Comment by Gordo

    Is there an approved translation of the 1962 Missal? I have not seen one but it would be interesting to know if it exists and if a priest can celebrate the 1962 form in the vernacular.

  61. dcs says:

    Dan O writes:
    Is there an approved translation of the 1962 Missal? I have not seen one but it would be interesting to know if it exists and if a priest can celebrate the 1962 form in the vernacular.

    No, there are no approved translations and a priest cannot celebrate the 1962 Mass in the vernacular. Only the readings may be given in the vernacular.

  62. Martha says:

    All,

    Please do pray much for this diocese. There is a community of discalced Carmelites there who would like to have the old Mass, but even with SP, they would prefer waiting until the bishop’s retirement. In matters liturgical, he rules with an iron fist, and they will not go against him. He ordered them to take down their communion rail, and they did so.

    Our family travels to Traverse City twice a year. I would love to meet any traditional-minded Catholics in the area.

    The place is a wasteland. Once, we attended an SSPX Mass. That is where I first saw and heard Fr. McMahon preach. He is absolutely awesome! I nearly went into ecstasy just by hearing his sermon!

    Please do pray for this diocese, and specially for the good Carmelite Sisters who have endured this bishop for so long.

  63. Monica says:

    Now the Church is jumping on board with all this anti-immigration legislation? Oh, that’s right…I forgot. Any language but Latin is what constitutes diversity.

  64. dcs,

    You wrote:

    “No, there are no approved translations and a priest cannot celebrate the 1962 Mass in the vernacular. Only the readings may be given in the vernacular.”

    I recall Fr. Z mentioning that Msgr. Richard Schuler of blessed memory had celebrated the Tridentine Mass (1962) in the vernacular on occasion while visiting Nativity parish in St. Paul, MN. Having known Msgr. Schuler personally (although certainly not to the level of Fr. Z), I cannot imagine him ever transgressing any liturgical norm deliberately, and he was certainly a scholar of first rank in the authentic liturgical movement. He was as faithful a priest to the Latin rite as one could imagine.

    So you will forgive me if I hold off ascribing any authority to your assurances that it is not permitted to celebrate the 1962 Missal in the verncular or that no official translation exists.

    In ICXC,

    Gordo

  65. California Girl says:

    Regarding a vernacular translation of the 1962 missal: I still have in my possession the Missal my parents gave to me for my First Holy Communion in 1967. Its title is “New…Saint Joseph Sunday Missal and Hymnal”, copyright 1966, Catholic Book Publishing Company, NY. (The ellipses are in the original.)

    It is in English, and is not the Novus Ordo Mass. It starts with the prayers at the foot of the altar (with a note that the people may recite the server’s part). It has only the Epistle, Gradual, Alleluia, and Gospel (no Old Testament reading or Responsorial Psalm). The Gloria is a literal translation of the actual Latin (instead of the cut-and-paste version we currently say).

    So at one time, a vernacular 1962 Missal did exist and was regularly used. The question is, would that version still be considered approved now?

    California Girl

  66. RBrown says:

    So at one time, a vernacular 1962 Missal did exist and was regularly used. The question is, would that version still be considered approved now?
    California Girl

    That was in a transition period to the vernacular.

    After I converted in 1970, some friends and I came upon altar missals that were part English and part Latin. If I remember correctly, the first vernacular use was for the Commons (those parts of the mass that are always the same, e.g., Confiteor, Sanctus, Gloria, Agnus Dei, etc.). I can understand why someone might want the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular–but not those parts that everyone knew.

  67. Marcin says:

    Dear all, for a collection of episcopal responses see: http://www.summorumpontificum.net/2007/07/us-diocesan-official-reactions.html

    That page is a good start, but it would be in order to set up a a dedicated and exclusive blog/website for that purpose. Something like “SP Watch”.

