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

In the continuing drama of the "Fourth Secret" of Fatima (that is, the part of th Third Secret which hasn’t been revealed by the Holy See) read this from CWN:

Italian journalists protest exclusion from Fatima discussion

Rome, Sep. 27, 2007 (CWNews.com) – Two Italian journalists involved in a dispute over the content of the "third secret of Fatima" have complained that they were roughly treated by security guards when they attempted to attend a lecture in which Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (bio – news) discussed that topic.  [Card. Bertone is the bete noir for some of the writers on the Third Secret.]

On September 21, Cardinal Bertone introduced his book, The Last Fatima Visionary: My Meetings with Sister Lucia, at a reception at the Pontifical Urbanianum University. Antonio Socci and Solideo Paolini, authors of competing books on Fatima, say that they were prevented from attending the event or speaking to the cardinal.

Socci and Paolini report that they asked Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office, whether they could participate in the reception and question Cardinal Bertone about his book. When they were told that the cardinal would not take questions, the two journalists tried to confront the Vatican Secretary of State [LOL!] as he entered the room. Security guards hustled them out of the building, while Cardinal Bertone entered by a side door.

After the confrontation, Socci told reporters that the treatment he had received was "outrageous." In speaking to reporters at the event, Socci and Paolini produced a tape recording in which Archbishop Loris Capovilla, who once served as private secretary to Pope John XXIII, revealed that there were two texts of the "third secret."

Socci, in his popular book The Fourth Secret of Fatima, argues [convincingly] that the Vatican has not disclosed the entirety of the message given by the Virgin Mary to three children at Fatima. In his book Cardinal Bertone cites Sister Luica, one of the Fatima seers, who counters: "Everything has been published; no secret remains."

His Excellency Most Rev. Kevin J. Farrell, Bishop of Dallas has issued a letter to priests of that diocese about the Holy Father’s provisions in Summorum Pontificum.

My emphases and comments.

Bishop Farrell’s letter to the priests

August 24, 2007

Dear brothers:

Today, I write to you concerning the most recent publication of Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI regarding the celebration of the Mass in the Extraordinary form, that is, according to the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962 by Pope Blessed John XXIII.

Here in the Diocese of Dallas the Extraordinary Form is celebrated every Sunday at 9:30 a.m. and at 11:30 a.m. by the Reverend Father Joseph Terra, FSSP at the Chapel of Carmel of St. Joseph and the Infant of Prague. The Extraordinary Form is also celebrated at St. Thomas Aquinas Parish each morning at 6:30 a.m. and on Saturdays at 8:00 a.m. The Ordinary Form of the Mass is celebrated in Latin (Novus Ordo) by the Reverend Paul Weinburger at 11:30 a.m. on Sundays at St. Williams’s Church in Greenville, Texas.

In accordance with Article V of the Motu Proprio it is the responsibility of the Bishop of the Diocese to oversee the celebration of the liturgy in all of its Forms. [This sounds very much like "The Party Line".]  As most of our priests have no formal liturgical training in the use of the Extraordinary Form I ask that any priest who wishes to celebrate this Form to contact me so that I can assist him [!] in receiving adequate training in this Liturgical Form. [It may be that Father already has adequate help in getting trained up for the old Mass.  Why bother the bishop.] In his letter to the Bishops of the world, which accompanied the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificium”, the Holy Father pointed out that the celebration of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form “…presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language.”

It is my intention to establish a committee of four priests who have knowledge of the Tridentine Rite to assist me in reviewing all requests from priests [?] and laity to establish public Masses in the Extraordinary Form. [That’s nice, but the Motu Proprio leaves this to the PASTOR.] It will be the responsibility of this committee to assess the Pastoral needs of the people as well as the capacity of our priests and parishes to celebrate the Mass in this Form.  [They can assess all they want, but don’t the provisions of the Motu Proprio leave the decision to the PASTOR?  Where in Summorum Pontificum is there any reference to committees?  Opps.. sorry, there is none.  Trick question.]

I encourage any priest who seeks to celebrate the Extraordinary Form for the first time, privately or publicly, to seek a review of his abilities to celebrate the Rite in a worthy and noble manner. It would be most unfortunate if, due to a lack of liturgical training or misinterpretation of the rubrics, this Sacred Form was not celebrated with the dignity it requires.  [This hits the nail on the head.  Priests really ought to be smart and prudent and make sure they know their stuff before getting out there in front of people.]

