EWTN broadcast of Solemn Mass with the 1962 Missal… problems?

I am in the UK right now, enjoying wonderful people and gracious hospitality… and fine liturgy, but I am still in direct contact with my satellite dish and DVR back in the USA through my fabulous Slingbox (another material proof that God loves us).  I just finished setting it up to record the Solemn Mass EWTN will rebroadcast today.

However, someone e-mailed to tell me that the broadcast got fouled up somehow.  What happened?

I remember that around the time the Motu Proprio was released, EWTN had a rather poor show about it, filled also with technical problems.

Odd.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

116 Responses to EWTN broadcast of Solemn Mass with the 1962 Missal… problems?

  1. ThomasMore1535 says:

    Immediately after the consecration and elevation of the Chalice things started going wrong. After that I turned it off.

    Thanks be to God, however, that up until that point everything went off smoothly, and that things like the offertory, the subdeacon holding the paten, ad orientem, etc., all clearly came through for everyone to see.

    If Satan intended to sabotage this broadcast, he waited far too long to do so. :)

  2. Matthew Kennel says:

    Yes. Immediately after the consecration the screen started to go in and out. I thought it was a problem on my end since I have satillite, but then EWTN put up a screen advising that they had technical difficulties. Even when the screen came back on, it was black for much of the time. By the time that people started to take communion things seemed to be back in order.

  3. aunt ba says:

    Fr. Z,
    I was watching this morning, while sharing the ‘moment’ with my sister in Chicago. I thought at first that it was the satellite signal ‘going out'(happens all the time with my DirecTV), but my sis says, “no… we have cable-not satellite.” So I don’t know what kind of glitch it was. EWTN just posted “technical difficulties…” against a red background that my sis and I thought looked a little too satan-y. Cathy commented about how the devil was still trying to mess things up!
    Thankfully, the glitch didn’t happen till right before holy communion was distributed, so we didn’t miss too much.
    All in all, it was a beautiful mass and the Poor Clare nuns sounded like angels singing. Who could not love that?!
    Safe travels and Godspeed,
    aunt ba

  4. Ernie Bragiel says:

    Yes there were technical difficulties after consecration, but all returned to normal during communion. I
    took time off work to view this and was blessed tremedously by it. I believe that most of us in a parish
    on Sunday are looking for the reverence that was exhibited in the Solemn Mass. And the Ordinary Form of
    the Roman Rite can be done that way too. I think the homily did great justice in explaining was is now
    happening through this indult. Fr.John, is there any way you could get the transcript and post that homily?
    Holy Mass is our best Thank You to God for granting us the favor of his Son, Jesus, on the Cross. God bless
    you Fr. John in your travels.

  5. Cody says:

    Rather than displaying a screen that says “we’re experiencing technical difficulties” it should say “Satan is trying to keep the Gospel from being delivered to you. Go pray a Rosary”

  6. Robert says:

    I was watching the Mass on my computer, and at first, I thought there was a problem with the internet feed. When the notice came up, it was clear this was an EWTN problem. What was most disturbing, however, was that they kept showing something like blurry red curtains, which made me think of the fires of hell. Probably just my own mind thinking weirdly, but it did seem an odd choice of visual in the moment.

  7. Garrett says:

    I wonder if the later broadcasts of the Mass will have to “cut out” the time in which the technical difficulties occured, or if they can play the video recording of the Mass all the way through without the T.D.s, so that we can see what we had previously missed (like the chanting of the Pater Noster, etc.).

    All in all a VERY good Mass!

  8. ray from mn says:

    Father:

    The technical difficulties began at the “Great Amen.” And by the time of the triple “Domine non sum dignus” they had restored the signal.

    So the Pater Noster and the Agnus Dei and whatever else was there was missed.

    What surprised me was the celebrant saying the confiteor again, facing the congregation. I don’t recall exactly, but I think that came after the Agnus Dei. I don’t recall that from the days of my youth nor is it in my St Andrew’s Bible Missal.

  9. Father Bartoloma says:

    I guess EWTN will just have to broadcast another Solemn High Mass. :D

  10. Dave from Tennessee says:

    Father,

    Bad weather may have been a contributing problem. Here in Knoxville we experienced heavy, heavy rain which (according to the Weather Channel) was also affecting large parts of the South, including Alabama.

  11. I too was surprised to hear the ‘Second Confiteor’ (as opposed to the ‘First Confiteor’ in the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar) being chanted before the distribution of Holy Communion. I was under the impression that the ‘Second Confiteor’ was abolished in the 1962 Missale Romanum and that simply the ‘Ecce Agnus Dei’ was said. I have only heard it done in schismatic churches. Any one know for certain?

  12. Henry Edwards says:

    Yes, there was a 10 minute satellite break that blacked out most of the canon after the consecration, the Pater Noster, and the Kiss of Peace. I’m retaping the 6 pm (Eastern) encore, hoping that they’ll show an internal tape without the gap. Certainly if so, I plan to make DVD’s to hand out to every priest I can get to watch it.

    Even so, it was an indescribably beautiful telecast, both visually (otherwise) and musically, with really wonderful Gregorian chant, mostly by the Sisters. It was great to see Mother Angelica sitting there in the glow of her Shrine finally (after much unseemly delay) fulfilling the purpose for which she built it.

    The sermon by Fr. Goodwin of the FSSP did an extraordinary job of setting in fine relief this principal moment (for many watching around the world) of — as he put it — the restoration of the ancient Roman Mass to its proper place at the heart of the Church.

    It should be added that, in the last week of run-up to this occasion, EWTN did an excellent job of preparation with its promotions and lead-in programs. It seemed to me that, in contrast to the crummy discussion they broadcast a month or so ago, the guests for the “theological roundtable” Wednesday night — Fr. Goodwin, Msgr Schmidt ICK, Fr. Trigilio (who mentioned one Fr. Zuhlsdorf regarding the possible effect of the older form on the newer one), Fr. Anthony, moderated by Colin Donovan of the network — said most of the right things and none of the wrong things. It was so good to hear the TLM discussed on TV without having to scream No! from time to time.

    I thought news was made when Fr. Anthony (now superior of the Eternal Word friars) mentioned that the FSSP is training them to celebrate the TLM there, and in response to a question from Donovan seemed to intimate that Yes, we could expect to see more of the TLM on EWTN. At several breaks, ads for this mornings Missa solemnis showed Fr. Dominic (EWTN) apparently celebrating a low TLM at the Shrine.

  13. EDG says:

    Robert:

    I had the same reaction. Since I of course immediately assumed that the broadcast was being broken up by the Evil One – although obviously even he was ultimately powerless against the Cross – I found the flame-like red backdrop a little on the spooky side, too!

  14. What surprised me was the celebrant saying the confiteor again, facing the congregation.

    Actually, the deacon (at the epistle side facing the subdeacon at the gospel side) chanted the second confiteor in the way that was standard in solemn high Masses in the “old days”. Then the priest turned more to face more toward the deacon for the absolution.

    I’ve heard from numerous sources that this has been authorized for the FSSP and ICK, and personally hope the PCED will publicly authorize it for all.

  15. Jonathan Bennett says:

    Father,

    The Mass will be aired again tonight and tomorrow morning. Hopefully by then the technicaly problems will have been resolved and the full video will be shown. You should record it at these times.

  16. mike says:

    Could the extraordinary rite (’62 missal) be celebrated
    now IN ENGLISH???? I would guess so, and wouldn’t that help clergy and laymen to celebrate the ordinary rite?

    Thanks,
    Mike

  17. leo says:

    Father are you visiting the North of England ?

  18. James says:

    I doubt if Cardinal Mahony can reach that far…or

    It was a gift no less…

  19. Incidentally, EWTN has just posted an mp3 of the TLM “theology roundtable” that I mentioned:

    http://download.rbn.com/ewtn/download/muto830.mp3

    In preparation for watching an encore if you missed this morning’s Mass telecast, you can also download the beautiful Mass booklet

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/9-14-07Mass.pdf

    prepared for this Mass, and perhaps feast your eyes on that second confiteor in written form.

  20. danphunter1 says:

    Does anyone know if our Holy Father will be offering an Classical Rite Mass, from the Vatican in the near future?
    The EWTN mass was exquisite.
    I wept when the nuns sang Adoremus Te.
    God bless EWTN.

  21. Rivendell says:

    I missed watching the live broadcast, I’ll be sure to catch the rebroadcast at 6:00 tonight. Don’t TV technicians have backup video cameras recording the event so that if the live feed is interrupted, the backups will catch everything what was missed? I’m sure they have the entire mass on digital & tape and we’ll be able to see the whole thing later today. Either way, EWTN will surely put this mass on DVD and make it available for purchase through their online religious catalogue in due time.

  22. fr.franklyn mcafee says:

    Not only did they do a second confiteor they also did bows to the cross when chanting the collect and postcommunion-all of them abolished by the 62 missal.I have a copy of the motu proprio of John XXIII issuing the 62 missal in which he clearly states that any practice,custom,tradition etc even of immemorial custom which is contrary to the new rubrics are void and of no effect.The Fraternity cannot claim custom since they were founded in 1988 and even if they could the MP states it is of no effect.The priests of John Cantius do the same things,one need only view their learning video to see they ignore the 62 missal on these points.I wonder why they have not been corrected since the Holy Father as cardinal celebrated the mass with them quite a few times.I liked the second confiteor especially when it was chanted but the touble remains it was abolished by the 62 missal.

