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

Under another entry someone brought up the question of what to call the older form of Mass. 

I guess by now regular readers here are used to seeing me write "the older form of Mass".  I am comfortable with that for the most part, though I vary from time time how I describe it.

Here is the comment from that other entry with my emphases and commments.

Apologies if this question has already been addressed on a previous post,    but how do we best describe the two forms of Mass in the Roman rite ?  [I don’t know.  And we don’t have to chose only one way, either.  I will rate these, on pure impulse on a scale of 1-10 (1 being wretched and to be shunned and 10 being music to my ears.]

I find "forma ordinaria"  and "forma extraordinaria"  a bit of a mouthful.  [6 – yah… even in English this is a bit much.]

Equally,  I can’t bring myself to talk about the Pauline and Johannine Missals.  [5 – though it could be fun to use "Iohannine" once in a while, in a closed circle of the well-informed, just to tweak any claim that life really began with Pope John XXIII.]

The "Tridentine"  Mass  is very coomonly used,  but is misleading.  [6 – Misleading, but now so common that it instantly gets the point across.]

Here in England,  some people refer to the "immemorial" Mass,  or Mass "of all time".  [1 or even - 1 – To much like drowning in syrup for me.]

Otherwise,  the Traditional Mass.  [3 – ho hum]

But what about  "vetus ordo"  (as opposed to "novus ordo") ?  [6 – Vetus could be clever and fun in the right circles.  It also harks to my use of "older form" and "newer form", though on a somewhat limited scale.  Not a lot of people are going to know that vetus means "old".]

"Usus antiquor"  seems to be the preferred terminology,   but in that case what do you call the  modern  Mass ?  [6 – You would say usus recentior, I suppose.  See my statement above.]

The "classical" rite can’t be correct,  in my opinion,  because  it’s not "classical"  (which to me means ancient Greece and ancient Rome),  and it’s not strictly a "rite" :  [4 – Nah… doesn’t do it for me at all.]

And now for your Motu Proprio parsing pleasure…

Someone sent me a transcript of a statement by His Excellency Most Reverend William Murphy, Bishop of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, NY.  It was in His Excellency’s column in The Long Island Catholic of 12 September. 

My emphases and comments.

The Mass of Blessed John XXIII

This Friday, September 14, the motu proprio of Pope Benedict, “Summorum Pontificum,” goes into effect. Just this past July the Holy Father made public his letter in which he established the Mass in Latin of Blessed John XXIII, the 1962 Missal, as an extraordinary rite for the whole Latin Church. This means that, while the Mass as we know it in our parishes remains the ordinary rite, the priest has the option to celebrate the “old Mass” if he so wishes and has the ability to understand and pray the Latin. [Pretty decent, all in all.] More importantly for the lay faithful, the motu proprio makes this Mass more readily available for those who wish to participate in the Mass as it had been established after the Council of Trent and been celebrated until the revision of the Mass ordered by the Second Vatican Council. [I like this.  He also stresses the fact that this form of Mass has been around for a long time.  That is an important point, even if it is not in itself a great reason to prefer the older form.  There are far better reasons for that.] It is important to note that there is only one eucharistic liturgy of the Catholic Church of the Latin Rite. Now, however, we have been blessed by Pope Benedict with two ways of celebrating the liturgy.  [Nice!  Positive!]

Here in our diocese, thanks to Bishop McGann, we had the Mass of Blessed John XXIII being celebrated monthly at the former St. Pius X Prep Seminary in Uniondale as well as at Sacred Heart in Cutchogue. Over the past years I have been pleased [Nice!] to have the Mass at Pius X in Uniondale celebrated weekly. In addition, last year we renewed a monthly celebration of the extraordinary rite at Sacred Heart in Cutchogue. At the next celebration in Cutchogue, Father James Pereda, who has been handling these Masses for me, will examine the ways we can make that Mass at Sacred Heart in Cutchogue a weekly event, [Another thing to like.  He delegates to someone who is favorable and he is pleased when the results are good.] every Sunday. In addition, [".... But WAIT!   There’s MORE!] the pastor of St. Matthew Parish in Dix Hills has indicated his willingness to provide the Mass weekly in his parish. In this way we will be able to offer in all three vicariates the Latin Mass of Blessed John XXIII to those who wish to worship in that rite. [And… remember… there could be more, if pastors receive petitions.]

