Conference of the Philippines statement about Summorum Pontificum

Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines has issued a statement about Summorum Pontificum.  It was probably penned by Fr. Anscar Chupungco, OSB.  This is one of the olympian reformers of the liturgy after Vatican II and a guru of inculturation. 

My emphases and comments.

Episcopal Commission on Liturgy
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines

 Clarifications on Summorum Pontificum

Pope Benedict XVI published the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007 with effectivity on September 14, 2007. The Episcopal Commission on Liturgy received several requests to clarify certain issues regarding its contents and implementation.  [So, the conference is not waiting for clarifications from the Holy See?]

•    What is the aim of the Apostolic Letter?
The Apostolic Letter was published to seek “interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church”, that is, with those who still [this taints the approach to the Motu Proprio] adhere to the Missal of Pius V. It is also a reaction [again, another word that taints the provisions and makes it seem "reactionary"] to what is [sic] perceived [again, the taint] as “abuses” in the celebration of the Mass after Vatican II.
 
•    Are there now two rites of the Roman Missal?  [NB: the question is about "rites"]
Summorum Pontificum distinguishes two forms of celebrating the one and the same Roman Rite, namely, “forma ordinaria” and “forma extraordinaria”. The ordinary form is the 1970 Missal of Pope Paul VI revised by authority of Vatican II. The extraordinary form is the Tridentine Missal published in 1962 by Pope John XXIII.  [Did you see the word "rite" in the answer?  The answer concerned forms, which is very proper, but only partially.  I suspect that the author in fact wants there to be two rites, so that other rites can be identifed and placed on the same level, inculturated local rites.]
 
•    What would be an implication [The writer gets it: the use of the older form of Mass today really does mean something significant.]  of the “forma extraordinaria” of the Roman Missal? [Watch this move.]
The hermeneutics of continuity [The Pope’s key concept for understanding his vision for the Church and his "Marshall Plan".] means that the 1970 Missal is a Vatican II revision of the Tridentine, while the hermeneutics of legitimate progress [WHOA!  This throws a whole new X factor in.] could justify the inclusion of inculturated liturgies as other extraordinary forms of the same Roman Rite. [The idea here is that if this older expression of the Roman Rite is legitimate, in a spirit of continuity, then we are also justified in developing new forms which are less Roman and more local.  See what is going on?]
 
•    What are some of the important conditions for celebrating according to the 1962 Missal?
Those who wish to celebrate it [Keep in mind that the writer and others in his galaxy understand as a necessary starting point for "active participation" (understood in their way) that the congregation is also the celebrant of the liturgy.] should possess “a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language”. [If they want to insist also that the congregation is a celebrant sine quibus non then they could argue that if people don’t know Latin to a degree that satisfies them (the experts who are the judges of all things) then the use of the older Missal cannot be permitted.  See what they are doing?]  Furthermore, the Missal to be used should be the 1962 edition. [A good point.  I agree entirely.] It is important to remember that the 1962 Missal requires the use of the Latin language (except for the readings and the homily), particular liturgical furnishings, vestments, [We can quibble with this a little.  I can’t think of many things required for the older form that aren’t also used for the newer, including vestments.] books, and liturgical calendar. Lastly, in order to be in full communion with the Church, priests who celebrate according to the 1962 Missal must, as a matter of principle, accept the validity of the 1970 Missal.
 
•    What other liturgical rites are included in the permission?
Besides the 1962 Roman Missal, permission is granted to use the other Tridentine Rituals of baptism, confirmation, marriage, penance, anointing of the sick, funerals, and the Roman Breviary. The Apostolic Letter excludes the Easter Triduum and is silent about holy orders. [the Motu Proprio does not, to my mind, exclude the Triduum if it is at a "personal parish" set up by the bishop.]

•    How about the seminaries?
Summorum Pontificum does not directly address the question of celebrating the Tridentine Missal in seminaries.  [Well… let’s be reasonable.  How can teaching men only one part of their Rite be justified any longer?]

•    What is the responsibility of parish priests?
In parishes, where a stable group [There’s that bad translation.] of the faithful adheres to the 1962 Missal, the parish priest should willingly accept their request. Such Mass maybe celebrated on weekdays, and once on Sundays and feast days. The Ordinary shall determine what a “stable group” consists of.  [Nooooo…. I don’t think so.  The parish priest is the one whom the MP describes as making these decisions in the parish.  Also, the Holy See will give clarifications.  Remember, the Supreme Pontiff issued these provisions without limitations or a minimum number in that group.]
 
