D. of Gaylord: TLM update – an amazing attitude of restriction continues

Do you remember the very weird story that came from the Diocese of Gaylord some time ago?

Last August, it was announced that all Masses in the Diocese of Gaylord must be in English.   So, much for the Summorum Pontificum, right?   Then there was a clarification from the Director of Communications for the diocese (where do they get these people anyway?) saying that, "of course we are not against Summorum Pontificum!  But there can’t be Masses in Latin without permission of the bishop, and you can’t have Masses with English and Latin, and no, this doesn’t mean you can’t have Masses in Spanish," blah, blah….  Effectively it sounded as if perhaps someone was trying to prevent a mixture of RITES, and the people involved had a hard time grasping that the Novus Ordo is also to be celebrated in Latin.  You know the drill. Anyway, there was a lot of confusion.

Now we get this news.  This is posted on the website of the Diocese of Gaylord.

Extraordinary Form of Mass
 
Bishop Patrick R. Cooney has announced that the extraordinary form of the Mass will be offered publicly beginning on Pentecost, May 11, 2008. Fr. Donald Libby will be the presider [That means "celebrant" for most of us.] for a weekly celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal, often [incorrectly] referred to as “the Latin Mass.” [This is what got them into trouble in the first place.  Proper terms can really help.] The Mass will be offered at Holy Rosary Church in Cedar on Sundays at 12:45 p.m. unless Fr. Libby is away or unavailable. Fr. Libby is currently the only priest qualified to offer the Mass publicly in the Diocese of Gaylord.  [Who says he is the only one " qualified"?]

In July 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued his Apostolic Letter addressed restrictions on the use of the Latin-language liturgy that predates the Second Vatican Council. The Mass from the post-Vatican II Roman Missal remains the ordinary form of the Mass, while Mass according to the 1962 Missal is the extraordinary form.  [Two things.  First, Summorum Pontificum didn’t just "address restrictions".  Interesting choice of language, no?   SP lifted restrictions.  Also, set in the context of the bizarre approach to Latin they showed last year in Gaylord, note that the writer seems fixated on the issue Latin.]

“There were some logistical things to work out to make this possible – including being sure we had a priest prepared to properly celebrate this Mass,” said Bishop Cooney. “I believe the Holy Father’s intention is to try to bring healing to those who have felt hurt because of their devotion to this earlier form of the liturgy.”  [In that case His Excellency should spend some time in a closer reading of Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter.  He is not taking into account that there are people who simply prefer the older form of Mass.  They also have rights and Summorum Pontificum is as much about them as anyone.  I also have firmly in mind what Card. Castrillon Hoyos has said recently, namely, that the older form of Mass should be used in parishes, even if a request has not been made.  Also, remember that priests do not need permission to use the 1962 MissaleSummorum Pontificum is for priests as well as lay people.]

The major differences between the ordinary and extraordinary forms of Mass individuals will notice are the priest’s orientation during the liturgy and the use of Latin.  [Unbelievable.  This is wrong.  First, the normative language of the Novus Ordo is Latin.  No priest needs permission to say Mass in the language of his Rite.  Also, the Novus Ordo rubrics presuppose that the Mass is celebrated ad orientem.  At the same time the older, TLM form of Mass can also be celebrated versus populum.  The major difference between the forms of Mass are the texts of the prayers and some of the prescribed actions of the priest and sacred ministers, as well as the greater space for silence.]

Prior to the Second Vatican Council, a church’s altar was placed against the wall at the back of the sanctuary. The Second Vatican Council decreed that a church’s altar should be placed in a central location in the sanctuary, allowing a priest to face the congregation. (GIRM, 2002, paragraphs 299-301)   [No.  This is false.  It is unbelievable that this is still going on.  The Congregation for Divine Worship issued an official clarification about GIRM 299, which was (probably purposely) mistranslated in the USCCB’s BCL’s document Built of Living Stones.  WDTPRS has covered this here.]

Some other differences include the role of altar servers, the liturgical calendar, what Scriptures are proclaimed, and possibly the vestments worn. In the extraordinary form, Communion is distributed only under the species of Consecrated Bread, usually at a communion rail.
A few months ago, Fr. Duane Wachowiak, Director of the Secretariat for Worship and Liturgical Formation, arranged for a priest from Chicago who is trained in Latin and the extraordinary form of Mass to come to the area for five days to train priests who wished to celebrate this Mass publicly.

