CWN on document clarifying Summorum Pontificum

Here is a piece from Catholic World News about the rumors concerning the explanatory document for Summorum Pontificum.

However, I am sceptical.  I suspect we will not see the document until, perhaps, before Easter.

My emphases and comments.

New Vatican document to clarify Summorum Pontificum

Vatican, Dec. 31, 2007 (CWNews.com) – The Vatican will soon issue a new document clarifying the terms of Summorum Pontificum, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone has revealed.

Confirming reports that have circulated around Rome in recent weeks, the Vatican Secretary of State told the Italian weekly Famiglia Cristiana that the Ecclesia Dei commission will issue instructions to "clarify the criteria for the application of the motu proprio" in which Pope Benedict XVI (bio – news) broadened access to the traditional Latin Mass.

Cardinal Bertone said that the new document was needed because there have been some "confused reactions" to the motu proprio. In fact some Vatican officials– most notably Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship– have energetically criticized bishops who have failed to accept the papal directive.

Cardinal Bertone took a more conciliatory approach to the disputes that have arisen in the aftermath of the Pope’s move to restore the traditional Mass. The Italian prelate told Famiglia Cristiana that had been widely misinterpreted, and the new instruction from the Ecclesia Dei commission would attempt to clear up misconceptions.

"Some people have charged that the Pope was rejecting the Council’s [Vatican II] teaching," Cardinal Bertone told the Italian magazine, emphasizing that this interpretation is completely unfounded. At the same time, he also dismissed the theory that Pope Benedict hopes to replace the Novus Ordo Mass, making the "extraordinary form" the single liturgical usage of the future. That is equally inaccurate, the cardinal said.

Cardinal Bertone did not indicate when the new liturgical directive would appear. Some Vatican-watchers believe that the instruction from Ecclesia Dei will appear within a matter of days; others have said that it could be several weeks before it is published. 

There is great need for this explanatory document.  It must not be rushed.

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.

65 Responses to CWN on document clarifying Summorum Pontificum

  1. Tom says:

    Many bishops basically made the Motu Proprio a dead letter. Why won’t they do the same with the clarification? I’m sorry, but I’ll have to see some real changes of hearts among bishops before I believe that the Motu Proprio and clarification will have much effect on dioceses where the TLM is all but absent.

    I have pretty much given up on the Dallas Diocese. I’ve asked priests to offer the TLM and they’ve refused. One said the Latin Mass in either form was opposed to his spirituality. I was shocked. I haven’t seen any movement in Dallas to liberate the Sunday TLM from of the out-of-the-way chapel in which the FSSP operates.

    The Dallas Diocese is far from alone in what I described. Therefore, the realistic thing for me is to take an I’ll-believe-it-when-I-see-it approach as to whether the Motu Proprio and clarification truly alter history.

    It is extremely important to note that Cardinal Bertone made it clear that the Pope’s support for the Novus Ordo is unshakable.

  2. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:

    Of course his support of the Ordo of Paul VI is unshakable: this is part of his point. Those who continue their silliness will, I predict, be described as NOT REALLY celebrating the missal of Paul VI.

  3. PNP, OP says:

    Fr. Z. is correct when he says that a clarification must not be rushed. However, I’m with Tom here: no amount of clarification is going to make any difference given the current state of disobedience in the hierarchy. We have a generation or two of priests and bishops who were trained to “read texts” in a way that allows them “to make” the texts mean anything that they want the text to mean. I was taught this in seminary. All you really have to do is “broaden the context of the document” so that the actual words and sentences of the document no longer mean anything at all and then the reader “provides” the reading that best suits his/her needs. You see this with S.P. when bishops and/or liturgists “broaden the context” and read S.P. as a derestriction of the Extraordinary Form for the purpose of reuniting schismatic traditionalist groups. Since S.P. is about unity and not division, then we really can’t read S.P. as universal permission for all Latin Rite priests to celebrate the E.F. That’s divisive, so only those readings that promote unity are allowed…and so on, ad nau.

    Fr. Philip, OP

  4. Chironomo says:

    Summorum Pontificum was a fairly self-explanatory document, not really in need of too much “clarification”. All of us out here in the blogosphere had no trouble whatsoever figuring out what it meant, and any Bishop, Priest or Catholic faithful who felt they needed some explanation would have a vast body of information to draw upon. The problem here is not the “vagueness” of the document, although there are a few items that might need further expansion. The problem is an unwillingness to accept the fundamental purpose of the document. Writing a clarification document that addresses the several technical questions that have come up (the “stabiliter” question, how many people are needed to ask, etc…) would take no more than a page or two and could have been completed and sent out from PCED quickly. However, addressing the problem of an unwillingness to accept the fundamental purpose of the document… that requires very careful planning, writing, discussion and preparation, and that takes time. 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.

  5. Fr Renzo di Lorenzo says:

    Excellent points, Chironomo. Bonne année!

  6. RBrown says:

    One said the Latin Mass in either form was opposed to his spirituality.
    Comment by Tom

    I have no doubt that he was telling the truth–which is a concrete example of why priestly vocations are so few.

    Here, the pastor of two parishes, the same priest who made October Name Tag Month, with double hand shaking at mass, never says public mass on Monday (his day off) or Saturday morn (mass in the evening). Further, on one Thursday a month there will be no mass–he goes to his prayer group (????!!!). For two days after Christmas there was no mass because he was staying with his parents. Whenever he takes a vacation, he never bothers to find a replacement.

    I am told he is on anti-depression medication.

  7. Little Gal says:

    “I am told he is on anti-depression medication.”

    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.

  8. Henry Edwards says:

    “At the same time, he also dismissed the theory that Pope Benedict hopes to replace the Novus Ordo Mass, making the “extraordinary form” the single liturgical usage of the future.”