•    What is the responsibility of bishops?
If a parish priest fails to satisfy the request for Tridentine Mass, the faithful that request it should inform the Ordinary. [Not sure about this English here, but the intent is clear enough.] If he himself cannot satisfy the request, he should refer the matter to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. Furthermore the Ordinary may establish a personal parish where the Tridentine rituals may be used, or he may appoint a chaplain for such group of faithful.
 
•    What happens to active participation?
While the liturgical reform of the Vatican II aims principally to promote active participation, the Tridentine Missal encourages prayerful meditation during the Eucharistic celebration.
[What a dismissive way to treat this important question!  This is, of course, the horrible nightmare the old experts from the days of the Council and the subsequent "reform" don’t want to confront.  What would happen to their vision of the reform if it can be demonstrated that the Church has a somewhat different understanding of "active participation", that really focuses first and foremost on active receptivity and interior actitivy of the soul and senses rather than clapping and all that business?  If it can be shown that a deeper sense of active participation is fostered by the older form of Mass then their entire ediface begins to crack.]

•    What happens to the 1970 Missal of Paul VI?
It is useful to note that the Vatican II Missal of Paul VI can always be celebrated in Latin and in Gregorian chant. [I love this.  "…can ALWAYS be celebrated in Latin…"  On the other hand, bishops and experts far and wide have done their best for decades, and still do so today, to give the impression either that Latin was forbidden by the Council or that permission is needed.  Now we read that the Novus Ordo can ALWAYS be in Latin!  I guess the idea of Latin is less frightening than the idea of the older Mass.    "OMG!  Go ahead and use Latin if you must… just d..d..don’t use the OLD Mass!"]
 
Summorum Pontificum gives the assurance that the Missal of Paul VI will certainly remain the ordinary form of the Eucharistic liturgy, [though we are not really sure what that actually means] given the actual [for this word read "current" rather than "concrete"] pastoral circumstances of local Churches and the need for more adequate liturgical formation and knowledge of Latin among the faithful.  [Times change.  The desire for the older form of Mass will spread.  Then the "actual pastoral circumstances" will be different.]

Conclusion

It is our fervent hope that the implementation of Summorum Pontificum will not, as Pope Benedict XVI desires, divide the heart of the Church, but rather foster mutual respect and understanding [Yes!] within the one Church of Jesus Christ. Let pastors be mindful that the ordinary form of the Holy Eucharist for the Church today is contained in the Missal of Paul VI whether this is celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular. [Do you see how nervous the writer is?] As one Church, may we be united in one faith through a diversity of liturgical forms.  [Remember, that the writer is a great champion of inculturated liturgy.]
 
That in all things God may be glorified!  [The writer’s tag line that helps us to identify who he is.]

This was quite revealing.  It shows something of a far subtler grasp of the issues than we see even in some of the more negative responses to Summorum Pontificum.
 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

24 Responses to Conference of the Philippines statement about Summorum Pontificum

  1. fxavier says:

    Why is it that people, even traditionalists and conservatives, say “active participation” instead of “actual participation”? Sacrosanctum Concilium says “actuosa participatio”, and not “activa participatio”? By using “active”, aren’t we hijacking Vatican II by mistranslation? Are we not lending credence to the idea of “active participation” by using that language, just like when we say “pro-choice” instead of “pro-abortion”?

    Also, aren’t people of inculturist, liberal, and progressive bent on the liturgy “revolutionaries”, and not “reformers”? These modern day “reformers” may have brought back some prayers along with their new compositions, but they totally rejected the “strict” spirituality (lex credendi) that supported these prayers (lex orandi). That is where their reform turned into revolution.

    My family immigrated to the Philippines from China several generations ago, and received our Catholicism there. I am eternally grateful to the Philippines.

    I am, however, ashamed that the letter above was published by the bishops of the Philippines.

    It is especially sad, because even Bishop Wilhelm Josef Duschak (one of the most liberal minds in V2), Vicar Apostolic of Calapan, Philippines, knew that Filipinos would oppose the “reform”.

    Asked whether his proposal originated with the people whom he served, he answered, “No, I think they would oppose it, just as many bishops oppose it. But if it could be put into practice, I think they would accept it.”

  2. Malta says:

    Regarding the portion on “active participation,” Fr. Z writes: “What would happen to their vision of the reform if it can be demonstrated that the Church has a somewhat different understanding of active participation’, that really focuses first and foremost on active receptivity and interior actitivy of the soul and senses rather than clapping and all that business?”

