What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

Someone was good enough to send the Motu Proprio statement by His Excellency Most Reverend Frederick F. Campbell, Bishop of Columbus.  The form in which it was sent to me was a total mess, so I have had to clean it up and make it useable.  This means that the original format of the statement has been lost.  Sorry about that.

Folks, if you send me something, please send it in a useable format.

In any event, I will preface this that I know Bp. Campbell a little and like him.

That said, let’s look at the statement with my emphases and comments.

 

Frederick F. Campbell to the clergy of the Diocese of Columbus

Dear Father/Deacon:

On September 14, 2007, the Apostolic Letter of Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum regarding the use of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite according to the 1962 Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII, goes into effect. I would like to take this opportunity to share some thoughts which I hope will result in the orderly and correct implementation of the provisions of that letter in the Diocese of Columbus. I have attached copies of this letter and other helpful materials for your reference.

At the outset, I believe that it is important to consider the context of this document and the causes which occasioned its issuance. The Holy Father’s desire is to restore and foster the unity of the Body of Christ, and to provide for the pastoral care of those faithful who are attached to the earlier form of the Mass. [This is good.  He doesn’t limit the provisions only to people in questionable unity with the Church.] In his accompanying letter to the Bishops, the Holy Father noted that the desire for the older form of the Mass arose “... above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, [He brings in another dynamic.  Heal not only people and foster unity, but heal also breaks in the way all Masses are celebrated.] but the latter (Missal of 1970) actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear.” That being the case, it is my hope that the Diocese of Columbus will be a model for the smooth implementation of Summorum Pontificum. Unity and peace should always surround the sacred liturgy. It is my hope that all priests will grow in the love of the Holy Mass and offer it with reverence and care, no matter which Missal is followed. With that in mind, I would offer the following guidelines for implementation.

I. TRAINING/ FAMILIARITY WITH THE CEREMONIES

Priests are permitted to celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Missal in celebrations without the people. However, any priest desiring to do so must first become completely familiar with the rubrics and ceremonies of this form of the Mass. [I would hope this means "any form of the Mass", lest there be a risk of a double standard.  Also, I wonder what "completely" means.] Sufficient knowledge of Latin [This is a little vague… which is good!  Knowledge should be "sufficient"!  A reasonable reading of this was provided by His Eminence Edward Card. Egan, who wrote that the priest should be able to pronounce the words properly.  Of course we hope for a great deal more than that.] and some form of training [that’s reasonable… but the form of that training usually greatly varies in priests who learn the older Mass.] in the rubrics and ceremonies of the 1962 Missal ought to be considered prerequisites in order for any priest to celebrate Mass according to the Extraordinary Form, even without the people. Resources and referrals for training can be obtained by contacting the Office of Liturgy. [Excellent!]

II. MASSES WITHOUT THE PEOPLE

Priests who celebrate Mass without the people according to the 1962 Missal may admit members of the faithful to the celebrations if they spontaneously request it but these celebrations may not be announced or publicized ahead of time.  [Hmmm… I wonder if that is really what a private Mass is.] Priests should not binate in order to offer Mass without the people according to the 1962 Missal, since that faculty may be invoked only for the pastoral needs of the people. (cf C.905) [Here is a bit of a problem.  Does this risk a double standard?  It seems there are lots of priests binating everywhere, and not always for pastoral needs of the people.  For example, it very often happens that priests will celebrate Mass in their parishes and, later in the day, go to another Mass, say for the funeral of a priest, and he will concelebrate.  That means he is binating, even if he is not taking a stipend.  The priest might concelebrate Mass for various reasons.   So, I am left scratching my head about this.  It can’t be that His Excellency is now saying to his priests that if they have already said Mass, they can never concelebrate for funerals or diocesan celebrations.  I admit I may be ignorant of the details of bination, but doesn’t this seems to be a bit of a double-standard?] The 1962 Missal may not be used for regularly scheduled parish Masses unless the conditions for offering Mass for a stable group [Here is that bad English translation again.] of the faithful attached to the older form of the Mass are truly fulfilled.  [And those conditions, as they are in the Motu Proprio are very relaxed.  It would seem to somewhat difficult to make those provisions as expressed in the Latin more restrictive than they are.]

