What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

I got this question via e-mail:

I have consulted several priests from traditional orders regarding the celebration of St. Joseph’s feast day on March 15 this year.

They tell me this date applies only to the novus ordo and that they will not celebrate St. Joseph’s feast on that date.

Can you give me a definitive, authoritative answer to these questions:  Does the transfer of St. Joseph’s feast day to March 15 this year apply

 only to the ordinary form?  Can the 1962 Mass be said to celebrate St. Joseph’s day on March 15 this year?

I got this a while back, but am just now able to get to it.  I received this via-e-mail:

Dear Fr. Zuhlsdorf,

I thought you might be interested in what was going on in the Archdiocese of Baltimore concerning the Motu Proprio and its (non) implementation.  I know you are busy so I hope you won’t mind my contacting you.

I live in western Maryland (Hagerstown) and we have been trying to get a TLM in this area since the MP was released.  At my own church, we presented the pastor with a 40 signature petition, but without success.  I have written the Archdiocese of Baltimore twice and never received a response.  Because my pastor really had little interest, I joined a larger group in the next county.  It is well organized with almost 100 people.  They found two priests and church willing to offer the TLM to us but they refused to do so without the OK of the Archdiocese. [Ehem… they don’t NEED it!!]  (This is not surprising because the Archdiocese’s antipathy towards the TLM is well known.  I had an associate pastor who learned the TLM on his own initiative, asked permission, was denied and not long after shipped off to South Carolina against this wishes).  A letter was written to the Archbishop and follow up phone calls were made.  No one would returned the calls or respond to the letter but we did learn that that Archbishop O’Brien was setting up a committee to decide how to handle requests and we should hear something by Lent (they have received 5 of 6 other requests from other groups, I have heard.)  

Lent is here and still no response.  Some people have tried calling the chancery to ask about progress but were told they now had no timetable for responding to our requests.  Needless to say, we are all very disappointed and frustrated.  I have attached two posts from our Yahoo group which explain in

better detail what is happening.  The leaders of the group want to write a more forceful letter to Archbishop and I have personally made clear that I believe this to be a mistake.  [I think so too.] I am afraid it will prompt the wrong type of response from the Archdiocese and they will "put the word out" and we will never get a TLM out here.  I think we should just go straight to Ecclesia Dei.  [That is a good idea.] They are considering renting an old chapel from the county government and bringing in a SSPX or FFSP priest to offer the mass to us (I have concerns about the SSPX option).  

I know you are an extremely busy person and I appreciate your taking time to read this.  If  you have the time and you or any of our readers have any advice or suggestions for us, it would be greatly appreciated.  I, of course, will understand if this is not possible for you.  This is a nice group of people but they have become very frustrated at the complete lack of interest from Baltimore.

Thank you again and God Bless,

You will need copies of everything sent to the priests and the chancery.  You should include a record of dates and times you called and, if possible, summaries of the phone conversations.

The more concrete information you can send, the clearer your position is.

Above all, be very respectful when writing.

If the Archdiocese of Baltimore is stonewalling you, I am sure the PCED could be of help.  However, judgments have to be made on the basis of facts, not just hearsay and the presentation of "feelings", important as feelings might be.

I got a question by e-mail (edited).  I hope you can help out.

Dear Fr. Z,

My family has started attending the extraordinary form of the mass, and it has been such a blessing to us! I enjoy reading and learning at your blog. I do still cantor at my old parish and area parishes for vigil masses and funerals that don’t conflict with my husband, young children, and I attending the EF together on Sunday.

I was recently a cantor at a NO mass where the "Mass of Remembrance" was used. The music director was lamenting that they had received a list of music no longer allowed at mass. This list included "We Remember," the memorial acclamation from that mass. The piece (as you are most likely aware) is also often used as a communion hymn, etc… She said it was a shame because the people liked it so much, and I tried to be diplomatic (its a paying job, and I don’t want to burn bridges) in saying its a shame the bishops were so slow to address its theological problems and that in the meantime it had become so popular. I managed to resist expressing fully my elation.

However, I have searched and, aside from various commentaries like your own on the USCCB document from December, I haven’t been able to find references to such a list. Perhaps this list was just from my own diocese (though, it would surprise me that my diocese would initiate such a list on its own)? I could ask, but before I do (I am a bit afraid of coming across at critical) I was hoping you might have, or be able to obtain access to, this list. I know this director would not have cut this "favorite" song from the liturgy unless required to do so. It seems, though, that such a list would have urged a post from you considering its liturgical implications and your own love for sacred music.

