Card. Bertone on the instruction about Summorum Pontificum

Andrea Tornielli on his blog for il Giornale has a glimpse of an interview with the Cardinal Secretary of State, H.E. Tarcisio Bertone, to be published soon in the weekly La Famiglia Cristiana.  Card. Bertone mentions the instruction on Summorum Pontificum which will be issued by the Pontificial Commission Ecclesia Dei.

Here is my translation:

Concerning the Motu Proprio about the Tridentine Mass: "There are plans to fine tune an Instruction which will settle clearly the criteria for the application of the Motu Proprio.  There have been some distorted reactions.  Some even got to the point of accusing the Pope of having renounced the teaching of the Council.  On the other hand, there are those who interpret the Motu Proprio as authorization for the return of the pre-Conciliar rite only.  Both positions are wrong."On the other hand, there are those who interpret the Motu Proprio as authorization for the return of the pre-Conciliar rite only.  Both positions are wrong."

The instruction, I am told, will probably come out before Easter.   The first part will no doubt deal with overly restrictive interpretations of the provisions of the Motu Proprio.
 

Card. Bertone on the instruction about Summorum Pontificum
0 votes, 0.00 avg. rating (0% score)
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.

71 Responses to Card. Bertone on the instruction about Summorum Pontificum

  1. Andrew says:

    Sounds to me like we should get ready for a second round of endless wrangling.

    In the meantime nothing has changed for the vast majority of us: we still sing our post-communion “happy birthday” on a regular basis in a casual environment with dilettante singing of syncopated shlagers. Wake me up when things start to change.

  2. Jonathan Bennett says:

    Many bishops outright ignored the clearly-stated provisions of Summorum Pontificum. If they disregarded the text of the Motu Proprio itself, why should we expect they will listen to a document from the Eclessia Dei Commission clarifying the Motu Proprio?

    These bishops know what they are doing. When the instruction comes out there will be no forehead-slapping or exclaims of “How dumb of me! THATS what the Pope meant!”.

  3. It makes sense that this Instruction should come some months after the Motu Proprio itself.
    Firstly, it’s only after seeing what objections and obstructions actually arise in the implementation of the MP at the local level that they can be dealt with/refuted directly.
    Secondly, I’m sure that various issues are filtering back to Ecclesia Dei about the practicalities of implementation – issues relating to the applicability or otherwise of various aspects of post-62 legislation spring immediately to mind.

  4. Jim says:

    It will take 20 years and a new bishop before Summorum Pontificum has any meaning in my neck of the woods. I have fled to the Eastern Rite in the meantime. It grows on one.

  5. Chironomo says:

    It will have no effect, unless of course there are actual consequences of disobedience (excommunication comes to mind…). It would be enough, I believe to simply state CLEARLY and publicly, for instance: “The type of instruction issued by Bp. Trautmann in the Diocese of Erie is therefore unlawful and immediately abrogated and any further instructions so issued are also unlawful and so abrogated. Only instructions which receive the recognitio of the Holy See and the PCED can be considered of effect in regards to the Motu Proprio.” Period.

  6. TNCath says:

    I fear the above postings are right on target. If recent history has taught us anything, it has been that the best way to contravene an official document from the Church is to simply ignore it and move on. Cases in point: Perfectae Caritatis, Humanae Vitae, Essential Elements of Religious Life, Vita Consecrata, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Summorum Pontificum…

  7. Henry Edwards says:

    Andrew: nothing has changed for the vast majority of us

    With due sympathy, I hope your situation represents the minority, and mine the majority. My diocese is probably middle of the road in most respects. Both good things and the various complaints you’ve mentioned are readily found here.

    But in the 3 different parishes in proximity to my home that I occasionally or regularly attend:

    (1) A typical big round-church suburban parish where daily Mass is reverent with neither abuse nor irritation now observed. Greek (Kyrie) and Latin (Sanctus and Agnus Dei) are frequently heard at daily and Sunday Mass. Incense is no longer a rarity, and communion patens are now used. Sunday Mass now begins with an introit psalm rather than a gathering song. All these are recent changes.

    (2) Another big suburban parish with a dated church, thankfully out-grown with a more traditional-looking one under construction and nearing completion. Otherwise, a prime topic of discussion seems to be how much Latin is optimal at Sunday Mass. A year ago, this question would probably have seemed far-fetched.

    (3) Two Masses were scheduled on Christmas morning this year, one vernacular and versus populum, the other Latin Novus Ordo and ad orientum. The attendance at the latter was 3 times that at the former. This was the first ad orientum celebration at an announced Mass in the parish, but the remarks I heard afterwards from first-timers were largely about the reverence of the “Latin Mass”, and the contrast of the Gregorian chant with more familiar church music.

    These are all Novus Ordo changes in which I think Summorum Pontificum has played a role by affecting the atmosphere for both the ordinary and the extraordinary form. On the latter front, I can (as of last Sept. 15) attend weekly a reasonably close TLM for the first time in 40 years. It’s possible to foresee a time when 10% of the priests in this diocese will be TLM qualified. This is not a majority, but a year ago even this minority would have been hard to imagine. Nor could I then look forward to viewing regular solemn high Masses on EWTN, and even expect an occasional “live” one in the not too distant future.

    No change? Seriously, Andrew, you’d better wake yourself up, lest you miss all the excitement.

  8. John says:

    The primary thing about this forthcoming document is not that bishops will ignore it or not, the strength comes from the fact that the clarification will strengthen the positions of those who want the Mass (priests and laity alike). When push comes to shove the directives of the document cannot be denied. It seems to me that Ecclesia Dei will be willing to intervene given that the situations and requests presented to them are carefully and respectfully presented. Look, it has not been long since the Motu Proprio released and how many places have a Extraordinary RIte Mass that didn’t have one before, how many priests have been trained and will train, how many seminarians are willing to learn the Extraordinary Rite while in seminary? We will not have instant results, but the train is rolling and is not stopping now, time is on the side of liturgical reform because the opposite leads to only one conclusion. If the Latin Rite continues down the path begun by many of the post Vatican II “reformers” and their secular humanist philosophies, they be reformed in to irrelevance. We all have seen the fruits of the post Vat II nuttiness, who will be left standing at the end of the day, who will retain their faith? What is needed is prudence,patience, prayer and persistence. The nutty solutions are not tenable.

  9. Diane K says:

    Henry,

    I share your optimism because I too have seen changes. But, I also empathize with people in quarters who don’t have access to what we have.

    I will say this much. Assumption Grotto is a mere 7 miles from my home. I am 45 years old and it took 42 years just to find this gem of a parish, which has been a bastion of orthodoxy and tradition all along. I just never knew it was there.

    Once you tap a good parish like that, you begin to see the network in a diocese where orthodoxy and tradition is shared.

    I encourage people to keep seeking out parishes within their diocese to find those whose pastor’s are trying to turn things around. I don’t know about elsewhere in the world, but here in Detroit, the gates were opened long ago to join parishes outside of our geographic boundaries. Without such permission, nearly all inner city parishes would have closed. Many of the finest parishes in the inner city of Detroit, and some surrounding areas are commuter parishes. They have become popular for their orthodoxy and traditional natures.

    Once again, it was all in my backyard throughout my life, but just over 3 years ago, I would have whined that I had no such access to a good parish.

    I also agree with Henry though on other parishes. I know of a Church “in the round” which has a relatively orthodox pastor who has made great strides, gradually, in that parish. Solid Catholic speakers are being invited to give talks; parishioners from that parish are often now seen at other parishes where there are good speakers and events, and vice versa. Some still grimmace when they hear the name of this parish, yet the people, and pastor, cannot help what they inherited. But, perhaps some day on that big, empty, adjacent lot, will go a new building, more suitable for future reverent Novus Ordo masses, and TLM’s.

    Pray, and hope!

