TML for San Francisco & Santa Rosa … convenient time and place?

This article from the California Catholic Daily was sent by a reader via e-mail.  My emphases and comments:

"A convenient and available church”

San Francisco archdiocese gains Latin Mass, Santa Rosa diocese loses one

The first episcopally-approved Tridentine Mass in the Archdiocese of San Francisco since the late 1960s was said March 2, the Fourth Sunday in Lent, at the Chapel of the Most Holy Rosary in San Rafael. [NB: Since Summorum Pontificum there is no need to have the bishop's approval, but it is nice to have it!]

The Mass, said according to the 1962 Missale Romanum of Blessed Pope John XXIII, will continue every week and on holy days of obligation at the chapel on the campus of St. Vincent School for Boys “for the immediate future,” according to the Feb. 29 Catholic San Francisco, the archdiocesan newspaper. (Once a Gold Rush-era orphanage, St. Vincent’s today is a residential treatment center for about 60 emotionally troubled boys from 7 to 17 years old.)

The archdiocese chose Most Holy Rosary chapel, archdiocesan chancellor Fr. Michael Padazinski told Catholic San Francisco, because it was "a convenient and available church that provides for the requirements of the traditional Mass."

The new Mass location will kill two birds with one stone, providing an Extraordinary Rite celebration for the archdiocese and for the Diocese of Santa Rosa as well. The celebrant of the San Rafael Mass, Fr. William Young, a retired priest residing at Most Holy Redeemer parish in San Francisco’s Castro district, has been saying the traditional Mass at St. Mary’s Chapel in Petaluma, in the Santa Rosa diocese. That Mass will be discontinued.

The discontinuation of the Petaluma Mass means that the only Extraordinary Rite celebration in the Santa Rosa diocese will be at Holy Family Church in Rutherford. This will unlikely change, as Bishop Daniel Walsh indicated last year. Since “we have the challenge of finding priests who are capable of offering the mass according to the old Missal,” Walsh said in his August “Bulletin from the Diocese of Santa Rosa,” it would be “some time” before the diocese would see what “concretely” Pope Benedict XVI’s permission of the traditional rite would mean for the diocese.

The archdiocesan Mass follows Archbishop George Niederauer’s norms governing the implementation of the pope’s July 2007 motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum allowing priests to say the traditional Latin Mass. Though the motu proprio says a priest saying a private Mass “does not require any permission, neither from the Apostolic See nor his own Ordinary,” to use the Missal promulgated by Pope John XXIII in 1962, Niederauer’s norms lay out competency requirements for priests saying the Mass.  [This rather makes it seem as if Summorum Pontificum didn't exist, doesn't it?]

In addition, the archbishop’s norms instruct priests that they may not on their “own initiative” schedule public celebrations [I wonder if that is in keeping with Summorum Pontificum.] of the Tridentine Mass, which are only to be celebrated in parishes having “a stable group of the faithful who adhere to the earlier tradition" and who request the extraordinary form. The norms define a “stable group” as at least 30 persons "in the same location and in an ongoing manner." [That sure isn't in Summorum Pontificum!]

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.

14 Responses to TML for San Francisco & Santa Rosa … convenient time and place?

  1. peretti says:

    Little plots of ground have little popes to rule over them.

  2. Tim Ferguson says:

    This is a step forward, but I would argue that the chapel in Santa Rosa is not exactly “convenient and available” to Catholics in San Francisco. For demographic and financial reasons, many Catholics in the city do not have cars (parking is attrocious, insurance is insane, gas is prohibitively priced and the Mass transit system, while flawed, is pretty effective). For the six years I lived in San Francisco, I did not own a car. With a plethora of churches in the City itself, many of which are perfectly suited for the Traditional Mass, it seems odd to have the Mass offered across the bridge in Marin, particularly since the priest who will be offering it lives in San Francisco.

  3. EDG says:

    San Rafael is hardly “convenient” to San Francisco. There used to be a Tridentine Rite mass in downtown San Francisco (St. Patricks?) many years ago, and I don’t see why it is so difficult for the good bishop to find some place to offer the mass that is not 20 miles away from the city. Talk about grudging (semi) compliance.

  4. Mauro Colabianchi says:

    This is indeed a step forward. Don’t forget that the Archdiocese of San Francisco includes Marin county as well, and the Church there is in dire need of a Traditional Mass. This new location is much more convenient than the old one in Petaluma, where St. Mary’s Chapel pretty much amounts to a small room. The new location is much larger, really the size of a parish church.

    Hopefully there will be a Traditional Mass in the City in the near future.

  5. Phillip says:

    I attended the mass in San Rafael last Sunday. I would love to go again, but I really don’t appreciate driving all the way across the bridge. This past friday the 7th I attended a tlm at St. Francis Assisi, celebrated by my old pastor Fr. Lawrence Goode. I have also heard from some friends that there are tlm’s at St. Philip’s and St. Cecilia’s in the City.