  23. RichR says:

    Are they going to post a transcript of the homily? I missed it. Dental patients…..sheesh! They are waiting in the treatment rooms and can’t understand how important this day is. ;-)

  24. Demerzel says:

    Hmm… I think the second confiteor was omitted in the 1962 Missal. Even the Prayer after Low Mass were omitted. No. 503 of the rubrics talks about omission and omission is not abolition.

  25. MSusa says:

    During or after the consecration, we lost all BUT the sound; could still here the priest and the bells. I wondered if it were weather or something else. I have Sirius AND was trying to watch on the computer. Did not miss a beat on the radio.

  26. skeeton says:

    The homily was excellent! I listened to it on satellite radio!

  27. fr.franklyn mcafee says:

    Demerzel,I respectfully question your statement that omission is not abolition .The 62 missal is the 62 missal not 1956 or 1958.Why have it omitted if you can do it.The implementation of the NO said in respect to the maniple,that “it may be omitted” leaving it up to the celebrant.The 62 missal in the rubrics makes no mention of it but the commentaries are clear that it is not done=whether it is omitted or abolished.

  28. Brian Mershon says:

    Fr. McAfee,

    Pardon me for this, but, “Are you kidding me?”

  29. Mark says:

    Since the difficulties seem to be with the transmission, you should be able to watch again at 1PM EDST during their rebroadcasting of the High Mass. I hope that they recorded this on site and can retransmit without any problems.

    I will be driving 45 miles to Holy Family Parish here in Seattle to celebrate Forma Extraordinaria at this time and hope others report whether the rebroadcast is without difficulties.

    Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!

    Mark

  30. Tim says:

    Henry, if you do make some DVD’s, please pass some along this way (this is Tim in Nashville) so I can distribute them to some of our priests.

  31. techno_aesthete says:

    Demerzel, “Even the Prayer after Low Mass were omitted.” If you are referring to the Leonine prayers, they were omitted from the 1965 Missal, not the 1962 Missal. And, as you said, they are only prayed after a Low Mass.

  32. Barbara Swan says:

    I believe the world has been saved all over again through the issuance of Summorum Pontificum. The seed has been planted and will grow! This Mass is truly the re-presentation of Christ’s Sacrifice on Calvary.

    All worlds, time and eternity, heaven and earth, spiritual and temporal intersect during the celebration of the Mass. We are indeed lifted up to heaven and allowed to linger for a while. How sweet it is!

    Thank you, God, for Mother Angelica and EWTN!

  33. stephen says:

    Well we can the ’62 police are out in force…bows to the cross, second confiteor, doubling the readings, Heaven forbid!…you’d think the world was coming to an end. Get over it…

  34. Aelric says:

    Best lines of the Homily in my opinion (paraphrased – not attempting an exact quotation):

    What actions did Our Lady take at the foot of the Cross? None that eyes could see.
    What works did Our Lady speak at the foot of the Cross? None that ears could hear.
    Yet who could say that Our Lady was not more disposed to ‘active participation’ in the Passion of her Divine Son than any human has or indeed could ever attain.

    I wept.

  35. Stephen says:

    Well it looks like the ’62 police are out in force making the world safe from those bad priests who double the readings and use the second confiteor and even.. Heaven forbid… bow to the cross…sheesh get over it and stop whining.

  36. Aelric says:

    Er, typo ^^ … second line should begin “What words …”

    regrets

  37. Henry Edwards says:

    I wonder why they have not been corrected …

    If it is true that every traditional community in the world that reports directly to the Pontifical Ecclesial Dei Commission follows this practice, whether in their local churches or on global Catholic television with many millions watching, might a likely answer as to why they have not been “corrected” possibly suggest itself? (Of course, I realize it might be something else entirely, since the “obvious” answer is not always the correct one.)

  38. Janet says:

    It may be worth mentioning that the remnants of hurricane Humberto was passing across north-central Alabama at just the time of the Mass in Hanceville. The breakup of the signal from the heavy rain might have been the cause of the technical difficulties.

  39. Mark says:

    Check that… the rebroadcast will take place on EWTN at 6pm and at Midnight EDST.

    Mea Culpa,

    Mark

  40. Mike says:

    re “Second confiteor” somewhere it was published that the EWTN mass would use a Missal and altar cards on loan from a museum. These items are old, 200 to 300 years old. I wish I had paid closer attention to the notice.

  41. Maureen says:

    All these little things do matter. They matter at an ordinary form Mass (and bug us), so they should matter and bug us at an extraordinary form Mass. (Unless that order did get special permission to do certain stuff, in which case, more power to their arms.)

    I think the basic problem has been that real 1962 missals (as opposed to missals printed in 1962) have been in short supply. People have been confused as to what was right, so they went back to what they knew.

    This too should be alleviated by the natural consequences of the motu proprio.

  42. Weronika says:

    If you are still staying with the reverend Fr Finigan – don’t forget to ask about evolution! :-)

  43. David Heimlich says:

    I am enjoying everyone comments! After watching the EWTN Mass and listenening to the homily I understand why the liberals are so upset that the old Mass has been allowed again. Even though the Novo Ordo remain the “ordinary” form of the Rooman ritual, THE JIG IS UP and they know it!

  44. Gleb says:

    Dan,

    I hate to get off topic, but words like “sheesh” and “gosh” are euphemisms that correct the tounge from taking our Lord’s name in vain. No one prays to “sheesh”. No one saying or hearing it thinks it is the name of our Lord. It is not vulgar. So nothing is wrong with using it. It is obvious in the case of “gosh” that the word is derived from “God” but no one thinks “gosh” refers to God. These euphemisms used to be reliable ways for Christians to guard their speech in society, it is a shame that for many they have fallen into disuse and that instead our Lord’s name is often dragged through the mud.

  45. Dan O says:

    Gleb,

    I’m sorry but I completely disagree. Slang is a form of language. Just because you tanslate Jesus to Sheesh and use the name in frustration does not make it an acceptable usage. Just because people don’t know its the name of the Lord doesn’t make any difference. Are we then allowed to use the name of Jesus in Swahili just because our listeners don’t know Swahili? You say no one knows it is the name of the Lord. Well, I do and now you do too.

  46. fr.franklyn mcafee says:

    Stephen,The 1962 missal has its rubrics and are to be observed.The 1970 missal has its rubrics and are to be observed.One cannot complain about priests not following the rubrics in the NO if they give a pass to ignoring the rubrics of the 1962 missal.If you dismiss violations of the rubrics of the 1962 missal then you have no grounds to criticize violations ofthe present missal Granted the rubrical violations of the NO border on the offensive but why have rubrics if they are not to be followed.Every church before 1965 had its own customs in regard to the liturgy albeit very minor but celebrating mass according to the 62 missal while not following the specific rubrics of that missal goes beyond custom.The training video of the priests at St.John Cantius for the 1962 missal has violations of that missal.To dismiss this as minutiae is NO thinking.The usus antiquior is known for its attention to detail.

  47. Mville says:

    Aelric:
    I agree that it was a powerful explanation of “active participation”. No arm waving, leaping, back slapping, aisle crossing necessary to be fully there.

    Did anyone see the old film of “Praying The Mass” that EWTN broadcast late Wednesday or Thursday night? It was narrated by Fulton Sheen. I thought you can really see our roots in the Jewish Temple services of Christ’s time. The Tridentine Mass is much more Jewish, in that sense, than the Novus Ordo. I think Jewish Catholic Rosalind Moss may have commented on this as well.

  48. John Spangler says:

    Father McAfee is quite right in calling for fidelity to the rubrics.

    Do we really want that same “creativity” in the extraordinary form that has ravaged the ordinary form?

    The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an act of the public worship of the Church, which she safeguards through precise rubrics and liturgical laws. It is not the personal property of the celebrant or those in the congregation. That is a Novus Ordo mindset if there ever was one.

  49. William says:

    Fr. McAfee – I agree with your general argument about following the 1962 missal, however I do think you should not jump to negative conclusions. I was at the mass and, although I was surprised by the second confiteor, I think we should assume that the FSSP had permission to sing it in this mass until we know otherwise.

  50. Francis A. says:

    Dear friends,

    I was born in 1951. As an elementary school student, altar boy,
    and choir member, I assisted at Mass thousands of times before 1970,
    as celebrated according to the 1962 missal and its predecessor.

    Nevertheless, in the last 37 years, I have only …
    1. assisted at one announced, licitly celebrated “indult” Mass, …
    2. stumbled onto one unannounced Mass celebrated by a FSSP seminary
    professor [in one of the great Fr. McAfee’s former parishes!], …
    3. watched, on EWTN Wednesday night, the pre-1962 film (narrated by
    Bp. Sheen) of a solemn high Easter Mass celebrated in Chicago, …
    4. watched, on EWTN this morning, the Mass being discussed in
    this thread.

