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

There was a good article about Latin some time ago in L’Osservatore Romano by Fr. Uwe Michael Lang, an Oratorian working in Rome.  

This deserves some attention.  Another translation was offered elsewhere, but there are ways in which it could have been improved.  Here is a version by an Italian friend whose English is very good.  Since I am leaving for Rome in a couple hours, I haven’t been able to double-check it thoroughly.  However, the fellow who did it is pretty reliable.

(Translation by F.)

Uwe Michael Lang traces the historical evolution
of the liturgical language in the Roman rite

Latin
tie of unity between peoples and cultures

Uwe Michael Lang

The cultural and political unity of the Mediterranean world was a providential factor in the diffusion of the Christian faith. In particular, the diffusion of the Greek language in the urban centers of the Roman Empire favored the proclamation of the Gospel. The Greek spoken in the East and West was not the classic idiom, but rather the simplified Koiné, the common language of the various nations of the eastern part of the Mediterranean word: Greece, Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt.

Greek Koiné was also the language of the urban proletariat of the West that had immigrated from the eastern territories of the Empire. Rome had become a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural city. There also lived a sizable Hebrew population, that seems to have spoken mainly Greek. The language of the first Christian community in Rome was Greek. This is made evident by Paul’s Letter to the Romans and by the first Christian literary works that saw the light in Rome, for example the First Letter of Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas and the writings of Justin.

In the first two centuries several popes with Greek names followed one another and the Christian burial inscriptions were composed in Greek. During this period, Greek was also the common language of the Roman liturgy. The shift to Latin did not begin in Rome, but in North Africa, where the majority of converts to Christianity were natives of Latin mother language rather than Greek speaking immigrants. Around the middle of the third century this transition was much advanced: members of the Roman clergy wrote to Cyprian of Carthage in Latin; Latin was also the language in which Novatian compose his De Trinitate and other works, citing an existing Latin version of the Bible. No reference is made here to the so-called Traditio Apostolica, attributed to Hippolytus of Rome, because of the uncertainty about its date, its origin, and its true author.

It would seem that in the second half of the third century the flow of immigration from the East to Rome had diminished. Such demographic change brought about  an increasing importance of Latin speaking natives in the life of the Church of Rome. Nevertheless, Greek continued to be used in the Roman liturgy, at least at a certain level, up to the second half of the 4th century; this is inferred from by a Greek citation of the Eucharistic Prayer by the Latin author Marius Victorinus, dating back to 360.

Around this period, however, the transition to Latin was in a very advanced phase; this is made most evident by an otherwise unknown author who wrote between 374 and 382, who maintains that the Eucharistic prayer at Rome referred to Melchizedek as summus sacerdos – a title that sounds familiar to us from the latter Canon of the Mass.

The most important resource for the history of the first Latin liturgy is Ambrose of Milan. In his De sacramentis, a series of catechesis for the newly baptized held around 390, he quotes the Eucharistic prayer used at that time in Milan extensively. The passages he quotes are the most ancient form of the prayers Quam oblationem, Qui pridie, Unde et memores, Supra quae, and Supplices te rogamus of the Roman Canon. Elsewhere in De sacramentis, Ambrose underlines his desire to follow the use of the Roman church in everything; for this reason, we can assume with certainty that this Eucharistic prayer was of Roman origin. There are traces that attest to the geographic diffusion of this original form of the Roman Canon also in the sermon of Zeno, bishop of Verona from 362 to 372.

The literal formulation of the prayers cited by Ambrose is not always identical to the Canon that Gregory the Great promulgated at the end of the 6th century and came to us with few modifications of little importance with respect to the most ancient liturgical books, especially the old Gelasian Sacramentary, dating back to the middle of the 8th century, but considered an echo of a more ancient liturgical use. At any rate, the differences between the two texts are by far less than their similarities, given that the almost three hundred years between them were a period of intense liturgical development.

The passage from Greek to Latin in the Roman liturgy took place gradually and was completed under the pontificate of Damasus I (366-384). From that point the liturgy in Rome was celebrated in Latin, with the exception of a few reminiscences of the more ancient use, as the Kyrie eleison in the Ordo and the readings in Greek in the papal Masses. According to Octavus of Milevi, who wrote around 360, there were more than forty churches in Rome prior to the edict of Constantine. If this information is correct, it would be reasonable to surmise that there were  Latin-speaking communites in the 3rd century, if not earlier, that celebrated the liturgy in Latin, in particular the reading of Sacred Scripture.

The Psalms were sung in Latin since the origins and the ancient version used in the liturgy had  acquired such an aura of sacredness that Jerome corrected it only with great caution. Then he translated the Psalter from Hebrew not for liturgical use, as he said, but to provide a text for scholars and debate. Christine Mohrmann suggests that the baptismal liturgy had been translated into Latin since the 2nd century. There can be no certainty on this point, but it is clear that there was a period of transition and that it was long.