  6. Tzard says:

    If what Phillip indicates is true – it’s proof that SP is having it’s effect. The Extraordinary form is popping up in “unapproved” places. It doesn’t need such an approval.

  7. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    I note that the article is incorrect in asserting that the D. of Santa Rosa will lose an every-Sunday Mass because of this. It is no fault of this writer. He is correct that the Mass at Petaluma is cancelled (although probably not for long). However, a Carmeltie priest, Fr. Mark Kristy, O.C.D., has started up every Sunday at the Carmelite House of Prayer (at Oakville, Calif.) every Sunday in the Diocese of Santa Rosa. Another priest has started up in S.R. at Crescent Beach. So we gain a see and do not lose one to do it. Deo gratias! You can see the updates at Mr. Carl Schwalm’ excellent site, the Mater Dei site, which lists only regularised Masses in the Traditional Rite. Mr. Schwalm is a great man, and we should pray for his excellent work.

    There is also superb news coming for the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston (embracing all of W. Va.), Jefferson City, Mo.; and a new F.S.S.P. apostolate in July in the Diocese of Springfield-in-Illinois at Quincy. There is also an every-Sunday Mass approved now for the Diocese of Charlotte, N.C., but I made a solemn promise not to reveal the details, so I can’t say more right now. But it’s there.

    P.K.T.P.

  8. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Dear Fr. Z.:

    I would like to write an article here about my research on the statistics of the implementation of S.P. and how this might affect the S.S.P.X (to be blunt: it puts pressure on the Society to accept an arrangement as already suggested by Rome). However, I do not think that this is the right thread for that. I have watched the statistics on this for at least fifteen years and once co-authored an on-line list of Masses covering the entire world. I think that the impressive success of S.P. might interest people on this blog. What should I do? I could post it to this thread and then you could move it to another. Is that the best way forward?

    Peter Karl T. Perkins
    Victoria, B.C., Canada

  9. Bill hayes says:

    St. Vincents is closer to Novato just south of the Sonoma/Marin
    county line.Fairly close to Petaluma.
    Compared to here in New Mexico,where all distances seem long.
    I travel about 150 miles round trip, to Mass in Albuquerque at San Ignacio.Distances in the Bay Area seem short to me.St.Vincent’s
    is maybe 30-35 miles north of San Francisco.It is actually
    pretty centrally located.Not a Bad drive on a Sunday morning.
    Growing up in San Rafael and going to school at St.Raphael’s
    we played basketball against the boy’s at St. Vincent’s,which
    used to be an orphanage.
    I still visit my family now living near Petaluma and Santa Rosa
    and have assisted at the TLM in Petaluma at Hermann’s hall.Which
    was was very Nice however a bit odd due to it being upstairs from
    secular Sunday services of exercise classes downstairs.
    I pray That those in Petaluma who have for Many years,through
    thick and thin attending their little Chapel in Petaluma are happy
    with their new location.
    St. Vincent’s is in a beautiful rurally location and i look forward
    to Mass there.
    Bill Hayes

  10. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Dear Mr. Hayes:

    Those in Petaluma have asked Fr. Kristy to continue their Mass for them. He needs permission from his new prior and from the provincial. He is seeking that now, I believe. In the mean time, he offers Mass in the D. of Santa Rosa every day at Oakville, at the Carmelite House of Prayer.

    P.K.T.P.

  11. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    The Archdiocese of S.F. embraces three counties. It is true that the new venue at San Rafael is not convenient for San Franciscans. However, we must take into account the excessive opposition to the Traditional Rite of Mass in San Francisco. It is the very last of the twelve sees in California to allow an every-Sunday Mass. The fact that Abp. Niederaur has agreed to this new permission *in person* (so I’m told by his vicar-general) is significant. It is a sign of things to come. When His Holiness published S.P., several U.S. bishops immediately declared restrictions (e.g. Davenport, Alexandria: where there still are no old Masses). Niederauer was one of them. So this new permission is cause for celebration and hope for the future.

    Twelve out of twelve sees in California now have the T.L.M. every Sunday. That’s 100%. Thanks be to God!

    P.K.T.P.

  12. JaneC says:

    I’m glad that Fr. Kristy has started saying Mass at the Carmelite House every day, because the Mass at Holy Family in Rutherford is only once a month, and the afternoon time slot makes it almost impossible to attend in the summer since Holy Family has no air conditioning or fans and the windows do not open. The Carmelite House is a much nicer location.

