More on what Card. Castrillon Hoyos said to the press in London about the TLM

It is important to keep this in plain sight for a while.

Damian Thompson has a piece on his blog about Card. Castrillon Hoyos’ words in London recently.

My emphases and comments.

Traditional Mass for ‘all the parishes’

Posted by Damian Thompson on 15 Jun 2008  at 18:04 

Yesterday Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, announced in London that Pope Benedict wishes to introduce the "Gregorian Rite" – meaning the former Tridentine Rite – to every parish in the Western Church.

Pope Benedict on a pastoral visit to southern Italy
The Pope wishes to introduce the ‘Gregorian Rite’ to every parish

This was such a huge announcement that many Catholics can hardly believe their ears. I was one of four journalists present. Here are edited extracts from the press conference, in which the Cardinal completely demolishes liberal interpretations of Summorum Pontificum:

Elena Curti (The Tablet): Your Eminence, I’d like to ask what you make of the response of the Bishops of England and Wales to the Pope’s Motu Proprio.

Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos: I think it’s a good one. There are some probems because it’s a new way of celebrating liturgy and they need time to prepare priests and catechists on the content of the Extraordinary Form.

Reuters: In some parts of the world there seems to be resistance on the part of local bishops to allow the faithful their full freedom to celebrate the Extraordinary Form. What do you recommend that the faithful do?

CC: To be informed. Many of the difficulties come out because they don’t know the reality of the Gregorian Rite – this is the just [correct] name for the Extraordinary Form, because this Mass was never prevented, never. Today for many bishops it is difficult because they don’t have priests who don’t know Latin. Many seminaries give very few hours to Latin – not enough to give the necessary preparation to celebrate in a good way the Extraordinary Form. Others think that the Holy Father is going against the Second Vatican Council. That is absolute ignorance. The Fathers of the Council, never celebrated a Mass other than the Gregorian one. It [the Novus Ordo] came after the Council … The Holy Father, who is a theologian and who was in the preparation for the Council, is acting exactly in the way of the Council, offering with freedom the different kinds of celebration. This celebration, the Gregorian one, was the celebration of the Church during more than a thousand years … Others say one cannot celebrate with the back to the people. This is ridiculous. The Son of God has sacrificed himself to the Father, with his face to the Father. It is not against the people. It is for the people

Damian Thompson (Telegraph): Your Eminence, would the Holy Father like to see ordinary parishes in England with no knowledge of the Gregorian Rite introduced to it?

CC: Yes, of course. We cannot celebrate this without knowledge of the language, of the signs, of the ways of the Rite, and some institutions of the Church are helping in that way.    [So, introduce so as to teach the faithful.  This reminds me of what the Council asked, namely, that pastors teach their flocks to sing and speak in Latin and their mother tongue.  Both.  So, now, it is also both uses!]

DT: So would the Pope like to see many ordinary parishes making provision for the Gregorian Rite?

CC: All the parishes. Not many – all the parishes[All.  All.  All.  Say it with me.] because this is a gift of God. He offers these riches, and it is very important for new generations to know the past of the Church. This kind of worship is so noble, so beautiful – the deepest theologians’ way to express our faith. The worship, the music, the architecture, the painting, makes a whole that is a treasure. The Holy Father is willing to offer to all the people this possibility, not only for the few groups who demand it but so that everybody knows this way of celebrating the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

Anna Arco (The Catholic Herald): On that note, would you like to see all the seminaries in England and Wales teach the seminarians how to celebrate in the Extraordinary Form?

CC: I would like it, and it will be necessary. We are writing to the seminaries, we are in accord that we have to make deep preparation not only for the Rite, but for [teaching] the theology, the philosophy, the Latin language …

DT: What would be the practical steps for ordinary parishes [to prepare for the Gregorian Rite]?

CC: If the parish priest selects an hour, on Sundays, to celebrate the Mass, and prepare with catechesis the community to understand it, to appreciate the power of the silence, the power of the sacred way in front of God, the deep theology, to discover how and why the priests represents the person of Christ and to pray with the priest.  [This also harks to why I say SP is such a gift to priests.  In changing the priest's own view of Mass and himself as a priest saying Mass, the parish will be affected.]

EC: Your Eminence, I think many Catholics are rather confused by this new emphasis on the Tridentine Rite, mainly because we were taught that the new Rite represented real progress, and many of us who have grown up with it see it as real progress[buzzzz] that there are Eucharistic ministers, women on the sanctuary, that we are all priests, prophets and kings. This new emphasis to many of us seems to deny that. 

