It is one thing to make a mistake, that’s human. But to persist in error over a long a period of time,… that is harder to grasp.
I got an e-mail from a reader including a scan of a letter received from H.E. Most Rev. Roger L. Schweitz, Archbishop of Anchorage.
It seems His Excellency is still laboring under the false impression that Summorum Pontificum requires certain things, or that the 1962 Missale Romanum must not be used except when certain criteria are met. To wit…
1. The 1962 Roman Missal must be celebrated will all of the rubrics in place; These would include a sanctuary that has 3 steps, an altar rail, and an altar that does not face the people and is permanently attached to a wall;
2. The priest must use all of the approximately 400 rubrics required for a licit and valid celebration of the Mass;
3. The priest must be able to use the Latin language in the appropriate fashion;
4. All of the vestments must be those approved for the 1962 Roman Missal;
5. There must be a stable community that desires and will benefit from the celebration of the 1962 Rite.
Incredible, no?
The thing is, His Excellency wrote this before and on 25 February WDTPRS wrote about him writing it.
I am sure that many of you readers can pick this apart and show, perhaps better I, how simply wrong are the impressions of the person who wrote this for the Archbishop.
However, we can have a couple brief comments.
1) Of course the rubrics must be observed! That applies to the 2002 Missale Romanum also! I wonder how stringently that is being observed? But neither 3 steps nor an altar fixed to the wall are obligatory for the celebration of the older Mass.
2) 400 rubrics? Big deal! The Novus Ordo has rubrics too. Priests could learn them before. They can learn them now.
3) I should hope the priest wouldn’t use Latin in an inappropriate fashion! Quod Deus avertat!
4) Approved vestments… so? Again, big deal. But, who would say that if you don’t follow all the rubrics the Mass is invalid? If, for example, I forget to say a Gloria on the day of a saint that should have a Gloria, will the Mass be invalid? If I forget to omit blessing the water during a Requiem, the Mass is invalid? What if I omit a geneflection or two because I have a broken leg?
5) The "stable community" issue must not be so strictly interpreted so that nobody can have it.
Loading ...
I was under the impression in the 1962 Missal the Altar is not allowed to be attached to a wall. Even in my parish church as a kid I noticed the High Altar is a few inches away from the wall. Could you confirm this for me, Father?
What does he mean by approved vestments anyway? The maniple is prescribed by the missal, presumably. Is the biretta mandatory or optional? It wouldn’t be the end of the world if both were ommitted, I’m sure, if they weren’t to hand.
And the amice too, I suppose.
I think he might be thinking about Roman chasubles, as if these are somehow tied to the rite.
Braadwijk,
Both a free standing and an attached altar are allowed in the 1962 Missale Romanum. There are also 2 diagrams at the front of the Missale Romanum, one showing how to incense an attached altar and one showing how to incense a free standing altar.
Peter,
The biretta is no longer of obligation for the ministers or for those in choir. The maniple and the amice are though. Roman vestments are no longer of obligation either.
Perhaps the clarification document will be coming our way “soon” and put these issues to rest. This is obviously a Bishop (or lower level aparatchik)that doesn’t read blogs. Or Papal documents for that matter.
Peter,
Just so that there is no misunderstanding, the amice and maniple are of obligation for the vested ministers. Obviously the people in choir wouldn’t wear a maniple or amice. Also if someone who is an instituted acolyte is acting as a subdeacon he wouldn’t wear a maniple or a biretta.
Hello, fellow Catholic while we’re talking abot rubrics,
I was reading the missal for the Papal visit and mass in Washington and noticed an error in the consecration. Could you please ask the why is the Liturgy changed during the Mass. The words of the concsecration are wrong,
They read, “Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood,the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.” The words ‘for all’ are scripturally incorrect. Has anyone noticed this? Below are two sources which say otherwise.
Douay-Rheims —28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
King James—28: For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Here is how it appears in Latin in the Missale Romanum 1962: Hic est enim Calix Sánguinis mei, novi et ætérni testaménti; mystérium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundétur in remissiónem peccatórum.
