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

Some of you have asked about the colloquium I participated in at Oxford.  There is a good account over at Lacrimarum Valle.

I met some fine people in Oxford and was grateful for the chance to participate.

According to some sources, the SSPX priests will not adopt Pope Benedict’s change to the Good Friday prayers for the Jews.

The rad-trad Catholic Family News states "that on Sunday February 17, Bishop Fellay stated publicly at Ridgefield that the SSPX will not adopt the new Good Friday Prayer."

This, if true, doesn’t really surprise me. 

SSPX priests have been independent agents for quite a while now. 

The situation of "less than easily defined union" with Rome (to avoid the "S-word") has continued long enough now that young people who frequent their chapels and enter their seminaries and convents have never known or had much contact with the Catholic Church’s mainstream. 

It would require a shift of world view that many of these folks will not be able to make. 

I am not saying, thereby, that any of them are "bad".  As a matter of fact I admire many of the SPPX followers and priests I have met.  I am saying that it simply might require, now, such a radical change of views that many won’t be able to do it.  I many of them have generational deeply entrenched attitudes of self-sufficiency.  I don’t know if they can do it.

"But Father!  But Father!" you might be saying.  "Do what?"

Seek true unity with Rome and not just apply lip service.

If SSPX priests won’t use the new Good Friday prayers, I will be sad but not surprised.  This would be another sign of the increasing distance between their minds and hearts from the person of the Roman Pontiff. 

But this raises another issue, doesn’t it?

The superiors of the SSPX don’t really have any jurisdiction to say what prayers a priest can use and what they can’t use. 

Their Society is not a Church.  They don’t have any line of proper authority or any jurisdiction.

If an SSPX priests wants to use the new prayers, he could.   No one with real ecclesiastical authority can stop them from using the new prayers or impose real censures if they decide not to run with the pack.

I guess that only the threat of displeasure from their congregations or the cutting off of their pay checks can, ultimately, keep priest close to the "party line" in such times. 

Frankly, I don’t expect that many SSPX would choose the buck the "party line". 

But some might.

Furthermore, who knows what version of the Missale Romanum priests of the SSPX will use for the Triduum?  They are individually their own authorities after all.  They can do what they want to do according to their own tastes or the pressure of the majority.

Will most of them use an edition prior to the Pius XII reform of Holy Week?  I am guessing yes. 

Will some of them use an edition after the Pius XII reform, but before John XXIII’s reforms?  I am guessing, yes, a few.

Will some use the 1962 edition as printed in 1962 with the Benedictine changes?  I am guessing, yes, but very few indeed.

Will some have the guts use the 1962 edition with Pope Benedict’s revision? 

In my opinion such a priest would be taking a step closer to acknowledging that Pope Benedict XVI is truly the Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, Bishop of Rome, and Supreme Pontiff with full and supreme jurisdiction in the Catholic Church by Christ’s own concession. 

In that step, he would seriously challenge the increasingly entrenched view of many followers of the late Archbishop.

My prayers are with them all.

Paolo Rodari of Il riformista has an interesting piece about the Pope reaction to a question put to him during his recent meeting with the clergy of Rome.  The question was about the problem of the huge outdoor Masses which became a norm during the pontificate of John Paul II.

Here is Rodari’s piece, in my translation, with my emphases and comments.

That the papal liturgies are changing enormously, also thanks to the arrival of the Pope’s new Master of Ceremonies, the Ligurian of the [late Card.] Siri school, Msgr. Guido Marini, is something well-known.  Behind Marini, of course, is the Pope, for whom the liturgy of all time is to be celebrated in a new way (which as a matter of fact hasn’t been done for a long time), that is, faithfully following the rules – regardless of ‘old’ or new’ Missal – so as to offer a dignified whole that is respectful of what is taking place.

As a case in point, the Pontiff spoke about this a few days ago (7 Feb) in the traditional and purposely spontaneous parry and riposte which, as happens every year at the beginning of Lent, takes place behind closed doors between him and the priests and deacons of Rome.