III. MASSES WITHTHE PEOPLE

Article 5 of the Apostolic Letter addresses a pastoral concern for those who are attached to the older liturgical tradition. These persons have a right [Excellent] to their spiritual life and to worship according to this approved albeit extraordinary form of the Roman rite (cf. C.214). Pastors are obliged [Excellent] to respond to requests for celebrations according to the 1962 Missal in the spirit of pastoral charity and with prudence. The Holy Father, in his letter to Bishops, states "the use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often." In areas where there is a stable group [there is that bad translation again] of the faithful in sufficient numbers (Since conditions vary from place to place, a good rule to follow is a number comparable to the average attendance at daily Mass in a given place. [I am really puzzled by why this is a good rule of thumb when the Motu Proprio doesn’t specify a number.  On the other hand, it is entirely reasonable that a pastor of a parish might not reasonably or prudently, given his time and energy, undertake a parish wide change for a very small group of people.  Still… small initiatives can grow, can’t they?  Perhaps the language of "rule of thumb" is okay.] They also must be a “stable group,” i.e. rooted in the local church community. [This is disappointing.  It is all based on that bad English translation of the Latin original.]) who request these celebrations, it is advisable that the priests of the deanery collaborate to plan how best to meet their pastoral needs. [That is reasonable and smart.] They should discuss among themselves which priests would be best suited to celebrate these Masses, or would be willing and available to learn to celebrate according to the Extraordinary Form; [The only problem I have with this stems from my conviction that all priests should know how to celebrate in their particular rite.  This is part and parcel of good priestcraft, ("priestcraft" understood in a positive light, of course, rather than the usual pejorative).  Priests of the Latin Church, of the Roman Rite, should know both uses of that Rite!  Furthermore, pastors of parishes need to be able to respond willingly to the petitions presented to them.  I think priests should  do their best to learn the older form so they can respond to reasonble requests themselves, and not farm it out to someone else.] they should discuss which church or churches would be most suitable for the celebrations, taking into consideration the liturgical requirements and the convenient access of the faithful. [That is refreshing.] They should also discuss the scheduling of these celebrations so that the needs of the people are sufficiently met while avoiding an unnecessary number of celebrations according to the Extraordinary Form. [WHOA!  This is odd.  It seems to me that if there are groups in every or many parishes who make these requests, and the Holy Father clearly said that this involves effort on the part of the PASTOR, who has the right to make the decision about public Masses, then it would be wrong to say that there would be unnecessary celebrations.] The advice of the Chancery should be sought in these discussions.

IV. AUTHENTICITY OF CELEBRATION

When the Missal of 1962 is followed, the laws and customs appropriate to that rite must be observed:

a) The place of celebration must meet the requirements of the older liturgy. Churches that have retained the old altar are best suited for this rite, ["use"] but other altars can in many cases be adapted.

b) A trained server, capable of accurately making the Latin responses, is required for any celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal, even those without the people. Only males may act as altar servers. [It is good to remember that service at the altar by females is something that diocesan bishops can regulate.  He can say yes or no, since it is an exception.]

c) In Masses in which Holy Communion is given to members of the faithful, the ordinary minister is the priest and the faithful receive communion only under the species of bread, and only on the tongue. The faithful kneel to receive communion unless infirmity prevents them form doing so.   [This shows sensitivity to the needs of the people most likely to be attending these Masses regularly.]

d). The role of the deacon is limited to those functions specifically assigned to the deacon in the rubrics. [I am not sure what this is about.]

V. NOTIFICATION

To assist the Chancery in providing the faithful who inquire with an accurate schedule of Extraordinary Form Masses in their vicinity, priests who regularly offer Masses according to this Form are asked to register those scheduled Mass times and locations with the Chancery Office. This will also enable the Chancery to assess the actual availability of the Extraordinary Form throughout the Diocese in the future. I know that many other questions will arise in the weeks and months ahead to which we do not yet have answers. The USCCB is in the process of seeking information and clarification of certain points. I will supply updated information to you as it becomes available.

Thanking you for your attention to this, I am,

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Most Reverend Frederick F. Campbell, D.D., Ph.D.

This statement shows some clear sensitivity to some important issues. 

First, I very much like the fact that His Excellency says that resources will be supplied for priests.  Support for the priests is paramount, because in many ways this Motu Proprio is aimed at priests.  It is a great gift to them.

Second, this statement does not restrict in any way the sort of person who might be interested in this form of Mass.  That is very important.