    Anyway, the Gaylord Diocese’s record is still not updated there

  68. math says:

    Archabbot Lambert told me emphatically on several occasions to “Shut up and learn your Latin”

  69. Doesn’t it seem funny that the bishop forbids Latin, but Spanish is ok?
    (St. Joseph’s in Traverse City, within the Gaylord Diocese, has a Spanish Mass
    on Sunday afternoons).
    I’m probably NOT the only one that would see that as a problem.
    BMP

  70. Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R. says:

    There was never an approved English translation of the 1962 Missale Romanum. The Mass could never be offered in any language other than Latin, both ordinary and proper in their entirety. (See the General Rubrics 1962) Recall that there was a Missale Romanum published in 1965 (or 1964?) which simplified the rubrics and some of the prayers and also allowed the propers and some of the prayers which belonged to the people (Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Agnus Dei), at low Mass, to be said in the vernacular. Later they were allowed to be in the vernacular at High Mass as well. The parts of the priest remained in Latin. It was not until the Missal of Paul VI that the entire Mass was in the vernacular.

    The Ecclesia Dei Commission and Summorum Pontificum permit the readings in the vernacular only (until 1964 they were read in Latin and then in the vernacular) and the use of the three year Lectionary.

  71. Dale Price says:

    The Gaylord Diocese is the northern 1/3 of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula.
    I’ll dispute the “wasteland” comment, as it is inaccurate. It is more accurate
    to say that it is a very, very mixed bag. Cooney may have been a protege of
    Dearden (I don’t actually know one way or the other), but please note he was
    elevated to the episcopate by JPII and ordained a bishop by the more conservative
    Cardinal Szoka. You can also thank JPII for his appointment to Gaylord.

    Gaylord is something of a two-headed monster: the catechesis is actually solidly
    orthodox, but, yes, the liturgy has a more progressive bent. I’ve experienced
    good and bad Masses there (we’ve attended parishes while on vacation). Overall,
    I’d say the diocese is in better health than was Saginaw (itself fast improving
    under Bp. Carlson), but, yes, the liturgy needs improvement. Given that Spanish
    language Masses are still offered, I am inclined to see this as a pre-emptive shot
    across the bow of the Motu, but in the absence of an official statement on Summorum
    by the diocese, I’m inclined to play wait and see.

  72. dcs says:

    I have a missal from 1955 that has nothing but the vernacular. But it’s a handmissal, not an altar missal that a priest would use to celebrate Mass. There were certain permissions given between 1965 and 1968 for parts of the Mass to be said in the vernacular. But in 1962, as far as I am aware, there were no such permissions. If there were one wonders why the author(s) of Sacrosanctum Concilium would bother writing about the use of the vernacular in the liturgy.

    If there was an official translation, who approved it? and where can it be found? If there was permission for the vernacular, who gave it?

  73. john m says:

    Michigan has been acquiring some good solid bishops. Carlson in Saginaw, Murray in Kalamazoo, and my own bishop, Alexander Sample in Marquette, who is very receptive to the motu proprio. I think, as another commenter above noted, that the liberals such as Bishop Cooney are becoming ever more irrational and desperate as they see the curtain finally coming down on their act.

  74. Nathan says:

    +JMJ
    I wonder if the Bishop of Gaylord might be moved to reconsider, based on the words of that “hide bound conservative” Blessed John XXIII, in his Apostolic Constitution “Veterum Sapientia:”

    And We also, impelled by the weightiest of reasons–the same as those which prompted Our Predecessors and provincial synods 13–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.
    We believe that We made Our own views on this subject sufficiently clear when We said to a number of eminent Latin scholars:
    “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. The greatest impression is made on the mind by those things which correspond more closely to mans nature and dignity. And therefore the greatest zeal should be shown in the acquisition of whatever educates and ennobles the mind. Otherwise poor mortal creatures may well become like the machines they build–cold, hard, and devoid of love.”