    I am anxious to see what Ecclesia Dei has to say, and I trust they will be fair. Hopefully, we can all look at the document with prayer and meditation, and walk away with something good.

  10. Tom says:

    “On the other hand, there are those who interpret the Motu Proprio as authorization for the return of the pre-Conciliar rite only. Both positions are wrong.”

    That confirms my statements that certain posters have attacked on this blog. Pope Benedict XVI is committed to preserving and promoting the Novus Ordo. He has made that clear. He has made it clear that the Novus Ordo will be the primary Mass that the majority of Catholics will experience.

    The reality is that while the TLM has been “liberated,” 99 percent of Catholics today, tomorrow and decades from now, will experience the Novus Ordo Mass.

    Rome and the bishops are not committed to restoring to the hilt the TLM.

    The claim issued by many folks who post to this blog, that a tremendous shift throughout the Western Church to the TLM is underway, is absurd.

    I wish that the Latin Church would embrace the TLM to the hilt. However, such is simply not the case.

    The shift from the TLM to Novus Ordo Mass has wrecked the Latin Church.

    It is undeniable that the Novus Ordo cannot possibly “renew” the (Latin) Church.

    The only way that Rome can possibly renew the Church is to suppress the Novus Ordo and return to the TLM.

    I wish that the Pope and one bishop and priest after another would announce this second that they are unable to continue to preserve and promote the Novus Ordo.

    I wish that our Churchmen would announce today that they will shift exclusive to the TLM.

    We are in desperate need of Churchmen who are in the mold of brave Saint Athanasius…who are willing to suffer even at the hands of their brother Churchmen to do that which is required to renew the Church…to hold steadfast to Tradition.

    I realize that we cannot shift this second to the TLM.

    But our Churchmen could announce that by a certain date…five years, ten years from today…that the shift to the TLM will transpire.

    Until such time, the TLM should be phased in…celebrated in the vernacular (until each priest and seminarian is able to offer Mass in Latin) by priests who currently are unfamiliar with Latin.

    Priests who are proficient in Latin should offer the TLM immediately…but also offer the TLM in the vernacular until we arrive at the future date in question.

    Even when offered predominately in the vernacular, Latin, during the next few years, would be introduced bit by bit into the TLM.

    Begin with “Dominus vobiscum, Pater Noster, Angus Dei, Ite Missa est” and so forth.

    Little by little, introduce Western Catholics to Latin while offering as many TLM (completely in Latin) as possible.

    I realize that for now, what I have just outlined is a pipe-dream.

    But there are two facts at hand:

    1. Rome and our bishops are not interested in restoring the TLM to the position of liturgical primacy throughout the Western Church.

    2. Until such time that our Churchmen return exclusively to the TLM, the erosion of the life of the Latin Church will worsen.

    Again…I realize that certain posters will insist that i have just attacked the Holy Father…that he is committed to returning the Church to the TLM…that he is doing so step by step…just give the Pope time.

    Sorry, but I am a realist in the following regard:

    I have not attacked His Holiness. The Pope is a holy man. So was Pope Paul VI, who initiated the liturgical revolution.

    I do not believe that Pope Benedict XVI is committed to the exclusive return to the TLM. The Pope has stated that the Novus Ordo will remain the main form of the Mass.

    Cardinal Bertone has just made it clear that Rome is not remotely interested in promoting the exclusive return to the “pre-Conciliar rite.”

    The reality is that Rome and our bishops insist that the Novus Ordo is here to stay.

    Unless Rome has a sudden change of heart and mind, 99 percent of Western Catholics will today, tomorrow and decades from now will attend exclusive the Novus Ordo.

    Finally, the reality is that unless Rome has a change of heart and mind regarding the state of Western liturgy, the Western Church will continue to collapse.

    Only the exclusive return to the Traditional Latin Mass can possibly renew the Church and usher in the “new springtime.”

  11. Tom says:

    Again…a very simple solution:

    Appoint as bishops those priests who offer the Traditional Latin Mass.

    There…opposition to the TLM among bishops is ended.

    When he was determined to implement the Novus Ordo against the majority of bishops who had rejected the Novus Ordo as early as 1967 (during the 1967 Synod of Bishops), Pope Paul VI did the simple thing:

    He destroyed opposition to his liturgical reform via the appointment of bishops who favored his program.

    Unfriendly bishop…gone.

    Appoint new and friendly bishop.

    Some 40 years later…simply elevate priests who offer the TLM.

    Unfriendly bishops…gone.

    New bishops…friends of the TLM.

    It is very simple. Just follow Pope Paul VI’s strategy (in reverse).

  12. Habemus Papam says:

    Tom, leaving to one side the holiness of Paul VI, I think Pope Benedict is a great Pope. However, I think what he would like to see is a synthasis of the Tridentine and Novus Ordo. He is not a fan of Paul VIs Mass but neither is he a Traditionalist in love with the Missal of Pius V. Benedict is a Hegelian, the Ordinary and Extraordinary will act upon each other to produce a Mass which the Fathers of Vatican II would have wished.
    I don’t agree with the Pope in this; the 1965 Missal was in line with Vatican II and the Holy Ghost has preserved the Tridentine Rite intact for the future. I love this Pope but think his reform of the reform will end instead with a true Restoration.

  13. Jbrown says:

    I have to say that Card. Bertone’s words are perplexing-I really cannot figure out his meaning, even from the Italian. Yes, there are some who have falsely claimed that the Pope has rejected the 2nd Vatican Council’s liturgical teachings (Archbp Marini seems to be one of these). However, of all the controversy, etc., I am unaware of anyone saying that this authorized a “return to the preconciliar rite only”. Does he mean that the MP is accused of being limited only to the preconciliar rite (I think that would be a fair statement overall-the introductory letter is not canon law, per se) or that the MP is accused of allowing a return to exclusive use of this rite? Since the MP does not address, anywhere, the exclusive use of the old rite, one way or the other, and owing to the fact that I have never heard anyone make this argument, either pro or con, it is baffling to me why he raises it. I am assuming this is in contradistinction to the extreme view that the Pope rejected Vatican II-one can then surmise that this “only” language must be the opposite of a rejection of Vatican II, i.e., a very circumscribed legal act of the Pope. Perhaps Fr. Z or someone else here can figure out what Bertone is actually saying.

  14. Tom says:

    Habemus Papam wrote: “Tom, leaving to one side the holiness of Paul VI, I think Pope Benedict is a great Pope. However, I think what he would like to see is a synthasis of the Tridentine and Novus Ordo. He is not a fan of Paul VIs Mass but neither is he a Traditionalist in love with the Missal of Pius V. Benedict is a Hegelian, the Ordinary and Extraordinary will act upon each other to produce a Mass which the Fathers of Vatican II would have wished. I don’t agree with the Pope in this; the 1965 Missal was in line with Vatican II and the Holy Ghost has preserved the Tridentine Rite intact for the future. I love this Pope but think his reform of the reform will end instead with a true Restoration.”

    Many people share your interpretation of Pope Benedict XVI’s liturgical vision…that he is not 100 percent in “either” camp…but prefers a hybrid type of Mass.

    I believe that anything short of the complete restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass will fail.

    It is also difficult to accept that the Novus Ordo Mass can or should influence the great and awesome TLM.

    I believe that the solution to overcome the collapse of the Western Church is simple: Return to the TLM exclusively.

    1. Return exclusively during the next few years…perhaps 20 years (I don’t know) phase in the TLM.
    2. Until that time arrives, offer within dioceses as many TLMs as possible.
    3. During the interim, allow the TLM to be offered in the vernacular. (Step-by-step, introduce bits of Latin into the vernacularized TLM.)

    I realize that during the past 40 years, the Latin Church Faithful have been led to believe that they cannot possibly “understand” Mass offered in Latin.

    Catholics have even been taught to despise “the Latin Mass.”

    It will take time and effort to introduce Catholics to “the Latin Mass” and instruct them as to why they should cherish their great Latin tradition.

