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

ZENIT presents a piece with the comments of His Eminence Justin Card. Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia, on the implementation of Summorum Pontificum in seminaries. 

You are going to love this!  See if some of it doesn’t sound familiar!

Shall we have a look with my emphases and comments?

"Summorum Pontificum" in the Seminary

Cardinal Rigali on Introducing Seminarians to the 1962 Missal

By Annamarie Adkins

PHILADELPHIA, MARCH 14, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Since Benedict XVI has said that the Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII should be available to those who prefer it, seminarians should be taught to say it, says Cardinal Justin Rigali.  [Exactly!  It is part of our Roman Rite!]

The Pope clarified in his apostolic letter "Summorum Pontificum" that there are two forms of the liturgy in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church: ordinary and extraordinary.

To learn what some bishops are doing to implement the document in seminaries, ZENIT spoke with Cardinal Rigali, archbishop of Philadelphia, about his plans to introduce seminarians at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary to the extraordinary form of the Mass.   [I hope they will speak to other bishops as well.]

Cardinal Rigali also suggested why priests already in active ministry should become familiar with the Missal of 1962.  [Yes!]

Q: What practical steps are being taken to incorporate "Summorum Pontificum" into the life and curriculum of the seminary?  [In other words, not just academic study, but use of it for prayer and edification.]

Cardinal Rigali: First there will be a lecture offered on the "motu proprio" that elucidates the theology underlying the 1962 missal so that the seminarians are afforded a clear understanding of the "motu proprio" and the Holy Father’s pastoral concern for the faithful who have a deep love for the Tridentine liturgy.

Since nearly all of the seminarians at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary have grown up attending Mass according to the "Novus Ordo"—Missal of Paul VI —it is important to offer an exposition of the Mass according to the 1962 missal—Missal of Blessed John XXIII.

Further, seminary course work in theology, liturgy and Church history will cover and expound upon the Holy Father’s initiative. It will be helpful for them to see the continuity between the two expressions, but will also afford the opportunity to address the changes that took place in the liturgy following the Second Vatican Council.

Sometime in the spring semester, after the lecture, Holy Mass according to the extraordinary form will be celebrated once for the entire St. Charles Borromeo Seminary community. This will demonstrate to the seminarians the liturgically correct manner in which the extraordinary form of the Mass is to be celebrated.

Q: What about "Summorum Pontificum" has led you to support the incorporation of that document into the life of St. Charles Borromeo seminary? Are you foreseeing a greater demand for the traditional form of the Mass in the future?

Cardinal Rigali: The Holy Father has indicated that the Mass according to the extraordinary form as well as celebration of the sacraments should be available to the faithful when there is a genuine pastoral need.

Many of our clergy have never celebrated Mass or administered the sacraments according to the 1962 missal and the other liturgical texts. In order to provide for the pastoral needs, should they arise, the current seminarians should have the opportunity to be properly educated as to the rituals involved and the theology that underlies these forms.

At present I do not foresee a great demand ["at present"] for celebrations according to the extraordinary form of the Mass. In the Archdiocese of Philadelphia the requests we have received are very few. Most Catholics today find spiritual satisfaction in the Mass as celebrated using the Missal of Paul VI, and this remains the ordinary form of the celebration.

This being said, we are blessed to have two parishes in different areas of the archdiocese that celebrate Mass in the extraordinary form, who had already for some time been offering Mass with the Tridentine Missal by grant of the necessary indult. [Though there is no longer any need for an indult.] I am grateful that these parishes provide for the spiritual and pastoral needs of those faithful who prefer the extraordinary form.

Q: Some analysts of "Summorum Pontificum" have said that it is primarily directed at priests, and is a gift to them. What is your view?  [Some analysts… gosh.. that sounds like WDTPRS.  I hope others have taken it up.  Still, I think the question left out the point that it is for priests, yes, but the effect it has on priests will affect everybody over time.  So, I don’t like the way this question was phrased.]

Cardinal Rigali: The "motu proprio" is issued by the Holy Father for all Catholics.

With regard to priests, any statement from the Holy Father on the liturgy or any change in the liturgical forms or formula afford the priests an opportunity for thought and reflection on the mysteries they celebrate in the liturgy.  [Yes.]