English-Latin Dictionary- (all –totus, quislibet, omnis, cunctus)
English-Latin Dictionary- (many–multi, plures, plura)
Bernardo,
Unfortunately the text you gave is correct. It is the currently approved translation for the USA (albeit incorrect). The Holy See though has stated that any further approved translations must have a correct translation of “pro multis” for the particular language concerned. Hence in English, our new translation that will be coming in a year or two will say “for many.” But for now “for all” must be used if saying Mass in English.
oh please !
the ‘all’ used in the vernacular ordinary form of the rite cannot be considered as congruent with omnis;
as it is within an exclusive limited conditional context – the pro multis is conditional also ; and thus both become logically coherent as terminologically concordant : “all whose” /”the many whose”.
Your argument is specious : the arrogant sedevacantists should know better ; as should anyone who would ever believe cardinal Ottaviani [or for that Matter the Holy Spirit] would permit anything other than a valid consecration within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
perhaps if you spent a little more time on things where the US ICEL translation is so wrong it verges on heresy [e.g. Homoousios does not mean One in Being or even One in Substance] or taking a stand against the reprehensible NAB translation used in liturgies solely because the USCCB has the copyright – your arguments might be a little more credible.
Father, I can answer your question as to how rigourously the Roman Missal rubrics are followed here in Anchorage; not very! Unnecessary use of extraordinary ministers are s-o-p at every Mass,(they are routinely referred to as “eucharistic ministers” by priests and even in our archbishop’s latest published statement regarding Summorum Pontificum, they ascend the altar for glad-handing at the time of the sign of peace instead of waiting till after the priest has received. The dress code for most in my parish seems to be jeans. The great majority of churches in Anchorage archdiocese don’t have a sacrarium. The pastor at Holy Family Cathedral intones (by means of the microphone) the words “God’s Church” instead of “His Church” during the suscipiat prayer. Recently he invited the pro-abortion Catholic mayor of Anchorage (who is expected to announce his candidacy for U.S. Senate soon)into the Cathedral sanctuary for a forum on homelessness. The altar was pushed back to make way for the moderator’s table, and the Blessed Sacrament removed (the tabernacle baracaded with kneelers) – on Easter Monday. (See http://www.nihilautem.blogspot.com/) At another parish, the choir sings a song of their choosing instead of the responsorial psalm (or freely reword it a la Luther). These are only some of the abuses of the Anchorage area, I hear things have been much worse in the Juneau diocese, and the Fairbanks diocese has just declared bankrupcy due to abuse settlements. Liturgical life is frozen in the seventies up here! Please pray for us.
P.S. Our bishop’s used the same excuse twice; please see http://www.summorumpontificumak.blogspot.com/ for complete history.
On No. 4, while the amice and maniple are necessary, I am not sure that their omission will make the Mass illicit, and only a brainless dolt would think that it would cause invalidity, so we must assume that this directive came from a chancery hack in Archbishop Schwietz’s office. These vestments were removed before 1970, when the 1962 Mass was still in force. Presumably, if the bishop permits their omission locally, they would not make the Mass illicit, although faithful have a right to see to it that the situation be rectified (e.g by acquiring these vestments if they are missing).
On No. 5, while I agree with Fr. Z. entirely in his response to this, once again, he does not go far enough. He seems to be afraid to assert the whole truth of the matter, which I have now reiterated over and over again. Be not afraid, Fr. Zuhlsdorf!
If you look carefully at (a) Article 1 of S.P., which establishes a general permission for priests to celebrate the old Mass and (b) Canon 837.1, which says that all Masses are public by definition [and that, therefore, not-regularly scheduled Masses are an exception, not any rule] and (c) the parish priest’s celebret to celebrate Mass regularly and freely in the parish to which he is assigned and (d) Section 1 of Article 5, which is NOT restrictive to the presence of ANY group, it follows logically that the parish priest can proceed to schedule public parish Masses in the Traditional Rite even if not one single soul asks for this. That is EXACTLY what happened for our new T.L.M. in my Diocese of Victoria. The Parish Priest authorised and is celebrating a public parish Mass every Sunday in response to ABSOLUTELY NO request to do so from even one parishioner: he proceeded *entirely* on his own. While he did seek the Bishop’s blessing for this (and got it), the decision was his alone and nobody asked him to do this.