As I visit the Parishes I am impressed by the dedication of some of our brother priests who, because of the needs of our people, celebrate six or more Masses on a weekend. I have also received requests from Pastors to establish Masses in additional national languages, but I have been reluctant to do so due to a lack of priests. [A very real problem everywhere.] I would hope that, if any priest feels that he could be of assistance in helping some of our more populated parishes, he would be willing to do so. [Something about this strikes me as odd.  The Second Vatican Council says that Latin should be retained and that the vernacular may be used in some circumstances.  So, it seems to me that if there is a choice, Latin (N.O. or V.O.) should get the priority, not the vernacular.  Moreover, couldn’t Latin provide at least some opportunities for greater unity across ethnic and language groups rather than more splintering?] This is a matter I hope to discuss with you at our Convocation.

Brothers, I thank you for your priestly ministry in service to the needs of our people.

In Christ,

Kevin J. Farrell, DD
Bishop of Dallas

This is a bit of a mixed bag.  The Bishop makes some good points about availability of priests and training.  At the same time he sort of blows it with the committee business and giving the impression that pastors have to ask for permission to establish public Masses.  Summorum Pontificum is clear about the role of the bishop in these matters and that role is not to give priests permission.  It is to help if requests can’t be met by the parish priest. 

Also, that whole business about training and contacting him and "just wanting to help", has a slightly suspcious sound to it.

Okay… I know.. I am too cynical.  It just seems strange there there is so much desire to control priests in this matter when the document clearly frees priests from the constraints placed on them before.  Those constraints were what made Summorum Pontificum necessary, after all.

His dictis, I want to believe that the offers to help priests with training are positive, though I am extremely suspicious of the "review" process.

I hope we get positive reports in the future.

Yes… apparently.

A kind reader sent me a copy on an e-mail received from EWTN’s Gordon Siobley responsding to a question about future broadcasts of the older form of Mass.

EWTN plans to occasionally air the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, while continuing to regularly air the Ordinary Form, in order “to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place” (Pope Benedict XVI, “Letter to Bishops presenting the Motu Proprio”).

In the Joy of Christ,

Gordon

This would be a wonderful service in aid of Pope Benedict’s "Marshall Plan" for the Church.

I have a bizzaro evening planned. 

Tonight is the 7th season premier of Smallville.

I was introduced to this series by a Canadian priest in Rome some years ago and have been hooked ever since.

At this time of year the Chinese celebrate their Mid-Autumn Festival.

With a click of the chop-sticks to Cha Xiu Bao:

Bright moon, when did you appear?
Lifting my wine, I ask the dark night sky.
Tonight in the palace of heaven
what year is it, I wonder?

I pray to ride the wind and fly home there,
Only to hide in the jade and crystal mansion,
As I could not bear the cold up high.
So I dance and play in your showers,
this human world — how can it compare with yours?

Circling red chambers,
Leaning the curtained door,
You shine on the sleepless.
Surely you bear us no ill will —
why then must you be so round at times when we are parted!

People can be sorrow or joy, close together or far apart,
The moon may be dim or bright, full or null.
Things are like this since time immemorial.
I only hope we two may last forever,
So that we may share the moon’s beauty even though we are a thousand miles apart.

        ~ Shui Diao Ge Tou (水調歌頭) by Su Dongpo (1037 – 1101); gorgeous Chinese calligraphy of the poem can be found here.

Though it’s one of the most beautiful poems ever written in history, it’s one meant for singing instead of reading, especially ever since the 80’s, thanks to the everlasting adaptation "May We Last Forever" by Teresa Tang]

[Painting by Liu Danzhian]

I know I am catching up with some dated news, but recently there was a bit of a debate about the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum among Italian bishops during a meeting of their conference (CEI): 17-19 September.  The CEI is a very powerful body in Italy, both in ecclesiastical and in secular terms.  Thus, the secretary general of the CEI, H.E. Giuseppe Betori (whom WDTPRS has highlighted before) has real clout.   Here is a note about Betori on the Motu Proprio from SIR (my translation and emphases):

The Italian bishops have with gratitude received the Pope’s Motu Proprio for the reintroduction of Mass in Latin under determined conditions": this is the thought of Bishop Bertori on one of the questions posed today during a press conference with journalists about the presumed differentiations among bishops over the reception of Benedict XVI’s document.  In this regard, the general secretary of the CEI said that "the bishops underscored the faithful and total application according to the spirit of the Motu Proprio, just as the Holy Father expressed in the accompanying letter."  "From the point of view of the bishops," he added, "this means simply applying it according to the mind of the Pope".  After having described certain speculations by journalists about the internal debate on this matter as "not factual either concerning the participants or the outcome", Bp. Bertori added that "there did not come from any bishop the possibility of an official intervention on the part of the CEI."

