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

A very worked up person sent an e-mail which I share:

Yesterday, November 6, Christ the King Chapel at Franciscan University held its monthly Latin Novus Ordo Mass.  However, this particular Mass, celebrated by Fr. Conrad Harkins, OFM, was entirely in Latin, including the readings (which were not later read in English), the homily, and the announcements.  This is a slap in the face to the students and faculty attached the liturgical tradition of Latin in the liturgy.  How can this outrageous behavior be tolerated at a so-called orthodox university? 

 At the very least, Fr. Conrad owes the student body an apology for making a mockery of Latin and the Mass. 

My reaction is this.  I would like to have a transcription of that homily!

Folks, it is not illicit to say Mass in Latin.  The readings are part of Mass.  The readings can be in Latin, too.  Should they be?  Why not, if there is a group of people whose mother tongues are diverse.  People can follow in their booklets or on a sheet.  I rather like the idea that Latin be used in the newer form of Mass and not be relegated merely to the TLM.

The priest preaches in Latin.  Hmmm… if he is not requested to do so because there is a gathering of Latinists present (I have done that) he is either just showing off, which is vain, or imprudent.  Again, I think he would be opening himself to scrutiny about the quality of his Latin, along with the content of the sermon.

 

At last, I cannot fathom why this would be taken seriously as a "slap in the face".  If the priest was acting with ill will in doing so, his antics should simply be called silly and everyone should move on to more interesting things.  If the priest was just trying to get into the spirit of everyone’s growing interest in Latin, then he should be thanked, but asked kindly to preach in English from now on.

UPDATE 8 NOV 15:46 UTC

This came in via e-mail:

I was informed by a student present at the Mass who knows some Latin that the homily was not original, but was a text taken from St. Bonaventure.

As for the use of Latin, it was probably not the best idea to do so for the homily and the announcements, as this is not customary in this particular Latin Mass, and it is rather defeats the purpose of the homily and announcements if most of those present do not have enough fluency to understand them.  While there is certainly nothing wrong with saying everything in Latin, it strikes me as imprudent to do so without any notice, especially at the special monthly NO Latin Mass that previously this semester had already been used as a platform against the TLM on campus. 

At any TLM I have ever attended, the homily has always been in English, and the readings have been given in English at the start of the homily.  The major disservice of using Latin in the manner done is that it is almost certain to lead to misunderstanding.  For students not familiar with the TLM, I could see this as presenting a caricature of what such a Mass is like, while as your e-mailer demonstrates, it has rather inflamed passions on the part of its supporters who see this as a slap in the face. [So… is this the same writer as above?] There may be a perfectly good reason why the celebrant chose to celebrate in this way, but absent an explanation, assumptions are bound to be spreading like wildfire.  It’s a shame, since there was no need for this to happen.

Prayers are in order for the university, I have a sinking feeling things are going to get ugly before all is said and done in regards to the TLM.

Why can’t everyone just get along?

UPDATE 8 NOV 17:27 UTC

I got this via e-mail from the Public Relations office of FUS.  My emphases added:

Fr. Z,
Unless I clicked the wrong link, I think the comments are now closed on the recent postings about Fr. Conrad’s Mass earlier this week, but can you please add this to that thread?

Many Thanks,
Tom Sofio
Public Relations
Franciscan University of Steubenville
740-284-5893
tsofio@franciscan.edu


I deeply regret any pain that I have unwittingly caused those who love the Latin liturgy. I too love both the Liturgy and the Latin language, having celebrated the one and having taught the other at various times in my life. 

In a university setting, I thought that those who loved the Latin language would be pleased to hear the Scriptures and a sermon in the venerable tongue of the Latin Fathers, just as those who go to a Spanish Mass are pleased to hear the Scriptures and a sermon in that romance language.

When I read the Gospel in Latin and gave a short word of exhortation in Latin at Franciscan University several years ago, it seemed to please the congregation. 