Do any of you know of such a list? 

Over at NLM we find a photo taken during the Lenten exercises for the Holy Father and curia.



The altar in the Redemptoris Mater sure seems awfully close to that wall, doesn’t it?

I got a very interesting letter from a seminarian who will remined nameless.

The seminarian asked the Commission some questions.

The answers are illuminating.

First, the Commission says that seminarians "have the right" to be instructed also in the older form of Mass.

Second, those responsible for formation of semiarians "should provide for the instruction in both forms of the Roman Rite."

These items will be in the forthcoming instruction about Summorum Pontificum the Holy Father will issue in forma specifica.

I travelled to Oxford this week to participate in a colloquium on blogging at the Catholic Chaplaincy sponsored by the Newman Society.

I had a chance to walk around the town a bit and enjoy the sights in the company of some young men who are students and know the place well.

Here are a few views.

First, one of the beautiful quads with the gentlemen who took me around.

The chapels of the colleges are stunning.  I had to strive mightily to keep my jealousy in check.

 

And when the interiors are perhaps grand, the exteriors are amazing, as in Keeble.

 

After lunch at the Eagle and Child, known for having been the meeting place of the Inklings, we had Mass together at the Oratory in a house chapel.

However, the night before, after the colloquium, I was very pleased also to be able to go to the Eagle and Child to be interviewed by a journalist from the Catholic Herald and to conduct the interview in the little corner of the "Bird and Baby" where the Inklings met. 



I had been there before with a dear friend some years ago, but it gave me great pleasure to return.  C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Dororthy Sayers, et al., had enjoyed conversation and pints in that very spot.

I am very grateful to all the fine people I met in Oxford for the welcome they extended to me and the kind invitations to return.   

This is in from Ave Maria University:

Dear Ave Maria Community Members,

After extensive discussion involving the University’s leadership and priests and others, the Chaplain’s Office is happy to announce that our newly adjusted Mass schedule for Ave Maria University has been approved and will be implemented starting on Tuesday, February 19, 2008.  The old schedule remains largely the same, but with the following additions or adjustments.  Flyers containing the new schedule will be available outside the chapel door.  Please be aware that the Extraordinary Form Latin Mass, in the absence of a qualified priest celebrant, becomes a Novus Ordo Latin Mass when necessary.  [That’s reasonable, but I’d be happy to sub if needed.] Sunday’s Morning Prayer will be at 7 AM.  May all these opportunities for prayer be a true spiritual benefit to the entire community.   [Yes!  That is the point.  I am glad the letter stresses this at the end.]

Blessings, Fr. Robert Garrity     

Mass Sunday Schedule

7:30 AM (Extraordinary Form Latin)
9:00 AM (Novus Ordo Festive Latin)
10:30 AM (English)
12 Noon (English with Occasional Latin Ordinary Parts)
8 PM (English Praise and Worship)

Tuesday/Thursday Morning Mass Schedule

7:50 AM (Novus Ordo Latin on Tuesday, Extraordinary Form Latin on Thursday)


Saturday Mass Schedule

9 AM (English)
10 AM (Novus Ordo Latin)
4 PM Vigil (English)

Confessions

Monday through Friday 2:45 to 3:45 PM
Saturday 10:30 to 11:30 AM, 2:45 to 3:45 PM
Sunday 11:30 AM to 12 Noon

Fr. Robert M. Garrity, J.C.L., S.T.D.
Chaplain
Ave Maria University
5050 Ave Maria Boulevard
Ave Maria, FL 34142-9505
239.280.2424 or 239.280.2519 Office
239.304.7034 Fax

What a great development!

I now urge all those students involved in the older form of Mass to be exemplary in their decorum and warm in their expressing joy.
 

I got this by e-mail.  Very interesting and good news.

Fr Z,

Got a flyer this A.M. that reads:

Father William Young will begin celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass on Sundays at 11:30am on March 2, 2008 at Holy Rosary Chapel in Marin.

...

Fr. Young met with Archbishop Niederauer and Fr Padazinski on Ash Wednesday to make final arrangements for the Traditional Latin Mass to be celebrated on a regular basis in the Archdiocese of San Francisco in accord with Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio of July 7, 2007.  The above Mass was approved at that meeting.