    Does it strike anyone else that, just a year or two ago, it would have seemed utterly incomprehensible that the Cardinal Secretary of State might think it necessary to dignify such a “theory” with a public denial. And, thus, how extraordinarily Benedict has changed the atmosphere in which both fact and rumor float?

  9. Chironomo says:

    H. Edwards… I’m not sure that 5 years ago we could have concieved that such a proposition could be taken seriously enough to require a denial… but there may be something more here. In considering public statements, denials are very often a cover for what has become obvious to everyone (“I did NOT have sex with that woman”….etc…). The fact is, even if it is not Benedict’s intention that such a transformation would take place, it may eventually be seen as inevitable, and all that can be said is “We didn’t really TRY to make that happen!”. If the TLM is meant to be the one and only rite of the Catholic Church, it will be so without any help and in spite of any interference by us…

  10. Tom says:

    The ultimate “clarification” will come when the Holy Father offers the Traditional Latin Mass…and does so more than now and then. The “clarification” will arrive in full force when parishes throughout Rome offer the TLM regularly.

    I realize that certain people will read the following as an “attack” against His Holiness…and they will be wrong:

    How can we expect bishops (and priests) to implement the Motu Proprio with great vigor when the Pope has not offered the TLM?

    Certain people have insisted that for this or that reason, the Church of Rome isn’t prepared to offer the TLM…it will take time to do so.

    Brothers and sisters, if the Church of Rome is ill-prepared to offer the TLM. If that’s the case, then how can we possible expect bishops (and priests) to be prepared to offer the TLM?

    That said, there were bishops who responded immediate and positively to the Motu Proprio and offered the TLM.

    Why didn’t the Holy Father follow suit? Of all people, should the Pope have responded immediately to the very Motu Proprio that he had issued?

    Actions speak louder than words.

    Therefore, I believe that the ultimate “clarification” will arrive only when the Holy Father offers the TLM…does so regularly…does so during worldwide broadcasts (examples: Christmas and Easter)…does so during Apostolic Visits, such as to the United States.

    Only when the Holy Father offers the TLM will his “intentions” have been manifested in loud and clear fashion.

    Frankly, post-Vatican II needs to move beyond the issuance of documents and clarifications and clarifications that clarify clarifications.

    We need to move past Cardinals and others “clarifying” the Holy Father’s intentions.

    We are in desperate need of a Pope who express his intentions by powerful and unmistakable actions.

    When we observe Popes pray alongside an Eastern Orthodox patriarch, open the Holy Doors alongside a Protestant “archbishop,” pray within a mosque, kiss the Koran, enter a synagogue to pray, he signals unmistakably his commitment to ecumenism and interreligious “dialogue.”

    When we observe a Pope offer the Traditional Latin Mass (not on a one-time basis) and promotes the TLM in parishes throughout Rome, then we will have obtained the ultimate “clarification” regarding the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass.

    When that times arrives, Rome need not worry about the issuance of documents and clarifications.

    Actions speak louder than words.

  11. Matthew Mattingly says:

    I would not be surprised, maybe in my lifetime, if the Novus Ordo is not revoked, or downgraded from it’s present status. The group which created it, supported it, and forced it on the Church are all either dead, retired, or too old to be of any consequence (Cardinal Noe for one, one of the big early cheerleaders for the Novus Ordo). Even Archbishop Marini, who is going around the world stirring up opposition to the Pope’s liturgical direction with his new book and speeches is himself 66, and most of his supporters and audience at this events is around the same age. All the femminist radical habitless nuns who took it upon themselves to step in as “liturgical renovators” and managed to wreck Catholic worship with all sorts of bizarre liturgical creations (liturgical dance it is said originated in the wacko USA radical Motherhouses of sisters in the early 1970’s, and spread around the world)are all at Archbishop Marini’s age or well past it. The average ago of the radical liberal sisters in the USA is 74. The average age in three liberal Orders of priests I researched (the Jesuits, the White Fathers, and the Assumptionists) are 65, 72, and 74 respectfully. Especially for the White Fathers and Assumptionists, there are not many younger. Even the Trappists, who wrecked their Order by discarding centuries of monastic disiplines and traditional liturgy have an average age approaching 75. The Novus Ordo and what issued from it (either approved innovations or not), has nearly wrecked the Church. Where the Tridentine Latin Mass is strong however, so is the Catholic Faith, especially among the young.
    Therefore, I’m not sure if Pope Benedict XVI has the courage to do it, but I would not be surprised if before long, the Novus Ordo is no longer heralded as the sole “standard form” of the Mass, or the “ordinary form”. I would not be surprised as when all these elder gentlemen in the Roman Curia who are staunch supporters of the Novus Ordo are gone (either by death or retirement….Bertone, Arinze, Kasper, Marini, Hummes, etc.) we see a dramatic demotion for the Novus Ordo, and at the same time the ascendancy of the Tridentine Latin Mass, and all Catholic traditions again.

  12. Neal says:

    “‘Some people have charged that the Pope was rejecting the Council’s [Vatican II] teaching,’ Cardinal Bertone told the Italian magazine, emphasizing that this interpretation is completely unfounded.”

    I’m not very famiiar with the Second Vatican Council; can someone direct me to a summary its teachings? It seems to me that the spirit of the council is referred to more frequently than any document.

    Pax.

  13. Jacob says:

    Father Z:

    There is great need for this explanatory document. It must not be rushed.

    My thought all along has been that waiting around is less than ideal. It allows entrenchment of the establishment position and gives the momentum to those who oppose the MP. Look at the US bishops’ mistranslation error and how long that took to be rectified with the version posted at the USCCB website vs. the version posted at the Vatican website.

    I have to agree with Tom. Actions speak louder than words. And almost half a year into the MP era…

  14. Tom says:

    “At the same time, he also dismissed the theory that Pope Benedict hopes to replace the Novus Ordo Mass, making the “extraordinary form” the single liturgical usage of the future.”