For the record, the Latin Mass yesterday was not the Traditional Latin Mass, the subject of the recent motu proprio of the Holy Father, but the Novus Ordo Latin Mass. I celebrated the Mass devoutly and had no intention of using it in any way as a commentary on the Traditional Latin Mass. Since the Holy Father has expanded the use of the Traditional Latin Mass, I look forward to the opportunity to celebrate it as I did for the first years of my priesthood.

Fr. Conrad L. Harkins, O.F.M.
November 7, 2007

<supportLineBreakNewLine]—>There it is folks!  It was a misstep.

I have a few things to add as I start wrapping up my own interest in this story.

First, I think it is obligatory, in charity, to accept what Fr. Harkins said.  Take him at his word.  Sure it was not such a great idea to surprise people with even announcements in Latin.  However, do not forget that saying even the readings in Latin was within his right as a priest of Holy Church.  Maybe fewer surprises next time?

Second, I will repeat what I wrote above: I cannot fathom why what Fr. Harkin did would be taken seriously as a "slap in the face".   In my opinion the people who got their noses of out of alignment on this a) should have gone to ask Father what was going on, b) unclenched their backsides a little and c) should collectively write Father a note of thanks for being a priest and then take him out to supper.  Really.  Make peace.

Third, it is sad that this sort of thing gets out and around, but I am pleased that it was resolved amicably and with a gesture of humility on the part of Fr. Harkins.  I believe good Christian men and women will now take the next step and lay this to rest.

Fourth, I think these little tussles will in the long run be of benefit if, and only if, people behave like intelligent Catholic ladies and gentlemen. 

Fifth, I think the FSU staff should get their act together and have the older form of Mass also on campus.  For pity’s sake!  Just do it!

Finally, I applaud Fr. Harkins for the note he wrote.  He earned my respect for stepping up like this.

The Archbishop of Westminster, His Eminence Cormac Card. Murphy-O’Connor, has issued a statement on the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

Shall we have a look?

My emphases and comments.
 

Archbishop’s House,

Ambrosden Avenue,

Westminster, SW1P IQJ
2nd November 2007

Dear Father,

Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum

    As you know, new legislation for the whole Church concerning the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970 was issued by the Holy Father in July in the form of a Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum. The new legislation, which replaces all other legislation, came into force on September 14th.  Both the Motu Proprio and the Holy Father’s letter to the Bishops that accompanied it are now available in a booklet printed by the CTS.
    
    As the Bishop of the Diocese, I have the responsibility to care pastorally for all the faithful, to oversee their liturgical life, and to make sure that genuine pastoral needs are responded to. I have discussed the Motu Proprio with the Auxiliary Bishops and decided that it would be helpful at this time to give some direction in regard to this new legislation and how it applies to our Diocese.  [NB: This is not legislation for the Archdiocese of Westminster.]
    
    Following the Second Vatican Council, when the Liturgy of the Latin Church was extensively revised by the Council Fathers, the Bishops of England and Wales requested that Rome grant an Indult whereby the 1962 Rite of Mass could be celebrated in designated places with the permission of the Ordinary. [Yes, indeed.  But you see… Your Grace, times are quite different now.  Priests don’t need permission of the Ordinary any more.] The Indult was granted in 1971.  Here in Westminster there has always been a generous response [Do you suppose the people making requests always found a generous response?  I am sure we will hear from them about those days.] from successive Archbishops to requests from those who adhere to this earlier liturgical tradition for the celebration of the 1962 Rite.
    
    Provision is [I think he must mean "was"] made for a weekly celebration on Sundays in two parishes and for a monthly celebration in two further places. There is [I think he must mean "was"] also provision for weekday celebrations in a number of churches.  (I enclose a list of this provision which can also be found on page 132 of the Diocesan Year Book). In recent years, the sacrament of Confirmation has been celebrated annually according to the 1962 Rite by a Bishop of the Diocese.   
    
