![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Archd. of Washington, DC: over complicating Summorum Pontificum?
It contains a strange statement.
After talking about a committee to be established "to assist pastors in evaluating and responding to requests for the regular and public celebration" of the older form of Mass, the letter goes on:
In the near future, Archbishop Wuerl will appoint a Coordinator of the Extraordinary Form to serve as chaiman of the special committee. Because the archbishop has the responsibility to foster a common discipline in the celebration of the sacrament within the archdiocese (C. 392), his permission must be received prior to making any permanent commitments by a parish for the public celebration of the Extraordinary Form on a regular basis. This also is in accord with Article 5 of Summorum Pontificum which state that public or regularly scheduled Masses be offered under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favoring the unity of the whole Church. To request this permission pastors first must seek the review and counsel of the Coordinator of the Extraordinary Form, who will then present a recommendation to the archbishop.
Excuse me… but does it seem to you that even though they acknowledge the existence of Summorum Pontificum out of one side of their mouths, they are actually ignoring its existence in what they say with the other side? The way I read this, it sounds like they have simply forced all priests back to the status quo ante, as if the Motu Proprio didn’t exist at all and the diocesan bishop still had control over all public celebrations. In other words, even though SP Art. 5, § 1 says that pastors make these decisions, the archbishop is claiming for himself that right and, at the same time, is imposing an additional layer of burocracy on the process. Or am I getting this wrong?
The letter goes on:
Priests seeking to celebrate the rite for the very first time with or without the people [??] should ask for a review of their abilities by the Coordinator and the special committee. Additionally, pastors are reminded that visiting priests who request to celebrate the Extraordinary Form with the archdiocese should present a letter of good-standing (C. 903) which attests to their abilities in this form.
For pity’s sake.
Yes, I know that it could be argued that they are only trying to be sure that celebrations of Mass are reverent and properly carried out. But… I think they are really trying to crush the implementation of Summorum Pontificum, making it a titanic pain in the rear to get involved with it.
I would certainly hope that the clarifications document coming from PCED would declare all of these local regulations null and superseded by the norms it plans to issue. That provision alone would be a truly meaningful sign of Rome’s seriousness.
Comment by Somerset '76 — 28 January 2008 @ 10:11 amThis is getting bizarre. The tone of the letter definitely sounds negative. Compare the tone of the “directives” from Archbishop Wuerl and Cardinal Rigali with the welcoming of the Motu Proprio from Archbishop Burke of St. Louis.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/07/archbp-burke-on-the-motu-proprio/
It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in English to tell the difference. Wuerl and Rigali seem to be on the “containment side” of this issue a la Bishops Steib, Trautman, et al.
Again, we have to patiently watch and wait to see what Eccelsia Dei says about this in the forthcoming clarification document. But, I’m thinking that these bishops who are trying to “contain” the Extraordinary Form feel they must do it before somebody tells them to the contrary, hoping everybody will quickly forget about it.
Comment by TNCath — 28 January 2008 @ 10:17 amHi Fr. Z,
Comment by matthew — 28 January 2008 @ 10:17 amPDF hate? You can still copy and paste just like in WORD.
You can even do text edits inside a PDF.
About what I expected from the Archbishop.
Comment by JML — 28 January 2008 @ 10:19 amOnce again- where is the Coordinator to oversee proper celebration of the Ordinary Form, and are they requiring visiting priests that want to celebrate the ordinary form to show a letter of good standing.
Gotta Love the Double Standards
Comment by Christopher — 28 January 2008 @ 10:25 am“...does it seem to you that even though they acknowledge the existence of Summorum Pontificum out of one side of their mouths, they are actually ignoring its existence in what they say with the other side?”
Yes.
Comment by Fr.A — 28 January 2008 @ 10:38 amThis is a very unfortunate policy.
Comment by Patrick Rothwell — 28 January 2008 @ 11:10 amFr. Z,
To cut and paste a pdf:
1. Select Control+A (select All)
2. Select Control+C (copy All)
3. Open a Word document
4. Select Control+V (paste All)
It works.
Now for a bit of Tangental Fun:
“Latin in the Movies”
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8
I think the instructor is probably Centurio Reginaldus Fosterus? From Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” ... sorry—but it IS funny!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwEIkXMfL1E
“In vino veritas” scene from “Tombstone” (you have to wait a bit for the buildup). “Doc” Holiday v. Johnny Ringo:
Cheers,—Guy
Comment by Guy Power — 28 January 2008 @ 11:23 amAnd this surprises everyone because…???????