Many priests find in these opportunities a renewed sense of awe and appreciation for the liturgy and an opportunity for recommitment to celebrate these liturgies in a more reflective, reverent and respectful manner.  [Yes!]

In this sense, "Summorum Pontificum" is a gift to all priests, because it encourages them, through the sacred liturgy, to draw all people into a deeper communion of holiness with the Lord.  [YES!  His Eminence gets it!]

Q: Seminaries are in the business of formation, particularly liturgical formation. What formative effect do you believe learning and celebrating the extraordinary form of the Mass will have upon seminarians?  [This is an extension of the last question.]

Cardinal Rigali: Studying about and learning the Mass according to the 1962 Missal will afford the seminarians an opportunity to experience the continuity between the older and newer forms.

So much of our faith is based on continuity and tradition, handing on of the faith from one generation to the next. Sometimes the rituals change and develop but at the core they remain the same.

Benedict XVI stated in his letter to the bishops that accompanied the "motu proprio," "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be of all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches that have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place."

The liturgical training St. Charles Borromeo seminarians receive forms them in reverence and holiness, which in turn will serve the faithful to whom they will minister once they are ordained.  [I have always heard pretty good things about the formation at St. Charles.]

Q: Will saying Mass according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII affect the way a priest says the "Novus Ordo" Mass?

Cardinal Rigali: Any priest who is unfamiliar with the extraordinary form, or who has not celebrated the liturgy according to this form for some time, will probably, and quite naturally, reflect on the manner in which he celebrates Mass according to the "Novus Ordo."  [Folks… is this sounding rather familiar?  The question is right out of the WDTPRS playbook!  Well done!]

Such a reflection is positive because it cannot help but lead to a more reverent and worthy celebration of the liturgy.  [YES!  PERFECT!]

Q: What can priests do to incorporate "Summorum Pontificum" into their own priestly ministry?  [Interesting.  Although I didn’t like the way that earlier question about the MP being for priests was phrased, the subsquent questions have really focused exactly on this point, haven’t they?]

Cardinal Rigali: St. Charles Borromeo Seminary is offering a course for priests who wish to be educated and trained in the proper celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII to ensure competence in the Latin language and the rubrics of the extraordinary form.  [Does that mean more instruction in Latin?]

Prior to engaging a "practicum" experience, the theology behind the liturgy and the "motu proprio" will be studied. I have encouraged any priest who may wish to learn to celebrate this liturgy to seek such educational opportunities so that the liturgy may be celebrated in a prayerful and reverent manner.

WDTPRS applauds Cardinal Rigali! 

Also, I am pleased to see that some of the work here has filtered through to the other Catholic media outlets and has shaped some of their thought.

I have a little present for you kind readers… and listeners

This seemed appropriate today, for the Friday before Palm Sunday when the Seven Sorrows of Mary are commemorated at Holy Mass with the traditional Roman calendar.

Here are the Stations of the Cross by St. Alphonsus Liguori as a PRAYERCAzT.

I have two versions.

One version is plain, just my voice.  The other is the same voice recording, but with the Gregorian chant Sequence Stabat Mater interlaced between the stations.

I may add a version entirely in Latin.

 

 http://www.wdtprs.com/prayercazt/080314_stations_liguori_chant.mp3
http://www.wdtprs.com/prayercazt/080314_stations_liguori.mp3

I appreciate the support you have given to me and to WDTPRS. 

This is a token of my esteem. 

I just got word that some new sermons of St. Augustine have been discovered in Vienna. 

I don’t have details yet.

The daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops Conference Avvenire has an article on p. A23 about the appearance of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum in the official instrument of the Holy See for the promulgation of documents, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.  

There are variations in the text of the Motu Proprio.  

First, here is my translation of the piece in Avvenire with my emphases and comments.  Then I will summarize the few, but in some ways, important changes to the Latin text.

Summorum Pontificum Published in the Acta

Mass in Latin [grrrrr]

The text of the Motu Proprio is in the "official gazette" of the Holy See.  How requests for use of the Missal of 1962 in parishes where there is "stably" a group of faithful adhering to the pre-conciliar rite are to be received.