CC: What is progress? "Progredire", means [offering] the best to God… I am surprised, because many young people are enthusiastic with the celebration of the Gregorian Rite …

EC: In the Motu Proprio, the Pope’s emphasis is on one Rite and two forms, and he describes the Tridentine Rite as "extraordinary". Extraordinary therefore means exceptional, not something that we celebrate every Sunday.

CC: Not "exceptional". Extraordinary means "not ordinary", not "exceptional."  [Slap.  This is, of course, correct.]

EC: Should it therefore supersede the new Rite? Should we go back[Note the cliche... "go back".  For these folks this is a zero sum scenario.]

CC: It is not going back: it is taking a treasure which is present, but was not provided. … But it takes time. The application of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council took years. It takes time to understand the deep profundity of the old Rite. The Holy Father is not returning to the past; he is taking a treasure from the past to offer it alongside the rich celebration of the new Rite. The second Eucharistic prayer of the new Rite is actually the oldest one [in the Church’s entire liturgy]. It’s not a matter of confrontation but of fraternal dialogue.

DT: Will there be a clarification of the Motu Proprio?

CC: Not exactly a clarification of the Motu Proprio, but of matters treated in the Motu Proprio, such as the calendario, ordinations to the sub-diaconate, the way of using vestments, the Eucharistic fast.  [WHEN?]

DT: What about the "stable group"?

CC: It’s a matter of common sense … In every bishop’s household there are maybe three or four persons. This is a stable group … It is not possible to give two persons a Mass, but two here, two there, two elsewhere – they can have it. They are a stable group.

DT: From different parishes?

CC: No problem! This is our world. Managers of enterprises don’t live in one place, but they are a stable group.

More on this later. The Cardinal went on to celebrate a traditional Pontifical High Mass at Westminster Cathedral, the first time this has happened since the 1960s. Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was not present, but had a brief (and rather cool) message of welcome read out on his behalf. No Westminster bishop attended this great event.

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.

48 Responses to More on what Card. Castrillon Hoyos said to the press in London about the TLM

  1. Ken says:

    If a bishop doesn’t believe the pope wants the traditional Mass in “all” parishes, perhaps Benedict can speak their language and use the word “multis.”

  2. Padre Steve says:

    Is this going to carry over to the states as well? What is the US Bishops take on all of it?

  3. Jayna says:

    I sent the previous article about this press conference to the liturgist at my church. She said it was a “depressing situation.” I think I’m going to have to send her a link to this one as well. She’s going to be really fed up with me if I keep doing stuff like that.

  4. Guy Power says:

    Fr.Z: …Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was not present, but had a brief (and rather cool) message of welcome read out on his behalf. No Westminster bishop attended this great event….

    Ya know, Father …. this situation is comparable to the Chief of Staff of the Army coming down to the 101st Airborne Division as the Guest of Honor at a division-level parade … and the Division Commander — and his brigade commanders — does not show up for the parade! Instead, he sends a terse welcoming note to be read by a battalion commander!

    Such a blatant act of indifference would have that division commander relieved of command the next day!

    Cheers,
    –Guy

  5. Aric says:

    As both Thompson and H.E. realize, it is false to think that the Church is “going back” and a non-starter to think it should be “going back.” At present, many of the people who want to “go back” are those who want to go back to June 2007, when the motu proprio could be dismissed as a myth.

  6. Geoffrey says:

    Just when I was finally getting used to the phrase “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite”, His Eminence used the phrase “Gregorian Rite.” Wouldn’t that imply that there are two rites (Roman and Gregorian) instead of two forms or uses of the one Roman Rite?

  7. Deo gratia!…Veni Creator Spiritus…

  8. RBrown says:

    More on this later. The Cardinal went on to celebrate a traditional Pontifical High Mass at Westminster Cathedral, the first time this has happened since the 1960s. Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was not present, but had a brief (and rather cool) message of welcome read out on his behalf. No Westminster bishop attended this great event.

    Cardinal M-O’C will be 76 in August. I hope he enjoys retirement . . . soon.

  9. Ken: If a bishop doesn’t believe the pope wants the traditional Mass in “all” parishes, perhaps Benedict can speak their language and use the word “multis.”

    LOL!

