o{]:¬)

Fr. Z is Moderator of the Catholic Online Forum and the ASK FATHER Question Box. The WDTPRS columns appear weekly in The Wanderer. Fr. Z lives in Rome, though he is often in the USA. He is available for retreats and conferences. E-mail


   Fr. Z on WDTPRS

↑ Grab this Headline Animator


Recent Posts
  • Octave of Pentecost PODCAzTs
  • Feeder report
  • Benedict XVI in Savona
  • MINI MOVIE REVIEW: Prince Caspain
  • Prayer request - ordination
  • Am I blue? You'd be too ... were you a Passerina cyanea
  • WDTPRS: Trinity Sunday
  • PODCAzT 60: Pentecost customs; St. Ambrose on the dew of the Holy Spirit

  • Recent Comments:

    • Henry Edwards: In “The Destruction of the Traditional Roman Rite”, a review of the book The Liturgical...
    • Shane: Rbrown, I would agree with you in general. For example, Tolkien essentially declared that this was the way his...
    • Patrick Rothwell: David, “Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer” was first...
    • Stu: This blog is becoming for the birds. ;)
    • gsk: Sorry, TNCath. I think the indigo looks much better at Fr’s bird feeder than on the floor — it can...

  • Visit the new WDTPRS Store!
    Buy WDTPRS stuff!

    Click below and vote !My site was nominated for Best Religion Blog!


    Calendar

    February 2008
    S M T W T F S
    « Jan   Mar »
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    242526272829  

    The Pilgrimage

    Subscribe to ...
    The Wanderer

    Subscribe to ... The Catholic Herald - UK






    This blog is hosted by

    Joyent


    Thanks for the support!


























    WINNER of...

    The 2007 Weblog Awards

















    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Add to Google Reader or Homepage

    Add to My AOL

    Subscribe in Bloglines

    Powered by FeedBurner

    9 February 2008

    Why did Pope Benedict not replace the Novus Ordo Good Friday prayer for Jews?

    CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 11:14 am

    In comments under a different entry there is some speculation about why Pope Benedict has replaced the Good Friday prayer for Jews only in the 1962 Missale Romanum but not also in the 2002 edition.  

    Henry opines:

    "In this particular instance, I share this concern, and wonder why the Pope did not make this replacement also in the Novus Ordo. Does his failure (so far) to do so inadvertently leave the impression that getting it right is less important in the OF than in the EF?"

    Maynard asks:

    ... could this possibly be a translation issue? I’m not expecting the prayer to be submitted to the ICEL (and it’s counterparts amongst the various regions) and the episcopal conferences so they can “dialogue” about if for 25 years – but I wonder if “ready-made” translations into the various vernacular languages are being prepared for transmittion to the bishops some time between this year’s Triduum and next year’s?"

    Good questions.   I was just talking about this with someone today.

    This is not a translation issue.  In a pinch, a translation could be approved ad hoc and easily issued to the world through the proper channels.  That is not the reason why the Pope didn’t give his new prayer also to the Novus Ordo.

    I think the key must remain in the fact that we now have a diversity of expressions in the Roman Rite.

    The most important point to carry away is that  Pope Benedict intends that the 1962 Missale Romanum be used.   The change of the prayer facilitates that.  Remember: the provisions of Summorum Pontificum stick to the Church’s law about not having a multiplication of Holy Week rites in churches.  In those places where the Novus Ordo is used, the Triduum will be in the ordinary form.  The Triduum in the older rite will really only be found in those places where the ordinary form of Mass is not celebrated (e.g., personal parishes, chapels of traditional groups, etc.).  If we consider that the Good Friday prayers were very probably an obstacle to bishops being well-enough motivated to establish personal parishes or chapels where the older form could be used exclusively, and therefore for the Triduum, then changing this prayer was a very smart thing.  Again, the Pope wants the older Missale to be used.

    A second point is a deeper, theological point. 

    By giving the older Missale this new prayer, the Holy Father is confirming that there are more than one way authorized by the Church for Catholics to reflect about salvation for the Jews.