    That is an excellent point which needs to be emphasized. The bugaboo among progressivists is that the “old latin mass” is a harbinger of all things conservative, dark, dank, dreary, cobweb-spidery, oppressive, etc.

    They believe the “latin mass” oppressed the mind, and led to senseless conformity. Whereas the bright, cheery, springtime mass of Vatican II freed the mind of the worshipper. No longer do we have old ladies praying their rosaries during mass because now everyone can be happy-clappy, joyful and free! Yipee!

    Really, there are progressives who think just that way. Just the opposite is true. One priest I now of has gone as far as to say, “Liturgical abuse is what led to child abuse in the Church.” That’s extreme, but the idea is not far off the mark. Just as the ‘60’s “freedoms” led to skyrocketing divorce and deviancy of every kind (including child abuse and the objectification of women), so, too, liberality in the liturgy has led to a falling away of belief. Because we have the taint of original sin, we eventually use our “freedoms” in worship not to the glorification of God, but to our own glorification. Just as Lucifer said, “non serviam” just before the fall, so, too, do renegade bishops and priests use their self-glorification in the mass to the detriment of Christ, who is forgotten, and even sometimes physically trampled-on in forgotten particles of the Eucharist which fall on the ground (or in the mud, during World Youth Day).

    The Vetus Ordo mass orders the mind and heart to Christ, and His Eternal Sacrifice. Every form, word and action has impart. The unbloody Sacrifice is renewed, the worshipper is oriented towards eternity, and, practically speaking, the Eucharist is preserved and respected in various ways that it is not in the novus ordo.

    As for active participation, again, the believer is oriented to Christ, not to the performance of the priest. A missal helps those unaccustomed to the Vetus Ordo learn the latin prayers. But they are not difficult to learn, and many attend the Vetus Ordo without missals, and take part in the responses, with full interior comprehension, worshipping in the same language with contemporary believers, and with believers and Saints throughout the ages; worshipping in one voice and in one tongue, together oriented vertically with Eternal God.

    As for the Vetus Ordo being stodgy; nothing is further from the truth. A magnificent Mozart or Palestrina mass should forever bury the argument that the Vetus Ordo can’t have splendor, or is stodgy. Actually, the Vetus Ordo is the most supreme, artful, beautiful expressions of worship ever devised by man.

    The fact that priests may have rushed it in the past, or old women may have sometimes prayed rosaries during it does not detract from the fact that it IS the crucible which formed countless saints and artists, informing their consciences and orienting them to Eternity.

  3. Bernard says:

    Its true that in the past men and women of all ages prayed the rosary during Mass for several reasons; custom, illiteracy, Latin-only missals, lack of funds to buy a Missal! None of which really apply today (in the West at least) so its time to let that particular argument go.

  4. Mary says:

    The ordinary form is the 1970 Missal of Pope Paul VI revised by authority of Vatican II. The extraordinary form is the Tridentine Missal published in 1962 by Pope John XXIII.

    The different constructions of the two sentences make it sound as if the OF is (trumpet flourish) backed by the full faith and credit of Vatican II, while the 1962 Missal is just some unaccountable private fancy of Pope John XXIII!

  5. Larry says:

    Father Z,

    I\’m not seeing the \”congregation as celebrant\” meme you\’re noticing in the paragraph on \”important conditions\”. Moreover, the only definite noun in that answer comes at the end, where it identifies priests who celebrate. A reading of this article on the surface doesn\’t seem to imply what you\’re pointing out to us. (Of course, I\’m not trying to suggest that I know the real situation on the ground better than you.)

    However, what really struck me was the reference to Ecclesia Dei — the author says that any correspondence with the Commission is the province of the ordinary, not those who feel that their liturgical needs aren\’t being properly met. Although Article 8 discusses bishops who contact ED, doesn\’t Article 7 seem to imply that the \”group of lay faithful\” may contact ED, too?

  6. Tim from St. Agnes says:

    father Z, someone having a little humor at your expense?:

    http://spiritofvatican2.blogspot.com/2007/10/letter-from-old-friend.html

  7. mike says:

    “It is our fervent hope that the implementation of Summorum Pontificum will not, as Pope Benedict XVI desires, divide the heart of the Church, but rather foster mutual respect and understanding”

    SO THE POPE DESIRES TO DIVIDE THE HEART OF THE CHURCH?