    The only unusual thing that I noticed in this morning’s Mass was this:
    When I sang in the boys’ and men’s choirs, we always divided what is
    now called the “Holy, Holy, Holy” into two segments, the “Sanctus …”
    after the Preface, and the “Benedictus …” after the consecration.
    Either it was always an option to combine the two segments in the old
    days, or the Poor Clares were not told to sing them separately, for
    they sang both the “Sanctus” and the “Benedictus” immediately after
    the Preface. This made for an unusual (to me) silence after the
    consecration. Please let me know the truth about this.

    Having said all of the above, I now have to say that it is probably
    going to displease a LOT of you good folks to read what I am now
    going to write.

    Despite my loving the “old Mass”
    during my youth … and despite studying Latin for four years in high
    school and making Latin my major in college (graduating in 1974) … I
    never had a desire for a return of the 1962 missal. I have always been
    much more than satisfied, in EVERY way, by Mass reverently celebrated
    according to the 1970 missal. Thus, it was only once, out of curiosity
    (around 2000) that I attended an indult Mass. That experience did not
    change my thoughts at all.

    Now, having watched EWTN’s various news/documentary programs (broadcast since the
    publication of the motu proprio), and having watched EWTN’s
    filmed and live telecasts of the “extraordinary form” of the Roman
    Rite, I find myself saying, (to myself and to you), “I have total
    respect for the older form, but I am not drawn to attend it
    in the future.” I cannot help but think that many more people of my
    generation will have the same reaction.

    Please do not interpret my comments as being negative about what
    the pope has decided. Quite the contrary! It has only an “up side,”
    not a “down side.” I am merely expressing an opinion that some of you
    good souls may be dramatically overestimating the number of people
    (from all generations, including my own) who will desire to assist
    at a Roman Rite Mass as celebrated in the extraordinary form.

    Pax vobiscum.

  51. fr.franklyn mcafee says:

    From the Motu Proprio of Pope JohnXXIII ordering the publication of the 1962 missal:”Likewise,statutes,privileges,indults and customs of any kind whatsoever,including those that are centenary and immemorial,even if they are worthy of special and individual mention,shall be revoked if they are opposed to these rubrics.” To a layman these things may be trivia especially since we are speaking about worthy men who in good faith do them,but to a priest it is much more serious and cannot be dismissed.I am going to celebrate according to the missal of 1962 but do I add those things, no matter how venerable,which are at variance with the rubrics of this missal?To a priest then it is much more important.Anyone who wants to see how important should get O’Connell’s book and look up the section “de defectibus”and see how important the placing of your hands on or outside the corporal is. As I said the Holy Father as Cardinal celebrated mass with the FSSP several times and he would have noticed these things.Since they continue to do them (claiming custom)I preseume the Holy Father sees no need to correct.Hopefully now Ecclesia Dei will address this question,and if they allow them I shall gladly do them because I personally prefer them.

  52. mike says:

    Could you have imagined a year ago that we’d be arguing about this stuff! Bravo!!

    m

  53. William says:

    Francis A – I am of a younger generation and I have no problem with what you have said. I do have to say that I have found few novus ordo masses that I consider reverent. Those that were reverently celebrated were completely acceptable to me.

    Nonetheless I, being someone born at approximately the same time as the promulgation of the new missal, find the traditional mass to be far deeper and much preferable to the new. What drives my preference is not the language, and only partially the form. It is the text of the prayers.

    When I first encountered the traditional mass I liked it, but wasn’t committed to it. After I bought and studied a hand missal, I found myself unable to regularly return to the new mass since it lacks the traditional offertory and canon.

    I think you are right that there will not be a crush of people desiring to hear the traditional mass – at first. But when I look at the development of the FSSP, ICKSP, and other traditional priestly societies, I think that I might just live to see the time when they will outnumber the Jesuits – and that will rock the Church, in a good way.

  54. James Straight says:

    re “Second confiteor” somewhere it was published that the EWTN mass would use a Missal and altar cards on loan from a museum. These items are old, 200 to 300 years old. I wish I had paid closer attention to the notice.
    Comment by Mike

    The Missal and the altar cards were on loan from the Jubilee Museum at Holy Family in Columbus Ohio. If I remember correctly the Missal dates from 1884.

    This evening Holy Family has a Solemn High Mass using a Missal from 1607.

    You can take a virtual tour of the Jubilee Museum at Holy Family’s website:
    http://www.holyfamilycolumbus.org/

  55. fr.franklyn mcafee says:

    Francis A,The Sanctusand Benedictus are one hynmn and when chanted they should be sung together.That is why in the Liber Usualis they are not separated.However in choral masses they are separated.The Sanctus-Benedictus chanted before the consecration leaves the time from the consecration to the Pater Noster a time of silence.Many people love this silence and that is what I dislike about the reformed missal-the priest or someone else is always talking.When the sanctus and benedictus are sung together it is allowed (by the motu proprio of Pope St.Pius X )to sing a motet.It is also allowed at a High mass (either Solemn High or Missa Cantata)for the organ to play “with grave and sweet sound” during the consecration and elevation.If you are an organist that accounts for the small pieces usually by French composers,entitled “elevations”.By the way the FSSP priest who celebrated a private mass in my parish (at the time there was no diocesan indult)is the SpiritualDirector of the seminary and a longtime friend.

  56. Seumas says:

    Fr McAfee,

    It seems doubtful that there’s any abuse here, since the facts suggest that they have the approbation of the Holy See to do what they do.

    It’s not necessarily wrong to ask the question, but we cannot assume wrongdoing on their part. In fact, we can and should assume they do have the permission until we know otherwise. Otherwise we commit the sin of rash judgment.

    As the Catechism says:

    *2477* Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor…”

    *2478* To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

    “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved. (St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 22)”

  57. A.M.D.G. says:

    The “indult” mass of the last 6 years (317 weeks running) in Seattle offered according to the 1962 missal
    has also included a 2nd confiteor, *spoken* by the server or servers only. And this after a spoken Pater
    Noster by the priest alone. *Optimal* in custom, experience and tradition over these years.

    We are 100 minutes away as of this writing from having the same offered today @ Holy Family Parish in West
    Seattle, WA USA, 7:30PM PST …except that “indult” is “not applicable” on this most joyous feast day.

  58. Francis A. says:

    Thanks for the information, Fr. McAfee, about the Sanctus/Benedictus.
    By the way, the priest I mentioned (your friend) was not unknown to me
    when I found him celebrating at your parish. I knew exactly who he
    was because, about ten years earlier, he had been a member of a (bad)
    religious congregation and was “in residence” at another parish in our
    diocese. It was there that he guided me through a difficult problem.

    William, thanks for your thoughtful comments. Among other things,
    you stated, “When I first encountered the traditional mass I liked it,
    but wasn’t committed to it. After I bought and studied a hand missal,
    I found myself unable to regularly return to the new mass since it
    lacks the traditional offertory and canon.”

    I’m sorry, but you are mistaken on two points — one being a factual
    matter, and the others being a matter of terminology.

    Here is a correction on the factual matter:
    The missals of Pope Paul VI and John Paul II
    (which contain the “ordinary form” of the Roman Rite) have “Eucharistic
    Prayer I.” In Latin (which is the official language in these newer
    missals), Eucharistic Prayer I is identical to what is customarily
    called the “Roman Canon.”

    As I no doubt would, William, you probably find
    your hand missal’s translation of the Canon to be more pleasing and
    accurate than the current English translation in the “ordinary form.”
    That problem will be remedied before the end of this decade, when a new
    translation of the “ordinary form” will be promulgated.

    With regard to your terminology … You have slipped into an error
    that many people have made. It has to do with your use of the words
    “new” and “traditional.”

    You spoke of “the new mass.” In reality, there is no “new mass.”
    There is one and only one “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” (or “Divine
    Liturgy”), though it is celebrated according to any of various
    liturgical rites — and now, according to either of two “forms” of one
    of those rites (the Roman Rite).

    The Holy See, whom we should strive to imitate, did not refer to a “old
    form” or a “Latin form” or a “traditional form,” but rather to an
    “extraordinary form.”
    Likewise, the Holy See did not refer to a “new form” or a “vernacular
    form” or a “non-traditional form,” but to an “ordinary form.”

    What we should accustom ourselves to saying is that the “ordinary form” is
    (and always has been) a “traditional” form of the Holy Sacrifice of the
    Mass, because it is part of the Church’s ongoing “Tradition,” and there
    is only one Sacrifice of Calvary. It plays into the hands of certain
    schismatice groups if we refer only to the “extraordinary form” as
    being “the traditional Mass.” In fact, EVERY Rite (or Form of a Rite)
    is part of the Church’s Tradition. This is not a matter of “age.”

    I am also troubled by your statement that you avoid the ordinary
    form of the Roman Rite partly because “it lacks the traditional
    offertory”. But actually, the ordinary form does not lack a
    “traditional” offertory. Instead, it has offertory prayers that are
    partly different from, and fewer than, those that the extraordinary
    form has — by decisions approved by a succession of Roman Pontiffs.
    A difference in the wording or number of prayers does not make the
    ordinary form’s offertory “non-traditional.”

    In July, the pope wrote these very important words, speaking of the
    missals in which the ordinary and extraordinary forms are found:
    “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal.
    In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no
    rupture.”