The intrepid president of the CEI H.E. Angelo Bagnasco, Archbishop of Genoa and recipient of death-threats, spoke of the Motu Prprio in his speech to the permanent council of the Conference on 17 September (my translation and emphases):

4. What the Pope urges us to adopt, beyond the cultural forces to which it is inevitably subject, is really an inclusive, not confrontational, key of interpretation. In the history of liturgy, as in the life of the Church, there is "growth and progress, but no rupture", as he already took the opportunity to affirm in an address to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005. On that occasion, in fact, commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, he indicated as valid not "the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture", but rather that of "reform, of renewal in continuity with the one subject, the Church". In other words, solicitude for the unity of the Church "in space and time" is the motivating force ("la leva" – lever) which moves Benedict XVI, an interior dynamic of tension ("una tensione) which fundamentally pertains to the Successor of Peter.

But this passion for unity must move every Christian and every pastor in light of the points of view opened up by the Motu Proprio.  Not, therefore, pursuit of one’s own aesthetic fancy, detached from the community, and maybe even in opposition to others, but the will to be involved ever more in the Mystery of the Church which prays and celebrates, without excluding anyone and without a hindering exclusion toward other liturgical forms or regarding the Second Vatican Council. Only in this way can we avoid that a measure intended to unite and to greatly enliven the Christian community be used instead to wound and divide it.

All the same, I would like to add that I am reasonably optimistic about a optimum fruitful use ("migliore valorizzazione") of the Motu Proprio in the life of our parishes. And I am confident that certain pessimistic concerns, which came forth right way, will soon be revealed as unfounded. The sense of equilibrium which has always characterized our clergy and, therefore, our pastoral work, will bring us to find, thanks to the moderating work of the bishops, the proper ways to make sprout forth a new shoot from the living plant of the Church’s liturgy, nay rather, in the final analysis ("in ultima istanza", to quicken and increase the latter in its totality.

Several things pop out of Bertori’s and Bagnasco’s statements.

• For bishops and priests, don’t pick and parse, but apply the provisions of Summorum Pontificum.
• Read the document for the Pope’s thinking, without twisting it out of shape by your own agenda.
• In the tension between the Church’s past experience in the face of exigencies and today’s needs as we look forward, we must have an interpretive key, a hermeneutic of continuity.  This is inclusive, not exclusive.
• What we do must not be reduced to personal preference or aesthetics.  Instead, what we do must reveal Mystery.  This was precisely the point of the sermon I gave on 14 September in the UK and what I have been writing about.
• The provisions of the Motu Proprio will function as a dynamic force within that tension of past/present/future.  The fruit of that tension, as it is lived out in parishes, will eventually be a renewal of the whole of the Church’s liturgy, and therefore her whole life.  This expresses what I express using images like "gravitational force" and "Marshall Plan.

Please note that in the Italian there are a couple interesting phrases.  First, "migliore valorizzazione" goes beyond simply a "good assesment" or something similiar.  "Valorrizzazione" means and increase in value or also a greater use or even exploitation of the value of something, not just an assesment of the value of a thing.  So, Archbp. Bagnasco is talking right away about finding the good uses in concrete ways of the Motu Proprio.  Also, "in ultima istanza" can have the impact of finality in the sense of "last resort".  This phrase actually adds a sense of urgency to what he is saying, as if he is trying very subtly to get across, without saying it directly, that not everything is good, it hasn’t been good for a long time, and this was a necessary measure… perhaps our last resort.  Remember, Italian is pretty subtle and the impact of this phrase will vary in different ears.  But taken all together in this address, I think he is communicating from strength, not from toss away phrases.

I returned to The Sabine Farm after my superb trip to England.   Many thanks, again, to all whom I met there.

Last night we were graced with a clear sky and a Harvest Moon you could read by… or harvest by.