    “Does it strike anyone else that, just a year or two ago, it would have seemed utterly incomprehensible that the Cardinal Secretary of State might think it necessary to dignify such a “theory” with a public denial. And, thus, how extraordinarily Benedict has changed the atmosphere in which both fact and rumor float?”

    No.

    The Cardinal simply tossed cold water upon certain Catholics who had espoused the notion that the “liberation” of the TLM had signaled the end of the Novus Ordo.

    We have seen the above notion repeated on Fr. Z’s blog…not by Father Z, but by certain posters who have claimed that a tremendous shift within the Latin Church from the Novus Ordo to the TLM had transpired since last July.

    I wish that were the case, but that isn’t the case.

    Cardinal Bertone is simply dealing with the notion in question and wishes to return certain folks to the world of reality as governed by Rome.

    Whenever the TLM has been discussed or offered “officially” during the past few decades, Churchmen have made it clear that “we are not returning to pre-Vatican II days.”

    Even during the John Paul II Indult years, Rome and the bishops made it clear repeatedly that no matter what degree of support that His Holiness had given to the TLM, Rome was not interested in returning exclusively to the “pre-Vatican II liturgy.”

    Quattuor Abhinc Annos issued in 1984 by the Congregation for Divine Worship, declared in unmistakable terms the following:

    “That it be made publicly clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.”

    Over and over again, Rome and the bishops have made it clear that the TLM would not be permitted to replace the Novus Ordo as the primary form of the Roman Mass.

    Rome, via Cardinal Bertone, has repeated very simply that which post-Vatican II Rome has stressed repeatedly: The Novus Ordo Mass is not on the way out…the TLM will not replace the Novus Ordo as the Latin Church’s primary for of Mass…a major shift from the Novus Ordo is not underway withing the Latin Church…and such is not Pope Benedict XVI’s desire.

  15. Jim says:

    There is vast institutional prejudice against the TLM in most American and European dioceses. Most bishops and their in-group chancery comrades will give the Motu Proprio faint lip service but will not implement it, even if the strongest clarification is issued. Contrary to the view expressed in one comment, I see no chance of the NO being revoked or downgraded during my lifetime. The “spirit of Vatican II” folks are thoroughly entrenched in most places. I sincerely hope that I will be proved wrong.

  16. Habemus Papam says:

    From my place in the pew it looks as though the Novus Ordo will downgrade itself within a few years. The majority of its fans are elderly, I estimate 75 % are over 65. Apart from the middle-aged with kids in school, a passing phase, there are almost no young adults attending the NO on a regular basis. Conclusion: ten-fifteen years from now the ranks will be so thin as to be irrelevant.

  17. kdpfam says:

    Neal:

    It is not a summary but you may want to check out “The Sixteen documents of Vatican II”, introduction by Douglas Bushman, S.T.L. published by Pauline Book. For background to Vat II, may want to look “The Rhine flows into the Tabor” by Father Ralph Wiltgen, published by Tan and “Pope John’s Council” by Michael Davies published by Angelus.

    For indepth look at documents of the liturgy, try “Documents on the Litgury, 1963-1979, Concilar, Papal,and Curial Texts, published by Liturgical Press.

    For time off in purgatory, see “The Refrom of the Liturgy” by Bugnini.

    May want to start with the “Rhine flows into the Tabor.”

    Hope this is helpful.

    Peace

    Kim

  18. Habemus Papam says:

    Cardinal Bertones remarks about SP not signaling exclusive return to the Tridentine Rite are intriguing. I’m not aware of any widespread belief that this was the case. Maybe a wild dream but is he “flying a kite”, begining a softening up process for people to accept the possibility that the Pope COULD make the Extraordinary Form the single usage?

  19. Habemus Papam says:

    Methinks they doth protest too much.

  20. Neal says:

    Kim,

    Thanks.

  21. Gleb says:

    I believe Kim meant to write “The Rhine flows into the the Tiber”.

  22. Henry Edwards says:

    Neal, you can read Vatican II\’s constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, on-line at

    http://www.adoremus.org/SacrosanctumConcilium.html

    and pick out for yourself selected howlers like:

    \”Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.\”

    \”Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.\”

    \”But since the use of the mother tongue ….. frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants … .\”

    \”Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or sing in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.\”

    \”The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care.\”

    \”The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman Liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.\”

    \”In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church\’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man\’s mind to God and to higher things.\”

    \”The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from Holy Scripture and from liturgical sources.\”

  23. I think that there is too much impatience. It has been not quite 6 months and we’re surprised that the whole Latin Church isn’t having 1 or 2 TLMs every week or every day!

    The Pope’s clarification, when it arrives, will probably include a firm reminder that, as Fr. Z has all along said, the MP is about priests, not about bishops.

    Here in the Boston archdiocese, we went from one TLM, which had been moved over protests by the worshippers, to a greater number of venues: Mary Immaculate in Newton (the moved TLM), a First Friday TLM in Boston at St. Columbkille (which many seminarians in attendance), and two or three TLMs at Holy Trinity, with the promise of a restored weekly TLM in the near future (upon the request of parishioners to the new administrator).

    That’s real progress.

    Keep in mind, too, that it is the same group of singers who are at all these Masses; even if priests are available and willing, you can’t just snap your fingers and have a schola pop up. And while there will be many former choir members who could chant, you do need a choir master who can lead and teach, and those aren’t around in great numbers.

    I think (although I recognize that some will disagree) that the Liturgical Movement’s insight, enshrined in Vatican II, that the High Mass should be the normal form, not the low Mass, is important, and that it is the High Mass (or solemn Missa Cantata) which will really draw in Catholics for whom the TLM is new. And that means choirs, which take time to develop. If we had 100 parishes take up Sunday TLMs right now in Boston, we’d still only have music at maybe 1/2 a dozen, with the rest being Low Masses with what would likely be questionable music (keep in mind who the current “pastoral musicians” are and what their training is).

