Portland, Maine: Bp. Malone implements Summorum Pontificum

 

I received the following by e-mail.  There is some news about the implementation of Summorum Pontificum at the Cathedral of Portland, Maine.

Let us have a glance with my emphases and comments.

February 24, 2008

Dear Friends of the Noon Mass at the Cathedral:

As you may be aware, I have been endeavoring to provide for the implementation of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum on a more stable basis and on a more extended basis in other locations in our diocese in addition to Portland and Newcastle.

I am pleased to announce that as of July 1, 2008, Father Robert Parent will serve as chaplain to the persons attached to the extraordinary form of the Roman liturgy residing in Southern and Central Maine.  Father Parent is a native of Lewiston and a priest of the Melkite Catholic Eparchy of Newton, Massachusetts.  He enjoys all the ministerial faculties of the Latin Church.  Currently, he is the administrator of Our Lady of the Rosary Parish in Sabattus and St. Francis Mission in Greene.  He will continue to reside at the family home in Auburn.  [So, this fellow is bi-ritual.  He is not a Latin Church priest, but he has faculties.]

After July 1, he will be responsible for Sunday Mass in the extraordinary form here at the Cathedral and at the Basilica of Ss. Peter and Paul in Lewiston, and in whichever additional locations may be possible either on the weekends or on weekdays.  He will be available for the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, including funerals, as needed and where the provisions exist for these celebrations.  The faithful having recourse to Father Parent will remain parishioners of the parish where they live.  [so... no personal parish at this time.] The jurisdiction of the chaplain extends to Mass and confessions for such persons.  Jurisdiction for other sacraments and sacramentals would be obtained from the proper pastor of the place where the individual lives.

The chaplaincy will be funded through the donations of the faithful at the Masses celebrated by Father Parent.  [I like this.  They can ante up.] The chaplaincy will exist as long as there is sufficient funding to meet its expenses.  This budget is being prepared and will be communicated to those who will be benefiting from his ministry.

It is my hope that this will allow for greater access to the extraordinary form of the Roman liturgy.  I am grateful to Father Parent for accepting this new position.  I count on your support and encouragement to him as he begins his ministry among you.

May God bless you with His peace.  Please know that you are in my prayers.

Yours sincerely in Christ,

Most Reverend Richard J. Malone
Bishop of Portland    

 

I like the solution.  Let the people who really want this, support it and then, if they can, expand it so that it merits a more stable structure.

I would only point out that this solution does not preclude a parish priest from implementing Summorum Pontificum in his own parish, if such a thing is merited.  The provisions of Summorum Pontificum are not by this solution to be restricted, after all.

 

Finally, the situation of Fr. Parent, the chaplain there in Portland, is instructive for people to understand what Pope Benedict did with Summorum Pontificum.

Before Summorum Pontificum priests really had to have permission to celebrate the older form of Mass publicly.  Even if they had faculties to say Mass, they needed permission for the TLM which had been made possible by an indult from John Paul II.  Now, however, the indult framework no longer exists, because now all priests have the faculty to say the older Mass by the fact they have the faculty to say Mass at all.

This is because Benedict XVI establsihed that, juridically speaking, there is only one Roman Rite and that that one Roman Rite has two uses.  If a priest has faculties for the Roman Rite, he has faculties for the older Mass. 

This is why we don’t, juridically, speak of the older, "Tridentine" Mass as a different Rite.  If it is a different rite, juridically, then the priest needs special faculties to celebrate it.

For example, if I, as a priest of the Latin Rite, the Roman Rite, want to celebrate Mass as the Maronites do, or the Ukranians, then I must obtain from their ecclesiastica authorities the faculty to say Mass in their rites.  If a Maronite priest wants to say Mass in the Roman Rite, he must obtain a faculty from a Latin Church authority.

Thus, you can see that Pope Benedict’s solution was brilliant.  Leaving aside the scholarly debates about whether the Novus Ordo and the "Tridentine" Mass are really the same RITE, which is a scholarly historical, liturgical, theological debate, His Holiness said that juridically there is one Roman Rite with two uses.  This eliminates the need for separate faculties.  

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.

67 Responses to Portland, Maine: Bp. Malone implements Summorum Pontificum

  1. Matt Callihan says:

    This is best explanation I have heard on why we now have two uses of the same rite.

  2. david andrew says:

    I only have one small (very small) concern, and that is the implication of a bi-ritual priest being tapped to enter into part of a larger plan on the Holy Father’s part to reinvigorate (restore to a greater level of reverence, etc) the OF via the EF.

    Granted, out of charity we should welcome the assistance of our Eastern rite clergy, and certainly by virtue of this priest’s recognized faculties the bishop has every right to enter into this relationship, but there’s just something about this dynamic that leaves me with a guarded curiosity.

    Other perspectives?

  3. Katherine says:

    After I read the headline I started jumping up and down and shouting, Yes, Yes, Yes!!!” I frightened the poor children who were calmly doing their schoolwork.
    We have been praying for a Latin Mass parish in Maine for our family for many years now and now the first fruit of that prayer is coming to pass.
    May God be praised and may the Pope be thanked. May the bishop continue to be open to the TLM in Maine.

  4. Christopher Sarsfield says:

    Just a quick question for the experts. I have heard that a priest as the right to offer the Mass of the Rite in which he was baptized. So for example if a priest baptized in the Roman Rite, changed Rites and was ordained in an Eastern Rite, he would have the right to say either the Roman or Eastern Rite he was ordained in, without the necessity of obtaining faculties from a Roman Rite bishop.

    With regard to Mr. Andrew’s comment: My only concern would be if the priest was married. That could really divide a group of traditionalists. The other thing I noticed is that Fr. Parent is the pastor of a Roman Rite Parish. So I assume that Fr. Parent offers the New Mass regularly. Therefore, I think it could still reinvigorate his parish, and the way he says Mass. However, being an Eastern Rite priest, he could already be offering the Mass in a very reverent manner. I know a few Eastern Rite priests and they all are very critical of the New Mass.

  5. Anonymous Seminarian says:

    As a native son of the Diocese of Portland I would like to shed some light on the issue.

    Father Parent, as noted in Bishop Malone’s letter, is a native of the Diocese of Portland and of Lewiston. He is indeed a priest of Maronite Rite, but received Latin Rite faculties many years ago and has been functioning in the Latin Rite almost exclusively within the Diocese for quite some time on an “extended loan.”

    Now, why Father Parent for the job? Why not an incardinated Diocesan Priest? You would have to understand the situation in the Diocese, first. We are in the process of clustering, that is, reorganizing all of the parishes in the Diocese into 29 regions or clusters. Each cluster will be staffed by 3 to 4 priests…despite the fact that some clusters have more than 5 parishes. We are facing a severe priest shortage that will drop to about 65 active priests by 2010. This being said, there are hardly enough priests to cover our already existing Masses, never mind taking on a Latin Mass apostolate. But Father Parent, because he is not incardinated per se, is available for this…more than that, he is willing and capable. I can only imagine that, for these reasons, Bishop Malone chose Father Parent for this.

    I would ask you to pray for the Diocese of Portland as we undergo this entire process. We need priests and we need vocations.

  6. magdalen says:

    Wonderful news! Congrats to all those in Maine who will have
    this great opportunity.

    Ave Maria!

  7. mike c says:

    Two usages of the same rite. Yes, a brilliant solution, juridically speaking. However, casual observation shows them not to be the same rite at all. The theology of TrueMass is vertical, and therefore more in line with that which the Church has proclaimed in the past 2 millenia. The rubrics are different, the music is different. The only thing in common is the Sacrifice, although NewMass would have you think it is only a community meal. How is it then possible, for there to be a Rite of Maron, a Chaldean Rite, a Melkite Rite in the Roman Church. The rubrics, theology and music are different in those “rites.” You see where I’m going, right? Then why can’t we have our own canonical structure? If the pope can set up a canonical structure for Arabic Roman Catholics in Palestine then why can’t we have our own juridic personality?

  8. Flambeaux says:

    Riffing on Anonymous Seminarian’s comments, as my diocese is in a similar state (although with our new Ordinary at the helm things are already improving), I wonder if any of these bishops desperate for vocations would begin offering a monthly Solemn High Pontifical Mass to encourage vocations.

    I mean slick marketing has been tried…why not prayer and fasting?

  9. Sid Cundiff says:

    Any chance for the MEF in Bar Harbor or Elsworth? At least May-Sept? Lots of tourists up there!

  10. Christopher Mandzok says:

    What a beautiful letter. Concise, well-explained and on point. I have been down on our bishops for so long, I did not think an American bishop was capable of such thoughtfulness.

  11. Rob in Maine says:

    I AM FLABBERGASTED!

    Last year, when SP came out, I called the Chancery to ask about it. Four people later (who had NO idea what I was talking about) I was told “Latin mass is at the Cathedral at noon.”

    Well, this seems to be the first decision in a while that the Chancery has thought out. :/

  12. Karen in Maine says:

    Initially, it does sound great of the Bishop, but for those of us who have been traveling great distances to the TLM in Portland for over a decade, it’s almost useless. I am also not fond of the idea of “paying to play”.

  13. Mary says:

    I’m surprised to see so many positive reactions to the Bishop’s letter. Frankly I am very disappointed in this letter and its tone. It seems to me that the Bishop is using the Traditional Latin Mass in a bid to generate funds. Because the Bishops are nothing these days if not fundraisers.

    I am from the Northeast and it has been a difficult time watching billions of dollars paid out for lawsuits, parish “renovation”, highly paid DREs, diocesan personnel while Catholic schools, hospitals and churches are closing. It’s frustrating to see the allocation of resources. To explain what kind of serious money we are talking about- the diocese of Boston has/had an annual budget of 1 billion dollars. Astonishing.

    I don’t believe only those who can afford to “fund a priest” should be entitled to the Traditional Latin Mass. What does that say about our commitment to the poor and disenfranchised?

    The people who have been voting w/ their pocketbooks to protest some of the deplorable behavior of the Bishops are being taken to task. And reined back in.

    IF it was every about the money, which I don’t believe for a minute, the Fraternity of St Peter, the Institute of Christ the King or any of the other fine Traditional Societies would be invited to come to Maine. But then the diocese looses money and more importantly power and control.

  14. Katherine says:

    I was hoping that one of the 2 new apostolates of the FSSP was going to be in Maine(one has been announced in South Bend, IN).

    After all, Father Goodwin, FSSP, a native of Maine, spoke this summer after the noon Portland Mass and said that we should be hopeful, no matter what. It would be likely that the bishop wouldn’t turn down a FSSP apostolate offering a priest when they have so vocations.

    Why do they have only 60-some priests to cover 33,000 square miles? Perhaps it is because the last 2 bishops have been liberal to the nth degree and hippy-dippy Masses with no solid Catholic teaching do not attract men to the priesthood. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we see many vocations come out of this?

    Let us continue to pray and be watchful.

  15. Katherine says:

    sorry, supposed to say, “so few vocations.”

  16. Christopher Sarsfield wrote: “With regard to Mr. Andrew’s comment: My only concern would be if the priest was married. That could really divide a group of traditionalists.”

    Why would this cause a divide? The married men of the Eastern Rite have been allowed to become priests since time immemorial. There is nothing wrong or “less Catholic” about this custom. Let’s not start adopting the bigoted attitudes of Archbishop John Ireland, which drove so many Eastern Catholics into the arms of the Eastern Orthodox.