    Therefore, as we move toward the TLM, celebrate the Traditional Mass in vernaculars, while here and there, we introduce into the Mass bits of Latin.

    Unfortunately, Rome and the bishops are not on board with the exclusive return to the TLM.

    We can attempt to spruce the Novus Ordo…concoct a hybrid Mass…whatever.

    None of the above will work.

    Only the full return to the TLM can possibly end the crisis of faith.

    Unfortunately, Rome has made it clear that we won’t return exclusive to the TLM.

    The TLM will grow here and there. Pockets of Catholic who are strong spiritually will form.

    But the Novus Ordo will continue as the primary form of Mass for 99 percent of Western Catholics (among the 15 or so percent who still assist at Mass).

    Therefore, even as tiny pockets of TLM communities form during the next few decades, the collapse of the Latin Church will continue virtually unabated.

    That isn’t pessimism on my part…simply a realistic reading of the reality that is before us.

    Some 40 years ago, a number of brave Catholics informed the Church that thanks in large part to the liturgical “reform,” that the immediate future was bleak for the Church…that the Western Church would all but collapse.

    That wasn’t a case of Catholics being pessimistic. That was simply a case of certain Catholics thinking and expressing their thoughts in realistic fashion.

  15. fr.franklyn mcafee says:

    What word makes recalcitrant bishops tremble? Coadjutor. Ifnot that cetainly a surprise auxiliary.

  16. Habemus Papam says:

    Jbrown: my reading is that the same people who accuse the Pope of betraying Vatican II are those who interpret the MP to be a return to the “pre-conciliar” rite only. Both positions are wrong inasmuch that the 1962 Missal was in use during Vatican II and arguably the 1969 Missal was not a response to the mandate of the Council Fathers.

  17. Father M says:

    I don’t know why the bella figura of Cardinal Bertone’s presentation should surprise anyone. He IS Italian and he IS the Secretary of State. That being said, he is confirming the (hopefully) immanent publication of a document we desperately need. Summorum Pontificum came like the hammer blow of a shocking piece of evidence introduced into a courtroom battle, the smoking pistol, if you will. The opposing attorneys have scrambled to put the best face possible on that huge Exhibit A. Now it is time for the prosecution to bring in another case-breaker, the equivalent of an eyewitness with unimpeachable credentials (in this case a papal mandate) to put the opposing attorneys in an ever tighter corner. It’s sad that it takes this, but it does seem clear that the prosecution is SERIOUS about this and is willing to do what is necessary (within the proper legal context) to win the case for the aggrieved–who barely can restrain shouting their approval at each astute legal move.

  18. Habemus Papam says:

    Tom, yes. And part of this Popes strategy, I think is concerned with this interim period. He may be looking back to the mid-late 60s when the reformed Mass and even the Novus Ordo itself was reverential, even holy. And in some way to “project” that into our near-future. Certainly ten years from now the Mass will look and feel very different to the free-for-all mess we have now.

  19. sigil7 says:

    Clearly, H.E. Bertone is referring to the Italian priests suspended for only wanting to say the TLM in that little ruckus a few weeks back. He seems to be hinting that they are just as much outside the intent of the MP as Marini I’s comments of late. At least that was my first impression on reading the snippet.

  20. Chironomo says:

    I had to look at the above postings and make sure that “Fr. Renzo diLorenzo” wasn’t around… I don’t wish to be accused of being a Marxist again! Anyhow, in regards to Henry Edwards’ description of his parish… were it so that your situation was the majority! Unfortunately… I think not. I travel and substitute and parish visit extensively, and the situation described by Andrew would be much more “typical” of a parish in the U.S. There are likely (although I can’t say for sure) many Diocese where there is no such thing as a “Latin Novus Ordo Mass” at any parish at any time. Is the situation improving? It certainly is, and there are more and more parishes being led to return to tradition (this was the suggestion that got me accused of being a Marxist in another post…supposedly we can’t “return” to traditions). It would have been unthinkable even 10 years ago to suggest that there would be 4 locations where the TLM would be said every Sunday in my Diocese, and yet that is what has happened since September (up from 1 location for the past 15 years). It is true that such change needs to come “from the bottom”, but as is the case at the parish level, there has to be support “at the top” for what is being promoted “from the bottom”. At a parish, nothing gets done without the approval, both tacet and public, of the Pastor, and in the Universal Church, nothing gets done without the approval, both tacet and public, of the Pope. That is the purpose of such public statements as the forthcoming clarifications… they are public support from the Pope for the efforts of those “at the bottom” to re-introduce” the TLM.

  21. Larry says:

    Sometime this blog is simply beyond reality. I cannot say for certain what the Pope will do or won’t do. I have read many of his works on Liturgy and I am impressed with his thinking. I am also keenly aware of his first statements as pope and that he does not intend to do “what he wants”, but rather what he hears Christ saying. To my mind he hopes to see the restoration not of the TLM as such; but, of reverence and solemnity in the Mass. We are in the Catholic Church in the middle of the process to get a decent translation of the NO into English and other languages too I suppose. When that is done in the next year or two we will have at least the words that more closely resemble what the Latin says. For my own part that will be a great improvement. Hopefully the bishops will use the opportunity to educate themselves, their priests and the laity about what the Mass is and should be. The bishops of the US have published a letter on Sacred Music that I am told is fairly good. I don’t know I haven’t read it. It is thought that Benedict will issue his own statement on this subjec as well. All of these coupled with the MP and the new instruction are signs of hope that the Liturgy will improve so that we can WORSHIP GOD more correctly and not preoccupy ourselves with the quality of the brocade or snide comments about the Pastoral Staff dipicting Our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. Realyyyy folks this isn’t about us it is about HIM!

  22. Henry Edwards says:

    Habemus Papam: Certainly ten years from now the Mass will look and feel very different to the free-for-all mess we have now.

    This is the real key to Pope Benedict\’s genius and, I believe, his real intent.

    I was surprised the other day when I read the following prediction of Fr. Kenneth Baker, the very sober and normally level-headed editor of the mainstream (if faithful) Homiletic & Pastoral Review:

    Ten years from now the worship of the Church will be close to what it was before the drastic innovations of 1970.\”

    There\’s only one way this seems possible. Growth of the TLM to reach perhaps 3% or 5% of Catholics, weighted toward the bright and serious young folks who will define the future (and who already predominate in many TLM communities).

    Which seems possible in light of the growth we\’ve seen in the past 6 months, surely more than anyone expected. And perhaps enough to spur sufficient reform in the NO to bring it perhaps 90% (in reverence, at least) of the way toward the TLM from where it is now.

    In short, not much change in the TLM, and no huge number of people leaving the NO. But such significant changes in the NO as to constitute a veritable \”new springtime in the Church\”.

  23. In my diocese there are the same two TLM Masses that existed before the MP, neither withing 30 miles of my home. Of the five parishes within that radius at least two are “church-in-the-round” buildings which are unsuitable for the extraordinary form. I have never heard of a Latin N.O. every being celebrated in any of these parishes, though I must admit I have never heard of liturgical dance or any of that kind of nonsense either.
    In short not much has changed around here.

  24. Chironomo says:

    Larry; Yes, I think we all feel exactly as you do. But that wouldn’t make for a very interesting blog, now would it? Speaking briefly about the music document that you refer to… yes it is somewhat a good step, although notg perfect by any means. And yes, the Pope is expected to speak on this subject, hopefully in the near future. We could all simply sit around and wait for things to happen and report on them, but that would be reporting, not commentary and discussion. We are not as obsessed with the minutia as you seem to think. In the end, many of us go back to our jobs in the morning (some of us work in the Church, and so we are immersed in these issues throughout the day) and do what we can to get things going. But here, we try to make some good points, and occasionally have some fun. I am still slightly insensed at being called a Marxist by one of the other participants, but that is the price you pay for putting your ideas out on the internet!