It amazes me how Section 1 of Article 5 confuses everyone from Altar boys to cardinals. Nitwits see the reference to a stably-existing group and instantly conclude illogically that, well, there must be such a group lodging such a request in order to authorise a Mass. Not so, and I suspect that they find a restriction because they are looking for one. I challenge Fr. Zuhlsdorf (not that he would disagree) or anyone on this blog to show me any Latin word or phrase from this Section which translates to the English word ‘only’. There isn’t one. NOWHERE does Section 1 of Article 5 say that the priest may ONLY proceed if a stably-existing group lodges a request. It ‘only’ (hah!) says that, should such a group exist in the parish, and should it launch such a request, the Parish Priest must consider this willingly.
Where, I ask, is the restriction in Section 1? Where does it require the existence of any group of anyone? It does not. Clearly, just as Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has now said publicly twice, if a Parish Priest has a celebret from his bishop and wants to schedule the old Mass as a regular parish Mass, he can do so even if not one single soul has even dreamed of this. Under current law, he should not proceed unless there is one other person present (Canon 906), so he might have to ask for one to come. So he needs one person present to proceed. He can then celebrate that Mass for his own benefit and the benefit of the one or two who show up and he can continue doing so as a regularly scheduled public Mass which is announced every single week in the bulletin. If these Masses are listed as ‘every Sunday’ in the bulletin, they are not Masses ‘sine populo’ with invited guests under Articles 2 and 4; no, they are ‘public’ Masses under Article 5 at which it just so happens by chance that only one faithful appeared.
So, then, why make a distinction between the Masses in Section 5 and those in Sections 2 and 4? It is because the various restrictions listed in Section 5 do not all pertain to those of Sections 2 and 4. For example, the priest praying a not-regularly scheduled Mass (formerly called private) need not be ‘qualified’ and need not be able to pronounce the Latin accurately. Clearly, Sections 2 and 4 were put there to provide a way for priests to learn the old Mass before scheduling it in the parish bulletin. That is exactly what Bishop Rifan suggested in July of last year.
I suspect that the provisions of Sections 2 and 4 were put there partly because current law makes them necessary. You see, if every priest has a general right to celebrate the old Mass, and if, once ordained to the sacred priesthood, every cleric has a right to celebrate in his own lingu sacra, Latin (cf. 928 and general law of immemorial custom)–even if, through negligence, he was not trained in Latin in seminary–it follows that the law itself cannot forbid any priest to celebrate the old Mass.
The law can put restrictions on a priest which make it impossible to celebrate the old Mass in practice. This is because the number of canonical hours and sacred places is limited, and the faithful have a general right to benefit from the New Mass. But there cannot be IN PRINCIPLE, a rule forbidding any priest to use an unabrogated Rite in the universal tongue of his sui juris Church. No way, José. A lack of seminary training in Latin may prevent a priest from *scheduling* a regular Mass at a sacred place where he has immediate jurisdiction, but it can’t stop him from celebrating the old Mass in Latin under all circumstances. No can do. We win.
P.K.T.P.
P.S. Be not afraid, Fr. Zuhlsdorf (and then I shall try to avoid this fear I have of my scanner).
[Fr Z: You need to write very much shorter comments.]
In regard to the specific case of Anchorage, I understand that Fr. Armand Nigro was prepared to proceed with the old Latin Mass months ago. Archbishop Schweitz at first asked him to start with a N.O. in Latin. This idea was apparently forgotten later on. I don’t see why Fr. Nigro cannot simply proceed. He is not a parish priest but I understand that he is a rector (cf. Article 5, Section 5) of Holy Spirit Center and knows how to celebrate the old Mass. What the hell is wrong up there?
P.K.T.P.
THE QUESTION
Estimada señora Jorgelina Álvarez
Integrantes de la comisión Asociación Civil
Escuela Hogar María Jáuregui de Pradêre:
De nuestra mayor consideración:
Somos un grupo de personas pertenecientes todos a la Iglesia Católica Romana, de diferentes lugares de la diócesis de San Isidro (Tigre, San Fernando Victoria , San Isidro, Acasusso, Olivos, etc.) que por comunes intereses por la música sacra, el canto gregoriano, el estudio de la lengua latina y nuestro común aprecio por el rito del Misal Romano en el uso antiguo (Misal del Concilio de Trento promulgado por el Papa San Pío V y nuevamente promulgado en 1962 por el Beato Papa Juan XXIII) hemos establecido vínculos de amistad.