  10. Sister Terese Peter says:

    Well, well, well! Now we will see how well all these other Catholics who have been skipping down the “yellow brick road” of clown masses, guitars, and other ridiculous things are going to fare with the “changes”. They’ve always been very critical of those who resisted the “updating” of the Church and very hateful toward us. Let’s see how well they can take it now. Let’s see how well they can adjust. I am sorry if this sounds a little scornful, but after 40+ years of enduring the worst abuses in the Church, I guess we have a little right to enjoy this!

    Put your tamborines in the closests folks! Take out your old, dusty Latin Course I books! LOL!

    An old nun

  11. Cornbread Creg says:

    I\’m sure his Benedictine replacement will be quite different.

    It would be great for someone to ask a question regarding the rites of the Primatial Sees and the religious orders and the re-claiming of their rites as well.

    The newly converted Traditional Anglican Communion should be allowed to use the Sarum use of the Roman Rite

  12. Matt Q says:

    Jayna wrote:

    “I sent the previous article about this press conference to the liturgist at my church. She said it was a “depressing situation.” I think I’m going to have to send her a link to this one as well. She’s going to be really fed up with me if I keep doing stuff like that.”

    )(

    Jayna, my response for someone like that is keep sending the articles so that they may be informed. If this person finds it so “depressing,” let her take prozac and go find another line work. She’s not obligated to remain at the parish, nor is the parish obligated to keep implementing her foolishness.

    ==========

    This Murphy-O’Connor is a piece of work. Deliberately not being present at the event like where a high-ranking Vatican official comes calling to your cathedral is a deliberate snub. From the “cool” tone of the letter and lack of others from this bishop’s suite, it can’t be construed in any other way.

    I tire of ilk such as these who can’t see the Tridentine Mass for what it is and bemoan the end of the world as they know it.

    ==========

    RBrown wrote:

    “Cardinal M-O’C will be 76 in August. I hope he enjoys retirement… soon.”

    )(

    Break out the champegne!!

  13. Mark says:

    A few observations:

    1. With regard to having the Ancient Mass “introduced” to new parishes with “no knowledge of the Gregorian rite”: From the context, it seems that the Cardinal may have misunderstood the question as asking if the pope would like to see education on this form of the Mass in the parishes. Therefore he says that such knowledge is necessary in order to “celebrate” the rite.

    2. About ALL parishes making “provision.” Is “provision” necessarily more than simply having competent priests and resources available for such a celebration in case someone should request it (rather than necessarily having it). (This would, of course, still demand that all seminarians learn both forms.)

    3. With regard to “stable group”: By “bishop’s household,” he seems to mean parish. He says that in “every” household there are 2-3 persons. It is not clear that he means that 2-3 persons are the stable group. It seems more likely that he is saying 2-3 persons from every household put together form a stable group. i.e. This emphasizes that they do not need to be from the same parish, not that 2-3 people form a group that will necessarily have the rite in their home parish.

  14. Mark says:

    On second thought, he actually may be saying two things with regard to stable groups: perhaps 3-4 is a stable group in a parish, and several groups of 2 can be put together to form an inter-parish stable group???

  15. Jordanes says:

    Geoffrey asked: Wouldn’t that imply that there are two rites (Roman and Gregorian) instead of two forms or uses of the one Roman Rite?

    Not necessarily, since the “Gregorian” Rite is the traditional “Roman” Rite.

  16. Matt Q says:

    Regarding Mark’s observations, this is why we need the **Clarifications!** Until then, all this speculation, innuendo, and all of this “Holy Father said” stuff does no one any good, and is actually harmful.

  17. I loved the cardinal’s use of the term Gregorian Rite, which term has been used consistently by Western Rite Orthodox Christians.

  18. Geoffrey says:

    “This Murphy-O’Connor is a piece of work. Deliberately not being present at the event like where a high-ranking Vatican official comes calling to your cathedral is a deliberate snub.”

    The Bishop of Lincoln did not attend the recent FSSP ordinations which took place in his cathedral, and I am sure that this was not a “deliberate snub”. Who are we to judge Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor?

  19. I rather prefer the term “Gregorian Rite” or “Gregorian Use” in favor of the coldly technical “Extraordinary Use/Form” or the misleading “Tridentine Rite”. We can consider then the Roman Rite to have two Forms or Uses, the Pauline and the Gregorian (and the Anglican Use).