  25. Matthew Mattingly says:

    It woun’t happen probably in my lifetime, but I would love either this Pope, or one of his immediate successors to just plain and simply supress the Novus Ordo altogether, and re-introduce the Tridentine Latin Mass as the sole liturgy for the Latin Rite.

    As an aside, does anyone get the feeling that Archbishop Piero Marini on his “book tour” and accompanying speeches and receptions, is deliberatly stirring up trouble against the Motu Proprio, the Tridentine Latin Mass, and the Pope.

    I do. I read his interview with John Allen of NCR, and read other comments He’s made and have no doubt. He’s a dangerous man, the figurehead of the anti-Benedict XVI clique. He should be watched very closely, and pressured to keep his opinions to himself.

  26. Habemus Papam says:

    Matthew Mattingly, yes the opposition are regrouping and this is a fight. This is itself a sign of the changing times. Mary’s heel (and that is made up of some of the most unlikely of Her sons) is crushing the serpent’s head. Except some venom.

  27. Habemus Papam says:

    EXPECT some venom. Pray the Rosary for our Holy Father.

  28. TNCath says:

    The optimism with which many of you speak is laudable, and the examples of how Summorum Pontificum has taken root in various parishes is wonderful. In our parish, long before Summorum Pontificum became a reality, we have been singing the Missa de Angelis, two other chant Masses, and a number of Latin hymns at our Novus Ordo Mass for some time now. We are doing the best we can under the circumstances. We have a bishop who tolerates, but does not encourage, the Extraordinary Form, at two parishes in our diocese. The Masses at which he is celebrant or presides are generally poor in quality and consist primarily of contemporary music. Liturgy is not the only area in which our bishop “does his own thing,” but that’s for another day. As a result, it is more than likely that anything that the Vatican sends him will be subject to a “spin” that will not reflect the content of the document. So, please understand why I (and many others in similar dioceses) are skeptical about any drastic changes.

  29. Manuel R. says:

    “On the other hand, there are those who interpret the Motu Proprio as authorization for the return of the pre-Conciliar rite only.”

    I’m having some trouble interpreting this. Is the Cardinal saying the Motu Proprio also authorizes the creation of hybrid Masses, that is, that it authorizes the use of post-Conciliar rituals as well? If that’s the case, then the Instruction on SP will only create more problems, because traditionalists (myself included) will not stand for that. I envision the Mass being a mixture of the NOM and the TLM, but 40 years from now, when all the dust has settled, not in these troubled times.

  30. Bill says:

    Sadly, I must agree with the first two posters, Andrew and Jonathan. Nothing has changed in my diocese — the same insipid music and casual liturgies that ignore the Instructions issued by CDW a few years ago. Things may be better where some of you are, but locally it’s as if SP was never issued. I believe it’s going to take several years of attrition of the current bishops and clergy before there is any degree of universal change. At this point, I’d settle for a reverent mass where I don’t have to hold hands, can receive the Host on my tongue and can kneel after communion without feeling like an outcast.

  31. We are in a titanic struggle to recapture our birthright, the TLM. I agree with Habemus Papam(that we should expect venom. The monster we face, however, is not so much the opposition, but our own losing heart. Our opponents will dig their heels in. They will kick and scream and delay and intimidate and ignore. Our biggest battle will be with ourselves. We MUST be committed to be in this confict FOR THE LONG HAUL. We have certain rights under canon law, and one of these is to be able to voice our concerns all the way up the food chain to the Ecclesia Dei Commission. We should, by all means,follow the prescriptions spelled out in Summorum Pontificum for addressing inaction in a diocese, starting with the Pastor. We can’t just blog our way to success… We have to be willing to put pen to paper and keep the heat on (for as long as necessary, and pray, pray, pray!)

  32. Tom says:

    Habemus Papam wrote” “Certainly ten years from now the Mass will look and feel very different to the free-for-all mess we have now.”

    How? Will the people pray the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin? Will Gregorian Chant be given pride of place during Mass? Will laymen continue to distribute Holy Communion and serve as readers?

    What will become of altar girls?

    Will pianos and guitars sound during Mass?

    Will dioceses spend millions of dollars to remodel ugly parishes?

  33. Fr. Steve says:

    Clearly in the MP the Holy Father spoke about both forms of the one Roman Rite influencing each other. Many have overlooked this phrase in both the left and the right camps. The extreem right would have the Church return to an unreformed form of the Roman rite(which the Church Fathers of Vatican II clearly intended to reform, guided by the Holy Spirit no less) and embrace it as static and perfect without any need of change. And the extreem left would hope that the MP is forgotten in the dust of time along with the beautiful and ancient forms of the past. Neither, I believe is the way the Lord is leading us through the Holy Father. As I see it he does intend what would appear to many as an apparent hybrid. What the ancients considered beautiful and sacred will once again be considered such by all in the pews in a truly reformed Roman Rite according to the true mind of the Council Fathers, interprited in continuity and not in rupture. Unfortunatly there are still many who view Vatican II as rupture on both sides.

  34. scott says:

    I must disagree with an earlier comment that a merging of the TLM and NOM will necessarily fail. The extra epistle and psalm of the NOM could very easily add more scriptural depth to the TLM. And the “kiss of peace” is a beautiful idea – if poorly executed in most instances.

    Regardless, I pray for the return of the Leonine prayers at the end of Mass – whether TLM or NOM. That would ne a great way to keep the sanctuary from becoming a jamboree after the priest processes out.

  35. Tom says:

    “The extreem right would have the Church return to an unreformed form of the Roman rite (which the Church Fathers of Vatican II clearly intended to reform, guided by the Holy Spirit no less).”

    The Holy Ghost desires that the TLM be reformed? Then why does the Church continue to offer the “unreformed” TLM.

  36. Tom says:

    “Neither, I believe is the way the Lord is leading us through the Holy Father. As I see it he does intend what would appear to many as an apparent hybrid. What the ancients considered beautiful and sacred will once again be considered such by all in the pews in a truly reformed Roman Rite according to the true mind of the Council Fathers, interprited in continuity and not in rupture.”

    The Novus Ordo liturgical reform of Pope Paul VI, supported and praised by Pope John Paul II, is not the “truly reformed Roman Rite according to the true mind of the Council Fathers”?

    Either the Novus Ordo is or isn’t the “truly reformed Roman Rite according to the true mind of the Council Fathers.”

    Pope John Paul II declared that the Novus Ordo is the truly reformed Roman Rite and represents the “true mind” of the Council.

    Pope John Paul II stated the following: “The reform of the rites and the liturgical books was undertaken immediately after the promulgation of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and was brought to an effective conclusion in a few years thanks to the considerable and self less work of a large number of experts and bishops from all parts of the world.”

    Pope John Paul II continued that “the vast majority of the pastors and the Christian people have accepted the liturgical reform in a spirit of obedience and indeed joyful fervor.

    “For this we should give thanks to God for that movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church which the liturgical renewal represents; for the fact that the table of the Word of God is now abundantly furnished for all; for the increased participation of the faithful by prayer and song, gesture and silence, in the Eucharist and the other sacraments…”

    “…the liturgical renewal is the most visible fruit of the whole work of the Council.”

    We know what the liturgical “reform” has wrought…but are we afraid to admit that the reform is a disaster?

    Please, let’s stop insisting that Catholics who wish to remain attached to the “unreformed” TLM represent the “extreme right.”

    We form the “realistic right”…that is, we are realistic regarding the post-Vatican II liturgical reform…and we are right.

    The liturgical reform is a disaster…and we are right in our assessment.

    Sorry, but the Western Church will not prosper until a Pope suppresses the Novus Ordo and returns to the TLM.

  37. Fr Renzo di Lorenzo says:

    Chrionomo, if return to merely external traditions is a movement in the faith that is comparable to the movements in other faiths, as you say elsewhere, then the liturgical expression of Tradition is reduced to a pendulum swing.

