![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Bishop of Pensacola-Tallahassee issues his own norms for Summorum Pontificum
The Bishop of Pensacola-Tallahassee, Most Reverend John H. Ricard, SSJ has issued his norms for the implementation of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. They were borrowed from the Diocese of St. Augustine. You might remember those. I called some of their points "shocking". They were developed by Bishop Galeone. They contain some pretty surprising and problematic points.
They have been adopted by all the bishops in Florida.
My emphases and comments.
Below are Norms which I am promulgating relative to the wishes of our Holy Father, Benedict XVI as stated in his apostolic letter, Summorum Pontificum, concerning the use of the old Latin Mass. They are intended to serve as a guide for pastors and for the faithful. There will be further refinements of these directives as we receive word from the USCCB. These norms were developed by the Diocese of St. Augustine. The bishops of Florida, as was I, were impressed by their succinct and concise nature and we have decided that they should be used throughout the Province and the State of Florida. [!] If you have any further questions please call the Bishop’s Office or Father Paul White, director of the Office of Liturgy, at 850-435-3500.
Most Rev. John H. Ricard, SSJ
Bishop of Pensacola-Tallahassee
August 21, 2007
Norms for the Implementation of the Apostolic Letter, Summorum Pontificum
Pope Benedict XVI promulgated the motu proprio Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum (SP) on July 7, 2007 extending the use of the Missal of John XXIII as an “extraordinary form” of the Roman Rite. For all intents and purposes, the Holy Father’s Letter speaks for itself. However, there are some important points which all of the clergy in the Diocese need to know in order to properly apply the prescriptions of the document. The bishop, in his role as “moderator of the liturgy within his own diocese,” promulgates the following:
1. The Roman Missal of Paul VI, referred to as the “ordinary form,” remains the usual/normal manner in which the Eucharistic liturgy is to be celebrated. The “extraordinary form” (the so-called, Tridentine Rite) is contained in the Roman Missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962 Missal).
2. Only priests who are qualified may celebrate the extraordinary form of the Mass and the sacraments, even privately. Those qualified must evidence ability with the Latin language [The Latin word idoneus is used in the Motu Proprio to indicate the qualifications of the priest. Idoneous never means "expert" or "well-trained" or "schooled" or anything of the kind. It refers to the minimum qualifications. This is why the eminent canonist and Archbishop of New York, Edward Card. Egan stated that "II. Priests who choose to celebrate Mass in the "extraordinary" form must have a sufficient knowledge of the Latin language to pronounce the words correctly."] as well as the rubrics for the proper celebration of the Mass in the extraordinary form. The Bishop of the Diocese reserves to himself the authority to determine whether a priest is qualified to celebrate Mass and the other sacraments using the extraordinary form. Generally, the priest must demonstrate a sufficient knowledge of Latin such that the priest is not simply reciting the words of the liturgy, but has an understanding of the meaning of what he is saying. Additionally, the priest must possess sufficient knowledge of the liturgical/rubrical requirements of the 1962 Missal so that the Mass is celebrated in a correct and dignified manner. This will apply to all celebrations of the extraordinary form whether the priest is incardinated or simply a resident in the Diocese. [So… is there going to be a test? Will there be tests also for priests celebrating the Novus Ordo as well? If not, it sounds like a terrible double-standard is about to be applied.]
3. A private Mass is one celebrated by a priest on his own initiative. By definition, [whose?] this Mass is not scheduled nor announced via the parish bulletin or other means. [As in a priest saying during coffee and donut time, "I will be saying Mass tomorrow at…" ] A private Mass may be more or less regular as result of the personal schedule of the priest. Any qualified priest in good standing may celebrate a private Mass according to the extraordinary form with at least the presumed permission [Hang on. A priest should have at least the presumed permission of the pastor to say Mass at all, but according to the Motu Proprio, the choice of Missal is his own.] of the pastor of the place of celebration. [Please note: A private Mass is never to be celebrated at the same time when public Masses are celebrated in the same church or chapel. To preserve some order, a private Mass (celebrated in either form) should never commence sooner than 15 minutes following the completion of a public Mass or other celebration of the sacred liturgy in the same church or chapel.]
4. A pastor may not, on his own initiative, schedule a public Mass according to the extraordinary form. [Ummm… I don’t think that is what the Motu Proprio says. Will the bishop now be micro-managing parish schedules? The M.P. says that pastors not bishops respond to the faithful making requests.] The Apostolic Letter requires that a “stable group [Here is that bad translation of coetus which we have seen constantly in these statements.] of the faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition” make a request for the extraordinary form to be celebrated. The Bishop has determined that such a group should number at least 50 people for such a request to be granted. [This is ABSURD. The M.P. does not establish a minimum number of people. A coetus can be as small as 3 people.]
5. When the services of a qualified priest are available, and when the pastor has approved a request for the extraordinary form, the celebration may never be the exclusive way in which the Mass is celebrated on Sundays, feast days, or weekdays. No more than one Mass according to the Missal of John XXIII may be celebrated on a Sunday or feast day. If only one Mass is celebrated in a parish or mission, it must be according to the ordinary form.
6. In cases where the pastor is unable to accede to the request of the faithful (see no. 4 above) for Mass according to the extraordinary form, the pastor is to contact the Bishop’s Office for assistance. [Right.]
7. The use of the extraordinary form requires the presence of a properly trained male altar server. [This is interesting. I wonder if there is permission in that diocese for service at the altar by females?] In the Tridentine Rite, the role of this person is much more significant. [This is a bit ironic, no? The usual (incorrect) way of thinking about "active participation" suggests that the roles of the laity in the old days were less significant than today. Curious.]
8. The Apostolic Letter abrogates all post-conciliar legislation concerning the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, including the indult permitting ordinaries to authorize the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. [What a very curious statement.]
9. The Apostolic Letter is clear that the extraordinary form is NOT to be celebrated in any way during the Easter Triduum [This is not really true. In those places where the older use is used exclusively, as in a parish or chapel set up by the bishop, where there is no "competition" for the time slot, the older books would be used.] – from the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday through Evening Prayer of Easter Sunday.