The motu proprio of the Holy Father has set forth the Holy Father’s desire for this use of the Mass of 1962. He hopes that its greater use will bring back some Catholics who have disassociated themselves from the Church after the Council. He wants it to be available for priests [YES YES YES!   The PRIESTS! Thank you, Your Excellency, for remembering that this is also for the good of priests.] and for those lay people who will derive spiritual benefit from it. He is convinced, and I am of one mind with him, that having the richness of both Masses will be a benefit to the whole Church. [Wonderful.  I would be happy to shake this fellow’s hand... er um… kiss His Excellency’s ring!]  Thus we will continue to have the ordinary form of Pope Paul VI every Sunday in our parishes and the extraordinary form that can be celebrated on Sundays where there is a stable community [ugh] of faithful who wish it and where the parish has the priests and the resources to provide it.  [This is entirely reasonable.]

The motu proprio itself explains that not all the questions that may arise during its implementation are answered by the Holy Father’s letter. This will be a “work in progress” as we see here in our diocese what are the desires of the faithful, how well these can or cannot be handled by the pastors, what options should be used to implement the letter in the most helpful way possible. Our diocesan Office for Worship is working with [not against] pastors as questions are raised, enquiries made and the proper response to the pastoral needs of the people are answered according to the norms the Holy Father [Not some chancery mandarin hostile to the Motu Proprio] has decreed. For example, the pastors have been sent a document from the U.S. bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy. This contains 40 questions and answers to various elements that need clarification in order to determine how best to implement the pope’s letter. In addition, the U.S. bishops have sent five other questions to the Holy See for clarification [!] and the motu proprio itself indicates that the Holy See is working to provide further helps regarding readings and the like that were not available in the Missal of Blessed John XXIII. Whenever pastors are faced with the possibility of the Mass on Sunday in their own parish, they need to abide by the norms of the pope’s motu proprio and they are urged to check with our Office for Worship which will help them in determining whether or not this Mass actually can take place in their parish.  [Hmmm…. actually, I think the pastor can determine that for himself, if I read the MP correctly… and I think I do.]

In the meantime, the diocese is moving forward to work out the various issues that this new initiative has given to us. Let me give you two examples of the kinds of challenges we are seeking to meet. [I like this approach.  He is direct and clear.] Father Pereda has been able with the help of a few priests to provide celebrants for the Mass at Uniondale and now at Cutchogue. Most priests today have never celebrated the Mass in Latin. [And none of them in English, given the quality of the lame-duck ICEL version we are sadly still using… but I digress… pay no attention to my irrelevant shot at the truly lousy old ICEL translation we are using as we wait and wait and waaaaaiiiit for the new translation, now years in the drafting….] Over the summer, the Office for Worship had to find out how many priests of our diocese could celebrate and were available to celebrate the Mass. Another issue was to find out where we could get the proper books, [A good point!] the Missale Romanum of Blessed John XXIII. The bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy provided that information with the 40 questions and answers that we received at the end of August.

Anyone my age remembers the Mass that nourished our spiritual life until the post-conciliar changes. All of us know how much the Mass of Paul VI has become the source and summit of our lives in the Church for almost 40 years now. As an altar boy I loved the Mass that was the center of our life as a parish in my boyhood home. I love it still. As a priest, I was joyous in having been ordained and, shortly thereafter, been in that first group of priests to make the transition to the Mass that nourishes us today in every parish in our diocese and around the world. It is the one same eucharistic sacrifice that has been the heart of the Church which received it from the Lord at the Last Supper when he told his first apostles, “Do this in memory of me.” The Church has been ever faithful in doing just that so that the Mass in Latin or Greek, in English or any other “mother tongue” is always the Mass of Jesus Christ, the one true source of life; for here we hear God’s Word proclaimed to raise and transform the hearts and minds of the people, here the priest proclaims the eucharistic prayer that brings the Kingdom of God once again into our world, here we are nourished by the Body and Blood of the Lord who has redeemed us and gives us His Spirit. May we be ever grateful to God and to the leadership of our beloved popes who have faithfully overseen our celebration of the One True Sacrifice of the Mass today in both the forms we now enjoy.