    The current pace is working here, and I’m sure it will continue to accelerate. Deo Gratias!

  24. John says:

    We have some “real progress” in our diocese as well, as this recent diocesan newspaper article about the document published last month by the Committee on Divine Worship of the USCCB makes clear!

    http://www.dioceseofnashville.com/article_music.htm

    Just a few quotes …

    “But the music directors at three Nashville parishes don’t see the document as signaling a return to traditional music and a phasing out of popular contemporary music.”

    “A balance of music styles is needed, the directors said, to give participants the music they find spiritually moving.”

    “Parishioners should be offered a Mass in the style of music they themselves find spiritually moving. Mixing different styles of music can be … a distraction to the participant. Think of it this way: would you place a lawn-chair in your formal living room?”

    “So which songs are most valued by congregations, not only for their special place in today’s worship but also for their qualities that stir and lift hearts to new heights?

    In 2005, the National Association of Pastoral Ministers conducted an online poll, collecting nearly 3,000 responses to the question “Which liturgical song most fostered and nourished your life?” The respondents could name just one song without any prompts or lists. The top 10 songs in the poll were: “On Eagle’s Wings,” “Here I Am, Lord,” “Be Not Afraid,” “You Are Mine,” …”

  25. eft says:

    Neal: too many “summaries” got us where we are today;
    I would recommend reading the documents themselves,
    and following the footnotes when encountered.

    The Documents of Vatican II are available online
    http://www.vatican.va
    click The Holy See English
    click Resource Library
    click II Vatican Council

    or take this shortcut
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm

    The first document issued was
    Sacrosanctum Concilium (Dec 1963)

    As best I can determine, the phrase “spirit of the council”
    *might* derive from something Pope Paul VI said
    about six months after the above (SC).
    You can find it here (no vatican web citation available yet):
    http://liturgy.nd.edu/documents/english/dol22.html
    “With the motu proprio of 25 January 1964, we have indicated
    our will that certain of the norms of the Constitution go
    into effect immediately and have put into the hands of a
    special Consilium the responsibility both for preparing the
    overall liturgical reform on the basis of the norms of the
    Constitution and for studying how the decisions of the
    Council may be applied in letter and spirit through ways
    that are effective and proper to the Holy See.”

    The Consilium decided the letter and spirit.
    It is alway amusing to hear the phrase (“SOV2″)
    and thereby learn that yet another person
    has appointed themselves membership to the Consilium,
    to twist the Council to their own ends,
    despite the fact that
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690508_sacra-rituum-congregatio_lt.html
    disbanded the Consilium on May 8, 1969.

    Anyone else have better info?

  26. RBrown says:

    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.
    Comment by Little Gal

    Have you ever considered the possibility that his highly emotional, let’s-get-together approach to liturgy might be attempts at self medication?

  27. Neal says:

    Thanks for the help everyone. I guess I have some reading to do.

    eft: I understand your dislike for summaries, but it can be hard to find the time to work through it all, as I’m sure you understand. This is especially so if the material is dense, which Sacrosanctum Concilium doesn’t appear to be.

    Henry Edwards: regarding the “howlers”:

    “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.

  28. Habemus Papam says:

    Neal: I’m afraid you will have a tough time trying to see through the ambiguities in the various documents. The best book I’ve read on Vatican II was “The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber”. Unfortunately I gave my copy away several years ago, which I now regret. I also very much enjoyed “Pope Johns Council” and “Pope Pauls Mass” both by the late great Michael Davies. Alas these copies passed from my hands too….

  29. danphunter1 says:

    Neal,
    May I suggest a book that is far more enlightening than “The Rhine flows into the Tiber”?
    It is called “Iota Unum” by Romano Amerio.
    He was an eye witness expert to a Swiss bishop at the Council and gives the history of that crisis including the major events in the Church that led up to it.
    The book is about 800 pages, but it reads easily and is a real eye opener.
    Be warned: it will shake your faith, but in turn it will solidify your integrity as a Catholic and you will not want to compromise that same integrity just to get along.
    God bless you.

  30. Matthew Mattingly says:

    I don’t understand why in certain posts people are being recomended to read the documents of Vatican II, when even in some important posts (even some people in the Vatican), are beginning to question Vatican II…along the lines that maybe it was a mistake.
    I don’t think it would be in the Catholic Church’s best interest to study the documents of Vatican II in order to apply them better, but rather study the documents of Vatican II in order to make the massive corrections, or to repudiate, supress certain agenda of the documents all together.

  31. Norman says:

    I second Steve Cavanaugh’s remarks. Like Fr Z says, “Don’t ruin a good project by moving too fast”. At a High Mass, it makes no sense to me to have beautiful vestments and insist on everything done properly etc etc but you screw up the music.

  32. chris K says:

    1. Each time there is a correction made to previous arguments against…the faithful have more ammunition to show their pastors and/or bishops in order to make the point of their disobedience or reluctance to comply with their own authority’s directives.

    2. It would appear that our Holy Father is using the instruction of scripture re: first to settle things among themselves before they are “hauled” before the proper authorities which could be a bit more humbling and harsher in treatment (hopefully). These further instructions seem to be the initial allowance of charity before a firmer hand is taken.

  33. Tom says:

    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?

  34. 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 Pope 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. Beyond the pastoral reasons above, I think the Pope and the Church do so because it’s political for them to do so. Rejection of the Novus Ordo would create such a backlash 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 a priest. If the priest really is on such meds, 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!

  35. kat says:

    I too see some progress in our diocese (Raleigh, NC). The SSPX has had a chapel in town and for 3 years one priest has been offering the TLM, but in the past few weeks we have word that there will be a once a month High TLM at the Cathedral. The parish we are attending incorporates Latin in its NO and just started offering a Latin NO every week.