Mohrmann introduces an useful distinction between 1) "prayer texts", where language was above all a means of expression, 2) texts, "destined to be read, the Epistle and the Gospel", and 3) "confessional texts", as the Creed. In the “prayer texts” we find forms of expression; in the others,  primarily, forms of communication. Recent research on language and rite, such as the work of Catherine Bell, confirms Mohrmann’s intuition that the language has different functions in different parts of the liturgy, that go beyond mere communication or information. These theoretical reflections help us understand the development of the first Roman liturgy: those parts in which the elements of communication were prevalent, as the reading of Scripture, were translated first, while the Eucharistic prayer continued to be recited in Greek for a much longer period.

"Sociolinguistics" – a relatively new academic discipline – warns us of the fact that the choice of one language over another is never a neutral or transparent question. As a consequence it is important to consider the change from Greek to Latin in Roman liturgy in its historical, social and cultural contexts. The historians of antiquity have indicated that the formation of the liturgical Latin language was part of a wide-ranging effort of Christianization of Roman culture and civilization.

In the second half of the 4th century the most influential bishops in Italy, above all Damasus in  Rome and Ambrose in Milan, were committed to Christianizing the dominant culture of their time. In the city of Rome there was a strong pagan presence and especially the aristocracy continued to adhere to the old customs, even though nominally they had become Christians. Rome was no longer the center of political power, but its culture continued to have roots in the mentality of its elites.

The 4th century is now considered a period of literary reinassance, with a renewed interest in the "classics" of Roman poetry and prose. The emperors of the 4th century cultivated this Latinitas, and there was a rediscovery of Latin also in the East. With typical tenacity, Rome maintained its ancient traditions.

In relation to that, the popes of the late 4th century promoted a conscious and comprehensive project of appropriation of the symbols of the Roman civilization on behalf of the Christian faith. Part of this attempt was the appropriation of public space by means of demanding building projects. After the emperors of the dynasty of Constantine had opened the way with the monumental basilicas of the Lateran and Saint Peter, as well as with the basilicas of the cemeteries outside the city walls, the popes continued this building plan that transformed Rome into a city dominated by churches.

The most prestigious project was the construction of a new basilica dedicated to Saint Paul on the Via Ostiense, by replacing the small Constantinian building with a new church similar in dimensions to Saint Peter. Another important aspect was the appropriation of the public time with a cycle of Christian feasts along the course of the year in place of the pagan celebrations (see the Philocalian calendar of the year 354). The formation of the Latin liturgy was part of this comprehensive effort to evangelize the classical culture.

Christine Mohrmann recognizes in this the fortuitous blending of a renewal of  language, inspired by the novelty of revelation, and of a stylistic traditionalism strongly rooted in the Roman world. Liturgical Latin has the Roman gravitas and avoids the exuberance of the style of prayer of the Christians East, which is found also in the Gallican tradition. This was not an adoption of the "vernacular" language in liturgy, since the Latin of the Roman Canon, of the collects and of prefaces of the Mass, were removed from the idiom of the common people. It was a heavily stylized language that the average Christian of late antiquity in Rome would have understood with difficulty, especially considering that the level of education was very low compared to our times.  Moreover, the development of the Christian Latinitas could have rendered liturgy more accessible to the people of Milan or Rome, but not necessarily to those whose mother tongue was Gothic, Celtic, Iberian or Punic.

It is possible to imagine a western Church with local languages in its liturgy, as in the East where, beside Greek, also Syrian, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian and Ethiopian were used. At any rate, the situation in the West was fundamentally different; the unifying force of papacy was such that Latin became the only liturgical language. This was an important factor favoring ecclesiastic, cultural and political cohesion.

Liturgical Latin was a sacred language separated from the language of the people from the beginning; yet the distance became greater with the development of the national cultures and languages in Europe, not to mention mission territories. "The first opposition to the Latin language," Christine Mohrmann wrote, "coincided with the end of Medieval Latin as a ‘second living language’, that was replaced by a truly ‘dead’ language, the Latin of the humanists. And the opposition to liturgical Latin in our days has something to do with weakening of the study of Latin – and with the tendency toward ‘secularism’ ("The Ever-Recurring Problem of Language in the Church", in Études sur le latin des chrétiens, IV, Rome, 1977).

The Second Vatican Council wished to resolve the question by extending the use of the vernacular in the liturgy, especially in the readings (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, art. 36, n. 2). At the same time, it stressed that "the use of the Latin language … is to be preserved in the Latin rite" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, art. 36, n. 1; cfr also art. 54). The Fathers of the Council did not imagine that the sacred language of the western Church would be replaced by the vernacular.

The linguistic fragmentation of Catholic worship in the post-conciliar period has been pushed so far that the majority of the faithful today can hardly recite a Pater noster together with others, as can be noted in the international gatherings in Rome or Lourdes. In an age marked by great mobility and globalization, a common liturgical language could serve as a tie of unity between peoples and cultures, beside the fact that liturgical Latin is an unique spiritual treasure that has nourished the life of the Church for many centuries. Finally, it is necessary to preserve the sacred character of the liturgical language in the vernacular translation, as stressed by the instruction of the Holy See  Liturgiam authenticam of 2001 .

 

On the blog Rinascimento Sacro, there is an update about the three priests in the Diocese of Novara, in N. Italy, who have run into a conflict with their Bishop, H.E. Most Rev. Renato Corti over the use of the older form of Mass according to Summorum Pontificum.