    Anonymous Seminarian wrote: “He is indeed a priest of Maronite Rite, but received Latin Rite faculties many years ago and has been functioning in the Latin Rite almost exclusively within the Diocese for quite some time on an ‘extended loan.’”

    So is he a Maronite or a Melkite priest?

  17. Tom says:

    Dallas officials insist that they cannot possibly “spend time and energy” on the “Latin Mass” as priestly vocations have all but disappeared within the diocese.

    “We cannot possibly have priests offer Latin Masses when we struggle just to offer Mass in English, Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese…we don’t have enough priests…we can’t expect priests to learn Latin…we can’t justify the use of priests to offer Mass for a few hundred disgruntled Catholics.”

    When informed that the Traditional Latin Mass generates vocations, the response from certain Dallas officials is that the diocese is not interested in promoting the TLM.

    Incredible…simply incredible.

  18. RBrown says:

    Tom,

    Once again: VatII is explicit that candidates for the priesthood be proficient in Latin. Latin illiterate priests are testimony to the negligence of bishops and their seminaries.

  19. Mike C wrote: “How is it then possible, for there to be a Rite of Maron, a Chaldean Rite, a Melkite Rite in the Roman Church. The rubrics, theology and music are different in those “rites.” You see where I’m going, right? Then why can’t we have our own canonical structure? If the pope can set up a canonical structure for Arabic Roman Catholics in Palestine then why can’t we have our own juridic personality?”

    Because of history. I once posited the question to a Byzantine Rite Catholic priest: Why, if the Melkite, Ruthenian, and Russian Catholics all follow the Byzantine Rite, are they not simply one big ‘sui juris’ church?

    The response was that each group has its own distinct history and traditions. The Ruthenians (Ukrainians & Carpatho Rusyns) came back into communion with the Holy See after the Union of Brest, the Melkites during the Middle Ages, the small Byzantine-Russian Catholic community only in the late 1800s. Each also has their distinct traditions and customs that have been passed down through the ages.

    Regarding the Latin Rite, there has never been any tradition of seperate ‘sui juris’ churches within the Western Church. With the exception of the Holy Father, all patriarchs in the Western Church are merely titular. Even those who follow the Mozarabic or Ambrosian Rites never had their own seperate church within the Catholic fold. Thus, setting up a seperate “juridic personality” (as you said) would be ahistorical.

    And while you may perceive the Ordinary and the Extraordinary Uses of the Roman Rite to be different rites, they are actually not. In theory (though seldom in practice) the ceremonial should be similar; the music as well. In the 1970s, the Holy See compiled a small booklet (called ‘Jubilate Deo’) of Latin chants that it thought all the Latin Rite faithful should know and use at Mass. Sadly, this was largely ignored. I do admit that there are many differences and I personally prefer the Traditional Latin Mass (primarily for the lectionary, Calendar, and Holy Week rites), but these two uses are both part of the same rite. I hope this becomes more apparent to everyone as the Holy Father’s plan of liturgical reform progresses.

    Finally, the Arabic-speaking Roman Catholics in Palenstine do not have their own “juridic personality”. Though they are under the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem (which is merely a title), Latin Catholics have been present in the Holy Land since the Crusades. Thus, they have no more special distinction (except the fact that they have the privilege of living in the land of Christ’s birth) than the English-speaking Catholics in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. The Melkite Greek Catholics and the Maronite Catholics both have a eparchies in Palestine, but have their patriarchates based in Lebanon (for the Maronites) and Syria (for the Melkites). The Holy See never “set these up”, they have been in existence since the early days of Christianity. As well, Adrian Fortescue writes about the Melkites: “Perhaps the most striking fact about them is that it is their Patriarch, who by direct descent and undoubted historical continuity, represents the original line of Antioch [from St. Peter]“.

  20. Matt Q says:

    Mary wrote:

    “I’m surprised to see so many positive reactions to the Bishop’s letter. Frankly I am very disappointed in this letter and its tone. It seems to me that the Bishop is using the Traditional Latin Mass in a bid to generate funds. Because the Bishops are nothing these days if not fundraisers.”

    ()

    Mary, I think you misconstrued what the bishop said. All he said was that donations raised at the Tridentine Mass stays there. That’s all. Whatever the financial motivations for that, the bishop should say why.

    Mary wrote further:

    “I am from the Northeast and it has been a difficult time watching billions of dollars paid out for lawsuits, parish “renovations,” highly paid DREs, diocesan personnel while Catholic schools, hospitals and churches are closing. It’s frustrating to see the allocation of resources. To explain what kind of serious money we are talking about–the diocese of Boston has/had an annual budget of 1 billion dollars. Astonishing.

    ()

    Yes, Mary, it’s astonishing to see that. You should see from Los Angeles where the Archdiocese is four times larger–the largest in this country. It’s up the bishop to control costs. At the same time, in the modern age we live in, costs are up. The infrastructures of the Church need to be maintained. Since there are so very few priests and religious around as before to fill these traditional roles, your only resource left to draw off of is the laity. While they may be committed, you have to pay them something decent because, again, as times we live in, there is no way to keep these people when they could be elsewhere earning a living to keep themselves alive. Granted, what they are doing versus their salary needs to be examined, but until then, this is what we are stuck with.

    ()

    Mary wrote further:

    “I don’t believe only those who can afford to “fund a priest” should be entitled to the Traditional Latin Mass. What does that say about our commitment to the poor and disenfranchised?”

    This is not what is being said. At the same time, I appreciate what the bishop is doing as it seems to insulate the Tridentine Mass should any tumult arise in the parish for other things. While it seems like exclusivity, it really isn’t different than the second collections which go around every other Sunday. It’s a specific fund for a specific purpose.

    ()

    Mary wrote further:

    “The people who have been voting with their pocketbooks to protest some of the deplorable behavior of the Bishops are being taken to task. And reined back in.

    IF it was ever about the money, which I don’t believe for a minute, the Fraternity of St Peter, the Institute of Christ the King or any of the other fine Traditional Societies would be invited to come to Maine. But then the diocese looses money and more importantly power and control.”

    ()

    Mary, people have the right to spend their money where they feel its best served. When it comes to church-related matters, all the more. If an activity is promoting Tradition and sound teaching and the basket is passed, you can believe people will be generous. Of the other hand, if they try to raise money to knock out the altar rails, you better believe that basket is going to come back empty.

  21. David Andrew says:

    I realize that this is off topic, but in response to RBrown’s statement regarding the requirement for proficiency in Latin, I asked our parochial vicar how much Latin was provided or stressed in our local seminary. He said that he thought there was one class offered, but that all seminarians were required to take a semeseter (or more) of of Spanish. One is required (Spanish) the other is optional (Latin), according to his accounts.

    Are the curricula of the seminaries in the US regularly and agressively audited by the Holy See to ensure compliance?

  22. Karen in Maine says:

    Matt Q wrote:
    All he said was that donations raised at the Tridentine Mass stays there. That’s all.

    The letter states:
    “The chaplaincy will be funded through the donations of the faithful at the Masses celebrated by Father Parent. The chaplaincy will exist as long as there is sufficient funding to meet its expenses.”

    As someone who has attended the TLM in Portland regularly for over a decade, I can assure you, it means just that. As long as we can afford him, we’ll have the TLM. Only the funds that are collected at such Masses will be given to Fr. Parent. We’ve been told (warned?) over the yrs on some occasions that the collections during our TLM were not covering the cost of using the chapel of the Cathedral.

    Another concern I didn’t mention in my previous comment is that this other location in Lewiston where another TLM will be said is serving the same population that attends the Portland TLM. So .. presumably, collections will decrease in Portland becaue those who live in Lewiston/Auburn area – and I believe there are many!, are not going to give to both TLM’s and why should they? The priests up here in my area (Newport, Bangor) have thus far shown zero interest in having a TLM (I’ve asked). Another concern that doesn’t bode well.. we all know that once you start attending the TLM regularly, it grows on you and you tend to get away from the N.O. If say, Bangor got a TLM, and it was eventually well-attended, how many of those people are going to support their home parish (St. John’s, St Mary’s, etc) when they’ll be expected to ante up to Fr. Parent? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with the N.O. dropping out of sight due to lack of funding, but I highly doubt these priests of these parishes are going to want to promote sending their own parishioners to a TLM knowing they’ll lose their money.

  23. “My only concern would be if the priest was married. That could really divide a group of traditionalists.”

    I read once where even Pius XII allowed for some converted Lutheran pastors to be ordained priests during his reign. I don’t know this for a fact, but they might have been married. (Someone correct me if they know more of this incident.) In any case, I could only see this as a problem for people who NEED a reason to complain. We have the Traditional Mass now, which should be cause for rejoicing.

    Whining tends to drown out rejoicing, at least in my experience.

  24. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    This sort of thing has been done in Dublin, Ireland. It is likely the precursor to a personal parish, on a trial basis. This sort of thing is covered under Canons 564 to 572.

    A personal quasi-parish, like that of Vancouver, Canada, would be stabler, and is the step before a personal parish. Bishop Malone probably wants to test the waters and see how feasible the community is financially.

    A Chaplaincy is a juridical structure to which a priest is attached; therefore, he can offer the Triduum Sacram for the community entrusted to him, provided that he can find a place for this.

    P.K.T.P.

  25. BK says:

    If they can cluster and close parishes, why not cluster neighboring dioceses?

    Think of the TLMs that could be funded by closing a few chancery offices and eliminating their staffs and salaries.

    Seriously, if we don’t have enough priests and laity to keep open local churches, why not cluster dioceses, freeing up priests in the process, maybe making redundant bishops into auxiliaries whose sole function is to staff parishes that would otherwise be closed.

  26. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Fr. Z. is wrong, of course, about the New Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass not being different Rites of Mass. They are different Rites of Mass, whether the Pope acknowledges this or not. They are also different forms of Mass, since every Rite is certainly at least one form (and perhaps more than one, such as local or particular uses).

    The Pope didn’t change the law; he merely clarified an existing situation, which is why he said that the old Mass was never abrogated and was always, therefore, in principle, permitted. The Commission of cardinals of 1986, according to Cardinal Stickler, who was one of them (Cardinal Ratzinger was another) agreed unanimously (with one abstention) that “no bishop could forbid a priest in good standing from” celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass. (Note my direct quotation marks: those are the exact words of the Cardinal.)

    The New Mass and the old Mass are indeed two different forms of Mass, as Benedict XVI claims. However, H.H. is mistaken when he denies that they are two different Rites of Mass. The reason that the difference between them makes for a difference of Rite is the extent of the alteration. There are substantial alterations in every category of liturgical reform: deletions, additions, recastings, substitutions, re-orderings and options; and both the rubrics and the music of the two has been reformed radically–to the root; in fact, even the rubrical terminology has been revised. Lastly, even the means of alteration differs between them: the Traditional Rite is altered mainly by organic growth; the New Mass was concocted and invented in committee, although it does borrow from some existing (and some extraneous) forms (such as the Hippolytan Canon and the New Offertory from a Jewish grace). Fr. Z. fails to realise the extent to which law is a blunt instrument. Law does not fail to take into account those differences which are reasonable. The Church also has profound respect for the dispostion of the faithful. It is not for no reason that many people have commented quite innocently that, in comparing the two Masses, they seemed to express two different religions.

    Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Bugnini had concocted a liturgy which was so foreign to the Roman Rite that it had far more in common with the Armenian Rite than with the Roman. Would we then say that, since he nevertheless used the Roman Rite of Mass as his blueprint and wrote ‘Roman Mass’ on the titlepage, it must be the same Rite of Mass? By no means. If it had more in common with the Armenian Rite than with its predecessor in the Roman Rite, it must needs be a separate Rite of Mass, a bastard Rite, in fact.

    This means that the degree of change in liturgy within a Rite is limited. It cannot be any change but only limited change. Once we admit that, the question becomes How much change maketh a new Rite? Ultimately, only God can know the exact line, but our legal experts can know rough lines and can make determinations in most cases. I propose that the change in the New Mass was so large as to be radical, even revolutionary. It follows that the New Mass is a different Rite of Mass. We cannot say that it is the same Rite merely because the same authority proper to a See–the Mater et Magistra of the Church–superintends both.

    The problem then had at Rome was that it would be truly appalling to admit that two different Rites of Mass were proper to one see at one time. (In Milan, two Rites are permitted but only one of them–the Ambrosian–is proper to the Archdiocese.) It would be appalling because that would amount to an admission that the very See of St. Peter was liturgically divided. ‘Lex orandi, lex credendi’ (a syncopation, of course): a division in liturgy implies a divison in dogma, even if there might not be one–or it risks it or suggests it. Hmm. Sounds like the Syllabus of Errors versus Dignitatis Humanæ. All hell certainly did break loose in the Age of Aquarius.

    The day will come when it will be admitted publicly by Rome that the two Masses are two different Rites of Mass, and not mere uses or forms, whether local or general or proper (e.g. for religious orders). The Pope’s answer was not “brilliant” at all: it was necessary, and I suspect that the terminological answer came from Msgr. Perl, not the Pope, although, of course, in the Latin, we have ‘usus’. We have a use but clearly not one that it either local or proper. Any way you consider it, it is unprecedented to have two liturgical ‘forms’ of Mass proper to one See–the First See–at one time, one of which came down through the ages, while the other was concocted in committee in only three or four years by someone whom Paul VI later believed was a Freemason, assisted by six Protestant ministers.

    I apologise for some of the emphasis, Father. I didn’t want any of this. But this is what has happened. I am not sure if the two Masses will continue in tandem (which is always the eirenic solution I’d prefer) or if the old Mass will supplant the new–or even vice versa. Let God decide. This would not have happened in the first place unless He had willed it or allowed it. I am assuming that He allowed, not willed, it, and for our correction. Let’s hope that more faith and hope proceed out of this conflict than the degree there was before it began.

    P.K.T.P.

  27. It sounds like a workable solution. I’m not sure of the specifics in the diocese, but patience is required.

  28. Seminarian says:

    We are required to take three semesters of Latin, and then two in Theology.

    However, I do not know if this is the norm, althought I believe the PPF calls for this.

  29. Matt Q says:

    Karen wrote:

    “As someone who has attended the TLM in Portland regularly for over a decade, I can assure you, it means just that. As long as we can afford him, we’ll have the TLM. Only the funds that are collected at such Masses will be given to Fr. Parent. We’ve been told (warned?) over the yrs on some occasions that the collections during our TLM were not covering the cost of using the chapel of the Cathedral.”

    ()

    Karen, I find this sort of arrangement to be rather odd. I suppose Tridentine Masses are very expensive. Gee, the cost of hosts, altar wine and candles… Evidently that costs much more than a Novus Ordo Mass. What other costs are incurred by your Cathedral for a Tridentine Mass? The light bill maybe? How are the costs offset for the Novus Ordo? If the collections dry up at the Novus Ordo Masses, do they come to an end also? ( I would love to see that happen. ) Sarcasm aside, I just want to see what kind of liturgical bias your bishop seems to be practicing.

  30. jack burton says:

    In recent years I’ve attended Mass at almost every parish in Portland as well as numerous parishes in other parts of Maine (including Lewiston-Auburn). I don’t remember a single novus ordo Mass in Portland (including the Bishop’s own Masses) that did not involve weird inclusive language. The only time I encountered the actual creed of the Catholic Church was at the TLM in the side chapel of the cathedral. I don’t exaggerate when I say that every single novus ordo prayed “for ussss and for our salvation,” et cetera. One parish in particular (the little gay friendly parish across town) had the most absurdly improvised creed (“Christ was born of the Virgin Mary and became flesh…”, etc).
    The cathedral had a solid music director (although sacred music was still not fully integrated into the Masses) but apparently he jumped ship not too long ago. The noon TLM had no music of any kind and the homilies were painful. The first time I checked it out the homily was in praise of the SSPX and was quite tiresome and stereotypical. Not long after the motu proprio the crowd seemed to increase a good bit but the homily was like 20-25 minutes long and still sort of cliché and tiresome. I will admit that the cathedral was by far the best parish that I encountered in Portland but it was still very odd to me. Typical novus ordo nonsense: excessive Ems, Haugen-Haas, explosive yapping in church after Mass, inclusive language, et cetera.
    I’m not trying to fault anyone at all, in fact I met the Bishop on several occasions and he seemed quite good, my only point is that the impression I have of the Catholic culture in that area is that it is extremely “liberal” and wishy-washy compared to other parts of the country that I’ve experienced. It is the kind of place where one can still find Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers in the church parking lot all these years since they lost. Plus they had these goofy “voice of the faithful” people protesting priestly pedophiles in front of the cathedral before Mass. I doubt that there is a staggering desire for the TLM in this area and the support that this bishop is giving to the motu proprio is kind of extraordinary (no pun intended) considering. I imagine this bishop could ignore the motu proprio and not suffer any kind of uprising. The kind of thing to worry about there is the liberals and heretics who will show up and protest the bishop for supposedly protecting pedophile priests or being too “conservative.”
    Of course there is only so much that one can gain from such a tour of a diocese but in this case I also acquired an inside scoop on certain diocesan programs and again the impression of “liberal” Catholic culture was only reinforced. It is a blessing that this bishop is supportive of the extraordinary form and if there is a place that could use a dose of traditional Catholicism it is here. I should note that I’ve encountered dioceses that were much more degenerate so don’t misinterpret me as singling out Maine as a particularly whack diocese. Of course Maine is very large and there are many pockets of strong Catholic identity and the like; my comments pertain to Portland specifically and Southern Maine more generally, but again they are just generalizations from a limited experience.

  31. RBrown says:

    Peter Karl T Perkins,

    Your comments indicate that your didn’t follow Fr Z’s argument. He said:

    Thus, you can see that Pope Benedict’s solution was brilliant. Leaving aside the scholarly debates about whether the Novus Ordo and the “Tridentine” Mass are really the same RITE, which is a scholarly historical, liturgical, theological debate, His Holiness said that juridically there is one Roman Rite with two uses. This eliminates the need for separate faculties.

    He is saying that even though the 1962 and 1970 Missals might be two different rites historically, liturgically, or theologically, It can be said JURIDICALLY that there is only one Roman Rite.

    Although the major differences between 1962 and 1970 Missals, which can be said to be distinguish different rites historically, liturgically, and theologically, are nonetheless all be irrelevant when they are considered juridically. To me this is much like the distinction between the 1962 Missal and the Dominica, Carthusian, and Carmelites rites.

    Further, those differences (e.g., the Offertory-challenged 1970 Missal) are less apparent when the Novus Ordo is said in Latin ad orientem.

    As I’ve said before, the battle is not between the 1962 and 1970 Missals, but rather two distinct things that are extrinsic to the Novus Ordo: Latin v the Vernacular and Versus Populum v Ad Orientem.

  32. PKTP: Fr. Z. is wrong, of course, about the New Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass not being different Rites of Mass.

    Apparently you did actually read what I wrote. Or, if you did, you purposely chose to misrepresent what I wrote.

    In the main entry I wrote:

    Leaving aside the scholarly debates about whether the Novus Ordo and the “Tridentine” Mass are really the same RITE, which is a scholarly historical, liturgical, theological debate, His Holiness said that juridically there is one Roman Rite with two uses. This eliminates the need for separate faculties.

    So, PKTP, let me be clear. Juridically there is one Roman Rite. That does not mean that the debate about the difference of the two (juridical) uses is over.

    I’ll also be clear about something else. Don’t misrepresent me.

  33. berenike says:

    I am a little puzzled by the enthusiasm for personal parishes.Why are they considered so desireable. I would like it if my parish were all gorgeous chant and forward-facing Masses. It ain’t (though it has, e.g., well-attended 5:30 am Matins-and-Lauds). I did in a previous existence go to the FSSP Mass often, because my previous parish the liturgy did indeed stink. But it’s not a good solution. And having personal parishes is a very nice way of tucking the Latin Mass Crowd off the mainstream scene. And it’s bad for people to parish-hop unless it is really necessary. Parishes have the marvellous property of ensuring we don’t form up in mutual-appreciation societies of similar people, even if some are more socially homogenous than others. Personal parishes seem more a necessary evil than something desireable per se. no?

  34. Joseph says:

    Mr. Jack Burton,

    Your comments really capture the reality of what IS the Catholic Church in quite a few locales in North
    America, culturally speaking, especially, which expresses itself liturgically and thus theologically as well in the manner you have described. For some here, of course, this is old news, but it still bears constant repeating, as we should all be on an education campaign, first to educate ourselves and then those who will eventually find their ways onto sites like this one. This is a reason which I think intellectual challenges, respectfully issued and within civil bounds are paramount in a site like this, as iron sharpens iron, and people discover that claims made here better be sound.

    But I’m getting a little off track.

    Back to your observation: this expression is mostly tied to a desire to integrate the modern “educated” mind with a new, and thus “improved” and thus “informed” “new Catholic Church,” and also the contemporary world. Of course, a more “fluid” idea of morality and interpretation of Sacred Scripture is really at the heart of this. So are pro homosexual and radical feminist agendas. So, in this regard, Maine is really no different from Minneapolis, or Chicago, or Seattle, or San Jose, or Boston, or Washington D.C. or wherever the wide footprint of “higher education” is the most dominant in determining the tenor of the local outlook culturally and socially. The ivory tower does indeed include as well institutes of higher learning which call themselves Catholic. It would seem that Catholic collusion is part and parcel of all of this, vis-a-vis the Jesuits and similarly inclined teaching arms of the church with not much intellectually muscle employed to defend the walls of orthodoxy. This is where the internet and sites like this are really having an effect, where it is harder for the purveyors of this type of “new orthodoxy” to defend this all in the light of a renewed sense of a vigorous Catholicism with brains and heart and numbers and all of that on the side of history and having a more firm claim on truth, at least from a historically Catholic world view. Not only is this “new orthodoxy” not working, it is yesterday’s news and the young are really not impressed or committed to this completely flaccid vision of what the Church can/should be. Whether they fully realize it or not, these folks are dinosaurs, especially given the larger picture of the world church, and are scrambling to not become the subjects of an obituary of a phase in church history laced with terms like “sellout” “lukewarm” “vacuous” “pimple on the arse” “collaborators with the devil” “asleep at the switch” “faux-intellectual” etc.

    To the extent that we, who presumably know better, do not fight this establishment or entrenchment of the “new orthodoxy,” we become part of the problem and deserve the aforementioned epitaphs and perhaps in greater measure.