    On the other hand, our summer diocese up in Portland, ME has completely ignored SP to expand the TLM. I only hope that FSSP will get something going up there as one of their priests, Father Goodwin is from Maine.

  36. Pat says:

    Henry,
    I’ve been reading SC and trying to make sense of such things as :“Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.” I asked about ad libbing and was told that it’s ok now. Even during the Eucharistic Prayer? Yup. Best explanation I’ve gotten is usage. Our bishop emeritus is very big on inserting his own personality in the Mass and the more progressive priests look up to him so I’m sure that’s how it’s justified. Is this a case yet again of the “spirit” of the council providing the room to move beyond the words.
    Danp and Neal, I’m reading Iota Unum and it sure does shake you up. I’m playing catch up, knowing next to nothing about Catholic theology until recently (and to be honest not much Protestant theology either), and reading about the Second Vatican Council can be depressing. I just keep saying to myself this just confirms the presence of the Holy Spirit is so strong that He protected the Holy Catholic Church yet again. In the meantime living through all this is very painful, practically speaking.
    Pat

  37. Brian Mershon says:

    Tom,

    I am moving to the diocese of Dallas, so if you don’t mind, please contact me at brian.mershon@fluor.com so we can discuss.

    I plan on joining the FSSP church with my family, but would certainly be interested in gaining your insights regarding any diocesan priests possibly open to offering the TLM–at least for daily Mass possibilities.

  38. Henry Edwards says:

    Pat: I asked about ad libbing and was told that it’s ok now. Even during the Eucharistic Prayer? Yup.

    Not only is it not “ok”, it’s reprobated, meaning that (in plain language) it’s as bad as it gets:

    INSTRUCTION Redemptionis Sacramentum (CDW 2004)
    [59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.

    http://www.adoremus.org/RedemptionisSacramentum.html

    Read also paragraphs [11.] and [31.], among others.

    Is this a case yet again of the “spirit” of the council providing the room to move beyond the words.

    No, just another a case of liturgical abuse that the faithful have a right not to be subjected to.

  39. Tom says:

    “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.”

    I agree with you. That is why the crisis of Faith within the Church, particularly regarding liturgy, that has expanded since the 1960s is really about Peter.

    When it comes to ecumenism, for example, Rome hasn’t suggested that seminarians (for that matter, the Faithful) may receive ecumenical formation…Rome, in her documents and actual practice, has insisted that seminarians (and the Faithful) WILL receive ecumenical formation and WILL commit themselves to ecumenism.

    Post-Vatican II Popes have not hesitated to sponsor and participate in ecumenical events.

    Rome has taken the same approach to interreligious “dialogue.”

    We see Popes pray with schismatics and enter synagogues and mosques.

    But it has been nearly 40 years since we last witnessed a Pope offer the Traditional Latin Mass.

    When it comes to the promotion of ecumenism and interreligious “dialogue,” Rome DEMANDS, rather than suggests.

    If Pope Benedict XVI wishes to promote the Traditional Latin Mass, then he will simply DEMAND that Latin be taught to seminarians (that is, after all, the teaching of Vatican II).

    Logically, the Holy Father would also DEMAND that seminarians learn to offer the Traditional Latin Mass.

    It is truly that simple.

    The TLM problem, so to speak, as highlighted by the Holy Father, is that “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…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.”

    Simple solution: The Pope, should he desire to promote with vigor the TLM, will DEMAND as Vicar of Christ that Latin and the TLM be taught to seminarians.

    Problem solved…that is, if Rome is determined to solve said problem.

  40. RBrown says:

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

    I never said that he was pastorally irresponsible. My understanding is that he’s fairly diligent in his duties outside mass.

    The fact that he doesn’t see a need to provide daily mass to his parishioners is more than likely a consequence of his seminary formation. He was probably indoctrinated in a very horizontal concept of the Eucharist.

  41. Tom says:

    Jim wrote: “There is vast institutional prejudice against the TLM in most American and European dioceses. Most bishops and their in-group chancery comrades will give the Motu Proprio faint lip service but will not implement it, even if the strongest clarification is issued.”

    That is why the time for Vatican documents and clarifications has long passed. The time has arrived for visible and ummistakable action.

    Note to the Holy Father: Please…enough regarding documents and clarifications. Just offer the Traditional Latin Mass for your bishops, priests…for the Faithful…for the world to see.

    Please undertake simple, unmistakable action…offer the TLM…message sent…message received…loud and clear.

    I am tired of documents, documents, documents and more documents. The same applies to clarifications, clarifications, clarifications.

    Just take action…don’t speak…don’t write…don’t issue documents and clarification…just take action.

    Holy Father, please offer the Traditional Latin Mass. Please signal your intentions regarding the TLM in the most powerful and unmistakable way imaginable.

    Just offer the Traditional Latin Mass.

  42. Henry Edwards says:

    Tom: Just offer the Traditional Latin Mass.

    I can think of nothing that for me would match the personal thrill of seeing a Papal TLM on Global Catholic Television.

    But I wonder what specific effect you think such a symbolic action would have on the “vast institutional prejudice against the TLM” in many dioceses.

  43. Mary says:

    Dallas:

    Tom–Here at the U. of Dallas the word is that one of our priests-about-campus–I believe one of the Cistercian monks from across the way–will begin offering the TLM this semester, due to student demand. I think it may only be Sundays–I’m not sure–we’ll see how it goes. But, don’t give up on Dallas.

    Brian Mershon: The FSSP does offer a daily Mass–6:30 AM in the city… kind of early, but doable sometimes if not every day.

  44. danphunter1 says:

    kat,
    I live in the Diocese of Raleigh and assist at Sacred Heart in Dunn.
    Could you please tell me where and when the Latin Novus Ordo is offered?
    Is it offered ad orientem?
    We occasionally assist at Josephs in Raleigh and though Monsignor Williams is very sweet and reverent he ad libs all during Mass and St Josephs is as ugly modern as they come.
    Thank you and God bless you.

