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

Fr. Kenneth Baker, SJ, editor of HPR has an article on Summorum Pontificum. 

My emphases and comments.

Summorum Pontificum and the Future of the Liturgy

by Father Kenneth Baker

We had to wait a long time for the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, to be promulgated, but it was worth it. The document is well thought out and gives some precise juridical norms for the use of the traditional Latin liturgy of the Church. Over the next ten years this new legislation will have a profound effect on the worship of the Catholic Church.

A Motu Proprio is a special type of papal document which is the publication of a new law for the Church. This phrase means "on my own initiative" or something similar. This means it comes directly from the Pope who is the Supreme Pontiff and Vicar of Jesus Christ. [Father is not simply being overly effusive.  It is important to remember from whom this document came.] It does not come from one of the Vatican Congregations run by a Cardinal. In this case the Motu Proprio is accompanied by a covering Letter explaining why the Pope is issuing the new legislation.

The first thing to note is that the letter is addressed to "My dear brother Bishops." The letter is not addressed to the whole Church; it is not the law of the Church. The law of the Church is contained in the Motu Proprio.

The Pope divides the letter into two parts, addressing two fears: the first is the fear expressed by the French and German Bishops—that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council. He rejects that outright: "this fear is unfounded." And he uses the same expression for the second fear: that the use of the Missal might lead to "disarray" and "divisions" among parish communities. That is also "unfounded."

He then introduces the two forms of the Roman rite, the ordinary and the extraordinary. He points out that it is not appropriate to speak of "two rites," but that it is rather a twofold use of one and the same Roman Rite—there is one rite, with two equal forms. As you will see, this has very profound implications.

The Pope emphasizes that the ancient rite was never abrogated. In 1970, we were made to think that it was gone, and that only retired priests who had obtained special permission to say the Mass in private could say the traditional Latin Mass. That was a misrepresentation of the law of the Church, but it was almost universally adopted by the Bishops and religious communities.

After making these points, the Pope goes into the deformations of recent years, and here he is very personal—he uses the first person singular. He says, "I am speaking from experience, since I, too, lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church." Here he is addressing the experience of all of us—the hootenanny Masses, the clown Masses—deformations which drove millions of people away from the Catholic Church.

Benedict next mentions Pope John Paul II, especially the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (1988). In this document John Paul was trying to solve this problem for the people who had been alienated because they preferred the old liturgy. He wanted to assist these people, and, in particular, he also wanted to achieve reconciliation with the Society of Saint Pius X. But the document is only in general terms. It [the MP "Ecclesia Dei adflicta"] contains no "precise juridical norms."

In 1988 Pope John Paul II asked the Bishops to be generous in granting permission for the old Mass. Many, perhaps most, Bishops were not "generous" in allowing the traditional Latin Mass, so in this new document the Pope says in effect, "I have to step in and solve the problem with new juridical norms," and he does that with this Motu Proprio: it is the new law of the Church.

With this document, Benedict is taking control of the traditional Latin Mass out of the hands of the Bishops and giving it to priests. [Exactly, this document is all about priests  This is what makes some bishops anxious.] He’s taking a giant step toward the Saint Pius X Society by granting their first demand that every priest be allowed to say the traditional Latin Mass. The "giant step" is that, in Article 2 of the Motu Proprio, Benedict says that every priest now has the right to say the traditional Latin Mass—he doesn’t have to ask the Pope, he doesn’t have to ask his Bishop.

Remember that the second fear he mentioned was that the Motu Proprio would cause "disarray" and even "divisions" within the various communities. The Pope points out that there is only a small number of Catholics who are interested in the traditional Latin Mass at the present time, and so it is not likely to cause such divisions. [This is a good point to consider.  If there is a small percentage now, that percentage will slowly grow.  And with the slow growth, there will be a chance for peaceful integration.] He point out that neither liturgical formation or knowledge of the Latin language is found very often among priests—and that is especially true here in the United States. So only a small percentage of the faithful—to begin with—are going to be interested in this. Frankly, the French and German Bishops should not be concerned about divisions in the Church over the Latin Mass, since eighty or ninety percent of the Catholics in these countries don’t go to church anyway.