Among the ten questions presented to Ratzinger, one was dedicated to Masses celebrated with huge crowds, those which – to be clear – more and more became the established practice during the pontificate of John Paul II. Those which, still, for logistical reasons are for example ever more frequent for spiritual retreats and large ecclesial movements.

The Pope listened in silence to the question offered to him, responded, and then in the following days, made an important decision about it.

But let’s be orderly.  The question put to the Pontiff was unimpeachable in its formulation and went like this: "How do we reconcile the treasure of the liturgy in all its solemnity and with the sentiment, emotion and excitment of masses of young people called to participate in it?"  Benedict XVI responded immediately that, in effect, there is a problem: "Liturgy in which masses of people participate", he said, "is a big problem."

[This part is fascinating.] The Pope recalled that everything began with a question presented in 1960 during a large International Eucharistic Congress at Munich, about how there could be the celebration of the Eucharist also at such events.  To adore, it was said at Munich, can be done also at a distance, but to celebrate a limited community is necessary which can interact with the mystery.  At Munich many expressed negative opinions regarding the hypothesis of celebrations of the Eucharist in the open, even with one hundred thousand people or more.  But it was the Austrian liturgist Josef Andreas Jungmann, one of the architects of the liturgical reform, who created "the concept of ‘statio orbis‘" and thus legitimated celebrations as vast as oceans: in substance, if there exists the "statio Romae", and thus the place where the faithful gather to then go together to the Eucharist, so then there can exist also (and this is the case with Eucharistic Congresses), a "statio orbis", the gathering place of the world.  [And some critics of Pope Benedict’s liturgical decisions have made the dopey comment that he isn’t a "trained liturgist".  But he knew this and had it at the tip of his tongue during a Q&A.]

It is thanks to Jungmann, therefore, that today there are large Mass celebrations.  Even so, for Ratzinger, these represent a problem for which a definitive response – as he said himself on 7 February last – "has not yet been found" also because, "if there concelebrate, for example, a thousand priests, you don’t know if this is the structure the Lord wanted."  [KABOOM!  This is the key.  Pope Ratzinger fishes the whole question out of the soup of pragmatism and brings it back to Christ’s will.  As Pope, Benedict must concern himself primarily with what God wills before he makes practical decisions.  So, the question is no on the floor: are these mass Masses a good response to the reality of large crowds who want to be with the Pope?  Should Communion and concelebration, perhaps, be more limited?]

In the meantime, the Pope said, there is needed at least to find "a certain style to preserve the dignity that is always necessary for the Eucharist."  [Well… they haven’t done a very good job so far.] In the last large mass celebrations at which Ratzinger participated, for example at the recent gathering at Loreto, all these problems with these celebrations were present and the situation, he said, "didn’t depend on me, but rather on those who were tasked with the preparation".

And so, there is the solution, for now only partial, but nevertheless necessary, in view of the upcoming ocean-sized Masses: for two occasions on the apostolic visit to the United States (on 17 April in the new Nationals Park and 20 April at Yankee Stadium in New York) and those foreseen for World Youth Day in Sydney.  In the USA and Australia, the Pope decided not to delegate any longer the organization of celebrations to third parties.  And so he asked that, in the next days, that his Master of Ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini, should fly across the oceans (both the Pacific and Atlantic) with the precise task of studying the locations to be used for the liturgical functions with the end of taking on direct responsibility for carrying out celebrations in those spaces; that the result might be Masses that are as vast as oceans, but at least characterized as much as possible with composure and discipline.

Under another entry, frequent contributor Henry brings up a very good question.

To begin here are a couple comments, or rather "hooks" to hang ideas on.

First, a bishop can establish a "personal parish" where only the older, pre-Conciliar liturgical forms are used.  In such a place the 1962 Missale Romanum would be used for the Triduum, not the Novus Ordo.

Second, we have all heard about the tea-pot tempest surrounding the Good Friday prayer for Jews in the older form.  Surely some bishops would have hesitated to establish personal parishes because those controversial prayers would have then been actually used, thus stirring controversy.  Then Pope Benedict changed those prayers for Jews.  In doing so the Pope a) removed a possible objection to establishing a place where the older form would be used on the Triduum, and b) gave a clear sign that he intended that the Triduum be observed also with the 1962 form!  Remember: he could have ignored it.  By giving it this attention, he shows his favor.