A partir de la publicación de la Carta Apostólica Motu Proprio data “Summorum Pontificum”, de Su Santidad el Papa Benedicto XVI del día 7 de julio de 2007, autorizando un uso más amplio del rito, nos hemos puesto en contacto con diferentes sacerdotes y parroquias a fin de poder realizar la celebración de la Misa.
Lamentablemente debido al desconocimiento por parte de muchos sacerdotes, el tiempo fue pasando sin poder conseguir a la persona indicada. Finalmente desde hace algunos meses hemos hablado con un obispo emérito que conoce muy bien el rito para la celebración de la Misa según el uso antiguo y, a nuestro pedido, está dispuesto celebrarla.
Salvada esta primera dificultad, al orientar nuestro esfuerzo a la búsqueda de un templo, parroquia o capilla para la celebración, nos encontramos con el inconveniente de que todas las parroquias y capillas de la zona tienen sus horarios de sábados por la tarde o domingos ocupados.
En conocimiento de que esa institución posee una pequeña pero hermosísima Capilla y que actualmente no se usa en dichos horarios nos dirigimos a usted(es) a fin de solicitarle(s), tengan la bondad de recibir favorablemente nuestro pedido y facilitarnos su uso para la celebración regular de la Santa Misa.
Dichas celebraciones en principio serían oficiadas por Monseñor Antonio Juan Baseotto aunque hay algunos otros sacerdotes interesados tanto en celebrar como en asistir para aprender a hacerlo.
El horario puede ser a elección de usted(es) de acuerdo a lo que más sencillo les resulte: sábados por la tarde o domingos cerca de mediodía. También podría ser los domingos por la tarde.
Queremos poner en vuestro conocimiento que por ser todos personas con una formación sólidamente católica aseguramos tanto el decoro en el desarrollo de la celebración, como el debido respeto al ámbito sagrado.
Por lo demás disponemos de la mayoría de los elementos necesarios para la celebración (misal, sacras, cirios, hostias, vino, incienso, manteles, libros para los fieles, etc) ocupándonos también de dejar todo en su debido orden, por lo cual nuestra presencia pasará prácticamente inadvertida para aquellas personas que la mantienen en buen estado.
Además, y como corresponde, haremos la correspondiente contribución del modo y medida que usted(es) nos lo indique(n) a fin de no resultar onerosos y colaborar con la buena obra que esa casa realiza.
Agradeciendo desde ya su favorable repuesta, quedamos a su entera disposición para cualquier aclaración o duda.
En nombre propio y del grupo, con mi más alta estima y respeto, los saludo en Cristo y María Santísima.
Paulo Javier Arroyo San Fernando, Provincia de Buenos Aires.
THE ANSWER
Estimado Sr Arroyo
La comision Damas de la Providencia, se acerco al Obispado con la inquietud de la posibilidad de oficiar misas en la Capilla, y Monseñor Casaretto le pide a Monseñor Baseotto que se comunique con el, espero podamos seguir en contacto y llegar a un acuerdo favorable
atte Jorgelina Alvarez
THE BISHOP´S ANSWER… REALLY IS: nooooooo in my dioceis !!!!
It seems to me that very few side altars in any church have three steps…
When Archbishop Schweitz was the pastor of a parish in Duluth, Minn., where he later served as a bishop, he would not permit access to the records of his parish for genealogical purposes.
That is pretty unusual.
He is a member of the order of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (O.M.I.). I believe that their priory might be in Canada.
Might that be a reason why he takes some of his positions?
Does this mean all those Masses celebrated on the hoods of jeeps in wartime were invalid?
http://www.usachcs.army.mil/history/brief/KorJeepSvc.jpg
http://www.ematrimony.org/images/Fr-Len–1951-Jeep-mass_lg.jpg
Discussion of pro multis has NOTHING to do with this entry.
I will delete further off topic comments.
oh please !
the ‘all’ used in the vernacular ordinary form of the rite cannot be considered as congruent with omnis;
I think you mean the ablative form omnibus not omnis.