  35. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Dear Fr. Z.:

    I did not misrepresent you (or, at least, did not mean to). What I am claiming is that the Pope is in error in a matter of law, not only in a matter of liturgical terminology. I am claiming that, as the law is a blunt instrument, the revolutionary disruption in every category of liturgical change make for a new Rite juridically, not only historically. Those categories are additions, deletions, recastings, substitutions, re-orderings, options; and in rubrics, rubrical terminology, and musical settings. The Pope is not infallible in matters of law. In fact, it is clear that S.P. directly contracts Nos. 2 and 3 of “De Missali Romano”, 1971, of Pope Paul VI, which quite directly made mandatory the use of the New Missal unlawfully, since a right to the use of the old Mass had not been abrogated and because the two are separate items in law (now established as such by S.P). This is something I have argued for years. Without any pride, I can say that I was amazed and pleased beyond belief when Benedict XVI published the same claim in a legal document. i never expected to see that in my lifetime. On that point, I agree completely with Benedict XVI. But I also say, then, that Paul VI made an error in law in 1971.

    What I am claiming, however, is the His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, with the greatest respect, is mistaken when he claims that, juridically, the two Masses are different forms of one liturgical Rite of Mass. Ultimately, my claim is that a Pope lacks the legal authority to make two forms of Mass proper to one see–to one juridical place–for any one person at any one time. He lacks this authority in positive law because such a power contradicts a norm of Moral Law. As we all know, when an ordinance of any positive law (including Canon Law) contradicts a precept of Moral Law, the ordinance is not merely bad law; rather, it fails to qualify as law at all: it is a nullity.

    The reason that this is contrary to Moral Law is that it undermines the unity of the Church as willed by Christ. In order for the Church to be united, each soul must be united in faith and in the expression of faith, which is liturgical prayer. The authority of the Pope in positive law is plenary, not absolute. To say that it is plenary means that it is full power to fulfil his sacred ‘function’ (in the mediæval French sense)–and no more–which is to save souls and build up the Mystical Body of Christ. But because the law of prayer is the law of faith, a division in what is liturgically proper for any one person implies and a division in the expression of faith (possible, since, for example, Eastern faithful have different but not contradictory beliefs from us), which, in turn, militates against the unity of faith in the soul of the believer. (This might be one reason why so much loss of faith has followed the promulgation of the New Mass; it’s a thought.) Hence Pope Paul VI acted beyond his powers in 1970, and “Missale Romanum” was ultra vires and a nullity. Yes, I am claiming an unheard-of postion, almost: it is not that the New Mass is licit but invalid; on the contrary, the New Mass is completely valid sacramentally but objectively illicit.

    There cannot be two forms of Mass proper to any one person at any one place (Syrian and Melchite Rites are proper to one place, but not for any one soul). Even the Pope, the Universal Shepherd, is properly attached to only one Rite and to one See, the Primatial See, the Mater et Magistra of the World, Rome. (Hence the Ukrainians call him, ‘the Pope of Rome’). At most, there can be small variations proper to a person in one place, caused by the honest mistakes of individuals, editorial erros, and so forth. Law is a blunt instrument and regards variations as deviations that are embraced by a single form of Mass.

    You may notice that, never before in the history of the Church has there been two uses or forms or official variations of Mass that were neither local uses nor proper uses (the latter pertaining to groups of faithful, such as religious orders). It is possible that two different persons in one place can be legally attached to two different uses (e.g. a Carmelite brother and a laic at Rome). But can two different liturgical uses be juridically proper to one person in one place? That would liturgically divide the soul of that person and, by extension, could lead to a confusion of identity, for the unity of belief is expressed by a unity of formal prayer. So how can any one person be juridically subject to both the New Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass? We can say that one person can have an emotional attachment to one and a juridical connexion to the other, but can anyone have a juridical attacment to two? Even a Georgian Byzantine Catholic, who belongs to a church which has no hierarchy and no clergy, can be juridically attached to a Georgian Divine Liturgy to which he has no access. But he is only attached in law to that Liturgy, even though he may, by law, be subject to the clerics of another sui juris church and may come to regard another rite as his adoptive rite as a practical matter. In Milan, two Rites of Mass are allowed, but only the Ambrosian one is proper to the Archdiocese and all the people who are part of it (even though the Roman is far more common).

    Without trying to be too dramatic about it, it seems to me that having two forms of Mass proper to the First See of the Church Universal is a liturgical division at the very centre. From this central division, division can spread to infect the entire Mystical Body, to wherever the Rite of that central see is the Rite of a local see. Is it just me or does this remind anyone with a sensus catholicus of the division of Protestantism, with its Tower of Babel expressive divisions extending into doctrinal discord. What this reminds me of most is that very first division at the very centre of the Universe, when the greatest of the archangels fell from grace. Surely, we are objectively bound to reject division. L’union fait la force!

    In sum, speaking juridically, and not only historically, the differences listed by me between the Traditional Latin Mass and the New Mass are radical, revolutionary: so much so that it is too facile to say that they are *only* two different forms of one Rite. They are two different juridical Rites. Once again, had Bugnini composed a Mass that was closer in content and tone to the Armenian Rite, would we say that it was still only a form of the Roman Rite just because it said so on the titlepage and because he used the T.L.M. as his blueprint? Law does not work that way. Law takes into account that which is reasonable. Yes, the T.L.M. and the New Mass are different forms of Mass but, in law, despite what Benedict XVI writes at one point, they are not two forms of one Rite; nay, they are two different forms because they are juridically two different Rites, just as the Ambrosian and Roman are two different Rites.

    If I am correct and the New Mass is valid but illicit, this is only a matter of objective truth, of course. I have absolutely zero authority in law and my arguments have the status of speculations and nothing more. That means that faithful do not sin in the least by attending the New Mass to fulfil the obligation (or for any other reason) even if it later turns out that “Missale Romanum” is a nullity in law.

    Note that I do not claim any authority to suggest that faithful err in trying to fulfil the Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass. Faithful are right to trust the authority of Peter as a matter of course. Should Peter be wrong, the flock will not be blamed for it in the least, and Peter might not even be blamed for it if it is an honest mistake. But we hope to correct honest mistakes because the devil uses them to confuse the faithful and divide the Church. He seeks to divide us and thereby conquer us. Unity must be our response. Now, that unity can proceed only from the lips of the Supreme Pontiff, not from my lips! However, sometimes, someone whispers into the Pope’s ear and leads him to re-consider a matter. Surely, what we have seen over the last forty years should give us pause! I think that the matter is important because there is a connexion between the promulgation of the New Mass and the disaster in the Church which preceded and followed it.

    I did not mean to be obstreperous in my answer to you, Fr. Zuhlsdorf. I admit that all of this amounts to speculation in law. But that does not exclude the possibility that I am correct. For years and years, I have argued that (a) the old Mass was never suppressed and always rightful for priests to use and (b) that the source of priests’ right to use it was immemorial custom and NOT “Quo Primum Tempore”. On the first point, Benedict XVI now supports what I have said. As for the second, the preamble to S.P. comes very very close to an open admission that the source was immemorial custom, while it can be inferred from Cardinal Stickler’s statement that Q.P.T. was not the source, making, I argue, immemorial custom the source by default.

    I was called all sorts of things for making these arguments, and people told me that they had no standing and were mere speculations. It is true that they were mere speculations, but they turned out to be true! I believe that, one day, by the grace of God (and definitely not by any human power), Rome will declare that M.R. was a nullity. Such a thing is not humanly possible; in fact, it is hardly imaginable to a humble man, and I daresay that I did not imagine such a possibility until after S.P. was published. No problem, however. Nothing is impossible to God, and nothing is even difficult to him. It is as easy for Him to create a world as it is for Him to pick up a handkerchief. We were had in 1970–had by Freemasons, liberals, and radicals–, but the truth will out in the end. We must consider, nevertheless, why God let this happen. There was definitely a reason.

    P.K.T.P.

  36. PKTP: I did not misrepresent you (or, at least, did not mean to). What I am claiming is that the Pope is in error in a matter of law, not only in a matter of liturgical terminology. … Ultimately, my claim is that a Pope lacks the legal authority to make two forms of Mass proper to one see — to one juridical place — for any one person at any one time. He lacks this authority in positive law because such a power contradicts a norm of Moral Law. As we all know, when an ordinance of any positive law (including Canon Law) contradicts a precept of Moral Law, the ordinance is not merely bad law; rather, it fails to qualify as law at all: it is a nullity. … If I am correct and the New Mass is valid but illicit…

    Let me get this straight. The Lawgiver of Holy Catholic Church is in error about a law he gave to the Holy Catholic Church. The Pope doesn’t have authority to say that there are two forms of the Roman Rite. Moreover, the Novus Ordo is actually illicit, though it is valid.

    I am simply amazed!

  37. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Dear Fr. Z.:

    Trust me when I say that I was “simply amazed” myself when I realised this *after* S.P. was published. It never occurred to me for all those years of arguing about the right of priests to celebrate the old Mass.

    When I first arrived at this realisation, I thought that it must be wrong, and I was afraid to publish it. Finally, after thinking it over for a long time, I posted it on a weblist I belong to. That site has limited membership, so this was a trial balloon. My arguments normally generate a great deal of discussion. Not this time. I received zero comments from those who might have agreed with me, and zero from those who no doubt disagreed. It was really frightening. The silence was chilling. I would have preferred to have been proved wrong. I am honest in writing this. I imagine that the other listmembers might have thought that I am simply nuts or, at the least, completely rash.

    Since then, I have given the matter much more thought but it is difficult to prove or disprove this argument. As far as I can see, it is plausible but not provable. Only a legitimate legal authority could prove (in the old sense of ‘test’) it as a matter of law. As far as I can see, if I am right, this will have no ‘on the ground’ consequences in terms of what the faithful are required to say or do. Certainly, it cannot make anyone’s honest attendance at NewMass a disorder. In fact, it is even possible that the New Mass might fulfil the Sunday obligation in any event, since the Church could, in theory, make attendance at the Divine Office able to fulfil that obligation (I’m not sure about that one and haven’t given it due consideration: it has to do with the authority of the six precepts of the Church).

    Yes, I am saying that, despite all the wonderful things Pope Benedict XVI wrote in S.P., he was mistaken on a point of law in a legal document. First of all, how authoritative is his claim that, to paraphrase, They are two forms of one and the same Rite? Well, clearly, the aim of S.P. was not to demonstrate or prove this or declare this as a finding; it was to give legal force to the finding that the Traditional Latin Mass had never been abrogated and could therefore still be celebrated by priests and faithful under certain conditions. It is not as if he announced the claim about rites as the result of a study or an investigation. It is not as sure as that. On the other hand, it clearly is his intent to declare this as a legal fact, and he invokes his whole authority as Supreme Legislator (or soon will do, when it is published in A.A.S.) to do so. Could he be wrong? Yes, because he is not infallible in matters of law. He can be wrong about a fact of law.

    It seems to me that the intent of the Legislator here was not to enact a new situation but to declare what has been true all along. The norms of S.P. are not an indult, even if they replace the norms of the 1984 Indult. They are norms explaining how the rights and duties apertaining to one (or both) ‘form(s)’ of Mass are limited by those arising from the other, for, since there are only so many canonical hours in a day, and so many sacred places in a parish or diocese, and so many priests having faulties to celebrate Mass, rights arising from at least one will limit those pertaining to the other. It is crystal clear from some of the Articles of S.P. (e.g. the one regarding personal parishes), that the Pope is not creating space for the T.L.M. but declaring what space it already occupied in law–not from time immemorial, of course, but from 1970, when two forms of Mass co-existed in law.