“Dioceses throughout the country were faced with the same dilemma,” said Fr. Wachowiak. “Not many of us ministering now are skilled in Latin and in this form of the Mass. The focus of these trainings being offered nationwide is to certify that those offering the Mass publicly know Latin, the rubrics of the Mass and are able to “pray” the Mass and not simply recite the Latin words.”

“It is important that whoever offers this Mass knows what it is he is saying and praying,” noted Bishop Cooney.  [A laudable aspiration.  I would not want to try to test this, however.  You might wind up with the conclusion that many priests have no idea what the English texts mean.]

Any priest may celebrate the extraordinary form of Mass in private, even with others in attendance, but that is his private Mass. Times of private Masses are not announced. The Mass being offered at Cedar starting on Pentecost will be a public Mass and may be announced through bulletins and other means that it is available for those who wish to attend.
|
Along with the announcement of the availability of the Mass, a set of guidelines was published by Bishop Cooney. [It would be very good to see these guidelines.] Some of the entries in the norms for this diocese remind the people who attend that they have the obligation to be registered and participating parishioners in a Roman Catholic parish, either Holy Rosary or another.  [HUH?  Does this mean that some person who is, perhaps, a follower of the SSPX and therefore not registered in a parish is NOT WELCOME?  What about a young non-practicing Lutheran who might be curious about what is going on?   This in incredible.  What are they going to do?  Check ID cards and match them against a database?  Dein Auweis, bitte!]

Another norm is that the extraordinary form is to be offered in addition to the ordinary form of Mass celebrated in the parish because the post-Vatican II form of Mass is still the one that takes precedence. In this context, the term “extraordinary” is meant to mean “other” rather than to place it as being of higher rank.   [Good heavens.  Who writes this stuff?  If "Extraordinary" means "other" (and it doesn’t) then it means neither "of higher rank" nor "of lower rank".]

“Regardless of which form is being used, it must follow the guidelines for that particular Missal,” added Fr. Wachowiak. “A priest cannot use some of one and some of the other in a single Mass. He has to follow either the ordinary or extraordinary form.”

In addition, procedures for the financial aspects are also addressed in the norms. For example, an individual attending the extraordinary form of the Mass in Cedar may deposit their own parish envelope in the collection and it is to be forwarded to the respective parish. Any loose collection will be channeled through Holy Rosary’s bookkeeping system as it is the parish of Holy Rosary who pays the priest’s salary and benefits and maintains the building to hold the Mass. [Oh my.  This is going to stir some conversation.]

The complete set of norms may be viewed on the diocesan website at www.dioceseofgaylord.org.

“While I was attending the training held for Fr. Libby, I was able to see the many connections between the ordinary and the extraordinary forms of Mass,” stated Fr.Wachowiak. “I was able to better understand some of the terms and phrases used by many older folks who grew up attending the Mass that began with the Council of Trent.”

Fr. Michael Janowski remains pastor of Holy Rosary along with St. Mary, Lake Leelanau, St. Phillip Neri, Empire and St. Rita-St. Joseph, Maple City, and Fr. Libby remains associate pastor of the same parishes. Fr. Janowski is supportive of both Fr. Libby’s willingness to serve the diocese in this capacity as well as those who wish to attend the Mass.

For more information, please contact Fr. Duane Wachowiak at the diocese at 989.732.5147.

 
I looked for the "norms" on the diocesan website but couldn’t find them.

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.

33 Responses to D. of Gaylord: TLM update – an amazing attitude of restriction continues

  1. Asperity Ipswich says:

    In addition to the many manifestly wrong canonical and theological statements made by the diocese in this article, I would also point out the following: “I was able to better understand some of the terms and phrases used by many older folks who grew up attending the Mass that began with the Council of Trent.” The Mass that began with the Council of Trent? In all charity, if Father Wachowiak is the “Director of the Secretariat for Worship, etc., etc., etc.,” he should reimburse the diocese for his degree…

  2. xathar says:

    http://auferanobis.blogspot.com/ has an interesting article about potential updates to DC’s rather restrictive rules as well.