I’m not being uncharitable. Really. But, does ANY of this surprise you?
Our Holy Father, in a nice way, backhanded the ordinaries who showed less than charitable
implementation of the superceded Ecclesia Dei. They are acting like the spoiled children
(as in emotionally infantile) and stamping their feet because they are out of the loop
in the final analysis.
But they want to continue to obfuscate/prevent/whatever.
Spoiled.
Comment by Bryan — 28 January 2008 @ 11:25 amI’ve come to the conclusion that the number one thing driving the bishops to resist Summorum Pontificum is FEAR. They are afraid of the ramifications of this document and what it might just accomplish! They want “status quo.” They don’t wan’t anyone or anything to challenge their comfort zones because, quite frankly, Summorum Pontificum is an uncomfortable document that basically calls to the bishops’ attention that liturgical practice the last 40 years has suffered and that it’s time to do something about it. They might provide pious “lip service” to a Motu Proprio, but many just don’t want to deal with it.
Comment by TNCath — 28 January 2008 @ 11:31 amOne wonders, haven’t any of these bishops, liturgy directors, advisors, maybe even the bishop’s secretary, seen WDTPRS and come to realize what type of “guidelines” would be acceptable and which would be over-reaching. I’m not be sarcastic here.
Certain bishops surely know how the system works and are playing it well. They know to create restrictive guidlines now and in doing so it will make any clarifications from PCED difficult and soft-shoed, as the Holy See does not make a habit of “correcting” bishops. Should the PCED make strong clarifications, then the bishop will just ignore it and not revoke or issue new guidlines as he need not have issued guidlines to begin with. The old guidlines will stand as law in his local church and any cleric who acts contrary would be disobedient to his bishop. Of course a pastor could fight it but then he better really like his present parish as he’ll be there a long long time. An associate priest could raise concerns with his bishop but then he won’t be a pastor for years to come. A priest could undergo the testing and jump all the hurdles, but he would have to be blind not to realize that he is promoting something his bishop isn’t all that keen on – and if he has any sense he will realize his name will be put on that unwritten “list”, and well…
We have smart, creative, cleaver bishops…let’s pray they place some of those gifts at the service of the Kingdom.
Comment by fr christopher — 28 January 2008 @ 11:35 amPerhaps the Holy Father should celebrate his Mass at the Washington National’s new baseball stadium in the Extradorinary Form. (Assuming Abp Wuerl’s coordinator consents of course.) Now that would cause a shockwave.
Speaking of the 44,000-seat stadium Mass, why is this not taking place on the National Mall where hundreds of thousands or more could assist?
Comment by ArlingtonDio — 28 January 2008 @ 11:37 amWho gets to be “Coordinator”? In the worst case, it will be someone with a “certificate” in liturgy who is already predisposed against the Rite. In the best case, it would be Father Z.
Comment by Mary Jane — 28 January 2008 @ 11:43 amIt seems to me that the “implementation” in Washington is along the lines of the response to Summorum Pontificum in Dallas.
A Dallas committee has been charged to “to assess the Pastoral needs of the people as well as the capacity of our priests and parishes to celebrate the Mass in this Form.”
Summorum Pontificum was issued nearly seven months ago.
But based upon the Dallas Diocese’s response to said Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum apparently does not exist…and now, Summorum Pontificum doesn’t exist in the Archdiocese of Washington.
A few months ago, I would have reacted negatively toward the response that Summorum Pontificum has received in Washington. But I have come to accept reality.
With few exceptions, our bishops are not interested in promoting the TLM. The same applies to 99 percent of “Latin” Catholics.
Dallas…Washington…it’s all the same.
With few exceptions, bishops and laity are not even interested in promoting the Novus Ordo Mass in Latin.
Therefore, we shouldn’t be surprised when adherence to Summorum Pontificum is of little interest to said folks.
Comment by Tom — 28 January 2008 @ 11:44 amGuy: I know about these things. The hated pdf is secured so that there can be no copying.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 28 January 2008 @ 11:44 amObviously, diocesan liturgy offices and the like are working fast and furious to get these restrictive measures set in place as rapidly as possible.