I hit the rack pretty hard and rose early to find that the leaves are changing color.  They are goreous this year.

Also, the same Harvest Moon was still hanging around in the west, illuminated by the rising sun, bright again a pale sky, and a light fog was clinging to the grass.

I enjoyed my kryptonite strength coffee with eggs and ham… and beautiful view.

A nice welcome back to The Sabine Farm.

A kind reader sent a link to an article in the Bismarck Tribune about how His Excellency Most Reverend Paul Zipfel, Bishop of Bismarck, approaches the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.  Let’s dig into the article, with a few caveats.

My emphases and comments.

Tridentine Mass raises queries
By KAREN HERZOG
Bismarck Tribune

Responding to the July apostolic letter by Pope Benedict XVI that will allow a wider celebration of the so-called [This indicates a sensitivity to the issues of what it is called.] Tridentine Mass – done according to the pre-Vatican II liturgy – Bishop Paul Zipfel of the Bismarck Catholic Diocese took a brief survey when he met in conference with the diocese’s priests a few weeks back.  [hmmm… interesting approach]

Would any be interested or able to conduct this Mass in Latin?

A number expressed interest, "actually more of the young guys," Zipfel said.  [No surprise there at all.  I have been saying for weeks that it will be the young prriests who get interested in this older form of Mass and, once they learn it, it will influence how they say the newer Mass.]

Many have taken some Latin, but most not too much, he said. This would mean that those who are interested would have to do some preparation – something that can’t be done in a day or two, he said.  [You can learn the pronounce Latin in a couple days.]

Bishops across the country have discussed making some arrangements for their priests to have training workshops, Zipfel said, [Interesting.] but nothing has been finalized so far.

In this diocese, the Rev. Tom Dignan, a retired priest, always has been interested in the Latin, or what is now called the extraordinary rite, [pretty close] Zipfel said. Dignan told the bishop that it took him about two weeks to become familiar enough with the Latin to conduct it without stumbling.

Regarding the Society of St. Pius X, the group that has been urging the return of the Tridentine Mass, "the Holy Father is hoping it will draw them a little closer" in their relationship to the larger church, Zipfel said.

However, Zipfel said that the society’s differences with the Vatican are larger than the return of the Latin Mass, [and he is exactly right] and include disagreements about many of the actions of the Second Vatican Council.

"The Holy Father is smarter than I am, and he has good reason for what he’s doing," Zipfel said.  [OH MY!  This is a remarkable comment to make to the press.  I admire this very much.  He simply places himself on the same page with the Holy Father without all the posturing and pretense of many of his brother bishops.]

Within the Bismarck Diocese, Zipfel said that he did receive a letter, with no return address, signed by about a dozen people, presumably from the northern part of the diocese, requesting the Tridentine Mass.

Under the pope’s decision, any parish priest may conduct the pre-Vatican II Mass for those who want it, with the proviso that it would be no more than one Mass on a Sunday.

However, if the priest feels he can’t do this, or has questions, then he comes to his bishop, Zipfel said.

The bishop will attend a series of "Celebrating Church" events around the diocese, in which he discusses the history of the Mass and the pope’s letter in detail and answers questions from parishioners.  [Excellent idea!]

The first one was conducted Monday at St. Hildegard’s Church in Menoken. Zipfel said people there were interested in what effect the pope’s decision would have on the diocese’s relationship with St. Michael’s Church in Mandan, which has its Masses conducted by a priest from the St. Pius X Society.

The bishop’s response is that the relationship remains unchanged – Masses at St. Michael’s are considered "valid but not licit" and Catholics are not permitted to attend it.  [Well… there may be some conditions under which they can, but this is correct in substance.]

There is some curiosity about the Latin Mass from those attending, some of whom said they just wanted to see it one time, he said.

"I would hope we would have something available,"he said. "It has to be the people, a group, that wants this. They have to come forward."

Even if a priest were to conduct the Latin Mass somewhere in the diocese, the long distances would mean travel could be difficult for those from farther away, he said.  [This is a huge factor in a place like North Dakota.]

Zipfel said he hopes that people will understand that the church considers this one liturgy with two expressions: "We’re not working against each other. We’re not in competition."   [YES!   This is very good.  This is Rule #1: 1) Rejoice because our liturgical life has been enriched, not because "we win".  Everyone wins when the Church’s life is enriched.  This is not a "zero sum game".]