  3. TerryC says:

    You just can’t make this kind of stuff up. It’s as if these people think that they can say anything they want and people will believe it, because they have no way to find the truth.
    I see it in my own parish. My pastor, not especially traditional, but very stringent when it comes to following the rubrics for the ordinary form, doesn’t even have a computer which is hooked up to the Internet. The parish secretary prints up his email so he can read it. He never sees anything unless it comes by letter from the diocese or is on MSM. No doubt these folks are a similar breed, who put out letters and directives and don’t realize not only can their laity come here and see the truth, but they put themselves out for public ridicule. Meanwhile they also tell Rome, who I suspect they think has no idea of what they’re doing, exactly how they are ignoring the wishes of the Holy Father.
    Truly clueless.

  4. Patrick says:

    Well, this Bishop submits his retirement request effective March 10 of next year. Perhaps this kind of practice will move His Holiness to send that letter that says, “Well done, good and faithful servant; enter into rest.” That would be Romanese for “Get out!” I still am amazed at how the old guard refuses to admit that there was no rupture intended at Vatican II.

  5. TNCath says:

    Unfortunately, this is very much the mentality of the bishop and the “liturgical police” in my diocese. It’s going to be a long time before we get over the likes of this type of thinking and practice.

  6. Chironomo says:

    There is a strange mixture of half-truths, misinformation and popular opinion mixed together in this memo. I need not state the obvious, that this memo is very carefully crafted for a specific agenda, approving the “Latin Mass” while still seeming to disapprove of Latin in the Mass, maintaining a position that Priests need to be “approved” to say the Mass, setting up a very sharp division between the OF and EF even though the Pope says they are one and the same Rite, bringing back the Red Herring of “understanding the Latin”, and overall maing the process of attending this Mass seem so onerous and convoluted that most will simply not bother. It rather reminds me of the tactics used to prevent Blacks from voting in the South in the early 20th century: Just make it so confusing and difficult that most will not bother to try.

  7. CK says:

    “Not many of us ministering now are skilled in Latin and in this form of the Mass.

    This was also the answer our pastor gave at our parish council meeting when I brought up the fact that several people showed interest in having the EF at our ministry fair. Then the financial officer followed with the exclamation “what moron would want to go back to that” and the pastor sorta grinned.

    I also have firmly in mind what Card. Castrillon Hoyos has said recently, namely, that the older form of Mass should be used in parishes, even if a request has not been made.

    So when so many parishes have attitudes like mine – prejudicial ones – a good way to get around such pastors and for people to at least become better educated in order to make adult decisions would be for every bishop to appoint at least one priest to visit each parish and celebrate an EF with individual parish promotion/preparation, say, a month ahead of time. It may take a while but then every parish would know that the entire diocese was involved through the bishop. So many parishes operate today in isolation, designing operations like a Protestant community – hiring administrators like Protestants do: pleasing to the predominant view of “Church” – and they wind up becoming separated from any knowledge of universal Church happenings and teachings.

    “Regardless of which form is being used, it must follow the guidelines for that particular Missal,” added Fr. Wachowiak. “A priest cannot use some of one and some of the other in a single Mass. He has to follow either the ordinary or extraordinary form.”

    If they acknowledge such ignorance in their priests that they have to even casually mention it here, then these priests really need some sessions in the basics as a whole group. The more they do things with all of the priests in unison the more the fear of “what other priest friends might say” can be overcome. It’s sort of like Cesar Millan’s bringing the fearful/aggressive or neurotic dogs into his stable pack in order for them to become normalized as dogs!!

  8. peretti says:

    Who is their director of communications, Slip Mahoney?

  9. andrew says:

    Some info on Cedar, MI

    Holy Rosary is just under 30 minutes north west of Traverse city.
    It is 1 hour and 45 minutes west of the Cathedral of Gaylord.
    If you find yourself in Cedar, I highly recommend Pleva’s Meats. http://www.plevasmeats.com/
    It is 7 minutes south of Holy Rosary and 0pen Sundays mid June-Oct.12PM-4PM

    NB: I’ve never actually been there; I am just proficient with Google maps. I have however had Pleva’s meats. The Plevalean beef makes the juiciest and healthiest hamburger you will ever eat.