How can our priest learn how to celebrate the Latin Mass correctly according to the rubrics? Here is where the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King come in, because they are in a position to train priests to celebrate the traditional Latin Mass. The Fraternity offered one week courses in June in the seminary in Denton, Nebraska, training diocesan priests who want to learn how to celebrate the traditional Mass. And they’ll offer more in the future.1

The Pope underscores the fact that "the two forms of the Latin Mass can be mutually enriching." But some traditionalists are concerned that endless tinkering might occur by the constant addition of new saints and new prefaces. Yes, Popes have done that in the past, but with all the changes that been wrought in the past 40 years, why bring that up? What we’re looking for here is stability—we want the liturgy that is fixed and permanent. We don’t want it changing every year.

With regard to the notion of the two forms as "mutually enriching," I think it’s likely that the proper celebration of the traditional Mass on a wider scale in many parishes will bring about a more sacred celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass. After all, in the traditional rite, the priest is facing the east, he makes about fifteen genuflections, he uses very particular liturgical language—and the Latin has the sacred character of mystery. [A point some people strenuously object to.] All religions have sacred language—for example, the Jews use Hebrew in the synagogue, even though it is not usually spoken. It brings home the message that there’s mystery here. We are dealing with the supreme majesty of God almighty, and that language of mystery brings it all home—we do not express it in the language of the street.

The Pope next states his basic reason for restoring the Latin mass: "I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the church." That’s essential to this whole thing—the Pope wants to bring back reconciliation and unity in the Church; he wants to bring back the Saint Pius X Society, and he wants to bring back the millions of Catholics who don’t go to church anymore.

In recent months there have been many reports of opposition from mostly liberal individuals in the Church. Since the Latin Mass affects only about 1% of Catholics, why are they so opposed? They’re afraid it’s going to grow. Once people see the traditional Latin Mass and contrast it with the Novus Ordo, they realize what’s been lost. The sense of the sacred, the mystery of the Mass, the Latin, the facing east, the Gregorian chants, altar boys, communion on the tongue, kneeling at the communion rail, all of those things.

I like the passage where the Pope assures the Bishops that the new legislation does not lessen the authority of the Bishop, after he has taken all of this away from the Bishop.  [That tells it the way it is, doesn’t it?] He says to the Bishops, "in conclusion, dear brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful." So the Bishop’s job is to oversee and implement the pastoral care of the faithful in the liturgy. And in the next paragraph, he repeats it—their "role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity." I love that, because what he’s saying is, you no longer have absolute control over the traditional Latin Mass, but you have to see to it that the priests who celebrate it are doing it right. [Which is precisely the point some of the more hostile bishops are using as the loophole to keep the older form of Mass locked up like the nutty old aunt in the attic.] That has been the role of Bishops for the last 400 years.

Now I propose to comment on the Motu Proprio itself. This new legislation solves a problem that has been causing division and heartbreak in the Church since the Novus Ordo was introduced in the 1970 by Pope Paul VI. The rapid, unprepared and unexplained imposition of the new rite was the occasion for the alienation of many Catholics who treasured the Catholic Latin liturgy.

Since 1970 groups of the faithful in many dioceses have asked the Bishop for a regular Latin Mass and have been denied. In 1984 and then again in 1988 Pope John Paul II tried to solve the problem and asked the Bishops to be "generous" in granting permission for the use of the 1962 Missal of Blessed John XXIII. Some Bishops did grant permission, but is was often restricted to once a month or in a remote part of the diocese that was difficult to reach. In San Diego it was relegated to a Mausoleum.