As you say, Fr, brick-by-brick.  This is the first TLM in SF.  It’s out of the way across the Bay from the City.  But it’s a start.  I have been attending the Mass at St Margaret Marys in Oakland (which is also across the Bay).

I am trying to get to the bottom of something which seems to be going on at Mundelein Seminary in the USA.  A seminarian sent me a copy of a letter that the Rector of Mundelein sent, I believe, to bishops whose seminarians were represented at that seminary.

My emphases.

The letter:

Dear (Ordinary),

Greetings from Mundelein Seminary.

As you know, on July 7, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI released the apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum. This letter helps to clarify the Church’s liturgical law concerning the use of the Roman Missal of 1962. It has also sparked interest in some seminarians to learn how to celebrate this “extraordinary” form of the liturgy. In particular, a number of fourth year seminarians have asked to participate in a seminar offered by the Society of St. John Cantius at their parish in Chicago. This seminar aims to instruct seminarians and priests on how to celebrate the 1962 form. From your Diocese, X has requested to participate in this seminar. Classes will be held every X night during the Spring Quarter. However, in order for a seminarian to participate I am requesting two items.

The first is a letter from his ordinary granting permission to participate in the seminar. This letter should be sent to my office and include whether or not you allow your seminarian(s) to participate. The second requirement is that the seminarian must complete an examination to demonstrate his knowledge of Latin. The results of the examination will be sent to you.

I recognize that you will decide if there is a pastoral need for the celebration of the 1962 form in your Diocese and I encourage you to speak with X about his interest in serving this need.

Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this issue.

Sincerely, yours in Christ,
Denis J. Lyle
Rector/President

My reaction to this ….

First, I have absolutely no objection to a bishop knowing what sort of formation his seminarians are receiving.  I have always thought that seminarians should be trained also to say the older form of Mass.  I would really have objected to any bishop forbidding a seminarian from learning the older form.  However, now that Summorum Pontificum has stated that, juridically, there is one Roman Rite in two uses, it seems to me that a bishop cannot prevent a seminarian from being instructed in the older form.  In fact, the bishop has the responsibility to make sure that the seminaries are providing adequate training, and that training must include the older form if it is going to be adequate.

Second, I have no problem with seminarians being tested in their knowledge of Latin.  Of course, we all know, as do the rectors of every seminary in the world, that the 1983 Code of Canon Law requires that seminarians be well trained in Latin.  So, if the seminary is doing its job, it is entirely reasonable to test students in Latin, even if they don’t have to learn the older form.  However, if a seminary wasn’t actually requiring students to learn Latin, and then were to impose tests as a prerequisite for being well trained in the Roman Rite…. well… that would just be hypocrisy, would it not?

The Times has an interesting piece today about the Chinese possibly doing an about-face on a future visit from Pope Benedict XVI.

My emphases and comments.

From The Sunday Times
February 17, 2008
China repents and seeks to woo Pope
Michael Sheridan, Far East Correspondent and John Follain

TEMPTED by the prize of a historic visit to China by Pope Benedict XVI, the nation’s leaders have authorised a renewed effort in confidential discussions with the Vatican to heal their rift and inaugurate diplomatic ties.  [Isn’t it interesting that the great Cardinal Zen just got a new coadjutor for Hong Kong?  Will His Eminence have a little more free time?]

The talks have intensified over recent months, leading some diplomatic observers in Beijing to believe the Chinese may be seeking to announce a deal before the Olympic Games in August.  [What happens after the Games are over, and the PRC doesn’t need to work so hard to make sure they are a huge success?]

Liu Bainian, the de facto head of Beijing’s official Patriotic Church, has said on several occasions that he would like to welcome the Pope to China once an agreement has been reached.

While the Vatican says it has received no formal invitation, observers say Liu’s words would have been uttered only with approval from the highest levels.

The announcement of mutual recognition and a papal visit would be a propaganda coup for China.  [Yes, it sure would.  That is what this is about.] It would counter the negative publicity that has stunned Beijing recently, culminating in the decision by Steven Spielberg, the film director, to end his involvement with the Olympics over China’s policies in Sudan.

“The contacts are going ahead and we are somewhat optimistic,” a senior Vatican official said.

Both sides have maintained the utmost discretion, but sources close to the discussions, held in government buildings in Beijing, said they had reached a detailed and businesslike stage.