    In Christ,

  75. Nathan says:

    +JMJ
    I wonder if the Bishop of Gaylord might be moved to reconsider, based on the words of that “hide bound conservative” Blessed John XXIII, in his Apostolic Constitution “Veterum Sapientia:”

    And We also, impelled by the weightiest of reasons–the same as those which prompted Our Predecessors and provincial synods 13–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.
    We believe that We made Our own views on this subject sufficiently clear when We said to a number of eminent Latin scholars:
    “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. The greatest impression is made on the mind by those things which correspond more closely to mans nature and dignity. And therefore the greatest zeal should be shown in the acquisition of whatever educates and ennobles the mind. Otherwise poor mortal creatures may well become like the machines they build–cold, hard, and devoid of love.”

    In Christ,

  76. Father Bailey,

    Glory to Jesus Christ!

    I sent your post on to a good friend of mine who is a well known tradition-minded liturgist and former student of the late, great Fr. Louis Bouyer.

    His response is as follows:

    “This is simply incorrect. The legislation at the time varied from place to place and group to group, sometimes leading to unbelievable situations. For example, in many countries (but not the English-speaking ones) in the 1950s the Scriptural readings at Mass could be done in the vernacular languages. Well, a priest I knew did his seminary studies in Washington in the 1950s and the students were astounded when he calmly proceeded to read the Epistle and the Gospel in English only – he explained that he had “carried the privilege with him”. It must have fit neatly into his baggage allowance!

    And other things several languages were permitted in their entirety, including Church-Slavonic (the Missal was last printed in or around 1927 and my occasional efforts to obtain a copy have met with no success), Biblical Greek, Armenian – of all things – Ge’ez (!), Syriac, Mandarin and some others. The reason for Mandarin was interesting: the Chinese have tremendous difficulty pronouncing certain letters in the Latin alphabet. There may have been a grant in favor of Persian; no one seems quite sure.

    For lots of information on all this, cf. Fr. Cyril Korolevsky’s excellent book Living Languages in Catholic Worship. Besides being informative, it’s good fun. His account of Hungarian is absolutely hilarious.

    When Vatican II came along, celebrations partly or wholly in vernacular languages increased exponentially, and priests used any approved Missal they could get their hands on. There was certainly at least one edition of the Missal of 1962 published in parallel Latin/English at the time.

    Oddly enough, the prayers which were the last to be allowed in the vernacular – in fact I’m not altogether sure that there was ever a formal decree to permit them in the vernacular – were the silent prayers during the Offertory. Don’t ask me why; I haven’t the faintest idea. Perhaps the thought was that since nobody heard them anyway, it just didn’t matter.

    Ah, memories of days gone by!”

    So by his recollection, the 1962 Missal was in fact celebrated in the vernacular prior to the promulgation of the Ordo of Paul VI.

    God bless,

    Gordo

  77. Dan O says:

    In an earlier strand in this blog, a question was asked (and I paraphrase) “Can the 1962 Mass be said in English?”. Fr. Z replied, “No, not really.” I was intrigued at that time by the “not really” part of the response from the host of this blog. Maybe, Fr. Z can give us a fuller explanation of what he meant.

  78. dcs says:

    Gordo the Byzantine writes:
    So by his recollection, the 1962 Missal was in fact celebrated in the vernacular prior to the promulgation of the Ordo of Paul VI.

    This is certainly true but it wasn’t generally true in 1962. Vernacular celebrations really took off after the promulgation of Inter Oecumenici in 1964 and the publication of the transitional 1965 Missal.

    Yes, there was a Slavonic Mass of the Roman Rite celebrated in Dalmatia. But Slavonic is not a vernacular language any more. Neither is the ancient Greek in which the Roman Rite was occasionally celebrated in Rome (according to Fr. Fortescue). The “Chinese Rites” were a separate issue entirely.

    I have no doubt that there were occasional, or even more than occasional, celebrations of the traditional Mass in the vernacular, and versus populum, etc., before 1962. The question isn’t whether these things happened but whether they were actually approved. I’ve read nothing to suggest that the latter is true.