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 what the Holy Father meant and they are asking for a clarification.  Just to be clear: the Motu Proprio says absolutely nothing about the necessity that a group be previously existing.  As a matter of fact, as I am sure the writer/commentor knows because of his study of Latin, that existere in its first, or primary meaning exsisto means, generally, "to step out or forth, to come forth, emerge, appear", and in greater precision, "with the accessory notion of originating, to spring, proceed, arise, become".  Read that way, the provisions of the Motu Proprio apply to what the priest ought to do even when a new group forms, now or in the future.  Exsistit indicates its existence now, its continued existence in the future, and its new existence in the future.]
    
    *         If such a group of parishioners exists [now or in the future] in a particular parish then the Parish Priest should willingly accept their request and arrange for a Mass to be celebrated according to the 1962 Missal by himself if he is qualified and happy to do so, or by another suitably qualified priest.  This must always been done ‘”under the guidance of the Bishop”.  [How does the writer get this from the provision that says the priest does not need permission of the local bishop?]
    
    *         The Motu Proprio refers to an existing group in a parish.  [About which a clarification is being sought because the writer doesn’t have a clear understanding of what that article meant.  Right?] It is not envisaged that such a celebration of the Extraordinary Form of Mass gathers people from other parts of the Diocese or even beyond it or that a parish priest tries to form such a group in his parish. [It is only envisaged for the chief evisager envisages."  Aside, from that, if people can attend Mass privately of "their own free will", people cannot attend Mass of their own free will if they don’t belong to the parish?  This should have very interesting consequences for the whole Archdiocese of Westminster.  Unless, of course, a double-standard is really being applied.]
    
    *         Such celebrations are already adequately provided for in the Diocese, [People, who have rights, may disagree with the writer’s commentary on this point.] although it will be important to keep the provision under review to see that it meets the pastoral need. If there were a need for a further Sunday celebration in another area of the Diocese I would be very willing to consider it.  [AGAIN…   Summorum Pontificum says that the parish priest decides this and doesn’t need the local bishop’s permission.]
    
    *         Celebrations according to the Blessed John XXIII Missal may take place on ferial days.  On Sundays and Feast days only one such celebration may take place (Art. 5 (ii)).
    
    *         The people of the parish should be informed prior to any celebration taking place.  [Well… yah!]
    
    *         Where there is a request for a regular celebration, the Bishop or the Auxiliary Bishop must be consulted.  [Noooo….. the parish priest decides this.  Summorum Pontificum does not say that there must be any permission.  At the same time, consultation need not be a negative thing.  Unless of course this is an exercise in intimidation.] Under the guidance of the Bishop, there is a need to ensure that the welfare of the group harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish and that any discord is avoided (Article 5 (i)). 
     
    *         It should be remembered that the canonical limitation of bination remains in place.  [This is entirely risible.  If the laws about bination (a priest saying Mass twice in a day) are enforced only for the older form of Mass, I should think a general revolution would be in order.  This is completely absurd.  Priests regularly says Mass more than once a day, especially on Sundays.  Bination has never been at issue before.  Of course, this would mean that whenever a priest has said Mass in his parish, he could not, say, concelebrate at a funeral or other occasion, such as a meeting of priests with the bishop, the Chrism Mass, etc.  Again, the ugly face of double-standard lurches into view.]
    
    Sacraments of Baptism, Penance, Marriage and Anointing
    
    *         The Motu Proprio gives Parish Priests permission to use the earlier rituals for the above Sacraments. Their use falls under the same requirements as the celebration of Mass using the Missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII. The Bishop or Auxiliary Bishop should be informed.  [Bishops are to be informed if the older Rite is used to baptize a baby?  Okay… perhaps every priest of the diocese should put in a call to the bishops every time they baptize or marry or bury or bless a Rosary with any book in any language!  Apparently it is really important for the bishop to know that Father has baptisms today!]
    
    There is some uncertainty regarding the civil form of marriage in the Extraordinary Form of the Rite, but there will be further information when this has been clarified.  [I can’t fathom why this would be a civil problem.  I think the came up in another entry….]
    