At the same time, there are a couple points in here that leave me scratching my head.  This issue of bination raises questions.  I might need to be educated by a canonist about this.  It seems to me that this point skates around the double-standard problem.

There are very positive features in this statement which must be applauded!

Everyone: A few people have written to me to share their views that I have been unfair to a few of the statements of the Motu Proprio from bishops or officials of dioceses.  This view has also been posted respectfully on a couple blogs. 

I know this blog gets a lot of attention now.  The stats make me shiver once in a while, as a matter of fact. 

Friends, I call ‘em as I see ‘em.  If I find that I am wrong about something, or I am given more information which might cause me to change my mind, I not only change my mind, I post that I have, or I make corrections.

I am getting hundreds of e-mail a day, so if you send something and don’t see me react to it, that means I either read it and didn’t think it needed action or I just didn’t see it.  Silence doesn’t mean I don’t care.

Also, in making comments on the statements about Summorum Pontificum it is my intention only to comment on the positions expressed.  Sometimes I slip on that here and there, but I try to go back and correct my comments if I stray into attacks on the people who wrote them.  It isn’t my intention to be harsh toward people.  But I think positions are fair game.

That said, it seems to me that when diocesan statements betray a very different attitude than that of Summorum Pontificum, or they include things clearly contrary to its provisions, we mustn’t just take it lying down any more.  I think we have to defend the Motu Proprio by raising the issues when we see them. 

We have that right, and so long as we do so respectfully, and with an eye both to justice and charity, we do everyone a service.

You will remember that His Excellency Most Reverend Michael Fr. Burbidge of Raleigh, NC, has issued a very good statement about the Motu Proprio and went to preach at a solemn celebration according to the older form of Mass.

Here is His Excellency’s sermon at that Mass.

Enjoy!

My emphases and comments.

Exaltation of the Holy Cross – Implementation of Summorum Pontificum
Sacred Heart Parish, Dunn
September 14, 2007

Whenever we gather for the celebration of Mass, we are powerfully reminded of the unity that is ours. We are privileged to offer praise and worship to God, Undivided Unity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We celebrate the Eucharist, the Source of Unity, the one bread that unites as one body, brothers and sisters in Christ. We gather as the holy people of God united to the bishop and his priests.  [I appreciate that he mentions priests here.]

It is a special joy to come together on this effective date of Summorum Pontificum. This Apostolic Letter reflects the Holy Father’s desire to shepherd the Church on a path of greater unity and continuity. In issuing this Letter, Pope Benedict emphasized his pastoral concern that the extraordinary and ordinary forms of the celebration of Mass are never to be seen as two separate Rites, but rather forms of celebration within the one Roman Rite. This grace-filled moment in the life of the Church must serve to strengthen us in the one call we share: the call to greater holiness.

As Bishop, I will do everything possible to implement the Motu Proprio. [Hurray!] To do so I will need the assistance of our priests. I am grateful to Father Paul Parkerson and others, who will make available the celebration of the forma extraordinaria at locations throughout the diocese.

My brothers and sisters, our diocese must be known for its unity. It is my hope and prayer that we grow together in (1) recognizing, appreciating and celebrating our holy Catholic faith in all its beauty and richness; (2) deepening our love for and devotion to the Most Blessed Sacrament; (3) experiencing a renewed reverence and respect for the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy; and (4) increasing our love for one another. Such a way of living reflects the Holy Father’s vision that our one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church will continue on a path of reform and renewal.

On this Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, our unity is pronounced. All of us, without exception, share in the sufferings of Jesus Christ. We all know what it means to carry the cross of Christ: the cross of physical or emotional suffering (either our own or that of someone we love); the cross of grieving the death of someone dear to us; the cross of being betrayed or rejected by someone we love; the cross of family burdens, professional difficulties or personal problems; the cross of addiction or of a particular sin that has a firm hold on us—and the list continues.

Yet, we do not despair. We are not alone. The Letter to the Philippians speaks of the depth of Christ’s sacrifice: His emptying of Himself, His taking on the powerlessness of a slave, becoming obedient unto death, even death on the cross. There is nothing we experience in our lives, except sin, that Jesus did not experience: false judgment, persecution, betrayal, physical and emotional punishment and suffering. Yet, through it all, He submitted to the will of the Father and trusted completely in His abiding presence. Thus, His suffering did not end in defeat. God greatly exalted Him and the Son of Man was lifted up. He proved victorious, and His victory is ours. No wonder we sing, “Lift High the Cross.”