    William, I would not try to talk anyone out of a decision to attend only the
    extraordinary form of the Rite, but I would remind a person that the
    pope has stated (or at least implied) that a decision must be made
    for positive reasons, not negative ones. A person should not make
    his decision based on …
    (1) a factual mistake, or …
    (2) a disrespectful disdain for [or a doubt about the validity of] the
    ordinary form, or …
    (3) a doubt that the post-conciliar popes were able to make correct
    decisions about the Roman Rite.

    In fact, the pope cautioned priests as follows:
    “[I]n order to experience full communion [with the Catholic Church],
    the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as
    a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.
    The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent
    with the recognition of its value and holiness.”

    Pope Benedict told us that a person may choose to attend Mass
    in the extraordinary form of the Rite, not for negative reasons, but
    for one of the following positive reasons:
    — either he was raised prior to the promulgation of the Missal of
    Paul VI and he “continue[s] to adhere with great love and affection to
    the earlier liturgical forms” … and he “remain[s] strongly attached
    to this usage of the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to” him.
    — or he is a “young person” who has discovered this liturgical form,
    felt its attraction, and found in it a form of encounter with the
    Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist [that is] particularly suited to” him.

    God be with you.

  59. fr.franklyn mcafee says:

    Seumas,your comment makes no sense since it does not apply.You are mixing apples with pomegranits,rash judgemnt does not apply.I was not accusing them of sin.Again according to your “logic” one should not complain if a priest omits the Creed on sunday because perhaps he has permission of the bishop or he has a bad memory.After hearing comfessions for 36 years I know what rash judgment is.

  60. Domini Sumus says:

    The homily is available as a free download on iTunes.
    Also, the entire Mass is already available from the EWTN Religious Catalogue for$25.

    http://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/edp_no=15602/shop.axd/ProductDetails

  61. Domini Sumus says:

    Here is a link to download the homily from the EWTN site.
    http://download.rbn.com/ewtn/download/latin830.mp3

  62. Douglas Eller says:

    I must agree with Mr. Spangler.

    We had faith that the Holy Father would one day return the unfettered use of the Tridentine. We must also have faith that his directive is complete and intended for this moment in history. The Pope specifically decreed the 62 missal as the codification of the newly returned “traditional” rite. In response I, for one, fully intend to be faithful to its rubrics.

    To take liberties with the (very) recently returned liturgy/rubrics would be to fall into the same trap suffered by those who mangled the Novus Ordo (not that it wasn’t mangled already).

  63. JACK says:

    If I can offer a different take:

    I previously had very little exposure to the extraordinary use. But I made a point to record today’s liturgy so that I could observe it after work today. And tried to be more attentive to it than I was in my first exposure to it.

    There are many differences and things that I have questions about. And I didn’t have the text in front of me so I can’t make any comments about the texts themselves.

    But what I was struck most by was how it wasn’t that different than the ordinary use. Maybe I’ve had a unique background. But I’ve had the pleasure to attend the ordinary use in Latin many a time. My parish in law school had the processions, made use of the incense, sung the liturgy, used chant (led by a boys choir and a men’s schola). So much of what people might identify with the extraordinary use struck me as inherently proper to the Roman Rite, not one use over the other.

    I say all that not to wade into debates and critiques many have had about which is better/preferable, etc., but simply to make the following point: one could entirely see how the “gravitational pull” could happen. What struck me as so familiar, I’ve seen in the most reverently celebrated masses in the ordinary use. And if the extraordinary use might foster the possibility of that being more commonplace, then Amen!

  64. David M.O'Rourke says:

    Until 1962 the Confiteor was said after the Priest had received communion by the server(s), kneeling on the bottomm step at the east end of the footpace. In Solemn Mass the Deacon and subdeacon stood, one at either end on the second step and bowing in toward centre, chanted the Confiteor. In both cases the celebrant remained facing east. He then turned toward the people taking care not to turn his back on the Blessed Sacrament and said (not sang) the Misereatur and Indulgentiam. Then turning back to the altar he retrieved the ciborium and holding it in his left hadn and a small host in his right fingers faced the people directly and said the Three Domine non sun dignuses.

    All but the Domine non sum dignus was omitted in the 1962 missal but it has almost invariably turned up in indult Masses or in Masses celebrated by the ICRP and, I belive, the FSSP. Celebrants have included Cardinal Estevez, retired head of the Congregtion for Divine Worship and the Sacraments. Were it wrong he would certainly spot it.

    My understanding is that the Ecclesasi Dei Commission ruled that this second Confiteor could be done. Whether this permission will stand in the light of Summorum Pontificum remains to be seen but my guess is that it will. I hope so. The truth is that the Missal of 1962 was edging toward reform and even in the Holy Week Missal of 1955 Bugnini-isms can be found. Let’s not panic. It’s only day one. I’m sure Ecclesia Dei will work these things out.

  65. Publius says:

    Watching it right now. At the Epistle. Camera work is very annoying. They keep cutting all over the place. Distracting and detracting from the solemnity. Fire the director. Sorry, not charitable, but they kind of ruined it.

  66. Cody says:

    After browsing through half the postings, I couldn’t help but crack a grin that people are already complaining about abuses of the 1962 missal!

  67. Tony says:

    David,

    Well said – especially your allusion to the fact that “the the Missal of 1962 was edging toward reform and even in the Holy Week Missal of 1955 Bugnini-isms…”. I made the same comment apropos a debate on Dialogue
    Masses on another thread/blog. Our old nemesis, Annibale, was already
    trial running his reforms and finessing his twist on ‘active participation’
    from the time of his reform of Holy Week reforms c.1955 onwards. The
    most appalling butchery of the ancient and venerable Easter Vigil –
    paring the 12 lessons down to 3 lessons – was engineered by Bugnini.
    Indeed, at my Extraordinary Rite parish presided over by the FSSP we have
    used the pre-1955 ancient Vigil of 12 lessons for at least 10 years.

    Fr McAfee cites Blessed John XXIII as having abrogated even immemorial
    custom in promulgating revisions to the Missal in 1962. My understanding of Canon Law is that it simply is not open to a Pope to abrogate ‘immemorial custom'; that a Pope may only conserve and pass on/add to the Tradition.
    Indeed, this was argued by Count Neri Capponi (of Una Voce fame?)some years ago when he argued that, even if the Traditional Mass had been abrogated by Paul VI, one could then argue from immemorial custom that such an abrogation must needs be invalid – as immemorial custom trumps later legislation in matters affecting, at least, the Sacred Liturgy. It must also be remembered that, until Pius V’s Quo Primum, the Liturgy had always developed in accordance with immemorial custom. Indeed, Pope St Pius V acknowledged this fact by allowing that any usages of the Latin Rite older than 200 years as of 1570, ought, on the basis of immemorial custom, to be permitted.

    According to this line of reasoning, and given the long use of the second confiteor (and 12 Lesson Easter Vigil for that matter) – I would argue that a Pope might omit a former liturgical practice, but not abrogate any liturgical practice of venerable and customary usage [and, ‘venerable customary usage’ could not be said properly to apply, IMHO, to novelties employed in the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite. The Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite is akin to an exceedingly beautiful coral reef, and its rich layers – at least those practised within living memory – ought to be able to be accessed and used without quibble or scruple.

  68. Carolus says:

    Father,

    I know that there is alot of talk about the second confiteor in the above comments. Sadly what was not noticed was that the celebrant did not read the epistle or gospel at the altar privately as was done before John XXIII also. Don’t you think that there needs to be some standard usage of these agagin allowed rituals. I detest the fact that things are chosen to be done or not done at the whim of the priest.

  69. Nick says:

    “Sheesh”, “Oh my gosh”, “Jeeze”, “Holy cow”, no matter how you say it, all words spoken from the tongue come from the heart. If your heart speaks clean then there’s no reason to “correct the tounge”.

  70. ray from mn says:

    I watched the telecasts of the first and the third transmissions of today’s Extraordinary Mass of Pope John XXIII.

    The first one, broadcast at 8:00 AM this morning (CDT) was the one that had about ten minutes of “technical difficulties” starting about at the “Great Amen” and ending just before the triple “Domine non sum dignus.”

    The last one was broadcast at 11:00 PM (CDT). The EWTN editors deleted the “technical difficulties” from the first broadcast and made a deletion somewhere in the Eucharistic Prayer after Communion to the beginning of the “Our Father” by the celebrant.

    For the record.

  71. B. says:

    I hope this will not be flagged as spam again, I’m just trying to say one thing.

    Regarding the second confiteor, I have read it as a written statement from an FSSP priest that the FSSP (and I’d presume the ICR, too) has explicit permission from the Holy See to use it in Solemn High Masses.
    The ICR (not the FSSP, though) also has permission to use the pre-55 holy week rite.
    I would not (until the matter is explicitly adressed by the Vatican) presume that this permission extends to any priest celebrating under the norms of summorum pontificum.

    Special permission given to certain congregations do happen. The Servi Jesu et Mariae for example have special permission for some extra genuflection from the TLM (e.g. before the elevation) in the Novus Ordo.