Yesterday Benedict XVI nominated as Vice President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Msgr. Camile Perl, till now Secretary of the same Commission.  At the same time the Pope nominated as Secretary Msgr. Mario Marini, until now Adjunct Secretary.

The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, with which on 7 July 2007 Benedict XVI "derestricted" the use of the pre-conciliar Missale Romanum, was published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official gazette of the Holy See.  The text of the document appears in the fascicle of the Acta distributed last week, that bears the date 7 September 2007, on pages 777-781.  Together with is the accompanying letter that the Pope wrote to bishops of the Catholic Church of the Latin Rite.

On 22 September of last year Corriere della sera had a comment on p. 49 entitled "But is the Motu Proprio really on the back burner? (resta a bagno maria)".  In it it was indicated that the document Summorum Pontificum had not yet been published in the Acta, "the instrument which gives force to papal provisions".  The commentator in question, Prof. Alberto Melloni, after having referred to criticisms expressed by some ecclesiastics about the Motu Proprio in question, appears to appreciate the "wise decision still to keep on the back burner a text that is creating more problems than it resolves."

In reality, at the time the Motu Proprio was not published in the Acta for the simple fact that there had not been time enough to work out the technical issues.  To tell the truth, the publication of the Motu Proprio was expected in the preceding fascicle of the Acta, that bore documents and pontifical appointments published between 27 May and 2 August 2007.  Perhaps the brief delay for the publication was due to the fact that, compared to the version published on 7 July 2007, the definitive and binding version of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum showed some small variations. 

Above all, the Motu Proprio was given a subtitle (De uso [sic! It should be usu.] extraordinario antiquae formae Ritus Romani) that was not present before.  In Article 1, then, the term "conditiones" was replaced with the more correct form "condiciones". 

In Article 3 the term "plerumque" (the majority of times) was replaced with "habitualiter" (habitually), without however changing the substance of the disposition.  [Not sure about that.]

The more concrete variation, on the other hand, is in Article 5,1: "In parishes in which there exists stably (stabiliter) a group of faithful adhereing to the preceding liturgical tradition, the pastor is to received willingly their requests for the celebration of Holy Mass according to the rite of the Missale Romanum published in 1962".  In the original version, in place of the term "stabiliter" there was "continenter", which literally means "uninterruptedly" and which could cause one to think erroneously that the group of the faithful had the right to the "pre-conciliar" Mass only if it was stably established already before the publication of the Motu Proprio and not subsequent to it.   [This is a significant change in meaning.]

Finally, another variation is found in Article 7: "If a group of the lay faithful, mentioned in art. 5,1, have not obtained to the request on the part of the pastor, let the Diocesan Bishop be informed about the matter.  The Bishop is strenuously asked that he graciously grant their desire.  If he does not want to provide for such a celebration, let the matter be referred to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei".  In this case the verb "non vult" replaces the original "non potest" (cannot).  [Another fairly important change.]

...

To sum up the changes in the Latin text.

There is a subtitle: De uso extraordinario antiquae formae Ritus Romani ("On the extraordinary use of the old form of the Roman Rite");  [No significant meaning attached to that addition.  Remember that in Latin, antiquus can also mean "former in time", not just "old" or "ancient".]

In Article 1, conditiones is replaced by condiciones.  [The meaning of the Article does not change thereby.]

In Article 3, plerumque ("very often, for the most part") is replaced with habitualiter, a word found in juridical Latin, meaning "habitually", with the legal overtone that carries.  [This could have an impact.  But we need a canonist on this.]

In article 5, § 1, continenter ("continuously, uninterruptedly") is replaced with a term found in legal Latin stabiliter ("stably").  This is an important change in meaning.  Effectively, stably says that the group has to be there for a while, and need not have been there in an uniterrupted way even before the Motu Proprio.  So, new groups can form and emerge and then be around in a continuous way.  What we still need to understand, however, is what "stable" means in terms of the group’s composition.  One assumes reasonably that a group can grow or shrink.  Hopefully this will be clarified now that we have the correct word. [This is big.  It concerns the composition and presence of a group of faithful.]