10. Deacons who are asked to participate in a Mass or sacred liturgy according to the extraordinary form must meet the same requirements as priests as outlined in no. 2 above.
All laws governing the celebration of the extraordinary form must be followed.
Further information can be obtained through the following website – www.usccb.org/liturgy and clicking on the link marked “BCL NEWSLETTER ON SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM.”
Along with the Holy Father’s Apostolic Letter, these norms are effective on September 14, 2007.
Once again we have a bishop who, after years of not caring whether or not priests knew Latin, now has decided that it would have been a good idea for them to have studied it.
Isn’t this an admission of episcopal incompetence?
Comment by RBrown — 23 August 2007 @ 9:41 amRegarding the publication of the date and time of a private Mass, I am reminded of classmates of mine from major seminary. Their college seminary forbade “parties” in students rooms, but made allowances for “spontaneous gatherings.” Students would hence post notices on the bulletin board announcing that, “At 7:00 p.m. on Friday, there will be a spontaneous gathering in so-and-so’s room.”
While it is puerile, I would think a similar plan could be used for private Masses in Florida. Perhaps just a note in the bulletin stating that “due to an unannounced private Mass in the extraordinary form being offered at the main altar on Thursdays at 8:00 a.m., those interested in praying the rosary in the church are asked to do so in the side chapel.”
A little passive-aggressive resistance can sometimes be a healthy thing.
Comment by Tim Ferguson — 23 August 2007 @ 9:44 amI have communicated with the chancellor of the Diocese of St. Augustine concerning the memorandum sent to the clergy her concerning the MP. He has offered clarification on the matter which I am not able to post publicly right now. However, there are still questions left in my mind. I’ll follow up on this later.
Comment by Jay — 23 August 2007 @ 9:49 amA formal complaint must now be brought before the Ecclesia Dei Commission.
In addition if the bishop requires proficiency in Latin and the rubrics to be such that the ordinary priest of today is unable to qualify for the celebration of the older use of the Mass given his formation, it seems to me, that the bishop then has the moral obligation and perhaps the legal obligation to correct the situation by additional liturgical formation. He may also have the moral obligation to send his seminarians to seminaries where the requirement for dexterity in the Latin language is taken seriously by the faculty.
Rome needs to stop these people from invalidating the work of the Holy Father.
Comment by Fr. W. T. C. — 23 August 2007 @ 9:53 amI am bending over so far backward in my strenuous efforts to divine benevolent intentions in these episcopal directives that I fear I may collapse. Honestly, why do so many bishops develop a backbone only when it comes to suppressing the Church’s venerable traditions? Do they despise the Church’s ancient liturgical tradition that much? If they were one-tenth as severe in policing the ordinary form, the appalling widespread abuses would stop. Sigh . . . illiberal liberals are so perplexing. Let us pray for the priests who have to bear the brunt of this.
Comment by James — 23 August 2007 @ 10:00 amThe literacy test reminds me of the old joke abut literacy tests in Mississippi, which unfortunately is too politically incorrect to repeat here, but you get the point. This is an absurd situation and evidence of episcopal tyranny.
Comment by woodyjones — 23 August 2007 @ 10:05 amIn reading the various bishops comments, clarifications, deconstructions and plain old disregard it would seem that the problem here is not the priests understanding of Latin; but rather it is the bishops understanding of English and the Pope’s direction. It seems to me that the Vatican needs a new Human Resource department to improve the appointment of bishops.
Comment by D. Robert — 23 August 2007 @ 10:15 amSorry about the double post, I was trying to correct my misspelling, and in the third iteration would have omitted the last sentence which accurately reflects how I feel about this but is perhaps too incendiary for this genteel list. This matter calls to mind Rosmini’s famous Five Wounds of the Church (which as I recall listed as one such wound the alienation of people from clergy; if only he could see it now).
But further on the good bishop’s norms, I wonder why he did not also include a parental notification requirement.
Comment by woodyjones — 23 August 2007 @ 10:16 amJames,
There are no benevolent intentions, and it does no one any good to pretend there are. This is on the contrary malevolent from start to finish. Make no mistake about it. It is a political and diabolic (yes, I said diabolic, as in supernaturally influenced if not conscious) effort to forestall restoration before it has even begun. And it must be stopped NOW.
I hate to use the sword of a blackguard, but the words of Thomas Cromwell to St. Thomas More at his trial leap immediately to mind.
“Now we can plainly see, you ARE malicious!”
Pray for Cardinal Hoyos, that he has the strength and foresight to do his duty, and do it quickly.
Comment by Belloc — 23 August 2007 @ 10:25 am“The literacy test reminds me of the old joke abut literacy tests in Mississippi, which unfortunately is too politically incorrect to repeat here…
Unfortunately, I must bless you for your reserve. ;-)
– a Mississippian.
Comment by Xavier — 23 August 2007 @ 10:35 amI thought the Holy Father’s intent was to create greater unity in the church by granting the faithful whose faith is nourished by the older rite greater opportunity to worship according to that rite. These bishops seem to be throwing every possible obstacle in the way. Rome needs to issue some clarification before this goes any further. Why do they have such a hatred for the older rite?
Comment by J Ryon — 23 August 2007 @ 10:37 amFather,
I sincerely admire your patience as you, again and again, analyze the various reactions, interpretations, and (apparently now), the progmulgated decrees from various bishops and dioceses. Your hands must ache as your repeatedly make clear the meaning of “idoneus.”
Comment by EJ — 23 August 2007 @ 10:44 amI am noticing a rather apparent effort on the part of some to thwart the Holy Father’s intentions with Summorum Pontificum, specifically by misusing or ignoring the real meaning of “idoneus,” and its implication of competence in the Latin language rather than expertise in it. In light of these concerted efforts, it would seem that a very thorough clarification is needed on the part of the Holy See, and the sooner the better, as to what a bishop may or may not do to limit the decrees ordered by Summorum Pontificum (as if this wasn’t clear already from the document itself). Whether or not the Ecclesia Dei Commission was truly given more strength and authority by Summorum Pontificum will surely (and hopefully) be put to the test in the next few months. Many priests and faithful, some already pained and stressed to the breaking point, may not be up for the white martyrdom required in consequence to standing up to a defiant bishop, pastor or diocese. It should be the responsibility of the Holy See to make certain that Summorum Pontificum does not become another Ecclesia Dei-obeyed by some and ignored by others.