Three priests have decided they will not celebrate Mass on Sunday because they cannot say the TLM.   Only the TLM.

Summorum Pontificum says that one Sunday Mass in a parish can be TLM.  Effectively, these priests don’t want to use the Novus Ordo at all in their parishes.

People are staying away from the churches in protest over how the priests are being treated.  In one place, Vogogna, where the patronal feast was to be celebrated, there was no Mass for the first time in 500 years.  Another priest was sent out, but found only three women in church.  After giving the priest a piece of their mind, they left.

As amusing, and alarming, as that is, the really interesting point is in this quote from the article:

"The bishop," Fr. Secci continued, "told us that we are right concerning the fundamental issues.  Acting on his advice we contacted Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, who told us that the bishops could grant us a three year experimental period, backing up his words with the concept that we weren’t in the letter of the Motu Proprio, but in its mens ("its ‘spirit’, ‘internal logic’).  And so I’ll cite Msgr. Perl’s words that the three year experimental period could be granted because ‘law follows life, and not vice versa.’"

Frankly, I find the suggestion of Msgr. Perl to be excellent. 

It will be interesting to see what happens to these priests.  They just might get suspended for real. 

But then the question is going to be this: "If a priest wants to say Mass but with only the old book, can he be suspended?"  Given the fact that many priests have never followed the rubrics of the Novus Ordo, and have not been suspended, would that be just?

Do the words of Msgr. Perl say something about the forthcoming clarifications the Commission must publish?  Probably.

We shall see.

 

Damien Thompson posted about writing to Rome about how some prelates are seeking to stonewall Summorum Pontificum. It deserves some attention.  If this applies to the UK, it applies elsewhere!  Read his piece and, if you think it is proper to write… and be prudent about that… check back here for my tips on how to write to the Commission.

Write to Rome in support of the Pope

Posted by Damian Thompson on 28 Nov 2007  at 14:49

I’ve just written a letter to the senior Vatican cardinal in charge of the Pope’s liberation of the Latin Mass, complaining about the English bishops’ disastrous attempts to block the reform. I urge you all to do the same – there isn’t any time to lose.

Here are good tips for writing to the P.C. "Ecclesia Dei" (or any other office of the Vatican) and an address:

 

 

• BE BRIEF. Make your letter no longer than one side of one sheet of paper.
• Avoid writing long-hand.  Make it easy to read.
• Include relevant documents: Vatican dicasteries can’t act solely on the basis of Mrs. Joe Bagofdonuts’s description of events.  The best thing you can do is send concrete evidence, printed.  If someone wrote and distributed something, send a copy.
  
• If you have relevent past correspondence, such as previous responses from priests or bishops, send copies.
• Do not tell them their job!  Don’t quote canons, blah blah, as if they didn’t know them already.  Leave the incredibly obvious unsaid.
  
• Do not engage in character assassination.  State FACTS with as little editorializing as possible.  Blathering on and on about how "disobedient" priests or bishops are will not strengthen your case.  State facts. They will know if they are disobedient.
• If you must talk about your feelings, keep it incredibly short, and do not be mean-spirited. If something made you sad or angry, okay, say it, but don’t DWELL on it.  The nastier you are, the weaker your letter will be.
• At the end thank the one you are writing to for his service, and promise your prayers.  And mean it.
  

In summary, be brief, send evidence, leave out the obvious, don’t vent.

His Eminence
Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos
President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei"
Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio
00120 VATICAN CITY

If you want to know why I think these are good tips, I worked at the P.C. "Ecclesia Dei" for some time. 

This is personal experience.

I got an e-mail.  I ask those who live in Minnesota to pay attention to this.

This is about a meeting:

12:45 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 29, at the Chapel of St. Thomas Aquinas. Students, faculty and staff are invited to attend.

Dear Fr. Z,

I wanted to make you aware that the University of St. Thomas will again be renovating its main campus chapel.  Unfortunately, it is NOT in a more traditional direction. 

They are having a campus discussion TOMORROW (Thursday 29 November) with the liturgical "designers" (one of whom collaborated on the dreadful "Art and Environment in Catholic Worship") about the proposed renovations.  Essentially, the chapel will become more of a performance space than a "worship" space.  (There is an increasing desire to have orchestras, choirs, and recitals in the chapel). 

See here:

http://www.stthomas.edu/bulletin/news/200748/Wednesday/chapel11_28_07.cfm

I think it would be helpful to notify your many Minnesota readers, especially UST alumni, about the proposed changes, and encourage them to show up and (non-belligerently) ask pointed questions about whether the new "designs" make celebration of the extraordinary form of the Mass possible, or hinder that celebration.  And ask why, as the Church returns more and more toward traditional liturgical architecture, the chapel moves away. 

The "designers" also designed the School of Law’s ugly Chapel of St. Thomas More. 

Thanks and God bless,

Do you remember that recently the Board of UST got rid of the Archbishop of St. Paul?  Here is that entry.  Do you remember what the University assigned for obligatory reading for all freshmen?  Read that here.