    This is not how Sacred Tradition works. Unless people take the lead of the Holy Spirit, they cannot understand the externals in the Liturgy correctly. They are merely in reaction. What a disaster. Is that what you call “fun”?

    If you want me to call you a marxist again. I will. Oh, sorry. I already did:

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/12/heres-a-headline-we-havent-seen-before/#comments

    Cheers!

  38. Tom says:

    “We are in a titanic struggle to recapture our birthright, the TLM.”

    Let us consider the other side’s point of view.

    They believe that the Novus Ordo is their birthright…as altar girls, lay readers, laymen distributing Holy Communion, reception of Holy Communion in the hand, piano music, bland vestments, insipid hymns, bland-looking churches, vernacular Masses…and so forth.

    The Novus Ordo and above practices are, in fairness to the “other side,” approved by the Church.

    The real titanic struggle is actually limited to the Papacy…the struggle is with Peter.

    Someday, a Pope will have to face reality and return to the TLM.

    We believe that the TLM is our birthright and the other side believes that the Novus Ordo is their birthright.

    Someday, a Pope will be forced to take decisive action.

    Only Peter can end the titanic struggle in question as the real struggle is about Peter.

    I pray that Pope Benedict XVI will return to the TLM exclusively

  39. Larry says:

    Chironomo, point taken. TNCath makes a statement about the bishop in the diocese who celebrates with contemporary music. I experience the same thing in my Archdiocese, but, guess what! The Archbishop has one of the best attended Masses in the City and the music is contemporary Christian Worship, and nearly everyone in the church sings! Now I love Gregorain Chant; but, I find it hard to accept that these modern Scripture based hymns/songs don’t have a place in our Church. The only other time you here most of a congregation sing in a Catholic Church is when they are singing the LATIN responses to the NO. In the TLM parishes the people do not respond as the 1962 Missal mandated. They sit and pray (maybe)but they don’t sing. If the TLM is to grow in importance then the people who are regulars need to obey just like they expect the bishops to obey the Pope. With the new translation of the NO and the TLM celebrated with participation the richness of our Liturgical Treasury will swell and draw many souls searching for true worship. Yes with LOTS of Gregorian Chant and some contemporary Christian Worship music and a few of those Protestant Hymns as well as long as the doctrines are correct.

  40. Tom says:

    “The extreem right would have the Church return to an unreformed form of the Roman rite (which the Church Fathers of Vatican II clearly intended to reform, guided by the Holy Spirit no less).”

    I will stand happily with the “extreme right” in their desire to remain attached to the “unreformed form of the Roman rite.”

    For it was none other than Blessed Pope John XIII who, as Vatican II was just underway, declared that he would permit only a few minor changes to the Roman Mass. (Source: The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber…by Father Wiltgen.)

    Give me the “unreformed form of the Roman rite” every time.

  41. Fr Renzo di Lorenzo says:

    Hey Tom. As far as I can count those minor changes… there may only be two, and both are in the rite for the ordination of a preist.

    1. The priest is anointed, not with chrism, but with the oil of catechumens. This is not good.

    2. The priest, who concelebrates his own ordination Mass, does not receive the Precious Blood. This is not good.

    Those who think these abuses are ‘traditional’ need only look as far as Rome, where, on one occasion, at least the first was done for the sake of expedience. We all know what Papal M.C.’s can be like. Cheers!

  42. Elvis says:

    TNCath,

    I too live in TN and you are largely correct in saying that the bishops here will spin or ignore any documents from Rome that do not suit their tastes especially concerning the TLM. I will say this, I think the operative word here is “containment” of the TLM, but I do believe that none of them will openly act with hostility toward the TLM, they will only go so far. I actually think that since no statement of policy have been issued (at least in Memphis) they are waiting to see what this new document will say, then the game will be on.

  43. TNCath says:

    Elvis,

    Indeed, “containment” is the word. Such a word gives the impression that the Extraordinary From is a disease they want to quarantine. No, they won’t openly act with hostility; rather, they will be passive aggressive in their response. When the new document is released, chances are they will say as little as possible, if anything, about it, hoping it will just go away.

  44. Henry Edwards says:

    Tom: Sorry, but the Western Church will not prosper until a Pope suppresses the Novus Ordo and returns to the TLM.

    The I assume your favorite pope would be a future Gregory Leo Pius I:

    “Then in an announcement which stunned the congregation, the new Pope announced that the ‘prolonged experiment’ of the ‘Novus Ordo’ Mass would be rapidly phased out and although, as his predecessors had pointed out, it is a valid Mass, he had no doubt that the great sacramental gifts of the Tridentine Mass, the ‘Mass for all times’ formulated by St Pius V, would soon once again be embraced universally.”

    “To bring this into effect he had ordered all bishops and priests everywhere to re-institute the Tridentine Mass on a daily basis in all churches and to make it available on Sundays at times when the majority of the Faithful would have easy access to the ‘Sacrifice of Calvary.’ He noted that some ageing priests and prelates might not be able to grasp the necessary skills to say the Latin Mass and that therefore these, after due examination, would be permitted to say the Novus Ordo in private, after the prayer book apportioned to that version of the Mass had been adjusted to correct the errors and omissions imposed over the decades.”

    http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2004/features_feb04.html

    But what do you think would be the immediate result of such a papal announcement?

  45. Habemus Papam says:

    Henry Edwards: the immediate result for me would be to wake up from a 30 year old nightmare and run to the nearest Mass!

  46. Henry Edwards says:

    Habemus Papam: But do you think the Pope could make that “nearest Mass” everywhere be a TLM this Sunday, merely by ordering that it be so? Where would priests qualified to celebrate these TLM’s be found overnight? Do we want TLM’s everywhere at the expense of un-qualified celebrants?

  47. Habemus Papam says:

    Tom, the NO as we have it now has degenerated. 35 years ago there were communion rails, kneeling to receive, only females who were nuns allowed in the Sanctuary. This is what I think the Holy Father would like to see as an interim solution and I think in a few years this is what we will have. The Novus Ordo is a failed experiment, it needs help to survive and it will, for a while.
    Personally I would love to see a full-scale return to the Tridentine but realistically that will happen gradually.
    Humanly speaking of course. Miracles DO happen.

  48. peretti says:

    Henry Edwards

    “but what do you think would be the immediate result of such a papal announcement?”

    Well, one immediate result would be the biggest party you ever saw at my place.

  49. Neal says:

    Habemus Papam: I agree with what you have written, except for the word “degenerated.” I think more properly you could say that the NO has stabilized over the last 35 years. I suspect that it is now what its creators intended it to be; it just took a bit of time to reach a state of equilibrium.

    To this uneducated layman’s mind, any form of the sacrament which needs the influence of another to maintain a modicum of propriety and respect is not worth keeping.

    Pax

  50. Fr Renzo di Lorenzo says:

    I heard a great, very young bishop (and there are such!) say this: “THE N.O. DOESN’T EXIST!”

    What he meant was that there are few places in the world where the rubrics are followed (e.g., St Agnes) but otherwise everyone pretty much just does what they want.

    I think things are looking up when a bishop says something like that. He understands. That bishop, presenly an ordinary of a diocese, offers Mass according to the 1962 missal VERY frequently.

    BTW: Sometimes people think that rubrics are dry commandments and that looking askance at disobedience is judgmental. Instead, I would say that it is vivacious love for the Holy Sacrifice of our Lord, great respect for His great love, which would have us desire the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be offered properly.

  51. Habemus Papam says:

    Neal: Interesting. I suspect Bugnini and the Protestant 6 had something like a typical Anglican communion service in mind. Other influences came along eg Cardinal Suenens of Belgium and his Charismatic Mass. But yes the Novus Ordo has found its own plateau. How long can it survive in its present form though? Rome has decided to give it a boost. Reminds me of a sick elderly person recovering after each boost yet dying at the same time.
    The Tridentine Mass really is the Mass that will not die.