Regarding the complete ban on celebration of the Extraordinary Form during the Easter Triduum, why is this mistake continually made? Should not the Vatican or the USCCB clarify this for bishops? I hope they do so by Septuagesima!
Comment by Patrick Kinsale — 23 August 2007 @ 10:50 amJ Ryon:
Why do they have such a hatred for the older rite?
Msgr Klaus Gamber probably came closest when he commented that to a large extent the new liturgy was created hand-in-hand with a new theology.
Again and again, we can see that those who are most hostile to the traditional rite of the Mass are also hostile to traditional Catholic theology and the teachings of the Magisterium.
Comment by Craigmaddie — 23 August 2007 @ 10:58 amI think it would be interesting to contact all the bishops who have responded (so quickly!!) to the motu proprio, and ask them for the norms they issued in response to the 2004 document Redemptionis Sacramentum—On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist.
I suspect you won’t have to use much, if any, space to publish their norms.
Comment by Dominic — 23 August 2007 @ 11:03 amI am curious to see how this pans out in the next few months. If priests “petition” their bishop for a TLM, then it will be an implicit affirmation of these unlawful norms. If they give in, then they are subject to further enchroachment later on, and will be effectively powerless to appeal (since they didn’t appeal to the EDC earlier). So, the priests will be forced to go ahead, against the Bishops’ “norms”, and (legally) say the TLM anyway. When the chancery finds out and takes action against these “dissident” priests, the priests will then appeal to EDC and things should be set aright. The whole process is probably going to be messy and un-nice. I think the the Holy Father knew these problems existed already, and he drafted the document to bring these things to the surface.
What confuses me is this: what gives the Bishops confidence that their “interpretation” of the motu proprio will defend them before an EDC hearing? The letter and spirit of the document are pretty plain.
I think those priests who are thinking of tackling this issue and going ahead with the TLM should do three things. First, pray for your Bishop. Second, know that the law and the Pope are on your side. Three, read the motu proprio for the homily at the first TLM so that the people who haven’t read it hear it. It’s so plain what the rules are here. It will show the average person that nothing is being violated, so when action is taken, the people are behind you solidly.
This truly is a battle that is already won. Those who will stand up to these unlawful norms know that they are 100% justified in doing so. Those who are “promulgating” these norms are building a house of cards. It looks solid…..until the slightest breeze challenges it.
Sad. We should pray for the hierarchy. This is going to be messy.
Comment by RichR — 23 August 2007 @ 11:04 amI thought it a bit ironic that the Bishop’s Motto is
Comment by TJM — 23 August 2007 @ 11:07 am“God is Gracious.!” Would that the bishop familiarize
himself with the meaning of the word. Tom
There are many priests now coming from Poland, India, Africa to serve in the U.S. Often they are difficult to impossible to understand. Should we have an English prononciation for them so we can understand the Mass in English/vernacular?
Comment by Albertus — 23 August 2007 @ 11:13 amThere are many priests now coming from Poland, India, Africa to serve in the U.S. Often they are difficult to impossible to understand. Should we have an English prononciation requirement for them so we can understand the Mass in English/vernacular?
Comment by Albertus — 23 August 2007 @ 11:13 amTJM, maybe he should amend his motto to read, “God is Gracious, but not me.”
;-)
Comment by Sean P. Dailey — 23 August 2007 @ 11:19 amI wonder if these Bishops who insist on tests are playing into the Holy See’s hands. If they insist on rubrical tests, then as you say there is a double standard, from what he has been saying the Holy Father would love tests for priests who say the Novus Ordo, so that “all may be done correctlyâ€.
As for the language qualification, last week I celebrate a funeral, not Mass, in English and Portuguese for a family, I know no Portuguese, I merely had the prayers written out phonetically and practiced them for several days beforehand, however as there was no Portuguese priest available, I felt it was pastorally sensitive, and certainly pleased the family.
I wonder how idoneus Pope John Paul II was with those Asiatic languages he celebrated Mass in on his foreign travels.
Comment by Fr Raymond Blake — 23 August 2007 @ 11:20 amGood ol’ collegiality rearing it’s ugly head, yet again.
Comment by danphunter1 — 23 August 2007 @ 11:32 amIt must be abolished or we are going to have a thousand more little protestant enclaves where Catholic diocese’s used to be.
Christ, help us all.
I am sure some priests will take this matter to Rome, but most will not. Taking such an action will always sour a relationship and a priest will have to live with the consequences. Dioceses are close knit institutions and no-one likes a troublemaker.
“…And of course if Father is not happy possibly some extended leave or a little counselling for a few a months might well adjust his attitude, or possibly a move away from supportive parishioners to St X with the bongo drums and the liturgical dancers might stop him getting in a rut – career development, that is it.â€
If a bishop is being unjust it is the laity who must write to Ecclesia Dei and good ‘ole Cardinal Baptista Re at the Congregation for Bishops.
Comment by Fr Kevin — 23 August 2007 @ 11:40 amI wonder if these Bishops who insist on tests are playing into the Holy See’s hands.
Comment by Fr Raymond Blake
I think they are because it opens the door to restoring Latin as a necessity for seminary study.
Unless Europe where most priests have studied at least some Latin, there are priests here in the US who don’t know a word of Latin.
Comment by RBrown — 23 August 2007 @ 11:41 am“Unless” should be “Unlike”.
Comment by RBrown — 23 August 2007 @ 11:42 amAccording to Bishop Ricard’s coat of arms, “God is Gracious.” Would that Bishop Ricard were as well. With the bishop (as well as with some others), I am sensing control issues.
This type of letter isn’t anything to lose sleep over. There have been enough similar letters issued by other bishops that the Ecclesia Dei Commission will have to intervene. And that will be that.