On the other hand.

Does this inspire confidence that the chapel work will be well-done?

The recent article in America Magazine has sparked some very good discussion.  After parsing that article, I started a spin-off, about the "lonliness" the priest/writer felt at saying the Roman Canon during his first celebration of the traditional form of Holy Mass, with the 1962 Missale Romanum. 

That entry brought some comments by priests.  Here are a few excerpts I found revealing:

Father J wrote:

My celebration of the Novus Ordo is now tempered and has been considerably enhanced by what I feel when celebrating the TLM and the “continuity” of the Rite’s seem to make more sense, though I feel I am supplementing from the old when celebrating the new. I know it is wrong to say it, but the Mass feels like The Mass in the extraordinary form and “extraordinary” seems a very fitting way to describe this awe inspiring rite.

 

Note here that learning the older form of Mass has changed the way this priest says the Novus Ordo.

This is a major reason why Pope Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum, folks.  He knew that as the use of the older Mass would spread, those priests would rethink the way they said Mass.  They would therefore also rethink who they are.

The priest (above) also says that the older form of Mass is now, for him, the truly "extraordinary" Mass in the sense of being "special" or "superior".  The rite inspires "awe", which is really the purpose of liturgy, isn’t it?  Mystery … awe at trascendence.

Fr Francis Coveney wrote:

 

Just as it is a real challenge for priests trained since Vatican II to learn how to celebrate the TLM, so too it must have been difficult in different ways for priests formed before Vatican II to celebrate Mass facing the people. I have often heard it said that most priests are basically introverts rather than extroverts – and yet each time we celebrate Mass (certainly on a Sunday)were are on public display. I wonder if this is not a factor in the number of priests who at some time suffer nervous breakdowns.

 

This is a good insight.  This is something that would have been difficult for me to grasp before I began to spend more time in quite isolation at The Sabine Farm.  I was an actor and musician before going into seminary.  I was never nervous in front of people.  Some priests however, very much are introverts.  Overcoming that introversion must be very hard.  It might drive a fellow to do all sort of peculiar things during Mass. 

Fr. John Boyle said:

It is thanks to laity that I now celebrate the Extraordinary Form on a regular basis for those faithful who adhere to it. It has transformed my priesthood and my celebration of the Mass. ... Like others, when celebrating the Novus Ordo facing the people, I do so with a crucifix upstanding on the altar. I am now less conscious of any need to ‘interact’ with the faithful, I choose options less frequently and now adopt the Confiteor and Roman Canon as the default options for the celebration of Mass on all days. All subjectivism is removed. ... In the fixed older usage, such clerical domination is impossible.

Again, a priest changes how he says the Novus Ordo.  Also, note that one cannot be so "clerical" in the negative sense, because the priest is controlled so closely by the older rubrics.  That drifts over into the way he says the newer Mass.

Note that the lay people are the reason why he uses the old Mass.  If you act like jerks when approaching your priest about this, you might fail.  Remember that.

The great Fr. Finigan wrote:

This gets across something of the burden of responsibility upon the priest at this sacred moment of the Mass. Facing eastward, on his own, with the intense concentration of the people behind him, not in front of him, speaking sotto voce, he experiences the most sacred moment of his priesthood that day.

Might I use this opportunity to remind people that priest need to prepare to say Mass before Mass?  They also might want to remain a little recollected afterwards?  Don’t jump on Father immediately before or after Mass. Give him a little space. 

There are more comments from priests along those lines.  These are merely few.  It is worth going back and reading that entry.

Here is a list of the new members of the USCCB’s "Committe on Divine Worship" (note the name change of the Committee.)

H.E. Most Rev. Donald W. Trautman is not long the Chair.

H.E. Most Rev. Arthur J. Serratelli, about whom we have written fairly frequently on WDTPRS, is now Chairman.

I am sure we will remember them in our prayers as they begin their terms and work.

USCCB Committee on Divine Worship

Justin F. Cardinal Rigali Archbishop of Philadelphia Most Rev. Daniel M. Buechlein, OSB Archbishop of Indianapolis Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, OFM Cap. Archbishop of Denver Most Rev. George H. Niederauer Archbishop of San Francisco	Most Rev. Kevin J. Farrell Bishop of Dallas Most Rev. Ronald P. Herzog Bishop of Alexandria in Louisiana Most Rev. Octavio Cisneros Auxiliary Bishop of Brooklyn [Final Member To Be Determined]
Subcommittee on Liturgy for Hispanics
Most Rev. Octavio Cisneros Auxiliary Bishop of Brooklyn Subcommittee Chairman [Members To Be Determined]
Consultants to the Committee on Divine Worship
Roger M. Cardinal Mahony Archbishop of Los Angeles	Most Rev. John G. Vlazny Archbishop of Portland in Oregon

 

I admit I know next to nothing about this movie about to come out.  However, what I have read leads me to believe that this is a film to avoid.

I admit I don’t have many problems with the Harry Potter books and movies.  They are relatively harmless. 

It sounds as if this Golden Compass thing is openly and purposely anti-Catholic.