    The following, therefore, is a commentary [NB: This does not have the force of particular law.  It is a "commentary".] on the Motu Proprio
   
    Pope Benedict XVI’s primary purpose in issuing the Motu Proprio

   *         To restore unity within the Church – both to enable those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity and to offer those who have not yet accepted the liturgical reforms and teachings of the Second Vatican Council a way back to full communion with the Church.  [This is a horribly narrow and inaccurate way of reading the Holy Father’s provisions.  This does not take into account those who have no dificulty with unity but who merely desire the older form of Mass for the good of their souls.  From the onset, therefore, the writer seeks to frame the whole issue as a matter of people who are on the edge of unity with the Church.  And he seems to want you to think that that is the POPE’s view also.  It isn’t.]
    
    Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms
    
    *         There is only one Roman Rite which may be celebrated in two forms:  Ordinary Form – as found in the Missal of Pope Paul VI; Extraordinary Form – as found in the 1962 Missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII.
    
    *         It is clear from the letter of the Holy Father that the Extraordinary Form may only be celebrated in addition to the Ordinary Form and is not intended to replace it.    He writes … “the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form of the Eucharistic Liturgy”.

    And again … “in order to experience full communion, 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”.  [There is a huge gap between "exclude" and "totally exclude", of course.]
    
    Celebrants of the 1962 Missal

    *         The Holy Father states that priests using the Missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII “must be qualified to do so”.   [Since the document is in Latin, let’s be clear: the Holy Father says a priest should be idoneus.]
 
    The priest should have a knowledge of Latin and be able to read and understand the Latin text (including the rubrics).  [I am not sure that the provisions of Summorum Pontificum actually require that the priest understand everything in the Latin texts.  Frankly, many priests today using the Novus Ordo in the vernacular would be hard pressed to say what the texts really mean.  So, we cannot fix a certain level of comprehension of the Latin, just as we can’t say how deep a priest’s level of understanding of the English must be.  However, no one will disagree that the priest should understand the texts he reads.] The use of the 1962 Missal “presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation.”
    
    The assessment of qualification rightly belongs to the Bishop [I am not so sure.  By "right" in keeping with law, I suppose a bishop decides if a priest is idoneus to say any Mass at all.  If he is wicked or simply thick or sadly incoherent, the priest shouldn’t say Mass.  However, now we get to the real problem: Why for some many decades were bishops approving for ordination men who don’t know Latin?  And now they think to crack down on men who want to say Mass in the language of their Rite?  This would be an unjust imposition of a double-standard.] so it would be important [NOTA BENE: this is a "commentary" and the word here is "important".  One could disagree.] to approach either me or the Auxiliary Bishop with pastoral responsibility in your Deanery before making any decision to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of Mass. This will also help me to be kept fully informed as to what is happening in the Diocese.  [It is entirely reasonable that the bishop should know what is going on.]
    
    Masses celebrated ‘without the people’.
    
    *         Any Catholic priest of the Latin Rite may celebrate Mass “without the people” using either the Ordinary or the Extraordinary Rite on any day of the year except during the Easter Triduum  (Article 2).  [However, if a bishop established a parish for the exclusive use of this older form, the older form of the Triduum would be used there, since there would be no possibility of concurrence with the Novus Ordo.]
    
    It is not envisaged that such Masses, in either form, are advertised. [I love phrases like this.  They remind me of what I call the "episcopal subjunctive".  I get the image of very important fellow, with a very important voice, declaiming: "There shall be no illicit envisaging here.  Any envisaging to be done, will be done by the bishop!]

    People may be admitted if they ask “of their own free will” (Article 4 ).  [Otherwise, they are to be dragged kicking and screaming into the church?]

     
    ‘Stable Groups’ within a Parish
    
    *         The Holy Father expresses a concern for those parishes “where there is a stable group [There is that bad translation again.  And yet the writer envisages that the bishop will access the Latin qualifications of the priest.] of the faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition” (Article 5 (i)).
    
    It should be noted that the Holy Father is concerned about those who form part of a group that already exists within a particular parish.Clarification of the meaning of the term “stable group”, (including numbers), is being sought from Rome. [Okay… it is to be noted, or rather, please note, that in one breath the commentor says this applies to already existing groups.  In the next breath he says that they really don’t know