    Practically speaking, I think that Msgrs. Perl and Calkins thought up this notion of two forms of one Rite, and the Pope simply found that to be sensible. I don’t get the impression from S.P. that this is something that Joseph Ratzinger has determined as a canonist (not that he is much of one: he is more of a theologian). I think that Msgrs. Perl and Calkins failed to take into consideration the larger consequence of asserting that there could be two forms (of any kind) of Mass proper to any one individual at any one time (and in any one place). They probably failed to realise the full implications, in my view (please forgive me: I am trying to be humble about this), because it would never have crossed their minds that the apostolic constitution “Missale Romanum” might be a nullity. That is what I am claiming. It is a nullity because it promulgated a new form of Mass proper to individuals in a single time and place but without abrogating the existing form proper to those individuals. This violates Moral Law because it divides the expression of faith (lex orandi) in the soul of the believer. As a result, it militates against the unity of faith. But the Pope can only act to build up the Mystical Body in Moral Law, never to diminish it (vide J.D. Mansi, “Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio”, Vol. 52, p. 715).

    I realise that my claim has appalling consequences, since, at least in the practical realm, it undermines the ordinary authority of the Pope, even though it doesn’t not do so in principle.

    I note that this will have no immediate practical consequences. Whether the two Masses are only forms of one Rite or separate Rites, in both cases, they are clearly two different items in law, something which, unlike my assertions here, IS provable from S.P.

    But, should I be right, it would certainly help to explain what we have endured for the past forty years. We remained at heart joined to the Mass of Tradition while a liturgy which outwardly seemed downright Protestant or even pagan at times, swept through the Church with destructive force, leaving ruination and spiritual death in its wake. Ye shall judge the tree from its fruits. The fruit of division in liturgy and division in time/tradition (discontinuity) is death, spiritual death.

    For the time, the only affect my argument will have on me is that I shall continue to insist publicly that they are two separate juridical Rites of Mass. This is why I absolutely refuse to use the terms ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’ form, even if the concoctors of those terms never imagined how they were shooting themselves in the foot in regard to the English expressions. Yes, the New Mass is so very very ordinary (in the extended sense of banal, insipid, pedestrian, prosaic, uninspired and uninspiring) indeed!

    One day, I pray, the Holy Father will proclaim that M.R. was a nullity and that there is only one licit Roman Mass, the Mass of Tradition. But this is not for us to determine; and it is humanly impossible.

    P.K.T.P.

  38. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Fr. Z. writes this:

    “Before Summorum Pontificum priests really had to have permission to celebrate the older form of Mass publicly. Even if they had faculties to say Mass, they needed permission for the TLM which had been made possible by an indult from John Paul II. Now, however, the indult framework no longer exists, because now all priests have the faculty to say the older Mass by the fact they have the faculty to say Mass at all.”

    This comment by Fr. Z. is saved by the adverb “really” in the first sentence. Yes, practically speaking, this was true. But it is important to emphasise that, at least in law, it was not true. The norms of S.P. de facto came into effect in 1970, not in 2008. S.P. merely proclaims a legal fact that was true all along (well, from 1970). There are a number of proofs of this. Here are a few:

    (1) According to Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler, R.I.P., the commission of nine cardinals convened in 1986 found *unanimously* that the old Mass had never been abrogated and *without a single cardinal dissenting* (one abstained), they found that, therefore, “no bishop can forbid a priest in good standing” from celebrating the 1962 Mass. Keep in mind that this was the situation in 1986, not just 2008, and that, according to Cardinal Stickler, Cardinal Ratzinger was one of the cardinals. Stickler also asserts that Pope John Paul II agreed with these findings but, under the advice of Cardinal Benelli, decided not to promulgate them only owing to practical considerations.

    (2) S.P. itself says that the old Mass was never abrogated and could always, therefore, in principle, “was always permitted”. Note the tense of that verb in direct quotation! He is referring to the period 1970-2008 (and beyond), not to the period 2008 and beyond.

    Have a look at some of the norms in S.P. Consider Article 10 in reference to personal parishes. In no way does it create new law; it merely enjoins an existing application of Canon 518, second sentence.

    (3) Notice how there is no acknowledgement in S.P. that it enacts a new legal situation. It never calls itself an indult or an exception to existing law, even though Article 1 does replace the previous indult with new norms.

    Fr. Z. is correct that under S.P., a priest has an ordinary right to celebrate in a place if he has the faculty and a celebret to do so in that place. However, S.P. does not bring this situation into being; it merely clarifies what has been true all along.

    All this follows logically. If there was always a right to celebrate the old Mass in principle, then “De Missali Romano”, 1971, is clearly ultra vires in No. 2 and 3 when it mandates that the “renewed texts” *must* be used. If D.M.R. (not to be confused with “Missale Romanum”, the constitution which promulgated the New Mass) is a ultra vires, then a right to celebrate the old Mass remained “permitted” (S.P.). If the old Mass “was always permitted” (S.P.), then it is clear that it was part of the law. If it was part of the law, then there could be no valid indults to permit something that was already permitted. For example, how could an Indult of 1984 permit something (and do so restrictedly) that was already permitted in 1983 and in 1984, at the time of the enactment of new law? Let us say that it is legal in Canada for men to smoke cigars. What status would a law have, then, which proclaims that, from tomorrow, men have the right to smoke cigars? This means that the 1984 Indult and the 1988 apostolic letter supplementing it were also ultra vires, even though they obviously had much practical effect.

    I write “much” practical effect because, according to Cardinal Stickler just before he died, about fifteen priests who stood on a right to celebrate the T.L.M. apart from the Indult won their cases on appeal before the Apostolic Signatura.

    I suppose that it is now only of academic interest what recourse various priests could have if they were deprived unlawfully for insisting on celebrating the old Mass apart from the superflous Indult between 1970 and 2008. I wonder, could they have recourse today before a tribunal for being thrown out onto the street unlawfully? Interesting question.

    P.K.T.P.

  39. BK says:

    Comment by Peter Karl T. Perkins: “it is not that the New Mass is licit but invalid; on the contrary, the New Mass is completely valid sacramentally but objectively illicit.”

    Even if PKTP’s thesis is wholly erroneous, one must admit that there is a certain internal logic to the claim.

    If it can be argued that the vast majority of Novus Ordo masses are celebrated illicitly (does the presence of EMHCs at every mass not make those masses illicit, according to the 1997 Vatican instruction on “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion”?) then it seems that bad fruit could arise from the Novus Ordo mass itself being valid yet intrinsically illicit.

    It sure would answer a lot of intellectual conundrums…

  40. Different says:

    Mr. Perkins,

    I don’t believe anyone was under the impression that the “old Missal” (1965, I guess?) had been abrogated. It would seem that the very fact that JPII granted an indult for it would indicate that. Can one grant an indult for that which was abrogated? It seems to me that the Pope was granting an indult for a suppressed missal, not an abrogated one.

    Also, I believe Fr Z is correct that priests needed permission before SP, simply because that was a binding discipline of the Church. The Church has the right to demand certain disciplines from her priests even if such requirements are later lifted. For instance hypothetically, tomorrow, Pope Benedict could declare that even though the 1962 Missal was never abrogated, ALL priests wishing to make use of the missal must first register with Ecclesia Dei. Those priests would still be bound to follow his command, even though the missal was not abrogated.

  41. BK says:

    Comment by Different: “For instance hypothetically, tomorrow, Pope Benedict could declare that even though the 1962 Missal was never abrogated, ALL priests wishing to make use of the missal must first register with Ecclesia Dei. Those priests would still be bound to follow his command, even though the missal was not abrogated.”

    This would, hypothetically, swell the ranks of the SSPX, astronomically.

  42. RBrown says:

    Ultimately, my claim is that a Pope lacks the legal authority to make two forms of Mass proper to one see—to one juridical place—for any one person at any one time. He lacks this authority in positive law because such a power contradicts a norm of Moral Law. As we all know, when an ordinance of any positive law (including Canon Law) contradicts a precept of Moral Law, the ordinance is not merely bad law; rather, it fails to qualify as law at all: it is a nullity.
    Comment by Peter Karl T. Perkins

    1. In 1962 in the Latin Rite Church there was the Roman Missal, as well as Missals for the Dominican, Carthusian, and Carmelite Rites. All had been promulgated by the Bishop of Rome, and so there was either a) one Roman Rite with three other forms or b) four different rites that were juridically Roman.

    In either case, you seem to suggest that the pope, incl Pius V, lacked the authority in this matter.

    2. Your claim that Msgrs Perl and Calkins cooked up the two forms argument was good for a chuckle. That is simply not the way the Vatican works.

    BTW, I have known Msgr Calkins for several years, and we have dined together on more than one occasion. He is a good man but juridical mechanics are not his strength. And of course, Fr Z worked with both at the PCED.

  43. Habemus Papam says:

    Surely the difference here is that while Pius V was recognising existing rites, Paul VI explicitly created a new rite without abrogating the excisting rite. Yet mandating the new rite. In which case the two forms argument is a practical but temporary solution.

  44. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Comment of RBrown:

    No, no, Fr. Brown. If you read my analysis carefully, you will see that I took your point into consideration. There can be proper uses for religious orders as well as local uses. What there cannot be is two or more official juridical variations proper to group of people or to one soul. In the case of the Carmelite priest in Rome, the ‘form’ proper to him is the Carmelite Use of the Roman Mass. He may very well celebrate (if he has faculties) or benefit from the Roman Mass of the Roman See, but only the Carmelite Use is proper to him.

    Similarly, the Braga Use might be proper to those in the Archdiocese of Braga, even though they mostly go to a Roman Mass that is the Mass proper to Rome.

    In Milan, the Ambrosian Rite is proper to all those subject to the Archbishop, even though most attend parishes where it is not used (the Roman Rite is used in most). But the Ambrosian Rite is the one proper to Milan (and some other places) and all its subjects.

    In the case of Antioch, there are three Rites of Mass: those of the Syrians, those of the Maronites, and those of the Melchites. But any one person can only be attached to any one Rite at any one time. People are juridically attached to liturgical forms and not only to jurisdictions. Hence the Georgian Byzantine Catholics, who have no sui juris church and no jurisdiction anywhere are nevertheless attached to the Georgian Use of the Byzantine Rite (which has been celebrated at Rome for many years, by priests of other churches having bi-ritual faculties). The fewer than 1,000 Georgian Byzantine Catholics in Georgia, Rome, Constantinople, and elsewhere in their diaspora, are attached to it *in law*, even though they cannot be attached to any Georgian Byzantine jurisdiction, since none exists.

    Do you see the difference? If there are two ‘forms’ of the Roman Rite proper to the Roman See, the subjects of that See who are not attached to other liturgies have *two* liturgical forms proper to them. Hence their souls are liturgically divided between NewMass and the Traditional Mass. Which is the proper liturgy of a certain Mr. Antonelli, living in Rome. The New Mass or the Traditional one? Can it be both? The soul of the Carmelite priest is not divided. The Carmelite Use alone is the liturgy proper to him, even though he may have faculties to celebrate other liturgies (just as Ukrainian Byzantine priests can be bi-ritual).