  72. Stephen says:

    I sent a splendid email off to EWTN thanking them for celebrating the Motu Proprio by broadcasting a Solemn High Mass, and hoping they would further the cause of traditionalists by planning more. Here is their response:

    “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”).

    The re-air will not have the technical difficulties that were in the
    morning telecast due to the electrical storm in Hanceville.

    The Mass is available in DVD from Religious Catalogue, 800-854-6316 or tape it at 6 PM Eastern today and 12 AM Eastern Saturday morning.
    A Mass booklet is available from our website, http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/9-14-07Mass.pdf

    In the Joy of Christ,
    Gordon
    Jesus is our Joy! Mary is the cause of our Joy!”

    It would seem they will re-air the same mass over and over again. So we will have the Feast of the Exhaltation Mass at Christmas and Easter. I guess it’s better than no Solemn High Mass on EWTN.

    Stephen

  73. Here in the Philippines, both the original broadcast and encore were almost
    entirely destroyed by technical glitches, and only the Introit and the
    period from the Gloria to the homily got to Philippine TV screens almost
    unscathed.

    I and my friends could almost feel the anger of Satan as the
    Traditional Rite was finally resurrected into the heart of Catholic life.

  74. Legisperitus says:

    Stephen,

    I read that note from EWTN in a more hopeful light, that they will occasionally celebrate additional Extraordinary Form Masses. It seems to me that the reference to the booklet is only meant in context of ordering the DVD.

  75. Regarding the second confiteor, I have read it as a written statement from an FSSP priest that the FSSP (and I’d presume the ICR, too) has explicit permission from the Holy See to use it in Solemn High Masses.

    I’ll believe that when I see the letter.

  76. William says:

    Francis A – I will first address your complaint about the terminology “New Mass” and “Traditional Mass”. It is sadly the case, despite your objection, that the New Mass is not traditional. It is a valid, true Mass, but not a traditional Mass. Cardinal Ratzinger went so far as to call it a “fabrication”. Furthermore the name “Novus Ordo” comes from The Church, and since “novus” means “new”, I do not hesitate to use the term “New Mass”.

    Second, the fact that the Roman Canon is in the Novus Ordo Missal is of little interest since it is basically never used. If your parish priest uses it, then you have a fine parish priest. Of course, it may be the case that the prayers are stripped of their substance by the translation into the vernacular. I wouldn’t know, having never read the ICEL text.

    Third, I am firmly of the opinion that successive popes have indeed made incorrect decisions about the missal. In particular I think Pope Paul VI made a tremendous mistake by introducing the New Mass in the first place. Contrary to your assertions, this does not invalidate my reasons for attending the Traditional Mass.

    In fact, I still attend the Novus Ordo Mass occasionally. I went to one 3 or 4 months ago to fulfill a Sunday obligation. The fact that the priest genuflected by bouncing off the ground and springing back up in the air and then received communion like he was tossing a cracker into his mouth seemed somewhat less than ideal to me, but at least no one tried to grab my hands and raise them into the air during the Our Father. I’ll go back there if necessary, the 19th century church building is beautiful and still has a wonderful high altar.

  77. Francis says:

    I’m all for following the rubrics to the letter. No additions or subtractions. My question is this:

    The EF Mass I go to is a Missa Cantata (the lower end one with just one Priest and server). With the Second Confiteor removed in the 1962 rubrics, does that mean the congregation never gets to say it aloud (since the Prayers in Front of the Altar gets covered up by the sung Introit) or does the “Dialogue Mass” rubrics come into play (at least for the Prayers in front of the Altar up to the Introit)?

    Just asking since the Priest doesn’t own a 1962 Altar Missal. (Everything for that Mass is scrounged up from attics and used book stores so nothing is uniform.)

  78. Christopher Sarsfield says:

    The Institute of Christ the King in their constitutions approved by Ecclesia Dei, really celebrate according to the Pre-55 usage not the 62. Not only do they have a permission to say the Pre-55 Holy Week (with modifications for times of celebrations), at all feasts that have violet vestments the Ita Missa Est is replaced by the Benedicamus Domino. I would also remind the Reverend Fathers that the Benedictine Abbey in Tulsa also have special permissions regarding how they celebrate their conventual Mass (I have actually seen a copy of the original letter from Ecclesia Dei granting this).

    And I do not agree with Fr. McAfee, that he did not accuse them of committing sin. Objectively, he said that they violated the rubrics of the Traditional Mass. This is an objective sin. Yet, it seems clear to most decent Catholics that if an entire religious congregation does something in their liturgy, with the knowledge of Rome, that they should be given the benefit of the doubt and the ASSUMPTION made that they have permission. The attitude should not be “I’ll believe it when I see the document.” Finally, the TLM is not about pharisaicalism. I know a priest that told me, he celebrates the Mass of the missal that is on the alter. To scruple about such things is insane.

    I remember attending a Mass by a franciscan priest and he added the name of St. Francis to his confiteor. I did not assume this was wrong. I did not demand to see the permission of the Holy See for this practice. I gave the priest the benefit of the doubt.

    Finally, I find the attitude of the some on this list to be entirely too arrogant. They some how have taken authority upon themselves to pronounce on liturgical matters as if they were the Holy See. It is one thing to give your opinion about what the 1962 missal allows, and does not allow, but it is quite another to bind someone else who has a different opinion than you. It reminds of the priests that insisted the TLM was abrogated by Paul VI, and calling any priest who disagreed with them schismatics. Of course we now know who was right. But even if those people were wrong, they should have been given the benefit of the doubt until Rome issued a definitive ruling.

  79. “For the record.”

    I watched the 6 pm Friday rebroadcast. There were no deletions in the part of the canon after the consecration, no deletion of the Pater Noster and Agnus Dei which had been blacked out in the live morning telecast. It was the complete Mass as recorded start to finish on scene, without the external transmission problems that had occurred during the morning electrical storm. This is undoubtedly the way it will appear on the DVD.

    As I watched this Mass telecast throughout the world, I thought it one of the most glorious moments in the modern history of the Church, and indeed a magnificent affirmation of the beginning of its restoration. What better way (than simply sending cash) would there be to thank EWTN — and support their future telecasts of the TLM — than to purchase multiple copies of the DVD and offer them to interested priests and fellow Catholics?

    The Mass was celebrated as beautifully and precisely, with as complete attention to detail as any I have ever experienced. The FSSP are, of course, intimately familiar with all the issues raised by this blog’s armchair rubricists. They are devoted to proper and reverent celebration of the traditional liturgy to an extent that most Catholics, including many here, can scarcely comprehend.

    The carpers and whiners on this glorious day represent to me a disappointing vestige of an unfortunate past. In my humble (but firm) opinion, their dark comments would fit more properly at a certain traditionalist blog well-known for its negativity. Which particular blog, however, on this wonderful day was filled with uniformly sunny and positive comments, warm and enthusiastic (even ecstatic) in their praise for EWTN and this solemn high Mass, and oriented to the future rather than the past.

  80. Brian Day says:

    I have a technical question:
    During the Offeratory (and maybe during the Canon – can’t remember) the sub-deacon stood at the foot of the Alter with what I am guessing is a humeral veil and used it to shield his eyes. What was he actually wearing and what was the significance of that action?

  81. Stephen: “EWTN plans to occasionally air the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite …”

    I do not interpret this as meaning that EWTN will merely rebroadcast the 9/14/2007 solemn high Mass from time to time, though indeed I hope they will.

    Based on the fact that the FSSP is providing preparation to the (resident EWTN) Eternal Word friars to celebrate the TLM themselves (and my conjecture that at least one is essentially ready), I suspect that the TLM will be offered frequently at the Shrine in Hanceville, and that these Shrine Masses will be broadcast occasionally, while the normal daily Mass TV offering will remain largely the ordinary form Mass from the Irondale TV chapel.

    If I had any clout with EWTN, they would offer the ordinary form daily, the extraordinary form on Sundays and major feast days. Might not this be a reasonable hope for the eventual pattern?

  82. danphunter1 says:

    Brian Day,
    When the altar is incensed, the Subdeacon recieves, concealed under the veil, the paten.
    The symbolism of this revolves around the blindness of the Jews towards the Saviour, the subdeacon blinds himself by holding the veiled paten over his eyes. Our Saviour is present in the New Covenant.
    This role of the sub-deacon exhibts a marvelous beauty and elegance which is not seen in the Novus Ordo.
    God bless you

  83. John says:

    I too noticed the 2nd confiteor, and am glad people here are already talking about it so I don’t have to ask.

    Additionally, I didn’t notice the last gospel. Did I just completely miss it, or was it done away with in the 1962 missal?

  84. danphunter1 says:

    John,
    You just missed it.
    Rev. Bisig chanted it. It is still in the 1962 Missal.
    God bless you.

  85. Rafael Cresci says:

    Father,

    Did you notice that you were quoted by Fr. Trigilio (who seems to be your reader) on the EWTN Theology Roundtable? :)

  86. Rafael: I did not know that. When did that happen? I don’t often tune in EWTN when I am on the road. What was quoted.

  87. Vincenzo says:

    Fr. John Zuhlsdorf wrote: “Rafael: I did not know that. When did that happen? I don’t often tune in EWTN when I am on the road. What was quoted.”