    Please note that Sacramental Celebrations that are not listed in the Motu Proprio are not permitted. [?]
    
    The Divine Office
    
    *         Priests  who wish to use the Breviarium Romanum promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1960 may do so ‘privately’ (i.e. without the people).  [Can you imagine the horrors the people would be put through should they hear two extra psalms and the hymn in a DIFFERENT PLACE??]
    
    Its use falls under the same requirements of qualification as with the celebration of the Extraordinary Form of Mass.  [Again, I envisage a phone call to the chancery everytime the priest is going to say his office: "Your Lordship… I am about to say Vespers with the newer breviary." CLICK.  "Your Grace, I am about to start Terce."  CLICK.  Unless, of course, there is a double standard at work.]

     Other Matters
    
    *         Slight revisions will be made to the Missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII. [Oh really?  By what oracle is this known for sure?] The Pope notes that the new Prefaces and the new Saints should [?] be inserted into the Blessed Pope John XXIII Missal. The Calendar for this Missal will shortly be published in the Liturgy section on the Bishops’ Conference website (www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/).  [This will be a real service.]
    
    *       When public Masses in the Extraordinary Form are celebrated in the Diocese, the readings of the Mass may be proclaimed in the vernacular using the permitted texts of liturgical use in this country which, at present, are taken from the Jerusalem Bible or the Revised Standard versions.
    
    Concluding Comments
    
    The Holy Father’s hope is that the “two forms of usage can be mutually enriching”. [Watch this great non sequitur.]  He notes that “the most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in it being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and theological depth of this Missal.”
    
    The Pope asks the Bishops to be magnanimous to those who adhere to the Extraordinary Form.  At the same time, His Holiness asks those adherents to the Extraordinary Form to be equally magnanimous in recognising the value and holiness of the Ordinary Form.

    Pope Benedict intends to consider these provisions again in three years time, [This makes it sound as if Summorum Pontificum an experiment.  It isn’t.] having first sought the Bishops’ experiences of this new legislation in their own Dioceses.  We will, of course, be monitoring what is happening in our Diocese over this same period so that we can respond fully to the Holy Father.
    
    I hope these notes will be helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact me or one of the Auxiliary Bishops if we can be of any further help.

With gratitude for all that you do and an assurance of my prayers,


Yours devotedly,

    +Cormac

    Archbishop of Westminster

Does this whole thing seem to you to have been cribbed from Bishop Roche’s dreadful document for the Diocese of Leeds?  They are remarkbly similar in some respects and language.

The thing to pick up here is that unnecessary restrictions on the rights of people and priests are being suggested (remember, he says this is only a commentary.  It does not have the force of law).  I will share at this time a comment in an interview by His Excellency Archbishop Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship:

"You know there have been, on the part of some dioceses, even interpretative documents which inexplicably aim at putting limits on the Pope’s Motu Proprio. Behind these actions there are hidden, on one hand, prejudices of an ideological kind and, on the other hand, pride, one of the gravest sins. I repeat: I call on everyone to obey the Pope. If the Holy father decided he had to issue the Motu Proprio, he had his reasons which I share entirely."  

And what he said in a talk on 6 October:

“The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum on the Latin Liturgy of July 7^th 2007 is the fruit of a deep reflection by our Pope on the mission of the Church. It is not up to us, who wear ecclesiastical purple and red, to draw this into question, to be disobedient and make the motu proprio void by our own little, tittle rules. Even not if they were made by a bishops conference. Even bishops do not have this right. What the Holy Fathers says, has to be obeyed in the Church. If we do not follow this principle, we will allow ourselves to be used as instruments of the devil, and nobody else. This will lead to discord in the Church, and slows down her mission. We do not have the time to waste on this. Else we behave like Emperor Nero, fiddling on his violin while Rome was burning. The churches are emptying, there are no vocations, the seminaries are empty. Priests become older and older, and young priests are scarce.”   