In article 7, non potest ("cannot") is not non vult ("does not want").  There is a big difference between not wanting to do something and not being able to do something.  We are all able to do things we would prefer not to do.  So, if a priest is capable, if a bishop is capable, but does not want to do something for the requests of lay people, the matter goes to Rome.  In other words, if the cleric is capable, and the means are there, there is even less excuse not to receive petitions positively than there was when the words were non potest.  [This is also big.  It concerns the attitude of those who receive petitions, the available means, and ability of the clerics concerned.]

In a way, the change to stabiliter and non vult strengthen the rights of lay people in this regard.  I don’t really understand the ramifications of the juridical sounding habitualiter (a dreadful Latin word).

An alarming e-mail came to me from a reader.  My emphases and comments:

Dear Fr. Zuhlsdorf,

Two friends of mine recently went to confession at their parish’s regularly scheduled time. [Tip # 3] Of course, they each made their confession individually to the priest in the confessional in the normal manner. They confessed their sins and made an act of contrition. I’m not sure if they said the priest gave them a penance. However, they both said that the priest did NOT say the words of absolution. What is odd is that the priest did not explicitly tell them he was purposefully not going to give them absolution. He just did not say the words of absolution. The priest knew there was a line and asked them to leave so the next person could confess. One of my friends tried to ask to have the priest say the words of absolution, but the priest basically made her leave before she could even ask the question.  [If this is really what happened, this is a pretty serious situation.]

I have several questions about this odd situation.

1. Was the confession valid, i.e., was there remission of their confessed sins? (My understand is that the answer is no, since the words of absolution are the form of the sacrament of penance.)  [First, God will love them because they tried.  Through no fault of their own, they did not received absolution.  God works with that.  However, they really do need to receive sacramental absolution.  It sounds to me as if they did not receive absolution, they did not receive the graces of the sacrament.  Absolution is necessary.  This is why in Tip #15 I tell people not to leave the confessional before the priest has given absolution.  Usually that happens because the penitent is in a rush to get out, but I guess it applies here too.  I once had to insist three times that the priest use the correct form of absolution.  He was mad by the end, but I was absolved.]

2. If the answer to Question 1. is no, what should my friends do? Should they go to confession again for these same sins? [I would do two things.  First, go to confession where you know you can get a priest who will do the right thing, and make a good confession of everything, saying also that you did go before but didn’t get absolution.  Second, I would speak to the pastor (if the priest is young and an assistant) or write to the priest’s bishop or religious superior and explain what happened in bare-bones facts.  Remember, the priest can’t talk about that confession, even to his bishop.  He can’t explain his side, one way or another, or he violates the seal.  But the bishop should know about this.]

3. Have you ever heard of this kind of a thing where priests just don’t say the words of absolution for no relevant reason? [Sure… they are poorly trained and need to have a 2×4 upside the head.]

4. I’m guessing this sort of thing is a very serious breach of a priest’s responsibility. How serious is it? [How ‘bout… REALLY SERIOUS!]

5. What should my friends do to try to address? Talk to the priest? Talk to the bishop? [Bishop. Unless the priest was young and under the authority of his pastor.  In that case perhaps the pastor should know so that he can correct the errant priest.]

Thank you and thanks for your blog. It’s a great resource.

 

Here is an "oldie" PODCAzT, from last year… I was just starting to make these little programs back then.  I bring this back, especially because of the comment about ancient Rhetoric. 

I find it interesting to go back and listen to some of these old projects to see how they have evolved.

_________________

Fulgentius of Ruspe is our guest for this PODCAzT.  In the second reading for the Office of Readings today we have an excerpt Fulgentius’ work anti-Arian work De fide ad Petrum.  Before the reading itself I give a crash course on the divisions of ancient Rhetoric so that we can get more out of this, and other, readings from the Fathers.

 Here is the text of Fulgentius’s reading:

From a treatise on faith addressed to Peter by Saint Fulgentius of Ruspe, bishop

The sacrifices of animal victims which our forefathers were commanded to offer to God by the holy Trinity itself, the one God of the old and the new testaments, foreshadowed the most acceptable gift of all. This was the offering which in his compassion the only Son of God would make of himself in his human nature for our sake.