Comment by Ole Doc Farmer — 23 August 2007 @ 11:42 amIt is sometimes worth saying a point a dozen times. Thank you Fr Raymond (and I like your blog too!)
Comment by Dominic — 23 August 2007 @ 11:45 amIt is so unfortunate that the availability of the Extraordinary form of the Mass in some situations is going to come down to whether or not the Bishop wants it to happen. Bishops are becoming more and more creative in finding ways to suppress the use Extraordinary form. It is just a matter of time before a Priest in one of the Dioceses wishes to say the Extraordinary form and is told that he may not by the Bishop, and the Priest turns to the Ecclesia Dei Commission. The first case like this should set the precedent and perhaps open up the door for Priests in similar situations.
Comment by Timothy James — 23 August 2007 @ 11:47 amRequires 50 people to approve the request to celebrate the classical liturgy?
“Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it?” Gen 18.23,24.
“Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.” Gen 18.32
“For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” Matt. 7.2
Perhaps some day they will say as long as there are ten you can use the N.O.
Comment by Scott Smith — 23 August 2007 @ 11:48 amFr. John,
In light of the seemingly many problems Bishop’s of the USSCB are having with Pope Benedict’s initiative,
Is the following (gleaned from Whispers in the Loggia—Rocco Palma) actually happening in Rome and do you
think there will be some “tweaking” of the directive?
“...In the meantime, requests for authoritative clarification (known as dubia) on elements of the new norms are going to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei by the ream from the dioceses and episcopal conferences. Entrusted with the final word in overseeing the Missal of Bl John XXIII and its celebration, the commission’s responses will settle not a few points of contention that’ve come to light in the motu’s wake.”
Thank you and God Bless you.
Comment by Ernie Bragiel — 23 August 2007 @ 11:50 amIn Jesus’ name,
Ernie Bragiel
Summorum Pontificum: “We order that everything We have established … be observed from 14 September … WHATEVER THERE MAY BE TO THE CONTRARY.”
This surely implies that if a bishop lays down a requirement that appears to inhibit the freedom granted by the higher authority of His Holiness, the bishop’s order has no force.
It looks as if Ecclesia Dei will find itself getting very busy, very soon.
Comment by Dorothy — 23 August 2007 @ 11:55 amIt looks as if Ecclesia Dei will find itself getting very busy, very soon.
Comment by Dorothy
Probably there are no more than 10-15 legitimate questions being asked of Ecclesia Dei. They can be handled fairly quickly.
Comment by RBrown — 23 August 2007 @ 12:04 pmRBrown writes:
Probably there are no more than 10-15 legitimate questions being asked of Ecclesia Dei. They can be handled fairly quickly.
Yes, I imagine that the very same questions are being asked over and over again.
Comment by dcs — 23 August 2007 @ 12:10 pmErnie Bragiel said: “do you think there will be some “tweaking†of the directive?”
The accompanying letter to the Bishops does say: “Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.”
If these same problems persist for 3 years perhaps we will see one of these “remedies.”
Comment by Timothy James — 23 August 2007 @ 12:15 pmSome info about Bps Galeone and Ricard:
Both came from Baltimore, Bp Ricard having been an auxiliary there for 13 (
) years and Bp Galeone a priest of that Archdiocese. Bp Galeone is almost 72 years old and Bp Ricard 67.5.
Bp Ricard was made an auxiliary under Abp Borders (which explains a lot). Bp Galeone didn’t become a bishop until he was 66.
Translated, this means that neither was ever looked up as key figures in the future of the Church in the US.
Comment by RBrown — 23 August 2007 @ 12:19 pm“The bishops of Florida, as was I, were impressed by their succinct and concise” nature and we have decided that they should be used throughout the Province and the State of Florida.”
In so far as succinct and concise are synonyms, using them together, as the good bishop does, is anything but succinct.
Comment by RBrown — 23 August 2007 @ 12:25 pm“Translated, this means that neither was ever looked up as key figures in the future of the Church in the US.”
Should be:
. . . this means that neither was ever considered a key figure . . .
Comment by RBrown — 23 August 2007 @ 12:30 pmAnother positive aspect to statements such as this one is that they identify the concerned bishop’s agenda. And “promotion” can be considered in light of that agenda.
A previous poster was quite right…the Province of Baltimore has cooked-up some whoppers.
Comment by Ole Doc Farmer — 23 August 2007 @ 12:31 pmCertainly, one of the motives of the MP is to reach out to the Society of Pope St. Pius X. Factions within the Society have always distrusted ecclesial authority and are watching very closely the implementation of our Holy Father’s directives.
If the E.D. Commission does not take corrective action in dioceses where the bishops are forbidding the extraordinary rite of Holy Mass( And this is really what they are doing!) the Society of Pope Pius X, will NEVER return to full unity. According to them the point would have been proven, “You can never trust Rome.”
Comment by Serafino — 23 August 2007 @ 12:58 pmI wish Rome would issue an official good translation of the SP along with a commentary on the problems already emerging—e.g. Article 9 above.
Article 8 is not simply a ‘curious statement’ (Father is too kind here)—it contradicts everything that is stated above. I once had respect for Bishops as being, by and large, an intelligent group of men. The statements they are issuing is depressing for the abysmal ignorance, even stupidity, they reflect.
Comment by David Nelson — 23 August 2007 @ 1:01 pm1. It is apparent that the bishop’s of Florida would not pass a rudimentary reading comprehension exam of SP in either English or Latin.
2. Regarding: The Bishop of the Diocese reserves to himself the authority to determine whether a priest is qualified to celebrate Mass and the other sacraments using the extraordinary form.
Are we to infer that Bishop Ricard is fluent not only in Latin, but with the rubrics of the EF? Did I somehow miss his announcement that he will be providing training for those priests who desire to celebrate the EF? ;)
3. Looks like the Florida bishops have been reading the bestseller “Leadership Lessons of Hugo Chavez” ;)
Comment by Paul Murnane — 23 August 2007 @ 1:12 pmFather Z,
I certainly hope somebody at the Ecclesia Dei Commission is getting these misinterpretations of Summorum Pontificum. I doubly hope somebody will issue a some “fraternal corrections” as well. This has gone beyond defiance and/or ignorance: this is blatant disobedience. Even someone with only a passing knowledge of Catholicism could see that.