    Now on the separate but related issue of Use versus Rite, I am saying that the differences between the T.L.M. and the N.O.M. are so radical–to the root–and enormous that they are separate Rites. I think that what happened at Rome was that Msgrs. Perl and Calkins, consulting with others, realised the problem of having two Rites proper to one Roman See. That would symbolise an appalling liturgical division right at the centre of the Church. But they needed to admit that the old Mass had never been abrogated (since that is what Benedict XVI demanded, as he was one of the nine cardinals of the 1986 commission, and since he has long wanted this for other reasons) and yet obviously could not even imagine the possibility that the New Mass was illicit.

    What to do? Well, they decided that the best course was to try to claim that the two Masses were not different Rites of Mass but mere uses or forms of a single Rite. At one point in S.P. (Article 1), they use the term “expressio” rather than “usus” (although they have used “usus” elsewhere). The problem there was that there is absolutely no tradition in the Church of having recognised uses (i.e. variations) of a Rite that are not either (a) local (e.g. Sarum, Parisian, Lyonnais, Braga) or (b) proper to religious orders (e.g. Carmelite, Norbertine, Carthusian). This situation was unique! It was unique for a reason, I am saying!

    Oh dear, what to do? Well, they decided, we shall try to avoid the term ‘use’ in the vernacualar languages and call them two forms. But this won’t do, Fr. Brown, will it? It won’t do because the difference between the Traditional Roman Mass and the New Mass are too fundamental and too great. Therein lies the problem. If these are not two different Rites, then how could we possibly say that the Ambrosian Mass is that of a distinct Rite? It is arguable that, given the enire spirit of the reforms, the Ambrosian Mass has more in common with the T.L.M. than the T.L.M. has with the N.O.M. What a mess!

    Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not a liturgical ignoramus. I can see the very large differences between the T.L.M. and the Ambrosian Rite, with its florid Gallicanisms and Eastern influences. But the sensibilities of a liturgist are not primary here. The Church, in the reasonableness of the law, must needs take into account the sensibilities of unlearned faithful. I assert, moreover, that it is at least possible to ‘conduct’ an N.O.M. in the vernacular–even without violating the rubrics or the GIRM–that seems completely foreign to the liturgical spirit of the Roman Rite, such that T.L.M. seems closer to Ambrosian Mass than to the N.O.M.

    Sorry, gents at Rome, but there are too many differences between T.L.M. and N.O.M. to explain them away as mere expressions of one Rite–not if the term ‘Rite’ is to retain any meaning relating to content. We’d have to restrict it to an historical meaning and say that Rite merely refers to a liturgical continuation within a jurisdiction (a problem too, since the Georgians have a recognised liturgy and yet no jurisdiction!). But that would elide history and tradition, and law does not work like that. Law absolutely does and must take into account what is reasonable. The New Mass was not even given by the same method as was its predecessor: organic growth was replaced with virtually extempore composition. True, forms were developed from existing forms, but many of these existing forms came from outside the entire Christian Tradition (e.g. that unspeakably horrid Offertory that I have always despised so passionately, that ‘Blessed are You, Lord God of all Creation’ thingy which seems to ask that God should thank us for handing over the bread); moreover, some forms in NewMass seem to be entirely unprecedented anywhere.

    I am saying that the New Mass is entirely illegitimate. Missale Romanum is a nullity because there can only be one public prayer (liturgy) proper to the See of Rome per se at any one time. Since they failed to abrogate the old, the new could not have any standing from the beginning. It was a nullity ab ovo. Therefore, it is objectively disordered and illicit, even though it certainly does qualify as a valid Eucharist (but then so can be an Anglican Communion Service [if certain options are used] as long as it is celebrated by a real priest).

    P.K.T.P.

    Food for thought, even if it makes little practical difference.

    P.K.T.P.

  45. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Dear Different:

    Let’s consider your two points separately.

    (1)

    “I don’t believe anyone was under the impression that the “old Missal” (1965, I guess?) had been abrogated.”

    I have the greatest respect for you, Different, when I write that was *exactly* what has been debated by canonists for the last thirty-some years. Now, I know a fair it about Canon Law but I am only a hobbyist. Keep in mind that eminent canonists were *exactly* under this impression that the Traditional Latin Mass had been ‘abrogated’ in the wider sense meant in the Code, which includes oboration (with the o). Obrogation is the specific term that was used in these debates over the years. Canonists who defended the reforms argued repeatedly that the promulgation of M.R. had obrogated the right to celebrate the old Mass. Obrogation occurs when a legislative act treats of the same subject (here, the liturgy) and essentially replaces one law with another. Hence, it was argued, the promulgation of Missale Romanum obrogated any right of priests to celebrate the old Mass. The argument was that M.R. had replaced (obrogated) “Quo Primum Tempore”. My counter-argument, now proved to be correct, was that M.R. would indeed have obrogated Q.P.T. had the right to celebrate the old Mass been enshrined in Q.P.T. The problem, however, is that the right to celebrate the old Mass was *not* enshrined in Quo Primum, since Pope St. Pius V had not intended to replace a customary law with a written one; he had only intended to remove errors and accretions in Missals. But Missals are only the expressions of a rite, not the rite itself (which stands, as it were, above them and includes them all). In fact, Pope St. Pius V had said specifically that he did not intend to touch the rite itself or the right to celebrate it.

    Now, with obrogation, one written law replaces another. However, the right of priests to celebrate the old Mass was encoded not in a written law but in immemorial custom. For a written law to suppress or replace immemorial custom, the new law must mention the old specifically and announce its suppression. That had never occurred. Even the later (1971) document, De Missali Romano, while it mandated use of only the New Mass, failed to mention a suppression of the old. That is why D.M.R. is ultra vires; it is unlawful.

    Incidentally, it was argued that what was replaced was one Rite (or perhaps a ‘form’) of Mass, not a Missal. The Missals are merely temporal expressions of a liturgical Use or Rite or form. For example, the New Mass is one form (or Rite) but is expressed in three Missals (those of 1970, 1975, and 2000). This distinction is important.

    The 1986 Commission of Cardinals was convened specifically to determine if the old Mass had been suppressed or abrogated (in the wider sense, to include obrogation) by promulgation of the new. That was the point of having it.

    I repeat, absolutely everybody involved in the debate before S.P. was debating if abrogation had taken place. That is why Pope Benedict XVI states specifically that the old Mass “was never abrogated”.

    (2)

    “It would seem that the very fact that JPII granted an indult for it would indicate that. Can one grant an indult for that which was abrogated? It seems to me that the Pope was granting an indult for a suppressed missal, not an abrogated one.”

    An indult is an exception to existing law. If the old Mass had been abrogated, the New Mass alone (of the two) would have the force of law. Hence the old could only be revived by indult, an exception to law. Let me give you a parallel example. Only an abbot may wear a black calotte (zucchetto) during Mass; that is a general norm of law. Other priests can wear one only by indult–by exception (here a grant by Rome).

    (3)

    “Also, I believe Fr Z is correct that priests needed permission before SP, simply because that was a binding discipline of the Church.”

    If that is what Fr. Z. claimed, it would not be correct. Neither a discipline nor an administrative act can override a right protected by law. That is why, according to Cardinal Stickler, eight of the nine cardinals (one abstained: he did not dissent) on the 1986 commission ruled negative to the proposition, “Can a bishop forbid a priest in good standing from celebrating” the Traditional Latin Mass? It is also why about fifteen priests who insisted on that right and were denied it by local tribunls *all* won on appeal to the Apostolic Signatura. This came out shortly before Cardinal Stickler died last year. When I saw it on-line, my antennæ immediately went up. I can’t understand how Rome managed to cover this up for so long. I suppose she could have told those priests that, were it to get out, Rome would simply abrogate the old Mass.

    (3)

    “The Church has the right to demand certain disciplines from her priests even if such requirements are later lifted. For instance hypothetically, tomorrow, Pope Benedict could declare that even though the 1962 Missal was never abrogated, ALL priests wishing to make use of the missal must first register with Ecclesia Dei. Those priests would still be bound to follow his command, even though the missal was not abrogated.”

    Not quite. The Pope can make general demands but is it beyond his powers to make general demands that militate against the purpose of his commission from Christ. The ancient Rite of Mass belongs to priests as their right, as a gift of the God the Holy Ghost. It is questionable whether or not any pope has the power to abrogate it or forbid it (which may explain why Paul VI did not abrogate it!). Suppose that the Pope commanded that all Byzantine Rite priests had to register with the Congregation for Oriental Churches before celebrating any more Byzantine Divine Liturgies; in the mean time, they are welcome to say the New Roman Mass. Would the Pope have the power to do it if it violates a precept of Moral Law by depriving a good willed by God? I think not. He has the jurisdiction to do such a thing but not the right, and we would have the right to resist such an abuse of power.

    P.K.T.P.

  46. Martha says:

    I hadn’t visited this blog for a bit until today. WOW! I believe you are on to something PKTP. It all makes sense, to me anyway. But then, I’m just a woman. :-)

    I can’t help but think of bi-ritual priests who celebrate both the NO and the TLM. What must that do to their souls? The first time I attended a Traditional-minded priest’s NO – after only having attended his Tridentine Masses, – I actually felt embarrassed for him; more so when he had to sit to give way to his female reader. That had a profound affect on me. It felt as if I were watching the humiliation of Christ Himself! I don’t like what the NO does to the priesthood of Christ. I can understand that the NO could be illicit.

  47. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    I should like to add one final consideration in response to insights made by Fr. Zuhlsdorf and “Different”.

    I had commented that S.P. did not create new dispositions but merely replaced those dispositions of the 1984 Indult. I had written that the new apostolic letter of 2007 revealed an existing situation. That is partly true, but it is incomplete. Fr. Z., in particular, is right that these new norms create a new situation, but only to a *limited* extent.

    If the old Mass was never abrogated and always, in principle, allowed, it would seem that it must follow the law as it was in 1969 (actually, in 1974 in Anglophone countries, to be technical about it), with the changes of 1965, 1967 (Tres Abhinc Annos), and the optional Bidding Prayer from 1968. There is evidence for this. When the 1971 Indult was approved for England and Wales, those later changes were included. Under the 1971 ‘Cardinal Heenan’ or ‘Agatha Christi’ Indult, they were even specified in terms of the indult.

    Hence perhaps the 1984 Indult was not ultra vires after all if we see it not as an exception (indult) to general law that disallowed the Traditional Roman Mass but as a change of dispositions in regard to that Rite (or form, if you must). They still made a mistake in calling it an “indult” but the main point is that, in its clause (c), it restored the 1962 Missal without further qualification, thereby erasing the post-1962 alterations. The 1988 apostolic letter modified the customary law further, as did the guidelines of 1991. In fact, we can regard these laws and directives as a demonstration that the old Mass has continued through the period of reform, and that includes the 1971 Indult for just England and Wales.

    In conclusion, the norms of “Summorum Pontificum” only clarify an existing situation in some cases (e.g. Article 10 on personal parishes); however, they entirely replace norms of 1984 and 1988 which are legal after all (since they, in turn, altered the norms of the late 1960s), and they sometimes (but not always) replace pre-1970 norms themselves. Fortunately, Article 2 of S.P. directly identifies the Missal to be used as that of John XXIII, published in 1962. Had it not, S.P. would have wiped out the 1984 instauration of the 1962 Missal and returned us to the Mass as it was in 1969! One thing that does worry me is that the 1984 legislation, in clause (c) insisted that the celebrations must be not only of the 1962 Missal but “in Latin”. Nowhere in S.P. is it mentioned that the 1962 Missal must be recited “in Latin”. If the 1984 restriction to Latin is wiped out by S.P., would it be licit to celebrate the 1962 Mass in approved vernacular translations? I am told that one priest in France has been asking that question aloud. (But I wouldn’t worry: it would not occur to a priest to use the vernacular and, if he did, everyone would walk out.)