    Or just bad/confusing sentence structure or a smart aleck author?

    m

  8. Athanasius says:

    A magnificent Mozart or Palestrina mass should forever bury the argument that the Vetus Ordo can’t have splendor, or is stodgy

    If I could just make a point, I think a Palestrina Mass does this better than a Mozart Mass. The latter is really music taking over the worship. Classical composers, though brilliant, often write their pieces for the purposes of focusing on Music. Consider Schubert’s Credo, after the Incarnatus est has been sung, he feels the need to write it into the Credo later, because he was so delighted with it.

    Palestrina on the other hand, along with Byrd, Victoria and other great polyphonic composers make the music lead to the worship. Their liturgical music is not as long nor confusing with numerous voices as that of classical composers. Although I will readily accept a Mozart Mass in comparison to the drivel of the last 40 years, or for that matter some of the drivel foisted upon the faithful prior to the council, which was directly opposed to St. Pius X’s regulations on music.

  9. Ruben says:

    • Are there now two rites of the Roman Missal? [NB: the question is about “rites”]
    Summorum Pontificum distinguishes two forms of celebrating the one and the same Roman Rite, namely, “forma ordinaria” and “forma extraordinaria”. The ordinary form is the 1970 Missal of Pope Paul VI revised by authority of Vatican II. The extraordinary form is the Tridentine Missal published in 1962 by Pope John XXIII. [Did you see the word “rite” in the answer? The answer concerned forms, which is very proper, but only partially. I suspect that the author in fact wants there to be two rites, so that other rites can be identifed and placed on the same level, inculturated local rites.]

    Yes, the word rite is mentioned in the answer – two forms of celebrating the ONE and same Roman RITE.

  10. Malta says:

    Athanasius,

    I generally agree with you; I prefer Palestrina, Victoria and Byrd over Mozart; Mozart’s Masses can be a bit distracting (but are, nevertheless, beautiful in their own right.) However, I think Mozart’s Ave Verum Corpus (hail True Body) is not only one of the most beautiful songs ever written, but is dedicated entirely to the Eucharist. Check it out (it’s the last track):

    http://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Requiem-Norrington-Classical-Players/dp/B00000I3VZ/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2957233-4912601?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1194297323&sr=8-1

    Also, if you haven’t heard the Tournai Mass (cir. 1350, France); check it out:

    http://www.amazon.com/Messe-Tournai-Josep-Cabre/dp/B000FDFO2G/ref=sr_1_5/103-2957233-4912601?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1194297674&sr=1-5

    This is beauty fo make you weep, and predates the Mass codified by Pius V in the sixteenth century by over two hundred years (but makes you realize that the vedus ordo mass truly is a continuation of the mass already in existence, since at least the sixth century.)

  11. I’m surprised the CBCP even bothered releasing a formal statement about Summorum Pontificum. I had the impression that the CBCP is more interested in things more important than the worship of God, namely politics. Please pray for your Filipino brothers in Christ.

  12. Athanasius says:

    This is beauty to make you weep, and predates the Mass codified by Pius V in the sixteenth century by over two hundred years (but makes you realize that the vedus ordo mass truly is a continuation of the mass already in existence, since at least the sixth century.)

    Of course, I accept that without question. In fact, there is a lot of beautiful Medieval Music that makes one want to weep. Some medieval stuff goes too far or is too distracting, but much of it is glorious.

    Many people would be shocked to find out that before the Council of Trent there were all sorts of musical abuses, even vernacular hymns, hundreds of sequences, many of which were not authorized by the Bishop. Secular music was finding its way into the liturgy and foreign instruments were used. This is why Palestrina’s Mass was commissioned by St. Charles Borromeo (there are two accounts, one in which Palestrina went to the saint to offer his services, another where the saint threatened Palestrina with imprisonment, I tend to believe the former but I leave it to the music history buff to sort it out), so that the nonsense might be rooted out yet the Council of Trent might have a compelling reason not to outlaw polyphony in the liturgy. I find it interesting that before Vatican II there is a phenomenon one of my music teachers called “30’s polyphony” that was anything but sacred, and especially prevalent here in America. Stuff that did not belong in the Mass that somehow became popular with choirs. That is one thing I am thankful for with all this mess since the council, the really stupid things like the “holy mumble” and bad polyphony are gone and hated, looked down upon by everyone, and where the True Mass comes back those two things have not appeared with it. Deo gratias!