This just in by e-mail (edited):

As a regular reader (and occasional comboxor) of your blog, I wanted to write and share with you the news of my recent engagement, especially given that my fiancee and I are planning to celebrate the sacrament of marriage according to the 1962 Missal.  ... The wedding Mass will take place in her hometown, with (hopefully) my parish priest being able to offer the Mass. 
 
I am hoping that we do not encounter any "wrinkles" once our intentions are expressed to her parish priest.  In that regard, if you have any suggestions as to how best to go about this, I would most sincerely appreciate hearing from you (although, as I understand it, no "permission" is no longer needed, and thus my plan is to simply treat it as if we were intending to have a "regular" Mass). 
 
Likewise, I have searched but have not found any explanatory resources re: a wedding Mass per the 1962 missal.  I have seen the missalette published by the Coalition Ecclesia Dei, but beyond the text of the nuptial (and the Mass itself) I know very little about "what" to do.  Do you know of any such resources?
 
I would be happy to keep you informed about the progress of our plans.  If it works out, we will also be blessed with chant from a few members from [a] schola.  Bold plans, no doubt, but we are both extremely excited and looking forward to all this!

This sounds like a wonderful event.  Congratulations in advance.

However, remember that when it comes to weddings, the local parish priest is the one who gets to say if a visiting priest can do anything.  Period.  A visitor really doesn’t not have the right to come into a parish and just do what he chooses.  Therefore, it is very important to approach the parish priest where the wedding is to take place with great diplomacy.  Make sure the priest who is to do the Mass is involved and ready to answer any and all questions about the differences in the rite, etc.    Remember to review the paragraph in Summorum Pontificum which says that the older form of Mass and the Rituale Romanum can be used for "occasional" celebrations, which would include weddings (see below):

Some readers here might be able to point you to printed resources you can put in the hands of the congregation, just in case the local priest is worried about "participation", or people running screaming from the church, etc.

Good luck!

Art. 5 § 3. Fidelibus seu sacerdotibus id petentibus, parochus celebrationes, hac in forma extraordinaria, permittat etiam in adiunctis peculiaribus, uti sunt matrimonia, exsequiae aut celebrationes occasionales, verbi gratia peregrinationes.

WDTPRS VERSION: Let the pastor permit to the faithful or priests requesting it, celebrationes in this extraordinary form also in particular circumstances as are marriages, funerals, or celebratory occasions, for example, pilgrimages.

Art. 9, § 1. Parochus item, omnibus bene perpensis, licentiam concedere potest utendi rituali antiquiore in administrandis sacramentis Baptismatis, Matrimonii, Poenitentiae et Unctionis Infirmorum, bono animarum id suadente.

WDTPRS VERSION: Similarly, a pastor, everything having been well thought through, can grant permission for using the older Ritual in order to administrate the sacraments of Baptism, Matrimony, Penance and Annointing of the Sick, as the good of souls suggests.

I tip my biretta to WDTPESer GS of MN   o{]:¬)   who alerted me about an 2 November interview in the Wisconsin State Journal which comes from Madison, WI, with His Excellency Most Reverend Roberrt Morlino, Bishop of Madison.  In the interview there is a very interesting comment about Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

Before I post the relevant section, I will recall to your mind what Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, said in a recent interview with Petrus.  Archbishop Ranjith responded to a question:

Q: Your Excellency, what kind of reception has Benedict XVI´s Motu Proprio which liberalized the Holy Mass according to the Tridentine Rite had?  Some, in the very bosom of the Church, have got their noses bent out of shape…

Archbp. Ranjith: "There have been positive reactions and, it’s pointless to deny it, criticisms and opposing positions, also on the part of theologians, liturgists, priests, Bishops, and even Cardinals. Frankly, I don’t understand this distancing from, and, let’s just say it, rebellion against the Pope. I invite all, above all shepherds, to obey the Pope, who is the Successor of Peter. Bishops, in particular, swore loyalty to the Pontiff: they must be consistent and faithful to their commitment."

Now that is pretty strong. 