Comment by TNCath — 23 August 2007 @ 1:29 pmI am not a member of the Holy Catholic and Roman Church , and reading the accounts given above of the fidelity of your bishops to His Holiness the Pope reminds me of what I once said to a group of catholic priests (including one consultant to Vatican II) “If I believed what you lot believed I would be where I was”. It was a long time ago but nothing seems to have changed. With shepherds like these who needs wolves? Fortunately you have the Pope.
Comment by Frederick Jones — 23 August 2007 @ 1:34 pmI think that it is generally bad to speak out against a Bishop, but in this case, clearly-delineated rights of the laity are being squashed in the name of…..............nothing.
It is also odd that a Bishop will exact obedience from his lower clergy when the very thing he is trying to promulgate is, by nature, disobedient.
Comment by RichR — 23 August 2007 @ 1:54 pmNo priest is bound to obey such ridiculous requirements. Summorum Pontificum is quite clear enough, and needn’t be reinterpreted or obviated by episcopal “guidelines” of any sort. Pastors are perfectly in their rights to ignore them. It is up to the pastors themselves to determine their response, which is encouraged by His Holiness Pope Benedict himself to be generous, within the minimal guidelines established in the Apostolic Letter itself. That’s the law. If clarification of the law is necessary, it will come from Ecclesia Dei. I can only expect that such is forthcoming soon, as the reaction of so many of these bishops is entirely out of keeping with, antagonistic to, and occasionally hysterical regarding the motu proprio. It seems that the devotees of the “Spirit of Vatican II” are attempting, with all that hot air, to blow stronger than the Papal “Spirit of Summorum Pontificum.” Let the “Spirit of Kumbaya” just try to come up against the “Spirit of the Gloria” and let’s all just sit back with our popcorn and watch the show!
Comment by Kevin P. Edgecomb — 23 August 2007 @ 1:56 pmI think this should be less like a theatrical drama and more like children watching two parents go at it. It’s sad to see. I hope the correction of bishops can be taken care of behind closed doors.
Comment by RichR — 23 August 2007 @ 2:08 pmRegarding the comment by Ole Doc Farmer:
“Another positive aspect to statements such as this one is that they identify the concerned bishop’s agenda. And ‘promotion’ can be considered in light of that agenda.â€
Bingo. This is one of Pope Benedict’s key objectives in promulating Summorum Pontificum. Whenever a terna is produced with proposed candidates to fill a vacant see, the Pope will now want answers to the following questions:
1. Is the candidate already a bishop? If so, proceed to question 2. If not, proceed to question 3.
2. What is the candidate’s attitude to Summorum Pontificum on the basis of his public pronouncements, his instructions issued to diocesan clergy, and his celebration of Mass in the Extraordinary Form? (Please provide examples).
3. What is the candidate’s attitude to Summorum Pontificum on the basis of his involvement in the drafting and enforcement of instructions issued to diocesan clergy, and his own celebration of Mass in the Extraordinary Form? (Please provide examples).
It’s a very good way of narrowing down the shortlist – or scrapping the shortlist and requesting fresh names.
Comment by Francis Brennan — 23 August 2007 @ 2:11 pmSorry about the second post! “I pray thee, hold me excused.” But after reading all these posts, I am glad to see there is real concern ( anger?) over the “childish” attempts of some bishops to stop the Holy Father’s MP. The bishops may think they are “popes” in their dioceses, but they are not!
Several years ago, a bishop tried to “force” a priest to use “altar girls” in his parish. The bishop even tried to suspend the priest “a divinis.” The priest, took the case to Rome. The response from Rome? “No priest may be forced to use altar girls,” and all canonical sanctions against the priest were dropped! The bishops, of course, was left looking like an idiot!
These defiant bishops know they don’t have a canonical leg to stand on. I am glad the time is OVER, when people including priests, just mindlessly “pay, pray and obey.”
Comment by Serafino — 23 August 2007 @ 2:56 pmHow ironic that I was talking to a couple of friends in a young adult youth group (18-30) about getting the group to go to an extraordinary form of the Mass in South Florida. Thanks Fr. Z for posting and analzing.
Comment by Lauren — 23 August 2007 @ 2:58 pmA lay person needs to write the bishop and point out the errors. When he or she is rebuffed, they then need to write Ecclesia Dei and place the situation clearly in Rome’s hands. This is the point in time where the laity must step forward and protect our priests and stand up for our rights. Imagine the result if letters go to ED from each diocese that is playing fast and loose with the MP.
Comment by WRiley — 23 August 2007 @ 3:12 pmFr. Z, thanks for collecting responses(the entire spectrum) to the motu proprio. I have an observation of 4 and a question about 9.
On 4, bypassing the quagmire of the coetus, and the bishop might not be off by saying the priest can’t initiate a public Mass in the extraordinary form. The translation I saw said along the lines of “let the priest willing acceded to the faithful.” I think that’s saying that a priest can’t say, “Okay, next week we’re using the extraordinary form,” but that the request has to be initiated by the laity.
In a way, it protects those priests who are attached to the extraordinary form, because if the faithful make the request, the priest can’t be said to be “imposing” it. Sounds to me like a subtle way of somewhat defusing the tension between individual priest and bishop. (I’m thinking of a specific situation in my diocese.) But then, it seems that some of the bishops’ response reflects smarting from the pope making the norms to “free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.”
My question about 9 is that if a parish has both forms for Sunday Mass, is the ordinary form always used for the Triduum?
Thanks.