Another great statement from a diocesan bishop!

It is simultaneously warm, direct, and concrete. 

He does not seem in the least anxious that his own authority is somehow going to be snatched away.

He sees this as a gift, though it also presents challenges.  It will be of benefit.  It is not an obstacle or set back.

There are no threats in it, no intimidation.

I especially like the fact that he included a declaration that this older form of Mass is also for the spiritual good of priests.

As a matter of fact, that might be the most important thing the bishop said.

Now… wasn’t that nice?  Aren’t you glad to took the time to read that?

The Archbishop of Hartford, His Excellency Most Reverend Henry J. Mansell, made a statement on the Motu Proprio and the older form of Mass.

I think you are going to like this!  I did!

My emphases and comments.

 Archbishop’s Column
The Catholic Transcript – September Issue, 2007

The Celebration of Mass

On July 7th of this year Pope Benedict XVI issued an Apostolic Letter, Summorum Pontificum, making the Tridentine Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass, [Since this is for a newspaper, it is good to use terms which, though not the very best, are still instantly understood by the average reader.] more accessible to Catholics [I like this phrase.  It does not limit it to "disgruntled" or "nostalgic" Catholics.] around the world. This is the expression of the Mass celebrated for centuries and published as the Missal of Blessed John XXIII in 1962. It is distinguished from the expression of the Mass emerging from the reforms of Vatican Council II, published in 1970 and known as the Missal of Pope Paul VI.

The Missal of Pope Paul VI remains the “ordinary” form for regular use. Greater latitude is now allowed, however, for the use of the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, the “extraordinary” form. The provisions become effective on September 14, the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.
In parishes where there is a stable group [Here is that bad English translation which is so common and so problematic.] of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, pastors [YES!] are asked to accept requests to celebrate the Mass according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, but only once on Sundays.  [In a special parish set up for the older form of the Roman Rite, there could be more.]

Requests to use this extraordinary form, the Tridentine Mass, may also be allowed for marriages, funerals, and pilgrimages. All of the Sacraments, in fact, may be celebrated according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, except Holy Orders.  [I hesitate slightly on this point, but I don’t think this is quite right.  If I am not mistaken a diocesan bishop can use the Pontificale Romanum also to ordain, if he makes that choice, at least under Ecclesia Dei adflicta, or give permission to another bishop coming into his diocese to ordain with the older Pontificale, just as he could before Summorum Pontificum to ordain and to confirm as needs arose.  It is hard to imagine these circumstances outside of ordinations for those certain groups we all know.  But would it not be amazing were a bishop to decide he would start ordaining with the old Pontificale?  It seems to me that he has that option, use it or not.   I don’t think a bishop would have to ask special permission of the Holy See.]

Communities of Religious may have this Mass celebrated in their chapels and oratories.

Clerics may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962.

When the Missal of Pope John XXIII is used, the Readings from the Scriptures may be rendered in the vernacular.

It is understood that additions to the Missal of Pope John XXIII may be forthcoming, e.g., new Prefaces, additional saints, etc. 

It should be understood that the Mass according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI may be celebrated in Latin. [Is anyone else concerned that with the interest in the older form of Mass spreading, interest in the newer form in Latin may decrease?] This occurs regularly, for example, at the Monastery of Regina Laudis, in Bethlehem, Connecticut. I have been privileged to celebrate the Mass there on three occasions, as well as in Poland, Italy, and for times when there have been international congregations. I also celebrated the Mass according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII in the early years of my priesthood.