  13. Paul says:

    “Many people would be shocked to find out that before the Council of Trent there were all sorts of musical abuses, even vernacular hymns, hundreds of sequences, many of which were not authorized by the Bishop.”

    This is basically true, but it was not *always* abuse, it just got to be too much of a good thing, which is why Trent curtailed it–although a few sequences were retained. But vernacular hymns at Mass are a very old tradition in Germanic and Slavic Europe, going back to perhaps even the 10th century.

  14. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    First comment:

    No, S.P. does not exclude the Easter Triduum. The Easter Triduum could be celebrated publicly under Article 5 at (a) any territorial parish in which the parish priest and absolutely all the faithful agree to it for Easter (this will be a great rarity, if it ever happens at all), (b) at a personal parish set us for the T.L.M., (c) at a non-parochial church set up for the T.L.M., and (4) at a private chapel in which public Masses can be celebrated for a special group.

    P.K.T.P.

    P.S. My advice to tradition-loving priests is that they move wery wery quickly now before that Perl character swoops down with his ‘clarification’ and restricts Summorum Pontificum. He has a ‘history’, as the street kids would say.

  15. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Second comment:

    Once again, we see how these sciolists try to insist that celebrants of the Traditional Latin Mass have some comprehension of Latin. It is not so. While the Church enjoins training in Latin, every priest of the Latin Church who is in good standing has a fundamental right to celebrate in Latin whether using the 1962 Missal or the 1970 Missal. Latin is the lingua sacra of the Latin Church and, once ordained to the sacred priesthood, Canon 928 guarantees that every priest in good standing can celebrate in that tongue. Period. No chancery hack and no bishop in his bailiwick can remove this right.

    Bishops have every right to insist that seminarists learn Latin and pass Latin examinations. Once a priest has been ordained, however, examination days are over because celebrating in Latin is a right. End of story.

    Idoneous, as used in Article 5, means “capable” in English. If the priest is capable of delivering the words in Latin–if he can pronounce them–and if he can follow the old rubrics, thereby celebrating Mass in dignity, he is home free. Moreover, His Holiness even created a suggested structure for priests to follow. That is why the unscheduled Masses, first without and then with invited guests, come in Articles 2 and 4–before the scheduled parochial Masses of Article 5. Bishop Rifan has commented on this.

    The real question, of course, is whether or not a priest can be forced by a conservative bishop to pass extra exams on rubrics before proceeding to celebrate NewMass. After all, the faithful have a right to assist at a dignified Mass. Bishops also may suspend priests who celebrate undignifed Masses with clowns and pumpkins and mimes, not to mention banjos. Let’s see the bishops enforce the rubrics of NewMass first!

    P.K.T.P.

  16. Henry Edwards says:

    I suspect that, numerically, the celebration of Mass in Latin by priests who don’t understand all the Latin words is a very minor problem compared with the the celebration of Mass in Spanish by U.S. priests who don’t understand all the Spanish words. However, I have not heard of any widespread concern with the latter problem. But perhaps it’s because this concern has been expressed largely in Spanish words that I myself don’t understand.

  17. BK says:

    Comment by Peter Karl T. Perkins: \”P.S. My advice to tradition-loving priests is that they move wery wery quickly now before that Perl character swoops down with his ‘clarification’ and restricts Summorum Pontificum. He has a ‘history’, as the street kids would say.\”

    This is the first I\’ve seen anyone suggest that the anticipated clarification from PCED could be restrictive in regards to Summorum Pontificum.

    Cardinal Hoyos\’ comments last month, coupled with the most recent comments by Archbishop Ranjith, would argue against what you are insinuating against Msgr. Perl.

    Is there an internal struggle within PCED of which the general public is unaware?

  18. michigancatholic says:

    Someone needs to tell this conniving rascal that forms of mass are able to be abrogated at any time unless they are 200 years old or older. And that means the whole darned 1970 N.O. along with all of its million variations, including all the “inculturations.”

    The situation of the Tridentine (extraordinary form) is completely and utterly different from that of the N.O. It’s high time they found this out.

    Personally, I can’t wait til the new translations come out and they abrogate the Missal of 1969/70–ie make it illegal, which can happen with a form less than 50 years old. I want to see the whole kit and caboodle replaced, lock stock & barrel with something more reverent and faithful to the intention of the Holy Catholic Church through the ages.

  19. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    I like Mr. Edwards’s comments. They point so cleanly to the hypocrisy of these chancery hacks.