  45. Brian Mershon says:

    Mary,

    Please contact me at brian.mershon@fluor.com. I’m familiar with the 6:30 a.m. Mass at Thomas Aquinas.

    I have other reasons for asking. Please e-mail me.

  46. Habemus Papam says:

    It maybe that we’ll see the clarification document closely followed by the Pope offering the Traditional Mass. In fairness I think there may be logistical difficulties (not to mention political opposition). 40 years since a Papal Mass in the Old Rite (BTW what was the date, anyone know?). The 1962 Missal was probably last used by a Pope closer to 45 years ago when the Papal Court was in place.
    OK, Benedict could say a Pontifical Mass, but driving the point home would, I think take a full Papal Mass. Imagine the culture shock if he just launched into one! Playing devils advocate here but JPIIs Masses are still recent history/recent memory. Am I right in thinking Benedict always says the Novus Ordo in Latin? Many people probably think he’s saying the Old Mass now.

  47. Henry Edwards says:

    Am I right in thinking Benedict always says the Novus Ordo in Latin?

    Yes, all papal Masses in St. Peter’s are now celebrated in Latin — including the collects, the Gospel reading, the Ordinary, the usual dialogue parts, the Preface, the Pater Noster, the Canon. In other words, essentially everything in Latin except any introductory remarks, the OT and Epistle readings and the Prayers of the Faithful, which are generally in the vernacular except on special occasions (like the Chrism Mass, if I recall correctly, when even the Epistle was chanted in Latin by a deacon).

    Many people probably think he’s saying the Old Mass now.

    Indeed, many Catholics evidently do. So far as they know, the Latin Mass is the Latin Mass is the Latin Mass, and they are blissfully unaware of any issue other than language. I have attended Latin Novus Ordo Masses where people remarked afterwards how nice it was to see the “old Mass” again after so long without it.

  48. Tom says:

    “I can think of nothing that for me would match the personal thrill of seeing a Papal TLM on Global Catholic Television. But I wonder what specific effect you think such a symbolic action would have on the “vast institutional prejudice against the TLM” in many dioceses.”

    The Pope would offer the TLM (not just once, but frequently) to prove by action that the TLM exists within the very heart of the Church.

    The priest in Dallas (and thousands of priests in his manner) who informed me (and I share the same boat as thousands of laymen) that the Pope addressed Summorum Pontificum to “nostalgic” Catholics only would receive the ultimate “clarification” from the Holy Father.

    In my dream world, the Vicar of Christ, who possesses awesome God-granted authority, would also DECLARE…not suggest…but DECLARE that seminarians WILL be taught Latin and the TLM.

    When the Church of Rome wishes to demonstrate Her unwavering post-Vatican II commitment to ecumenism and interreligious “dialogue,” the Pope interacts in a major way with schismatics, Jews, Muslims, etc.

    The Pope has not hesitated to pray inside a synagogue and mosque.

    By way of his public actions, the Pope has demonstrated his determination to promote ecumenism and interreligious “dialogue.”

    Following that same principle, the Pope should offer the Traditional Latin Mass.

    To counter opposition to ecumenism and interreligious “dialogue,” bishops and priests can always point to the Pope…”See what he has done? He has prayed alongside schismatics, Jews and Muslims. Therefore, any attack upon our participation in ecumenism and interreligious “dialogue” is an attack upon the Pope.”

    The same principle would apply to the Pope and TLM.

    The TLM would grow by leaps and bounds should the Holy Father offer said Mass publicly…and frequently.

    Is there a reason why the author of Summorum Pontificum has not offered the TLM publicly?

    Can we truly expect bishops and priests to honor the Motu Proprio when the Pope who issued said document has not offered the TLM?

    Imagine if I demanded that each poster to Fr. Z’s blog keep their house neat and clean. However, I don’t spend time doing the same to my house.

    Can I really expect you to keep your house neat and clean?

    Again…actions speak louder than words.

    I long for a Pope who offers the TLM…regularly.

    I do not desire clarifications…I do not desire more and more paperwork from post-Vatican II Rome.

    After nearly 42 years, post-Vatican II Rome has exhausted the paperwork routine.

    Action…action…public action. That is what’s what the Church requires desperately.

  49. Rose says:

    Tom, please cool it. You are getting shrill. I am disappointed in the negative tone of many of these posts. While I love the TLM, I also love the NO in the vernacular and the liturgy of the word. My daughter listens intently to the readings and the homily because Mass in the NO form is usually celebrated with quiet reverence and sobriety by our parish priests. My husband who is a convert to the faith (yes, he was evangelized by the NO!) sings in the choir (yes, we sing some of the more modern hymns you so despise) and loves the Church. While we do not drive 30 miles to go to Mass, we spend at least four or five hours a week individually and as a family participating in the community life of the parish. I love everything that this Pope has done (or written)(although I am beginning to be put off by the emphasis on gorgeous vestments and elaborate thrones), I would like to attend the TLM because the silences appeal to me but in all honesty, the emphasis of so many “traditionalists” on gorgeous vestments, beautiful thrones and high culture, do give me pause. Monks in simple habits saying the NO on a plain slab of rock (as I saw at Mont St. Michel) seem far more unforgettable to me than silk, brocades, copes etc. etc. Please remember, and I said this before the MP came out, in response to the fever pitch of negativity about the NO on this blog, the Holy Father is not only pastor to TLM devotees, he is Holy Father to all and he cannot discount the fact that masses of faithful (try millions) in Asia and Africa love the NO Mass, love the liturgy of the Word and find spiritual nourishment in the inter-penetration of the faith and their culture (the inculturation you so scorn), love the Pope, have no desire for Latin and are very orthodox, pro-life, pro-priesthood, generous, loving, participating (yes, even activist) Catholics. Some of them make far greater sacrifices to go to Mass than most of those complaining on this blog. Their ears, hearts and minds may demand a different way of being reached than yours. As for the NO bearing rather bitter fruits in the West, perhaps there is a different story in Asia and Africa. Excessive Eurocentrism does the faith no favours.