Let’s move to Bishop Morlino’s comments made on 2 November to the Wisconsin State Journal.  He is talking about a stand he took concerning marriage and requiring priests to play a taped message in their parishes, but he mentions Summorum Pontificum (my emphases):

Pope Benedict just wrote to us bishops a letter not too long ago about the permission for the traditional Latin mass. He said, ‘I know some of you bishops have agonized year after year about whether or not to permit this,’ and I’ve been one of those. I was the only bishop in Wisconsin who did not permit the traditional Latin mass for what I thought were good reasons. And the Pope wrote and said, ‘I want to relieve you of the responsibility of all of that prudential pondering, so I’m making the decision.’ He saw that as a service, and I accepted it as a service. I was the only bishop in Wisconsin not to permit the traditional Latin mass, and now, in obedience, I will be the first bishop in Wisconsin to celebrate the traditional Latin mass. I really looked upon this as relieving certain priests of the responsibility to defend marriage if they felt that somehow there was going to be a certain discomfort about this at some level or another.

Frankly, I find this statement from Bishop Morlino to be edifying. 

He is of course using this occasion in a somewhat self-interested way to shore up his own authority to make decisions about other matters by citing his own spirit of obedience to Pope Benedict in the matter of the TLM.  There is nothing wrong with that.  As a matter of fact, he did that taped messages thing in defense of the Church’s teaching on marriage, so that priests could fudge it on their own.

Nevertheless, what he writes both lays his views directly on the line, publicly, and states a determination to conform to the document, publicly. 

I admire that. 

I received this interesting e-mail.   

 

* Westminster bishop confers Traditional Rite confirmations
* Northampton bishop also to administer confirmations

Bishop John Arnold, auxiliary bishop in Westminster, administered Confirmation in the Traditional Rite at St James’s Church, Spanish Place, London on Saturday, 3 November at the request of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. A record 54 candidates received the sacrament – 50 children and 4 adults.

In a new development, the LMS also announced that Bishop Peter Doyle of Northampton will administer Confirmation in the Traditional Rite to 7 candidates during a pastoral visit to Our Lady of Perpetual Succour Church, Chesham Bois, Bucks on Sunday 18 November at 10.30 am. Bishop Doyle will also celebrate Sunday Mass in the Traditional Rite.

John Medlin, General Manager of the Latin Mass Society, said, “This is a very welcome development. We hope it will not be long before bishops all over England and Wales respond to pastoral demand for Mass and the Sacraments in the Traditional Rite. The parishioners of Chesham Bois are very grateful to Bishop Doyle for agreeing to offer the Traditional Mass and Sacraments.”

At St James’s, Spanish Place, a packed congregation of 600 family and friends were led by the St James’s choir in singing the Veni Creator Spiritus and other traditional hymns. During the anointing, the choir sang polyphony and plain chant. After the anointing, Bishop Arnold led the congregation in the Divine Praises and then conferred Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

After the Confirmations, at a reception, Julian Chadwick, Chairman of the Latin Mass Society, thanked Bishop Arnold for his pastoral concern and led the assembly in a traditional roof-raising round of applause. Bishop Arnold then spoke informally and cut the special Confirmation cake with many parents taking photographs. Later, the bishop mixed with the parents and children whilst everyone enjoyed the refreshments provided by the LMS.

John Medlin of the Latin Mass Society said, “This is the fifth consecutive year that Confirmations in the Traditional Rite have been arranged by the Latin Mass Society with the permission of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. Our numbers are increasing every year and I expect this trend to continue after Pope Benedict’s recent Motu Proprio.”

For further information, please contact John Medlin, General Manager, or Yvonne Windsor, LMS Office Administrator, on (T) 020 7404 7284; (F) 020 7831 5585;

E-mail: thelatinmasssociety@snmail.co.uk

This just in: 

His Excellency Most Reverend Salvatore R. Matano, Bishop of Burlington, Vermont, will celebrate the Extraordinary Form for the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception with a Vigil Mass on December 7 at 7 PM at St. Joseph Co-Cathedral.

Also, in Bradford, VT,  Fr. Phillip Lamothe has offered the Extraordinary Form for a 4PM Vigil Mass on Saturdays since October.

We have read about H.E. Bp. Matano before here and here and here.