    In response to B.K., I would only say that Msgrs. Perl and Calkins, respectively Secretary and Under-secretary of the P.C.E.D., are widely regarded as hostile to the old Latin Mass. Whether or not they have changed their tune under Benedict XVI is hard to say. Perl was the one who stood in place of Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos in 2000 to deliver the horrid Protocol 1411-99 and to prevent the election of Fr. Josef Bisig as superior-general of the F.S.S.P. At one point, the Cardinal told a traditionalist not to send mail to his office at the P.C.E.D. but, if he wanted it to get to him, to send it to his office at the Congregration for the Clergy.

    Perl is from Luxembourg and, I believe, the Bishop there will retire fairly soon. Hint, hint. Calkins is from the U.S.A. and, to my recollection, he once delivered a very nasty riposte to traditionalists.

    I can’t see how a clarification might help us. At best, it might maintain the status quo. I suspect that the P.C.E.D. is responding to the angry reaction of the German, French, Dutch, and Canadian bishops, many of whom are a bit to the left of Leon Trotsky. I heard that Cardinal Turcotte of Montréal was “furious” over S.P.; so was Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles. The clarification will probably appear to restrict S.P. but, when read carefully, not do so. For example, they could put restrictions on “cœtus” [group] “in parœciis”, “continenter” and other terms in Article 5 but just not bother to mention that these restrictions pertain to powers of the parish priest to reject petitions from faithful, not powers of the local bishops.

    As Sir Humphrey Appleby of “Yes, Minister” would say, “Truth is irrelevant, Minister, only appearances count”.

    P.K.T.P.

  20. Why are Asian bishops wasting their time on this? Are there not far graver issues yawning on their doorsteps?

    The answer lies in their Roman formation. They have apparently absorbed the preoccupations and priorities of the Curia — that “bureaucracy of nothing” as many bishops call it.

    Their document is just the requisite bureaucratize — to jump on it with all those annotations in red is fanatical.

  21. Tim Ferguson says:

    Graver issues than being concerned about the worship of God? Such as… what?

    and I think the word you were looking for is bureaucrateese, not bureaucratize.

    Just because Fr. Z and the Philippine bishops aren’t waxing eloquent on such weighty and time-pressing issues as exploring the themes of Henry James novellas hardly makes them time wasters or fanatics. They speak of and explore things that interest them – such as the worship of God and the evangelization and catechesis of the faithful. Perhaps, on the grand scale, the motivations of the protagonist of Mora Montravers is of greater import than Holy Mass, and perhaps the Bishops should be more interested in the metaphors and similes in early 20th century authors than in the issues surround the formation of the people of God for worship, but if so, I for one would be thinking that their shirking their responsibilities.

  22. Ansjo says:

    Fr O’Leary:
    Fr Z’s post shouldn’t be taken in isolation. His commentary on this document is just part of a wider analysis of the reception of Summorum Pontificum – which is not an insignificant matter.

  23. BK says:

    Comment by Peter Karl T. Perkins: “Perl was the one who stood in place of Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos in 2000 to deliver the horrid Protocol 1411-99 and to prevent the election of Fr. Josef Bisig as superior-general of the F.S.S.P.”

    The world has changed much from 2000 till now. The priorities of our present Pope are far different, and his expectations of PCED far different. Hopefully, the staff at PCED will rise to his expectations.

    “I can’t see how a clarification might help us.”

    That part is easy, IF the PCED has the will to assist the Pope. They simply close the linguistic loopholes, and declare any rules beyond the PCED clarification and the Summorum Pontificum document itself, null and void and non-binding on any priest as they are superceded by a higher law.

  24. Pat says:

    Just a couple quotes from “The Spirit of the Liturgy” by Pope Benedict (Ratzinger) on the topic of “activity”:
    Unfortunately, following V II, participation “was very quickly misunderstood to mean something external, entailing a need for general activity, as if as many people as possible, as often as possible, should be visibly engaged in action…”
    “Doing really must stop when we come to the heart of the matter: the oratio… it provides a space for the actio of God… not now a matter of looking at or toward the priest, but of looking together toward the Lord and going out to meet him.”
    “When this happens, we cannot do other than fall to our knees and greet him. The Consecration is the moment of God’s great actio… in that silence we touch the eternal – for one beat of the heart we step out of time into God’s being-with-us.”
    So it is God who is doing the acting and our activity should be preparing our hearts and falling on our knees.
    The writings of the Holy Father on the whole matter of worship are so clear it’s hard for a lay person like me to understand why there is so much disagreement and disobedience.
    Pat