  52. Neal says:

    Habemus Papam: “How long can it survive in its present form though?”

    I read somewhere that Bishop Fellay (SSPX, let’s not get into that here) puts it at two generations more. He also quoted an unnamed source in the Vatican who thought it might last one more generation at most. In my extended family, it’s EF or stay home and watch football, so I suppose that counts as supporting evidence.

    Pax.

  53. Fr. Steve says:

    I don’t think many here are interested in the actual intent of the Holy Father as expressed in the document itself. If we are, it’s hard to notice it through the ranting and raving about one’s own personal likes and dislikes. May God help us all to think with the mind of the one who is stiring the bark of Peter.

  54. EJ says:

    Fr. Steve – I agree with you 100% – and I’m a bit surprised by the lack of balance from commenters above, and frankly, the level of fantasy, conjecture, and distance from reality that some comments exhibit. Cardinal Bertone is absolutely right, and anyone who has interpreted Summorum Pontificum as doing anything other than juridically and canonically restoring the usus antiquior to equal footing and dignity WITH the Novus Ordo, with very few but wise limitations, has either not even read the document itself, along with the accompanying letter, or doing a very poor job of interpreting them, whether from the left or the right. Read them folks…maybe more slowly this time, they’re very clear.

  55. Chironomo says:

    Friar Lorenzo;

    I’m not sure where you got the idea that I think what you seem to say I’m thinking… my comparison of what is happening in the CATHOLIC faith at this time (our realization that we have abandoned tradition and need to once again return to it) is also happening in other faiths as well, regardless of whether we believe they are “legitimate” faiths or not (I believe they are not). That the changes brought about following Vatican II took place because of the cultural and social climate of the 1960’s in really undeniable, and in the same way, the restoration of Tradition or whatever you would prefer to call it could not have taken place 15 years ago… it is a product of our culture that is also expressed vividly in other parts of culture as well. If that’s Marxism, I’m figuring that even Marx didn’t understand Marxism then…

  56. Habemus Papam says:

    Its clear that Summorum Pontificum intends to put the 1962 Missal on an equel footing with the Novus Ordo. I dont see any rantings or ravings against this intent. This differences of opinion lie in seeing the NO as a novel experiment doomed to ultimate failure and the fact that in attempting to reform it Rome recognises this inherent failure. The Tridentine Mass would not be brought out of storage had the NO been a success. I dont think thats a fantasy.

  57. Fr Renzo di Lorenzo says:

    Chironomo, when you say “regardless of whether we believe they are “legitimate” faiths or not (I believe they are not)” is a huge more or less clarification of that which was not at all evident in your contribution to another post:

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/12/heres-a-headline-we-havent-seen-before/#comments

    So, I thank you for that. But there is something else.

    If everyone is getting back to something less crazy (and I’m not at all sure that is the case generally speaking), wouldn’t it be just a trip to nostalgia land, a swing of the pendulum, from what you describe? You may be partially correct.

    Many are not receiving faith, their life in Tradition, from the Holy Spirit, but merely appreciate conserving whatever traditions (the externals) because they like to do that, or because society around tells them that this is good for them to do. That is utterly superficial and counterproductive. There is nothing more geared to destroying the externals of Tradition (as in, traditions), than giving up one’s appreciation of those traditions to be subject to mere reaction to societal influence.

    I would like to encourage people to accept Tradition, the faith, from the Holy Spirit, and then, because of that, accept wholeheartedly the traditions which best incarnate that Tradition.

    Also, I point out that its never been an everybody or nobody situation. People kept going to the Tridentine Mass, for instance, right through these past decades, bucking societal influence. It’s the same with being saints at whatever time: keeping the commandments, loving God and neighbor, is impossible if we are merely liable to following the influence of society. Grace, faith, Tradition, abounds, in season, out of season.

    I like to give the example of the most stalwart people of all, the “Little Old Ladies” who kept things going all these years. I think they would look at some of the younger crowd and wonder about all their bluster. Meanwhile, the knees of the “Little Old Ladies” are thickly calloused.

    What I’m trying to say, Chironomo, is that the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council didn’t have to “implement” the council the way they did. They could have remained faithful. Many didn’t. Did they go along with society? Yes. Did they have to? No.

    Then, if it seems that societal influence is such that a return to past externals is the way to go, I would hope that if people do this, they will do it not because of societal influence, but because they are saints in receiving the faith, Tradition, from the Holy Spirit.

    If one just says that the whole movement always and everywhere has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, but only with societal influence, then, well, that does smell of of marxism, don’t you think? That isn’t what you’re saying, Chironomo, is it?

  58. Chironomo says:

    Fr. DiLorenzo;
    I understand what you’re saying regarding “accepting the faith”… but it is not as though most of the Catholic faithful really had a choice… after all, that’s what the Motu proprio is about, at least in part…restoring to the faithful that which they were made to believe they were forbidden to have. The faithful out “in the pews” are subject to the Church, unless of course you would consider yourself in the “Sing a New Church” crowd… I don’t consider myself as part of that group, but rather I have to trust the “Church” to lead me in the right direction. While the teachings of the Church may not swing like a pendulum, our adherence to them most certainly does, and we are swinging back at this time towards a more Orthodox view of our faith. The fact is, I still, like many Catholics, feel that the Church hierarchy is failing to lead the way towards where the Spirit is pointing us, guided instead by individual desires and self-interest. I see this every day at the Chancery where I work, and at the parish where I serve… greater concern for what people will think than for what is right. The MP is a great example of this, and the response to it from the Holy See will be something of a sign for those of us out here waiting as to whether or not there is an authentic movement here, or just more posturing. And so we wait…

  59. Fr Renzo di Lorenzo says:

    Chironomo…

    No one has to ride the pendulum. Just get off it. Now!

    You NEVER have to wait for Tradition, for the fullness of the faith. You can be a saint NOW. If not, it is YOU who are posturing. The Church to which all of us are subject is not subject to your judgment about any “authentic movement”. The MP is authentic, regardless of what anyone else says.

    Don’t treat the Catholic faithful as if they had no moral or religious capacity, making them wait upon societal influence or leadership which may not get better. The faithful do have a choice to believe regardless of societal influence or any presence of appropriate leadership. If you do not believe that, you are completely an atheist.

    I mean what an excuse, just like in the Reformation: Ecclesiastic so and so is not nice, so I have to wait to be a Catholic! Grow up! There were many saints at the time of the Reformation, including laity. There are many saints now. Why? Because they don’t wait.

  60. Chironomo says:

    Larry;

    “The Archbishop has one of the best attended Masses in the City and the music is contemporary Christian Worship, and nearly everyone in the church sings”…

    I just have to comment here. I made a point in a book several years back that if the point of Sacred Music is to “get the faithful to sing”, then we only need two pieces in our repertoire… “God Bless America” and “When Irish Eyes Are Smiling”… both of these will raise the rafters in the average Catholic parish in the U.S. But that isn’t really the point, is it? The fact is, most contemporary Christian music (Praise and Worship) is problematic for use in Catholic liturgy. While the texts might be “scriptural”, they are most often vague in their meaning (I lift up your Name / Your Love is Extravagent/ Let The River Flow..)and are nearly always, when combined with the music that they are set to, overly “sexualized”… (remember that this is music intended to evangelize teenagers). Consider the major P&W hit “Breathe”… “This is the air I breathe, your holy presence living in me; And I’m desperate for you, and I’m lost without you”.. to begin with, this song is so extremely “personal” that to sing it as a group makes one feel a little uneasy about your neighbor in the pews with you, and secondly it sets up a relationship between Jesus and I that is analogous to the relationship between me and my high-school sweetheart. At the foundation, this music is purely POP MUSIC, and is constructed and sold as such. It is the embodiment of everything that Sacred Music should not be. Does it have a place in the Church? Perhaps at a Youth Rally, or a Youth Group Picnic, or on the Bus while taking your youth group to Universal Studios, I would say OK… but certainly not at Mass. As for combing this music with Gregorian Chant and Latin at Mass… that would border on comical and would, I believe, rise to the level of mocking the liturgy.