Comment by Mary Kay — 23 August 2007 @ 3:27 pmI will answer this bishop point-by-point. But, first, I note that Pensacola-Tallahassee is the sole Diocese in the State of Florida and the ecclesiastical Province of Miami that does not offer the Traditional Latin Mass on an every-Sunday basis. I must wonder why its Bishops is so quick to issue regulations first and show pastoral solicitude to his traditionalist flock later. Does he not understand the nature of his office? The episcopate is a rulership of service. I also note that Summorum Pontificum is an act of the Holy See. The ordinary interpreter of such an act, therefore, is … the Holy See. Article 12 extends to the Pontificial Commission “Ecclesia Dei” (in addition to its past powers) the function of supervising and applying these dispositions. One cannot apply what one cannot define. Therefore, it is the Holy See, acting through the P.C.E.D., that has the proper function of defining these norms and then imposing them universally in the Latin Church. It is true that local bishops, taking into account local conditions, can set reasonable standards to determine how the pastoral needs appertaining to each Missal limit access to the other one (cf. Sentence 2 of S.P., 5.1). But that is not the same things as defining the terms.
(1) The Pope did not claim that the “ordinary form” is ordinary in the sense of usual in practice. It is held to be ordinary, and therefore normative, in terms of law. It is possible, in particular cases, that the “extraordinary form” will be usual in terms of practice. An example would be a personal parish erected for its celebration (cf. S.P. Article 10). Even an entire diocese or its equivalent can have the 1962 Mass as its normative Eucharistic liturgy. For the first time, we have a precedent for this: the Apostolic Administration ad personam of St. John-Mary Vianney, in Brazil. May there be many more of them in the future!
(2) First of all, “idoneus” means capable or able to do something, not qualified according to some added standard imposed by bishops. Note that, in 5.4, it refers merely to using a Missal, which here means reciting the prayers in the text and following the rubrics that accompany this. It refers to an ability to celebrate the 1962 Mass. Those who can pronounce the words and follow the rubrics are qualified. The definitions given in Lewis and Short’s Dictionary include “fit”, “capable”, “apt”, and “sufficient”. They refer to an ability to perform a task in an appropriate way. Under Canon 36, words take their dictionary meanings unless specified more closely, and, when definitions are various, the broadest interpretation is to be given when granting or protecting rights. Latin exams are far too restrictive here. According to the broadest dictionary definitions of “idoneus”, it means that the celebrant must be able to present the Mass. Period.
Secondly, Section 4 of Article 5 refers to all Masses that are celebrated “in paroeciis” (cf. Article 1 of the SAME Section). “In paroeciis”, in parishes, does not mean within the territory of parishes because a parish is not a territorial structure; rather, it is a legal structure existing in a territory. Therefore, it means here those Masses that are offered by or on behalf of a parish. Hence the reference to the parish priest (“parochus”) in Article 5.1 as the authority who can grant them. Since “in paroeciis” refers to all the Masses celebrated under Article 5, Section 4 of that Article restricts only those Masses: it does not restrict private Masses, which may be celebrated on parish property but are not Masses offered by a parish, since they may not be accessible to all parishioners (for the celebrant is not bound to inform all parishiones about them). Masses offered by a parish are public by definition, open to all parishioners and not only to invited guests.
It follows that the restriction that the priest must be capable of pronouncing the words and following the rubrics accurately according to any standard imposed by bishops-as-moderators pertains only to Article 5, and was obviously intended as a safeguard against sloppy Masses that all parishioners would be invited to attend. We wouldn’t want our Masses to look like the average New Mass, where chaos reigns and anything goes! We all know how carefully our ‘moderators of the liturgy’ have protected us from liturgical abuses over the last three decades! An interpretation of the law properly takes into account the intent of the legislator. This disposition was included owing to the very public concern (e.g. an entire article in the “Latin Mass Magazine” that progressive priests would import their abuses and their disordered liturgical spirit into our Mass. It was put there to keep out ignorant guitar-stumming priests who might scandalise traditionalist faithful by offering them 1962 Masses full of abuses and errors.
Local bishops lack the competence to extend that restriction to Article 2 regarding Masses sine populo. Clearly, the restrictions on Masses sine populo are lighter because the Holy See hoped that priests wishing to celebrate publicly could train in private first. If you consider the ordering of Articles 2, 4, and 5, you can see a suggested programme for an inexperienced priest. First, he celebrates with only one server (Article 2; cf. Canon 906); then, privately but with a small group of invited guests (Article 4); and then, once he has mastered the Latin pronunciations and rubrics, regularly-scheduled public Masses (Article 5).
Thirdly, where were these restrictions on the 1962 Mass since 1984? Where were they for celebrations of the New Mass in Latin? Currently, there are 57 every-Sunday New Masses in Latin in 37 U.S. sees (source: Latin Liturgy Association). Once a priest is ordained, he has a fundamental right to celebrate Mass in the Latin tongue. This proceeds from immemorial custom and therefore cannot be overrided by a mere regulation, only by written law that derogates from that custom (cf. Canon 5.2 & Canon 27). A fortiori, it is guaranteed by Canon 928 that priests have a choice to celebrate either “in the Latin language or in some other language”. No Bishop of the Bailiwick of Pensacola has the authority to remove from priests a fundamental right to celebrate in the lingua sacra of their ritual Church. If the bishops want to ensure a good standard in Latin comprehension, let them respect “Optatam Totius” and other notices from Rome and TRAIN THEM IN LATIN. The presumption of the law is that, by the time of ordination, a priest is qualified to celebrate the Mass of the Latin Church in the sacred language proper to it.
(3) The definition here of a private Mass is totally wrong, and it shows just how inept and obtuse these bishops are. The Holy See has explained time and again that a Mass sine populo is one that is not celebrated according to a published regular schedule. The celebrant can, each week, announce a time and place for the next Mass sine populo (but including those who ask to be present), even if this turns out to be the same time and place each week. What he cannot do is to announce that two or more of such Masses will be celebrated according to some temporal rule. That is what a ‘regular schedule is’ (duh!). For example, he could not announce in the parish bulletin that it will be celebrated every Sunday at 2 p.m., or every other Thursday at 6 p.m., or on the first Sundays of each month at 8 a.m. But the celebrant can announce publicly when the next one Mass will be celebrated. To say that an event is regularly scheduled is to say that it occurs more than once at one place and according to a temporal rule.