    There is not only the way presented in the prayer in the Novus Ordo, which is admitedly far less pointed and precise than what our tradition has passed down, but there is also the older, traditional way.

    Even though the language of the new Latin prayers for Jews on Good Friday falls flat, the content, the core substance of the older version of the prayers has been preserved and, in some respects, made more explicit: There is one Savior of all men, Jesus Christ.  Therefore, we Catholics pray for the Jews because we desire that they be saved by embracing Christ as Savior.  

    The Holy Father, by imposing these new prayers, has let the world know that it is entirely legitimate for Catholics to pray for the Jews and desire that that convert to faith in Jesus as Savior. 

    At the same time, he has left the other prayer in the Novus Ordo, for what it communicates.

    Also, just to circle back to a point Henry raised (which I quoted at the top) keep in mind that Pope Benedict’s long term vision foresees that the older form of Mass, not the newer form, is going to form the basis of one unified Roman Rite somewhere down the line.

    • • • • • •

    Important 2003 letter of Card. Ratzinger about the older rite of Mass

    CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 7:55 am

    I tip my biretta to the Cafeteria o{]:¬)  for linking to a posting on the site of one Joseph S. O’Leary: a very interesting 2003 letter of Joseph Card. Ratzinger on the issue of the older form of Mass, the "Tridentine" Mass, being more widely available.

    The letter was written in German by Card. Ratzinger and O’Leary provided a translation.  However, Gerald of the Cafeteria also did a translation.  After a rapid check, I will give you O’Leary’s, because the English is smoother.

    NB: O’Leary calls this letter "frightening", which gives you an idea of his take on the Joseph Ratzinger and the use of the older form of Mass.

    Here is the O’Leary translation with my emphases and comments:

    To Dr. Heinz-Lothar Barth, 23 June 2003

    Dear Dr. Barth,

    I thank you cordially for your letter of April 6 to which I find the time to answer only now. You are asking me to act for a broader availability of the old Roman rite. Actually, you know yourself that I have no deaf ears towards such a request. My work on behalf of this cause is meanwhile generally known.

    Whether the Holy See will “admit the old rite again for every place and without restrictions” as you desire and have heard it rumoured cannot be simply answered or confirmed without further ado. [We know more about this now, of course.] Still too great is the aversion of many Catholics, instilled in them over many years, against the traditional liturgy which they scornfully call “preconciliar”. Also one would have to reckon with considerable resistance on the part of many bishops against a general readmission.  [This is pretty dense and needs to be pulled apart.  1) Immediately Card. Ratzinger wants to dispel the fiction that the use of the older Mass is somehow out of step with the Second Vatican Council.  He knows that "pre-conciliar" is code for "opposed to the Council".  Ratzinger sees continuity between the older Mass and Council, not rupture.  2) The aversion which was instilled in people was purposely instilled: people in power positions tried to make others hate the older form of Mass.  They weren’t content to make people love the newer form, they wanted people to feel aversion to the older.  3) Bishops, who should know better, are the real obstacles.]

    Things look different, however, if one thinks about a limited readmission. The demand for the old liturgy is limited, too. [Ratzinger is talking about a measured response to the demand for the older Mass.  Also, he is a shrewed strategist: he knows that to over-reach would do great harm to future possibilties.  This is the "brick by brick" element of his Marshall Plan I keep talking about.] I know that its worth, of course, does not depend upon the demand for it, but the question of the number of interested priests and laypeople, nevertheless, plays a certain role. Besides, such a measure can now, only some 30 years after the liturgy reform of Paul VI, be implemented only stepwise. Any new hurry would surely not be a good thing.  [See?  It would be worse to tye to implement something that has little chance of success.]