The new legislation restores the traditional Latin Mass to the status it had for 1500 years. It is now on the same level as the Novus Ordo liturgy.  [Is it?] Benedict XVI has decreed that there is one Latin Rite with two forms—Ordinary and Extraordinary. What many call the English Mass is now the Ordinary form of the Latin Rite, and the traditional Latin Mass is the Extraordinary form. Every priest can use either form and from now on does not need the Bishop’s permission.

The most important point in the new legislation is that any priest can use the 1962 Missal "on any day except in the Sacred Triduum (that is, Thursday, Friday and Saturday in Holy Week) (Article 2).2

In Article 5 the Pope says when a group of faithful request a Latin Mass from their pastor, he should "willingly accede to their requests for the celebration of the Holy Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962." If the pastor for any reason refuses, then the people should inform the diocesan Bishop of the fact. Then the Pope says to the Bishop in Article 7: "the Bishop is earnestly requested to grant their desire." This is a dramatic reform of how such things have been handled since 1970.

In the introductory paragraphs Benedict XVI refers to the Supreme Pontiff or the Roman Pontiff seven times. This is significant. He makes it very clear in the second paragraph that the liturgy of the church is determined by the Roman Pontiff and not by the local Bishops and their liturgical committees. [YAY!] He says therefore that the local church must be in conformity with the universal Church. In a certain sense after 1970, because of the many options and the power of the Bishops’ conferences, Pope Paul VI and John Paul II lost control of the liturgy. Now Pope Benedict is reminding the Bishops that only the Pope, the Supreme Pontiff, has the authority to determine the liturgical worship in the Catholic Church. This point is emphasized by the magisterial "We" and the strong language he uses when he says "We decree" (decernimus) and "We order to be firm and ratified" (servari iubemus). The responsibility of the Bishop is to see to it that the liturgy is performed according to the rules established by the Pope.

The same point is made in the covering letter when Benedict cites Vatican II’s document on the liturgy number 22: "Regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the Bishop."

Finally, to repeat the important point made above, the Pope says that what motivated him to issue the new Motu Proprio is to bring about "an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church." [On so many levels, too.] Thus, the purpose is to restore a sense of liturgical unity in the Church. By restoring the traditional Latin Liturgy of the Church to its rightful place, Benedict XVI, the Pope of Peace, hopes to promote peace and unity in the whole Catholic Church. For this we owe him our gratitude and our prayers.

Notes

   1. See the Special Report from the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter on a program for the training of priests who wish to learn how to celebrate the traditional Latin Mass, "Training Today’s Priests to Celebrate the Traditional Mass," Latin Mass magazine (Fall 2007), pp. 24-26). [Blog editor] [back]

   2. As Michael Foley points out in his article, "Motus Magnus: An Analysis of Summorum Pontificum," Latin Mass magazine (Fall 2007), p. 17, this is "a preasonable restriction, since this is the practice for all private Masses on those days (and note that it does not forbid public Tridentine services during the Triduum)."

Did you know that sometime during this night and before dawn of 23 October marks the anniversary of the creation of the universe?

Oh yes!

Sceptical?

So says the Irish Anglican primate of Ireland, Bishop James Ussher (+1654).

You can read more about this in Ussher’s Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti  ... Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world. 

For as much as our Christian epoch falls many ages after the
beginning of the world, and the number of years before that
backward is not only more troublesome, but (unless greater care be
taken) more lyable to errour; also it hath pleased our modern
chronologers, to adde to that generally received hypothesis (which
asserted the Julian years, with their three cycles by a certain
mathematical prolepsis, to have run down to the very beginning of
the world) an artificial epoch, framed out of three cycles
multiplied in themselves; for the Solar Cicle being multiplied by
the Lunar, or the number of 28 by 19, produces the great Paschal
Cycle of 532 years, and that again multiplied by fifteen, the
number of the indiction, there arises the period of 7980 years,
which was first (if I mistake not) observed by Robert Lotharing,
Bishop of Hereford, in our island of Britain, and 500 years after
by Joseph Scaliger fitted for chronological uses, and called by the
name of the Julian Period, because it conteined a cycle of so many
Julian years. Now if the series of the three minor cicles be from
this present year extended backward unto precedent times, the 4713
years before the beginning of our Christian account will be found
to be that year into which the first year of the indiction, the
first of the Lunar Cicle, and the first of the Solar will fall.
Having placed there fore the heads of this period in the kalends
of January in that proleptick year, the first of our Christian
vulgar account must be reckoned the 4714 of the Julian Period,
which, being divided by 15. 19. 28. will present us with the 4
Roman indiction, the 2 Lunar Cycle, and the 10 Solar, which are the
principal characters of that year.