    I think that it was originally broadcast a couple evenings ago. He mentioned your name along with your phrase “gravitational pull” twice I believe. It was rebroadcast today:

    http://www.ewtn.com/tv/index2.htm#tlm

    “EWTN THEOLOGY ROUNDTABLE: THE MOTU PROPRIO ON THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS (60:00) Encore
    EWTN Roundtable discussion on the recent Motu Proprio on the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass issued by Pope Benedict XVI.
    Sept. 15, 2:00 PM”

  88. Rose says:

    Before watching the EWTN Solemn Hight Mass I had expected to admire the form but dislike the language. It turned out the other way around- I thought the priest and deacons at the altar looked “conspiratorial” and the vestments were too elaborate, but the Latin and the Gregorian chant was glorious!!!! The sermon too was very good (except the overly adulatory parts about the Pope) and made me appreciate some things that I would not otherwise have; I appreciated the lack of applause- and silence during communion was wonderful. The second confiteor that has been commented on here-I actually loved that part of the Mass, how wonderfully appropriate that we should be mindful of our sins at that moment. To sum it up- this Mass has stayed with me, unlike the daily EWTN Masses (and I cannot bear to watch the Mass broadcast on Salt and Light-it hurts to think that other people are watching it and saying- this is the Catholic Mass? What banality) so I am going to try and attend the TLM regularly if I can find one in my diocese. Baby boomers (their RCIA course has 0 attendance-that tells you something) dominate in our parish so we will never have a stable group who wants the TLM- does this mean I have to look around for a personal parish?

  89. Father V. says:

    Someone asked the question earlier “Could the Extraordinary Form be celebrated in the vernacular?”

    I was under the impression that it was allowable. Is this right or wrong?

    God love you,
    Father V.

  90. Regina says:

    I watched the encore of the Mass on my computer and the picture was always there. I really enjoyed being able to replay the consecration with volume at max and here the Hoc est enim Corpus Meum… Hic est.

    I was wondering too if the venacular extraordinary is possible and if it’s the Latin that’s important or the words being used? Also I really miss receiving the Precious Blood from the Chalice.

    Regina of the Most Precious Blood of Jesus

  91. Fr Z:

    I consider it an honor and privilege to have been able to footnote you on the recent EWTN Roundtable Discussion on the Motu Proprio. Love your Blog.

    Specifically, I happily quoted your keen insight on the ‘gravitational pull’ of both the ordinary and the extraordinary forms of the one Roman Rite. I totally agree with you that there is a mutually beneficial co-existence and indeed a correspondence between the two forms insofar as the best of both will encourage the best in each other. Reverent, devout, and awe inspiring celebrations of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will be the by-product and aftermath of more valid and licit celebrations of both the extraordinary and the ordinary forms. When people see and hear the beauty and majesty of the ancient form (commonly known as the Tridentine Mass), they will want and expect the same from the Novus Ordo. In other words, fidelity to rubrics, attention to detail, and a commitment to REVERENTLY celebrating the Mass, whether in the ordinary or the extraordinary form, will mutually support and promote that in its corresponding form.

    Some may call it healthy competition whereas I would rather call it mutual and corresponding ‘liturgical symbiosis.’ As I also mentioned on EWTN, Pope Benedict XVI referred to Catholicism as the “religion of the great ‘et … et’ (both … and) rather than an exclusive notion of “aut … aut” (either … or).” Hence, we have BOTH Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition; BOTH Latin (Western) AND Byzantine (Eastern) traditions; BOTH extraordinary AND ordinary forms of the Roman Rite. These aspects make Catholicism better, stronger, and more beautiful. Just as we profess the value of BOTH faith AND good works, other religions use dichotomies and polemics which create factions that lead to schism.

    I as a secular (diocesan) priest not only appreciate and respect my brother priests who are ‘regular’ (religious, e.g., Dominicans, Franciscans, Benedictines, etc.), I also BENEFIT from their traditions and their witness of embracing the evagelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience. Their ‘community’ life is more than a part of their rule. It reminds me, even though I live alone in a rectory, of the importance of priestly fraternity, hence my association with the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy.

    I see the extraordinary form as a blessing for everyone in the Church and not just those attached to the old Mass. Likewise, when the ordinary form is done properly, done well and done reverently (as at EWTN), then it, too, can and ought to influence not just those attached to the Novus Ordo, but also everyone in the same Roman Rite.

    I would not mix forms since it is not allowed nor would it be beneficial. The Byzantine Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, e.g., is gorgeous and beautiful, reverent and very Catholic. When some American prelates forced them to be ‘Latinized’ in the previous century here in the USA, it caused great harm and damage. Now that they have returned to their authentic and legitimate traditions, they edify both East and West. Similarly, BOTH the extraordinary AND the ordinary forms of the Roman Rite can co-exist and encourage and promote reverent, licit and valid worship of the one True God.

  92. Rose wrote: “Before watching the EWTN Solemn Hight Mass I had expected to admire the form but dislike the language. It turned out the other way around- I thought the priest and deacons at the altar looked “conspiratorial” and the vestments were too elaborate…”

    Too elaborate?!!! I often encounter such comments from well-meaning Catholics who have not been regularly exposed to the ‘extraordinary form’ of the Mass. And, I have only one question for them: does God NOT deserve our best?

    BTW, how are you using ‘conspiratorial’ in this context? If you mean that they are conspiring to worship God, then that is a good thing! LOL.

  93. Scott Smith says:

    Fr. McAfee and all:

    Comment by fr.franklyn mcafee — 14 September 2007 @ 12:12 pm

    “Not only did they do a second confiteor they also did bows to the cross when chanting the collect and postcommunion-all of them abolished by the 62 missal.I have a copy of the motu proprio of John XXIII issuing the 62 missal in which he clearly states that any practice,custom,tradition etc even of immemorial custom which is contrary to the new rubrics are void and of no effect.The Fraternity cannot claim custom since they were founded in 1988 and even if they could the MP states it is of no effect.The priests of John Cantius do the same things,one need only view their learning video to see they ignore the 62 missal on these points.I wonder why they have not been corrected since the Holy Father as cardinal celebrated the mass with them quite a few times.I liked the second confiteor especially when it was chanted but the touble remains it was abolished by the 62 missal.”

    I believe that this understanding of the rubrics is in error. Let me begin with Bl. John XXIII’s motu proprio, Rubricarum instructum. It decrees that the General Decree of the S.R.C. dated March 23, 1955 De rubricis ad simpliciorem formam redigendis becomes obsolete on January 1, 1961, as the new rubrics include the changes from that document. The motu proprio also decrees that the General Rubrics of the Roman Breviary and Roman Missal according the norm of the Bull of St. Pius X, Divino afflatu, also becomes obsolete. The same motu proprio also decrees that all of the decisions of the S.R.C. that do not agree with the new rubrics are abrogated (2). In the next paragraph the motu proprio then says that all statutes, privileges, indults, and customs, even centenary and immemorial, even those deserving special and individual mention are revoked if they oppose the new rubrics.

    The new rubrics, specifically the Ritus Servandus in celebratione Missae, as found in my 1961 edition of the Roman Missal, indicate that the priest is to bow at the orations when he says: Oremus and at the Name of Jesus or Mary and the Saint or Blessed of the Mass of their commemoration and at the name of the Pope. But it does not give, as the former rubrics indicated, toward the crucifix for the Oremus and Jesus. And it omits any mention of the the confiteor before the Ecce Angus Dei, the “second confiteor”. The new rubrics do not abrogate the direction of the bow to the crucifix. The custom of bowing to the crucifix at the Oremus and at the name of Jesus during the oration is in no way opposed to the new rubrics, it is not against the rubrics but along side the rubrics interpreting them in line with ecclesiastical tradition. With the “second confiteor”, (I’ve been to a Solemn Mass with more than two such confiteor’s) there is a difference. In the General Rubrics of the Roman Missal, # 503 says that the celebrant proceeds immediately to the distribution of the holy Eucharist with the confession and absolution having been omitted and with the Ecce Agnus Dei and the Domine, non sum dignus having been said, the later having been said thrice. These rubrics only assume the omission of the “second confiteor” they do not decree its omission. Perhaps we need a much better latin scholar than myself to really get into this. Perhaps even a dubium sent to the Ecclesia Dei commission.

  94. Fr. Trigilio: Thanks so very much the kind note. It is important to help people eventually sluff off some of the less helpful positions about the older use of Mass (“Hurray! We win! You lose!”) and see with more depth what the Holy Father is trying to accomplish with moves like issuing Summorum Pontificum. We who are able must help make his vision concrete.

  95. Richard T says:

    The first poster said that “Immediately after the consecration and elevation of the Chalice things started going wrong.”

    Now, is this the satanic invention the television collapsing on being asked to broadcast the Real Presence of God, or is it God blocking the broadcast because He doesn’t want to be televised?

  96. Aussie Paul says:

    Fr Z wrote:

    “Regarding the second confiteor, I have read it as a written statement from an FSSP priest that the FSSP (and I’d presume the ICR, too) has explicit permission from the Holy See to use it in Solemn High Masses.
    I’ll believe that when I see the letter.”