We must remain diligent and vigilant in the proper celebration of the Mass and the Sacraments, in both forms. [Hurray!] We must take ever more seriously the importance of respect, reverence, and mystery in our celebrations. [Huzzah!] Proper clothing,[!] active participation, silence in the sacred precincts [great phrase] of the church before and after Mass are matters that deserve careful attention.

The Mass is the source and summit of our Christian lives. [Yes, the Eucharist understood both as the Sacrament and Its celebration.] In the grace of the Holy Spirit may its celebration, in both forms, unite us more closely with God and one another and make us more effective disciples of Jesus Christ in building the Kingdom of God on earth. 

I like this letter very much.

Notice that there are no subtle traces of intimidation. 

There are no statements so typical of The Party Line (e.g., "I, the BIIISHOPPP, am in charge around here!"  "No one wants this old thing."  "We are doing enough for these people already."  "I’ll be the one who determines if you are worthy!" 

Instead, what we get here is a simple statement of the main points without attemtps to pick at possible loopholes.

I especially like the strong emphasis the Archbishop placed on reverence in all those things which are sacred, including in the "sacred precincts".   This "sacral" view of the church, and the action, is exactly what we need.   He points also to the consequences of that sacrality: silence, dressing properly, reverence for mystery.

Folks, the whole point of Summorum Pontificum is not simply getting the older Mass back again.  The derestriction of the older Mass is part of Pope Benedict’s larger vision and "Marshall Plan".  It is intended that the older Mass will help us reinvigorate our Church and spiritual lives from within by rerooting us in our tradition.  So, the older forms, and the deep reflection we will have about them, will gradually influence all the dimensions of the Church’s life.  There will be a "gravitational pull".  But this pull will be a two way pull.   Our experience of the newer form must necessarily offer some positive points for those who are making greater use of the older forms.  It simply will be so.

In any event, I appreciate the calm approach and focus on the sense of the sacred in this statement.

Hurry for Bishop Mansell! 

The Bishop of Alexandria in Louisiana, His Excellency Most Reverend Ronald P. Herzog, has sent a Memorandum to his priests about the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

My emphases and comments.

MEMO to Priests:

September 11, 2007

RE: Motu Proprio

As you know Pope Benedict XVI issue a Motu Proprio that becomes effect on September 14, 2007 allowing the celebration of an extraordinary form of the Mass, commonly called the Tridentine Mass, under certain circumstances. This does not require special permission from me. [A good strong statement of fact.  Excellent.] However, the Holy Father is very clear that it is the BishopÂ’s responsibility to ensure that the liturgy is celebrated properly and that the priests who celebrate it are sufficiently knowledgeable in Latin.  [Good.  "Sufficiently" is correct.  But this does not mean "expert".] Since very few of our priests were ordained while this form was in common use, it will be necessary to establish a process to train and/or evaluate this competency the Holy Father mandates.  [Here we go!]

We do not yet have the details of this in place but hopefully we will have it in place soon. In the meantime, please do NOT presume such competency. Do not celebrate using the extraordinary form until you have been certified.  [I think this perhaps does not adequately recognize the rights of priests.  If a priest has faculties to say Mass at all, he automatically has the faculty to say the older Mass too, without any additional permission.  Also, and I probably need education from this by a canonist, I assume that because at ordination someone stood up and publicly declared that candidates were suitable and suitably trained, therefore all priests ordained and having faculties are at least in the eyes of the law idoenei unless it can be proven otherwise.  So, the priest shouldn’t be placed under undue burdens to prove himself beyond what is necessary.   A canonist can help with this.]