2as it is within an exclusive limited conditional context – the pro multis is conditional also ; and thus both become logically coherent as terminologically concordant : “all whose” /”the many whose”.
The Latin “pro multis” is a translation of the Greek “peri pollon” (cf. the phrase “hoi polloi”). To me the best translation is for “the multitude”. But “for all” is terrible for the following reasons.
1. The phrase mirrors Mt 20:28, that the Son of Man “came . . . to give His life as a ransom (Latin: redemptio) for many”. It is not an indication of how many are saved.
2. Christ died for all.
3. But various texts of the NT indicate that the number saved might actually be “a few” (Lk 13:23-24). St. Thomas is of the opinion that the number saved is rather few (pauciores sunt qui salvantur)—ST, I, 23, 7, ad 3.
4. To me “pro multis” is analogical. It includes both the principle that Christ died for all and the possibility that not all (or even rather few) will be saved.
5. One of the Fathers says that the “pro multis” at the Last Supper indicates “pro multis gentibus” (for many nations or peoples), that Christ’s sacrifice is not just for those present, nor only for the Jews, but also for non Jews.
perhaps if you spent a little more time on things where the US ICEL translation is so wrong it verges on heresy [e.g. Homoousios does not mean One in Being or even One in Substance] or taking a stand against the reprehensible NAB translation used in liturgies solely because the USCCB has the copyright – your arguments might be a little more credible.
Comment by Paul Priest
You’re right about “One in Being”, but not so much so with “One in Substance”, which is fairly close to homoousion. Consubstantial would of course be better.
The problem is that the Greek word hypostasis translates literally as the Latin substantia, but in fact means suppositum (the individual thing). On the other hand, ousia, which means universal essence or nature, actually is used the way we use substantia.
The more that the applicability of post-1962 rubrics, female altar servers, extraordinary lay ministers and other new laws are considered dubious (as opposed to absurd), the more these sorts of rules become desirable.
I would welcome these rules in my diocese. I would not have said so six months ago.
Perhaps priests in Anchorage should begin installing altar rails and ad orientem altars with three steps…
In regard to the comments of Ray from Minnesota:
I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you wondering if the Canadian connexion of the O.M.I. might cause Archbishop Schweitz to be hostile to the 1962 Mass?
If so, I’d say that that is an interesting possibility. Access up here in Canada is much worse than it is in the U.S.A., and wild liberalism is much more ingrained up here. To give you an example, since publication of S.P., only one Canadian diocese (my own) has gained the old Mass every Sunday, whereas 27 have in the U.S.A. The O.M.I. once provided missionary priests (and bishops) for all the Northern areas, which were once vicariates apostolic. I believe that the order has declined much in recent decades.
P.K.T.P.
Incidentally, Father, you seemed to have deleted my comment on pro multis, which was not that long. Keep in mind that I certainly didn’t start the debate. Two other posters mentioned the whole thing: I only responded to them. Still, I am satisfied with RBrown’s response to the others.
P.K.T.P.
The maniple was made optional in the 1962 Missal, though it is customary to wear one.
Michael C.
Respectfully, I believe that the maniple was made optional in the Instruction “Tres abhinc annos” (Second Instruction on the orderly carrying out of the Constitution on the Liturgy) which was promulgated on May 4, 1967 by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. Prior to that document I believe the maniple was a required vestment for celebration of Mass. This was during the “interim” period immediately following the Council and prior to the promulgation of the Missal of Paul VI.
So, I believe it is incorrect to state that the maniple was made optional in the 1962 Missal.
P.K.T.P.
“Are you wondering if the Canadian connexion of the O.M.I. might cause Archbishop Schweitz to be hostile to the 1962 Mass?”
That’s exactly what I was wondering. Thank you for contributing your perspective on the issue.
And, if you have a blog, I would appreciate learning your perspective on the entire Canadian Catholic Church (if there is one still in existence). I am aware of the Winnipeg Statement/Vote.
Since Cardinal George,president of the USCCB,is also an Oblate of Mary Immaculate,are any further inferences to be drawn?