    Certainly Gregorian correctly implies that the Rite is of far greater antiquity then the Council of Trent. It also fits in with the terminology of the Easter Liturgies: ie. the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, and now the Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great.

  20. David O'Rourke says:

    Cardinal Castrillon clakims that Eucharistic Prayer number two is the oldest Eucharistic Prayer in the History of the Church. It’s age, however, together with the identity of it’s author, reputed to be St. Hippolytus, is now questioned.

    CF. http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/10/hippolytus-and-eucharistic-prayer-ii.html

    But everything else His Eminence said was spot on!

  21. LCB says:

    They see things only in terms of a power struggle because their ideology is ultimately Marxist and not Christian.

  22. Ratzinger and Castrillon Hoyos would like to see the 1962 Latin Mass in every parish. They are not commanding that it be so. That is a big difference.
    I would like all my students to have read Milton in his entirety, a worthy longing, I hope, on the part of a pedagogue. But if I were to command them to do so, I would be seen as a tyrant, and an impractical dreamer. Indeed, I would deserve to be fired! Damien T. has done a disservice to the Church by presenting the Cardinal’s remarks in the way he did.

    [I don't believe anyone is taking the Cardinal's comments as a command. However, this does seem to reflect the Vicar of Christ's wishes. - Fr. Z]

  23. Limbo says:

    Spirit of Vatican II, you may be having difficulties in grasping the ‘Spirit of Summorum Pontificum” silly to take it out on a dedicated Traditional Catholic journalist !!

    Old Nun, I loved your comments. God bless you and and enjoy !!

    These are very wonderful times to be Catholic. Each new day brings a new delight and all of us closer to being able to live once again as Catholics. I only wish Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos would write to my Bishop and inform him of his ‘stable group’.

  24. Matt Q says:

    It seems quite clear about the intentions of the Holy Father, and hearing it from Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos bears a lot of weight. At the same time, until any of it is spelled out by the Holy Father in a documented mandate, all of this is still technically hearsay, and the conflict between bishop, priest and Faithful in the efforts for the Tridentine Mass will continue. Sadly.

    I have no idea what the Holy Father is waiting for regarding the Clarifications–if there’s really any at all. The idea of any “Clarifications” were the result of episcopal chatter as well. The “right moment” seems to have come and gone unless he is waiting for the first anniversary of Summorum Pontificum. While it may be considered a significant date, too much inaction and continued conflict has gone on ( but many great accomplishments also ) since its publication so the anniversary would be somewhat meaningless.

  25. Chironomo says:

    As impatient as we are for the clarifications, there could be very good reasons holding things up:

    1. There are still questions coming in and issues developing that need to be addressed in such a document. The Holy See does not want to have to keep issuing “updates” and wants to address all concievable issues in the one document.

    2. There has been some kind of “change of direction” as indicated by Cardinal Hoyos’ recent statements, and this needs to be adequately explored and reactions received (by leaking stories like this one and listening!) so as to have it expressed in the new document clearly and unambiguously.

    3. There are some previously unadressed issues, such as the accomodation of Anglican Use parishes, the future incorporation of Orthodox into the Church, etc, that were not specifically looked at in SP but that are now seen as more urgent.

    As much as we would all like to see the clarifications, it would be seen as making it up as we are going along if new clarifications have to be issued every year to address new conflicts. This document needs to be comprehensive in addressing the intent and scope of SP in some final form. It has only been 10 months since SP became law. Have some patience.

  26. Shan G says:

    We must keep in mind that the liturgy is a gift of the Holy Spirit; it is not an invention by man. What the Holy Spirit has sanctified (the Gregorian Rite) cannot be ‘un-sanctified’ by man. No bishop or bishop’s council ever had the authority to declare the Gregorian Rite unfit for general use, as it appears was the case here in the United States. This Pope, may God richly bless him, comprehends.

  27. Shan G says:

    Another thing that troubles me is the notion many ‘liturgical ministers’ have where they seem to think that the Gregorian Rite is all about Latin, and they can satiate the deeper hunger some of us have simply by offering a prayer or chant in Latin. Not so. It is the entire posture of that Mass: the silence, using a Communion rail to give reverence to the Mystery of the Real Presence, only the Priest and servers in the Sanctuary (not the four-star productions replete with soloists, banjos, flutes and guitars blaring over an amplified sound system, all led by the master-of-ceremonies, Father Whatshisname), etc. A Mass wherein one actually hears the Voice (the Word) of God. Such a soulful Mass provides for the most profound experience possible in my humble opinion.