As we gather on this solemn occasion, we give thanks to God for His countless blessings upon the Church, our diocese and each one of us. We thank Him for the gift of our Holy Father and his faithful shepherding of his flock. We thank God for the gift of our holy Catholic faith and Sacred Liturgy. We also pray at this Mass for the grace we need to reflect always the unity that is ours, and to embrace our sufferings with deep faith in God’s mercy, and in the sure and certain hope that by dying He destroyed our death and by rising He restored our life. This is why we celebrate the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. This is why we proclaim, “We adore You, O Christ, and we praise You, because by Your holy cross You have redeemed the world.”

Wonderful sermon for a wonderful occasion. 

    UPDATE: As of 21 September it seems that the Bishop of Portsmouth has decided that the piece below will NOT be published in the diocesan paper.  


I don’t know if what follows is an "official" statement from the Diocese of Portsmouth in England or not.  Apparently it was sent out in anticipation of its publication in the diocesan newspaper, so… it sounds official.

What follows is one of the worst things I have seen to date on the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

This text was sent me by e-mail, so it still may need to be verified against a hard copy, but I think my sender is reliable.

Please note that the piece was written by a layman, not the bishop!  It reveals ignorance of the content of the Motu Proprio and hostility towards the people Pope Benedict intends to serve.

Here it is with my emphases and comments.

    I attach an information piece that is due to appear in the forthcoming issue of our diocesan newspaper. [Let us pray to God and all the angels and saints that this piece is corrected or, even better, trashed and not published at all.] I hope it will clarify [har] some of the issues, particularly as regards our view that the Motu Proprio does not require bishops to provide training for priests or people who may become interested in the pre-conciliar form of the Roman Rite [What a weird thing to lead off with in an introductory comment.  At the same time, it raises a question.  If a bishop comes to understand that priests in his diocese don’t know how to say Mass (imagine such a thing) would it be his responsibility to provide training?  I think so.  It is his responsibility to make sure they are idonei, which means at least minimally prepared to carry out priestly work.] (now described by the Pope himself as "extraordinary" in the sense of "not normative"  [Again, this is weird.]), but only asks them to make provision for those who have in the past made known their interest in a consistent and organized fashion.  [This is simply false.  As a matter of fact, I suspect that the person who wrote it knows that this is false.  The MP does NOT place limitations on who can request celebrations of the older form of Mass.]

    Best wishes,  [No comment.]

    Paul Inwood  [I don’t know who this is, but I am told he is not a priest.]

    =======

    Some questions and answers on Benedict XVI’s recent Motu Proprio
    Summorum Pontificum

    1. Why has the Pope seemingly taken a step backwards [Note the highly tendentious language, which also employs an old chestnut.] in allowing the former Tridentine rite [Note the incredibly SLOPPY language.  All three words "former – Tridentine – rite" are out of place here.  First, the older form of Mass was never abrogated.  Thus, "former" here might apply to some previous edition long before 1962, but it doesn’t apply to what the MP describes.  "Tridentine" was never a good way of describing this form of Mass in our era, though people know what we mean by it when speaking casually.  "Rite"... the Motu Proprio states that, at least juridically, there is one rite in question, the Roman Rite, in two uses.] of Mass alongside the one we have now?

    Benedict XVI’s main concern seems [seems to this guy] to be to make  a gesture of reconciliation to those who have never been able to accept the rite of Mass we have now. [While Benedict is ALSO concerned for people described like this, there is NO restriction in the MP like this.  Benedict’s provisions cannot be characterized this way without additional clarifications.] He wants to try to integrate them more closely into the Church as a whole, so he is to a small extent [small?  What he did was of titanic dimensions!] relaxing the rules regarding when celebrations of the Tridentine rite can take place. [Relaxing the rules… hmmm… I don’t think so.  This makes it sound as if the "rules" can be made more rigid again.  While I don’t want to take anything away from the Pope’s authority, by stating that there is one Rite in two uses, the Pope made it clear that every priest who has permission to say Mass at all, also automatically has permission to say the older Mass as part and parcel of his normal faculties.  Saying that special permission is required for the older form of Mass really implies that there are, in fact, two different rites, that the newer form did in fact constitute such a deep break in the liturgical tradition of the Church that it constitutes a separate rite.  The progressivists especially don’t want to admit that.  Thus, they had better learn to avoid this sort of language… and fast!] In England and Wales we have already had an indult from Rome, obtained in 1971 by Cardinal Heenan, allowing celebrations of the Tridentine Mass with the permission of the local bishop. [This demonstrates that the older form was never abrogated, btw.] The latest document merely eases slightly the legislation  that had already been relaxed for the universal Church in 1984 by Pope John Paul II.  [NO NO NO!  This is simply foolish.  The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum replaces completely what we had before.   Before, priests needed permission to do certain things.  Now, they do NOT need permission, either from the Holy See nor from the local bishop.  That is the point of Summorum Pontificum.  It is a declaration that priests in good standing and know how to celebrated the older form of Mass decently NEED NO PERMISSION to do so.  The is a huge difference from the previous state of affairs.]