We find moreover that the year of our fore-fathers, and the years
of the ancient Egyptians and Hebrews were of the same quantity with
the Julian, consisting of twelve equal moneths, every of them
conteining 30 days, (for it cannot be proved that the Hebrews did
use lunary moneths before the Babylonian Captivity) adjoying to
the end of the twelfth moneth, the addition of five dayes, and
every four year six. And I have observed by the continued
succession of these years, as they are delivered in holy writ, that
the end of the great Nebuchadnezars and the beginning of
Evilmerodachs (his sons) reign, fell out in the 3442 year of the
world, but by collation of Chaldean history and the astronomical
cannon, it fell out in the 186 year c Nabonasar, and, as by certain
connexion, it must follow in the 562 year before the Christian
account, and of the Julian Period, the 4152. and from thence I
gathered the creation of the world did fall out upon the 710 year of
the Julian Period, by placing its beginning in autumn: but for as
much as the first day of the world began with the evening of the
first day of the week, I have observed that the Sunday, which in
the year 710 aforesaid came nearest the Autumnal Æquinox, by
astronomical tables (notwithstanding the stay of the sun in the
dayes of Joshua, and the going back of it in the dayes c Ezekiah)
happened upon the 23 day of the Julian October; from thence
concluded that from the evening preceding that first day of the
Julian year, both the first day of the creation and the first
motion of time are to be deduced.

— J. Ussher, The Annals of the World iv (1658)

You’ve got to hand it to his guy.  He was mentally agile!  Imagine the time it took for him to sort through the references and come up with this stuff! 

There is a biting piece at Petrus you might want to read, in my translation.  The semi-anonymous author doesn’t hide his contempt for the former Master of Ceremonies, His Excellency Most Reverend Piero Marini, titular archbishop of Martirano.

The interesting thing in the article, after you filter out the sarcasm, is that there was a sort of mutiny in the Office of Pontifical Ceremonies, entered via the second loggia of the Apostolic Palace.

Piero Marini’s closest collaborators asked to return to the offices of the Curia they had originally been pulled from for their ceremony roles.  I don’t know if this was really a mutiny or not.  It might be, and maybe we can find a verification of this, that it is the custom in that office for everyone to resign so as to make way for a new regime.  I don’t know.

Maybe those guys just didn’t want to learn the older form of Holy Mass?

In any event, this is interesting stuff.

After Marini – No Deluge

by Father Gregorio 

CITTÀ DEL VATICANO - The chill that dominated the Office of Pontifical Liturgical Ceremonies  in these last days was palpable: Whoever was present at the meeting between Msgr. Piero Marini (transferred to head the Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses) and Msgr. Guido Marini, the new Master of Ceremonies, refers to a very short and formal handing off of the baton, also the not very clear appointments the predecessor used as a justification for his being in a hurry to leave the office.

On Thursday evening, for the inauguration of the exhibit on the Apocalypse, Msgr. Piero Marini (see the photo) appear extremely short-tempered and irritated, having finally reached the countdown for his departure. 

Msgr. Guido Marini, the successor of Piero, has never been mysterious about his own thought on liturgical quesitons.  He was ordained by Giuseppe Card. Siri, one of the last princes of the Church who, when pontificating in the Cathedral of San Lorenzo, habitually used the cappamagna, red shoes and golden fibbie, the cardinal’s cappello; he was one of the many priests of the Archdiocese of Genoa who loved Latin, Gregorian chant, ritual dignity; he was the Master of Ceremonies for Archbishops Tarcisio Bertone and Angelo Bagnasco, who are also very attentive to liturgical decorum. 