(4) As Fr. Z. notes, this is not what Article 5.2 declares. On the contrary, when compared to Article 1 and the meaning of the Mass as public by definition under Canons 837.1 and 899.2, it is clear that Article 5.1 gives the parish priest a general right to schedule a public parish Mass WITH OR WITHOUT the request of a continuously-existing group. While 5.1 mentions that the parish priest should willingly provide such Masses for groups which request this, nowhere does it say that the parish priest can only proceed if such a group has lodged a request. On the contrary, Article 1, ¶2 gives priests the general right to celebrate the 1962 Mass (which is public by definition under Canon 837), and Sections 1 and 2 of Article 5 give the priest a right to celebrate it “in paroeciis”, which means to celebrate it publicly unless specifically restricted. A parish priest in virtue of his office has the right to post regular schedules of all the parish Masses; and he has the right to post notice of the next single private Mass.
Note once again that NOWHERE does 5.2 “require” that there be any group needed, stable or continuously-existing or otherwise. To say that one ought to give a group what it requests does not mean that one cannot do that thing unless there is such a group to request it. What the law does not forbid, it allows. Moreover, in this case, Article 1 specifically allows a public 1962 Mass because a public Mass, given Canon 867, is the norm, and because parish Masses are public by definition (unless restricted specifically). Only Articles 2 and 4 refer to Masses sine populo, which are, in law, not private Masses (merely a common term we use for them).
(5) This is a complete misinterpretation of Article 5.2. Nowhere do I see the adjective “only” in the Latin. The section establishes two norms. The second one—the one of interest here—is that, normally, it is expected that the parish priest may schedule one 1962 Mass in Latin on Sundays and holydays. Other laws and other conditions may modify this expectation, however. If the parish priest is only allowed by his bishop to celebrate twice or even once on Sundays (cf. Canon 905), and if any faithful (even one) at that parish want access to the New Mass, and if the parish priest is unable to enlist the help of other priests to celebrate Sunday Masses, it may be that not even one 1962 Mass may be celebrated, not because the local bishop alone has the power to forbid it but because circumstances make it impossible: a right to do something is not a guarantee that it may be done. If even one faithful wants access to the New Mass, he must be accommodated, because the New Mass is held to be normative for territorial dioceses and, therefore, faithful have a right to benefit from it.
Secondly, the section means that, should there be a great demand for New Masses in all the available times, and should the parish priest have adequate resources to offer Masses in all the convenient hours, he may arrange for the celebration of only one 1962 Mass, offering the most convenient hours for Mass in accordance with demand. The other ‘time slots’ would have to be given to the New Mass. There are only so many hours in a day and only so many sacred places in a parish, no matter how many priests are available to say Mass.
However, if the priest has adequate means to satisfy the reasonable demand for the New Mass and to offer more than one 1962 Mass, he may offer or have offered more than one 1962 Mass. That is why the norm here says “one Mass” and not “only one Mass”.
Hence 5.2 establishes a general norm that, in typical circumstances, the parish priest is guaranteed to provide one 1962 Mass on Sundays and holydays. “One” here is not qualified. Hence it does not always mean either “more than one”, but nor does it always mean “only one”.
Bishops can restrict any priest, even a parish priest, to the celebration of only one Mass on any day, even Sunday (cf. Canon 905). Even though general diocesan policies may apply, a local bishop could make exceptions in particular cases. Hence, if his priests generally may binate on Sundays, a particular priest may be forbidden to do so. On the other side, however, a bishop lacks the competence to prevent a parish priest from enlisting the help of retired priests in good standing. They have the right but never the obligation to celebrate once every day, using either Roman Missal. Notice that sections 5.1 and 5.2 mention what Masses a parish priest may schedule but do not imply that he must celebrate those Masses himself.
(6) No comment. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
(7) Bizarre. Perhaps this is a lame attempt to make this bishop look even-handed.
(8) This statement goes beyond the text of Article 1, which only refers to two documents that are overwritten.
(9) Fr. Z is too light in his commentary here. The statement of this Bishop is completely false, and he misconstrues the Holy Father’s intent. Liturgies during the Triduum Sacram are scheduled public events by nature. Therefore, whether using the 1962 Missal or that promulgated in 1970, a priest may not celebrate them sine populo. The restiction applied only to Masses and the Good Friday Service celebrated sine populo under Article 2; it has no bearing on public scheduled liturgies under Article 5. Given the general permission to celebrate according to the 1962 books in Article 1, a parish priest could, for instance, schedule a Good Friday Service using the 1962 books. But this will rarely happen because these services can be said only once a day and, if even one faithful wants the New Missal on those days, that’s what everyone gets, for the New Liturgy is the normative one to which parishioners in territorial parishes have a right. But the case would be different in a personal parish erected for traditionalists under Article 10, or in a non-parochial church made available to them and mentioned in Article 5.5. Also, if the parishioners unanimously preferred the 1962 books, they could be used publicly during the Sacred Triduum in a territorial parish.
(One closing note on inept translations. The Triduum Sacram is the ‘Sacred Triduum’; it is NOT NOT NOT the ‘Paschal Triduum’ or the ‘Easter Triduum’. Traditionally, the Easter Triduum is the three feast days comprising Easter Sunday, Easter Monday and Easter Tuesday, and reflecting an ancient Jewish custom of three days of feasting. The Sacred Triduum, which is about fasting, not feasting, is Maundy Thursday evening to Easter Sunday a at noon. They are not the same!)
(10) Latin exams for deacons too! But Article 5.4 mentions only priests. Local bishop can supervise the application of law (as can the higher authority of the Holy See through the P.C.E.D.: see Article 12) but they cannot add stipulations to the laws made by the Holy Father as lawgiver, just as they cannot amend the Code. I suppose that this Bishop will want to test a deacon on the meaning of the Gospel text he will deliver next Sunday. This outrageous; it violates precedent. Since when was this done for Indult Masses or New Masses in Latin or before 1970? If the bishop fails to train his deacons or priests, then that is his fault. He cannot penalise them for his failure. Once he ordains them, he is approving them for the tasks proper to their function. Once ordained, they have a right to celebrate in the sacred language of their ritual Church. No pipsqueak from Pensacola can remove it. Every Latin-Rite priest has the right to celebrate in Latin because Latin, unlike the vernacular tongues, is universal. This Bishop is misapplying his directives. If he wants to authorise a Spanish-speaking priest to celebrate in English, then he may set an English exam for him, so that the celebration in English is fit and becoming. By ordination per se, one becomes qualified to celebrate in Latin and one own’s vernacular tongue(s) but not, perhaps, some other vernacular tongues.