Even after certification, please be aware that it may only be used for private celebrations (without people present, except for a properly trained male altar server) [This is also not accurate.  The Motu Proprio clearly states that other people may attend if they desire.] or at the request of an established, stable group [here is that bad English translation rearing its inaccurate head again] of lay faithful who request it and with the pastorÂ’s [sic] approval. Such public celebrations are not at the initiative of the priest. [I can’t see that this is accurate either.  First, I think the priest himself can be a member of the coetus… continenter existens in the parish.  Second, the MP says that the pastor of the parish ought to receive favorably the petitions he received.   However… and I think this is fairly important… I don’t think we can argue that that is the only condition for establishing a public Mass, that is, at the petition of a group.  That is to say that when there is a petition of a group, the pastor should respond willingly.  But even if there is no petition, the pastor is still able to have scheduled Masses with people, even if only occasionally (that is not having a permanent change to the parish Mass schedule.  Favoribilia ampliantur, after all.] The proper liturgical books must be used as well as the vestments required for the 1962 rite. [Okay… I am pleased that the issue of vestments was brought up.  And certainly in virtually every case adquate vestments will probably be available one way or another.  However, even back in the day, if some piece or color was lacking life went on… and so did Mass.  Also, it is not necessary that Roman style vestments be used.  The fuller "Gothic" style can be used too.]  Information about where you may acquire these will also be provided.  [That’s very good!  It is nice to see in these statements that resources and helps are available.]

To the best of my knowledge there are no groups that meet the conditions of the Motu Proprio. For the purpose of clarity, such groups would need to number at least 20 people.  [This is where the whole thing falls apart in a serious way.  First, the statement about his knowledge of groups is entirely irrelevant other than perhaps to convey his own like or dislike of this whole business.  It sure puts a negative pall over the whole thing.  Second, the Motu Proprio does not indicate any minimum size for a coetus, which can actually be quite small., certainly smaller than 20.   It is understandable that a change to a parish’s Mass schedule might not be reasonable for a very small group.  Nevertheless the Motu Proprio doesn’t indicate a minimum group.  The pastor of the parish is the one who makes the decision.  The bishop has the supporting role to help things work harmoniously when help is needed. That is clear in the Motu Proprio.]

Thank you for your patience as we continue to refine this option to avoid unnecessary confusion for our people. Consistency in the practice will help. 

+Ronald P. Herzog

A couple things are manifest in this statement. 

First, there is a willingness to provide training and information.  This is very positive.

However, there are unreasonable restrictions about the number of people who might constitute a coetus.  This is a common feature of some of the more hostile statements of dioceses.  It is a kind of "red flag" item to watch for.

Also very troubling is the concept of "certification".   This creates a double-standard. 

It places an undue burden on one use of the Roman Rite.  If there will also be a move to train or review the competence of all priests also in the newer use of Mass, then this is reasonable.  Furthermore, that should apply especially to foreign born priests whose native tongue is not English, and native English speakers celebrating in, for example, Spanish, and maybe even older priests to see if people can understand them and if they can themselves understand what they are saying.  Maybe it would be a good idea to test all the priests of the diocese in the normative form of the newer Mass, which is in Latin.  If they cannot pass the test, they would not be considered idonei to say the newer Mass in either English or in Latin.  After all, the norm is Latin and the vernaclar is the extraordinary form of the newer Mass.  Right?

We know that at Kenrick-Glennon Seminary (USA) the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum has been well and properly received.  How about other seminaries?   What is going on?

Here is a note (edited by me) which I received from a seminarian at the Pontifical College Josephinum in the USA.

My emphases and comments.

I am a seminarian at the Pontifical College Josephinum and am writing to tell you about what the rector told seminarians in his talk on the Motu Proprio during one of our formation conferences as part of a series he is doing on Catholic tradition. He gave us what you call the party line, although somewhat adapted to a seminary setting. ...