  61. peretti says:

    Habemus Papam,

    In an earlier post, you said that your reading is that the same people who accuse the pope of betraying Vatican II are those who interpret the MP to be a return to the “pre-conciliar” rite only. I will leave the timeline and the “pre-conciliar” phrasing aside, and say I agree. These people know darn good and well that the MP does NOT toss out the NO and force the mass of John XXIII only, onto the altars. But they are saying it anyway. Always claim victim status and get your way. If Bertone has not seen this, I think he betrays naivete in this regard.

  62. Matt Q says:

    Andrew wrote:

    Sounds to me like we should get ready for a second round of endless wrangling.

    In the meantime nothing has changed for the vast majority of us: we still sing our post-communion “happy birthday” on a regular basis in a casual environment with dilettante singing of syncopated shlagers. Wake me up when things start to change.

    ()
    Andrew, never give up hope, for nothing is impossible with God. At he same time, I don’t know if we can live that long. LOL

    Jonathan Bennett wrote:

    “These bishops know what they are doing. When the instruction comes out there will be no forehead-slapping or exclaims of “How dumb of me! THATS what the Pope meant!”

    LOL. So true, dude. So true.

    Chironomo wrote:

    “It will have no effect, unless of course there are actual consequences of disobedience (excommunication comes to mind…). It would be enough, I believe to simply state CLEARLY and publicly, for instance: “The type of instruction issued by Bp. Trautman in the Diocese of Erie is therefore unlawful and immediately abrogated and any further instructions so issued are also unlawful and so abrogated. Only instructions which receive the recognitio of the Holy See and the PCED can be considered of effect in regards to the Motu Proprio. Period.”

    TNCath wrote:

    “I fear the above postings are right on target. If recent history has taught us anything, it has been that the best way to contravene an official document from the Church is to simply ignore it and move on. Cases in point: Perfectae Caritatis, Humanae Vitae, Essential Elements of Religious Life, Vita Consecrata, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Summorum Pontificum…”

    John wrote:

    The primary thing about this forthcoming document is not [whether] bishops will ignore it or not, the strength comes from the fact that the clarification will strengthen the positions of those who want the Mass (priests and laity alike). When push comes to shove the directives of the document cannot be denied. It seems to me that Ecclesia Dei will be willing to intervene given that the situations and requests presented to them are carefully and respectfully presented. Look, it has not been long since the Motu Proprio released and how many places have a Extraordinary RIte Mass that didn’t have one before, how many priests have been trained and will train, how many seminarians are willing to learn the Extraordinary Rite while in seminary? We will not have instant results, but the train is rolling and is not stopping now, time is on the side of liturgical reform because the opposite leads to only one conclusion. If the Latin Rite continues down the path begun by many of the post Vatican II “reformers” and their secular humanist philosophies, they be reformed in to irrelevance. We all have seen the fruits of the post Vat II nuttiness, who will be left standing at the end of the day, who will retain their faith? What is needed is prudence,patience, prayer and persistence. The nutty solutions are not tenable.”

    ()

    All of your observations are correct and have a similar theme which runs along the lines of my conviction stated a while ago. Unless and until Rome deals with recalicitrant bishops, nothing will change, nothing. Everything will be Status Quo.

    Regarding the various enthusiastic welcomings we’ve seen for the Tridentine Mass thus far, it is a heart-warming and hopeful sign of what can be accomplished and what is yet to come. In the end, however, this is possible only where the bishop is sympathetic to the cause. In the end, again, its the Faithful who suffer and the spiritual and liturgical Darfur continues with the true powers merely saying, “Oh, blah-blah, blah blah blah.”

    Habemus Papam wrote:

    “…I think Pope Benedict is a great Pope. However, I think what he would like to see is a synthasis of the Tridentine and Novus Ordo. He is not a fan of Paul VIs Mass but neither is he a Traditionalist in love with the Missal of Pius V. Benedict is a Hegelian, the Ordinary and Extraordinary will act upon each other to produce a Mass which the Fathers of Vatican II would have wished.
    I don’t agree with the Pope in this; the 1965 Missal was in line with Vatican II and the Holy Ghost has preserved the Tridentine Rite intact for the future. I love this Pope but think his reform of the reform will end instead with a true Restoration.”

    ()

    Nice observation Hab, but unless the reform of the Novus Order is actually HELPED along, there won’t be any of the Pope’s Hegelianisms. The two Rites will continue to Balkanize and so will the Faithful. To this, unless the Novus Ordo flowers into what it really could be, it won’t. It will occur only when the hearts and minds of the bohemian-minded liberals are enlightened and converted will there be any sort of effort on a larger scale to embrace the Tridentine Rite. This is why Rome needs to take decisive action in matters.

    Point blank, if the Church handled the great tribulations, heresies and errors of the past they way She does now, we never would have made it to the present age. I am convinced of this.

  63. Different says:

    OK…here’s my prediction on what this document will contain:

    It will make clear the Pope’s intention that the two forms of the roman rite are equal in value and holiness and neither should be avoided. He wants all priests of the roman rite to be ready, willing, and able to celebrate both forms of that rite. Now that won’t happen overnight. I expect there will be a specific urging to seminaries to teach both forms. I expect that bishops will be notified clearly that priests can offer either form of the Mass. Priests will be notified that it is inappropriate and not in keeping with the document to refuse to say either form of the Mass if one actually knows how to say it.

    Anyway, that’s what my crystal ball says. What does yours say? It would be interesting to see predictions and then see how close we are.

    I also think that this is the right path for the Church. The NO isn’t going away. The TLM is nice, I prefer the NO. Call me stupid, a jerk, whatever. I prefer a NO Mass done absolutely correctly, SUNG, beautiful vestments, ad orientum, in ENGLISH. I do agree with what someone mentioned above that Pope Benedict envisions (hate that word) a hybrid Mass in the future…call it an organic development of the TLM.

  64. Manuel R. says:

    Fr. Steve wrote: “The extreem right would have the Church return to an unreformed form of the Roman rite […] and embrace it as static and perfect without any need of change. […] As I see it he does intend what would appear to many as an apparent hybrid.”

    Lest I be cast as right wing extremist, I’d like to say that I also envision a Mass that is not completely the TLM, i.e., with some elements of the NOM in it, as being the official rite for the Church in the distant future. Yes, it is not reasonable that the Mass should stay frozen forever. However, to allow hybrid Masses now, during this Pontificate, seems to me to be very unwise. I’ve experienced these kind of Masses, and the priests who celebrate them have the idea that they can add and subtract from the ritual as they please, and that what they do is follow the spirit of the Council, when in fact Vatican II says that changes to the Mass are to come from above (Pope and bishops); priests are not allowed to experiment. I have heard (first hand) one priest say that he celebrates Mass as if he were the Pope: the rubrics are not that important. In these times of great abuse, would it not be better to follow the rubrics as strictly as possible (and, therefore, most humbly) in each of the rites to gain some balance for the future?

    Let’s face it: if we don’t protect our beloved TLM, it could go the way of the NOM, which originally was meant to be something quite different to what is has become now.

  65. Fr Renzo di Lorenzo says:

    Manuel R. said: “I have heard (first hand) one priest say that he celebrates Mass as if he were the Pope: the rubrics are not that important.” That would be right. But, Marini-I has been replaced by Marini-II. Impressive, that.

  66. Habemus Papam says:

    But Fr. Sreve we got what the Council Fathers wanted in 1965! Has this Missal disappeared into thin air? There is no NEED to mix the 1962 Missal with the commitee production of 1969. The Council Fathers, even guided by the Holy Spirit, most certainly did not mandate a hybrid.