  28. Bruce says:

    “Spirit of Vatican II, you may be having difficulties in grasping the ‘Spirit of Summorum Pontificum’”

    LOL , thanks Limbo for my first good laugh of the day.

  29. RBrown says:

    Ratzinger and Castrillon Hoyos would like to see the 1962 Latin Mass in every parish. They are not commanding that it be so. That is a big difference.

    Ah, the disciple of the Grand High Equivocator Karl Rahner has returned!

    If it had been expressed in a command, you would have said it’s not binding because it’s not the language of this century.

    I would like all my students to have read Milton in his entirety, a worthy longing, I hope, on the part of a pedagogue. But if I were to command them to do so, I would be seen as a tyrant, and an impractical dreamer. Indeed, I would deserve to be fired! Damien T. has done a disservice to the Church by presenting the Cardinal’s remarks in the way he did.
    Comment by Spirit of Vatican II

    John Milton? Do you mean the same John Milton who was a Protestant and supporter of Oliver Cromwell, who led the conquest of Ireland?

    I would hope you would be recommending Chaucer.

  30. Bob Kovacs says:

    Well it’s about time!. Hopefully a strong message will also be sent to the US Bishops. “Wake up and smell the incense”! Sacredness, holiness, and beauty are returning to there rightful place!!. In God’s Church. I kinda like the term “Gregorian Rite” it has a good “sound” to it!. He He!!

  31. Fr. A says:

    I agree with Geoffrey. Calling it “Gregorian Rite” is simply confusing, to say the least. There is only ONE Roman rite, with two forms. This is a great juridical solution to a lot of problems. Gregorian “rite” implies that it is a seperate rite…different from the Roman.

  32. Deo volente says:

    Fr. Zuhlsdorf,

    RORATE CAELI has a post that the “Curial Changes” are now afoot. To quote from his post, “Curial changes in motion,”

    Fisichella had been regularly mentioned as the substitute of Archbishop Angelo Amato, the current Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. His nomination for a very different and minor position today, the first move in the expected Curial shuffle of the next few weeks, indicates that the Pope has other names in mind for the CDF.

    Perhaps the prayers for Archbishop Ranjith are being heard?

  33. Fr. A says:

    I’m still thinking about this “Gregorian rite” thing, and am amazed on how quickly so many people jumped on the bandwagon of saying, “I really like that.” We’re not the East. We have a much different history in the West; a history of unity of rite (aside from a few various uses). That is why the Holy Father’s solution of calling it “two forms of one Roman rite” is so perfect. Anyway, as for me, I will stick to calling it what Pope Benedict does in his juridical document, _Summorum Pontificum_.

  34. RBrown says:

    I like the phrase “Gregorian Rite” because implicit in the phrase is the concept that the papacy of Paul VI destroyed the Gregorian Church.

    And in so far as Greg the Great was Bishop of Rome, the Greg Rite is the Roman Rite.

  35. I wonder whether whether, speaking in English, Card. Castrillon may really have meant “Gregorian form”, in which case it would be a misreading of his intent to focus on implications of the word “rite”.

    Whereas the constructive message might be in his use of the word “Gregorian”.

    While “extraordinary form” may have been intended as a juridical description rather than a name for the older usage, “Gregorian form” is both richly descriptive and reasonably accurate historically. For instance, I understand that when Pope John XXIII inserted St. Joseph’s name in the Communicantes, this was the first change of a single Latin word in the Roman canon in over 13 centuries — since Pope Gregory the Great added the final phrase (“deliver us from damnation”) to the Hanc igitur.

  36. Fr. A says:

    Henry Edwards: Yes, I would be much more comfortable with Gregorian form. You are also correct in that it is the word “rite” that I object too (for many reasons). When I talk about the extraordinary form, I always talk about the fact that the current form goes back almost unchanged to the time of St. Gregory I. Henry Edwards, I agree in that I do believe that is what His Eminence meant. I do not believe that using “rite” was not what he meant.

  37. RBrown says:

    Yes, I would be much more comfortable with Gregorian form. You are also correct in that it is the word “rite” that I object too (for many reasons). When I talk about the extraordinary form, I always talk about the fact that the current form goes back almost unchanged to the time of St. Gregory I. Henry Edwards, I agree in that I do believe that is what His Eminence meant. I do not believe that using “rite” was not what he meant.
    Comment by Fr. A

    I think His Eminence said exactly what he meant.