Third, no priest or bishop can now say that, because of the prayers for the Jews on Good Friday, he doesn’t want people to use the 1962 Triduum.  That would be a criticism of Pope Benedict’s shiny new prayers, which would be seriously inappropriate.  A bishop or priest could come up with some other obstacles, but that one is now off the table.

So, with those ideas in place, take a look at what our friend Henry posted:

Henry: But suppose the pastor of a parish that regularly celebrates only the ordinary form accepts a liturgy committee recommendation that for a special occasion a particular Triduum Mass be celebrated in the extraordinary form instead. I recall a pastor who during the pre-SP speculation indicated his intent to do just this—celebrate the Christmas and Easter Vigil Masses in Tridentine form. Is there anything in SP that prohibits this?

Fr. Z’s short answer: No.

Keep in mind we are considering a parish where the Novus Ordo is the usual form used.

Here is my translation of article 2 of the Motu Proprio:

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, any priest whosoever of the Latin Rite, whether secular of religious, can use either the Missale Romanum issued in 1962 by Bl. John XXIII, or the Missale Romanum promulgated in 1970 by the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, and indeed on any day whatsoever except during the Sacred Triduum. For such a celebration according to one or the other Missal, a priest does not need permission, neither from the Apostolic See nor from his Ordinary.

This is the only place in the Motu Proprio which mentions the Triduum.  This article concerns private celebration of Mass.

Background: During the Triduum there cannot be a multiplication of Triduum ceremonies in the same place. You cannot have Novus Ordo Holy Thursday at 7:30 and 1962 at 9:30. Nor can a priest celebrate these things privately, or do one in private and one in public. A priest may not celebrate any Triduum rite privately with either Missal.

I do not find anything in Summorum Pontificum which would prevent a parish where the Novus Ordo is the usual form from having the Triduum in the older form.

Let’s go on.

In article 5 § 2 we read:

Celebration according to the Missal of Bl. John XXIII can take place on weekdays; on Sunday, however, and feasts there can be also one celebration of this kind.

The Motu Proprio mentions Sundays, weekdays and feasts.  Are we to understand "feast" in a broader sense?  Are we to understand that these terms apply to the older calendar, as found in the 1962 Missale Romanum or according to the newer, post-Conciliar calendar.  The new calendar distinguishes between solemnities, feasts, and memorials.  So, if we are to take it that the Motu Proprio is referring to these days when the old Mass can be used publicly it seems like we might not be able to use it on solemnities or the Triduum (which outranks all other solemnities).  However, I don’t think we have to assume that the Motu Proprio is speaking of the newer calendar at all.   Article 5 § 2 is talking about only one Missal and it mentions only the older Missal.  The older Missal does not distinguish solemnities, and neither does this article.  I think the article is intended to be read from the point of view of the older structure of the calendar rather than the newer, post-Conciliar distinctions.  So, given that the older form of Mass can be used on ferial days, Sundays and feasts, that covers every day of the year, I think.  After all, is not Good Friday considered a ferial day in Holy Week?  I don’t have an old Ordo with me but I think so.

So the Motu Proprio says, I believe, that there can be a celebration with the older form on any day of the year. However, there can only be one ceremony on each day of the Triduum in any given place.  Therefore, it must be either the Novus Ordo or the 1962 form.

The Motu Proprio suggests to me that a pastor could choose the older form instead of the newer form.  Furthermore, he does not need permission from the bishop. 

I do not know if this is clarified in the upcoming document from the Pope.

Remember: Pope Benedict intends that the older form can also be used on Good Friday.  If he didn’t, he would have ignored the Good Friday issue.  By changing the prayer he intends that it can be used also on Good Friday.  That doesn’t mean that it must be used, only that it can be used.  If I understand Benedict’s way of thinking, he would be very disappointed with a pasto