Here are the basics of the rectors talk… based on my memory and not on any sort of official document. My comments are in parenthesis. Here’s what he said:

• He (and the other priests here)  kept/keep calling it the Tridentine Mass, not the extraordinary form. [Two points about this.  If we say "Tridentine" Mass, everybody knows exactly what you mean even though it is a sloppy term at best.  So, I can’t get worked up about this.  However, when in a professional setting (such as a seminary), better terminology should be used as a matter of course.]
• He said he has been asked what he is going to do to implement the MP, which he thought was interesting because seminaries are not mentioned in the MP.  [However, the MP says that priests must be idonei to celebrate this form of Mass if they are going to tackle it.  Priests have to be idonei and able to function in their RITE.   This form of Mass is part and parcel of the Roman Rite for which men in that seminary are being trained.  Also, remember that the 1983 Code of Canon Law requires… it doesn’t suggest it… that seminarians be "very well trained" in Latin (bene calleant).  The seminary has a duty to the seminarians to form them in this regard.  Not to do so seems to me to be an injustice, since they are set up to train Catholic priests in the things they need for their ministry and spiritual lives.]
• The Pope’s accompanying letter is actually more important than the Motu Proprio itself because the MP is tersely worded and meant only to be a juridical document. [This is like saying that apples are more important than oranges.]
• I don’t recall his exact words, but he said that it is clear from the Pope’s letter that the MP is meant for those who were affected by the change of the liturgy after Vatican II (i.e. those of questionable unity, etc.).  [That is clearly not the case.  The MP is not limited in this way.]
• The MP does not intend to set up a parallel rite to the Novus Ordo.  [Odd thing to say if they do not intend to train seminarians in the older form.  If there truly are not two different Rites, but one single Roman Rite in two "uses", then the seminary which must train the men in the Roman Rite had better get crackin’ and also help with the older use.  Or am I missing something?]
• The Pope expects that celebrations of the Tridentine Mass will be rare because the Pope writes that these celebrations presuppose a certain level of liturgical catechesis and knowledge of Latin, which aren’t often found in parishes, [Absurd.  Simply absurd.]
• The whole tone of the MP is restrictive. (Yes that is what the rector actually said). [Ha ha!  That’s actually so silly that it’s funny!]
• While priests may use the 1962 missal when they so choose, that these celebrations are to be in private and the faithful may only attend of their own volition. (I guess this was in opposition to public celebrations, which I am guessing he thinks must be asked for by the faithful).  [How else will people attend any Mass than "of their own volition"?   I have this image in my head of priests on horseback, roping and hog-tying people and dragging them into the chapel.]
• The Pope does not intend to encourage a general wider use of the 1962 Missal in the Church, rather this is a pastoral provision for certain members of the faithful   [Again, this is silly.  The Holy Father is clearly providing that there be more celebrations of the older form of Mass precisely so that healing of certain dimensions of the Church’s fabric and life can begin.]
• Priests are not to promote or proselytize parishioners for this form of Mass [I cannot imagine where he got that.  It seems to me that priests are perfectly free to make recommendations about this, using prudence and correct information.  What they are not free to do is disparage either use of Mass.]
• He seemed to think that the priest needs to know enough Latin to pronounce words correctly and know what he is praying.   [Certainly it is true the priest must be able to pronounce the words properly (within reason, of course).  That is a sine qua non for celebrating any Mass in any language.  But "know what he is praying"?  How much knowledge must he have?   It is entirely reasonable to hope that all priests have a very good comprehension, at least in general if not in every detail.  But consider this: I could probably scare pretty thoroughly 99/100 priests who know some Latin just by asking a few pointed questions about a couple hard terms in the Mass texts or precisely what some word is doing in a prayer.  I rush to say, however, that if he couldn’t answer, he would still be idoneus as far I was concerned provided he could read the Latin in a decent way.  I also repeat that seminaries are required by law to make sure that seminarians are very well-trained in Latin.]
• I may have misunderstood, but I he also seemed to say that the faithful who request the celebrations of weddings, funerals, and the other sacraments according to the older form also have to have knowledge of Latin.  [He could not have said something that weird.]
• The Novus Ordo is actually closer to the Mass of the Apostolic age  [LOL!  Good one!]
• The Eucharistic Prayer of Hippolytus, which is the basis for Eucharistic Prayer II, is actually older than the Roman Canon.  [This is a problem.  The text we call the Apostolic Constitution of Hippolytus cannot possibly be an ancient anaphora.  As a result, this cannot be the case.  There is good scholarship on this now, which supercedes what most priests learned in rcent years.   It is hard to blame any priest who repeats this.  We need to get the word out.]
• The seminary version of we are already doing enough because we have Novus Ordo Latin Mass once a month [not often enough] (on Thursdays, not Sundays, I might add), Latin is taught here, which is not done at all seminaries, we sing the Salve Regina after vespers everyday, [that’s nice but… ] we sometimes use Latin hymns and sometimes sing the Sanctus, Agnus Dei, etc in the English Mass. So the seminary is doing what it can to help us with Latin.  [The issue is not the language.  The issue is learning the older form of Mass.]
• He mentioned that, in the past, deacons would spend the entirety of their last year learning the rubrics for Mass.[And this is a bad thing?  Would that such attention was given to the rubrics of the newer form of Mass.   My course would begin with the principle "Say the Black.  Do the Red".  Then there would be a check to make sure students were not wearing rose-colored glasses, which makes it hard to See the Red.  The older form of Mass is certainly more precise than the newer, but… harder?  Not once you get used to it.  This isn’t exactly like learning about string-theory, after all.]
• Since the Josephinum is not operated by a diocese, it responds to the needs of all the bishops who send men here.[I think that the people at the Josephinum should consider that the HOLY FATHER has clarified that there is one Roman Rite in two uses.  At the ordination for priesthood the rector or his delegate must stand up and declare that the candidates have been trained and are suitable for ordination.  I think this ought to embrace training to say Mass in their RITE.]
• Basically the whole talk, in my opinion, was to justify why the Josephinum will not be doing anything.  [Then pressure must come from both bishops, seminarians and… well… other interested parties.]