    The FSSP priest with whom I checked stated with some firmness that, to his knowledge, no such permission exists!

    If, AND I SAY IF (since natural justice and charity demand certainty of evidence) there is no such permission then Fr Bisig has done a great disservice to the MP. Apart from providing fuel for its enemies, the additions have distracted many people (including on this blog) from the joy and blessing of this Holy Mass broadcast to millions around the world. It has become a grave scandal, one way or another.

    Two things, therefore, follow:

    We should refrain from commenting further about the matter until it is cleared up definitively.

    It is encumbent on Fr Z, as owner of this blog and who is ultimately responsible for the posts that have occurred including his own expressing doubts about Fr Bisig’s behaviour, to use his best endeavours to obtain a definitive answer in the first place from the FSSP Superior General, Fr Berg, respectfully requesting some evidence.

    Then I know Fr Z will want to ensure that the scandal is repaired on his blog as best as possible including any possible necessity to restore any reputations that have may suffered including the FSSP and/or Fr Bisig. Alternatively, he might indicate that he is prepared to publish any necessary apology forthcoming from the FSSP or particular persons.

  97. David M.O'Rourke says:

    Via “thenewliturgicalmovement blog one can gain access to the very detailed pictures of teh glorious Solemn High Mass at Bromption Oratory on Sept 14. Of course they are neither ICRP nor FSSP but there they can been seen with the deacon and subdeacon chanting the second Confiteor and the Celebrant (who is the Provost) saying the Misereator and Indugentiam. These are all respectable Religious Communities and I find it hard to believe they would all flagrantly break the rule especially in the case of the ICRP who more than once have had Cardianal Estevez as the celebrant.

  98. David M.O'Rourke says:

    Dan phunter’s explanation of the humeral veil is just plain wrong. The reason for the subdeacon’s wearing the veil over the paten is largely lost in the mists of time. Some have suggested he was holding a piece of the host from the previous day’s Mass. Others that he was holding a piece of the host from the bishop’s Mass which was sent to all the Presbyteral Masses. I believe it was the great Joseph Jungman in his Opus Magnum “Missarum Sollemnia” who maintained that it likely was something akin to the vimpas that mitre and crozier bearers wear out of respect for these items they are carrying and to avoid soiling them. The paten was always held in very great respect and so it should be.

    The reference to the blindeness of the Jews is one of many allegorical overlays e.g. the priest washes his hands to signify Pilate’s washing his hands or the book is moved to the gospel side of the altar to signify it’s being taken away from the Jews. All of these are mere allegories. the Church has never held these meanings. Some of them are seriously anti-semitic. They should be ignored, especially those which are anti-semitic.

    And speaking of sheesh coming from Jesus and Gosh coming from God, O dear comes from O Dieu which means O God. Guess we can’t say that any more either.

  99. patrick says:

    Thus I think it’s a good thing I watched the rerun instead of the original broadcast and so had no idea about the technical glitch until perusing through the blogs.

  100. dcs says:

    Father V. asks:
    Someone asked the question earlier “Could the Extraordinary Form be celebrated in the vernacular?”

    I was under the impression that it was allowable. Is this right or wrong?

    No, it is not allowable. What is allowable is to read the Epistle and Gospel (and the Lesson(s), if there are any) in the vernacular. But the Ordinary of the Mass and the other Propers (Introit, Collect, Gradual) must be in Latin.

    Aside from any rules regarding this, there is a practical consideration, too: there is no approved vernacular translation of the Missale Romanum 1962. What then would one use to celebrate the extraordinary form in the vernacular?

  101. danphunter1 says:

    David M.O’Rourke,
    I just got off the phone with an FSSP instructor-teacher priest at the Seminary in Denton Nebraska.
    He informed me that yes indeed the Subdeacon holding the veiled paten before his eyes does indeed symbolise the blindness of the Jews to Christ as the Messias.
    If you care to call the FSSP seminary in Denton Nebraska you can find their number on the internet.
    They can answer any other questions which you might have, regaurding the Solemn High Mass.
    God bless you.

  102. Stephen says:

    Re. Second Confiteor

    You know, you people are really something else. Since when and how could the second confiteor possibly be a source of scandal and a disservice to the MP. Either you have way too much time on your hands or you’re living in a fool’s paranoid. The rubrics did nothing but omit the second confiteor…where does it say it was abolished and couldn’t be used. In any case, in very many places after the new rubrics were introduced in 1961,the second confiteor was still used world wide. In the early nineties, this question was posed to the EDC and they responded that it could still be used where there was a custom to do so.I know because I was in a trad. seminary at the time and got it first hand. Cardinal Ratizinger( now Pope Benedict XVI) celebrated masses where it was done, gave the absolution and everything…he had no problem with it, other Cardinals as well. Even as recently as two days ago where the president of the EDC Card. Hoyos celebrated a mass in Loreto where…yes…you guessed it the second confiteor was used. You people really need to move on…

  103. Aussie Paul: About that whole 2nd Confiteor thing….

    First, relax a little. Unclench.

    We should refrain from commenting further about the matter until it is cleared up definitively.

    Nooo… I think I’ll talk about it just as much as I choose to. Others can too, here, as long as they are reasonable about the discussion. When and if a clarification comes, I’ll be happy either way.

    It is encumbent on Fr Z, as owner of this blog and who is ultimately responsible for the posts that have occurred including his own expressing doubts about Fr Bisig’s behaviour, to use his best endeavours to obtain a definitive answer in the first place from the FSSP Superior General, Fr Berg, respectfully requesting some evidence.

    Nooo… not really. I feel no pressure on this score at all. I am sure that the proper offices have already been consulted.

    Then I know Fr Z will want to ensure that the scandal is repaired on his blog as best as possible including any possible necessity to restore any reputations that have may suffered including the FSSP and/or Fr Bisig. Alternatively, he might indicate that he is prepared to publish any necessary apology forthcoming from the FSSP or particular persons.

    This is just silly. The Latin phrase fluctus in simpulo springs to mind.

    EVERYONE: I think that we ought to stick to the 1962 Missal. The 1962 Missal didn’t have the 2nd Confiteor. So there. If the Holy See says we can do it anyway… so be it. If someone says they have permission, I think they ought to demonstrate that so we can all relax.

    Also, I doubt very much that anyone will go to hell because of an illicit 2nd Confiteor. However, they might risk a little hell if they pick fights about it and start shooting accusations around.

    Again, I don’t think it ought to be done, but that’s just me. We will know soon enough. There are more important questions, though this one is still pretty interesting.

    Relax.

  104. Dan says:

    After watching the Mass on EWTN, I was struck at how it was more of a performance than a liturgy. The shots of the congregation certainly did no show “full and active” participation to me!

  105. David M.O'Rourke says:

    To danphunter 1: I responded to your announcement that the priest from Denton confirmned your view but it seems not to have gotten through so I will give a reply here.

    No! I certainly will not phone the seminary in Denton if they come out with that kind of nonsense. It makes me wonder if a little of the Lefevbrist background isn’t showing.

    I don’t mean to sound snotty but the liturgy has been a passion of mine for over fifty years. I read the works of scholars and I know my stuff. When I was in my late teens I served as first MC at Pontifical Mass at the Faldstool on Holy Thursday with the procession and the Stripping of the altars etc. And I did this on about FIVE MINUTES NOTICE when the appointed person failed to show up. I required no instruction.

    First let’s get the ceremony right. At the Offertory the priest offers the host on the paten but then the host is slid off the paten to rest on the corporal until the fraction. During this time when the paten is not in use it is held by the subdeacon in the veil which he put on to bring up the chalice and paten in the first place. At Masses where there is no deacon and subdeacon the priest places the paten half way under the right hand side of the corporal. But at Solemn Mass with the veil wrapped over the paten the subdeacon goes to the foot of the altar in the middle where he stands holding the paten to the level of his eyes until the Pater Noster. Whenever he kneels or is censed or walks he lowers the paten to his breast.

    Why does he adopt this posture? Frankly, no one knows. The practice is very ancient and the reason for it is lost in the mists of time. It looks like a posture of adoration. Did he once hold the piece of the host consecrated earlier at the bishop’s Mass which would be dropped into the chalice at the fraction? That is one hypothesis. But one thing we do know is that it wasn’t done to symbolise anything. The early Church was too pratical to get into symbolic ceremonies and, in fact, the Roman Liturgy has always been characterised by it’s practical nature. Any symbolic gestures tended to come in later from the Gallican Rites. In the Middle Ages pious folk began to attach allegorical meanings to parts of the Mass since they couldn’t understand the ceremonies themselves and in some books of the period the whole Mass acquired the overlay of a passion play upon which one could meditate while the priest said the Mass. However, the Church never adopted these allegories.

    The Middle Ages were very anti-Semitic and this sentiment was often included in the allegories but as I said, the Church never adopted these allegories. The idea that the subdeacon covers his eyes to symbolise the blindness of the Jews is an old chestnut. In fact, during the consecration and elevations the subdeacon lowers the paten to his breast so he can indeed gaze in adoration upon the host and chalice at the elevations. It is ridiculous to imagine that in the great drama of Christ’s sacrifice made present on our altars and His Body and Blood there for us to worship and receive that the Church would introduce something as petty as a ceremony to symbolise the blindness of the Jews.