The Apostle teaches that Christ offered himself for us to God as a fragrant offering and sacrifice. He is the true God and the true high priest who for our sake entered once for all into the holy of holies, taking with him not the blood of bulls and goats but his own blood. This was foreshadowed by the high priest of old when each year he took blood and entered the holy of holiest Christ is therefore the one who in himself alone embodied all that he knew to be necessary to achieve our redemption. He is at once priest and sacrifice, God and temple. He is the priest through whom we have been reconciled, the sacrifice by which we have been reconciled, the temple in which we have been reconciled, the God with whom we have been reconciled. He alone is priest, sacrifice and temple because he is all these things as God in the form of a servant; but he is not alone as God, for he is this with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the form of God.

Hold fast to this and never doubt it: the only-begotten Son, God the Word, becoming man offered himself for us to God as a fragrant offering and sacrifice. In the time of the old testament, patriarchs, prophets and priests sacrificed animals in his honour, and in honour of the Father and the Holy Spirit as well.

Now in the time of the new testament the holy catholic Church throughout the world never ceases to offer the sacrifice of bread and wine, in faith and love, to him and to the Father and the Holy Spirit, with whom he shares one godhead.

Those animal sacrifices foreshadowed the flesh of Christ which he would offer for our sins, though himself without sin, and the blood which he would pour out for the forgiveness of our sins. In this sacrifice there is thanksgiving for, and commemoration of, the flesh of Christ that he offered for us, and the blood that the same God poured out for us. On this Saint Paul says in the Acts of the Apostles: Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as bishops to rule the Church of God, which he won for himself by his blood.

Those sacrifices of old pointed in sign to what was to be given to us. In this sacrifice we see plainly what has already been given to us. Those sacrifices foretold the death of the Son of God for sinners. In this sacrifice he is proclaimed as already slain for sinners, as the Apostle testifies: Christ died for the wicked at a time when we were still powerless, and when we were enemies we were reconciled with God through the death of his Son.

The well-known Los Angeles Religious Education Congress always provides us with lots of things to think about.

A reader alerted me to some youtube videos of the closing Mass… er… liturgy… er…

Part 1:

 

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

WDTPRS is proudly a…

 

 

 

 

 

A WDTPRSer sent me a copy of a response from the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei".  Our reader had some questions for the PCED and the PCED answered them.

I must say right away that this letter requires me to make a retraction concerning what I have said about continenter and stabliter in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

The official text signed by the Holy Father has the word stabiliter and NOT continenter.

I will state clearly that I was wrong about this.

Let us move to the letter itself.

Judging from the PCED response the writer asked the following questions:
 

1. Regardless of circumstances like a shortage of priests is it the Holy Father’s intention that at a parish where there are several Sunday Masses, one of them should be celebrated in the extraordinary form? 
2. Is the Motu Proprio intended to apply also to colleges and universities?
3. What is the correct Latin text—stabiliter or continenter?
   

Here is my transcription of the 27 Feb 2008 response from the PCED.  (Folks, it would really help if, when you send me images of letters, you also consider sending a transcript.)

I will add my emphases and some comments.

We wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 7 November 2007 address to His Eminence Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos and beg your indulgence for not having managed to respond sooner due to the volume of mail which we have received since the promulgation of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and the many matters which have required our immediate attention.  We will respond to your questions in the order in which you have raised them, point out at the same time that we are expecting the publication of an instruction on the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum sometime in the relatively near future and this should deal in more detail with some of the questions you raise.

It is too difficult to make catergorial statements about whether every parish where there is interest, should provide the extraordinary form of the Mass on a weekly basis.  There are many variants involved including the number of the faithful, the availability of priests etc.  This matter would have to be considered from many practical perspectives.  [In other words, we can’t answer that.]

The Motuo Proprio itself does not speak specifically of college and unversity chaplaincies, but in article 5, §5 it states In ecclesiis, quae non sunt nec paroeciales nec conventuales Rectoris ecclesiae est concedere licentiam de qua supra.  This is understood as referring also to college or university chaplains. [In other words, 5, §5 applies to universities.]

The correct word, that which is contained in the Motu Proprio signed by the Holy Father, is stabiliter and the instruction should deal specifically with its interpretation. [In other words, Fr. Z was wrong when writing about continenter as being the official text.]

Please note some other things.

First, the Holy Father’s clarifications will be coming relatively soon.  Who knows when that will be, but we probably won’t see it before Easter.

Second, the Holy Father is going to explain what 5, §1 says.