  50. Tom says:

    “Tom, please cool it. You are getting shrill. I am disappointed in the negative tone of many of these posts.I love everything that this Pope has done (or written)(although I am beginning to be put off by the emphasis on gorgeous vestments and elaborate thrones), I would like to attend the TLM because the silences appeal to me but in all honesty, the emphasis of so many “traditionalists” on gorgeous vestments, beautiful thrones and high culture, do give me pause.”

    Let me understand…you are permitted to express yourself in a shrill and negative tone (you made it clear that you are “put off by the emphasis on gorgeous vestments and elaborate thrones,” which the Pope has instituted)…by I am told to “please cool it.”

  51. Guy Power says:

    Rose: …I am beginning to be put off by the emphasis on gorgeous vestments and elaborate thrones),… the emphasis of so many “traditionalists” on gorgeous vestments, beautiful thrones and high culture, do give me pause. Monks in simple habits … seem far more unforgettable to me than silk, brocades, copes etc.,

    So, do you truly dislike these beautiful elements because “traditionalists” revere and long for beauty & majesty? What is it about brocade, thrones, and high culture that raises your dander? [I’m guilty of asking you simply because you’ve provided the opportunity (sorry).]

    However, I have noted similar reactions in other NO afficianadoes who seem to overly proud of their dislike for crowns and thrones, lace, brocades, etc. It strikes me as a false humility — the attitude that “We’re ‘Mericans and don’t do that Royalty stuff!” Well fine — but we’re talking about Catholic tradition — not American culture. Indeed it is unfortunate that these beautiful traditions of the Catholic Church have been “Americanized” — stripped down to their drawers because “brocade is too haughty”. Arrrggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

    I suppose it’s an “American thing” — not “small-r republican” enough? Perhaps those same people will not think kindly of priests, bishops, and cardinals for using Coats of Arms because of the mistaken belief that only the “privleged” may do so?

    Please help me to understand why glorifying God and using brocade, etc. is offensive.

    Sincerely,
    –Guy

  52. Rose says:

    Tom if I got carried away too, I apologize. I think I’ve said enough, so exit left (hope you appreciate the irony.) I also hope your dream comes true with regard to the Holy Father celebrating the rite that you obviously love so ardently.

  53. Habemus Papam says:

    Henry Edwards: thanks for the clarifications.
    Regarding the dislike of thrones, eleborate vestments and emphasis on tradition, a major problem here is the long reign of John Paul II. Back to my earlier point of what a culture shock it would be if the Pope actually offered a Papal Mass according to the 1962 Missal. Benedict XVI is concerned primarily with Europe, its fair to say. And the roots of Christendom are monarchical. We’ve just got used to the democratic style of JPII who was certainly no democrat, in any sense of the word. He was an actor by training. This Pope is concerned with continuity with all of his predeccesors.

  54. Pat says:

    Henry, The language of the documents leaves no doubt that ad libbing the Sacred Liturgy is simply against Church teaching. Thank you for sending me the references so I can send a note to the pastor. Plowing through all these documents is simply overwhelming and I so appreciate your helping me out by sending me to the right place.
    There is an interesting e-mail going around the diocese which is being sent primarily to people who may have some interest in the MEF though most are not informed and associate Latin with only the older form of the Mass. The person who wrote this is well known in the community and some who are receiving it think it’s “beautiful”. I’m going to be sending updates out to our community about the MEF, priest training, schedule of Masses and will send out some Church teaching here and there and will little by little respond to the points below. If any of you have comments or reference suggestions I would appreciate it.

    Sections of the letter which begins with confusion with Latin and the MEF:
    “The Church responded to the prompting of the Holy Spirit to obey this fundamental command of the Lord when She changed our Eucharistic liturgy to replace Latin with the vernacular language following Vatican II. The Church was simply following the exact same pattern from the earliest days.

    “The language of the very first Mass conducted by Our Lord Himself in the Upper Room was in Aramaic… The many new people attending Mass could not understand Aramaic so the Church dropped Aramaic in favor of the most widely understood language of the time: Greek.

    “Perhaps several hundred years later… The Church replaced Greek with Latin so that people could understand fully what was happening at the altar. Finally, at the time of Vatican II, the Church replaced Latin with the vernacular for exactly the same reason. The Church and the Holy Spirit did not make a mistake! … Holy Mother Church has given us (the vernacular) to draw all people closer to the Lord and His great sacrificial gift to us.

    “One final note on the importance of the ordinary vernacular form of our Mass. One of the most influential voices in the renewal of the Catholic Faith in this nation came to his moment of final conversion at a Mass in the vernacular, common form… He heard the heavenly liturgy repeated just as he had studied in the Book of Revelation. He heard the Gospel proclaimed faithfully. He entered the church as a Protestant; he left as a Catholic. His name is Scott Hahn.”

    In the above e-mail the author clearly knows enough not to claim that the vernacular was mandated by V II documents but talks about “following” V II. Here is the confusion though, when he states that the Holy Spirit was with the Council he implies that this means we can’t question what happened following Vatican II regarding the vernacular. But if following the Council Latin was removed from the NO contradicting the documents, how can the protection of the Holy Spirit be invoked for the disobenient wholesale removal of Latin from the Mass??? This is confusing but probably meant to be.
    Pat

    Powered by: Luke 5:1-11 and WordPress
    Podcast Powered by podPress (v8.8)

  55. Tom says:

    “In fairness I think there may be logistical difficulties (not to mention political opposition).”

    Then in fairness to a great many bishops and priests who have been slow to warm to Summorum Pontificum, perhaps they are hampered by logistical difficulties and political opposition.