    2. Who may ask for a celebration in the Tridentine rite?

    It is important to know that a vital word was changed in the final version of the Pope’s letter, compared with the earlier draft. [Noooo…. it is absolutely IRRELEVANT what any previous draft said.  What matters is what the Pope signed and promulgated.] Available English translations made use of the draft and have not yet incorporated this change. [That’s why we read the LATIN document.] Under the terms of the Motu Proprio, only those who have a history of celebrating in, or mounting pressure for celebrations in, the Tridentine rite may request such a celebration from a parish priest. [This is a absolutely FALSE.   The Latin says that a group of people attached to the older form, which can be very small (coetus), which is in a parish in a continuous way (continenter) can make a request.  That is all it says.] In other words, this rite must be to an extent normative for them, not a novelty. [No… the MP does not say that.  It does NOT say that people must have a long attachment to the older form.  It merely describes them as being around for a while and that the have an attachment to the older form. ] What this means in practice is that people cannot now decide that they want a Tridentine celebration and ask for it. [Absolutely FALSE.  A brand new group can form, of people who have never gone to the older Mass, and they can make a request.  The MP is not as restrictive as this guy says it is and no reasonable or informed person can claim that with honesty] they have to have been celebrating in that rite, or have pressured [PRESSURED? Look at the attitude with which the writer views these people?] for it, continuously (the Latin word is continenter, changed from stabiliter in the final version) [Oh yah?  Gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.  Also, it matters not a bit, zero, zip, nada, nichts, nihil, nichivo what any previous draft said.  The text of the MP as promulgated is all that matters.  Furthermore, the writer here doesn’t seem to realize that he is undermining his own dopey comment.  If the choice was made to remove the adverb stabiliter and say something else, that means that the concept of stabiliter was purposely avoided.  The document is saying something other than stabiliter.  You can’t serious suggest that the document is saying something completely different than what it says because of a word that might have been used.  That would be like saying pro multis means "for all" because of what Jesus might have said in Aramaic.  Lousy argument.]   In the Diocese of Portsmouth, generous provision has been made [I wonder if this is so.] for a number of years in certain parishes (e.g. in the Reading area, for the Latin Mass Society) for regular celebrations in the Tridentine rite, and those celebrations will obviously continue. But there is no obligation to start new ones where groups have not previously existed. [Ummm… that’s not right either.  If groups ask for celebrations of the older form of Mass, the parish priest is to receive their petitions willingly: (My trans.) "Art. 5, § 1.  In parishes, where there is continuously present a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition, let the pastor willingly receive (libenter suscipiat) their petitions that Mass be celebrated according to the Rite of the Missale Romanum issued in 1962."] The same would be true of requests for celebration of some sacraments in the former rite.  [But it is the PASTOR, the PARISH PRIEST, who makes the decision, without the need of permission from either the Holy See or the local bishop.]

    3. What form of Mass is allowed by the Motu Proprio?

    The same form as that allowed under Cardinal Heenan’s indult: the 1962 Missal, a revision of the Tridentine Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII. [Yes, but not because of that indult.  The Motu Proprio itself specifies the edition.] This introduced some changes into the rite, changes which are not always observed or appreciated [fair enough] by those who celebrate the Tridentine rite. However, pre-1962 versions of the Tridentine rite are not permitted under the terms of either indult or Motu Proprio.