    In one sense we have two forms of the Roman Rite–both were promulgated by the Bishop of Rome.

    In another sense, however, we have two rites–one Gregorian and the other Pauline. In fact, Paul VI himself called it a “new rite”:

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6601119.HTM

  38. Habemus Papam says:

    To judge from some of these comments Cardinal Castrillon has a very poor understanding of the English language! Im sure he knows what a Bishops Household is and what Gregorian Rite means. “This is the just name for the Extraordinary Form”. As Fr.Z has pointed out several times, the use of EF and OF in Summorum Pontificum are there for juridicial reasons. Pope Benedict probably sees them in fact as two different Rites.

  39. LCB says:

    Juridically, the Gregorian Rite and the Pauline Rite (BTW, I really like these terms!) may be considered two different expressions of the Roman Rite. That’s juridically. In reality, it’s clear that we are dealing with two fundamentally different rites. The theology, the emphasis, and the focus are all entirely different.

    In one, the focus is on the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloodied manor before God the Father. In the other, the focus is on a communal meal that we all share in.

    One focuses on God, the other focuses on us. One is a gift of the Holy Spirit, the other is manufactured by man but sanctified by the Holy Spirit anyways. One is glorious, the other banal. The differences between the Gregorian Rite and the Pauline Rite are so great that the Gregorian Rite has more in common with Eastern Rites than the Pauline Rite.

    Juridically, two expressions of one rite. In reality, two VERY different rites.

  40. Habemus Papam says:

    RBrown: And in this interview the Cardinal calls it a new Rite.

  41. ALL: Keep in mind that Summorum Pontificum gave us a juridical distinction between the 1962MR and 1970/2002MR such that priests don’t need special faculties for the older form.  Summorum Pontificum doesn’t seek to solve theological or historical issues about the content of those missals.  I think it is still perfectly legitimate to debate about whether the Novus Ordo is really a different rite, when we consider it theologically and hsitorically, from the point of view of its development and its content.  However, for juridical purposes, they are the same Rite in two uses.

  42. Michael J says:

    Spirit,

    As a teacher I would expect that you actually do assign work to your students. How odd that a teacher would consider himself a tyrant if he gave his students an assigment to read.

  43. Mary Ann, Singing Mum says:

    Perhaps a good discussion would be as to the reasons \’Extraordinary Form\’ and \’Ordinary Form\’ are used in Summorum itself. While I agree that the terms are a little cold, I think terminology matters, and using \’Gregorian rite\’ will imply a separate rite to most people. And our Holy Father really stressed \’one Rite\’ in Summorum, so I go with his terms.

    As a musician working to restore Gregorian chant to the OF, I also think the term \’Gregorian rite\’ serves to perpetuate the wrong idea that Gregorian chant is limited to the EF.

  44. Micheal J and RBrown — Milton is turning in his grave. If you think undergradates should be forced to read the complete Milton, or even the complete poems of Milton, you are as unrealistic as those who would force all parishes to put on a Tridentine Mass. Ain’t never goin’ to happen. I myself would like, sometimes, to recite just the Roman Canon in Latin as part of the Mass, but I know the faithful would revolt, just as my students would if I forced them to read the collected works of Milton. Realism, folks! And RBrown, thanks for the nationalist rhetoric, worthy of Sinn Fein at its shrillest. Milton has always been admired in Ireland, huge dollops of him a staple in Irish schools. We are more mature than our stereotypers imagine.

  45. Someone observes that if you keep on undercutting the Novus Ordo, declaring it to be a glorified abuse, you are undercutting papal authority (Paul VI) and, I would add, conciliar authority. Also the Lefebvrites would need to be reinstated as the true believers. No one here may intend to do that, but it is the message that people easily pick up.

  46. Habemus Papam says:

    Spirit of Vatican II: You’re latest comment is right. However the “undercutting” is not coming from the blogsphere. People are merely picking up on what is coming from Rome.

  47. Habemus Papam says:

    Limbo: Is the “Spirit of Summorum Pontificum” a misreading of the document or a true understanding of its meaning?

  48. Pauline Cream says:

    It is important that we traditional Catholics stay strong and united. Let’s leave our differences behind; debating yes but quarelling no. All in all, good news but discipline must be enforced or it will just be a paper tiger.