On the other hand, the homonymous Piero is known for his aversion to all that recalls, even vaguely, the ritual tradition of the papal court: he preferred to borrow tribal rituals from African cultures, offertory dances in front of the Pope, liturgies made up on a little table in the name of inculturation, over solemn romanità; and one can never forget his choreographic approach according to which liturgy is a show and, as such, can be created and adapted: an approach in obvious opposition to the older rite, defined contemptuously as "old liturgy", the fruit of "encrustations" and "accumulations of sediment".  In practice, he was the exact opposite of the thought of Benedict XVI. 

Perhaps for this reason, in his own panegyric sent at the beginning of October to the Roman Curia, Piero Marini – who wrote specifically to the cardinals and prelates to offer a final account of his own work as Master of Ceremonies for Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI - wanted to underscore the freedom he enjoyed under Karol Wojtyla, as if to lament that he hadn’t had a completely free hand with the reigning Pontiff. 

It is certain that the sudden return to the original offices where they came from on the part of Msgr. Piero Marini’s closest collaborators (who after his transfer to be head from the Eucharistic Congresses requested to be able to return to the offices in the Curia where they had come from, so as to say that they didn’t accept their new chief, namely Guido Marini) ought to stress the difference from his successor and represent a kind of quiet mutiny in the ranks of the Office of Liturgical Ceremonies of the Supreme Pontiff. 

That operation, however will certainly make the Msgr. Guido Marini’s installation easier, avoiding any acts of sabotage aimed at him.  But the message of the predecessor was very clear: "Après moi, le déluge… After me, the deluge". 

The Augustinians, who have the care of the papal sacristy, will have a big task in the next few days: after twenty years during which any sort of traditional vestment was forbidden, many rooms will be unlocked, the doors of many vestment cases opened wide.  And, since with Msgr. Piero Marini precious sacred vestments of the papal treasury were banished to give way to a panoply of questionable creations, one might suppose that in the coming weeks the former will be brought out into the light to make room for the latter.  And there won’t even be any need for mothballs: moths don’t like plastic.

This from Orbis Catholicus:

Summorum Pontificum: the Rome update…

Everybody has been asking for the liturgical update from Rome and so here’s the scoop: all is upbound!

The F.S.S.P. continue with their Rome chapel of San Gregorio dei Muratori. This chapel is the only location in all of Rome where one can attend a Solemn High Mass sung in the Tridentine rite every Sunday (http://www.fssp-roma.org/).

Meanwhile, there is now a daily Tridentine rite Mass celebrated each morning at eight o’clock at the Patriarchal Basilica of Saint Mary Major. The Mass is celebrated by a canon of the Basilica.

At the same time, in recent months, flashy new Tridentine rite missals have been printed in Italy for the use of the lay faithful. These are available in soft as well as hardcover in some of the shops along the Via della Conciliazione.

In addition, it can now be seen that some altars in Rome are again being dressed with altar cards, an indication that more private Masses are being celebrated in the Old Rite in public view.

Do I believe my eyes?

It looks as if the Libreria Editrice Vaticana is going to put out an edition of the 1962 Missale Romanum.

This would be a serious way for the Holy See to give concrete support to the implementation of Summorum Pontificum.  In sense, it would be a gesture that goes beyond benign tolerance of the older form of Mass into even positive support for its growth.

We are making up some lost ground.  I do mean "lost". 

I logged on this morning to find that well over 100 votes had been substracted by the people who run the site.  I don’t know why and no explanation has yet been offered. 

So…let’s keep WDTPRS in the running! 

Click the image and vote!

WDTPRS get’s pretty high traffic right now.  If more of you took a moment to vote, you could make a big difference.

Click and consider the field.