  13. Phillip says:

    I spoke with the main acolyte last friday, who serves at every Sunday mass in St. Vincent’s and every 1st friday at St. Francis Assisi. He told me we need all the support we can get. Once it gets rolling, there will be an altar server training program, more people in the schola, and possibly an organist. God willing, this can get big, even with all the opposition.
    There is only 1 “approved” extraordinary form of the mass in the archdiocese. However, its best to call up each parish in SF and ask. I have heard that many parishes will have or already have tlm’s on a regular basis. I need to confirm this with each parish.

  14. Thomas F. Miller says:

    Father Zuhlsdorf: Would you consider publishing this as an entity separate from the comments under which this would normally fall? We need all the help we can get. I\’m fairly useless in that I don\’t know how to send it as an entry, but there is some good stuff in it. Edit it as you wish.

    There was an average of about 40-50 people at the Mass formerly held in Petaluma. Minimum that I recall was 26 (on Christmas Day in 2006) and maximum was about 70 (several times). You had to walk up a flight of steps to get there; it was actually remarkable that so many attended.

    The much maligned Archbishop Niederauer was extremely gracious in his approval. He approved a requested 11:30 time despite a \”not earlier than 12:00\” start-up time suggested by the Chaplain in charge of the facility, Fr. Tom Daly. The facility is about 80% funded by the State of California. This latter condition has caused some initially serious problems due to the presence of a facility for boys on the grounds, with backgrounds apparently requiring continual supervision under California law.

    The presence of a 9:30 AM, well attended, Novus Ordo Mass on Sundays, generally the only previous regular use of the Chapel building, has inadvertently been a difficulty also. Several of the boys are involved with that Mass, either as servers or as greeters. The constraints of California law apply to their presence at the Church, in the Sacristy, even when acting as greeters. Since the Novus Ordo Mass itself and the socialization which necessarily follows extends the time which that Mass requires, it was impossible for the timely and necessary set-up work required for a change to the Extraordinary form/Tridentine/Traditional/Latin Mass. Since state law must be followed (remember the funding level provided by the state), the set-up, choir, and altar service groups could not have access to the Sacristy until the boys serving the Novus Ordo had actually departed. Presumably the schedule would allow enough time not only to cover their planned departure time but also allow for unexpected delays or changes in logistics e.g. they must be transported in vans whose drivers must be state-registered, fingerprinted, backgrounds checked, etc. (as are all employed by or others associated as volunteers). Unfortunately there is always an unexpected shortage of manpower available to fulfill those requirements. Without knowledge, I expect that they have to be prepared to consider the possibility that any of us may be pedophiles.

    Unfortunately, none of this had been transmitted in any way to the Extraordinary/etc. group until the 4th Sunday of Lent had actually arrived. We thus had no way of avoiding the pitfalls that inevitably occurred and which were the fault of no one. As always happens, communications were lousy, to put it mildly. The Novus Ordo sacristan didn\’t even know about the new order of Sunday events until he arrived. The results were predictable – chaos, and some inevitable personal relationship problems.

    The first Mass was less than we had expected. We had been operating in a closed and friendly environment in Petaluma and were not ready for the big-time. We had not thought to provide for an aspergillum and had to improvise. Thus we began about fifteen minutes late with a cobbled together Asperges me. Father Young didn\’t know that his voice, attuned to the \”small room\” of Petaluma, was such that no one in the back of the magnificent venue could hear him, so he hadn\’t turned on the microphone. Almost accidentally, we had a very competent Master of Ceremonies which added greatly to the solemnity of the Mass, but our normal servers weren\’t familiar with that and so normal smoothness wasn\’t there. A choir of two, not even adequate for the small room in Petaluma, simply was lost in the size of the church. Some people, reportedly seven, departed when Father Young advised that the 1962 practice was Communion on the tongue. Perhaps they were the reverse of some of our own Traditionalist near-sedevacantists, who told us they couldn\’t go to our new location since a Novus Ordo was also being held there, thus presumably de-sanctifying the Church or something.

    The good news was: attendance was over 130.

    Normal effects of human reaction to \”change\” came into play: some of those intimately involved with the 0930 NO apparently felt that the facility was \”theirs\”. Period. Theirs meaning nobody else. That is understandable; presumably time and hopefully mutual good-will will prevail; it is up to us as new boys on the block to insure that it does.

    The good news is that the second Sunday performance of the Mass was vastly improved. We borrowed an aspergillum. Instead of two, the choir increased to seven, two of whom were professionals. Not only the volume but also performance itself was substantially better. Unfortunately the seven will reduce to probably four for Palm Sunday; perhaps five shortly.

    The bad news for the second Sunday was that attendance for the second Sunday was only about sixty. It\’s a roller coaster, the first Sunday about twice what was expected (the number of hosts Consecrated at the Mass were wholly inadequate, and where was the key to the Tabernacle anyway?). Our expectations for the second Sunday were inflated; we\’ll find a way to get a better feel for probable communicants. Consuming forty or so unneeded Hosts takes some time.