Latin and Latin alone is the universal language of the Latin Church. It is the proper language of celebration everywhere (except in Dalmatia) and a right to celebrate it is guaranteed by Canon 928: “The Eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in Latin or in another language, provided the liturgical texts have been lawfully approved.” Since the one who carries out the celebration is, by right, a priest, a priest is to celebrate either in Latin or in a vernacular language known to him. The choice is always his.
But I am glad that Bishop Galeone and others have raised this point. I have heard about inept and incomprehensible Masses in English celebrated by priests with strong French accents, strong Spanish accents, strong Polish accents, and strong Filipino accents. This must stop! I demand that the moderators of the liturgies not allow foreign priests to celebrate in English until they have been tested in examinations that test comprehension, pronunciation and, above all, grammar. These foreign priests do not even know how to use the English subjunctive present tense. I am outraged! Should we be subjected to this?
In closing, note that nobody need to abide by regulations (that are not even laws here) that are ultra vires. This set of dreams has no force in law. I urge priests in Pensacola and throughout Florida simply to ignore these illegal restrictions. If the bishops want to know what clear texts mean, let them submit dubia to the P.C.E.D. Oh, but don’t worry, my own dubia are now on their way.
Peter Karl T. Perkins
Comment by Peter Karl T. Perkins — 23 August 2007 @ 3:30 pmVictoria, Canada
There seems to be a pattern developing:
GUIDELINES
For the celebration of Mass in the Extraordinary Form
Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown
The Holy Spirit has prompted our Holy Father to address the matter of the Tridentine Mass. With his issuance of a Motu Proprio, taking effect on the 14th of September, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI has allowed priests of the Roman Catholic Church to celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Missal, without any further permission but under certain conditions. Since it is important to read the document carefully, I wish to issue the following guidelines for our Diocesan Church. This I do for the sake of liturgical unity and integrity, in accord with the Holy Father’s admonition to us bishops. In his letter accompanying the Motu Proprio, he wrote the following: “... I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese.â€
The Holy Father acknowledges the fact that many priests may not demonstrate a rubrical or linguistic ability to celebrate the extraordinary form of the Eucharistic Liturgy. In that case, a priest may not celebrate that particular form of Mass nor is he obligated to learn to do so. Provided that a priest possesses the required rubrical and linguistic ability to celebrate the extraordinary form of Mass, the following come into play.
1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is to be regarded as the ordinary expression of the law of prayer of the Catholic Church of the Latin Rite. A priest celebrating Mass according to the extraordinary form may not do so exclusively; but, needs to celebrate also the Mass in the ordinary form as an expression of his not denying the validity of the Mass commonly used today.
2. Any priest of the Latin Rite that has the rubrical and linguistic ability may celebrate Mass in the extraordinary form without the Faithful (privately) at any time except during the Sacred Triduum. Christ’s Faithful who spontaneously request it, may join the priest. No permission is required.
3. Communities or Institutes of Consecrated Life or Societies of Apostolic Life of either pontifical or diocesan rite may use the extraordinary form of the Mass for their community celebrations in their own oratories by permission of their own major superior.
4. Should a pastor decide to celebrate or allow the celebration of one of the regularly scheduled Masses in a parish in accord with the extraordinary form (Missal of Blessed John X)(ffl), it must be in response to a request from a group (coetus/association) within his particular parish (member parishioners) that has existed and has been attached to the previous liturgical tradition steadfastly (that is: for some time; stabiliter existit). He may not do so as a result of his own personal preference. I ask that requests be presented to the pastor in writing, including names and addresses. These should be kept on file at the parish. In order to preserve unity within a parish, the Parish Pastoral Council is to be consulted in regard to any change. Groups composed of individuals belonging to various parishes are to approach the Diocesan Bishop.
5. The entire schedule of Masses in a parish may not be in accord with the extraordinary form, as this would make it a “personal parish†for which the diocesan bishop’s permission is required.
6. Whenever Mass is celebrated according to the extraordinary form, all rubrics for that form of Mass must be observed; including prayers, language, vestments, Holy Communion under one form on the tongue, only boy altar servers, and postures (both of the celebrant and the faithful if present). The Roman Canon is always used.
7. In order to assure that a priest has the rubrical and linguistic ability to celebrate the extraordinary form of Mass within the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, acknowledgement of such is to be obtained from our Diocesan Office of Liturgy. This is only logical. Many of our priests have never celebrated Mass according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII. Others, who have, have not done so for some time. Our seminaries assure bishops that those leaving to function as priests have the necessary knowledge and facility to celebrate Mass in the current form. Perhaps, in the future, they will also do the same in regard to the extraordinary form. In the interim, the matter will be handled on a diocesan basis.
The Holy Father asks for charity and pastoral prudence in any consideration of celebrating the Mass in accord with the extraordinary form (according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII). That same charity and pastoral prudence need to be exercised within our own Diocesan Church. The guidelines delineated above are intended in such a spirit of charity and prudence.
I take this opportunity to encourage the appropriate reverence and harmony in celebrating the Mass according to either form, ensuring the unity of which it is to be a sign. The Eucharistic Liturgy of the Church is a treasure currently entrusted to us to preserve and pass on to future generations of the Faithful.
(Most Rev.) Joseph V. Adamec
Bishop of Altoona-Johnstown
August 20, 2007
Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania
Transcribed from a hard copy of the letter sent by Bishop Adamec to his diocesan priests dated August 20, 2007, see http://theloyalcatholic.blogspot.com/
Comment by BK — 23 August 2007 @ 3:43 pmBishop Adamec states:
“it must be in response to a request from a group (coetus/association) within his particular parish (member parishioners) that has existed and has been attached to the previous liturgical tradition steadfastly (that is: for some time; stabiliter existit).”
Does Summorum Pontificum stipulate that