The Catholic League had a statement worth reading:

 

The Catholic League is calling for a boycott of "The Golden Compass"; the movie opens December 7. It is based on the first book of a trilogy titled, His Dark Materials.

The author of this children’s fantasy is Philip Pullman, a noted English atheist. It is his objective to bash Catholicism and promote atheism. To kids. "The Golden Compass" is a film version of the book by that name, and it is being toned down so that Catholics, as well as Protestants, are not enraged.

The second book of the trilogy, The Subtle Knife, is more overt in its hatred of Catholicism than the first book, and the third entry, The Amber Spyglass, is even more blatant. Because "The Golden Compass" is based on the least offensive of the three books, and because it is being further watered down for the big screen, some might wonder why a boycott is warranted.

The Catholic League wants Christians to boycott this movie precisely because it knows that the film is bait for the books: unsuspecting parents who take their children to see the movie may be impelled to buy the three books as a Christmas present. [This seems to be a real and serious issue.] And no parent who wants to bring their children up in the faith will want any part of these books.

We are launching a major educational campaign designed to alert the public to Pullman’s game plan. To that end, we have prepared a booklet, "The Golden Compass: Agenda Unmasked." It contains snippets of what reviewers have said about the film and the books, as well as revealing comments made by Pullman himself; it also contains a synopsis of the trilogy. In short, the booklet is not what we are saying about Pullman’s work—it is what he and others have said about it.

Pullman represents the new face of atheism: it is aggressive, dogmatic and unrelenting. It is also fueled by hate—by a crusading hatred of all religions, but most especially of ours. His side is counting on our side to lie down and die. He may have experienced little resistance in England, but it’s a different story here.

The reason we are starting our protest early is because it takes time to get the word out, and besides, the media love it when we give them something to chew on. The booklet is being mailed to thousands of influential persons, including film critics and Christian leaders.

While Roman Catholicism is the evil force in Pullman’s writings, his real goal is to put a positive face on atheism, getting children to buy his message. Thus, we expect more than Catholics will join our protest.

 

Strong words, even from Catholic League.

I am sorry that New Line got into this. 

Ironically I saw some propaganda for this new film, immediately after an airing of The Nativity Story.  The phrase that caught my attention when I was doing the dishes had to do with the birth of a child who would change the universe. 

Perhaps you folks can assemble some good links and discuss some issues to help people as little informed about this author and his books get up to speed.

 

BTW… Pullman thinks that if you have the temerity to criticize his books or call them for what they obviously are, you are a nitwit.  No… really.

I received a note from a reader about an upcoming workshop on sacred music:

 

Friday January 18 – Saturday January 19 JOIN US for a fun, educational, 2-day workshop on singing and learning about Sacred Music that will leave you inspired and spiritually uplifted: January 18 19, 2008 at St. Mary’s Cathedral at the foot of Pikes Peak in Colorado Springs. This Practicum on Gregorian Chant and Choral Polyphony provides a valuable introduction, as well as continued education and information, for all who are active and interested in the sacred music of the Catholic Church. Hosted by the Diocese of Colorado Springs and under the direction of Dr. Horst Buchholz and Scott Turkington, the workshop will feature: Singing sessions in sacred choral music and polyphony by Palestrina, Victoria, Byrd, and others Instruction in singing chant and reading Gregorian notation Singing sessions on the essential Latin chants every Catholic should know Dinner on Friday night and lunch on Saturday Sheet music as part of registration Lectures dealing with pertinent topics related to sacred music in the liturgy Fellowship with other musicians in the region SPECIAL GIFTS: 2 books (Introduction to Gregorian Chant & Basic Chant Collection for practical use) The workshop culminates with a closing mass on Saturday at 4:00 pm at St. Mary’s Cathedral, the Most Rev. Michael Sheridan presiding.

Dr. Horst Buchholz Dr. Horst Buchholz is Director of Sacred Music and Principal Organist at Denver’s Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, as well as Music Director of the Denver Philharmonic Orchestra.  He also serves as Professor of Church Music at the St. John Vianney Seminary, and oversees the organ program at the University of Denver. He is the VicePresident of the Church Music Association of America. Dr. Buchholz holds two terminal degrees, one in Church Music from the University of Arts (HdK) in Berlin, and one in Conducting from Indiana University in Bloomington.  Horst Buchholz has been active as an organist, conductor, and lecturer in the United States, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and throughout Europe.

Scott Turkington Scott Turkington is an internationally acclaimed expert and presenter on Gregorian Chant and Choral Polyphony. He has more than 20 years experience in instructing singers of all abilities. He is on the Board of Directors of the Church Music Association of America, and an Advisory Board Member of the St. Gregory Institute for Music and Liturgy. A native of Minneapolis, Mr. Turkington is organist and choirmaster of St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church in Stamford, CT. Before assuming his position in 1998, he was assistant organist and conductor at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D. C.  He received his education at the University of Minnesota, the Boston Conservatory of Music and the Catholic University of America.

There is an alarming story going around in Italy, which CWN picked up.

Italian bishop suspends priests for insisting on Latin Mass

Rome, Nov. 26, 2007 (CWNews.com) – Bishop Renato Corti of Novara, Itay, has suspended 3 priests who refused to celebrate Mass on Sunday, according to the newspaper La Stampa.