 

I applaud Bishop Zipfel.  I like the idea of the bishops having workshops and meetings in different places.

Under another entry, there is some debate about the reception of Communion in the hand during Holy Mass celebrated in the extraordinary form.

Some contend that Communion may not be given in the hand, because it could not be given in the hand back in 1962.

I think that is incorrect.  I think that if a person participating at Mass with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII stick’s his hands out, in the right fashion, in a place where the conference of bishop’s has given permisson for Communion in the hand, and if there is no serious risk of profanation (but isn’t there nearly always?) of the Sacred Host or a particle thereof, then a priest errs in purposely not giving that person Communion in the hand.

Please understand, I am not in favor of Communion in the hand at all!   I wish it was not permitted and that people didn’t choose to receive that way.  Still, the law is the law.  Dura lex sed lex.

Still, there is discussion of this issue, and I respect it.  In a comment under that other entry a knowledgable priest chimed in saying:

Reverend and dear blogmaster: Am I mistaken in thinking that the 1962 Missale does not exist in isolation, but in organic continuity, and that it must be celebrated integrally according to all the rubrics that in fact were binding during the pontificate of Blessed John XXIII ? Otherwise, to be consistant should we not distribute Holy Communion saying “Corpus Christi.”, without any sign of the cross, and not “Corpus Domini nostri, etc.”

Seriously, Father, not just because it would be upsetting, but because it is right and just, I respectfully submit that we should not give “communion in the hand” at a Mass in the vetus ordo.

Comment by Fr. Paul McDonald

The same Fr. McDonald also writes in another comment:

Reminder:
“Communion in the hand” is contrary to the universal, present law of the Church and may only be given if about seventeen conditions are simultaneously fulfilled. Which conditions have increased over the years. It is not allowed at a “Tridentine” mass as a number of bishop’s statements have reiterated.
Now, that being said, “charity in all things.”

Comment by Fr. Paul McDonald

I respectfully respond that the Motu Proprio derestricts the use of the older form of Mass according to the Missale Romanum of 1962.  Summorum Pontificum does not, however, revive all the decrees in force in 1962.  The Missale Romanum did not describe how certain things were to be done.  Distribution of Communion was not described in the Missal.  Separate decrees covered Communion. 

Also, I respectfully remind Father that when those conditions are fulfilled, the Church’s law does in fact (alas) permit Communion in the hand.

Here is my solution.

First, we take the former way of doing things as guidelines rooted in a firm tradition and practice.  It is sensible and right that Communion should be received on the tongue, while kneeling when possible, and not in the hand during the older form of Mass (newer too! IMHO, but especially the older). 

Second, it strikes me as reasonable to put a note in the bulletin or handout describing why Communion in the on the tongue is preferable.  We need education, not on the spot surprises or confrontations.

Thus, if people come and put their hands out (in the proper fashion, etc.) then give that person Communion without making a scene about it. 

We need some time to form people on this issue.  Some people have (alas) never known anything other than Communion in the hand.  We have to be a little understanding and gentle with these folks.  If they are coming to celebrations of the older form of Mass, that is a huge step in a new direction for them.  Let’s not make their experience jolting at the moment when they really need a sense of receiving Communion in the context of something wonderful, though unfamiliar.  Remember, it is already going to be odd for many of them to be kneeling.  Don’t freak people out.  It is easy to hurt people in that vulnerable moment.  Let the older form of Mass, and the practices that go with it, exert that "gravitational pull" and slowly but surely.   Help people come around, don’t force them.

Summorum Pontificum does not create an ecclesiastical Jurassic Park.  Pope Benedict did not stick a needle into a 1962 traditionalist mosquito trapped in liturgical amber and then rebuild a fenced in world from another epoch.  He did not revive all the decrees or canon laws in force in 1962!  So, make prudent use and reference to how things were done, and even adopt the old practices properly and fruitfully.  But recognize the rights people have according to present law and practice. 

The eyes of many people, some very hostile to the older form of Mass, will be open, indeed peeled, scrutinizing how things are going.  If there are problems we can avoid, avoid them.  Do we really need some person looking to pick a fight in the first place writing nasty letters to the bishop about the priest and the older Mass because she was refused Communion in the hand?  After all, it is (alas) allowed.