  10. Martha says:

    I have had personal contact and correspondence with Bishop Coooney. May I respectfully say that he is a weasal? Before SP, he absolutely would not permit a TLM in his diocese.

    He ordered the Carmelite Sisters to take down their Communion rail. He will not permit them a Tridentine Mass. He mandates standing for a better part of the Mass, and all through the distribution of Communion. Originally, he told me that a private TLM (one begrudgingly permitted in his diocese)could not be attended by anyone other then the priest’s server!

    Please,please pray for the Carmelite Sisters in Traverse City who have had to endure this bishop.

  11. Martha says:

    Father Libby’s work for the restoration of the TLM in Gaylord, is in my opinion, due in great part to the humble, silent, behind the scenes prayers of a cloistered Carmelite nun in Traverse City. I happen to know that upon his ordination, Fr. Libby’s name was given to this Sister, who is traditonal-minded, and greatly desire the TLM for her monastery. These good Sisters lead a penitential life like you wouldn’t believe. Please, help them in turn with your prayers and sacrifices so that they will also have the TLM.

  12. David says:

    Interestingly, the Gaylord diocese’s Vatican-based Father Daniel Gallagher recently celebrated the TLM for 60 seminarians at the Pontifical North American College. Father Gallagher, a native of Pittsburgh, PA, has taught Latin at Detroit’s seminary.

  13. RBrown says:

    “Not many of us ministering now are skilled in Latin and in this form of the Mass.

    This was also the answer our pastor gave at our parish council meeting when I brought up the fact that several people showed interest in having the EF at our ministry fair. Then the financial officer followed with the exclamation “what moron would want to go back to that” and the pastor sorta grinned.
    Comment by CK

    What moron would want to go back to that? The obvious answer is Pope Benedict XVI.

  14. RosieC says:

    First off, it does seem like some people TRY to not understand what is being said to them and what is going on around them. It seems odd that some people seem to work so hard at being obtuse.

    On the other hand, maybe this is what the “bricks” look like in this diocese.

  15. RBrown says:

    “Dioceses throughout the country were faced with the same dilemma,” said Fr. Wachowiak. “Not many of us ministering now are skilled in Latin and in this form of the Mass. The focus of these trainings being offered nationwide is to certify that those offering the Mass publicly know Latin, the rubrics of the Mass and are able to “pray” the Mass and not simply recite the Latin words.”

    “It is important that whoever offers this Mass knows what it is he is saying and praying,” noted Bishop Cooney.

    I agree with both Bp Cooney and Fr Wachowiak.

    And the fact that Bp Cooney’s priests don’t know Latin, the study of which is mandated by Vat II (Optatam Totius) and the CIC, is a grand example of his own episcopal negligence.

  16. RBrown says:

    One of the great ironies of all this is that liberals, who consider themselves so enlightened and sensitive to social justice and the plight of the Third World, now are resisting the moves of this pope, whose was elected to a great extent because of the votes of Third World Cardinals.

  17. Richard says:

    I find it amazing that before the Motu Propio that you never saw dioceses being this strict about whether or not people were registered at a particular parish. For years I attended a parish which insisted making changes to the liturgy and to what sort of language was used when making announcements and commentating during the Mass in order to make non-Catholic Christians and then Muslims feel more welcome at the parish. Do you think that these peoples (who weren’t exactly breaking the doors down to get into the church, to begin with) were actually registered at the parish? What if folks wanted to drive across town to attend such an inclusive parish? Do you think they were asked if that parish were in the territory in which they lived and at which they should be registered? Double standards now abound.

  18. pdt says:

    The tone of this discussion bothers me. Shouldn’t we set aside our petty – or even non-petty – criticism and instead celebrate the reintroduction of the EF in one more diocese?

  19. EDG says:

    The laypeople in dioceses like this did what we were supposed to do – we filled out the petitions, we jumped through all the hoops, people even changed their parish membership so they would meet some mystical numerical level for approval. And for all that, the petitions went nowhere. He didn’t even give us the courtesy of responding.