    I believe, though, that in the long term the Roman Church must have again a single Roman rite. The existence of two official rites is for bishops and priests difficult to “manage” in practice. [This is why Summorum Pontificum is so clever!  Papa Ratzinger does not resolve on a scholarly lever the debate about whether or not there are two rites.  Frankly, I doubt serious if Papa Ratzinger thinks that the Novus Ordo and the older form are really the same Roman Rite.  What we got in Summorum Pontificum was a juridical solution to the issue.  By saying there is, juridically, one Roman Rite, he eliminated the need for a priest to have additional faculties to use the older form.  That was a masterstroke.] The Roman rite of the future should be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular, but standing completely in the tradition of the rite that has been handed down. It could take up some new elements which have proven themselves, like new feasts, some new prefaces in the Mass, an expanded lectionary – more choice than earlier, but not too much, – an “oratio fidelium”, i.e., a fixed litany of intercessions following the Oremus before the offertory where it had its place earlier. [This is huge and it needs more explanation below.]

    Dear Dr. Barth, if you commit yourself to work for the cause of the liturgy in this way, you will surely not stand alone, and you will prepare "public opinion in the Church" for eventual measures in favor of an expanded use of the earlier liturgical books. One should be cautious, however, about awakening too high or maximum expectations among the traditional faithful.  [See my comments above.]

    I am using the opportunity to thank you for your appreciated commitment to the liturgy of the Roman Church in your books and lectures, even if here and there I would wish still more charity and understanding towards the magisterium of the pope and bishops. [Many of our liturgical problems remain battles over ecclesiology!] May the seed you are sowing germinate and bring much fruit for the renewed life of the Church the “source and summit” of which, indeed its true heart, is and must remain the liturgy.

    With delight I give you the blessing you have asked and remain sincerely yours

    Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

    This is an interesting read.  I have seen this before, but it is nice to get it back out there again.

    I said there was more to say about that central paragraph.

    Joseph Ratzinger had the idea that side by side celebrations of the older form of Mass with the newer would eventually jump-start the organic growth of liturgy that was so artificially interrupted by the cut-paste job of experts at desks when the Novus Ordo was stitched together.  Never had liturgy been impose in that manner and harm has resulted.

    Neverthless, we must be practical.  At the Council there was perceived a need for some reform.  Though we didn’t get the reform the Council Fathers though they were mandating, and the Consilium under Bugnini and Lercaro (with Piero Marini already a disciple in the cause) went way beyond its mandate in order to push a new ecclesiology on the whole Church, there are some elements that in retrospect we can reflect on as a Church as being positive.  We can also learn from the problems we created.

    So, what is envisioned here is a kind of tertium quid that slowly but surely there would emerge over time from the "dialogue" between the older form and the newer form.  Ratzinger is saying that the older, traditional form must be the basis, the starting point, for any eventual single Roman Rite, not the Novus Ordo.  The Novus Ordo is perceived as a kind of bump in the road, perhaps, in the long route of the liturgy’s development.  But there are points in the Novus Ordo which might be useful… perhaps we be useful… over time.  Not right away…. eventually, as a matter of organic growth, not artificial imposition.  The elements he suggests as useful are also in part ancient.

    Pope Benedict has a clear vision, thought though long and well.  I used to pick his brains about this years ago when I had the chance to talk with him, fairly often, when I worked in the PC Ecclesia Dei, in the same building as the CDF.  I wrote an article about this very point in the early ‘90s in Catholic World Report, (I would love a copy of that issue or article now!) and was taken to task about it by no less than Michael Davies and Eric de Saventhem, both of whom I esteem. 

    Papa Ratzinger, not they, will be proven right about this, however.  Wait and see.

    This is why I make so bold as to talk Benedict’s vision and work in terms of a Marshall Plan.  This is why I repeat "brick by brick", to describe the slow process we need and the patience.  This is why I say that the "liturgy is the tip of the spear", for it is truly the key to a long engaged thelogical war being waged.  This is why I use the image of "gravitational pull" when I describe the way the older form will influence the newer form, and vice versa.  Frankly, even the smaller moon exerts some pull on the larger earth.  So too, the older Mass will influence the newer form much more than the other way around and eventually it will be the older form that prevails, in this vision.

    But that doesn’t mean that the effects will be either immediate or only in one direction.