The senior Vatican official said any idea of a papal visit before the Games start on August 8 was “very unrealistic.” However, diplomats say the mere announcement of an agreement and a future visit would be enough to hand a public relations gift to China’s leaders.

The scene for a potential reconciliation between the Roman Catholic Church and the world’s largest officially atheist state has been set by a series of carefully managed moves.

There are at least 10m Catholics in China but their congregations are divided between the official Patriotic Association and an underground church whose members have endured martyrdom and imprisonment since the communist revolution in 1949.

Last June the Pope addressed a letter to Chinese Catholics in which he praised the devotion of the clandestine church but also urged reconciliation and unity among Christians.

The letter reiterated the need for obedience to the Vatican, which some officials in Beijing interpreted favourably as a sign that the Pope wanted to bring the underground clergy into line for a change in policy.

In September the Vatican and China appeared to have agreed on the appointment of a new Bishop of Beijing, Li Shan. His installation was a signal that an accommodation could be reached on the most difficult issue between Rome and Beijing, the power to appoint clergy.

In 1951 the Communist party’s central committee made Chinese control of the church a fundamental tenet of its rule, stating that “foreign invaders and spies in religion must be rooted out”.

On December 18, 2007, the politburo convened for what party historians say was its first meeting wholly devoted to a collective study session on religion. President Hu Jintao and the most powerful men in China sat through two expert presentations explaining Christianity and traditional Chinese beliefs.

In its Chinese-language report Xinhua, the state news agency, gave a dispassionate account of the proceedings with none of the customary abuse of religion as a feudal remnant or an opiate of the people. Equally unprecedented were Hu’s own remarks to the meeting, which diplomats say were probably intended for scrutiny by the Vatican.

“The party and government shall reach out to religious believers in difficulties and help them through their problems,” he said. “We shall fully understand the new problems and challenges to manage religious affairs so that we can do it right.”

The president acknowledged that religions had been a constant presence in the nation and praised the role they could play in social stability and harmony.

The pace quickened in late January when Liu Jianchao, the foreign ministry’s spokesman, said: “China is constantly thinking hard about improving the relationship with the Vatican. We have already made a lot of effort and we are willing to keep in touch, talk to the Vatican and actively seek approaches to improve relations.”

There have also been silent signals from the Vatican. It has made it known that Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong, long the fiercest critic of the official church and an outspoken advocate of democracy and freedom, is to retire in just over a year.

Zen is said by church sources in Hong Kong to have argued for extreme caution and against any haste in making a deal with China. But some in the Vatican see the greatest opportunity to bring Christianity to China since the days of the first Jesuit missionaries centuries ago.  [Naive?]

The Pope’s diplomats have also made it clear that the other principal obstacle to mutual recognition – the Vatican’s link to Taiwan – can be resolved.

To the great dismay of many Chinese Catholics, the Vatican is prepared as part of an eventual settlement to move its embassy from Taipei to Beijing.

“There is no problem with breaking relations with Taiwan and we are happy not to interfere [in China’s internal affairs], but we have a duty to spread the values of the gospel,” a senior Vatican official said.

My friend KK sent me the following article from the Kansas City Star, to which I have applied my own emphases and comments.

Prayer retains veiled remarks

Bill Tammeus
Columnist
Kansas City Star

Earlier this month Pope Benedict XVI ordered good changes in a Latin prayer used in some Good Friday services. He removed language that called Jews blind and that asked God to “remove the veil from their hearts.”

Almost all Jewish leaders who expressed an opinion about the changes were grateful for the deletion of the offensive words. [It is hard to comment on whether something is truly "offensive".  After all, this is very subjective.  The one hearing the words has his own perspective.  I think that has to be taken into account by those who are critical of Pope Benedict having changed the Good Friday prayers.] At the same time, they were profoundly disappointed that Benedict left these words in the prayer: “Let us also pray for the Jews. May the Lord Our God enlighten their hearts so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, the savior of all men.”

The clear sense of those words is that the pope and any other Catholic who prays them in the old Latin Mass want all Jews to become Christians. [Well… YAH!  That’s right!]  The prayer devalues Judaism. [No, it doesn’t.]  It assumes that Christianity has replaced Judaism and thus made it not just irrelevant but irredeemably wrong.  [I think this is unreasonably narrow.  Catholics do not see Judaism as "irrelevant" or "wrong" in an absolute sense.  We don’t so much see Judaism as being "replaced" by Christianity as being "brought to its perfection" in Christianity.  Judaism is therefore of priceless value to us, and we venerate what God worked through the Jewish people.  But we nevertheless see that God has taken the next steps in the economy of salvation.  Just because we believe that Christ is the fulfillment of the faith of the Jews, that doesn’t mean we therefore think that Jews are "irredeemable".  On the contrary!]