    I think that SP was addressed to the priests, and that we laity were supposed to support them through this strategy, which the bishops have found many creative ways of defeating. The latest things from Rome indicate that the priests are supposed to be even freer to do celebrate the EF. However, how much freedom do they actually have to do this?

    There will, of course, be repercussions to them. I am seeing orthodox priests who were planning to celebrate the EF as soon as they got approval of their Latin from the bishop shuffled off to the outer reaches of the diocese, and everyone knows they will never be made pastor anywhere, ever, so long as this bishop is in charge. But is there anything else that can happen to them? If they have learned the EF at a workshop, such as that of the FSSP or the Canons Regular of St John Cantius, and celebrate it (privately, with or without other people in attendance), can the bishop do something worse to them, such as suspend them?

  20. RBrown says:

    The tone of this discussion bothers me. Shouldn’t we set aside our petty – or even non-petty – criticism and instead celebrate the reintroduction of the EF in one more diocese?
    Comment by pdt

    In a word, no.

    Blogs like these put pressure on bishops and begin to knock down the walls of their liberal strongholds.

  21. JCDREXEL says:

    can puppets say MASS? CHARLOTTE WAS BOTH BLOG HAS CATHOLIC PUPPETS

  22. Gordon says:

    Sadly, I find these rules very familiar. In very many English speaking parts of the world, entire episcopates would ban Latin mass. Ppl dont even get the gloria, etc in Latin, & couldn’t sing the simplest Credo to save their lives. As for those older priests that did have Latin…well, they’ve mostly forgotten it now. One told me so himself, & that was over 20 years ago. If some think it hard to have the old mass, try getting the new mass in Latin, then you’ll find out just why it is so tough. If bishops are forbidding the OF mass in Latin then they will be in no hurry to allow the older one. What a pity for the Church. Still, one trad priest of the diocese I came from did say this facing the ppl thing, it’s just a fad. It will die out in about 40 years perhaps. Or something to that effect!

  23. eyeclinic says:

    The “norms” were available as of this morning. Read ‘em and weep.

  24. Michael B. says:

    Pray for Father Libby. He is an excellent and holy young priest and more than capable for the task at hand. He is working tirelessly despite the obstacles thrown in his way.

    Don’t forget what Bishop Cooney did to St. Francis Xavier Church in Petoskey http://www.aquinas-multimedia.com/catherine/sfxreno.html and http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020123_The_Desecration_of_Saint_Francis_Xavier_Church.html

    May Bishop Cooney’s enjoyment of the benefits of retirement be hastened! Pray for him too, and for the Triumph of the Cross! (I love those anti-spam words!)

  25. Despite the confusion and resistance at the Diocese, Father Libby is doing great work. He is a wonderful, holy young priest who deserves our prayers. He has already been instrumental in leading many souls to God. On another note, those of us in Michigan are looking forward with gratitude to Father Z.’s appearance in Kalamazoo on June 7 at a workshop on the liturgy and chant.

  26. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    To be more accurate, Fr. Z., S.P. doesn’t lift restrictions; rather, it clarifies what few restrictions there were in the first place; it makes known what was not generally understood about the situation for the past several decades. But what you have written is true de facto.

    P.K.T.P.

  27. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Next point, the writer of this notice from the Diocese is not exactly right about the distinction between so-called ‘private’ Masses and ‘public’ Masses, although I am happy to see that he is close, and understanding on this is improving. He says that private Masses are not announced. Actually, they can be announced but not according to a temporal rule denoting any pattern of regularity. You could list ‘private’ Masses every Sunday in your parish bulletin as “Traditional Latin Mass *next* [emphasis added] Sunday at 9.00 a.m.” What you could not do is to list them this way: “Traditional Latin Mass *every* [emphasis added] Sunday at 9.00 a.m.”. One can announce a single future occurrence but not according to a pattern.

    P.K.T.P.

  28. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Fr. Z. is absolutely correct in his incredulous reaction to the next point of the bulletin here. The writer, I suspect, has been reading analyses and has gotten his facts mixed up. He is thinking of analyses on line of the expression “In parœciis”, used at the opening of Section 1 of Article 5″. What the expression means, however, is that THOSE PETITIONING for the old Mass in a particular Parish must, in order to have standing to have their petition willingly received, be either parishioners there or else worship there regularly. But this has nothing to do with restriction on those who can ATTEND such Masses and FULFIL their obligation there.