    Let it be repeated that my foregoing point is supplementary, not corrective. It still remains largely the case that the 2007 dispositions explain a situation that obtained just prior to its publication. As stated by me before, in most cases, the new norms explain how rights of access to the 1962 Mass are limited by rights of access arising from the N.O.M. Once again, since there are only so many canonical hours in a day, so many sacred places available to any priest, and so many priests having requisite faculties, there is scope for the Holy Father to legislate how the rights and duties pertaining to one Mass are limited by those apertaining to the other. Essentially, His Holiness has decreed that the New Mass takes pride of place as the normative Eucharistic liturgy in the Latin Church, although it is not normative in all jurisdictions (e.g. the entire Campos apostolic administration, some personal parishes, some chaplaincies, some oratories and shrines and private chapels, and at some non-parochial churches).

    I think it to be important to have an understanding of what His Holiness is saying and was saying as Cardinal Ratzinger, and what that Cardinal did indeed say as part of the 1986 Commission of Cardinals. The Traditional Latin Mass is a distinct item in law (whether or not we call it a juridical Rite, as I insist), separate from the New Mass. It was never abrogated but the Missal and various laws pertaining to it have been altered after 1970. To the extent that they have not been altered, the law regarding that Rite (or form) is what it was when the New Mass came into force.

    P.K.T.P.

  48. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    To Martha:

    In my view, women are the superior sex. That is why we men are required to busy ourselves about the liturgy while the ladies sit like queens in the pews, focusing, like Mary of the “better part”, on hearing the Word of God. Then, being the centre of their families, they see to the most important work of all, which is the inculcation of the faith in their children, who are the future of the Church.

    While many men also sit like kings in the pews, women alone have the *exclusive* right to do so. ‘Exclusive’, by the way, is one of my favourite words. Heaven is an exclusive club; liberals prefer inclusive clubs, even clubs that might admit the likes of Hilary Clinton, or, worse, Bill.

    P.K.T.P.

  49. Habemus Papam says:

    P.K.T.P: You are on to something here. Although I’m far from understanding Canon Law my interest was roused when I read The Reform of the Roman Riturgy in which Klaus Gamber states that Paul VIs authority to create a new rite “is at least debateable”. On a deeper level, the Sensus Catholicus, I cannot accept that when attending the Old Mass and (trying!) to sit through the New Mass I am merely present at different forms of the same Rite. No, before God I am Attending different rites. The Novus Ordo in Latin ad orientum actually highlights this difference although its the ICEL thingy that I’ve tried to sit through.

  50. Habemus Papam says:

    The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, of course. Gamber dosn’t go so far into Canon Law in this book and its De Missali Ramano which is the central point here, specifically Nos 2 and 3 which mandates the new rite. Wow, this is can of worms, someone in Rome maybe going through this now!

  51. Matt Q says:

    Father Z wrote:

    “Juridically there is one Roman Rite. That does not mean that the debate about the difference of the two (juridical) uses is over.”

    ()

    Father Z, since this is so very true, two forms–Extraordinary and Ordinary–of the one and only Roman Rite, why there is there such an almost morbid refusal to say the Tridentine Mass? Bishops and priests act like they’re being asked to stick pins in themselves. If there is this stipulation that the Tridentine Mass cannot be exclusively said, why then are there no admonitions against saying the Novus Ordo exclusively? These double standards in our Church really irk me.

  52. Matt Q says:

    BK wrote:

    Regarding Different’s post, “For instance hypothetically, tomorrow, Pope Benedict could declare that even though the 1962 Missal was never abrogated, ALL priests wishing to make use of the missal must first register with Ecclesia Dei. Those priests would still be bound to follow his command, even though the missal was not abrogated.

    This would, hypothetically, swell the ranks of the SSPX, astronomically.”

    ()

    Why would the Pope create such an issue of having clergy register with Ecclesia Dei? Such a move would further marginalize the Tridentine Mass and actually create a detraction for it. No, not a good idea at all. The Holy Father’s universal Indult via Summorum Pontificum is sufficient. Now, if the Holy Father would get out that ten-pound Crosier of his and enforce the Motu Proprio… ;-)

  53. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    To Matt Q

    I don’t think that Fr. Z. was suggesting that the Pope might do this. He was only giving this as an example of how the Pope could use his legislative or administrative power to restrict access to the Traditional Latin Mass. It was only an example.

    But my point stands. The Pope could not validly do this any more (or less) than he could do it for the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. The Pope cannot forbid or make conditional a right that is fundamental to the good of the Church. Priests are not simply servants of the Pope. Certain rights are fundamental to the priesthood, to the diaconate, to the laity, to the episcopate. The Traditional Latin Mass is a gift of the God to the priesthood, given by the Eternal High Priest, and instituted by Christ Himself at the Last Supper for all priests. It cannot be removed by the Pope any more than the Pope could abolish the episcopate (e.g. simply by ordering that no more bishops be consecrated).

    The Pope’s power is supreme, universal, immediate, and plenary. But plenary does not mean absolute; it means fully adequate to accomplish his divine mission, which is to build up the Mystical Body of Christ and to save souls. The Pope cannot rightfully act in a way which militates against that divine end of his jurisdiction, which is a ministry of *service*. To think of the Pope as an absolute monarch or an Eastern potentate is to adopt the anti-Catholic, the Protestant and Hobbesian doctrine of the absolute power of kings.

    Cardinal Stickler has hinted that the old Mass not only was never abrogated but even that it is beyond the power of a Pope to abrogate it. In one passage, he writes that nothing so venerable, so ancient, and so graced by saints can legitimately be abolished or suppressed by any human authority. Anyway, rather than contradict Fr. Z. on that, I shall simply close by asserting that it is at least debateable whether or not the suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass lies within the power of a reigning pope. Perhaps Paul VI did not mention its suppression in written law simply because some of his canonists cautioned that this would be of dubious legality.

    P.K.T.P.

  54. RBrown says:

    No, no, Fr. Brown.

    No, not Fr–perhaps one day, but now only Dr.

    If you read my analysis carefully, you will see that I took your point into consideration. There can be proper uses for religious orders as well as local uses. What there cannot be is two or more official juridical variations proper to group of people or to one soul. In the case of the Carmelite priest in Rome, the ‘form’ proper to him is the Carmelite Use of the Roman Mass. He may very well celebrate (if he has faculties) or benefit from the Roman Mass of the Roman See, but only the Carmelite Use is proper to him.

    No, you didn’t mention it, and your analysis does not cover it.

    1. You did mention the Ambrosian Rite, but that rite does not have the status of the aforementioned three rites of religious institutes. The Ambrosian Rite is proper to Milano and is a local rite–its use was not intended to cross diocesan boundaries.

    The three Rites of religious institutes, however, cross diocesan boundaries and are not to be considered the same as the Ambrosian Rite. Roman juridical authority is manifest whenever it has been said.

    2. The idea that the Novus Ordo Missal, promulgated by the Bishop of Rome and containing the Roman Canon (with a few changes) cannot in some respect be considered the Roman Rite is absurd.

    3. I think you’re assuming a liturgical uniformity that has not existed. Acc to Quo Primum any priest in an institute with its own rite was able to celebrate using the Roman Missal or its respective Missal. This option contradicts your assertion that–liturgically speaking, “there cannot be two or more official juridical variations proper to a group of people or to one soul”. The use of any of the local rites or those of certain religious institutes was never intended to be exclusive. Priests with those rites available could say either them or use the Roman missal, depending on circumstances.

    I do, however, agree with you that, at least in one sense, the Novus Ordo is a different rite. In fact, Paul VI himself refers to it as such. But it also contains the Roman Canon (with certain changes) and was promulgated by the Bishop of Rome.

    Of course, the irony in all this is that Quo Primum permitted more variation in Eucharistic liturgy than has the Novus Ordo.

  55. Habemus Papam says:

    R.Brown: Does the fact that the Novus Ordo contains the Roman Canon make it the same Rite, another form of the same Rite or a New Rite? When the Eucharistic Prayers are used in place of the Canon what status does the Novus Ordo have?

  56. PKTP:  The Traditional Latin Mass is a gift of the God to the priesthood, given by the Eternal High Priest, and instituted by Christ Himself at the Last Supper for all priests.  It cannot be removed by the Pope any more than the Pope could abolish the episcopate (e.g. simply by ordering that no more bishops be consecrated).

    Dear readers: I am pretty sure nearly all of this is wrong.

    Jesus did not institute the TLM at the Last Supper.  That is absurd.

    Pope’s certainly can remove a way of saying Mass if they deem it necessary.  He cannot abrogate or abolish of forbid Holy Mass, which is of divine origin, but he has the authority to tell us how Holy Mass is to be celebrated.  Mass is of divine origin.  The book is not, and may be altered according to the needs of the times.

    So, what PKTP did here is mix up the book, which is from the Church, with things of divine origin, namely, the sacraments of the Eucharist (and therefore Mass) and Holy Orders.

  57. Habemus Papam says:

    Fr.Z: While the “Traditional Latin Mass” can be a misnomer (Usus Antiquitor might be better in this case) the central point here, as I understand it, is that the Pope did not/could not remove this way of saying Mass and legally replace it with something new.

  58. RBrown says:

    R.Brown: Does the fact that the Novus Ordo contains the Roman Canon make it the same Rite, another form of the same Rite or a New Rite? When the Eucharistic Prayers are used in place of the Canon what status does the Novus Ordo have?
    Comment by Habemus Papam

    I already answer that. From above: The idea that the Novus Ordo Missal, promulgated by the Bishop of Rome and containing the Roman Canon (with a few changes) cannot IN SOME RESPECT be Considered the Roman Rite is absurd.

    In a certain respect it can be considered the Roman Rite, in another respect, not.

    Welcome to the Montini papacy.

  59. Habemus Papam says:

    RBrown:And as you’ve pointed out he explicitly called it a New Rite. A deliberate fudge?

  60. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Comments of Fr. Zuhlsdorf:

    Sorry, I really did go too far in the comment about the Last Supper. Think before posting. You are absolutely right that Christ did not institute the T.L.M. at the Last Supper. At first, I had intended to write about a gift of the Holy Ghost. I apologise for getting carried away. What Christ instituted at the Last Supper was the Mass itself, in what Adrian Fortescue has called ‘the early General Rite’ of the Church, which was probably a simple order of worship before the formative period of the great rites. In the first two centuries (as far as we know, even to the Eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions), we really have Mass in its formative period.

    Fr. Z. is correct that what Christ conferred was Mass itself. No Pope could therefore argue that Mass itself be abolished (although Popes have interdicted entire countries from time to time). What Cardinal Stickler was suggesting, in my view, is that it is at least doubtful if any Pope has the power to abolish or suppress the T.L.M. because the T.L.M. is so ancient and venerable that it constitutes a gift of God the Holy Ghost as He forms the liturgy organically over time.