    • • • • • •

    USCCB official assures Jews: those attending old Good Friday rites don’t matter

    CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 6:25 am

    A friend who was dumpster diving for news about the reaction to Pope Benedict’s adustment of the Good Friday prayers for Jews just alerted me to an article in Hell’s Bible (the New York Times) which quotes Fr. James Massa, executive director of the secretariat of ecumenical and interreligious affairs of the USCCB.

    Reacting to the change in the Good Friday prayers, Massa said that the prayer would be heard by “a tiny minority of Catholics and they will hear it in Latin.”

    Let me admit that I made a similar observation in another thread.  I observed that the number of people hearing the prayer on Good Friday would be relatively small.  However, I do not intend to say that just because the number might be small, that group is therefore insignificant.  I just don’t think this is as important as some people want to make it for interreligious dialogue.

    However, I catch a whiff of something very different in what Massa said, especially with the comment about hearing the prayer in Latin: "...and they will hear it in Latin.” 

    What I get from Massa’s comment is the image of an insignificant group of people who probably have no idea what is being said, no doubt because they are either too ignorant to follow a translation or because they are just praying their rosaries in private devotion, etc.

    There are two ways to approach the relative number of people who will be participating in the Holy Week rites with the older Missale Romanum.

    If I have misunderstood the intent of Fr. Massa, I will gladly make that clarification.

    UPDATE: 11 Feb 18:41 CET

    I just got this through my e-mail:

    Father:
     
    Fr. Massa for your information is a diocesan priest from Brooklyn and is the coordinator for the Traditional Mass in Brooklyn and also one of our celebrants.  He’s a man of good will. 
     
    Keep up your good work.

    Again, I want everyone to know that if I misinterpreted what the NYT quoted from Fr. Massa, I am happy to be corrected.  From the sound of it, Father is generously working with the people who want the older form of Mass and WDTPRS applauds him!

    • • • • • •

    What version of Holy Week rites may be used by “trad” groups?

    CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 5:24 am

    Every once in a while on this blog and elsewhere we have discussions about whether any traditionalist group out there, such as the FSSP or the ICK, have permission to use older versions of the Holy Week rites than those published in the 1962 Missale Romanum.  Claims are made by some that they obtained special permission to use the pre-Pius XII reform of the Holy Week rites.

    Today I went to visit my old haunts, the offices of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei

    I explicitly asked whether any permission has ever been given to any group to use any version of the Holy Week rites other than what is published in the 1962 Missale Romanum (now just revised in the Good Friday Prayers).  The answer is "NO".

    No permission has ever been given by the PCED to any group to use other than what is in the (now slightly revised) 1962 edition.

    Any member of any group who says that they have such a permission is either misinformed or dissimulating.

    • • • • • •

    Good News from Walney Island

    CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 2:29 am

    You might remember a nice blog by Fr. Paul Harrison called Thoughts from the Lune Valley.  Father has morphed that old blog into Thoughts from Walney Island, to reflect his present location.

    Father posted the following:

    Friday, February 08, 2008
    Im saying the TLM this Sunday!

    This Sunday I will be celebrating the Extra-ordinary Form for the very first time. I have just completed my second dry run – for want of a better expression. Thus far it has gone better that I anticipated. I have found the book "The most beautiful thing this side of heaven" very helpful. Also, even though my Latin is pretty minimal at the moment, even I have worked out the rubrics in the 1962 missal, you know were it says "kiss the altar" "with hands extended as before" etc!

    My main concern is the pronunciation of the words – I hope and pray that those at the Mass will not be too amused as to laugh at the way I say the words lol. I’m sure I will make a few mistakes.

     

    I am sure I speak for all WDTPRSer in extending Fr. Harrision every good wish for this Sunday’s Mass and our expression of solidarity.  I am sure it will go well.  Were I back at the Sabine Farm and had a little time, I would prepare a WDTPRSL podcazt for him for the Sunday Mass.  Alas, I am not in a position to do so at the moment.

    I hope Fr. Harrison will make a good report of how everything went.

    • • • • • •
    Powered by: Luke 5:1-11 and WordPress