    On an entirely separate note. Did you say that Fr. Bisig SANG the Last Gospel. Certainly not! Whether it be St. John’s prologue (as it usually is) or one of the displaced Gospels as in Lent, the Last Gospel is merely recited in a moderate to low voice.

  106. danphunter1 says:

    David M.O’Rourke,
    I suppose the FSSP teachers are your inferior when it comes to a teaching knowledge of the Classical Roman Rite Mass.
    If they are in error about the subdeacon then you SHOULD by all means call them at Denton and set them straight. We do not want to have priests thinking the wrong thing when it comes to the rubrics of holy mass. If they are wrong about this aspect then they might be wrong about other things.
    As far as the Last Gospel goes I was merely addressing the fact that yes, it was said.
    I apologise for mistakenly stating that it was chanted.
    God bless you and God bless the FSSP.

  107. William says:

    Dan-

    As one who was there, I will say that I participated fully and actively. I sang the Gloria, Credo, and Angus Dei. I quietly said the Confiteor, Domine non sum dignus, and Pater Noster. I responded aloud to every Dominus vobiscum and followed the rest in my missal. As is my usual practice, I read the propers, offertory, and canon in my missal as they were read by the priest.

    Almost all of the faithful in attendance seemed quite familiar with the extraordinary form and just because they seemed relatively motionless doesn’t mean that they weren’t following intently with their hearts and minds. As an example, I know one person who attended didn’t bring a missal and didn’t do much singing, which might lead one to think that he wasn’t “participating” or was disinterested. However since I happen to know that he serves as MC for solemn high masses, and knows most of the mass by heart, one would be wrong.

  108. Henry Edwards says:

    Dan: After watching the Mass on EWTN, I was struck at how it was more of a performance than a liturgy. The shots of the congregation certainly did no show “full and active” participation to me!

    Like you I was not there. However, I am curious to know how you were able guage, merely by viewing the congregation on TV, the extent of their “full and active participation”, an early 20th century liturgical reform phrase which at the time of Vatican II meant primarily interior participation, praying the Mass in union with the priest offering the Sacrifice at the altar. What is the secret to your remarkable perceptivity, even at a remote distance?

  109. Dan – I think that the problem is that we’ve come to see liturgy as an informal
    exercise. Modern people are put off by formality.

    Their has been an strong anti-“High Church” culture in modern
    Catholicism and as mentioned in another thread, we are used to the arid, dry
    Calvinism of most parish liturgies, and therefore see liturgy as primarily being
    a “head trip” and the more informal it is the better.

    However, historic liturgy has always been about ritual from the time
    of Abraham onwards. I’m sure modern people would even say that the Last Supper
    was more “performance” than liturgy if they could see it today.

    True liturgy is always expressed in precise ritual. Adherence to the ritual
    bespeaks love of God, and this is the God we worship. The modern deity
    is a New Age touchy-feely force that just wants us all to get along. Therefore
    liturgy does not need majestic pretence or solemnity….just a handshake
    and a “good morning Father” will do fine.

    I believe that postmodern people have completely lost a sense of
    ancient “decorum” and have to be re-Catechized by becoming re-familiarized
    with the ancient principles of liturgy. The very phrase in Greek means
    “work” of the people….work being the operative word. Papa Benedict
    has written extensively about how the liturgy comes from a specific
    ancient and apostolic “soil” ; it has to be understood from the
    perspective of the ancient mind to be fully grasped. When we uproot
    liturgy from history, and apply modern ideas to it, we deform it’s meaning.

    He says this too about sacred music too.

  110. David M.O'Rourke says:

    Hi danphunter 1 Rather than phone Denton I simply copied your comments from this thread and emailed them to the seminary asking them to clarify the matter both to me and to this blog. I am confifdent that they will. If they do not I will simply have to take your word for it that they do indeed teach this sort of nonsense and, I fear, there may well be repercussions not favourable to the traditionalist cause.

    God bless you too!

  111. danphunter1 says:

    David M.O’Rourke,
    There is nothing ant-semitic about stating the truth that the Jews are blind to the Incarnation.
    We should acknowledge this blindness and pray that the veil be lifted from their eyes.
    I know that if I where blind to God becoming Incarnate of the Holy Ghost I would want someone to set me straight.
    God Bless you.

  112. Legisperitus says:

    It was Fr. James Meagher’s opinion that the subdeacon’s posture with the veiled paten developed from one of the Jewish traditions for handling the Aphikomen, or hidden matzoh, during the Passover liturgy. He surmised that St. John might have done something resembling this at the Last Supper. (“How Christ Said the First Mass,” pp. 415-16.)

  113. JustDave says:

    I watched the EWTN Mass and expected to have a reaction just like Dan, however, I was totaly drawn into the Mass and thought it was one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen. I have never been to an older form of the Mass but I now know that I am going to have to find a way to go to one. I have very little hope that my Parish in SW Minnesota will offer it.

    As far as full participation goes, I was following along and I was not even there.

    Still learning,

    Dave

  114. David M.O'Rourke says:

    Anyone who reads the daily dispatches from Zenit, tthe news from Rome will be familiar with Father Edward McNamara’s comments on the Liturgy. While he normally comments on the Novus Ordo and while he is here talking about the altar cloths what he says about allegory is entirely germaine to the question of why the subdeacon holds the paten in the veil at Solemn Mass. This is from the Sept 18, dispatch:

    ROME, SEPT. 18, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

    Q: Could you clarify why three cloths are used on the altar? We have a discussion ongoing in our parish where there are two schools of thought: Either this has a symbolic reference to the Trinity or, alternatively, has a symbolism linked to the shroud cloths of Christ. — A.F., Sheffield, England

    A: The question of cloths on the altar is dealt with in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 304, which states:

    “Out of reverence for the celebration of the memorial of the Lord and for the banquet in which the Body and Blood of the Lord are offered on an altar where this memorial is celebrated, there should be at least one white cloth, its shape, size, and decoration in keeping with the altar’s design. When, in the dioceses of the United States of America, other cloths are used in addition to the altar cloth, then those cloths may be of other colors possessing Christian honorific or festive significance according to longstanding local usage, provided that the uppermost cloth covering the mensa (i.e., the altar cloth itself) is always white in color.”

    Therefore, only one white cloth is obligatory in the present rite unlike the extraordinary form of the Roman rite (the Missal of John XXIII) which specifies three cloths, one of which covers the entire altar table and hangs down the sides almost to the floor. The other two cover at least the table or the stone containing the sacred relic.

    The attribution of possible symbolic references for these cloths is not uniform and their history is often entangled. Sometimes in liturgy an object is first used for one reason, for example, covering a sacred object with a cloth as a sign of respect and care.

    This was a fairly common practice in the ancient world and is not exclusive to Christianity or even to the specifically religious sphere. It was sometimes applied to civil objects such as symbols of authority or formal copies of imperial decrees.

    During the Middle Ages many well-established liturgical customs were interpreted allegorically as bearing on some doctrinal aspect or representing some moment of the Redemption.

    In this way some authors interpreted objects such as the altar cloths as representing the Lord’s shroud, others as the Trinity. Finally, the allegorical interpretation was sometimes reinforced by being incorporated into the design and decoration of the object itself.

    The Church itself has usually refrained from granting official sanction to these allegorical interpretations. In some cases more than one interpretation might be legitimate and even useful for illustrating some particular doctrinal point. In other cases excessive use of allegory can even lead us to miss the main theological point, for example, in explaining the essentially sacrificial nature of the Mass.

  115. Scott says:

    Alright I have just read all 114 comments and I am quite surprised that nobody mentioned how full the Shrine was for this Solemn High Mass. Hanceville is not exactly a big metropolis and yet every pew in that beautiful Shrine was full on a Friday morning when most people are at work!! Glory be to God for the wonderful outpouring of faith by so many people!!! It was a beautiful High Mass and I hope EWTN broadcasts another High Mass in the not too distant future.

  116. Henry Edwards says:

    Scott: Alright I have just read all 114 comments and I am quite surprised that nobody mentioned how full the Shrine was for this Solemn High Mass.

    Indeed, after watching the telecasts, a rebroadcast, and a tape I still have the impression that about twice as many people received Holy Communion as were seated in the main church. Hence I assume that the crypt church below was also full — of people watching on TV monitors just like us at home, but who were able to come upstairs to receive communion.

    And, for those unfamiliar with it, to say merely that “Hanceville is not exactly a big metropolis” is an understatement. Perhaps I exaggerate its remoteness, but my recollection is that Hanceville is just the intersection of two county roads with a single traffic light and a couple of gas stations — unless it’s grown impressively in a few years since my last visit, or else I somehow got to the Shrine without even even noticing the city of Hanceville as I passed through it. And that it’s possible to drive 15 miles from the Shrine before seeing the first human being. Seriously, isn’t it 15 or 20 miles to the nearest motel?

    So, yes, the attendance was definitely impressive for a 7 am Mass. But I couldn’t help wondering how many bishops tuned in to see the crowd (if not the Mass itself), convinced as many say they are that hardly anyone is interested.