(Perhaps to imply that requiring students to learn this form of Mass would overburden them, or the faculty, or the seminary schedule)  They will happily assist any bishops, in whatever way possible, who would like men trained in this rite, but as of present no such requests have been made by any bishop. These things suggest that the need is not great. 
I just thought someone should know how the MP was received at the only Pontifical seminary outside Italy. The thing that disturbs me the most is that I know a lot of guys here will assume the rector is right and have a wrong idea about the MP.

I must return for a moment to the main point we should derive from this.

There is, at least juridically speaking, one Roman Rite, not two.  The one Roman Rite is expressed in two uses.  Seminarians for the Latin Church must be trained to use their Roman Rite.  Thus, they ought to be trained for both uses and not just one. 

The Motu Proprio presents us with many challenges.  It has really changed the whole picture for the liturgical dimension of priestly formation.  

The Motu Proprio is mostly about the rights of priests.  Thus, it has great importance for seminaries.  It cannot be ignored in seminaries.

Here is an interesting piece.  What it reports isn’t really much of a surprise, but it confirms what we know was going to happen. 

Latin Mass Missal Sales Double

LONDON, SEPT. 20, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Since Benedict XVI’s letter on the Latin Mass was released this summer, sales of the missal for the extraordinary rite have doubled, reported one publisher.

The London-based Baronius Press is reprinting an edition of the missal, which includes the full text of the papal letter "Summorum Pontificum."

John Newton, editor of Baronius Press, commented, "It would seem that ‘Summorum Pontificum,’ has generated a considerable amount of interest and excitement in the traditional Latin liturgy among the Catholic laity."

Also, I have noted here in Rome (where I am right now) that at the Leoniana bookstore, near the Vatican, there are two different reprint editions of Latin/Italian handmissals for the older use of Mass.  I gave them just a quick glance, but one of them seems not to be a 1962 (for example, St. Joseph is missing from the Canon – which is the smoking gun).  The other is very much like a Latin/French edition I got years ago at La Barroux.  It is nice, with leather binding and gold edged pages.  I saw the Baronius edition mentioned in the Zenit piece.  It is also very nice, and useful.  I recommend it.