Fathers Alberto Secci, Stefano Coggiola and Marco Pizzocchi refused to celebrate Sunday Masses after Bishop Corti said that they could not exclusively celebrate the traditional Latin Mass.

In Father Alberto Secci’s parish, parishioners insisted that they would only attend a traditional Latin Mass celebrated by Father Secci. Six hundred people signed a petition in support of their parish priest.

Father Stefano Coggiola’s parishioners were reportedly divided over their pastor’s decision. While one group supported the priest’s decision, another complained that their children did not like the Mass celebrated in Latin.

So, teach the little darlings.

Also, the Italian article in La Stampa says that the parish priest really "suspended himself", by which I suppose we are to understand that they on strike. The Bishop of Novara did not suspend the priests, it seems. The title of the article is "Lo sciopero della Messa... The Mass Strike".   A statement of the priests was pretty strong: "Quella in latino è la messa nella quale è stato battezzato ed è diventato prete anche il nostro vescovo. Non siamo parroci juke-box che oggi dicono una messa in italiano e un’altra in latino … The Mass in Latin is the Mass in which I wa baptized and even our bishop became a priest.  We are pastor juke-boxes who today say a Mass in Italian and another in Latin."  According to La Stampa the bishop is trying to avoid escalating the situation.

In any event, the Bp. of Novara made a statement in the daily of the CEI (Italian Bishops Conference), Avvenire.  In the article, Bp. Corti takes the nearly inevitable Party Line about the older Mass ("I’m in charge around here", being one element of The Party Line).

However, toward the end of the Avvenire piece, His Excellency says something I found interesting (in my translation):

The second motive is that the Motu Proprio should foster "a internal reconciliation in the heart of the Church".  It is clear that this hope expressed by the Pope requires, especially from priests, to fulfill those steps which have as their deep logic the internal unity of the parish itself, in welcoming the whole people of God entrusted to them; and next unity with the presbyterate and with the whole diocese, and in particular with the bishop.

 

Think about this.  The emphasis placed on unity with the bishop (cf. Vatican II and the vinculum between priest and bishop) is what I find interesting.  Some will argue that the Council stressed a rather new way of seeing the bishops, that is, as a kind of super-priest and pretty pope of his own local Church.  Just as a Pope can speak for the whole Church, some think that the bishop can speak for the whole diocese.  And since "unity" has been stressed so deeply in the comment above, especially unity with the bishop, must one conclude that if the bishop doesn’t prefer or celebrate the older Mass, then the priests should not prefer or celebrate the older Mass?  And if the priest does, in fact, prefer the older Mass, is he out of unity with the bishop?  Taking this another step, the priest should be in "unity" with the whole presbyterate.  That is a nice idea, but I have seen presbyterates torn into so many bitter factions that it is hard to see how there could even be a local Church.  But if some priest prefer or celebrate the older form of Mass, but the majority do not?  Are those priests simply to deny themselves what is their right for the sake of unity?

Is that truly "unity"?

Here is the Italian, which I don’t have time to translate.

 

Messa in latino, Corti: «Il criterio sia l’unità»

la riflessione

L’intervento del vescovo di Novara sull’attuazione del Motu proprio

In riferimento a voci che si susseguono nei giornali in ordine all’attuazione del Motu proprio sulla liturgia «Summorum Pontificum», pubblichiamo il testo che il vescovo di Novara, monsignor Renato Corti, ha indirizzato ai suoi sacerdoti e che porta il significativo titolo «La concorde unità della celebrazione liturgica»: ci pare prezioso in ordine alla formulazione di un giudizio su vicende oggi all’interesse della stampa.

A proposito del recente Motu proprio mi sembra opportuno ricordare anzitutto quanto viene detto da Benedetto XVI nell’Esortazione apostolica Sacramentum caritatis (22 febbraio 2007): «In relazione alla corretta ars celebrandi un compito imprescindibile spetta a coloro che hanno ricevuto il sacramento dell’ordine: vescovi, sacerdoti e diaconi, ciascuno secondo il proprio grado, devono considerare la celebrazione come loro principale dovere ».

A proposito del vescovo diocesano si afferma che egli «è la guida, il promotore e il custode di tutta la vita liturgica». Si aggiunge che «la comunione con il vescovo è la condizione perché ogni celebrazione sul territorio sia legittima». Perciò si conclude che «a lui spetta salvaguardare la concorde unità delle celebrazioni nella sua diocesi».

Pertanto dovrà «fare in modo che i presbiteri, i diaconi e i fedeli comprendano sempre più il senso autentico dei riti e dei testi liturgici e così siano condotti ad un’attiva e fruttuosa celebrazione dell’Eucaristia’» (n. 39).