    4. Are there any other significant differences that we should know about?

    Some of the liturgical laws in force in 1962 have been abrogated or superseded. For example, in 1962 a Tridentine Mass could not be celebrated in the afternoon: that prohibition has now ceased. [finally something correct] The faithful are no longer required to fast for three hours as they were in 1962, [too bad, but this is true.  I think we need to return to the older form of fasting for the whole Church, but that is another tale] and a priest may not deny the reception of Holy Communion in the hand [sad, but true] if someone requests it. Concelebration [Noooo….] and the reception of Holy Communion under both kinds may both take place in Tridentine rite celebrations, if desired. [I am not sure about this, but let that slide.] A community that wants to make use of girl altar servers [yes, perhaps, but the priest would be barking mad to impose this and still think he would get out of the church alive] and scripture readings in the vernacular [We don’t yet have a clarification about if this applies to the newer Lectionary. My sense is that that is what the writer is implying.  The present law may allow that, but we don’t know for sure yet.] may do so, even though females were formerly prohibited from ministering in the sanctuary under the previous legislation. Whether those taking part in such celebrations will want to observe any of these changes is another question, and they are not obliged to, though if anyone asks for any of these differences to be incorporated it would be wise pastorally to accede to such requests. [Is this guy serious?  "Pastorally WISE"? It would be, in most circumstances, an act of cruelty!]  On a more technical level, a Tridentine Mass may take place even if the priest does not possess a maniple or a burse for the corporal – neither of these affects the conduct of the rite. [That was always the case.] Since subdeacons no longer exist, in a solemn celebration that role can be fulfilled by a cleric or a lay acolyte (the latter would wear only the alb, not the subdeacon’s tunicle). [If memory serves, the Pont. Comm. Ecclesia Dei clarified this some time ago.  A non-cleric can substitute for the subdeacon and he may wear a tunic.] However, the Calendar and Lectionary in use in 1962 would need to be used. The Pope has foreseen the possibility of amending and expanding these to include more recent feasts and a wider selection of scripture readings, but this is something for the future. Rooted in the present, however, is the question of our diocesan child protection policy. [?  WHAT?!] It appears that some priests coming into our diocese from outside to celebrate Tridentine Masses in recent times have not received a CRB disclosure. [This must be tactic to block priests who are willing and able to come in and say the older form of Mass.]  In Portsmouth, all priests presiding at a Eucharist have to have a valid CRB document, and the absence of this has resulted in some cancellations of Tridentine celebrations in recent months.  [This is an exercise in intimidation.]

    Any further questions? E-mail our Diocesan Director of Liturgy, Paul
    Inwood,
    at PInwood@portsmouthdiocese.org.uk

Well, friends, there you have it.   One of the worst statements issued by an organ of a diocese I have seen to date.  I don’t know much about the state of the Church in England.  So far, the priests I have meet, and lay people, have been joyful with a vigorous traditional faith.  But I travel in certain circles, I must admit.  I don’t know anything about the Diocese of Portsmouth.   I am very glad that the tripe we read above wasn’t over the signature of the local bishop.  But I think the bishop needs to do his own writing for find someone who understands better what this is all about.

It would be very imprudent to publish the piece above in a diocesan newspaper.

I am having a delightful time in England, meeting wonderful people and seeing some interesting things.

However, my connectivity to the internet has been nearly total disaster.   In the one brief stretch I was actually able to download anything, I had over 1000 e-mails come in.  Some of those were important.  However, I can’t usually stay connected long enough to get much done.  For example, I have every intention of tearing to quivvering shreads the stupidest of all diocesan statements about Summorum Pontificum I have seen to date: Portsmouth.  I had it waiting for me in my e-mail box several days ago.

People were talking about the Portsmouth statement last night at a reception of the Latin Mass Society which took place at the lovely old Travelers Club in central London, Pall Mall area.  Folks were pretty much stunned in disbelief that such a puprosely obtuse statement could see the light of day.  

But I digress…

Yesterday the day dawned crisp and sunny.  A priest friend and I zoomed into London to see The Merchant of Venice at The Globe Theatre.  I have longed to go to that theater for many years, since I heard of the building project, as a matter of fact.  It was a great pleasure and satisifying.  Later, we visited Westminster Cathedral and heard the boy’s choir at Mass.  Very nice.

Then off I went to the Travelers for the abovementioned reception. 

Soon I am off to Rome, for various errands and hijinx. 

My first task today, however, is to find a way to stay online for an extended period.