  67. Matt Q says:

    Different wrote:

    “OK…here’s my prediction on what this document will contain:

    It will make clear the Pope’s intention that the two forms of the roman rite are equal in value and holiness and neither should be avoided. He wants all priests of the roman rite to be ready, willing, and able to celebrate both forms of that rite. Now that won’t happen overnight. I expect there will be a specific urging to seminaries to teach both forms. I expect that bishops will be notified clearly that priests can offer either form of the Mass. Priests will be notified that it is inappropriate and not in keeping with the document to refuse to say either form of the Mass if one actually knows how to say it.

    Anyway, that’s what my crystal ball says. What does yours say? It would be interesting to see predictions and then see how close we are.

    I also think that this is the right path for the Church. The NO isn’t going away. The TLM is nice, I prefer the NO. Call me stupid, a jerk, whatever. I prefer a NO Mass done absolutely correctly, SUNG, beautiful vestments, ad orientum, in ENGLISH. I do agree with what someone mentioned above that Pope Benedict envisions (hate that word) a hybrid Mass in the future…call it an organic development of the TLM.”

    ()

    My prediction is what the Clarification won’t say: NOTHING which compels obedience. There definitely won’t be any Shalls, Musts, Wills, Shall-nots, Must-nots, Will-Nots. On this point I eagerly await being proved wrong, but I highly doubt it.

    I don’t think you’re a stupid jerk. You’ve merely stated your preference, and, no, you don’t have to qualify it either. The Why is not our business. You like the Novus Ordo, fine, as long as you are not hostile towards or wish to block the Tridentine Mass. FYI, the Tridentine Mass ISN’T going away either.

    I’ve always understood the Novus Ordo to be a permanent part of the landscape of the Church. I’ve never had the misgivings it would go away. It cannot continue however as an amorphous free-for-all. It needs urgent course-correcting before it really does run aground and takes a few souls along with it. Personally, I don’t mind the Novus Ordo if done straightforwardly and correctly–and with reverence. Mostly it isn’t. The way it looks or the way the priest says it, you can tell immediately what his mindset is and his attitude about the Liturgy and the Church.

    The Novus Ordo as a weekday Mass is fine. It’s spoken, it’s quite and one can get to work on time. Sundays is another issue. The Mass should be as solemn and as deep as possible–hence the Tridentine Mass. ;)

  68. Dionysius says:

    I prefer the TLM and have done so since I found out about its continued and virtually underground existence in 2005, via the FSSP. The real strategic battle (at least in English) will be over the long-contested new ICEL translation, again delayed. With this, we shall all stand or fall. Either it will reinforce the failure of the NO or benchmark the authenticity of the TLM. We can pray and hope for the latter.

  69. Susan says:

    In response to “Appoint as bishops those priests who offer the Traditional Latin Mass.”

    My bishop is perfectly able to say the Tridentine Mass, he just doesn’t want to.

    Approaching my parish priest to request the Tridentine Mass was pointless. Father speaks with broken English and to expect him to learn Latin would be impractical and taxing. So I went to my bishop for help. I approached him after a mass and asked him when we can get the Tridentine Mass back. “When you get me a priest” he said. According to my bishop “the Pope freed the Tridentine Mass to appease those who separated”. “We have the Mass!” he said. Then he ripped into the Tridentine Mass: “People used to say the ROSARY during the Tridentine Mass!”

    According to my bishop the people here don’t want the Tridentine Mass. I asked him how he knows that; he said I was one of two people asking for it. First of all there was no ecclesiastical acknowledgement; there were no surveys conducted to see if people wanted it and besides the younger than fifty crowd never really experienced the Tridentine Mass before. I asked my bishop how could there be a “stable Latin group” with the Tridentine Mass exiled for forty years. (Actually there is one: it’s called SSPX, they have bimonthly masses in some backroom) But anybody I approached personally got all huffy and said something about going backwards. But there has to be some people in the same boat as I am with three parishes and a cathedral in this town. I asked my bishop how I could get such “stable group” together; he said he wasn’t going to advertise for me. I said perhaps I could look for people in the parish bulletins, “You could try, he said, but it doesn’t mean they will put it in the bulletin for you. I am not getting Mass said just for you.”

    My bishop twisted everything I said, accused me of saying things I didn’t say; and publicly humiliated me. Who will have the courage to approach him about this again? I have been patiently waiting for many years, but I may die before we have the Tridentine Mass back where I live. I am praying daily for my bishop and for the priests of my diocese. I am praying for the Pope and everybody who works for the restoration of the Tridentine Mass. I simply don’t know what else to do.

    Greetings from British Columbia, Canada from
    Susan

  70. Matt Q says:

    Dear Susan:

    We will have to pray for that bishop of yours. I have no patience or tolerance for people like that, especially bishops who are hostile to the Tridentine Rite. He should be informed–and there are many ways this can be done–that the Tridentine Rite is the right of any priest, with or without him. As a private lay citizen, you have the means to make your voice heard whether or not your bishop likes it. Meanwhile, report this character to Ecclesia Dei. Also too, just wait until the next cover-up, then the Crown can pluck him right out of the Chancery, then you’ll be getting a new bishop sooner than later. Amazing why the Faithful have to suffer with people like that.

  71. Matt Q says:

    Tom wrote:

    “One said the Latin Mass in either form was opposed to his spirituality.”

    ()

    Well, Tom, let’s inform One his spirituality needs a little more growth!

    Tom wrote further:

    “The Holy Father declared the following in Summorum Pontificum:

    ‘The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.’

    If he is keen to promote the Traditional Latin Mass, why didn’t the Holy Father simply add to the above that seminarians will be taught Latin and trained to offer the Traditional Latin Mass?”

    Neal wrote ( re Henry Edwards’ comment ):

    “50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.”

    I have to say I have a tough time seeing how this came to fruit in the NOM.”

    ()

    This is what deliberate destruction of the Mass looks like. The Mass cannot be abruptly and single-handedly “revised” in any way. The Pope himself said the Novus Ordo is a complete break with the organic and theological development of the Mass down through time.

    I agree with Neal in having “a tough time seeing how this came to fruit in the NOM.” Let’s remember, people, the Novus Ordo is valid only because it is juridically valid. Once the Church does so with anything, it’s as valid as taxes. This is why the Novus Ordo just can’t be done away with. The has concern for the Faithful and doesn’t want that rip in the Church again when the Inconsiderates did that to the Faithful with the Tridentine Rite.

    Theologically, the Novus Ordo is unsound and so its form. The Pope himself said so, yet he so wants to hang on to it. Mind-boggling as to why. I think the Pope and the Church do so because it’s political for them to do so. Rejection of it would create such a blacklash it would be considered the linchpin of “undoing” Vatican II. Eh, so what? What is wrong is the false thinking and the false Liturgy which sprang from V2. Reign that in and reform the Novus Ordo and there just may be sunnier days for the Church.

    Tom, the reason the Pope didn’t say, “seminarians will be taught Latin and trained to offer the Traditional Latin Mass?” is because Rome is unwilling or unable to say ( my usual mantra ) “Shall, Will, Must, Shall not, Will not, Must not.” He did say he urges Latin to be taught in seminaries again, but we all know where Papal suggestions go… a big huge truck comes by once a week to take it away.

    Little Gal wrote:

    “Depression has varying degrees of incapacity which may be helped by medication. I’m troubled that it is mentioned here in connection with the habits of a priest as it may have absolutely nothing to do with the way in which he lives his vocation.”

    ()

    It may very well explain why this priest is quite pastorally irresponsible as well as seeming to be a little too immature to be priest. If the priest really is on such meds, then it calls into question his pastoral fitness.

    Chironomo wrote:

    “The fact that this document is being “leaked” much like SP was in Novemebr of 2006 may be an indication that this is something bigger than just some definitions and clarifications of points in SP.”

    ()

    We can only hope!