Ho già commentato questo testo del Papa nell’omelia della Messa crismale del Giovedì Santo. Sono in dovere di applicarlo nel modo più pieno possibile e di chiedere ai sacerdoti di offrire il proprio contributo alla «concorde unità della celebrazione» eucaristica in diocesi.
Con riferimento specifico al Motu proprio del 7 luglio scorso sono stati resi noti interventi ufficiali, da parte della nostra diocesi, con una mia lettera e una nota del provicario generale. Tali interventi, pubblicati sul settimanale diocesano in data 14 luglio e sulla Rivista diocesana novarese (settembre 2007), erano rivolti ai sacerdoti e a tutti i fedeli come orientamento autorevole circa l’attuazione del documento.

Onde favorire una conoscenza diretta del pensiero del Santo Padre, ricordo di nuovo alcuni passaggi del Motu proprio.

Si legge che «il Messale Romano promulgato da Paolo VI è l’espressione ordinaria della ‘lex orandi’ della Chiesa cattolica di rito latino. Tuttavia il Messale Romano promulgato da san Pio V e nuovamente edito dal beato Giovanni XXIII deve venir considerato come espressione straordinaria della stessa ‘lex orandi’ e deve essere tenuto in debito onore per il suo uso venerabile e antico. Queste due espressioni della ‘lex orandi’ della Chiesa non porteranno in alcun modo a una divisione nella ‘lex credendi’ della Chiesa; sono infatti due usi dell’unico rito romano. Perciò è lecito celebrare il sacrificio della Messa secondo l’edizione tipica del Messale Romano promulgato dal beato Giovanni XXIII nel 1962 e mai abrogato, come forma straordinaria della liturgia della Chiesa» (art. 1). Il Papa aggiunge: «Nelle parrocchie, in cui esiste stabilmente un gruppo di fedeli aderenti alla precedente tradizione liturgica, il parroco accolga volentieri le loro richieste per la celebrazione della santa Messa secondo il rito del Messale Romano edito nel 1962. Provveda a che il bene di questi fedeli si armonizzi con la cura pastorale ordinaria della parrocchia, sotto la guida del vescovo a norma del canone 392, evitando la discordia e favorendo l’unità di tutta la Chiesa». E ancora: «La celebrazione secondo il Messale del beato Giovanni XXIII può aver luogo nei giorni feriali; nelle domeniche e nelle festività si può avere anche una celebrazione del genere ( una etiam celebratio huiusmodi fieri potest) » (Art. 5, § 1-2).

Nella lettera che accompagna il Motu proprio Benedetto XVI afferma che «ovviamente per vivere la piena comunione, anche i sacerdoti delle comunità aderenti all’uso antico non possono in linea di principio, escludere la celebrazione secondo i libri nuovi. Non sarebbe infatti coerente con il riconoscimento del valore e della santità del nuovo rito l’esclusione totale dello stesso».

Come si vede, il Motu proprio può essere messo in atto «nelle parrocchie nelle quali esiste stabilmente un gruppo di fedeli aderenti alla precedente tradizione liturgica». Qualora esistano tali condizioni, nelle domeniche e nelle feste è obbligatorio celebrare le sante Messe in piena conformità al Messale di Paolo VI indicato come «forma ordinaria».

Rimane possibile celebrare una santa Messa (una sola) nella «forma straordinaria», e cioè quella del Messale di Giovanni XXIII.

Tale celebrazione, destinata al «coetus fidelium» che l’ha chiesta, non deve sostituire le Messe nella «forma ordinaria», destinate all’intera comunità parrocchiale. Da parte dei parroci va dunque garantita la «forma ordinaria» della celebrazione eucaristica, soprattutto nei giorni di festa e nelle domeniche.

Voglio concludere dando evidenza a due intenzioni che hanno condotto il Papa a scrivere il Motu proprio. La prima è che la riforma liturgica venga compresa e praticata in tutta la sua ricchezza. In tal modo «nella celebrazione della Messa secondo il Messale di Paolo VI potrà manifestarsi, in maniera più forte di quanto non lo è spesso finora, quella sacralità che attrae molti all’antico uso. La garanzia più sicura che il Messale di Paolo VI possa unire le comunità parrocchiali e venga da loro amato consiste nel celebrare con grande riverenza in conformità alle prescrizioni; ciò rende visibile la ricchezza spirituale e la profondità teologica di questo Messale».
La seconda intenzione è che il Motu proprio favorisca «una riconciliazione interna nel seno della Chiesa». È evidente che questa speranza espressa dal Papa chiede, in particolare ai sacerdoti, di compiere dei passi che abbiano come logica profonda l’unità interna alla parrocchia stessa, nell’accoglienza di tutto il popolo di Dio loro affidato; e poi l’unità con il presbiterio e con la diocesi intera, e in particolare con il vescovo. Tenendo conto di questo suggerimento del Papa si eviteranno incertezze e sofferenze nelle nostre comunità. Si favorirà inoltre che, nel prossimo futuro, grande sia la premura nei confronti della celebrazione liturgica in tutte le nostre comunità, così da valorizzare le ricchezze che i santi riti contengono. Prego Dio perché questo spirito di unità venga chiaramente testimoniato.

Renato Corti, vescovo di Novara 

 

The Jesuit ultra-leftist weekly America Magazine had an article by a self-described liberal-minded priest who made a decision to celebrate the traditional form of Mass when a group asked fo it.