    Catholic Traditionalists on this blog and elsewhere have reacted negatively to bishops (and priests) who have kept their distance from the Traditional Latin Mass.

    But if logistical difficulties and political opposition have prevented the Church of Rome from embracing in unmistakable fashion its own Motu Proprio, then the same “excuse” may be used by bishops (and priests) who are not keen to offer the TLM.

    Funny though…despite strong “political” opposition (I don’t know about logistical difficulties) within the Church to papal apologies, kissing the Koran, praying with schismatics and praying inside synagogues and mosques, post-Vatican II Popes have done so without hesitation.

    Logistical difficulties and political opposition did not prevent Pope Paul VI from implementing his liturgical “reform.”

    But we are to believe that Pope Benedict XVI is hesitant to offer the Traditional Latin Mass (in accordance to his own Motu Proprio) due to difficulties and political opposition to prevent TLM?

    I find that difficult to believe.

  56. Habemus Papam says:

    Tom, its easier to tear down than build up. By logisitical difficulties I mean the rubrics and ceremonial involved in a Papal Mass according to the Old Rite. I fully take your point that the delay is being used by the political oposition HOWEVER surely it is important to get a Papal Mass right. What would be worse than a world-broadcast Mass full of mistakes or blunders?
    Do you hope to see the Pope offering a Papal Mass in St. Peters or a Pontifical Mass in St. John Lateran, or don’t you care which? Its all very well to call on the Pope to offer the TLM without considering the details. For a start, where is Marini going to find a Papal Court?!

  57. RBrown says:

    Rose,

    I share with you a tendency to favor monastic liturgy over the basilican/parochial variety, but I disagree about Asia and Africa. Vocations in the 3rd World often bring with them an improvement in standard of living.

  58. RBrown says:

    “The language of the very first Mass conducted by Our Lord Himself in the Upper Room was in Aramaic… The many new people attending Mass could not understand Aramaic so the Church dropped Aramaic in favor of the most widely understood language of the time: Greek.

    “Perhaps several hundred years later… The Church replaced Greek with Latin so that people could understand fully what was happening at the altar. Finally, at the time of Vatican II, the Church replaced Latin with the vernacular for exactly the same reason. The Church and the Holy Spirit did not make a mistake! … Holy Mothr Church has given us (the vernacular) to draw all people closer to the Lord and His great sacrificial gift to us.

    Those are common errors propagated by the progressives:

    1. In ancient Israel feasts were formal rites and were in celebrated Hebrew–not Aramaic.

    2. The Church did not adopt Greek as a vernacular language. Since Alexander the Great, Greek had been the lingua franca of the Mediterannean basin–by definition, a lingua franca is .

    The OT translation into Greek (Septuagint) happened at least 100 years before the birth of Christ. Thus Greek was already considered a sacred language.

    3. When the Church adopted Latin, it was NOT a change to the vernacular but rather a change to the language of Empire.

  59. RBrown says:

    Should be:

    2. By definition, a lingua franca is NOT the vernacular.

  60. Jordan Potter says:

    RBrown, another error is that the Church dropped Aramaic as a liturgical language. If I’m not mistaken, Aramaic is still a liturgical language in certain Catholic and non-Catholic rites (e.g. the Maronite Catholic rite). Nor has the Church dropped Latin in favor of the vernacular, despite the prevailing customs in our churches since Vatican II. Latin is still the language of the Latin Rite. And I absolutely agree that Jesus more likely spoke in Hebrew at the Last Supper, not Aramaic.

  61. Habemus Papam says:

    Not directly to do with liturgy but Our Lord probably spoke in Latin with Pontius Pilate.

  62. Pat says:

    RBrown,
    Thank you for getting back to me with the errors “propogated by progressives” re. the misinformation about the vernacular.

    This letter is being sent out to an e-mail list of people who may be interested in the MEF and what bothers me so is it’s being presented as supportive but reminding the readers that this will never be any more than “extraordinary” meaning seldom.

    Here is another part of the letter I didn’t quote above:

    “Please do not think that this is the first step in the restoration of the Latin Mass as the ordinary form. To do so would not be thinking with the mind of Christ nor that of the Church. Why? The Lord’s overriding command and desire for His Church and His people was given to us as He ascended to His Father: to make disciples of all nations. We must look beyond our own personal desires for what pleases us and look to the great sea of people who need to know the Lord and His Church. The Church responded to the prompting of the Holy Spirit to obey this fundamental command of the Lord when She changed our Eucharistic liturgy to replace Latin with the vernacular language following Vatican II.”

    I reread the letter a few times after receiving an e-mail from someone who was impressed with this man’s generosity. I must be getting really cynical but I think this man is intentionally being somewhat solicitious rather than forthright about his true beliefs in order to undermine the steps being taken toward having a regular MEF in the city.

    Jordan and Habemus Papam,
    Thank you both for the information on the languages used by Jesus and in the Church to this day. I’m absolutely swamped with misinformation as I try to organize myself to send out corrections to those who have been receiving this stuff and really appreciate the help of those who’ve been studying this for a lot longer than I have.
    Pat

  63. Fr Renzo di Lorenzo says:

    RBrown, excellent comments on the Greek and Latin. Just superb.

  64. Tom says:

    Habemus Papam:

    Thank you for follow-up regarding logistical difficulties. I will stop posting for a while, perhaps, Deo volente, to return to Father Z’s blog. C

    Certain posters have suggested that I have turned shrill and impatient.

    I am frustrated as my diocese is far behind on the TLM front. I guess that I am cranky.

    Pax to the fine Catholics (and other folks) who populate this excellent blog.

  65. Habemus Papam says:

    Tom, I think I’m preety cranky myself. The Traditionalist Movement survived those many dark years thanks to independent minded, refuse-to-be-put-down, eccentric types, with the help of God. By all means take a break but don’t sign up for the complacent sheeple brigade!