And I have the impression that many (if not most) bishops, including well-respected ones, have a general policy of approving essentially anything that comes up for their signatures through bureaucratic channels from the appropriate diocesan offices.
I recall a bishop saying (regarding a liturgical matter) that otherwise he needed clearcut and strong backing from above, because he had to live with his entrenched chancery bureaucracy on a daily basis.
Without meaning to give one and all a pass, I wonder if this could explain some of these episcopal statements we’re seeing.
Comment by Henry Edwards — 28 January 2008 @ 11:51 amComment by TNCath: “Again, we have to patiently watch and wait to see what Eccelsia Dei says about this in the forthcoming clarification document. But, I’m thinking that these bishops who are trying to “contain” the Extraordinary Form feel they must do it before somebody tells them to the contrary, hoping everybody will quickly forget about it.”
No! Every single layman and priest affected by these bishops’ restrictive “litlle tittle” policies and guidelines that attempt to nullify Summorum Pontificum needs to write a brief and respectful letter to PCED begging their swift and decisive intervention. The opponents of Summorum Pontificum are not simply patiently watching and waiting to see what Eccelsia Dei says. They are proactively undermining both Summorum Pontificum and any subsequent attempts to “clarify” it.
Comment by fr christopher: “They know to create restrictive guidlines now and in doing so it will make any clarifications from PCED difficult and soft-shoed, as the Holy See does not make a habit of “correcting” bishops. Should the PCED make strong clarifications, then the bishop will just ignore it and not revoke or issue new guidlines as he need not have issued guidlines to begin with. The old guidlines will stand as law in his local church and any cleric who acts contrary would be disobedient to his bishop. “
Exactly.
That is why the rest of us need to send an avalanche of brief, respectful letters to PCED begging them to act swiftly and decisively.
Comment by BK — 28 January 2008 @ 11:53 amI think what I find most troubling from DC and Philly is that, as someone from a more liberal diocese sandwiched in between, I had considered those two to be more conservative. It is disconcerting to find the more traditionally conservative dioceses behaving in this manner. It does dash one’s hopes a bit.
Comment by Lindsay — 28 January 2008 @ 11:58 amSatan does not lose a battle without a fight…
Comment by Mark — 28 January 2008 @ 12:13 pmHis Eminence
Comment by BK — 28 January 2008 @ 12:15 pmDario Card. Castrillon Hoyos
President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”
Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio
00120 VATICAN CITY
It will be interesting to see if the implementation of Summorum Pontificum is addressed by the Holy Father during his April 15th meeting with the bishops. I would hope that it would be, although I’m sure the bureaucrats at the USCCB are doing their best to shape the agenda. If it’s not addressed, I believe the recalcitrant bishops will be even more emboldened and likely to effectively disregard the clarification statement forthcoming from PCED.
TNCath,
Notice that Archbishop Burke’s letter was issued immediately after SP was issued as was likely written by the Archbishop himself. Anything issued now has been filtered and shaped by ever-helpful entrenched staffs who undoubtedly were formed (liturgically speaking) in the 1970’s. To that point, Henry’s post above is spot-on.
Comment by Paul Murnane — 28 January 2008 @ 12:18 pmReader: Alleluia in the 3rd Tone: In Thee, O Lord, have I hoped, let me not be put to
shame in the age to come.
Choir: Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia!
Reader: Be Thou unto me a God to defend me and a house of refuge to save me.
I had attempted to post something else. perhaps this is really what the Lord wants to say to all of us. Another God-incidence?
Choir: Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia!
Reader: In the 4th Tone: The righteous cried, and the Lord heard them, and He
delivered them out of all their tribulations.
Choir: Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia!
Comment by hieromonk Gregory — 28 January 2008 @ 12:26 pmComment by Henry Edwards: “Obviously, diocesan liturgy offices and the like are working fast and furious to get these restrictive measures set in place as rapidly as possible.”
And maybe these restrictive measures were already in the pipeline…but the clarification from PCED was strongly rumored to be coming in December or January. The fact that this clarification has not yet materialized may have emboldened hierarchs that may otherwise have been “obedient”—had the clarification come in a more timely fashion.
Nature abhors a vacuum. These restrictive measures are filling the vacuum created by the inaction of Rome in the face of the open rebellion of certain bishops against Summorum