I posted the whole article and made comments here.

There are some very good comments in this article what deserve discussion.

I will preface this with a point I have made fairly often.  When younger priests who never knew the older form of Mass begin to learn it, it will change their perceptions about what Mass is and who they are as priests.  Older priests will have much the same experience when they reaqcuaint themselves, especially after decades of having had only the newer forms of liturgy.  This must be a motive for Summorum Pontificum.

An excerpt from their latest number with my emphases.

Having decided to offer the Tridentine Mass, I began the arduous project of recovering—and reinforcing—my Latin grammar and vocabulary so that I could celebrate the liturgy in a prayerful, intelligible way.  As I studied the Latin texts and intricate rituals  I had never noticed as a boy, I discovered that the old rite’s priestly spirituality and theology were exactly the opposite of what I had expected. Whereas I had looked for the “high priest/king of the parish” spirituality, I found instead a spirituality of “unworthy instrument for the sake of the people.” 

The old Missal’s rubrical micromanagement made me feel like a mere machine, devoid of personality; but, I wondered, is that really so bad? I actually felt liberated from a persistent need to perform, to engage, to be forever a friendly celebrant. When I saw a photo of the old Latin Mass in our local newspaper, I suddenly recognized the rite’s ingenious ability to shrink the priest. Shot from the choir loft, I was a mere speck of green, dwarfed by the high altar. The focal point was not the priest but the gathering of the people. And isn’t that a valid image of the church, the people of God?  

The act of praying the Roman Canon slowly and in low voice accented my own smallness and mere instrumentality more than anything else. Plodding through the first 50 or so words of the Canon, I felt intense loneliness. As I moved along, however, I also heard the absolute silence behind me, 450 people of all ages praying, all bound mysteriously to the words I uttered and to the ritual actions I haltingly and clumsily performed. Following the consecration, I fell into a paradoxical experience of intense solitude as I gazed at the Sacrament and an inexplicable feeling of solidarity with the multitude behind me.

Let me toss a couple ideas onto the table.

First, many opponents of the older Mass claim that its spirituality is contrary to, or at least out of keeping with, the spirituality of Vatican II.

Second, in Holy Mass (and elsewhere), because of the sacrament of Holy Orders, the priest is alter Christus.  When he says Mass, he is both acting in the person of Christ (in persona Christi) as Priest and Victim. 

Third, sacramental reality is not less real than tangible reality we perceive with our senses.  The sacred mysteries of Holy Mass make present the very events they portray: the Last Supper, the Sacrifice of Calvary.  By our baptism we participate in these sacred mysteries.

Fourth, one of the most important elements of a proper ars celebrandi described by His Holiness in Sacramentum caritatis is that the priest must be "transparent" (my word).  It is an abuse to impose your personality unduly on the liturgy.   By staying out of the way of the true Actor in Mass, Christ the High Priest, the priest is a greater bearer of the person of Christ in a special way in the liturgy.  That is an act of charity: sacrificial love, sacrifice of self for the good of others.  That is service.

One of the things that I was very struck by was the writer’s comment that during the Canon (which makes Calvary present) the priest felt loneliness.

I would like to open this to some discussion.  However, I will try to direct it.  Please follow my lead if I cut off tangents or try to get more thoughts on some point that has been raised. 

If I delete comments that are leading down rabbit holes, don’t freak out.  If people take the discussion in directions I have ask that we avoid, and I delete comments, don’t freak out.

I especially invite comments by priests.  As a matter of fact, if we can get priests talking together about this, I will then ask lay people not to comment, but to read carefully.

I got this e-mail about the situation of the TLM in Steubenville.

My emphases:

Fr. Z,

I wanted to share some good news here in the diocese of Steubenville.  Yesterday, St. Peter’s Church offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on its magnificent high altar for the first time in nearly 40 years.  What a joy to receive Holy Communion at an altar rail that for over a decade simply gathered dust.  The mass was celebrated with dignity and reverence, and the chants were executed beautifully.  And best of all, the church was packed—standing room only (and most Franciscan students were still on Thanksgiving break).

One could tell that everyone was a bit rusty, both the celebrant (silent Gospel but audible Canon) and parishioners (a bit of confusion on when to stand or sit or kneel).  However, I heard not a word of complaint.  I saw some people in tears.  One lady who had never read the prayers of the Traditional Latin Mass mentioned that she was awestruck by the beauty of the prayers.  The good monsignor was lavished with praise after mass.  Methinks that the parishioners will be requesting this a little more often that once a month.

In Corde Iesu,

I love success stories!

Give this one your creative shot!  o{]:¬)

The Jesuit ultra-leftist weekly America Magazine has two items right now on Pope Benedict’s provisions in Summorum Pontificum.

Here are a couple pieces, the first dreadful, and the second… well… I’ll let you discover that for yourself. 

From their latest number with my emphases and comments.

No News…

When Pope Benedict allowed wider use of the Latin Mass [Take note of their careful use of terms.] last July, he explained that he did not expect as a result any extensive return to the Tridentine rite. [Is that what the Pope said?] Rather, he said, he intended to heal rifts with traditionalist groups and allow [I think tha