    Let me clarify. In order to be among those who petition for the restoration or continuation of a Mass in a Parish, one must be a parishioner there or else worship there regularly. However, in order to assist at Mass there or seek to fulfil the obligation there, one can be from any parish or any diocese or anywhere.

    Hence, a group of three or more parishioners or parish members can lodge the petition but, once restored, they can bring 5,000 others in from other parishes. Under the 1983 Code, there is no restriction on where one may fulfil the obligation, and even non-Catholics can attend.

    I wonder what the Bishop of Gaylord do. Will he slip in before Mass and ask each attender where he came from, throwing out those who are not from the parish? Absurdum est.

    P.K.T.P.

  29. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Final comments:

    First of all, the bit about the collection plate is hilarious. What are these fools thinking? I suppose that this will justify hiring more lay committees to ‘manage’ the complexities of the collections. I just use a plain white envelope myself. I don’t give a damn about tax receipts anyway. Someone should put one parish envelope inside another in a series of ‘Chinese boxes’, just for fun.

    In closing, for all the nonsense from this Diocese, I must say that I am very happy they are having their Mass restored. What is really happening is that the Bishop and his cronies are trying to distract people’s attention with all these details so that everyone forgets their dogged opposition to the Traditional Rite of Mass. They don’t want to lose face, having been forced now to back down. The fact is that there has been no T.L.M. in the Diocese of Gaylord–on any basis–for 37 years. We have won; they have lost. Now the battle moves to Saginaw in the south and Marquette in the north. Once we have them, all of Michigan has fallen to our army of holiness, devotion, decorum, and truth. The hippies and their Aquarian banjos are receding. . .

    P.K.T.P.

  30. Tim Ferguson says:

    One priest with whom I am familiar toyed with placing an announcement in his bulletin stating, “Those who wish to spend quiet time alone before the Blessed Sacrament should note in their calendars that, every Wednesday morning at 8:00 a.m., the tabernacle will be hidden behind the Mass card while Father offers a private, unannounced Mass in the Extraordinary Form.”

    Fortunately, his bishop was very pleased and supportive when Father informed him he would be celebrating a private EF Mass on his day off, and even encouraged him to consider adding one to his Sunday schedule, mirabile visu! He was not, it should be noted, a priest of the Gaylord diocese.

  31. Martha says:

    “The fact is that there has been no T.L.M. in the Diocese of Gaylord—on any basis—for 37 years.”

    Not so. The FSSPX has had a chapel in Mancelona. At one time that awesome priest, Fr. McMahon, of-praying-the-Buddists-out-of-the Cathedral fame, was pastor there.

  32. Ann Rose says:

    For those of us who have been very involved in helping to get the EF off the ground in the Gaylord Diocese, we know that there has been a general lack of support/promotion of what we are doing. Yes, a priest was brought in from St. John Cansius, Chicago, for which we are thankful to help and certify our priest (though it wasn’t really needed). We are also thankful for the the mass being allowed to be public every Sunday as of May 11, since for the past 8 months, the masses had to be private weekday masses. The Norms for the Diocese of Gaylord are on their website now at http://www.dioceseofgaylord.org/inside/liturgical-matters-258/ (the pdf file is at the bottom of the page) All of us here are concerned about them, since not all the norms are in keeping with the dictates and spirit of Summorum Pontificum. I would very much like Fr. Z’s commentary on them.

  33. Ann Rose says:

    For those of us who have been very involved in helping to get the EF off the ground in the Gaylord Diocese, we know that there has been a general lack of support/promotion of what we are doing. Yes, a priest was brought in from St. John Cansius, Chicago, for which we are thankful to help and certify our priest (though it wasn\’t really needed). We are also thankful for the the mass being allowed to be public every Sunday as of May 11, since for the past 8 months, the masses had to be private weekday masses. The Norms for the Diocese of Gaylord are on their website now at http://www.dioceseofgaylord.org/inside/liturgical-matters-258/ (the pdf file is at the bottom of the page) All of us here are concerned about them, since not all the norms are in keeping with the dictates and spirit of Summorum Pontificum. I would very much like Fr. Z\’s commentary on them.