To Bailely Walker:
No, I believe that the maniple was completely abolished by Tres Abhinc Annos, 1967, not made optional. I am wondering very much about the status of Tres Abhinc Annos under S.P. S.P. only purports to replace the norms of “Quattuor Abhinc Annos” and “Ecclesia Dei Adflicta”. But I think that the alterations of 1965 do not imply. I seems likely that, the reference specifically to the editio typica of 1962 means that all the liturgical laws then in place are carried with it. No doubt, this could be a dubium sent to the P.C.E.D.
P.K.T.P.
Dear Ray from Minnesota:
While I am a wild exception to the rule, the average Canadian is much quieter than his American neighbour. My sense of things is that the Church in Canada is moving very gradually and very quietly to the ‘centre’, away from the far left of the past. The architects of the Winnipeg Statement were Cardinals Carter, Flahiff, and Plourde, and Bishops Alexander Carter and, above all, the arch-liberal Remi De Roo of my Diocese of Victoria (thank God I grew up in Toronto). Of these, only Plourde and De Roo are still living, and both of them are now retired. There is a local joke here that De Roo sits in his apartment next to a telephone covered in cobwebs. It is a reference to his planned trip after retirement, to Atlanta, Georgia, to speak in favour of womanpriest. Pope John Paul II ordered him to turn around and go home–and he surprised many by obeying.
After the financial scandal which lost the Diocese $18,000,000 because of his incompetence–or worse–he is now a loney figure in sandals, aged 84. Gone is his attachment to Sandanista rebels in Nicaragua. Those days are gone. De Roo was the driving force behind the Winnipeg Statement, which essentially told faithful that they could ignore Humanæ Vitæ. He was also responsible for mishandling the abortion issue in 1969. He represented the Canadian bishops in the debate at Ottawa. He said that, in the end, legislators must rely on their consciences. What he did *not* say on the Church’s position was the major problem. Anyway, the result was de facto abortion on demand.
Our Cardinal Archbishop of Québec, is a good friend of the Pope and he is, in my view, even papabile. The Pope has been gradually placing conservatives in Canadian sees. One of the best examples is Bishop Munro of Kamloops. Nevertheless, compared to the U.S.A., this Dominion is a hotbed of wild leftism in the Church and without, especially in the chanceries (vicars-general and so on). It will take time to change all that. So Schweitz’s O.M.I. Canadian connexion may very well be influencing him.
Incidentally, before the 1960s, Canada was more conservative than the U.S.A., believe it or not. And the Gaspé area of Québec was possibly the most conservative part of the entire Church, rivalled by such places as the Vendée in France and rural Portugal. When the 1960s came, with Pierre Elliott Trudeau, we went from one extreme to the other.
P.K.T.P.
P.K.T.P.
Thank you very, very much. Being from Duluth, I was very familiar with my quiet neighbors to the north. But I spent 1960 to 1981 away from the Church, mostly because of sloth. So imagine my shock when I began my reversion when I started to heard clarion cries of rebellion from across Lake of the Woods.
Google informed me about the Winnipeg Statement, but not much else. You have enlightened me considerably. I’m glad to hear that changes are in process. I understand that Popes aren’t in the habit of kicking — and taking names. That’s one way the Church has lasted.
In the Twin Cities archdiocese, we have our world famous rebels too. And our archbishop has treated them gingerly, just like the way Rome is treating Canada.
I’ve come to understand that the one thing that terrifies Rome and chanceries more than anything is schism.
No, I believe that the maniple was completely abolished by Tres Abhinc Annos, 1967, not made optional.
Comment by Peter Karl T. Perkins
It was made optional.
Hello,
I live about 25 miles north of Anchorage, AK and would be willing to drive to the Retreat Center (just under an hour’s drive in good weather) if the AB would allow Fr Nigro to say the TLM there. Anything closer would be a bonus. Would that qualify me to be a member of this nebulous “stable community”?
Also, re the “waiting to hear from Rome” for clarification . . . I used to work for the federal government. We used to say we were “waiting to hear from headquarters” when it was not politically correct to say what we really meant: “over my dead and bleeding body”.
I’ve given up on trying to argue with this particular AB. I just pray that he’ll see the light or be transferred. If not for his opposition, I believe the church location and the Latin problems would solve themselves because priests wouldn’t be afraid to potentially offend him. I pray for the two who have had the courage to volunteer to try.
isabella