    The net effect of all of this is that the facility constraints requires a change of time for our Mass from 11:30 to 12:15, presumably approved by the Archbishop, beginning this Sunday, March 16th. From the prosaic viewpoint of those devoted to the Extraordinary form/etc., this is unfortunate. In the large picture it is also necessary, and we must adjust to it.

    The writer had the privilege of being the individual who sought the approval of the Archbishop of San Francisco for this specific Mass, so I am able to comment here with some authority. I had no hope for his approval. No Archbishop of San Francisco had been known to approve such a Mass since the first Sunday of Advent 1969, thirty-eight plus years ago. Some were known to be implacably opposed; specifically retired Archbishop John R. Quinn, who still resides in the area and undoubtedly has many supporters among the senior clergy here.

    Archbishop Niederauer was \”known\” to be opposed to the Extraordinary form/etc. as was his Chancellor, Father Padezewski, also \”known\” to be an \”enemy\”. In the event, neither man lived up (down?) to that reputation. In his reply to my letter, which was nearly instantaneous as Church matters go, the Archbishop was extremely gracious and indicated that I must understand that, while he had to consult with several people, he \”thought that we could do this\”. And indeed he did. Both the Archbishop and the Chancellor have been extremely supportive at every opportunity. So much for \”enemies\”.

    The Archbishop did gently but firmly take me to the \”woodshed\” over a statement in my letter which referred to the sequence directed in Summorum Pontificum, wherein we are to first go to our Pastor and who is asked to accomodate us if possible, but who immediately referred me to the Archbishop: \”I know what the Pope wants, but the Archbishop is my boss\”. In my letter I had noted that the Pastor\’s immediate reference of me to the Archbishop was \”somewhat different from the current law\”. His return letter to me referenced several points of Canon Law: he suggested they required him to harmonize the Motu Proprio to his responsibilities and authority.

    With considerable respect, and having re-read the Letter to Bishops which accompanied the Motu Proprio (but which I understand does not have quite the level of authority of the MP), the MP itself, and the referenced points of Canon Law, I am presumptuous enough, as a non canon-lawyer, to disagree with His Excellency: my read is, that while the MP does allow legal responsibility and authority for the liturgy to remain with the bishops as before, but it is to be always in accord with the universal law contained in the MP. Thus, with the greatest of my newfound respect, it seems to me that the situation is reversed: the authority and responsibility of the bishop must be harmonized with the law of the Motu Proprio, and not vice versa. I expect this dichotomy, if there is one, to be cleared up in time.

    There are several lessons here. People \”known\” to be the \”enemy\” may not be either. The world, and not just the Catholic world, is often uncomfortable with change. It’s at least ironic, isn’t it, that a Mass celebrated for close to twenty centuries should be considered “change”. Just as we \”Trads\” have subsets: those who won\’t go to a Church where a Novus Ordo is performed; or who won\’t receive Holy Communion from Hosts not Consecrated at a Extraordinary form/etc Mass; or otherwise have a mind-set that implies a Novus Ordo isn\’t licit, (and so can be seen by equally convinced Catholics as insulting to their Mass and therefore to them) so those that attend Novus Ordo\’s might feel about us. Father Zuhlsdorf\’s five prescriptions to us about our attitude need to be followed.

    Every one of the Petaluma congregation, with only the exception of a very few who espouse a more or less sedevacantist theme, moved to the new venue, despite inconvenience. A tribute goes to Father Young for that. Father Young argued that the good of the Church required the move. The congregation agreed.

    Over time, there will be more Extraordinary

    [May I digress here for just a moment? You, Father Zuhlsdorf, complain consistently and properly about the use of the term \"Latin Mass\" to identify the form. But the Council of Trent solemnly proclaimed the Mass, used at the time and still by us, as \"rooted in the time of the Apostles\". While it might be impractical to add yet another, but this time not erroneous, title as the \"Mass of the Apostles\" or the \"Apostolic Mass\"; why not? The Council of Trent proclaimed it so. The Novus Ordo proclaimed itself as the NO. Why not differentiate them by what the Concilium and Trent did? A \"Mass of the Apostles\" gives a proper time dimension which \"Tridentine\", or anything else, doesn\'t.]

    (continued from above) – Masses in the area. Some will come in the Petaluma area, and over time in the remainder of Sonoma County and the Diocese of Santa Rosa, and it will happen despite the expressed feelings of the Pastor of the most significant Church in the area: \”Over my dead body\”. Some of the Marinwood people will divert which is OK. If a reasonable time pertains before that happens they will have been replaced by San Rafael and Novato residents. My personal hope for immediate expansion in the Santa Rosa Diocese is to a parish in the northern part of Sonoma, which would provide time for Marinwood to develop.