    So, I repeat, if the Pope could make celebration of the ancient and venerable Rite of the West conditional upon registering with some commission at Rome, he could do the same for the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. The tone of Cardinal Stickler’s comments in 1992 suggested that it was beyond the power of a Pope to suppress the old Mass. If you will read “Quo Primum Tempore”, there is the same tone on the part of Pope St. Pius V. It is almost a sense of horror that anyone would dare to suggest that a mere pope could abolish or suppress or fundamentally change the character of the ancient Mass. St. Pius V goes on, then, to assert very emphatically that he means only to remove certain errors and accretions that have crept in. The Ordinary of 1570 is therefore that of the Roman Mass of 1474, but without spelling and punctuation errors and inconsistencies.

    Liturgical history proves that popes certainly can alter the liturgy. They can certainly make small changes and add prayers when necessary. For example, much as I may hate it, the new Good Friday Prayer is certainly within the power of a pope to add. But the Church regards the Sacred Liturgy as the Work of God the Holy Ghost over time. It is therefore a holy treasure given to the entire priesthood. Whereas all priests have the gift of the Mass from Christ Himself, all priests of a given Rite also have their traditional liturgies as a gift from the Holy Ghost.

    My point about papal power stands, therefore. The Pope’s power is plenary but not absolute. He has full and adequate power but only to fulfil his commission, which is to build up the Mystical Body of Christ and to save souls. It is a power of service to the Church. He certainly does not have the power to cancel or annul something given by God (in any Person) to the faithful for their own spiritual good. Even Vatican II (S.C.) declared that there should be no liturgical change that was not certainly necessary for the good of souls.

    Of course, this is all a side-issue. First, there is the question of whether or not Paul VI abrogated the Traditional Latin Mass. He did not. Whether or not he lacked the power to abrogate it is an interesting question but secondary. My sense from Cardinal Stickler’s words is that such an ordinance would have been ultra vires. That may very well explain why Paul VI did not attempt it. He may have been advised that a declaration of its suppression was at least of doubtful validity.

    I apologise for my rash statement about the Last Supper. I think that I got carried away and did not THINK BEFORE POSTING. I was thinking about the parallel with abolishing the episcopate, which is beyond the Pope’s power because Christ Himself instituted the episcopate.

    P.K.T.P.

  61. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    In regard to RBrown’s comments about the Roman Canon.

    First, we must consider that Paul VI did not leave the Roman Canon untouched. Two sections of it (listing of saints) were made optional, and the Consecration Formula, the very heart of the entire Mass and of primitive origin, was altered (from a reference to one passage in Scripture to the one favoured by Protestants for the Eucharist).

    Second, a canon is a rule or a standard. There is a huge difference between having one standard and having eight, seven of which were added (oh, forget the number: I’ve forgotten how many there are now).

    We must consider that a liturgy includes all its options. We need to think of any particular liturgy as something that includes all the options and therefore stands above the various licit expressions of it. Liturgy is inclusive in this sense, for any licit expression of it is included under its referent. So we really cannot say that the New Mass is much like the T.L.M. on the grounds that the New one can be celebrated much like the T.L.M. It could be countered that the New Mass can also be celebrated in ways that make it look radically different from the entire Roman Rite, both in terms of content and spirit. Since those radical options are possible, they are *part* of the Rite or form; the N.O.M. includes them.

    Frankly, it is possible to celebrate the N.O.M. licitly and properly so that one can hardly see the connexion to the T.L.M., unless one is a liturgiologist. Certainly, a layman (in the professional sense) could see certain similarites, but he could see just as many similarites between the T.L.M. and the Ambrosian Rite (or even the Anglican Communion Service). And yet the Ambrosian Rite is . . . um, a recognised distinct Rite. Furthermore, I would assert that the uniform spirit (within the possible bounds) of the Ambrosian Rite is similar to that of the T.L.M. Can we say the same of the spirit of N.O.M.?

    If the Ambrosian Rite is a separate Rite and has more in common with the T.L.M. than the T.L.M. has with the N.O.M., how can the N.O.M. *not* be a separate Rite? When considering this, remember again that the N.O.M. as a liturgical form of any kind must needs include all the options allowed.

    One answer to this is to assert that that Ambrosian Rite is still more distinct from the T.L.M. than is the N.O.M. But how distinct need a form be before it is distinct enough to be a Rite? This brings me back to the argument that the N.O.M. is, in *every* way, a fundamental departure from its liturgical tradition–even in its very means of composition, as well as its content, its rubrics, and its musical settings.

    The other answer is to assert that the term ‘liturgical Rite’ pertains not to content but to a history of transmission in a single jurisdiction. But then how can there still be a Georgian Byzantine Rite when there no longer is any Georgian Byzantine jurisdiction? A conundrum. Moreover, to assert that the term ‘rite’ does not pertain principally to content is a stretch, I’d say. As the Code of Canons asserts, words carry their standard meanings unless otherwise indicated in legislation.

    I end by claiming that there is no such thing as a distinction here between ‘rite’ in the historical sense and ‘rite’ in the juridical sense. The entire subject is liturgical and historical, and the law must take this into account *unless* there is a contrary precedent which regards ‘liturgical rite’ separately. Law is not a listing of rules alone; it must relate to real situations.

    P.K.T.P.

  62. RBrown says:

    RBrown:And as you’ve pointed out he explicitly called it a New Rite. A deliberate fudge?
    Comment by Habemus Papam

    Clarity was not his strong point.

  63. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    To RBrown:

    What is even more shocking is that, in “Missale Romanum”, 1970, he refers to the New Mass as a “composition” and admits that the new arrangements for the Canon constitute and “innovation”.

    P.K.T.P.

  64. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    To RBrown:
    RBrown:

    Paul VI calls it “the Mass of the New Rite” and “the New Rite of Mass” and “the new Rite” in paragraphs 1, 9 and 10 in the address to a general audience of 19 November, 1969. This, however, is not a document that carries any force in law, although the words of a Legislator can be used in law to help interpret other texts.

    His “Institutio Generalis” (the GIRM) of 1969, he calls it the “Novus Ordo Missæ”. This, however, is not revolutionary. There have been new orders of Mass over the centuries.

    I have noticed that Paul VI very carefully avoided any use of the term ‘New Mass’ and ‘New Rite’ and ‘New Rite of Mass’ in the Latin texts of both the Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum”, 1970, and the 1971 Instruction “De Missali Romano”. These are the texts that count. In M.R., in particular, he uses expressions such as “the renewed texts” and the “new Roman Missal”. Calling it a Missal instead of a Rite suggests that it might be simply the latest Missal of the Roman Mass. However, all the previous Missals in recent times included the documents “Quo Primum Tempore”, 1570, “Cum Sanctissimum”, 1604, and “Si Quid Est”, 1634. These latter perpetuate the prescriptions of Q.P.T. but are omitted in the New Missal of 1970. Moreover, the 1970, 1975, and 2000 editions of the New Missal are called first, second, and third editions, so they clearly are not editions of the same juridical thing as the previous Missals. Of course, Benedict XVI has an answer for all of this. He claims that the two juridical items are forms of one Rite, not separate Rites. But I have dealt with that claim elsewhere. I think it to be an error in law. Whether it is or not, it is clearly not the primary purpose of “Summorum Pontificum” to make such a claim.

    P.K.T.P.

  65. RBrown says:

    PKTP,

    My previous response to you already contained answers to your all of your more recent comments.

    Also: For the difference between a rite considered historically and juridically, note the fact that Pius XII changed the matter of the Ordination of Deacons. You might also keep in mind that the Church can change the Sacramental Form. It can also change the matter unless the matter is specified in Scripture.

  66. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    RBrown, in a post that I missed reading before, writes:

    1. You did mention the Ambrosian Rite, but that rite does not have the status of the aforementioned three rites of religious institutes. The Ambrosian Rite is proper to Milano and is a local rite—its use was not intended to cross diocesan boundaries.

    The three Rites of religious institutes, however, cross diocesan boundaries and are not to be considered the same as the Ambrosian Rite. Roman juridical authority is manifest whenever it has been said.

    2. The idea that the Novus Ordo Missal, promulgated by the Bishop of Rome and containing the Roman Canon (with a few changes) cannot in some respect be considered the Roman Rite is absurd.

    The use of any of the local rites or those of certain religious institutes was never intended to be exclusive. Priests with those rites available could say either them or use the Roman missal, depending on circumstances.

    So, to reiterate,

    (1) I am not saying that the N.O.M. is not a Roman Rite of Mass. I am saying that it is a Roman Rite of Mass but not a form of the same Rite as the Traditional Latin Mass: we have two Rites of Mass proper to Rome now, and not two forms of one Rite. The reason is that differences between them are fundamental, substantial, and radical.

    (2) While the N.O.M. is a valid Eucharist and must be a Rite of Mass, it is nevertheless illegitimate and illicit, and M.R., which promulgated it, is a nullity. What little legitimacy it has comes from usage which has not been prevented by legitimate authority, plus thirty years of use, giving it some protection as customary law. It also has some minimal legitimacy because it is at least open to a Catholic interpretation and is a valid Eucharist. But you could say the same thing (arguably) of an Anglican Communion Service when celebrated by a real priest. You could also say the same thing of a liturgy that was composed by me yesterday morning.

    (3) It is illegitimate because it is beyond the right of a Pope to create two local Rites proper to one See. This causes a divison in the lex orandi in that See and, by extension, most of the Latin Church (except Milan, &c.) Objectively speaking, I’d say that the New Mass does not fulfil the Sunday obligation, although there is obviously no question of sin involved here.

    P.K.T.P.

  67. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    To RBrown:

    To put this another way, I am arguing that there can only be one Rite of Mass which is proper to any ‘particular church’. Using this expression, ‘particular church’ gets around the problem of overlapping geographical jurisdictions (e.g. Antioch has three patriarchal churches proper to it). It also gets around the case of the Campos, which is a particular church but not a geographcial one. It does not adequately deal with the case of the Georgian Byzantine Catholics, but perhaps they do, in fact, belong to a particular church which remains alive in them. I suppose that a Romanian Byzantine Catholic, for instance, remains attached to the sui juris Romanian Byzantine Catholic Church even if he is a subject of a local Roman ordinary when he is living in Argentina.

    Religious orders are not particular churches (vide Canons 368 to 374). Hence, when we claim that a religious order has a liturgical Rite that is proper to it, we are using the sense of belonging to a Rite in a different way here. I wonder: if a Norbertine monk is in Milan, can he ever use the Ambrosian Rite? Or would he only be able to use the Norbertine and Roman Rites while in Milan?

    Now, what I am arguing is that there has never been two Rites of Mass proper to any one particular church (a diocese or its equivalent). Never. To have that would be to divide the lex orandi in that jurisdiction, that church of people. That is why Rome claims that the N.O.M. and T.L.M. are only two forms of one single Rite of Mass. But I counter that the differences between them are simply too great to make them forms of one Rite. They are two distinct Rites.

    But no Pope has the right to divide the lex orandi in any particular church, for this would militate against his commission from Christ to build up the Mystical Body; this tends to break down that Body. Therefore, any creation of a second Rite for one particular church is an illegitimate act, a nullity–even if such an unlawful act results in the creation of a second valid Eucharistic liturgy.

    In conclusion, the New Mass is valid but illicit. It is a bastard Rite in the true sense.

    P.K.T.P.