That certainly would begin to explain the unhappiness many Jewish leaders expressed when they learned what the pope had left in the prayer.  [Some would say "added to".  In many ways the new prayer is stronger!]

But there’s much more to their displeasure than that. It is rooted in an acute awareness of century after century of official anti-Jewish church teachings and actions, of which this is only the latest.  [Ummm…. noooo…. again, the prayer is not "anti-Jewish".  We must deny this premise.  Remember when reading to check the premises the author wants you to accept before moving along with his arguments.] The church finally showed a willingness to move away from this anti-Judaism [See?] in 1965 with a Vatican II document that said Jews no longer should be considered Christ killers.  [ggrrrrr] Later, relations between Catholics and Jews improved dramatically under Pope John Paul II.

But the relentless and shameful anti-Judaism [See?] in Christian history is a story that many American Christians seem to know little about. And yet it helped to create modern anti-Semitism, without which the Holocaust would have been inconceivable.  [So Christianity, not original sin, is responsible for the Holocaust?]

So when a Jewish leader such as Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, reacts to the pope’s prayer change by telling Reuters news service that “it is less offensive in its language but it still is in contradiction to changes that the late Pope John Paul brought about,” [I disagree.  John Paul II did change the landscape of Christian-Jewish relations, but he did not sell out Christian faith in Christ as the only Savior of mankind.] he is taking into account not just what Benedict and John Paul did but the whole sad history of Jewish-Christian relations.

“John Paul taught that the Jewish people are the older brothers of Catholics and that Judaism has its own merits and viability,” Foxman said.  [Yes, of course!  "Merits and viability", just as I was describing above.  Again, that does not mean that any Pope ever thought that what is good in Judaism can be considered good apart from God’s plan, which includes the Word made flesh, the Messiah, who was crucified and raised from the dead.]

Foxman has identified the issue precisely. [Not so precisely, I think.] The prayer the pope revised still raises this question: Is Judaism a legitimate religion?  [See my comments above.]

That prayer, even though it removes some objectionable language, suggests the answer is no. By implication, it argues that God has somehow abrogated the covenant with Abraham in which God chose the people of Israel to bear the heavy burden of being a light to the nations. [Abrogated?  I don’t think that is quite the way to put it.  I would say that God brought that covenant to its perfection with a new covenant.  God is, after all, the perfect master of a hermeneutic of continuity.] It says this to Jews today: Your people missed the boat 2,000 years ago, and it’s time you recognized that and converted.

Each religion, of course, must determine its own doctrine and beliefs.  [Including the Catholic Church?  Apparently not, according to some.] If official Catholicism [As opposed to which other Catholicism?] wants to teach that Judaism has been superseded and is irrelevant, [See?  There is that premise from above that we refused to accept.] it is free to do so. But in that case, all the Jewish-Catholic dialogue of the last several decades can have had only one ultimate Catholic purpose: the conversion of Jews. [And everyone else, too.   This is a surprise?   At the same time I recognize how foreign this idea may be to Jews, who do not attempt to make coverts.]

I know Jews who have freely converted to Christianity, and I’m happy to welcome them into my own Protestant faith community. [This author isn’t Jewish, but he sure has a bone to pick with the Catholic Church!] But it must be terribly difficult for Jews to ponder becoming Christian when Christianity has spent almost 2,000 years denigrating Judaism and oppressing Jews.  [Grrr…]

So the pope and other Catholics should not be surprised when Jews express offense at the newly revised prayer. [I can live with that.  I can live with practicing Jews praying the infamous, and racist, "shelo asani goi" every day.] Any such surprise is evidence of a mysterious tone-deafness that fails to imagine or anticipate how one’s words will be heard by others.  [This raises the question about whether we simply choose to be offended or not.]

If the church’s liturgy continues to promote the belief that Jews are lost infidels beyond God’s redemption,  [This smacks of the hysterical.] Catholics should not expect Jews to rejoice in so demeaning a designation.

To reach Bill Tammeus, send e-mail to wtammeus@kc.rr.com. Visit his Web log at http:// billtammeus.typepad.com.